Submitted manuscript, 161 KB, PDF document
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Defining priorities in prognostication research
T2 - results of a consensus workshop
AU - Stevinson, C.
AU - Preston, N.
AU - Todd, C.
AU - Canc Experiences Collaborative
N1 - The final, definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Palliative Medicine, 24 (5), 2010, © SAGE Publications Ltd, 2010 by SAGE Publications Ltd at the Palliative Medicine page: http://pmj.sagepub.com/ on SAGE Journals Online: http://online.sagepub.com/
PY - 2010/7
Y1 - 2010/7
N2 - Purpose: To establish consensus among palliative care researchers on the priorities for prognostication research.Methods: A nominal group technique was employed involving palliative care researchers attending a workshop within a scientific meeting on prognostication. Participants worked in small facilitated groups to generate future research questions which were amalgamated and rated according to importance.Results: Twenty-five meeting delegates took part in the workshop including 10 palliative care physicians and four nurses, one dietician, and 10 academic researchers, all of whom had experience and/or interest in prognosis research. A total of 40 research questions were generated and after prioritization ratings, the top five questions were: (1) How valid are prognostic tools? (=2) Can we use prognostic criteria as entry criteria for research? (=2) How do we judge the impact of a prognostic score in clinical practice? (4) What is the best way of presenting survival data to patients? (5) What is the most user-friendly validated tool?Conclusions: Although a wide range of research questions relating to prognostication were identified, the strongest priority to emerge from the consensus data concerned the validity of prognostic tools. Further research to validate existing tools is essential to ensure their clinical value.
AB - Purpose: To establish consensus among palliative care researchers on the priorities for prognostication research.Methods: A nominal group technique was employed involving palliative care researchers attending a workshop within a scientific meeting on prognostication. Participants worked in small facilitated groups to generate future research questions which were amalgamated and rated according to importance.Results: Twenty-five meeting delegates took part in the workshop including 10 palliative care physicians and four nurses, one dietician, and 10 academic researchers, all of whom had experience and/or interest in prognosis research. A total of 40 research questions were generated and after prioritization ratings, the top five questions were: (1) How valid are prognostic tools? (=2) Can we use prognostic criteria as entry criteria for research? (=2) How do we judge the impact of a prognostic score in clinical practice? (4) What is the best way of presenting survival data to patients? (5) What is the most user-friendly validated tool?Conclusions: Although a wide range of research questions relating to prognostication were identified, the strongest priority to emerge from the consensus data concerned the validity of prognostic tools. Further research to validate existing tools is essential to ensure their clinical value.
KW - Consensus
KW - palliative care
KW - prognosis
KW - research
KW - ILL CANCER-PATIENTS
KW - PALLIATIVE PERFORMANCE SCALE
KW - PREFERENCES
KW - SCORE
KW - PREDICTION
KW - VALIDATION
KW - PROGNOSIS
KW - COMMUNICATION
KW - PERCEPTIONS
KW - INFORMATION
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77954019026&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/0269216310368452
DO - 10.1177/0269216310368452
M3 - Journal article
VL - 24
SP - 462
EP - 468
JO - Palliative Medicine
JF - Palliative Medicine
SN - 0269-2163
IS - 5
ER -