Background
Prioritized research agendas are viewed internationally as an important method for ensuring that health research meets actual areas of clinical need. There is growing evidence for speech–language therapy‐prioritized research agendas, particularly in disorder‐specific areas. However, there are few general research priority agendas to guide speech–language therapy research.
Aims
To collaboratively develop a prioritized research agenda for an Australian public health context with clinical speech–language therapists (SLTs), academic SLTs and consumers of speech–language therapy services.
Methods & Procedures
An initial stimulus list of potential research areas for prioritization was collected from SLTs via an online survey. Two categories (service delivery and expanded scope of practice) were selected from this list for prioritization due to their relevance across multiple health services. The Nominal Group Technique (NGT) was used to develop a prioritized research agenda for each of the two categories. One NGT session was conducted with each of the three participant groups (clinical SLTs, academic SLTs, consumers) for each category (total NGT sessions = six). The prioritization data for each group within each category were summed to give a single, ranked prioritized research agenda for each category.
Outcomes & Results
Two prioritized research agendas were developed. Within each agenda, SLTs and consumers prioritized a need for more research in areas related to specific practice areas (e.g., Alternative and Augmentative Communication, Communication Partner Training), as well as broader professional issues (e.g., telehealth, working with culturally and linguistically diverse families).
Conclusions & Implications
The current findings support the need for funding proposals and targeted projects that address these identified areas of need.
What this paper adds
What is already known on this subject
What this paper adds to existing knowledge
A collaborative, prioritized SLT research agenda was developed using the NGT according to the views of clinical SLTs, academic SLTs and consumers of speech–language therapy services in a conglomerate of public health services. SLTs and consumers identified a need for further research in specific areas of SLT practice as well as broader emerging professional issues
What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?