Developing a National Trauma Research Action Plan: Results from the regulatory challenges Delphi survey.
The journal of trauma and acute care surgery · 2023-11-30 · Method & validation
Abstract
BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV.
Abstract © the authors or publisher, via PubMed. Reuse and removal
Tags
Equity & disparities · Research methods & trial conduct
Related articles
- Identifying research priorities for post-collision care in the United Kingdom: outcomes and methodological adaptations from the final prioritisation workshop. (Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med, 2026)
- Defining priorities for emergency medical services education research: A modified Delphi study. (J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open, 2023)
- Effective Community Consultation for Prehospital EFIC Research: Lessons from a 20-Site Pediatric Trial. (Prehosp Emerg Care, 2026)
- The random dialing survey as a tool for community consultation for research involving the emergency medicine exception from informed consent. (Ann Emerg Med, 2009)
- Precision emergency medicine in health care delivery and access: Framework development and research priorities. (Acad Emerg Med, 2025)
- Institutional variability in a minimal risk, population-based study: recognizing policy barriers to health services research. (Health Serv Res, 2005)