Research Action Plan Research Articles

Book Review-Speed & Scale: An Action Plan for Solving Our Climate Crisis Now

With the climate crisis deepening at an alarming rate, urgency underscores every facet of our collective response. “Speed & Scale: An Action Plan for Solving Our Climate Crisis Now” by John Doerr is an inspiration of hope in this critical moment. Endorsed by prominent climate leaders including Jeff Bezos, Al Gore, Bill Gates, and Mary Barra, among others, “Speed & Scale” is a significant work, drawing on the insights of those who recognize the need for swift measures. Through Doerr’s thorough research, deep analysis, and rigorous action plan, readers are confronted with the harsh reality of environmental challenges but equipped with practical strategies for change. Beyond mere discussion, this book offers a roadmap for policymakers, activists, and citizens to confront climate issues decisively. As temperatures rise and ecosystems suffer, the need for proactive engagement becomes ever more crucial. Doerr’s work highlights the capacity for innovation and collaboration, urging readers to partake in collective endeavors to safeguard our planet for future generations. The deliberate use of “we” throughout the book fosters a sense of mutual ownership and responsibility towards the stewardship of our vulnerable earth. With Doerr’s passionate advocacy, the book delivers more than a compelling narrative of urgency and hope; it serves as a clarion call for unified, immediate action. The time to forge a path towards a sustainable future is now.

Mental Health Support Is an Unmet Need for Long-term Burn Survivors: A Web-based Survey.

A National Trauma Research Action Plan identified the involvement of burn survivors as critical informants to determine the direction of research. This study employed a web-based survey to identify care gaps in a sample of burn survivors. We surveyed burn survivors from around the United States through social media and email contact with the Phoenix Society for Burn Survivors. We elicited demographic info, burn history, and unmet needs. Statistical analysis was performed to test our hypothesis that lack of access to mental health support/professionals would be identified as an unmet need in long-term burn survivors. Of 178 survey respondents, most were at least 10 years removed from the date of their burn injury (n = 94, 53%). Compared with those less than 3 years from their burn injury, individuals greater than 10 years were at least 5 times more likely to note a lack of access to mental health support [11-20 years OR 8.7, P < .001; >20 years OR 5.7, P = .001]. About 60% of Spanish speakers reported lack of support group access was among their greatest unmet needs, compared with 37% of English speakers (P = .184). This study highlights the need for ongoing access to mental health resources in burn survivors. Our findings emphasize that burn injury is not just an acute ailment, but a complex condition that evolves into a chronic disease. Additional studies should focus on the experiences of Spanish-speaking burn survivors, given small sample size leading to a likely clinically significant but not statistically different lack of access to support groups.

Research priorities in tranexamic acid after trauma: Secondary analysis of the National Trauma Research Action Plan.

Tranexamic acid (TXA) is an antifibrinolytic drug that is used in traumatic hemorrhage and traumatic brain injury. Although TXA is considered relatively safe and inexpensive and is widely available, data regarding its mechanisms, optimal dosing, and timing, as well as relative risks and benefits for different patient populations, are inconsistent. In this study, we aim to identify and summarize consensus research questions related to TXA across all National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP) Delphi expert panels to identify priorities for future research on TXA in trauma. A secondary analysis was performed using consensus-based research priorities collected by 11 NTRAP topic panels using a Delphi methodology. The database of questions was queried for the keywords "tranexamic" and "TXA." The identified questions were sorted by subject matter and summarized. Seven panels included a total of 73 TXA-related questions. Forty-six questions reached consensus. The most addressed topic was outcomes (discussed in 64% of questions) followed by indications (49%) and specific patient populations (38%). Because of overlap across panels, questions were summarized and sorted by topic resulting in 21 priority research questions. Seventy-three total questions and 46 questions reaching consensus were identified by NTRAP panelists. The key topics identified in these questions should be prioritized in future funded research on TXA in trauma. Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level V.

An executive summary of the National Trauma Research Action Plan.

