Forschungsprioritäten in der physiotherapeutischen Forschung in Deutschland – Eine systematische Analyse von Publikationen der physioscience der letzten 10 Jahre

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund Forschungsprioritäten können dazu beitragen, Evidenz in den Bereichen zu entwickeln, die für Patient*innen und Kliniker*innen am wichtigsten sind. Forschungsprioritäten werden jedoch in der biomedizinischen Forschung nur unzureichend berücksichtigt.

Ziel Beschreibung der Berücksichtigung von Forschungsprioritäten in der physiotherapeutischen Forschung in Deutschland.

Methode Analyse von physiotherapeutischen Berichten aus Deutschland, die zwischen 2011 und 2020 in der Fachzeitschrift physioscience publiziert wurden. Für jeden eingeschlossenen Bericht wurde die primäre Forschungsfrage und/oder der Hauptgegenstandsbereich identifiziert und, falls möglich, einem spezifischen Gesundheitszustand zugeordnet. Danach wurde für jeden Bericht geprüft, ob eine gesundheitszustandsspezifische Forschungspriorität (von der James Lind Alliance oder aus wissenschaftlichen Datenbanken) bzw. eine der Top 26 der physiotherapiespezifischen Forschungsprioritäten des britischen Berufsverbandes „The Chartered Society of Physiotherapy (CSP)“ aus 2018 adressiert wurde. Die Datenanalyse erfolgte deskriptiv.

Ergebnisse Es konnten 78 Berichte in die Analyse eingeschlossen werden. Die häufigsten Studientypen waren Übersichtsarbeiten (17/78, 22 %), Beobachtungsstudien (16/78, 21 %) und Umfragen (13/78, 17 %). Für die Analyse der gesundheitszustandsspezifischen Forschungsprioritäten konnten 51 Berichte berücksichtigt werden. In 51 % dieser Berichte (26/51) wurde eine der 10 wichtigsten Forschungsprioritäten des jeweiligen Themengebiets adressiert. In den übrigen Berichten wurde keine gesundheitszustandsspezifische Forschungspriorität berücksichtigt (13/51, 25 %) oder die Priorität gehörte nicht zu den Top Ten (12/51, 24 %).

Für die Analyse der physiotherapeutischen Forschungsprioritäten wurden alle 78 Berichte berücksichtigt. In 21 % dieser Berichte (16/78) wurde eine Top-Ten-Priorität adressiert. In den übrigen Berichten wurde eine weniger wichtige Priorität adressiert (Listenplatz 11–26; 25/78, 32 %) oder das Forschungsthema des Berichts gehörte nicht zu den Top 26 (37/78, 47 %).

Schlussfolgerung Die vorliegende Studie liefert erste Hinweise darauf, dass Forschungsprioritäten in der physiotherapeutischen Forschung in Deutschland nur unzureichend berücksichtigt werden. Ein erheblicher Teil der Forschung scheint somit an den Bedürfnissen von Patient*innen und Kliniker*innen vorbeizugehen. Die Berücksichtigung existierender Forschungsprioritäten und die Entwicklung nationaler Forschungsprioritäten für die Physiotherapie in Deutschland könnten dazu beitragen, den Nutzen der physiotherapeutischen Forschung für die öffentliche Gesundheit zu vergrößern.

Abstract

Background Research priorities can help develop evidence in those areas that are most important to patients and clinicians. However, research priorities are insufficiently addressed in biomedical research.

Objective To describe how research priorities are addressed in physiotherapy research in Germany.

Method Physiotherapy reports from Germany that were published between 2011 and 2020 in the journal physioscience were analysed. For each included report, the primary research question and/or main subject area was identified and, if possible, assigned to a specific health condition. For each report, it was then checked whether a condition-specific research priority (from the James Lind Alliance or from scientific databases) or one of the top 26 physiotherapy research priorities of “The Chartered Society of Physiotherapy (CSP)” published in 2018 were addressed. The data were analysed descriptively.

Results 78 reports could be included in the analysis. The most common study types were reviews (17/78, 22 %), observational studies (16/78, 21 %) and surveys (13/78, 17 %). For the analysis of condition-specific research priorities, 51 reports were considered. In 51 % of these reports (26/51), one of the 10 most important research priorities in the respective subject area was addressed. In the other reports, no condition-specific research priority was addressed (13/51, 25 %) or the priority was not in the top ten (12/51, 24 %).

For the analysis of physiotherapy research priorities, all 78 reports were analysed. A top ten priority was addressed in 21 % of these reports (16/78). In the other reports, a less important priority was addressed (ranking 11–26; 25/78, 32 %) or the main subject area did not belong to the top 26 (37/78, 47 %).

Conclusion The present study provides first evidence that research priorities in physiotherapeutic research in Germany are addressed insufficiently. Thus, a significant part of research fails to address the needs of patients and clinicians. Taking existing research priorities into account and developing national research priorities for physiotherapy in Germany could help increase the public health benefits of physiotherapy research.

Schlüsselwörter

Physiotherapie - Forschungsprioritäten - James Lind Alliance - Behandlungsunsicherheit - Evidenzunsicherheit - Patient*innen- und Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung - Priorisierung - Forschungsagenda

Key words

physiotherapy - research priorities - James Lind Alliance - treatment uncertainties - evidence uncertainties - patient and public involvement - prioritization - research agenda

