Research priority setting in UK podiatric surgery

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Evidence-based practice provides the foundation for high quality patient care, and in the NHS, research is seen as vital to enable service transformation and improve outcomes. Research is one of the four pillars of enhanced and advanced clinical practice and is therefore a fundamental part of podiatric surgery services. In order to meet the UK health research strategies, the most recent being ‘Saving and Improving Lives: The Future of UK Clinical Research Delivery’ (2021), the Faculty of Podiatric Surgery in the UK agreed to support the development of research priorities in order to inform a future research strategy.

The Podiatric Surgery Research Strategy Group was set up and embarked on a project with the aim of engaging its members in formulating and agreeing national research priorities. The initial stage included a national research scoping survey to identify key themes, topic, and research questions. The final stage consisted of developing and enabling a live consensus vote conducted at the 2022 national Faculty of Podiatric Surgery Conference. At the end of the vote, the top five research topics that met the agreement criteria were: 1. Surgical treatment – forefoot, 2. Patient reported outcome measures, 3. Post-operative management, 4. Surgical treatment – midfoot and 5. Service delivery. The top five research questions that met the criteria were1. How does quality of life improve following elective foot surgery? 2. How does podiatric surgery benefit the health of the population? 3. How does podiatric surgery benefit the health of the population in the at-risk foot? 4. What is the most effective Lapidus fixation option? and 5. What is the benefit of utilising PASCOM-10 to improve large scale outcome data? These will inform the initial UK podiatric surgery research priorities in the next three to five years.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13047-023-00629-9.

Related collections

Most cited references 17

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Defining consensus: a systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies.

Ivan Diamond, Robert C Grant, Brian Feldman … (2014)

To investigate how consensus is operationalized in Delphi studies and to explore the role of consensus in determining the results of these studies. Systematic review of a random sample of 100 English language Delphi studies, from two large multidisciplinary databases [ISI Web of Science (Thompson Reuters, New York, NY) and Scopus (Elsevier, Amsterdam, NL)], published between 2000 and 2009. About 98 of the Delphi studies purported to assess consensus, although a definition for consensus was only provided in 72 of the studies (64 a priori). The most common definition for consensus was percent agreement (25 studies), with 75% being the median threshold to define consensus. Although the authors concluded in 86 of the studies that consensus was achieved, consensus was only specified a priori (with a threshold value) in 42 of these studies. Achievement of consensus was related to the decision to stop the Delphi study in only 23 studies, with 70 studies terminating after a specified number of rounds. Although consensus generally is felt to be of primary importance to the Delphi process, definitions of consensus vary widely and are poorly reported. Improved criteria for reporting of methods of Delphi studies are required. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

0 comments Cited 624 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

The population prevalence of symptomatic radiographic foot osteoarthritis in community-dwelling older adults: cross-sectional findings from the Clinical Assessment Study of the Foot

Edward Roddy, Martin Thomas, Michelle Marshall … (2013)

Objectives To estimate the population prevalence of symptomatic radiographic osteoarthritis (OA) affecting the 1st metatarsophalangeal joint (MTPJ), 1st and 2nd cuneometatarsal joints (CMJs), navicular first cuneiform joint (NCJ) and talonavicular joint (TNJ) in community-dwelling older adults. Methods 9334 adults aged ≥50 years registered with four general practices were mailed a health survey. Responders reporting foot pain within the last 12 months were invited to undergo weight-bearing dorso-plantar and lateral radiographs of both feet. OA at the 1st MTPJ, 1st and 2nd CMJs, NCJ and TNJ was graded using a validated atlas. Population prevalence estimates for symptomatic radiographic foot OA overall and for each joint were calculated using multiple imputation and weighted logistic regression modelling to account for missing data and non-response. Results 5109 health surveys were received (adjusted response 56%). Radiographs were obtained on 557 participants. Overall population prevalence of symptomatic radiographic OA was 16.7% (95% CI 15.3% to 18.0%), 1st MTPJ 7.8% (6.7% to 8.9%), 1st CMJ 3.9% (2.9% to 4.9%), 2nd CMJ 6.8% (5.7% to 7.8%), NCJ 5.2% (4.0% to 6.4%) and TNJ 5.8% (4.8% to 6.9%). With the exception of the 1st CMJ, prevalence was greater in females than males, increased with age and was higher in lower socioeconomic classes. Three-quarters of those with symptomatic radiographic OA reported disabling foot symptoms. Conclusions While cautious interpretation due to non-response is warranted, our study suggests that symptomatic radiographic foot OA affects one in six older adults and the majority report associated disability. Clinicians should consider OA as a possible cause of chronic foot pain in older people.

0 comments Cited 68 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Global Overview of Response Rates in Patient and Health Care Professional Surveys in Surgery : A Systematic Review

Vincent Maurice Meyer, Stan Benjamens, Mostafa Moumni … (2020)

Objective: Identify key demographic factors and modes of follow-up in surgical survey response. Summary Background Data: Surveys are widely used in surgery to assess patient and procedural outcomes, but response rates vary widely which compromises study quality. Currently there is no consensus as to what the average response rate is and which factors are associated with higher response rates. Methods: The National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE/PubMed) was systematically searched from Januray 1, 2007 until February 1, 2020 using the following strategy: ((( questionnaire) OR survey) AND “response rate”) AND ( surgery OR surgical ). Original survey studies from surgical(-related) fields reporting on response rate were included. Through one-way analysis of variance we present mean response rate per survey mode over time, number of additional contacts, country of origin, and type of interviewee. Results: The average response is 70% over 811 studies in patients and 53% over 1746 doctor surveys. In-person surveys yield an average 76% response rate, followed by postal (65%) and online (46% web-based vs 51% email) surveys. Patients respond significantly more often than doctors to surveys by mail ( P < 0.001), email ( P = 0.003), web-based surveys ( P < 0.001) and mixed mode surveys ( P = 0.006). Additional contacts significantly improve response rate in email ( P = 0.26) and web-based ( P = 0.041) surveys in doctors. A wide variation in response rates was identified between countries. Conclusions: Every survey is unique, but the main commonality between studies is response rate. Response rates appear to be highly dependent on type of survey, follow-up, geography, and interviewee type.

0 comments Cited 62 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Lesley Posmyk:

ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5928-1933

lesley.posmyk@nhs.net

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): J Foot Ankle Res

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): J Foot Ankle Res

Title: Journal of Foot and Ankle Research

Publisher: BioMed Central (London )

ISSN (Electronic): 1757-1146

Publication date (Electronic): 2 June 2023

Publication date PMC-release: 2 June 2023

Publication date Collection: 2023

Volume: 16

Electronic Location Identifier: 32

Affiliations

[1 ]GRID grid.487275.b, Department of Podiatric Surgery, , North Tees & Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust, ; Hartlepool, UK

[2 ]GRID grid.439764.b, ISNI 0000 0004 0449 9187, Department of Podiatric Surgery, , Central London Community Healthcare NHS Trust, ; London, UK

[3 ]GRID grid.412563.7, ISNI 0000 0004 0376 6589, Department of Podiatric Surgery, , University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, ; Birmingham, UK

[4 ]GRID grid.439903.4, ISNI 0000 0001 0112 9015, Department of Podiatric Surgery, , Wye Valley NHS Trust, ; Hereford, UK

[5 ]GRID grid.439761.e, ISNI 0000 0004 0491 6948, Department of Podiatry, , Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust, ; Leeds, UK

Author information

Lesley Posmyk http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5928-1933

Article

Publisher ID: 629

DOI: 10.1186/s13047-023-00629-9

PMC ID: 10235831

PubMed ID: 37268962

SO-VID: 9bf609ca-0236-4a63-a6d9-bc40ced2f0f1

License:

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

History

Date received : 12 February 2023

Date accepted : 7 May 2023

Custom metadata

ScienceOpen disciplines: Orthopedics

Keywords: research strategy,research plan,podiatric surgery,foot surgery,research priorities

Data availability:

ScienceOpen disciplines: Orthopedics

Keywords: research strategy, research plan, podiatric surgery, foot surgery, research priorities

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Cited by 1

Current and future advances in practice: mechanical foot pain
Authors: Jill Halstead, Shannon E Munteanu

See all cited by

Most referenced authors 123

See all reference authors

Research priority setting in UK podiatric surgery

Read this article at

Abstract

Supplementary Information

Related collections

Orthopedics

Most cited references 17

Defining consensus: a systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies.

The population prevalence of symptomatic radiographic foot osteoarthritis in community-dwelling older adults: cross-sectional findings from the Clinical Assessment Study of the Foot

Global Overview of Response Rates in Patient and Health Care Professional Surveys in Surgery : A Systematic Review

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Author information

Article

History

Categories

Custom metadata

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 34

Cited by 1

Most referenced authors 123