The National Trauma Research Action Plan project successfully engaged multidisciplinary experts to define opportunities to advance trauma research and has fulfilled the recommendations related to trauma research from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine report. These panels identified more than 4,800 gaps in our knowledge regarding injury prevention and the optimal care of injured patients and laid out a priority framework and tools to support researchers to advance this field. Trauma research funding agencies and researchers can use this executive summary and supporting manuscripts to strategically address and close the highest priority research gaps. Given that this is the most significant public health threat facing our children, young adults, and military service personnel, we must do better in prioritizing these research projects for funding and providing grant support to advance this work. Through the Coalition for National Trauma Research, the trauma community is committed to a coordinated, collaborative approach to address these critical knowledge gaps and ultimately reduce the burden of morbidity and mortality faced by our patients.

Developing a National Trauma Research Action Plan: Results from the regulatory challenges Delphi survey.

In 2016, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine issued a report calling for a National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP) requiring a resourced, coordinated, joint approach to trauma care research. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report recommended the identification of regulatory barriers to trauma research. The NTRAP Regulatory Challenges Panel of trauma researchers and regulatory professionals was convened to identify the most challenging aspects of regulatory processes involved in conducting research. Trauma researchers and regulatory experts were recruited to identify and rate challenging regulatory issues in 2021 to 2022. Challenge statements were developed from a comprehensive scoping review. Panelists rated the challenge level for each statement on a 9-point Likert scale. The Delphi survey was conducted over three online rounds. Consensus was defined a priori as ≥60% agreement. Results of the Delphi survey were presented to the panel during a webinar. Panel participants then participated in breakout sessions to strategize solutions, share lessons learned, and identify where more regulatory guidance is needed. Thirty-eight subject matter experts rated 175 regulatory challenges, of which 141 (81%) reached the consensus threshold. Of the consensus-reaching challenge statements, 42 had a challenge rating of 6 or higher. Among the highest-rated challenges were issues pertaining to conducting prehospital research, exception from informed consent, mistrust of research among various racial and ethnic groups, and issues specific to conducting pediatric trauma research. This Delphi survey rated challenges culled from a regulatory literature scoping review. The panel identified the most challenging aspects of human subjects protection while conducting trauma research and recommended strategies and best practices to address them. The findings from this study were used to develop the NTRAP Investigator Toolkit, which is available on the internet as a resource for trauma researchers. Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV.

Research Priorities in Venous Thromboembolism after Trauma: Secondary Analysis of the National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP).

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality during recovery from injury and can result in significant healthcare costs. Despite advances in the past several decades in our approach to VTE prophylaxis after injury, opportunities exist to improve the delivery and implementation of optimal VTE prophylaxis. Here, we aim to identify consensus research questions related to VTE across all NTRAP Delphi expert panels to further guide the research agenda aimed at preventing VTE after injury. This is a secondary analysis of consensus-based research priorities that were collected using a Delphi methodology by 11 unique NTRAP panels that were charged with unique topic areas across the spectrum of injury care. The database of questions was queried for the keywords "VTE", "venous thromboembo", and "DVT", then grouped into relevant topic areas. There were 86 VTE-related research questions identified across 9 NTRAP panels. 85 questions reached consensus with 24 rated high priority, 60 medium priority and 1 low priority. Questions related to the timing of VTE prophylaxis (n = 17) were most common, followed by questions related to risk factors for the development of VTE (n = 16), the effects of tranexamic acid on VTE (n = 11), the approach to dosing of pharmacologic prophylaxis (n = 8), as well as the pharmacologic prophylactic medication choice for optimal VTE prophylaxis (n = 6). NTRAP panelists identified 85 consensus-based research questions that should drive dedicated extramural research funding opportunities to support quality studies aimed at optimizing VTE prophylaxis after injury. Original Research, IV.

Long COVID: A Concern for Health Care Providers Into 2023 and Beyond

The medical community was overwhelmed with COVID and its impact on the system in 2020. The effects of COVID continue to influence the health care community; however, it has been discovered that the COVID virus 1 Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for HealthNational Research Action Plan on Long COVID, 200 Independence Ave SW. 2022 Google Scholar has had lasting consequences. Many health care providers have referred to this as Long COVID for the period after an individual has a COVID positive test. It is also known as postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) infection, 2 National Institute for HealthResearching COVID to Enhance Recovery. What Is Long COVID | RECOVER COVID Initiative. 2022 Google Scholar but for the purposes of this column we will reference it as Long COVID. As we enter 2023, more attention will be placed on Long COVID as there is much to learn about this new illness.

