BibTex format
@article{Nutbeam:2026:10.1186/s13049-026-01628-y,
author = {Nutbeam, T and Cottey, L and Dungay, K and Rodgers, LR and Foote, E and Leech, C and Baker, CE and Box, E and Johnson, L and Lee, B and MacQueen, M and Fenwick, R and Lang, N and Guy, I and Marritt, I and Dunbar, I and Barnard, EBG and Mini, -Review Authors},
doi = {10.1186/s13049-026-01628-y},
journal = {Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med},
title = {Identifying research priorities for post-collision care in the United Kingdom: outcomes and methodological adaptations from the final prioritisation workshop.},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-026-01628-y},
year = {2026}
}
RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)
TY - JOUR
AB - BACKGROUND: Road traffic injury remains a leading cause of death and serious injury in the United Kingdom, yet the post-collision phase of care has received comparatively little research attention. The Road Injury Chain of Survival framework identifies five interdependent links where coordinated action can improve outcomes. To address evidence gaps across this pathway, we conducted the first UK Priority Setting Partnership focused specifically on post-collision care, following James Lind Alliance methodology. METHODS: A national open survey collected research uncertainties from patients, carers, bystanders, clinicians, emergency responders and policy stakeholders between July and August 2025. This was supplemented by a targeted literature review identifying research uncertainties from clinical guidelines and systematic reviews. All submissions underwent evidence checking using the BestBETs methodology. The Steering Group, comprising patients with lived experience, emergency service representatives, clinicians, and researchers, conducted interim prioritisation to produce a shortlist. A final prioritisation workshop was held in November 2025, using nominal group technique across three facilitated small-group rounds followed by plenary consensus. Methodological adaptations enabled structured remote participation for contributors unable to attend due to injury-related barriers. RESULTS: In total, 179 survey submissions and 73 literature-derived questions were consolidated into 57 indicative uncertainties. Following evidence checking and interim prioritisation, 23 questions proceeded to the final workshop. Thirty-nine participants reached consensus on ten priorities. These emphasised preventable deaths and critical intervention windows, recognition of occult life-threatening injuries, multi-agency coordination, technology-assisted bystander care, automatic crash notification, first aid training effectiveness, emergency call-handler decision support, inequalities in injur
AU - Nutbeam,T
AU - Cottey,L
AU - Dungay,K
AU - Rodgers,LR
AU - Foote,E
AU - Leech,C
AU - Baker,CE
AU - Box,E
AU - Johnson,L
AU - Lee,B
AU - MacQueen,M
AU - Fenwick,R
AU - Lang,N
AU - Guy,I
AU - Marritt,I
AU - Dunbar,I
AU - Barnard,EBG
AU - Mini,-Review Authors
DO - 10.1186/s13049-026-01628-y
PY - 2026///
TI - Identifying research priorities for post-collision care in the United Kingdom: outcomes and methodological adaptations from the final prioritisation workshop.
T2 - Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med
UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-026-01628-y
UR - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/42204707
ER -