Priority Setting Exercise Research Articles

Research Priorities in Neuroeducation: Exploring the Views of Early Career Neuroscientists and Educators

The field of neuroeducation, which integrates neuroscience findings into educational practice, has gained significant attention in recent years. Establishing research priorities in neuroeducation is crucial for guiding future studies and ensuring that the field benefits both neuroscience and education. This study aimed to address the need for collaboration between neuroscientists and educators by conducting a priority-setting exercise with early career professionals from both fields. Using the nominal group technique (NGT) with interquartile range (IQR) analysis, we identified seven key priorities in neuroeducation and assessed the level of consensus on these priorities. The top-ranked priorities were “Emotional and Mental Well-being”, “Neurodiversity and Special Education Needs”, and “Active and Inclusive Teaching Methods”, though IQR analysis revealed varying levels of consensus. Lower-ranked priorities, such as “Role of Technology on Learning and the Brain”, showed a higher consensus. This discrepancy between ranking and consensus highlights the complex nature of neuroeducation, reflecting differing perspectives between neuroscientists and educators. These findings suggest the need for interdisciplinary collaboration to bridge these gaps and foster evidence-based practices. We recommend that future research focuses on the specific neural mechanisms underlying emotional well-being, strategies for supporting neurodivergent learners, and practical approaches to integrating inclusive teaching methods in diverse educational contexts.

Four Years in, What Are the Research Priorities for Long COVID? A Research Priority-Setting Partnership Between People With Lived Experience, Carers, Clinicians and Researchers.

Long COVID is a life-limiting condition that affects 65 million people worldwide. It devastates lives with uncertain illness trajectories, and yet, there are many research uncertainties as there is a lack of understanding of its causes, effective treatments and management plans. We set out to identify current research priorities for people with Long COVID, carers, healthcare professionals and researchers. A systematic literature review and previous Long COVID priority-setting exercises identified three broad under-researched areas of Long COVID research within the fields of Public Health and Health Services Research: symptoms; managing day-to-day life; and the emotional impact of Long COVID. We disseminated an elicitation survey that asked for research questions in these areas; responses were analysed and summarised into 42 research questions. A survey was then disseminated, asking respondents to prioritise these 42 questions. Workshops were held with people with Long COVID, carers, healthcare professionals and researchers to analyse responses and agree the top 10 priorities. The top priorities in order were pharmacological treatment of Long COVID; understanding the pathophysiology; nonpharmacological symptom management; improving public and professional understanding of Long COVID; understanding of the long-term risks of Long COVID; improving financial and social supports; improving understanding of postviral syndromes; diagnostics; service redesign/pathways; and the well-being of children with Long COVID. Four years into the pandemic, there is an emphasis on the need for research on treatment, understanding and support for people living with Long COVID. People with Long COVID and carers were involved in the study design, survey design, dissemination, data analysis, interpretation and reviewing and editing the manuscript.

Building sustainable capacity to adopt, adapt or develop child health guidelines, Malawi, Nigeria and South Africa.

Many national child health guidelines in Malawi, Nigeria and South Africa are outdated and score poorly on rigorous methods and stakeholder participation. In line with the World Health Organization's (WHO) emphasis on local guideline contextualization, the Global Evidence-Local Adaptation (GELA) project supported multistakeholder processes to adapt evidence-informed recommendations for child health in Malawi, Nigeria and South Africa. The GELA project team convened national steering groups, which conducted structured, iterative priority-setting exercises to identify priority topics. We identified appropriate source guidelines by systematically searching and screening available guidelines. We then matched recommendations in potential source guidelines to the relevant questions, and assessed the guidelines for timeliness and quality. Drawing on WHO's guideline process, we applied the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT process to develop contextualized recommendations from existing guidelines. If no source guideline or reviews were identified, we conducted new evidence syntheses. Malawi, Nigeria and South Africa are countries with varying health priorities and systems, all transitioning to universal health coverage. Guideline structures differ between countries, with processes largely led from national health ministries. National guideline groups, supported by GELA researchers and government-academic partners, developed five contextually-tailored child health recommendations. For most of these recommendations, additional evidence was required to inform contextually appropriate national decision-making. Formal capacity-building and on-the-job learning enhanced the competencies of national contributors and researchers in evidence-informed decision-making. Developing context-relevant recommendations requires considerable resources and time. Further investment in strengthening local capacity is needed for sustainable national guideline development.

