Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.819825
Title: The research priorities for UK ENT, Hearing and Balance care : a qualitative investigation of the views and voices of stakeholders
Author: Bohm, Natalie Diane
ISNI:       0000 0004 9359 6105
Awarding Body: UCL (university College London)
Current Institution: University College London (University of London)
Date of Award: 2020
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
Full text unavailable from EThOS. Please try the link below.
Access from Institution:
Abstract:
Clinical research activity in ENT, Hearing and Balance care has historically been low in the UK and internationally. Stimulating this activity can improve patient care but it has been recognised that there is significant waste in biomedical research, and that research questions need to be developed that translate to patient benefit. Priority setting has been increasingly used to develop research agendas to address this, reduce waste, and influence the allocation of resources in healthcare research. Although there have been previous research priority setting exercises in ENT, Hearing and Balance care, none undertaken in the UK have gone beyond a specific clinical topic or consulted with a broad range of stakeholders. This thesis, as the first study of the research priorities across UK ENT, Hearing and Balance care, contributes to addressing this gap. Following a review of the literature a multi-step process using qualitative methodology was designed to determine stakeholders and identify research ideas. Gathering data through a survey and focus groups, developing the ideas and then prioritising them through an Expert Forum and Consensus Conference, this study addressed the question: What are the research priorities for ENT, Hearing and Balance care in the UK according to the views and voices of its stakeholders? A two-dimensional framework, inductively derived from the data, identified research themes and clinically-based topics. Within this framework, 21 research priorities were chosen by mixed groups of stakeholders through facilitated small and large group discussion, and reasons given by the groups for their choices were outlined. This study discusses the quality of the process developed, and the priorities compared to those from other exercises. In developing the priorities, the balance needed between methodological purity and pragmatism is considered, and the contribution of this study to research in the field is explored.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.819825  DOI: Not available
Share: