Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Belgian Red Cross (BRC) is a humanitarian aid organization supporting its activities by performing secondary research (i.e. systematic reviews (SRs) and evidence-based guidelines). In 2015, BRC started conducting primary research in areas for which limited or no evidence was available.
Objectives: To avoid research waste BRC uses secondary research to identify themes for primary field studies.
Methods: Through the use of secondary research by conducting scoping reviews, evidence summaries (ES) and/or SRs, BRC avoids spending resources on primary field studies for which sufficient evidence is available. Moreover, the compiled scientific evidence can provide relevant information on sample size calculation, confounding variables, and barriers and facilitators impacting the design and conduct of relevant future studies. In addition to the secondary research, where possible, we also consult content experts to further prioritize primary research questions relevant to the field. The BRC operational departments are also consulted to integrate the preferences of the target group, reducing the chance of a mismatch between researcher’s priorities and those of the target group.
Results:
Project 1: An ES on the retention of non-resuscitative FA knowledge and skills only identified two trials. The BRC FA department (target population) confirmed this topic was very relevant and a study was set up investigating the retention of FA knowledge and skills by lay people over a 2-year period.
Project 2: A SR studying the effectiveness of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) promotion programs and factors affecting their implementation led to the identification of knowledge gaps which were discussed with WASH experts and the BRC International Cooperation department. As a result, BRC is currently investigating the effectiveness of several promotion programs on WASH behaviour. Findings from the SR were used to inform the design and conduct of the study.
Project 3: A scoping review on the use of simulation in FA training identified six studies, but none included laypeople. Together with the BRC FA department and their instructors, a study was designed to study the influence of simulated patients on FA knowledge, skills and attitudes in laypeople.
Secondary research is a relatively inexpensive method compared to primary research. BRC has been able to save an estimated €70.000-170.000 per unnecessary primary study that was avoided.
Conclusions: Systematic use of secondary research has helped BRC to identify themes for primary field studies, to design and conduct relevant studies, to keep research costs manageable and to avoid research waste.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: Input from field experts and BRC operational departments is integrated with the available scientific evidence when prioritizing, designing and conducting primary studies to ensure relevance to the target group.
Objectives: To avoid research waste BRC uses secondary research to identify themes for primary field studies.
Methods: Through the use of secondary research by conducting scoping reviews, evidence summaries (ES) and/or SRs, BRC avoids spending resources on primary field studies for which sufficient evidence is available. Moreover, the compiled scientific evidence can provide relevant information on sample size calculation, confounding variables, and barriers and facilitators impacting the design and conduct of relevant future studies. In addition to the secondary research, where possible, we also consult content experts to further prioritize primary research questions relevant to the field. The BRC operational departments are also consulted to integrate the preferences of the target group, reducing the chance of a mismatch between researcher’s priorities and those of the target group.
Results:
Project 1: An ES on the retention of non-resuscitative FA knowledge and skills only identified two trials. The BRC FA department (target population) confirmed this topic was very relevant and a study was set up investigating the retention of FA knowledge and skills by lay people over a 2-year period.
Project 2: A SR studying the effectiveness of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) promotion programs and factors affecting their implementation led to the identification of knowledge gaps which were discussed with WASH experts and the BRC International Cooperation department. As a result, BRC is currently investigating the effectiveness of several promotion programs on WASH behaviour. Findings from the SR were used to inform the design and conduct of the study.
Project 3: A scoping review on the use of simulation in FA training identified six studies, but none included laypeople. Together with the BRC FA department and their instructors, a study was designed to study the influence of simulated patients on FA knowledge, skills and attitudes in laypeople.
Secondary research is a relatively inexpensive method compared to primary research. BRC has been able to save an estimated €70.000-170.000 per unnecessary primary study that was avoided.
Conclusions: Systematic use of secondary research has helped BRC to identify themes for primary field studies, to design and conduct relevant studies, to keep research costs manageable and to avoid research waste.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: Input from field experts and BRC operational departments is integrated with the available scientific evidence when prioritizing, designing and conducting primary studies to ensure relevance to the target group.