Stroke recovery—what are people talking about on Twitter? A content analysis

Purpose Prioritisation exercises seek out what matters to key stakeholders to inform the planning of research. Social media platforms are potentially useful data sources. The aim was to examine the content of tweets, short messages containing text and pictures, to ascertain the priorities of Twitter users regarding stroke recovery. Materials and methods Content analysis of Twitter was conducted. An electronic search used the identifiers: #strokesurvivor and #strokerecovery. Tweets spanning four weeks from January 2021 were analysed. Results There were 1361 tweets extracted and 486 analysed following exclusion of duplicates and unrelated material. Six themes were uncovered (n = number of tweets): maintaining motivation and positivity (153); sharing of resources (146); raising awareness of stroke (74); symptomatic aspects of recovery (39); experience of rehabilitation (63); and concerns about Covid-19 (17). Conclusions Despite the brevity of tweets, a rich picture arose. A key limitation was lack of biographical data about Twitter users. Recommendations about topics requiring attention from stroke researchers, clinicians and policy makers are: management of psychological problems; public perception of stroke; rehabilitation considerations including treatment burden, person-centred care and equality of care; symptom management including fatigue and aphasia. Findings can be used to supplement and validate other priority-setting exercises.

COVID-19 research response to immediate demands: setting priorities with key stakeholders to enable health services research in NSW, Australia

PurposeCOVID-19 has caused unprecedented disruption to health systems. There is much to be gained by capturing what was learned from changes and adaptations made by health services and systems. The Ministry of Health in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, sought to prioritise health services research (HSR) to address critical issues arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. We tested a priority setting methodology to create priorities for a specific funding opportunity and to extract generalisable lessons.Design/methodology/approachA virtual roundtable meeting of key stakeholders was held in June 2020. We used a modified Nominal Group Technique (NGT) for priority setting, with potential items (n = 35) grouped under headings. Data was analysed through a reflective deliberative process.FindingsWe engaged 89 senior policy makers, health service executives, clinicians and researchers in the roundtable. The NGT proved an efficient method with participants reaching consensus on eight priorities. Findings included strong support for learning from the rapid response to COVID-19 and addressing needs of vulnerable populations and the health workforce. Opinions differed about strategic areas investment and where learnings should be via internal evaluation rather than funded research. Three of the eight recommended priorities were included in the funding opportunity.Research limitations/implicationsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) required unprecedented change and adaptations within health systems, and rapid, applied health services research can help to create, understand and (where relevant) sustain change beyond the immediate impact of the pandemic. While final decisions may be dependent on a wider range of considerations by government, stakeholder enthusiasm for engagement in priority setting exercises may be dampened if they do not perceive their application in decision-making.Practical implicationsA modified nominal group technique can be used to set research priorities in constrained conditions by engaging large numbers of stakeholders in rankings and then using an online delivery of a roundtable and to reach consensus on priorities in real time. Recommended priorities for health services research can be readily generated through rapid engagement but does not guarantee their application.Social implicationsAustralia’s swift response to COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 was perceived as a relative success due to the rapid public health and policy response and a relatively low number of cases. This response was underpinned by systematic knowledge mobilisation including support for targeted and prioritised health services research to fill knowledge gaps.Originality/valueSetting priority processes can provide rich, engaged input to support government funding decisions about HSR. A wide range of dynamic and iterative processes influence decision-making in a rapidly evolving situation in the health system response to COVID-19. It is crucial to consider how major investment decisions will support a value-based healthcare system.

Improving quality in adult long covid services: Findings from the LOCOMOTION quality improvement collaborative

The protracted form of COVID-19 known as ‘long covid’ was first described in 2020. Its symptoms, course and prognosis vary widely; some patients have a multi-system, disabling and prolonged illness. In 2021, ring-fenced funding was provided to establish 90 long covid clinics in England; some clinics were also established in Scotland and Wales. The NIHR-funded LOCOMOTION project implemented a UK-wide quality improvement collaborative involving ten of these clinics, which ran from 2021 to 2023. At regular online meetings held approximately 8-weekly, participants prioritised topics, discussed research evidence and guidelines, and presented exemplar case histories and clinic audits. A patient advisory group also held a priority-setting exercise, participated in quality meetings and undertook a service evaluation audit. The goal of successive quality improvement cycles aimed at changing practice to align with evidence was sometimes hard to achieve because definitive evidence did not yet exist in this new condition; many patients had comorbidities; and clinics were practically constrained in various ways. Nevertheless, much progress was made and a series of ‘best practice’ guides was produced, covering general assessment and management; breathing difficulties; orthostatic tachycardia and other autonomic symptoms; fatigue and cognitive impairment; and vocational rehabilitation. This paper summarises key findings with the frontline clinician in mind.

Health research priorities in Pakistan: A Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) exercise.

The National Health Vision of Pakistan 2016-2025 is to provide affordable health services through a resilient and responsive health system for achieving health-related Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and universal health coverage (UHC) targets. Through this study, we wanted to identify the research priorities at the national level that would help to provide the necessary evidence for achieving this vision through essential package of health services (EPHS). We followed World Health Organization (WHO) guidance for undertaking research priority-setting exercises and the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) methodology in conducting this national exercise. The proposed research options for the next three to five years were identified in five thematic research areas: communicable diseases; non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and injuries; reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health (RMNCAH); mental health; and health systems and services. We assessed these research options against five priority-setting criteria: feasibility, public health importance, sustainability, equity, and community involvement. Forty-three experts proposed 272 research ideas, which were consolidated into a list of 155 research options and sent back to the experts for scoring. The top 10 research priorities in each of the five research areas were identified based on the weighted research priority scores (wRPS) rankings. Tuberculosis and antimicrobial resistance; NCD screening and prevention; maternal and neonatal mortality; mental health of children, adolescents, and youth; and human resource management were the issues that were most frequently reflected in the list of research priorities. Most research priorities aimed to identify barriers to the implementation of interventions. Through this exercise, we identified the top 50 national health research priorities, which also have a strong correlation with EPHS interventions. To realise the findings of this exercise, funding agencies should establish funding mechanisms to support the undertaking of the identified research priorities, and academic researchers should actually utilise them in future studies. Such activities could hopefully contribute to achieving the national health goals.

Health policy and systems research priority-setting exercise in Ethiopia: a collaborative approach

IntroductionHealth policy and systems research (HPSR) is a multi-disciplinary approach of generating health system and policy-level evidence. Setting HPSR agendas is considered as an efficient strategy to map and identify policy and cost-effective research topics, but its practice in developing countries is limited. This paper aimed to conduct a collaborative health policy and system research priority-setting exercise in Ethiopia.MethodThe WHO’s plan, implement, publish, and evaluate (PIPE) framework and the Delphi technique were used to conduct the priority-setting exercise. The PIPE model was used to lead the priority-setting process from planning to evaluation, while the Delphi technique was used to run the rating and ranking exercise with the aim of reaching a consensus. Two rounds of expert panel workshops supplemented with an online survey were used for the HPSR agenda setting, rating and ranking purposes. Groups were formed using the WHO health system building blocks as a base framework to identify and prioritize the HPSR topics.ResultUnder 8 themes, 32 sub-themes and 182 HPSR topics were identified. The identified research themes include leadership management and governance, health policy, health information system, healthcare financing, human resource for health, medical products and supply, service delivery and cross-cutting issues.ConclusionsPriority HPSR topics focussing on national health priority issues were identified. The identified topics were shared with policymakers and academic and research institutions. Evidence generation on the identified priority topics will guide future research endeavours and improve evidence-informed decision-making practice, health system performance and national health goals and targets.

Identifying interventions that improve medication safety & rational use of medicines in India.