Developing a National Trauma Research Action Plan: Results from the trauma systems and informatics panel Delphi survey.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2016 report on the trauma care system recommended establishing a National Trauma Research Action Plan to strengthen and guide future trauma research. To address this recommendation, the Department of Defense funded a study to generate a comprehensive research agenda spanning the trauma and burn care continuum. Panels were created to conduct a gap analysis and identify high-priority research questions. The National Trauma Research Action Plan panel reported here addressed trauma systems and informatics. Experts were recruited to identify current gaps in trauma systems research, generate research questions, and establish the priorities using an iterative Delphi survey approach from November 2019 through August 2020. Panelists were identified to ensure heterogeneity and generalizability, including military and civilian representation. Panelists were encouraged to use a PICO format to generate research questions: patient/population, intervention, compare/control, and outcome. In subsequent surveys, panelists prioritized each research question on a 9-point Likert scale, categorized as low-, medium-, and high-priority items. Consensus was defined as ≥60% agreement. Twenty-seven subject matter experts generated 570 research questions, of which 427 (75%) achieved the consensus threshold. Of the consensus reaching questions, 209 (49%) were rated high priority, 213 (50%) medium priority, and 5 (1%) low priority. Gaps in understanding the broad array of interventions were identified, including those related to health care infrastructure, technology products, education/training, resuscitation, and operative intervention. The prehospital phase of care was highlighted as an area needing focused research. This Delphi gap analysis of trauma systems and informatics research identified high-priority research questions that will help guide investigators and funding agencies in setting research priorities to continue to work toward Zero Preventable Deaths after trauma. Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Exploring Long COVID: Healthcare Utilization Up to 360 Days after a COVID-19 Diagnosis—Results from Analysis of a Very Large US National Sample

The topic of the long-term effects of COVID-19, so-called “long-COVID”, has gained increased attention. The US federal government announced plans to develop an interagency national research action plan to uncover more insights into the long-term effects of COVID-19. This study contributes to our understanding of the long-term effects of COVID-19 by quantifying patterns of healthcare utilization up to 360 days after an initial COVID-19 diagnosis occurring during the beginning of the pandemic (March-August 2020) in a very large nationally representative population of insured adults. We quantify actual COVID-19-related utilization (as opposed to reported symptoms) by accessing claims data to calculate average medical visits per patient per month by type of encounter (e.g. inpatient stay, physician visit). In contrast to many recent reports in the media, our results show that COVID-19-related utilization declines substantially after the first-month post-diagnosis and continues to decline throughout the study period to very low levels.

Proceedings from the 2022 Consensus Conference to Implement Optimal Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Trauma.

On May 4 and 5, 2022, a meeting of multidisciplinary stakeholders in the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) after trauma was convened by the Coalition for National Trauma Research, funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health, and hosted by the American College of Surgeons in Chicago, Illinois. This consensus conference gathered more than 40 in-person and 80 virtual attendees, including trauma surgeons, other physicians, thrombosis experts, nurses, pharmacists, researchers, and patient advocates. The objectives of the meeting were twofold: (1) to review and summarize the present state of the scientific evidence regarding VTE prevention strategies in injured patients and (2) to develop consensus on future priorities in VTE prevention implementation and research gaps.To achieve these objectives, the first part of the conference consisted of talks from physician leaders, researchers, clinical champions, and patient advocates to summarize the current state of knowledge of VTE pathogenesis and prevention in patients with major injury. Video recordings of all talks and accompanying slides are freely available on the conference website ( https://www.nattrauma.org/research/research-policies-templates-guidelines/vte-conference/ ). Following this curriculum, the second part of the conference consisted of a series of small-group breakout sessions on topics potentially requiring future study. Through this process, research priorities were identified, and plans of action to develop and undertake future studies were defined.The 2022 Consensus Conference to Implement Optimal VTE Prophylaxis in Trauma answered the National Trauma Research Action Plan call to define a course for future research into preventing thromboembolism after trauma. A multidisciplinary group of clinical champions, physicians, scientists, and patients delineated clear objectives for future investigation to address important, persistent key knowledge gaps. The series of papers from the conference outlines the consensus based on the current literature and a roadmap for research to answer these unanswered questions.

