An analysis of research priority-setting at the World Health Organization - how mapping to a standard template allows for comparison between research priority-setting approaches

Scoping review protocol on research prioritisation for preparedness and response to outbreaks of high consequence pathogens

Background

Prioritisation of research activities for infectious disease pathogens is usually undertaken through the identification of important research and knowledge gaps. Research prioritisation is an essential element of both effective responses to disease outbreaks and adequate preparedness. There is however currently no published mapping of activities on and evidence from research prioritisation for high consequence pathogens. The objectives of this review are to map all published research prioritisation exercises on high-consequence pathogens; provide an overview of methodologies employed for prioritising research for these pathogens; describe monitoring and evaluation processes for research areas prioritised; and identify any standards and guidance for effectively undertaking research prioritisation activities for high consequence pathogens.

Methods

The Joanna Briggs Institute guidance of scoping review conduct will be used. The search will be undertaken using the key terms of "research prioritisation", "response", "control", and related terms, and a list of high-consequence pathogens derived from WHO (2020), EMERGE (2019), Europe CDC (2022) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (2021). We will search WHO Global Index Medicus; Ovid Medline; Ovid Embase; Ovid Global Health; and Scopus. Backward citations review of the included full text documents will also be conducted. Google Scholar and Overton will be searched for grey literature. Two independent reviewers will screen the retrieved documents using Rayyan and extract data in a data extraction template in Microsoft Excel 2021. Screening results will be presented using the PRISMA-ScR template with narrative synthesis undertaken for the extracted data.

Conclusion

This review will map existing research priorities for high consequence pathogens. Further, it will provide an understanding of methodologies used for prioritisation, processes for monitoring and evaluation of progress made against research agendas, and evidence on standards that could be recommended for effective prioritisation of research for high consequence pathogens.

Aligning Cancer Research Priorities in Europe with Recommendations for Conquering Cancer: A Comprehensive Analysis

Improvements in cancer care require a new degree of collaboration beyond the purely medical sphere, extending deeply into the world of other stakeholders-preeminently patients but also the other stakeholders in the hardware and software of care. Cancer remains a global health challenge, necessitating collaborative efforts to understand, prevent, and treat this complex disease. To achieve this goal, a comprehensive analysis was conducted, aligning the prioritization of cancer research measures in 13 European countries with 13 key recommendations for conquering cancer in the region. The study utilized a survey involving both patients and citizens, alongside data from IQVIA, a global healthcare data provider, to assess the availability and access to single-biomarker tests in multiple European countries. The results revealed a focused approach toward understanding, preventing, and treating cancer, with each country emphasizing specific research measures tailored to its strengths and healthcare objectives. This analysis highlights the intricate relationship between research priorities, access to biomarker tests, and financial support. Timely access to tests and increased availability positively influence research areas such as cancer prevention, early detection, ageing, and data utilization. The alignment of these country-specific measures with 13 recommendations for conquering cancer in Europe underscores the importance of tailored strategies for understanding, preventing, and treating cancer.

A shared agenda for gender and COVID-19 research: priorities based on broadening engagement in science

While the acute and collective crisis from the pandemic is over, an estimated 2.5 million people died from COVID-19 in 2022, tens of millions suffer from long COVID and national economies still reel from multiple deprivations exacerbated by the pandemic. Sex and gender biases deeply mark these evolving experiences of COVID-19, impacting the quality of science and effectiveness of the responses deployed. To galvanise change by strengthening evidence-informed inclusion of sex and gender in COVID-19 practice, we led a virtual collaboration to articulate and prioritise gender and COVID-19 research needs. In addition to standard prioritisation surveys, feminist principles mindful of intersectional power dynamics underpinned how we reviewed research gaps, framed research questions and discussed emergent findings. The collaborative research agenda-setting exercise engaged over 900 participants primarily from low/middle-income countries in varied activities. The top 21 research questions included the importance of the needs of pregnant and lactating women and information systems that enable sex-disaggregated analysis. Gender and intersectional aspects to improving vaccine uptake, access to health services, measures against gender-based violence and integrating gender in health systems were also prioritised. These priorities are shaped by more inclusive ways of working, which are critical for global health as it faces further uncertainties in the aftermath of COVID-19. It remains imperative to address the basics in gender and health (sex-disaggregated data and sex-specific needs) and also advance transformational goals to advance gender justice across health and social policies, including those related to global research.

Self-management interventions for adults living with obesity to improve patient-relevant outcomes: An evidence map

OBJECTIVES

To conduct an evidence map on self-management interventions and patient-relevant outcomes for adults living with overweight/obesity.

METHODS

Following Arksey and O'Malley methodology, we searched in five electronical databases including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on SMIs for overweight/obesity. We used the terms "self-management", "adult" and "obesity" for content. Two independent reviewers assessed eligible references; one reviewer extracted data, a second checked accuracy.

RESULTS

We identified 497 RCTs (58% US, 20% Europe) including 99,741 (median 112, range 11-5145) adults living with overweight/obesity. Most research evaluated clinical outcomes (617, 55%) and behaviors adherence (255, 23%). Empowerment skills, quality of life and satisfaction were less targeted (8%, 7%, 0.2%, respectively). The most frequent techniques included sharing information (858, 99%), goal setting (619, 72%) and self-monitoring training (614, 71%), provided face-to-face (386, 45%) or in combination with remote techniques (256, 30%). Emotional management, social support and shared-decision were less frequent (18%, 26%, 4%). Socio-economic status, minorities or health literacy were seldom reported.

CONCLUSION

There is a need of widening the scope of research by focusing on outcomes important to patients, assessing emotional/social/share-decision support, exploring remote techniques and including vulnerable populations.

Establishing the research priorities for major trauma in the United Kingdom: A Delphi study of nurses and allied health professionals

BACKGROUND

Research prioritisation exercises are used to determine which areas of research are important. In major trauma care, nurses and allied health professionals are central to the delivery of evidence-based care but their opinions on research priorities are under-represented in the literature. We aimed to identify the research priorities of major trauma nurses and allied health professionals in the UK.

METHODS

A three-round electronic Delphi study was conducted in the UK between November 2019 and May 2021. Round one aimed to generate research questions with rounds two and three questions in order of priority. In stages two and three responses were analysed using descriptive statistics to compute frequencies and proportions for the ranking of each question.

RESULTS

Survey rounds were completed by 180, 100 and 91 respondents respectively. The first round generated 285 statements that were condensed into 71 research questions. Analysis of rankings in subsequent rounds prioritised 54 research questions across themes of adult / children's acute care, psychological care and workforce, training and education.

DISCUSSION

Nurses and AHPs are well-positioned to determine research priorities in major trauma care. Focusing on these priorities will guide future research and help to build an evidence-base in trauma care.

Mental health service accessibility, development and research priority setting in Cambodia - a post-conflict nation

BACKGROUND

The limited health and social care infrastructure that existed in the 1970s in Cambodia was destroyed due to the Khmer Rouge. Mental Health service infrastructures have developed in Cambodia in the last twenty five years, however, they have been shaped significantly by very limited funding being made available for human resources, support services and research. The lack of research on Cambodia's mental health systems and services is a significant barrier to the development of evidence-based mental health policies and practice. In order to address this barrier, effective research and development strategies are needed in Cambodia, which are based on locally well-informed research priorities. There are many possibilities for mental health research in LMIC countries such as Cambodia, therefore focused research priorities in these areas are needed to guide future research investment. This paper is the result of the development of international collaborative workshops, which focused on service mapping and research priority setting in the field of mental health in Cambodia.

METHODS

A nominal group technique was used to gather ideas and insights from a range of key mental health service stakeholders in Cambodia.

RESULTS

The key issues in service provisions for people with mental health issues and disorders, the interventions and programmes of support available, and currently needed, were identified. This paper also identifies five key mental health research priority areas which could form the basis for effective mental health research and development strategies in Cambodia.

CONCLUSION

There is a clear need for the Cambodian government to devise a clear policy framework for health research. This framework could focus on the five research domains identified in this paper and could be incorporated within its National Health Strategic plans. The implementation of this approach would likely lead to the development of an evidence base which would allow the development of effective and sustainable strategies for mental health problem prevention and intervention. This would also contribute to promote the Cambodian government's capacity to take the deliberate, concrete, and targeted steps necessary to address the complex mental health needs of its population.