Background & objectives Medication-related harm is known to be the cause for about 1/10th of hospitalizations. Some estimates from India show that about 90 per cent of medicines consumed are inessential or irrational and contribute towards high out-of-pocket expenditure on health. In this context, the Indian Council of Medical Research in 2022 constituted a National Task Force (NTF) to explore possible solutions that could improve safe and rational use of medicines (SRUMs). The objective of this study was to identify research ideas in the field of SRUM through a survey of relevant stakeholders, and further to prioritize the research ideas using a pre-identified set of criteria. Methods The responses from the identified stakeholders were assessed using the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative method, which is an established research priority-setting methodology. First, the NTF asked for two to six research ideas from relevant Indian and global stakeholders on solutions to improve SRUM. The ideas were checked for duplicates, re-phrased where necessary and classified into various sub-themes. Subsequently, the research ideas were scored by Indian experts with relevant technical expertise using a pre-defined set of five criteria: innovativeness, effectiveness, translational value, answerability and applicability. Each research idea received from a stakeholder was assigned a score under each of the five criteria. The overall research priority score was calculated as a mean of all five criteria-specific scores and converted into a percentage. Results The final output of the prioritization process was a list of research ideas or questions, ranked by their scores. Total 209 unique ideas were received from 190 respondents, which were scored by 27 experts. The top three research topics on medication safety focused on cost-effective strategies for improving antimicrobial stewardship, safe use of poly-pharmacy in geriatric patients and drug take-back policy interventions. Regarding the rational use of medicine, the top three topics included testing mobile application-based antimicrobial stewardship interventions, development of diagnostics for antimicrobial resistance, and behavioural interventions. Interpretation & conclusions Several priority ideas found in this study also align with those of global priority, e.g., safe disposal practices and enhanced pharmacovigilance, rational use of medicines. Patient engagement, which underlines many of the top scoring ideas found in this study, is also inclined with the top research priorities reported by the WHO priority exercise on research into the safe use of medicines. However, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first such work from a low- and middle- income country on medication safety and rational use of medicines. The findings of this research priority-setting exercise can help to guide research for the development of policy-relevant and novel interventions to improve SRUM in India.

Co-creating a global shared research agenda on violence against women in low- and middle-income countries

BackgroundDespite a large growth in evidence on violence against women (VAW) over the last 25 years, VAW persists, as do gaps in the field’s knowledge of how to prevent and respond to it. To ensure that research on VAW in low- and middle-income countries (LIMCs) is addressing the most significant gaps in knowledge, and to prioritise evidence needs to reduce VAW and better support victims/survivors, the Sexual Violence Research Initiative (SVRI) and Equality Institute (EQI) led a process of developing a global shared research agenda (GSRA) on VAW in LMICs.MethodsThe GSRA was developed through a six-stage adaptation of the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method, which draws on the principle of the ‘wisdom of the crowd’. These steps included: a review of the literature on VAW in LMICs and development of domains; the generation of research questions within four domains by an Advisory Group; the consolidation of research questions; scoring of research questions by a Global Expert Group and the Advisory Group according to three criteria (applicability, effectiveness and equity); consultation and validation of the findings with the Advisory Group; and wide dissemination of the findings.ResultsThe highest ranked research questions in the GSRA pertain to the domain of Intervention research, with some highly ranked questions also pertaining to the domain of Understanding VAW in its multiple forms. Questions under the other two domains, Improving existing interventions, and Methodological and measurement gaps, were not prioritised as highly by experts. There was strong consistency in top ranked research questions according to experts’ characteristics, albeit with some important differences according to experts’ gender, occupation and geographical location.ConclusionsThe GSRA findings suggest that currently the VAW field is shifting towards intervention research after several decades of building evidence on understanding VAW, including prevalence, drivers and impacts of violence. The findings also suggest a strong emphasis on under-served populations, and under-researched forms of VAW. Future priority setting exercises in LMICs that seek to decolonise knowledge should ensure that methodologies, and modalities of engagement, put diverse voices at the centre of engagement.Trial registration Not applicable