The Looming Challenge of Long COVID.

In August, I had my first personal encounter with a SARS-CoV-2 infection and was very fortunate to experience only mild symptoms, which I credit to being vaccinated and double boosted. For me, the most difficult aspect of my recovery was having to endure isolation for 10 days to ensure I did not pass on the infection to members of my family. I was one of the lucky ones who did not experience any lingering ongoing symptoms, unlike the 5% to 30% of people who develop Long COVID symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection. We now know that millions of people in the United States likely are living with 1 or more Long COVID symptoms for weeks, months, and sometimes years after an acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. I have read with great interest the US government’s National Research Action Plan on Long COVID that aims to understand, prevent, and treat the broad range of persistent and sometimes debilitating disease symptoms that are now known to affect many people after initial SARS-CoV-2 infection.1 The plan defines Long COVID as a multifaceted disease that can affect nearly every organ system and can manifest as new or worsening chronic health problems, including but not limited to heart disease, diabetes, kidney disease, hematologic issues, and mental and neurologic conditions. The signs, symptoms, and conditions continue or arise anew 4 weeks or more after the initial symptomatic or asymptomatic infection and may be relapsing and remitting.

Developing a National Trauma Research Action Plan: Results from the long-term outcomes research gap Delphi survey.

In the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2016 report on trauma care, the establishment of a National Trauma Research Action Plan to strengthen and guide future trauma research was recommended. To address this recommendation, the Department of Defense funded the Coalition for National Trauma Research to generate a comprehensive research agenda spanning the continuum of trauma and burn care. We describe the gap analysis and high-priority research questions generated from the National Trauma Research Action Plan panel on long-term outcomes. Experts in long-term outcomes were recruited to identify current gaps in long-term trauma outcomes research, generate research questions, and establish the priority for these questions using a consensus-driven, Delphi survey approach from February 2021 to August 2021. Panelists were identified using established Delphi recruitment guidelines to ensure heterogeneity and generalizability including both military and civilian representation. Panelists were encouraged to use a PICO format to generate research questions: Patient/Population, Intervention, Compare/Control, and Outcome model. On subsequent surveys, panelists were asked to prioritize each research question on a 9-point Likert scale, categorized to represent low-, medium-, and high-priority items. Consensus was defined as ≥60% of panelists agreeing on the priority category. Thirty-two subject matter experts generated 482 questions in 17 long-term outcome topic areas. By Round 3 of the Delphi, 359 questions (75%) reached consensus, of which 107 (30%) were determined to be high priority, 252 (70%) medium priority, and 0 (0%) low priority. Substance abuse and pain was the topic area with the highest number of questions. Health services (not including mental health or rehabilitation) (64%), mental health (46%), and geriatric population (43%) were the topic areas with the highest proportion of high-priority questions. This Delphi gap analysis of long-term trauma outcomes research identified 107 high-priority research questions that will help guide investigators in future long-term outcomes research. Diagnostic Tests or Criteria; Level IV.

Developing a National Trauma Research Action Plan: Results from the postadmission critical care research gap Delphi survey.

The 2016 National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine report included a proposal to establish a National Trauma Research Action Plan. In response, the Department of Defense funded the Coalition for National Trauma Research to generate a comprehensive research agenda spanning the continuum of trauma and burn care from prehospital care to rehabilitation as part of an overall strategy to achieve zero preventable deaths and disability after injury. The Postadmission Critical Care Research panel was 1 of 11 panels constituted to develop this research agenda. We recruited interdisciplinary experts in surgical critical care and recruited them to identify current gaps in clinical critical care research, generate research questions, and establish the priority of these questions using a consensus-driven Delphi survey approach. The first of four survey rounds asked participants to generate key research questions. On subsequent rounds, we asked survey participants to rank the priority of each research question on a 9-point Likert scale, categorized to represent low-, medium-, and high-priority items. Consensus was defined as ≥60% of panelists agreeing on the priority category. Twenty-five subject matter experts generated 595 questions. By Round 3, 249 questions reached ≥60% consensus. Of these, 22 questions were high, 185 were medium, and 42 were low priority. The clinical states of hypovolemic shock and delirium were most represented in the high-priority questions. Traumatic brain injury was the only specific injury pattern with a high-priority question. The National Trauma Research Action Plan critical care research panel identified 22 high-priority research questions, which, if answered, would reduce preventable death and disability after injury. Diagnostic Tests or Criteria; Level IV.

