Next Article in Journal
Improvement in Psychodynamic Psychotherapy for Depression: A Qualitative Study of the Patients’ Perspective
Previous Article in Journal
Fenton Reaction-Induced Oxidative Damage to Membrane Lipids and Protective Effects of 17β-Estradiol in Porcine Ovary and Thyroid Homogenates
Previous Article in Special Issue
What Protective Health Measures Are Americans Taking in Response to COVID-19? Results from the COVID Impact Survey
Open AccessArticle

Developing an Environmental Health Sciences COVID-19 Research Agenda: Results from the NIEHS Disaster Research Response (DR2) Work Group’s Modified Delphi Method

1
Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
2
Center of Excellence in Environmental Toxicology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
3
Division of Public Health, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, USA
4
Social & Scientific Systems, Inc., Durham, NC 27703, USA
5
Contractor, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Bethesda, MD 20892, USA
6
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Bethesda, MD 20892, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(18), 6842; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17186842
Received: 20 August 2020 / Revised: 10 September 2020 / Accepted: 11 September 2020 / Published: 19 September 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Disasters and Their Consequences for Public Health)
Leveraging the community of practice recently established through the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) Disaster Research Response (DR2) working group, we used a modified Delphi method to identify and prioritize environmental health sciences Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and associated Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) research questions. Twenty-six individuals with broad expertise across a variety of environmental health sciences subdisciplines were selected to participate among 45 self-nominees. In Round 1, panelists submitted research questions and brief justifications. In Round 2, panelists rated the priority of each question on a nine-point Likert scale. Responses were trichotomized into priority categories (low priority; medium priority; and high priority). A research question was determined to meet consensus if at least 69.2% of panelists rated it within the same priority category. Research needs that did not meet consensus in round 2 were redistributed for re-rating. Fourteen questions met consensus as high priority in round 2, and an additional 14 questions met consensus as high priority in round 3. We discuss the impact and limitations of using this approach to identify and prioritize research questions in the context of a disaster response. View Full-Text
Keywords: environmental health; COVID-19; research priorities environmental health; COVID-19; research priorities
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Errett, N.A.; Howarth, M.; Shoaf, K.; Couture, M.; Ramsey, S.; Rosselli, R.; Webb, S.; Bennett, A.; Miller, A. Developing an Environmental Health Sciences COVID-19 Research Agenda: Results from the NIEHS Disaster Research Response (DR2) Work Group’s Modified Delphi Method. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6842.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop