Research Agenda-setting Process Research Articles

Whose Agenda is It? Navigating the Politics of Setting the Research Agenda in Education Research-Practice Partnerships

In this article, we provide insight into sharing power and balancing practitioner and researcher priorities during the process of establishing a research agenda for a research-practice partnership (RPP). We draw on the literature about effective collaboration within RPPs to identify concepts and factors that can help or hinder the research agenda-setting process. Concepts include boundary spanning, spheres of interest and action, and strategic knowledge leadership. Factors include early and ongoing engagement of partners, adequate representation of diverse perspectives, funder priorities, and the presence of trusting relationships. The authors then use examples from our own experiences in RPPs to illustrate how these concepts and factors play out in the agenda-setting process.

On academic branding: A review of the factors influencing research agenda choice and prioritization in management

AbstractThis paper aims to investigate the process of setting a prioritized research agenda that tackles the relevance gap in the management field as a method of academic branding for scholars. This is done by assessing the institutional and individual factors that affect research agenda prioritization for the management scholar. A conceptual approach, that is the outcome of theory analysis and the investigation of previous literature, is adopted. This results in a conceptual framework that tackles the relationship between the factors on one side and decision‐making styles on the other. The study has implications for scholars to keep in perspective a conceptualization of the factors that could influence their research agenda setting process. This study has two contributions. First, the delivery of a conceptual framework that is relevant to management scholars to help prioritize research agenda that contributes to academic branding, and second is the linking of decision‐making styles to these factors.

Mapping the Influence of Socioeconomic Development Plans on Philippine Health Research Agenda: A Descriptive Study

Background. Understanding and addressing social determinants of health through evidence-based action is a strategy that has been advocated by the World Health Organization as part of its “Health for All” strategy in 1978 and “Health in All Policies“ framework in 2013. It has then been recommended that the research agenda-setting process should be informed by socio-economic development plans with the specific aim of gathering data on social, economic, and cultural conditions that affect health.
 Objective. This paper reviewed the PDP 2011-2016, PDP 2017-2022, MDGs, and SDGs and identified common directions with the NUHRA 2011-2016 and 2017-2022.
 Methods. A content analysis of the three identified priorities of the NUHRA vis-a-vis the PDP 2011-2016, the PDP 2017-2022, the MDGs, and the SDGs was done in order to identify harmonization of the priorities of the NUHRAs targets and indicators with those of the other plans and agendas. A gap analysis across all topics was done to identify links and gaps.
 Results. The results established the common ground between health research priorities and international and national plans. Comparing the number of direct relationships between the NUHRAs, PDPs, MDGs, and SDGs, it was noted that there were more direct links between NUHRA 2017-2022, PDP 2017-2022, and the SDGs compared to NUHRA 2011-2016, PDP 2011-2016, and MDGs. The direct links were mostly found in 1) maternal, newborn and child health, 2) health systems, 3) communicable diseases, 4) water, sanitation, and hygiene, 5) environment, and 6) infrastructure development.
 Conclusion. The NUHRAs may serve as pathways to achieve the goals stipulated in other socio-economic development plans. The relationships of these to health are complex, nonlinear and often the effects manifest after a long period of time, and as such require rigorous research.

A patient‐centered research agenda for the care of the acutely Ill older patient

Hospitalists and others acute-care providers are limited by gaps in evidence addressing the needs of the acutely ill older adult population. The Society of Hospital Medicine sponsored the Acute Care of Older Patients Priority Setting Partnership to develop a research agenda focused on bridging this gap. Informed by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute framework for identification and prioritization of research areas, we adapted a methodology developed by the James Lind Alliance to engage diverse stakeholders in the research agenda setting process. The work of the Partnership proceeded through 4 steps: convening, consulting, collating, and prioritizing. First, the steering committee convened a partnership of 18 stakeholder organizations in May 2013. Next, stakeholder organizations surveyed members to identify important unanswered questions in the acute care of older persons, receiving 1299 responses from 580 individuals. Finally, an extensive and structured process of collation and prioritization resulted in a final list of 10 research questions in the following areas: advanced-care planning, care transitions, delirium, dementia, depression, medications, models of care, physical function, surgery, and training. With the changing demographics of the hospitalized population, a workforce with limited geriatrics training, and gaps in evidence to inform clinical decision making for acutely ill older patients, the identified research questions deserve the highest priority in directing future research efforts to improve care for the older hospitalized patient and enrich training.

Evidence-based dentistry--overcoming the challenges for the UK's dental practitioners.