Developing a National Trauma Research Action Plan: Results from the injury prevention research gap Delphi survey.

In its 2016 report on trauma care, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine called for the establishment of a National Trauma Research Action Plan to strengthen and guide future trauma research. To address this recommendation, the Department of Defense funded the Coalition for National Trauma Research to generate a comprehensive research agenda spanning the continuum of trauma and burn care. We describe the gap analysis and high priority research questions generated from the National Trauma Research Action Plan panel on injury prevention. Experts in injury prevention research were recruited to identify current gaps in injury prevention research, generate research questions and establish the priority of these questions using a consensus-driven Delphi survey approach from December 2019 through September 2020. Participants were identified using established Delphi recruitment guidelines to ensure heterogeneity and generalizability with both military and civilian representatives. Participants were encouraged, but not required, to use a Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome format to generate research questions: Patient/Population; Intervention; Compare/Control; Outcome model. On subsequent surveys, participants were asked to rank the priority of each research question on a nine-point Likert scale, categorized to represent low-, medium-, and high-priority items. Consensus was defined as 60% or greater of panelists agreeing on the priority category. Twenty-eight subject matter experts generated 394 questions in 12 topic areas. By round 3 of the Delphi, 367 (93.1%) questions reached consensus, of which 169 (46.1%) were determined to be high priority, 196 (53.4%) medium priority, and 2 (0.5%) low priority. Among the 169 high priority questions, suicide (29.6%), firearm violence (20.1%), and violence prevention (18.3%) were the most prevalent topic areas. This Delphi gap analysis of injury prevention research identified 169 high priority research questions that will help guide investigators in future injury prevention research. Funding agencies and researchers should consider these gaps when they prioritize future research. Therepeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Developing a National Trauma Research Action Plan: Results from the acute resuscitation, initial patient evaluation, imaging, and management research gap Delphi survey.

Injury is the leading cause of death in patients aged 1 to 45 years and contributes to a significant public health burden for individuals of all ages. To achieve zero preventable deaths and disability after injury, the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine called for the development of a National Trauma Research Action Plan to improve outcomes for military and civilian trauma patients. Because rapid resuscitation and prompt identification and treatment of injuries are critical in achieving optimal outcomes, a panel of experts was convened to generate high-priority research questions in the areas of acute resuscitation, initial evaluation, imaging, and definitive management on injury. Forty-three subject matter experts in trauma care and injury research were recruited to perform a gap analysis of current literature and prioritize unanswered research questions using a consensus-driven Delphi survey approach. Four Delphi rounds were conducted to generate research questions and prioritize them using a 9-point Likert scale. Research questions were stratified as low, medium, or high priority, with consensus defined as ≥60% of panelists agreeing on the priority category. Research questions were coded using a taxonomy of 118 research concepts that were standard across all National Trauma Research Action Plan panels. There were 1,422 questions generated, of which 992 (69.8%) reached consensus. Of the questions reaching consensus, 327 (33.0%) were given high priority, 621 (62.6%) medium priority, and 44 (4.4%) low priority. Pharmaceutical intervention and fluid/blood product resuscitation were most frequently scored as high-priority intervention concepts. Research questions related to traumatic brain injury, vascular injury, pelvic fracture, and venous thromboembolism prophylaxis were highly prioritized. This research gap analysis identified more than 300 high-priority research questions within the broad category of Acute Resuscitation, Initial Evaluation, Imaging, and Definitive Management. Research funding should be prioritized to address these high-priority topics in the future.

Developing a National Trauma Research Action Plan: Results from the geriatric research gap Delphi survey.