Research priority setting in plastic and reconstructive surgery: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The health research agenda has historically been led by researchers; however, their priorities may not necessarily align with those of patients, caregivers and clinicians. Research priority setting initiatives identify and prioritise topics which lack evidence. This is particularly important in plastic surgery, a speciality lacking high-quality evidence to definitively answer many common clinical questions. Research priorities direct research activity and funding, so their selection process must be representative and transparent. This review appraised all priority setting initiatives in plastic surgery using the reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE).

METHODS

OVID Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and the James Lind Alliance (JLA) repository were searched (inception - 11/06/21) using search terms for 'research priority setting' and 'plastic and reconstructive surgery'. Dual-author screening and data extraction were conducted, according to PRISMA.

RESULTS

Of 3899 de-duplicated citations, 17 were included. Most studies were conducted in national (14/17), high-income (16/17) settings. More priority setting initiatives focussed on burns (6/17) and hand surgery (4/17) than other subspecialties. The JLA (5/17) and qualitative (5/17) approaches were most used for prioritisation, followed by Delphi techniques (3/17), other surveys (3/17) and mixed methods (1/17). A minority included patient (8/17) or multi-disciplinary (8/17) stakeholders. Few reported strategies for implementing research priorities (6/17) or measuring their impact (2/17).

CONCLUSIONS

Stakeholders from lower-income countries are underrepresented in priority setting initiatives for plastic surgery, despite the global burden of disease. Future studies should recruit more patient and multidisciplinary stakeholders, to achieve meaningful consensus. Clear implementation strategies are needed to maximise impact.

Mental health and disability research priorities and capacity needs in Ghana: findings from a rapid review and research priority ranking survey

Background

Identification of national research agendas for mental health and disability can be supported by well-designed research priority-setting studies. Few low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have undertaken such studies.

Objective

To identify mental health and disability research priorities in Ghana.

Methods

A mixed methods study comprising a rapid review, research priority ranking survey, and research capacity needs assessment survey was employed. Participants in the surveys included five expert pools identified from online search and existing database on mental health civil society organisations/non-governmental organisations. The research priority ranking was completed in two stages, using the Child and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method to identify priority questions for immediate and short term (0 to 5 years) and medium to long term (>5 years) in stage two. Both surveys were deployed online using google forms. Analysis for the ranking survey involved computing total scores from the CHNRI criteria and generating ranks for the research questions.

Results

A total of 68 experts (97% response rate), generated 94 and 92 questions for the short and long term, respectively. Forty experts (58% response rate) completed the ranking stage. The top 10 ranked research questions included: 4 questions addressing health systems; 2 questions on epidemiology; and 4 questions on interventions. All research questions were considered urgent and should be conducted in the immediate to short term (0–5 years). The methodological capacity of researchers to conduct disability and mental health research is weak.

Conclusion

Our approach has generated an agenda for mental health and disability research priorities for Ghana and demonstrated that it is feasible to employ a systematic methodology for research priority setting that includes key parameters of context and research capacity.

Lack of systematicity in research prioritisation processes - a scoping review of evidence syntheses

BACKGROUND

A systematically and transparently prepared research priority-setting process within a specific scientific area is essential in order to develop a comprehensive and progressive evidence-based approach that will have a substantial societal impact on the site of interest. On the basis of two consensus workshops, the authors suggest the following methods for all such processes: use of experts, stakeholder involvement, literature review, and ranking.

OBJECTIVES

The identification, categorisation, and discussion of methods for preparing a research prioritisation process.

METHODS

Eligibility criteria: Evidence synthesis includes original studies presenting a research prioritisation process and which listed the methods used to create a research prioritisation process. Only evidence syntheses related to health research were included.

DATA SOURCES

We searched the following electronic databases, without limiting by date or language: MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Epistemonikos, and CINAHL EBSCO.

CHARTING METHODS

The methods used were mapped and broken down into different elements, and the use of the elements was determined. To support the mapping, (A) all of the elements were collapsed into unique categories, and (B) four essential categories were selected as crucial to a successful research prioritisation process.

RESULTS

Twelve evidence syntheses were identified, including 416 original studies. The identification and categorisation of methods used resulted in 13 unique categories of methods used to prepare a research agenda.

CONCLUSION

None of the identified categories was used in all of the original studies. Surprisingly, all four of the essential categories were used in only one of the 416 original studies identified. There is seemingly no international consensus on which methods to use when preparing a research prioritisation process.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

The protocol was registered in Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/dygz8/ ).

Comparing international dementia research priorities-Systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Research priority setting aims to collate stakeholder opinion to determine the most pressing research questions. Priority setting exercises influence decisions around research funding, development and policy. We compared published dementia research priority setting exercises from international healthcare systems.

METHODS

Four multidisciplinary, international, electronic databases were searched for relevant studies (2010 until 2021). Priorities were extracted, coded and assigned to categories using thematic analysis. The Nine Common Themes of Good Practice (9CTGP) and the Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE) checklists were used to assess methodological and reporting quality respectively.

RESULTS

From 265 titles, 10 priority setting exercises (1179 participants, 147 priorities) were included. Studies spanned four continents and the majority included people living with dementia and their care-givers in the priority setting process (68%). Only one paper met all the best practice indicators. Issues around inclusiveness, implementation and evaluation of the priorities were apparent in nine papers. We categorised priorities under eight themes: caregivers (25%, n = 37), support (24%, n = 35), awareness and education (16%, n = 24), drugs and interventions (14%, n = 21), diagnosis (8%, n = 12), pathology (6%, n = 9), research design (5%, n = 7), and prevention (1%, n = 2). Priorities varied by geographical region, with awareness and education of higher priority in low-middle income countries, compared to caregivers and support in high income countries.

CONCLUSIONS

Key priorities were identified with some commonality around themes considered of greatest importance. There is scope to improve the process and reporting of priority setting. Priorities differed according to contextual factors and so, priorities specific to one healthcare setting may not be applicable to others.

Health Research Priority Agenda for Ministry of Health, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from 2020 to 2025

Method

The current study applied e-Delphi technique via online self-administered questionnaire was distributing to headquarter, and 16 health affairs directorates spanning 75 hospitals and specialized health centers, 24 primary health-care centers, 2 health-care clusters, and 5 medical cities. In addition, community involvement was represented by 26 organizations: 7 universities, 9 scientific health associations, 5 charitable associations, and 5 key Saudi health partner organizations. Research field’s prioritization was performed by ranking weighed mean aggregate score via application of the combined consensus and metrics-based approach. Then the top five research topics were analyzed, verified, refined and classified into specific health research themes.

Results

The study included 2252 participants and attained a 90% response rate. The study deliverables were listed into two research priority domains: health system research priorities (1st agenda) and diseases and health problems priorities (2nd agenda). Overall, the types of the top five research priorities in the first agenda included service delivery (40.9%), health workforce (14.4%), governance and leadership (13.0%) ,preparedness and response to disasters and emergency (10.2%), health information systems (9.3%), access to essential medicines products and vaccines (6.97%), and financing (5.1%). On the other hand, the top five research priority areas in the second agenda were non-communicable diseases (16.9%), child and neonatal health (15.9%), medications (13.6%), women health (10.4%), dental health (10.4%). furthermore, biomedical and radiology technology and devices (5.6%), communicable diseases (3.7%), nutrition (3.2%), trauma and general management (3.2%), innovative approaches (2.4%), emergency management (2.7%), physical therapy and rehabilitation (2.3%), public health (2.3%), holistic approaches to health and wellness, behavior and lifestyle (1.5%), environmental health (0.6%),pilgrims’ health (0.6%), geriatric health (0.3%), and family medicine (0.3%).

Conclusion

Adequate description of the stakeholders and methodology can strengthen legitimacy and credibility and maximize the impact of the priority-setting process. Involvement of policymakers, researchers and funding organizations increases the opportunity of translation into actual research, supports redesigning the research landscape and ensures uptake of results and integration.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s44197-022-00061-5.

Developing an obesity research agenda with British Pakistani women living in deprived areas with involvement from multisectoral stakeholders: Research priority setting with a seldom heard group

INTRODUCTION

British Pakistani women have exceptionally high rates of obesity and yet are seldom heard in a research priority setting concerning weight management. The objectives of this study were (i) to ascertain what multisectoral professionals perceive to be the most pressing unmet obesity needs or topic areas that need more research in relation to Pakistani women living in deprived areas of Bradford and (ii) to determine the top 10 obesity health priorities for this group to develop an obesity research agenda.

METHODS

A two-step process was adopted using the following: (i) a survey of a wide range of multisectoral professional stakeholders (n = 159) and (ii) a ranking exercise involving Pakistani women living in deprived areas of Bradford (n = 32) to select and prioritize their top 10 obesity health concerns and unmet needs from a list of 31 statements identified in the survey and previous research. Survey data were analysed using inductive content analysis and themes were identified. Themes were translated into statements to be ranked by Pakistani women. The ranking exercise was conducted by telephone either via voice or video call. Data were analysed using a reverse scoring system.

RESULTS

Survey responses were grouped into statements reflecting the following three categories: education needs; healthy behaviour barriers and mental well-being. The highest rankings were given by Pakistani women to statements on mental health and the need for education. The top 10 prioritized statements were developed with members of the public into an obesity research agenda that reflected the target population.

CONCLUSION

Actively engaging British Pakistani women in setting research priorities provided a unique opportunity to understand the key areas they think are important for future research. The culminating research agenda can be used by researchers to advance the field of obesity research in Pakistani communities, thus producing research outputs that are relevant to and have impact in this population.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Participants in the ranking exercise collected data. Public contributors were involved in developing the prioritized statements into a research agenda.

Exploring the obesity concerns of British Pakistani women living in deprived inner-city areas: A qualitative study

Introduction

British South Asians have a higher prevalence of overweight and obesity than the wider population. Bradford (UK), with its high Pakistani presence and levels of economic deprivation, has exceptionally high instances, especially in deprived areas where many Pakistanis reside. British Pakistani women in Bradford are more likely to be overweight and obese. There is uncertainty on how these women can be aided to manage their weight. Therefore, the objective of this study was to explore the obesity concerns of Pakistani women living in deprived inner‐city areas of Bradford.

Methods

Three focus groups interviews were carried out with 23 Pakistani women living in deprived areas of Bradford. Data were analysed thematically.

Results

This exploratory study identified a wide range of concerns that women had around managing their weight. Participants disclosed distrust in information given around medication, conflicting dietary information and reported low levels of trust in women‐only organized physical activities. Cultural barriers were identified, which included the gender role of the woman, the lack of culturally appropriate dietary advice, cultural misunderstandings of what constitutes a healthy diet and healthy weight, the lack of culturally suitable exercise facilities and conforming to family and community expectations. Other concerns were language barriers around a lack of understanding, the inability to read Urdu and reliance on others to translate information.

Conclusion

These findings have implications for researchers, local authorities, policy makers and others with an interest in reducing the rates of obesity in this population. Recommendations include training health practitioners to be culturally aware of the diet and eating practices of this community, exploring different ways to support socially isolated women to be more physically active at home, addressing physical activity and diet misconceptions and designing obesity management information materials appropriate for a range of literacy levels.

Patient or Public Contribution

Public contributors were involved in the development of the interview guide and design of the research. A pilot focus group with participants not included in the present paper was used to help test and refine the focus group questions. Interview transcripts were member checked by participants, and participants assisted with data analysis.

What do we know about evidence-informed priority setting processes to set population-level health-research agendas: an overview of reviews

BACKGROUND

This overview aimed to synthesize existing systematic reviews to produce a draft framework of evidence-informed health priority setting that supports countries in identifying appropriate steps and methods when developing and implementing national research agendas.

MAIN BODY

We searched Ovid MEDLINE® and the WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing from 2010 to 2020 for critical or systematic reviews that evaluated research priority setting exercises. We adapted the AMSTAR checklist to assess the quality of included reviews and used adapted frameworks for data extraction and analysis. The search resulted in 2395 titles, of which 31 were included. Populations included in the reviews typically involved patients, families and carers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and research funders. The topics covered in the reviews varied from specific diseases or conditions, approaches for healthcare practice or research priority setting methods itself. All the included systematic reviews were of low or critically low quality. The studies were thematically grouped based on their main focus: identifying and engaging with stakeholders; methods; context; and health area.

CONCLUSION

Our overview of reviews has reconfirmed aspects of existing frameworks, but has also identified new concepts for countries to consider while developing their national research agendas. We propose a preliminary framework for consideration that highlights four key phases: (1) preparatory, (2) priority setting, (3) follow-up phase and (4) sustainability phase, which have thirteen sub-domains to consider.

Priorities for Future Research About Screen Use and Adolescent Mental Health: A Participatory Prioritization Study

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to identify research priorities for future research on screen use and adolescent mental health, from the perspectives of young people, parents/carers, and teachers.

METHODS

The study design was informed by the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership approach. A three-stage consensus-based process of consultation to identify research priorities using qualitative and quantitative methods. Research was guided by a steering group comprising researchers, third sector partners, clinicians, parents/carers and young people. A Young People's Advisory Group contributed at each stage.

RESULTS

Initial steps generated 26 research questions of importance to children and young people; these were ranked by 357 participants (229 children and young people and 128 adults). Consensus was reached for the prioritization of four topics for future research: (i) the impact of exposure to adult content on young people's mental health and relationships; (ii) the relationship between screen use and the well-being of young people from vulnerable groups; (iii) the impact of screen use on brain development; and (iv) the relationship between screen use and sleep.Additionally, young participants prioritized questions about online bullying, advertisements targeting young people, and the relationship between social media and specific mental health conditions. Research topics of interest arising specifically during the pandemic included the effects on adolescent mental health of exposure to constant news updates and online racial bias, and how young people take part in activism online.

CONCLUSION

These findings will enable researchers and funders to conduct research that is needs-oriented and relevant to the target audience.

Identifying priorities for sport and physical activity research in Canada: an iterative priority-setting study

BACKGROUND

There is a need for better alignment between research on sport and physical activity and the needs of those who are in a position to implement the findings. To facilitate advancement and alignment, we identified the top research priorities of sport and physical activity knowledge users from various sectors.

METHODS

For this priority-setting study, we used an iterative process of data collection and analysis. Sport and physical activity knowledge users from multiple sectors participated in a workshop (September 2019), which included small working group exercises followed by large-group syntheses leading to the identification of issues that required better understanding. We then sent an online questionnaire to participants for content validation and interim prioritization, to reduce the number of priorities (December 2019 to January 2020). A new questionnaire containing a shortened list of research priorities was sent to an expanded group of respondents to further streamline the list of priorities (January-March 2020).

RESULTS

The 24 workshop participants identified 68 issues, of which 21 were retained by the 18 participants in the interim priority-setting questionnaire. The final prioritization questionnaire was completed by 33 stakeholder groups; this step produced a final list of 8 top research priorities. The final priorities identified for sport and physical activity research related to financial support, suboptimal promotion, dropout, best interventions, participation among Indigenous populations, volunteer engagement, safe and inclusive experiences, and knowledge exchange.

INTERPRETATION

The 8 priorities identified in this study provide guidance to Canadian sport and physical activity researchers. Research efforts on these priorities will reflect pressing issues as identified by representatives of all sport and physical activity sectors.

Research priority setting in obesity: a systematic review

AIM

Obesity research priority setting, if conducted to a high standard, can help promote policy-relevant and efficient research. Therefore, there is a need to identify existing research priority setting studies conducted in the topic area of obesity and to determine the extent to which they followed good practice principles for research priority setting.

METHOD

Studies examining research priority setting in obesity were identified through searching the MEDLINE, PBSC, CINAHL, PsycINFO databases and the grey literature. The nine common themes of good practice in research priority setting were used as a methodological framework to evaluate the processes of the included studies. These were context, use of a comprehensive approach, inclusiveness, information gathering, planning for implementation, criteria, methods for deciding on priorities, evaluation and transparency.

RESULTS

Thirteen articles reporting research prioritisation exercises conducted in different areas of obesity research were included. All studies reported engaging with various stakeholders such as policy makers, researchers and healthcare professionals. Public involvement was included in six studies. Methods of research prioritisation commonly included both Delphi and nominal group techniques and surveys. None of the 13 studies fulfilled all nine of the good practice criteria for research priority setting, with the most common limitations including not using a comprehensive approach and lack of inclusivity and evaluating on their processes.

CONCLUSION

There is a need for research priority setting studies in obesity to involve the public and to evaluate their exercises to ensure they are of high quality.

Improving Food Systems: A Participatory Consultation Exercise to Determine Priority Research and Action Areas in Viet Nam

With increased burden of malnutrition on global health, there is a need to set clear and transparent priorities for action in food systems at a global and local level. While priority settings methods are available for several adjacent domains, such as nutrition and health policies, setting priorities for food system research has not been documented and streamlined. The challenges involve food systems' multisector, multi-stakeholder and multi-outcome nature. Where data exists, it is not easy to aggregate data from across food system dimensions and stakeholders to make an informed analysis of the overall picture of the food system, as well as current and potential food system trade-offs to inform research and policy. Once research priorities are set, they risk staying on paper and never make their ways to concrete outputs and outcomes. In this paper, we documented and assessed the inclusive process of setting research priorities for a local food system, taking Vietnamese food systems as a case study. From this exercise, we examined how priority setting for food systems research could learn from and improve upon earlier priority setting research practices in other domains. We discussed the lessons for research and policies in local food systems, such as the need for a concrete follow-up plan accompanying the priority setting process.

Future directions for HIV service delivery research: Research gaps identified through WHO guideline development

Nathan Ford and co-authors discuss the systematic identification of research gaps in improving HIV service delivery.

A clinical research priority setting study for issues related to the use of methamphetamine and emerging drugs of concern in Australia

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to gather a range of opinions, including those of affected people (consumers, concerned others) to identify clinical research priorities for methamphetamine and emerging drugs of concern in Australia, to guide the work of the National Centre for Clinical Research on Emerging Drugs (NCCRED).

METHODS

A priority setting study was conducted (February-March 2019) in four phases: online stakeholder survey, thematic analysis of responses, rapid literature review, expert panel ranking of priorities against predetermined criteria.

RESULTS

Forty-seven respondents completed the survey, including people identifying as one or more of: researcher (53%, n = 25), clinician (45%; n = 21), family/friend/caregiver of someone who uses methamphetamine/emerging drugs (15%, n = 7) and consumer of methamphetamine/emerging drugs (13%, n = 6). Expert panel, evidence-informed top-ranked clinical research priorities for methamphetamine were: strategies to overcome barriers to intervention uptake, pilot medication trials for adults seeking treatment, and communication strategies regarding evidence-based treatments. For emerging drugs of concern, top-ranked priorities were: piloting community-located drug checking, feasibility of social media/other opportunities to alert consumers of emerging risks, GHB overdose and withdrawal management, and impacts of an early warning information system on reducing harms.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate feasibility of a structured, collaborative clinical research priority setting process. Results have informed the establishment of NCCRED; using the identified priorities to guide seed funding, fellowships/scholarships and research programs. Broader uptake of this methodology by policymakers/research funders would assist to embed areas of concern identified by affected communities and other stakeholders in research prioritisation.

Rapid prioritisation of topics for rapid evaluation: the case of innovations in adult social care and social work

BACKGROUND

Prioritisation processes are widely used in healthcare research and increasingly in social care research. Previous research has recommended using consensus development methods for inclusive research agenda setting. This research has highlighted the need for transparent and systematic methods for priority setting. Yet there has been little research on how to conduct prioritisation processes using rapid methods. This is a particular concern when prioritisation needs to happen rapidly. This paper aims to describe and discuss a process of rapidly identifying and prioritising a shortlist of innovations for rapid evaluation applied in the field of adult social care and social work.

METHOD

We adapted the James Lind Alliance approach to priority setting for rapid use. We followed four stages: (1) Identified a long list of innovations, (2) Developed shortlisting criteria, (3) Grouped and sifted innovations, and (4) Prioritised innovations in a multi-stakeholder workshop (n = 23). Project initiation through to completion of the final report took four months.

RESULTS

Twenty innovations were included in the final shortlist (out of 158 suggested innovations). The top five innovations for evaluation were identified and findings highlighted key themes which influenced prioritisation. The top five priorities (listed here in alphabetical order) were: Care coordination for dementia in the community, family group conferencing, Greenwich prisons social care, local area coordination and MySense.Ai. Feedback from workshop participants (n = 15) highlighted tensions from using a rapid process (e.g. challenges of reaching consensus in one workshop).

CONCLUSION

The method outlined in this manuscript can be used to rapidly prioritise innovations for evaluation in a feasible and robust way. We outline some implications and compromises of rapid prioritisation processes for future users of this approach to consider.