This paper describes the historical origins and purpose of 'evidence-based practice' and describes the barriers to the growth of evidence-based practice within dentistry. It describes a new research agenda-setting process for dentistry, which includes identifying and prioritising the topics of most relevance to the work of primary dental care practitioners. By undertaking the work described in this paper we were striving to make research more relevant to the day to day decisions made by dentists in practice by introducing a new process, the intention being to promote and promulgate the practice of evidence-based dentistry.

Research priorities of patients with neuromuscular disease

Purpose: This paper describes a study in which patients with neuromuscular disease (NMD) were engaged to list top-priorities for scientific research in order to complement the researchers’ agenda. Method: A dialogic model for research agenda setting was used. Interviews, focus groups and expert meetings with patients were held to identify research topics. Research topics were prioritized via a questionnaire. Agendas were integrated in a dialogue meeting with professionals and patients. Results: The research agenda of NMD patients is divided in four research domains, with a total of 24 research topics. These domains include (1) health; (2) quality of life; (3)quality of care and support, and (4) basic issues. Among the research domains highest priority was given to research on health, followed by research on quality of life. Conclusions: Both patients and professionals agreed a proper balance needs to be found between fundamental research and research on symptomatic treatment and quality of life. They concluded that more attention is required for research on the effective treatment of symptoms, quality of life and implementation of knowledge about NMD in regular care.Implications for RehabilitationNeuromuscular diseasePatients with neuromuscular disease (NMD) can effectively participate in a research agenda setting process, contributing with their own perspectives on research topics.Concerning rehabilitation research, patients give priority to research on movement and training (quality of care domain), and on partner support (quality of life domain).The patient-driven agenda reinforces the wide scope on rehabilitation encapsulated in the ICF model and both stipulates the need for more interdisciplinary research, as well as the implementation of research in rehabilitation practice.

A National Research Agenda for Public Health Services and Systems

The field of public health services and systems research (PHSSR) has emerged over the past decade to produce the evidence needed to address critical uncertainties about how best to organize, finance, and deliver effective public health strategies to all Americans. To advance these efforts, a national PHSSR research agenda–setting process was used to identify a broad inventory of information needs and uncertainties that public health stakeholders face in the domains of public health workforce, public health system structure and performance, public health financing, and public health information and technology. This paper presents the results of an expert review process used to transform the identified information needs into a concise set of research questions that can be pursued through new scientific inquiry in PHSSR.Established research frameworks were used to specify the contexts, mechanisms of action, and outcomes within the public health system that require further study. A total of 72 research questions were developed from the 113 original items in the PHSSR inventory of information needs. The questions include both persistent problems and newly emerging needs in public health practice and policy. The resulting research agenda provides a starting point for mobilizing the public health scientific enterprise around contemporary, high-priority uncertainties identified by broad cross sections of public health stakeholders. Regular updates to this agenda will be required to achieve continuous improvements in both the science and practice of public health.

Designing mixed methods studies in health-related research with people with disabilities

People with disabilities have traditionally faced exclusion from health-related research in multiple ways. They have been excluded as participants in the research agenda setting process as well as contributors to the evidence-base of treatment and intervention research. The judicious use of mixed method designs afford opportunities for more inclusive research. However, the use of both qualitative and quantitative research methods with people with disabilities necessitates careful planning. This article aims to provide insights into the exclusionary practices faced by people with disabilities, the potential of mixed methods studies to address some of these sources of exclusion, and the specific planning considerations when conducting research with various disability populations.

Developing voice and empowerment: the first step towards a broad consultation in research agenda setting

Although people with intellectual disabilities (ID) are increasingly consulted in research, participation in research agenda setting processes is limited. This is not surprising as their voice can easily be dominated in consultations with researchers. The aim of this article is to explore the potentials of enclave deliberation as a first step towards broad consultation in research agenda setting. The research agenda setting process followed a responsive methodology, which is characterised by a cyclical and emergent design. Two persons with ID and one parent participated in the research team. Seven persons with ID and six parents were interviewed individually. Subsequently, 10 focus groups were organised with people with ID and four focus groups with parents. Also, a questionnaire was sent to parents. The process towards involvement of people with ID was characterised by several steps that guided enclave deliberation. First, stories of people were collected that reflected their intimate voice. Then, a political voice was further developed through dialogue and interaction in focus groups. This process resulted in a prioritised list of nine potential topics for research. The process of developing intimate voice and political voice can be regarded as a concretisation of enclave deliberation among disempowered groups. These steps are necessary to initiate a process towards establishing a broad consultation between different stakeholders about research on ID.

What is the appropriate extent of lateral neck dissection in the treatment of metastatic well‐differentiated thyroid carcinoma?