Treating older trauma patients requires a focus on the confluence of age-related physiological changes and the impact of the injury itself. Therefore, the primary way to improve the care of geriatric trauma patients is through the development of universal, systematic multidisciplinary research. To achieve this, the Coalition for National Trauma Research has developed the National Trauma Research Action Plan that has generated a comprehensive research agenda spanning the continuum of geriatric trauma care from prehospital to rehabilitation. Experts in geriatric trauma care and research were recruited to identify current gaps in clinical geriatric research, generate research questions, and establish the priority of these questions using a consensus-driven Delphi survey approach. Participants were identified using established Delphi recruitment guidelines ensuring heterogeneity and generalizability. On subsequent surveys, participants were asked to rank the priority of each research question on a nine-point Likert scale, categorized to represent low-, medium-, and high-priority items. The consensus was defined as more than 60% of panelists agreeing on the priority category. A total of 24 subject matter experts generated questions in 109 key topic areas. After editing for duplication, 514 questions were included in the priority ranking. By round 3, 362 questions (70%) reached 60% consensus. Of these, 161 (44%) were high, 198 (55%) medium, and 3 (1%) low priority. Among the questions prioritized as high priority, questions related to three types of injuries (i.e., rib fracture, traumatic brain injury, and lower extremity injury) occurred with the greatest frequency. Among the 25 highest priority questions, the key topics with the highest frequency were pain management, frailty, and anticoagulation-related interventions. The most common types of research proposed were interventional clinical trials and comparative effectiveness studies, outcome research, and health care systems research.

Developing a National Trauma Research Action Plan: Results from the Pediatric Research Gap Delphi Survey.

In 2016, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine trauma report recommended a National Trauma Research Action Plan to "strengthen trauma research and ensure that the resources available for this research are commensurate with the importance of injury and the potential for improvement in patient outcomes." With a contract from the Department of Defense, the Coalition for National Trauma Research created 11 expert panels to address this recommendation, with the goal of developing a comprehensive research agenda, spanning the continuum of trauma and burn care. This report outlines the work of the group focused on pediatric trauma. Experts in pediatric trauma clinical care and research were recruited to identify gaps in current clinical pediatric trauma research, generate research questions, and establish the priority of these questions using a consensus-driven Delphi survey approach. Using successive surveys, participants were asked to rank the priority of each research question on a 9-point Likert scale categorized to represent priority. Consensus was defined as >60% agreement within the priority category. Priority questions were coded based on a dictionary of 118 National Trauma Research Action Plan taxonomy concepts in 9 categories to support comparative analysis across all panels. Thirty-seven subject matter experts generated 625 questions. A total of 493 questions (79%) reached consensus on priority level. Of those reaching consensus, 159 (32%) were high, 325 (66%) were medium, and 9 (2%) were low priority. The highest priority research questions related to surgical interventions for traumatic brain injury (intracranial pressure monitoring and craniotomy); the second highest priority was hemorrhagic shock. The prehospital setting was the highest priority phase of care. This diverse panel of experts determined that most significant pediatric trauma research gaps were in traumatic brain injury, hemorrhagic shock, and the prehospital phase of care. These research domains should be top priorities for funding agencies. Therapeutic / Care Management; Level IV.

Core outcome measures for research in traumatic injury survivors: The National Trauma Research Action Plan modified Delphi consensus study.

Until recently, survival has been the main outcome measure for injury research. Given the impact of injury on quality of life, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine has called for advancing the science of research evaluating the long-term outcomes of trauma survivors. This is necessary so that treatments and interventions can be assessed for their impact on a trauma patients' long-term functional and psychosocial outcomes. We sought to propose a set of core domains and measurement instruments that are best suited to evaluate long-term outcomes after traumatic injury with a goal for these measures to be adopted as a national standard. As part of the development of a National Trauma Research Action Plan, we conducted a two-stage, five-round modified online Delphi consensus process with a diverse panel of 50 key stakeholders including clinicians, researchers, and trauma survivors from more than 9 professional areas across the United States. Before voting, panelists reviewed the results of a scoping review on patient-reported outcomes after injury and standardized information on measurement instruments following the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments guidelines. The panel considered a preliminary list of 74 outcome domains (patient-reported outcomes) and ultimately reached the a priori consensus criteria for 29 core domains that encompass aspects of physical, mental, social, and cognitive health. Among these 29 core domains, the panel considered a preliminary list of 199 patient-reported outcome measures and reached the a priori consensus criteria for 14 measures across 13 core domains. Participation of panelists ranged from 65% to 98% across the five Delphi rounds. We developed a core outcome measurement set that will facilitate the synthesis, comparison, and interpretation of long-term trauma outcomes research. These measures should be prioritized in all future studies in which researchers elect to evaluate long-term outcomes of traumatic injury survivors. Diagnostic Test or Criteria, Level IV.

