↓ Skip to main content

Prioritising target behaviours for research in diabetes: Using the nominal group technique to achieve consensus from key stakeholders

Overview of attention for article published in Research Involvement and Engagement, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
33 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Prioritising target behaviours for research in diabetes: Using the nominal group technique to achieve consensus from key stakeholders
Published in
Research Involvement and Engagement, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40900-016-0028-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer Mc Sharry, Milou Fredrix, Lisa Hynes, Molly Byrne

Abstract

The behaviour of people with diabetes (e.g. taking medication) and the behaviour of doctors and other healthcare professionals (e.g. checking patients' blood sugar) are important. Our research group wanted to select one patient behaviour and one healthcare professional behaviour as topics to research in Ireland. Patients and healthcare professionals are not usually asked to help decide on research topics. In this study, we wanted to bring together patients, healthcare professionals and policy makers to help us decide on the most important target behaviours for research in diabetes in Ireland. We worked with 24 participants, including people with diabetes, diabetes healthcare professionals and policy makers. First, participants suggested behaviours they thought were important to target for research in diabetes. Participants then attended a meeting and ranked which of the behaviours were the most important and discussed the results of the rankings as a group. We identified the most highly ranked patient and healthcare professional behaviours. The top ranked behaviour for people with Type 1 diabetes was to 'take insulin as required' and for people with Type 2 diabetes was to 'attend and engage with structured education programmes'. 'Engage in collaborative goal setting with patients' was the top ranked behaviour for healthcare professionals. Our study shows it is possible for researchers to work with people with diabetes, healthcare professionals and policy makers to decide on research topics. The top ranked behaviours will now be researched by our group in Ireland. Background Working with patients, healthcare providers, and policy makers to prioritise research topics may enhance the relevance of research and increase the likelihood of translating research findings into practice. The aim of the present study was to work with key stakeholders to identify, and achieve consensus on, the most important target behaviours for research in diabetes in Ireland. Methods Twenty-four participants, including people with diabetes, diabetes healthcare professionals and policy makers, took part in a nominal group technique consensus process. Through an online survey, participants generated lists of important target behaviours in three areas: managing Type 1 diabetes, managing Type 2 diabetes and preventing Type 2 diabetes. Participants then attended a research prioritisation meeting and ranked target behaviours in two rounds, with group discussion between ranking rounds. For each of the three key areas, the six top ranked behaviours relevant to people with diabetes and healthcare professionals were identified. Results In most cases, the most highly ranked behaviour was the same for Ranking 1 and Ranking 2 and consensus increased in relation to endorsement of top ranked behaviours. However, some behaviours did change position between rankings. The top behaviour relevant to people with Type 1 diabetes was 'taking insulin as required' and for people with Type 2 diabetes was 'attending and engaging with structured education programmes'. 'Engage in collaborative goal setting with patients' was the top ranked behaviour relevant to healthcare professionals for managing both Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes. For preventing Type 2 diabetes, 'engage in healthy behaviours as a family' was the highest ranked population behaviour and 'attend and engage with behaviour change training' was the highest ranked professional behaviour. Conclusions It is possible to work with a diverse group of stakeholders to inform the diabetes research agenda. The priorities identified were co-produced by key stakeholders, including patients, healthcare professionals and policy makers, and will inform the development of a programme of behavioural research in diabetes in Ireland. The study also provides a worked example of a research prioritisation process using the nominal group technique, and identified limitations, which may be useful for other researchers.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Unknown 31 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 25%
Student > Master 5 16%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 5 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 25%
Psychology 6 19%
Social Sciences 4 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 9 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 July 2018.
All research outputs
#1,088,728
of 19,149,304 outputs
Outputs from Research Involvement and Engagement
#108
of 301 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,153
of 274,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Involvement and Engagement
#3
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,149,304 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 301 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 274,332 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.