An Environmental Scan of Online Generalized Anxiety Resources for Canadian Youth

Background: A recent priority-setting exercise reported that youth are interested in understanding what the early signs and symptoms of generalized anxiety are, and when they should seek help. This environmental scan aimed to understand what information is currently available online for Canadian youth about the signs and symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder, what resources are available for self-assessment, and what are youth’s behaviors, experiences, and information needs around seeking help. Method: We conducted an environmental scan of Internet resources and academic literature in August 2020. Information Sources were categorized relating to the research concepts regarding signs and symptoms, self-assessments, information needs, and experiences. We complimented our environmental scan with youth consultations to understand how generalized anxiety resources are perceived by youth, and what if anything could be improved about the information they are receiving. Consultations were conducted over Zoom with three Canadian Youth Advisory Groups (2 local, 1 national) and took a semistructured focus group format. Results: Of the 12874 identified Information Sources inclusion criteria were met by 98. The majority of Information Sources on signs and symptoms ( n = 62) were webpage-based articles ( n = 53, 85%), and 38 (61%) specifically stated that they were targeting youth. Seventy-one percent ( n = 12) of the 17 self-assessment resources were provided by private organizations. The resources varied markedly in the post-assessment support provided to youth according to their source (i.e., private, academic, and governmental). The key considerations highlighted by youth across the consultations suggested resources needed to be; youth friendly; align with a credible institute (e.g., University and Health Institution); and provide tangible action items post-online assessment. Conclusions: Awareness of the information and resources available to youth, coupled with an understanding of their help-seeking behaviors and information needs regarding generalized anxiety can help support the development and dissemination of appropriate knowledge translation tools targeting youth.

Supporting Ontario public health units to address adverse childhood experiences in pandemic recovery planning: A priority-setting exercise

BackgroundAdverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are potentially traumatic exposures experienced during childhood, for example, neglect. There is growing evidence that the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and related socioeconomic conditions contributed to an increased risk of ACEs. As public health programs/services are re-evaluated and restored following the state of emergency, it is important to plan using an ACEs-informed lens. The aim of this study was to identify and prioritize initiatives or activities that Public Health Ontario (PHO) could undertake to support Ontario public health units’ work towards ACEs-informed pandemic recovery plans.MethodsThe Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative method was adapted to conduct a priority-setting exercise (May–October 2022). Two online surveys were administered with members of the Healthy Growth and Development (HGD) Evidence Network, comprised of public health unit staff working in child and family health/HGD from Ontario’s 34 public health units. In the first survey, participants were asked to propose activities or initiatives that PHO could undertake to support Ontario public health units’ work towards ACEs-informed planning. In the second survey, participants were asked to score the final list of options against pre-determined prioritization criteria (for example, relevance). Responses were numerically coded and used to calculate prioritization scores, which were used to rank the options.ResultsIn all, 76% of public health units (n = 26) responded to the first survey to identify options. The 168 proposed ideas were consolidated into a final list of 13 options, which fall under PHO’s scientific and technical support mandate areas (data and surveillance, evidence synthesis, collaboration and networking, knowledge exchange and research). A total of 79% of public health units (n = 27) responded to the follow-up survey to prioritize options. Prioritization scores ranged from 76.4% to 88.6%. The top-ranked option was the establishment of a new provincial ACEs community of practice.ConclusionsOver three quarters of public health units contributed to identifying and ranking 13 options for PHO to support public health units in considering and addressing ACEs through pandemic recovery planning. In consultation with the ACEs and Resilience Community of Practice, recently formed on the basis of this exercise, PHO will continue to use the ranked list of options to inform work-planning activities/priorities.

Explore the practice and barriers of collaborative health policy and system research-priority setting exercise in Ethiopia

IntroductionCollaboration is gaining prominence in the priority setting of Health Policy And System Research (HPSR). However, its practice and challenges are not well explored in Ethiopia. Understanding the practice and barriers of collaborative Health Policy and System Research will help design approaches and platforms for setting inclusive and participatory policy and system-level health research topics. This paper explores the practice and barriers of collaborative HPSR-priority setting exercise in Ethiopia.MethodsThis study investigates the practice and barriers of collaborative health policy and system research priority-setting exercises in Ethiopia. Utilizing a mixed-methods approach, we conducted Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) and an online self-administered survey with open-ended questionnaires to capture diverse perspectives from stakeholders involved in the research priority-setting process. Through conventional content analysis, we identified key contents related to current practices, challenges, and opportunities for enhancing collaboration in health policy and system research prioritization.ResultsOur findings reveal a complex landscape characterized by varying levels of stakeholder engagement, institutional capacity constraints, and competing priorities within the health research ecosystem. Despite notable efforts to foster collaboration, stakeholders identified persistent challenges such as limited resources, institutional fragmentation, and inadequate coordination mechanisms as barriers to effective priority-setting processes. The implications of our research extend beyond academic discourse, with direct relevance to health policy and system research practice in Ethiopia. By shedding light on the dynamics of collaborative priority-setting exercises, our findings offer valuable insights for policymakers, researchers, and practitioners seeking to enhance the effectiveness and inclusivity of health research prioritization processes. Addressing the identified barriers and leveraging existing strengths in the research ecosystem can contribute to more evidence-informed health policies and programs, ultimately improving health outcomes for Ethiopian populations.ConclusionsMost institutions do not apply health policy and system research-priority setting to conduct informed decision-making. The barriers explored were weak integration, lack of knowledge, system, and platforms for the priority setting of Health Policy and System Resreach. So, it is recommended to build skills of different actors in the Health Policy and System Research-priority setting exercise and design a system and platform to integrate different stakeholders for collaborative research topics priority setting.