Diagnosis is the basis not only for the management of clinical disorders but also for defining their occurrence in the community and identifying targets for prevention. More broadly, diagnostic terms are part of the language with which we communicate our data, our ideas and our conclusions to colleagues worldwide. In the mental health and substance use disorders fields, diagnoses are made predominantly on the basis of the definitions of these disorders in two major international diagnostic and classification systems. These are the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). These two international systems are undergoing revision at present, with projected publication dates of 2012 and 2014, respectively. This fact is of significance to those working in the area of substance use disorders, whether they be clinicians, epidemiologists, researchers or policy advisers. The present review focuses on papers published during 2005 and 2006 on the issues of diagnosis, with a particular focus on a series of papers published as part of theDSM-V research agenda-setting process [1–20].

Research Agenda for Frailty in Older Adults: Toward a Better Understanding of Physiology and Etiology: Summary from the American Geriatrics Society/National Institute on Aging Research Conference on Frailty in Older Adults

Evolving definitions of frailty, and improved understanding of molecular and physiological declines in multiple systems that may increase vulnerability in frail, older adults has encouraged investigators from many disciplines to contribute to this emerging field of research. This article reports on the results of the 2004 American Geriatrics Society/National Institute on Aging conference on a Research Agenda on Frailty in Older Adults, which brought together a diverse group of clinical and basic scientists to encourage further investigation in this area. This conference was primarily focused on physical and physiological aspects of frailty. Although social and psychological aspects of frailty are critically important and merit future research, these topics were largely beyond the scope of this meeting. Included in this article are sections on the evolving conceptualization and definitions of frailty; physiological underpinnings of frailty, including the potential contributions of inflammatory, endocrine, skeletal muscle, and neurologic system changes; potential molecular and genetic contributors; proposed animal models; and integrative, system biology approaches that may help to facilitate future frailty research. In addition, several specific recommendations as to future directions were developed from suggestions put forth by participants, including recommendations on definition and phenotype development, methodological development to perform clinical studies of individual-system and multiple-system vulnerability to stressors, development of animal and cellular models, application of population-based studies to frailty research, and the development of large collaborative networks in which populations and resources can be shared. This meeting and subsequent article were not meant to be a comprehensive review of frailty research; instead, they were and are meant to provide a more-targeted research agenda-setting process.

The health and health care of women veterans

The health and health care of women veterans

Research Agenda for Geriatric Rehabilitation

The Research Agenda Setting Process is a joint endeavor by the American Geriatrics Society and the Hartford Foundation to increase geriatric expertise in the surgical and related specialties. This article provides the results of the Research Agenda Setting Process project on research needs in geriatric rehabilitation, which included a systematic review of the literature and a group consensus process. Explicit research questions and methodologies were developed for three cross-cutting research needs in geriatric rehabilitation and for the rehabilitation of eight specific conditions affecting older individuals.

Research agenda-setting program for geriatric ophthalmology.

The healthcare needs of an aging population of "baby boomers" (persons born between 1946 and 1964) will disproportionately affect ophthalmology. To meet this emerging need, the American Geriatrics Society and the John A. Hartford Foundation developed a research agenda-setting process for geriatric ophthalmology. A systematic literature search was performed using Medline from the years 1990 to 2000. The literature review (168 papers) was performed to determine the current state of information regarding selected issues in geriatric ophthalmology. A needs assessment for each of the identified topics was performed, gaps in the existing knowledge base were identified, and key questions for future research were proposed. A research agenda-setting process for geriatric ophthalmology might provide a structural framework for future research efforts in the field.

A research agenda for geriatric emergency medicine.

The Research Agenda Setting Process (RASP), part of the American Geriatric Society's (AGS's) project "Increasing Geriatric Expertise in Surgical and Related Medical Specialties," was designed to define a research agenda for the geriatrics aspects of participating specialties. This paper presents a summary of the research agenda for emergency medicine. The RASP was developed by the AGS in conjunction with experts from the participating specialty organizations. A "content expert" (CE) for each specialty developed a Medline search strategy in conjunction with RAND Health librarians. The CE reviewed the search to identify papers that were germane to research in the emergency care of older patients. The CE and a senior writing group member drafted a paper that synthesized the current literature and suggested areas for further research. A panel consisting of AGS members and emergency physicians with geriatrics expertise reviewed this paper. The research agenda was further refined at a two-day retreat. Two senior geriatricians reviewed the resulting paper. The Medline search for emergency medicine resulted in a list of 3,348 articles; 299 articles were pertinent and reviewed. The search for trauma resulted in a list of 1,838 articles; 133 were reviewed. Research agenda items were defined for multiple topics within geriatric emergency medicine and trauma. A research agenda for geriatric emergency medicine has been developed, using a combination of review of current literature and expert opinion.