This paper describes a national initiative to establish a co-ordinated and systematic method for identifying priorities for research and development, jointly set up by the Royal College of Nursing and the Centre for Policy in Nursing Research. It uses an explicit policy-making model described by Lomas1 to outline the stages of the project. This model is also used to consider how nursing is influencing the current national clinical effectiveness and research and development agendas. Consideration is given as to whether the priority- setting exercise could make a difference to this wider policy agenda.
Lomas, J.Making policy explicit. Legislative policy-making and lessons for developing practice guidelines. Interna tional Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care1993; 9:1, 11-25.
2.
Sleep, J., Renfrew, MJ, Dunn, A. et al. Establishing priorities for research: report of a Delphi survey . British Journal of Midwifery1995; 3:6,323-330.
3.
NursingResearch Initiative for Scotland (NRIS). The Research Matrix Project (Pilot study). Final report. Glasgow: Glasgow Caledonian University: NRIS,1997.
4.
Nhs Executive .Promoting Clinical Effectiveness. A framework for action in and through theNHS. London: HMSO, 1996.
5.
Walshe, K., Ham, C.Acting on the Evidence. Progress in theNHS. University of Birmingham, Health Services Management Centre, 1997.
6.
Sackett, D.L. , Rosenberg, W.M.C., Gray, J.A.M., et at. Evidence-based medicine. What it is and what it isn't. British Medical Journal1996; 312: 71-72.
7.
Kitson, A.L.Using evidence to demonstrate the value of nursing. Nursing Standard1997; 11:28, 34-39.
8.
Department of Health. Research for Health: An R&D Strategy for the NHS. London: HMSO,1991.
9.
Green, T.Is my practice evidence-based?British Medical Journal1996; 313: 957-958.
10.
Lomas, J.Holding back the tide of Caesareans: Publishing recommendations is not enough to stop the rise. British Medical Journal1988; 297: 569-570.
11.
Lomas, J., Anderson, G.M.Explaining variations in Caesarean section rates: Patients, facilities or policies? Canadian Medical Association Journal1985;732:253-259.
12.
Lomas, J., Enkin, M., Anderson, G.M. et al. Opinion leaders vs. audit and feedback to implement practice guidelines. Delivery after previous caesarean section. Journal of theAmerican Medical Association1991; 265:2202-07.
13.
Hodnett, E., Kaufman, K., O'Brien-Pallas, LAStrategy to Promote Research-based Nursing Care: Effects on childbirth outcomes. Final Project Report. Toronto, Canada: National Health Research & Development Programme, 1994 .
14.
Cullum, N.The identification and analysis of randomised controlled trials in nursing. A prelimina ry study. Quality in Health Care (in press).
15.
Department of Health.Report of the Taskforce on the Strategy for Research in Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting. London: HMSO, 1992.
16.
Read, S.The Strategy for Research in Nursing in Eng land: Initial Impact. Nurse Researcher1994; 1: 3,72-84.
17.
Read, S.Integrating research, education and practice in nursing. Journal of Clinical Nursing1994; 3:69-70.
18.
Royal College of Nursing Research Committee.Systematic Investigation of the Role of the RCNin R&D. Paper 95 (26) June . London: RCN, 1995.
19.
McMahon, A. , Kitson, A.L.The role of a professional organisation in supporting research and development. Nursing Standard (In press).
20.
Crow, S., Steadman, S. NationalConsultation to Identify Research Priorities in Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting Education and Practice. Report of the Consultation and Outcomes. London: English National Board, 1995.
21.
McMahon, A.Implication for nursing of the NHS R&D funding policy. Nursing Standard1997; 11: 28, 44-48.
22.
McCleary; M.Identifying priorities for guideline development as a result of nursing need. DQINetwork News1997; July, No 6, pp4-5.