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 01. Juli 2021

Angenommen: 21. September 2021

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
12. Januar 2022

• Literatur

• 1 Stewart RJ, Caird J, Oliver K. et al. Patients’ and clinicians’ research priorities. Health Expect 2011; 14: 439-448 DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00648.x.
• 2 Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. [The Lancet, 374, 86–89.]. The Lancet 2009; 374: 86-89 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60329-9.
• 3 Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B. et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. The Lancet 2014; 383: 156-165 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62229-1.
• 4 Manafò E, Petermann L, Vandall-Walker V. et al. Patient and public engagement in priority setting: A systematic rapid review of the literature. PLoS One 2018; 13: e0193579 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193579.
• 5 Tong A, Synnot A, Crowe S. et al. Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE). BMC Med Res Methodol 2019; 19: 243 DOI: 10.1186/s12874-019-0889-3.
• 6 Levelink M, Voigt-Barbarowicz M, Brütt AL. Priorities of patients, caregivers and health-care professionals for health research – a systematic review. Health Expect 2020; 23: 992-1006 DOI: 10.1111/hex.13090.
• 7 Chalmers I, Atkinson P, Badenoch D. et al. The James Lind Initiative: books, websites and databases to promote critical thinking about treatment claims, 2003 to 2018. Res Involv Engagem 2019; 5: 6 DOI: 10.1186/s40900-019-0138-2.
• 8 Deane KHO, Flaherty H, Daley DJ. et al. Priority setting partnership to identify the top 10 research priorities for the management of Parkinson’s disease. BMJ Open 2014; 4: e006434 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006434.
• 9 Bethell J, Puts MTE, Sattar S. et al. The Canadian Frailty Priority Setting Partnership: Research Priorities for Older Adults Living with Frailty. Can Geriatr J 2019; 22: 23-33 DOI: 10.5770/cgj.22.336.
• 10 Millar A, Hanson HM, Wagg A. Seniors Health Strategic Clinical Network: Age proofing Alberta through innovation. CMAJ 2019; 191: S19-S21 DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.190580.
• 11 Rankin G, Summers R, Cowan K. et al. Identifying Priorities for Physiotherapy Research in the UK: the James Lind Alliance Physiotherapy Priority Setting Partnership. Physiotherapy 2020; 107: 161-168 DOI: 10.1016/j.physio.2019.07.006.
• 12 Abderhalden C, Hahn S, Hantikainen V. et al. Forschungsprioritäten für die Pflege in der Psychiatrie. Pflege 2008; 21: 453-477 DOI: 10.1024/1012-5302.21.6.453.
• 13 Nasser M, Welch V, Ueffing E. et al. Evidence in agenda setting: new directions for the Cochrane Collaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 2013; 66: 469-471 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.08.006.
• 14 Heise KF. Prioritäten der physiotherapeutischen Forschung. Physioscience 2013; 9: 45-46 DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1335490.
• 15 Ewers M, Grewe T, Höppner H. et al. Forschung in den Gesundheitsfachberufen. Dtsch med Wochenschr 2012; 137: S37-S73 DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1305035.
• 16 Goldstein MS, Scalzitti DA, Craik RL. et al. The revised research agenda for physical therapy. Phys Ther 2011; 91: 165-174 DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20100248.
• 17 Nast I, Tal A, Schmid S. et al. Physiotherapy Research Priorities in Switzerland: Views of the Various Stakeholders. Physiother Res Int 2016; 21: 137-146 DOI: 10.1002/pri.1621.
• 18 Crowe S, Fenton M, Hall M. et al. Patients’, clinicians’ and the research communities’ priorities for treatment research: there is an important mismatch. Res Involv Engagem 2015; 1: 2 DOI: 10.1186/s40900-015-0003-x.
• 19 Tallon D, Chard J, Dieppe P. Relation between agendas of the research community and the research consumer. The Lancet 2000; 355: 2037-2040 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02351-5.
• 20 Chalmers I, Essali A, Rezk E. et al. Is academia meeting the needs of non-academic users of the results of research?. The Lancet 2012; 380: S43 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60219-6.
• 21 Jun M, Manns B, Laupacis A. et al. Assessing the extent to which current clinical research is consistent with patient priorities: a scoping review using a case study in patients on or nearing dialysis. Can J Kidney Health Dis 2015; 2: 35 DOI: 10.1186/s40697-015-0070-9.
• 22 Sebastianski M, Gates M, Gates A. et al. Evidence available for patient-identified priorities in depression research: results of 11 rapid responses. BMJ Open 2019; 9: e026847 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026847.
• 23 Arnolds S, Heckermann S, Koch C. et al. How do patients’ preferences compare to the present spectrum of diabetes research?. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 2013; 121: 60-63 DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1323776.
• 24 Boddy K, Cowan K, Gibson A. et al. Does funded research reflect the priorities of people living with type 1 diabetes? A secondary analysis of research questions. BMJ Open 2017; 7: e016540 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016540.
• 25 Dear RF, Barratt AL, Evans A. et al. Identifying and prioritising gaps in colorectal cancer trials research in Australia. Med J Aust 2012; 197: 507-511 DOI: 10.5694/mja12.10623.
• 26 Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021; 372: n71 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n71.
