Abstract
BackgroundThis scoping review provides a thorough analysis of how stakeholders have so far been involved in research priority setting. The review describes, synthesizes, and evaluates research priority setting projects not only for the field of health—as previous reviews have done—but does so on a much broader scale for any research area.MethodsA comprehensive electronic literature search was conducted in the databases PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Reflecting the importance of grey literature, Google Scholar and relevant websites were also screened for eligible publications. A computational approach was then used for the study selection. The final screening for inclusion was done manually.ResultsThe scoping review encompasses 731 research priority setting projects published until the end of 2020. Overall, the projects were conducted within the realm of 50 subject areas ranging from agriculture and environment over health to social work and technology. Key learnings include that nearly all priority setting projects aimed to identify research priorities for the field of health (93%), particularly for nursing and care, cancer, pediatrics, and mental, behavioral and neurodevelopmental disorders. Only 6% of the projects were not health-related and 1% identified research priorities at the interface between health and a non-health area. Over time, 30 different stakeholder groups took part in research priority setting. The stakeholders most frequently asked to identify research priorities were doctors, patients, academics/researchers, nurses, allied healthcare professionals, family members, friends, and carers. Nearly two thirds of all projects have been conducted in Europe and North America. Overall, only 9% of the projects emphasized the importance of stakeholders in their goals and rationales and actively involved them. In around a quarter of the projects, stakeholders deliberated on their research priorities throughout the entire process.ConclusionBy mapping out the complex landscape of stakeholder involvement in research priority setting, this review guides future efforts to involve stakeholders effectively, inclusively, and transparently, which in turn may increase the overall value of research for society. As a practical addition to this review, the first worldwide research priority setting database was created: https://ois.lbg.ac.at/en/project-database. The database contains all the projects analyzed for this review and is constantly updated with the latest published research priority setting projects.
Highlights
Researchers, research institutions or funding organizations decide on the questions that research should answer
By mapping out the complex landscape of stakeholder involvement in research priority setting, this review guides future efforts to involve stakeholders effectively, inclusively, and transparently, which in turn may increase the overall value of research for society
There is a general need to map out the complex landscape of stakeholder involvement in research priority setting
Summary
Researchers, research institutions or funding organizations decide on the questions that research should answer. The corporate world, has demonstrated very early on that involving stakeholders in defining research and development (R&D) activities can be very beneficial [3]. Influential bodies, like the European Commission (EC) [6], the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) [7], and the World Health Organization (WHO) [8], or UK’s National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) [9] are strongly advising researchers to actively involve non-research stakeholders in setting the scientific research agenda. Increasing efforts are made to identify stakeholders’ research needs by involving them in “research priority setting”. This scoping review provides a thorough analysis of how stakeholders have so far been involved in research priority setting. The review describes, synthesizes, and evaluates research priority setting projects for the field of health—as previous reviews have done—but does so on a much broader scale for any research area
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
