Priorities

The findings of a widespread consultation exercise carried out by the CSP identified research priorities for physiotherapists in the UK. 56 research topics were agreed as priorities and these were complied into a report with seven annexes. CSP members can download the report (as discrete pdf files): please see the publication record on this website for further details. An executive summary of the report is featured further down this page.

About the report

The seven annexes of the report are:
  1. Cardiorespiratory
  2. Continuing professional development and life long learning
  3. Mental health and learning disabilities
  4. Musculoskeletal
  5. Older People
  6. Neurology
  7. Women's health and paediatrics

Each annex presents vignettes for the topics prioritised by the relevant expert panel. The vignettes set out justification for the research and include:

  • the research question
  • why the research is required
  • the patients / client group
  • the intervention / issue
  • current and projected use of the intervention / issue
  • quantity and quality of research so far
  • the potential effectiveness of the intervention/issue
  • references

The 56 priority topics will be pursued with research funders and the information in the report and annexes can be used to influence potential funders.

Please contact the Enquiry Handling Unit by phone 020 7306 6666 to order printed copies of the report - available as follows:

  • Entire publication (report and 7 annexes) - £50
  • Individual annexes - £10 each
  • Project report - £10
Back to top

Executive summary

  • This project aimed to identify priorities for physiotherapy research in the UK, building on experiences of a previous exercise carried out by the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy (CSP). The CSP's commitment to this had been made in its research and clinical effectiveness strategy (Chartered Society of Physiotherapy 1998).
  • An initial widespread consultation exercise attempted to attract suggestions from a number of different interested parties, including physiotherapists, health care commissioners, consumers and other professionals. This resulted in 309 suggested topics for research covering the breadth of physiotherapy.
  • Six expert panels were established, along with the CSP's existing continuing professional development (CPD) and life long learning (LLL) panel, to consider the topics submitted, using the nominal group technique.
  • Each panel met twice to prioritise topics using set criteria. To assist discussions short-listed topics were developed into vignettes, adapting the methodology used by the NHS National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment.
  • As a result of this process the expert panels agreed 56 topics as priorities, all of which will be pursued with research funders. These can be found in full in the panel reports produced as accompanying annexes to this report.
  • A consensus meeting, with the project steering group and representatives of each panel, excluding the CPD & LLL panel, took place to agree the overall top ten clinical research priorities. The CPD & LLL topics were kept separate from the clinical questions to ensure a focus was maintained on this area.
  • The successful completion of the project relied on the support and enthusiasm of all those who were involved and engaged with the project. The nominal group technique was an appropriate method to use and the opportunity to discuss topics was greatly valued by all panels.
  • The CSP has been awarded affiliate status with the National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment in recognition of its work on identifying research priorities and will therefore be submitting topics to this national research and development programme on an ongoing basis.
  • While the project achieved its aim of identifying priorities for physiotherapy research the success of the project in influencing research funders will need to be evaluated in the longer-term.
  • Most areas of physiotherapy are in need of substantial research and the relevance of the priorities identified will need to be re-evaluated over time, as policy and practice develop and questions are answered. Those involved in the project suggested that the exercise, or a version of it, be repeated in 3 years time.
Back to top