JCPSLP Vol 22 No 1 2020

Expanding possibilities: Foci on reading and interdisciplinary practices

Developing a prioritised agenda to drive speech- language pathology Research within Health in Queensland Emma Finch, Elizabeth C. Ward, Linda Worrall, Kirstine Shrubsole, Bena Brown, Petrea Cornwell, Anne E. Hill, Annie J. Hill, Tania Hobson, Tanya Rose, Ashley Cameron, and Nerina Scarinci

Health research, driven by prioritised research agendas, is a priority internationally. The aim of this study was to identify areas requiring research within speech-language pathology (SLP) services within health in Queensland. Queensland SLPs in health services were asked to provide up to three areas of practice that required investigation, via online survey. Responding SLPs (n = 47) identified 133 research priority areas. Using content analysis these were grouped into 9 categories: age group; aetiology; area of communication/swallowing; aspect of service provision; service delivery model/approach; professional level; emerging specialised areas of practice/expanded scope of practice; outcomes and research questions; and place of service. SLPs identified a wide range of areas within health services in Queensland they felt required a prioritised research agenda. While many of these research priorities were in traditional practice areas, some represented emerging fields. The diversity in responses highlights challenges for developing a prioritised local health research agenda. I t has been suggested that health-related research often does not address topics that are important to clinicians or relevant to clinical practice (Partridge & Scadding, 2004). To combat this, it is vital that research efforts are guided by a research agenda, where key clinical priorities are targeted, and there is a known gap in the evidence (Kitson & Straus, 2010). Internationally, there has been a number of projects focused on determining research agendas across a range of healthcare areas. The James Lind Alliance (JLA) in the United Kingdom (UK) has been preeminent in the generation of research priorities across different health conditions based on the views of clinicians, clients and carers since 2004. In collaboration with the UK’s National Institute for Health Research, the JLA aims to ensure that those who fund health research know what matters to consumers and clinicians (JLA, 2019). The “Top

10” lists for various health areas are freely available on the JLA website (www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/about-the-james-lind- alliance/) and are designed to assist health researchers generate research to answer the important, unanswered questions identified. The JLA methodology involves patients and clinicians generating and collaboratively identifying important research themes (“Treatment Uncertainties”). These uncertainties are ranked to provide a Top 10 list at a stakeholder consensus meeting (Cowan & Oliver, 2003). The success of the seminal work by the JLA has led to the creation of prioritised research agendas in a range of healthcare fields (e.g., Jones et al., 2017; Lechelt et al., 2017; Lomer et al., 2017; Rowbotham et al., 2018). Interestingly, while the work of the JLA so far has not specifically targeted speech-language pathology (SLP) research, the Top 10 Head and Neck Cancer list by Lechelt et al. (2017) identified dysphagia rehabilitation following treatment for head and neck cancer as the fourth priority. Similarly, a Top 10 research priorities list for Life After Stroke developed with the assistance of the JLA along with stroke survivors, carers and health professionals in the UK, reported how to enhance recovery from aphasia as priority number three (Pollock, St George, Fenton, & Firkins, 2014). Internationally, there are emerging reports of research priorities for SLPs. In the United States, preliminary work regarding the views of people with aphasia about research priorities identified 22 research topics using a modified nominal group technique (NGT), with only 59% of the nominated topic questions able to be answered by existing research evidence (Hinckley, Boyle, Lombard, & Bartels- Tobin, 2014). The modified NGT was split over multiple sessions and involved presenting the problem with time for participants to consider their thoughts, round robin discussion of ideas related to the topic in small groups led by facilitators, group discussion of responses led by facilitators, and then prioritisation of ideas (Hinckley et al., 2014). In the UK, Franklin et al. (2018) conducted a secondary analysis of the Life After Stroke Top 10 research priorities developed by Pollock et al. (2014) to identify the Top 10 research priorities relating to Aphasia Following Stroke shared by people with aphasia, carers and SLPs. This secondary analysis identified a broad range of aphasia-related issues including: treatment effectiveness, therapy timing and intensity, assessment and management of depression in people with aphasia, impact of trained volunteers and carers on communication, and the effects of communication aids.

KEYWORDS RESEARCH AGENDA RESEARCH PRIORITY SURVEY

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN PEER- REVIEWED

Emma Finch (top), Elizabeth C. Ward (centre) and Linda Worrall

22

JCPSLP Volume 22, Number 1 2020

Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology