Priorities for future intensive care research in the UK: results of a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

This James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership aimed to identify and prioritise unanswered questions about adult intensive care that are important to people who have been critically ill, their families, and the health professionals who care for them. Consensus techniques (modified Delphi and Nominal Group) were used to generate suggestions using online and postal surveys. Following verification and iterative editorial review, research topics were constructed from these suggestions. These topics were presented in a second online and postal survey for rating. A Nominal Group of 21 clinicians, patients and family representatives subsequently met to rank the most important research topics and produce a prioritised list. The project was coordinated by a representative Steering Group and independently overseen by the JLA. The initial survey and review of the literature generated over 1,300 suggestions. Preliminary editing and verification permitted us to encapsulate these suggestions within 151 research topics. Iterative review by members of the Steering Group produced 37 topic statements, subsequently rated by participants. Using the mode to determine importance, 19 topics were presented to the group from which a ‘top three’ intensive care research priorities were identified and a further nine topics were prioritised. By applying and adapting the JLA methodology to focus on an area of care rather than to a single disease, we have provided a means to ensure that patients, their families and professionals materially contribute to the prioritisation of intensive care research in the UK.

Choices of approaches in e-moderation: conclusions from a grounded theory study

Much has been published in recent years about the desirable nature of facilitated interactions in on-line discussions with educational purposes. However little has been reported about the roles which tutors actually adopt in real life learning contexts, how these range between ‘tutoring, ‘managing’ and ‘facilitating’, and what the distinctions between these three roles may be. In this paper choices of priorities in e-moderation, which were made in three naturalistic (real life) case studies by three higher education practitioners, are identified and discussed. These contrasting approaches were captured and analysed using grounded theory principles. The paper also discusses these occasions when the facilitation was less effective than might have been desired. It finally summarises the potential of various approaches within e-moderation – and some of the attendant risks. The finding is that principles and practices developed for face-to-face support of student-directed learning were found equally applicable in e-moderated online group work, despite several significant differences between the two types of setting. Keywords: higher education, e-learning, e-moderation, asynchronous discussions, learning outcomes, grounded theory