Abstract
A nominal group technique is feasible and reliable for determining research priorities among clinicians. This approach is more democratic and transparent than the traditional methods used by research funding bodies. The results suggest that clinicians perceive research into the best ways of delivering and organising services as a high priority.
Keywords
Representativeness heuristicLikert scaleNominal groupTest (biology)Nominal group techniqueScale (ratio)PsychologyNursingMedical educationMedicineFamily medicineSocial psychologyGeographyComputer scienceKnowledge management
Affiliated Institutions
Related Publications
ESHRE guideline: endometriosis
Abstract STUDY QUESTION How should endometriosis be diagnosed and managed based on the best available evidence from published literature? SUMMARY ANSWER The current guideline pr...
Column Editor
Will health librarians and related information workers ever work together to create an international network, such as the Cochrane Collaboration, dedicated to the purpose of pre...
Surviving Sepsis Campaign
To provide an update to the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," last published in 2008. A consensus committee of 68 internat...
Publication Info
- Year
- 2000
- Type
- article
- Volume
- 320
- Issue
- 7240
- Pages
- 976-980
- Citations
- 199
- Access
- Closed
External Links
Social Impact
Altmetric
PlumX Metrics
Social media, news, blog, policy document mentions
Citation Metrics
199
OpenAlex
Cite This
Keryn Vella
(2000).
Use of consensus development to establish national research priorities in critical care.
BMJ
, 320
(7240)
, 976-980.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7240.976
Identifiers
- DOI
- 10.1136/bmj.320.7240.976