• 27 Röhrig B, Du Prel JB, Wachtlin D. et al. Studientypen in der medizinischen Forschung. Deutsches Ärzteblatt 2009; 106: 262-268
• 28 Coronado RA, Riddle DL, Wurtzel WA. et al. Bibliometric analysis of articles published from 1980 to 2009 in Physical Therapy, journal of the American Physical Therapy Association. Phys Ther 2011; 91: 642-655 DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20100267.
• 29 Jesus TS, Gianola S, Castellini G. et al. Evolving Trends in Physiotherapy Research Publications between 1995 and 2015. Physiother Can 2020; 72: 122-131 DOI: 10.3138/ptc-2018-0065.
• 30 The James Lind Alliance, Priority Setting Partnership, Ed.. Im Internet (Stand: 16.02.2021): www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/
• 31 Pollock A, St George B, Fenton M. et al. Top 10 research priorities relating to life after stroke – consensus from stroke survivors, caregivers, and health professionals. Int J Stroke 2014; 9: 313-320 DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-4949.2012.00942.x.
• 32 Bourne AM, Johnston RV, Cyril S. et al. Scoping review of priority setting of research topics for musculoskeletal conditions. BMJ Open 2018; 8: e023962 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023962.
• 33 da Costa LCM, Koes BW, Pransky G. et al. Primary care research priorities in low back pain: an update. Spine 2013; 38: 148-156 DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318267a92f.
• 34 Jaramillo A, Welch VA, Ueffing E. et al. Prevention and self-management interventions are top priorities for osteoarthritis systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2013; 66: 503-510.e4 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.06.017.
• 35 Gierisch JM, Myers ER, Schmit KM. et al. Prioritization of patient-centered comparative effectiveness research for osteoarthritis. Ann Int Med 2014; 160: 836-841 DOI: 10.7326/M14-0318.
• 36 MacDermid JC, Fess EE, Bell-Krotoski J. et al. A research agenda for hand therapy. J Hand Ther 2002; 15: 3-15 DOI: 10.1053/hanthe.2002.v15.0153.
• 37 Ota S, Cron RQ, Schanberg LE. et al. Research priorities in pediatric rheumatology: The Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) consensus. Pediatr Rheumatol 2008; 6: 5 DOI: 10.1186/1546-0096-6-5.
• 38 Giangregorio LM, MacIntyre NJ, Heinonen A. et al. Too Fit to Fracture: a consensus on future research priorities in osteoporosis and exercise. Osteoporos Int 2014; 25: 1465-1472 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-014-2652-2.
• 39 Digiovanni C, Banerjee R, Villareal R. Foot and Ankle Research Priority 2005: report from the Research Council of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society. Foot & ankle international 2006; 27: 133-134 DOI: 10.1177/107110070602700211.
• 40 Rushton A, Moore A. International identification of research priorities for postgraduate theses in musculoskeletal physiotherapy using a modified Delphi technique. Man Ther 2010; 15: 142-148 DOI: 10.1016/j.math.2009.09.003.
• 41 Jung M, Wachter S, Tomczak M. Einzelfallstudie über die Effekte von Spiegeltherapie auf die motorische Funktionsfähigkeit bei einem Kind mit Hemiparese. Physioscience 2017; 13: 65-72 DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1567189.
• 42 Morris C, Simkiss D, Busk M. et al. Setting research priorities to improve the health of children and young people with neurodisability: a British Academy of Childhood Disability-James Lind Alliance Research Priority Setting Partnership. BMJ Open 2015; 5: e006233 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006233.
• 43 McKenna H, McDonough S, McDonnell R. et al. The Identification of Research Priorities for Therapy Professions in Ireland. Main Report. Dublin: Health Research Board and the Department of Health and Children; 2010
• 44 James Lind Alliance, Priority Setting Partnership, Ed. Physiotherapy Top 10. Southampton; UK 2020. Im Internet (Stand: 22.08.2021): www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/priority-setting-partnerships/physiotherapy/Physiotherapy-top-10-priorities.htm
• 45 Graham L, Illingworth B, Showell M. et al. Research priority setting in women’s health: a systematic review. BJOG 2020; 127: 694-700 DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.16150.
• 46 Odgers HL, Tong A, Lopez-Vargas P. et al. Research priority setting in childhood chronic disease: a systematic review. Arch Dis Child 2018; 103: 942-951 DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2017-314631.
• 47 Braun T, Rieckmann A, Weber F. et al. Current use of measurement instruments by physiotherapists working in Germany. A cross-sectional online survey. BMC Health Serv Res 2018; 18: 810 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-018-3563-2.
• 48 Rankin G, Rushton A, Olver P. et al. Chartered Society of Physiotherapy’s identification of national research priorities for physiotherapy using a modified Delphi technique. Physiotherapy 2012; 98: 260-272 DOI: 10.1016/j.physio.2012.03.002.
• 49 Reed DA, Cook DA, Beckman TJ. et al. Association between funding and quality of published medical education research. JAMA 2007; 298: 1002-1009 DOI: 10.1001/jama.298.9.1002.
• 50 Royle P, Kandala NB, Barnard K. et al. Bibliometrics of systematic reviews: analysis of citation rates and journal impact factors. Sys Rev 2013; 2: 74 DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-2-74.
• 51 Bryant J, Sanson-Fisher R, Walsh J. et al. Health research priority setting in selected high income countries: a narrative review of methods used and recommendations for future practice. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2014; 12: 23 DOI: 10.1186/1478-7547-12-23.