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

Nicole A. Errett, Marilyn Howarth, Kimberley Shoaf, Megan Couture, Steven Ramsey, Richard Rosselli, Sara Webb, April Bennett and Aubrey Miller
Additional contact information
Nicole A. Errett: Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
Marilyn Howarth: Center of Excellence in Environmental Toxicology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
Kimberley Shoaf: Division of Public Health, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, USA
Megan Couture: Social & Scientific Systems, Inc., Durham, NC 27703, USA
Steven Ramsey: Social & Scientific Systems, Inc., Durham, NC 27703, USA
Richard Rosselli: Social & Scientific Systems, Inc., Durham, NC 27703, USA
Sara Webb: Social & Scientific Systems, Inc., Durham, NC 27703, USA
April Bennett: Contractor, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Bethesda, MD 20892, USA
Aubrey Miller: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Bethesda, MD 20892, USA

IJERPH, 2020, vol. 17, issue 18, 1-11

Abstract: 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.

Keywords: environmental health; COVID-19; research priorities (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/18/6842/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/18/6842/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:18:p:6842-:d:415954

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().