Research priorities for the management of major trauma: an international priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance

ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to determine research priorities for the management of major trauma, representing the shared priorities of patients, their families, carers and healthcare professionals.Design/settingAn international research...

Using a priority setting exercise to identify priorities for guidelines on newborn and child health in South Africa, Malawi, and Nigeria

BackgroundSub-Saharan Africa is the region with the highest under-five mortality rate globally. Child healthcare decisions should be based on rigorously developed evidence-informed guidelines. The Global Evidence, Local Adaptation (GELA) project is enhancing capacity to use global research to develop locally relevant guidelines for newborn and child health in South Africa (SA), Malawi, and Nigeria. The first step in this process was to identify national priorities for newborn and child health guideline development, and this paper describes our approach.MethodsWe followed a good practice method for priority setting, including stakeholder engagement, online priority setting surveys and consensus meetings, conducted separately in South Africa, Malawi and Nigeria. We established national Steering Groups (SG), comprising 10–13 members representing government, academia, and other stakeholders, identified through existing contacts and references, who helped prioritise initial topics identified by research teams and oversaw the process. Various stakeholders were consulted via online surveys to rate the importance of topics, with results informing consensus meetings with SGs where final priority topics were agreed.ResultsBased on survey results, nine, 10 and 11 topics were identified in SA, Malawi, and Nigeria respectively, which informed consensus meetings. Through voting and discussion within meetings, and further engagement after the meetings, the top three priority topics were identified in each country. In SA, the topics concerned anemia prevention in infants and young children and post-discharge support for caregivers of preterm and LBW babies. In Malawi, they focused on enteral nutrition in critically ill children, diagnosis of childhood cancers in the community, and caring for neonates. In Nigeria, the topics focused on identifying pre-eclampsia in the community, hand hygiene compliance to prevent infections, and enteral nutrition for LBW and preterm infants.ConclusionsThrough dynamic and iterative stakeholder engagement, we identified three priority topics for guideline development on newborn and child health in SA, Malawi and Nigeria. Topics were specific to contexts, with no overlap, which highlights the importance of contextualised priority setting as well as of the relationships with key decisionmakers who help define the priorities.

Delphi technique in plastic surgery research priority setting: a systematic review

"Background: Delphi research priority setting exercises in plastic and reconstructive surgery aim to encourage future research in areas that align with clinical needs. This can guide the allocation of research funding and further the knowledge base of the speciality. This systematic review evaluates the content and quality of existing Delphi research priority setting studies in plastic and reconstructive surgery, to inform future studies. Method: A predefined protocol and PRISMA guidelines were followed. The search was performed by a research librarian. Screening and data extraction was performed in duplicate with a third reviewer arbitrating. Primary outcomes included the number of studies and subject areas. Secondary outcomes were the methods and results (including types of stakeholders, uncertainties, numbers of stakeholders, journal impact factor, implementation plans and dissemination plans). The risk of bias was assessed using four domains of quality. Data underwent synthesis with descriptive statistics. Results: Seven articles were included in the review, covering breast reconstruction, craniomaxillofacial, burns, aesthetics, skin and soft tissue, and general plastics. Studies had national or international scope, used either Delphi or modified Delphi methodology, and had a variable number of rounds. Four included studies had funding, and implementation plans were absent in four included studies. Discussion and conclusion: Included studies had a variable methodology, making a direct comparison between studies difficult. Six of the seven included studies had a high or moderate risk of bias, and implementation plans for studies were variable or absent. The review highlights the need for future Delphi research priority setting exercises to have a more standardised method and adhere to quality criteria."