Developing a National Trauma Research Action Plan: Results from the Neurotrauma Research Panel Delphi Survey.

In 2016, the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine called for the development of a National Trauma Research Action Plan. The Department of Defense funded the Coalition for National Trauma Research to generate a comprehensive research agenda spanning the continuum of trauma and burn care. Given the public health burden of injuries to the central nervous system, neurotrauma was one of 11 panels formed to address this recommendation with a gap analysis and generation of high-priority research questions. We recruited interdisciplinary experts to identify gaps in the neurotrauma literature, generate research questions, and prioritize those questions using a consensus-driven Delphi survey approach. We conducted four Delphi rounds in which participants generated key research questions and then prioritized the importance of the questions on a 9-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as 60% or greater of panelists agreeing on the priority category. We then coded research questions using an National Trauma Research Action Plan taxonomy of 118 research concepts, which were consistent across all 11 panels. Twenty-eight neurotrauma experts generated 675 research questions. Of these, 364 (53.9%) reached consensus, and 56 were determined to be high priority (15.4%), 303 were deemed to be medium priority (83.2%), and 5 were low priority (1.4%). The research topics were stratified into three groups-severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), mild TBI (mTBI), and spinal cord injury. The number of high-priority questions for each subtopic was 46 for severe TBI (19.7%), 3 for mTBI (4.3%) and 7 for SCI (11.7%). This Delphi gap analysis of neurotrauma research identified 56 high-priority research questions. There are clear areas of focus for severe TBI, mTBI, and spinal cord injury that will help guide investigators in future neurotrauma research. Funding agencies should consider these gaps when they prioritize future research. Diagnostic Test or Criteria, Level IV.

Developing a National Trauma Research Action Plan: Results from the prehospital and mass casualty research Delphi survey.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2016 trauma system report recommended a National Trauma Research Action Plan to strengthen and guide future trauma research. To address this recommendation, 11 expert panels completed a Delphi survey process to create a comprehensive research agenda, spanning the continuum of trauma care. We describe the gap analysis and high-priority research questions generated from the National Trauma Research Action Plan panel on prehospital and mass casualty trauma care. We recruited interdisciplinary national experts to identify gaps in the prehospital and mass casualty trauma evidence base and generate prioritized research questions using a consensus-driven Delphi survey approach. We included military and civilian representatives. Panelists were encouraged to use the Patient/Population, Intervention, Compare/Control, and Outcome format to generate research questions. We conducted four Delphi rounds in which participants generated key research questions and then prioritized the questions on a 9-point Likert scale to low-, medium-, and high-priority items. We defined consensus as ≥60% agreement on the priority category and coded research questions using a taxonomy of 118 research concepts in 9 categories. Thirty-one interdisciplinary subject matter experts generated 490 research questions, of which 433 (88%) reached consensus on priority. The rankings of the 433 questions were as follows: 81 (19%) high priority, 339 (78%) medium priority, and 13 (3%) low priority. Among the 81 high-priority questions, there were 46 taxonomy concepts, including health systems of care (36 questions), interventional clinical trials and comparative effectiveness (32 questions), mortality as an outcome (30 questions), prehospital time/transport mode/level of responder (24 questions), system benchmarks (17 questions), and fluid/blood product resuscitation (17 questions). This Delphi gap analysis of prehospital and mass casualty care identified 81 high-priority research questions to guide investigators and funding agencies for future trauma research.