Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Spinal Cord. 2015 Oct;53(10):714-20. doi: 10.1038/sc.2015.85. Epub 2015 Jun 23.

Developing a spinal cord injury research strategy using a structured process of evidence review and stakeholder dialogue. Part I: rapid review of SCI prioritisation literature.

Author information

1
National Trauma Research Institute, Monash University and The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
2
John Walsh Centre for Rehabilitation Research, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
3
The Spinal Cord Injury Network, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
4
Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
5
Experimental & Regenerative Neuroscience, School of Animal Biology, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia.
6
Spinal Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
7
Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
8
Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN:

This is a rapid evidence review.

OBJECTIVES:

The objective of this study was to gain an overview of the volume, nature and findings of studies regarding priorities for spinal cord injury (SCI) research.

SETTING:

A worldwide literature search was conducted.

METHODS:

Six medical literature databases and Google Scholar were searched for reviews in which the primary aim was to identify SCI research priorities.

RESULTS:

Two systematic reviews were identified-one of quantitative and one of qualitative studies. The quality of the reviews was variable. Collectively, the reviews identified 31 primary studies; 24 quantitative studies totalling 5262 participants and 7 qualitative studies totalling 120 participants. Despite the difference in research paradigms, there was convergence in review findings in the areas of body impairments and relationships. The vast majority of literature within the reviews focused on the SCI patient perspective.

CONCLUSION:

The reviews inform specific research topics and highlight other important research considerations, most notably those pertaining to SCI patients' perspectives on quality of life, which may be of use in determining meaningful research outcome measures. The views of other SCI research stakeholders such as researchers, clinicians, policymakers, funders and carers would help shape a bigger picture of SCI research priorities, ultimately optimising research outputs and translation into clinical practice and health policy change. Review findings informed subsequent activities in developing a regional SCI research strategy, as described in two companion papers.

SPONSORSHIP:

This project was funded by the Victorian Transport Accident Commission and the Australian and New Zealand SCI Network.

PMID:
26099213
DOI:
10.1038/sc.2015.85
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Nature Publishing Group
Loading ...
Support Center