Shaping research for people living with co-existing mental and physical health conditions: A research priority setting initiative from the United Kingdom.

Those with severe and enduring mental ill health are at greater risk of long-term physical health conditions and have a reduced life expectancy as a result. Multiple factors compound this health inequality, and the need for setting research priorities in this area is highlighted withphysical and mental healthcare services being separate, and limited multimorbidity research. The aim of this exercise was to work in partnership with healthcare professionals and carers, family, friends and individuals with lived experience of both mental and physical health conditions, to set research priorities to help people with mental health conditions to look after their physical health. The exercise was guided by the James Lind Alliance approach. For this, a steering group was set up, two surveys were completedand a final priority workshop was conducted. This priority setting exercise guided by people's needs and lived experience has produced a set of well-defined research topics. Initially, 555 research questions were suggested in the first survey, which were refined to 54 questions for the second survey. A priority setting workshop was then conducted to get the final 10 priorities. Taking these topics forward to improve services and treatment for both mental and physical ill healthmay in turn improve physical health and lessen the reduced life expectancy of those living with mental ill health. This work was completed in collaboration with people who have lived experience of mental ill health and physical health conditions, as well as carers, family and friends. Their contribution has been significant for this work from piloting surveys, amending language used and educating the researchers and contributing to this paper. The initial work was completed with a steering group and continued with surveys and workshops.

Identifying the top 10 research priorities for the school food system in the UK: a priority setting exercise

IntroductionThe school food system varies widely between schools and across the UK. There is a need to understand evidence gaps in school food research to allow the development, implementation and...

A Systematic Review of Dementia Research Priorities.

Patient involvement is a critical component of dementia research priority-setting exercises to ensure that research benefits are relevant and acceptable to those who need the most. This systematic review synthesises research priorities and preferences identified by people living with dementia and their caregivers. Guided by Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses framework, we conducted a systematic search in five electronic databases: CINAHL, Medline, PsycINFO, Web of Science and Scopus. The reference lists of the included studies were also manually searched. We combined quantitative and qualitative data for synthesis and descriptive thematic analysis. Eleven studies were included in this review. Findings are grouped into four main categories: Increase in knowledge, education, and awareness; Determining the cause; Sustainability of care; and Cure of dementia and related conditions. There is a need to respond to the stigma associated with dementia, which limits access to care and the quality of life for both people living with dementia and their caregivers. We need to work on changing public, private and workplace attitudes about dementia and encourage supporting and participating in dementia research. Future research should involve people living with dementia and their primary caregivers from culturally and linguistically diverse communities in priority-setting exercises.

Exploring the use of social media and online methods to engage persons with lived experience and healthcare professionals in creating research agendas: Lessons from a pediatric cancer research priority-setting partnership.

Social media is increasingly used to engage persons with lived experience and healthcare professionals in research, however, there remains sparse guidance on how to effectively use social media to engage these groups in research agenda-setting. Here we report our process and experience utilizing a social media campaign to engage Canadians within the pediatric cancer community in a research priority-setting exercise. Following the James Lind Alliance method, we launched a priority-setting partnership (PSP) to develop a child with cancer-, survivor-, family member-, and healthcare professional-based Canadian pediatric cancer research agenda. Social media-based strategies were implemented to recruit participants for two PSP surveys, including preparatory activities, developing a website, launching graphics and advertisements, and engaging internal and external networks. Descriptive statistics of our data and analytics provided by the platforms are used presently to report our process. The framework we implemented involved preparing for social media use, identifying a target audience, developing campaign content, conducting the campaign, refining the campaign as needed, and evaluating its success. Our process resulted in a substantial social media-based reach, good survey completion rates, and a successfully developed pediatric cancer community-specified research agenda. Social media may represent a useful approach to engage persons with lived experience and healthcare professionals in research agenda development. Based on our experience, we present strategies to increase social media campaign engagement that may be useful to those seeking to conduct health research priority-setting exercises.