Developing a national health research agenda for Lao PDR: prioritising the research needs of stakeholders

Background

Currently the health research system in Lao PDR is fragmented and largely donor led. Capacity among national public health institutes is limited to select priority research questions for funding.

Objective

The objective of this capacity building and practice-oriented study is to describe the process and outcome of the first National Health Research Agenda for Lao PDR and how the agenda contributes to institutional capacity of the Ministry of Health, in order to contribute to evidence-informed public health policy making.

Method

This activity used a mixed-methods approach. The overall design is based on principles of the interactive Learning and Action approach and consists out of 6 phases: (1) identification of needs, (2) shared analysis and integration, (3) nation-wide prioritization of research domains, (4) exploring specific research questions, (5) prioritization of research avenues, (6) dialogue and planning for action. The process involved interviews with experts in health policy and research (n = 42), telephone-based survey with district, provincial and national health staff (n = 135), a two-round Delphi consultation with experts in health policy and research (n = 33), and a workshop with policymakers, researchers, international organisations and civil society (n = 45) were held to gather data and conduct shared analysis.

Results

11 research domains were identified and prioritised: Health-seeking behaviour; Health system research; Health service provision; Mother and child health (MCH); Sexual & reproductive health; Health education; Non-communicable diseases (NCDs); Irrational drug use; Communicable diseases (CDs); Road traffic accidents; Mental health. Within these domains over 200 unique research questions were identified.

Conclusion

Our approach led to a comprehensive, inclusive, public health agenda for Lao PDR to realise better informed health policies. Questions on the agenda are action-oriented, originating in a desire to understand the problem so that immediate improvements can be made. The agenda is used within the MoH as a tool to fund and approve research. 

International palliative care research priorities: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

There has been increasing evidence and debate on palliative care research priorities and the international research agenda. To date, however, there is a lack of synthesis of this evidence, examining commonalities, differences, and gaps. To identify and synthesize literature on international palliative care research priorities originating from Western countries mapped to a quality assessment framework.

METHODS

A systematic review of several academic and grey databases were searched from January 2008-June 2019 for studies eliciting research priorities in palliative care in English. Two researchers independently reviewed, critically appraised, and conducted data extraction and synthesis.

RESULTS

The search yielded 10,235 articles (academic databases, n = 4108; grey literature, n = 6127), of which ten were included for appraisal and review. Priority areas were identified: service models; continuity of care; training and education; inequality; communication; living well and independently; and recognising family/carer needs and the importance of families. Methodological approaches and process of reporting varied. There was little representation of patient and caregiver driven agendas. The priorities were mapped to the Donabedian framework for assessing quality reflecting structure, process and outcomes and key priority areas.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited evidence exists pertaining to research priorities across palliative care. Whilst a broad range of topics were elicited, approaches and samples varied questioning the credibility of findings. The voice of the care provider dominated, calling for more inclusive means to capture the patient and family voice. The findings of this study may serve as a template to understand the commonalities of research, identify gaps, and extend the palliative care research agenda.

Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE)

BACKGROUND

Research priority setting with stakeholders can help direct the limited resources for health research toward priority areas of need. Ensuring transparency of the priority setting process can strengthen legitimacy and credibility for influencing the research agenda. This study aims to develop a reporting guideline for priority setting of health research.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases and relevant websites for sources (frameworks, guidelines, or models for conducting, appraising, reporting or evaluating health research priority setting, and reviews (including systematic reviews)), and primary studies of research priority setting to July 2019. We inductively developed a list of reporting items and piloted the preliminary guideline with a diverse range of 30 priority setting studies from the records retrieved.

RESULTS

From 21,556 records, we included 26 sources for the candidate REPRISE framework and 455 primary research studies. The REporting guideline for PRIority SEtting of health research (REPRISE) has 31 reporting items that cover 10 domains: context and scope, governance and team, framework for priority setting, stakeholders/participants, identification and collection of priorities, prioritization of research topics, output, evaluation and feedback, translation and implementation, and funding and conflict of interest. Each reporting item includes a descriptor and examples.

CONCLUSIONS

The REPRISE guideline can facilitate comprehensive reporting of studies of research priority setting. Improved transparency in research priority setting may strengthen the acceptability and implementation of the research priorities identified, so that efforts and funding are invested in generating evidence that is of importance to all stakeholders.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable.