Research Priority Setting Exercise Research Articles

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.

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."

A Systematic Review of Dementia Research Priorities

Introduction 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. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusion 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.

Bridging the gap: Using CHNRI to align migration health research priorities in India with local expertise and global perspectives.

Migration and health are increasingly recognised as a global public health priority, but concerns have been raised on the skewed nature of current research and the potential disconnect between health needs and policy and governance responses. The Migration Health South Asia (MiHSA) network led the first systematic research priority-setting exercise for India, aligned with the global call to develop a clearly defined migration health research agenda that will inform research investments and guide migrant-responsive policies by the year 2030. We adapted the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method for this priority setting exercise for migration health. Guided by advisory groups established at international and country levels, we sought research topics from 51 experts from diverse disciplines and sectors across India. We consolidated 223 responses into 59 research topics across five themes and scored them against five predefined criteria: answerability, effectiveness, feasibility, impact, and effect on equity. We then calculated research priority scores (RPS) and average expert agreement (AEA) each research topic and theme. A third of the 59 research topics were on migrants' health and health care access, 12 on social determinants of migrants' health, 10 on policies, law and migration health governance, eight on health systems' responsiveness, and five on migration health discourse. Three of the top five priority topics pertained to migrants' health care access. The policies, law, and governance theme had the highest overall RPS score. There is a noticeable gap between research priorities identified by experts at the country-level and the current research focus and priorities set globally. This disconnect between the global and local perspectives in migration health scholarship hinders the development of context-specific and suitable policy agendas for improving migrants' health. Our co-developed agenda emphasises the need to prioritise research on the capacity of existing systems and policies so as to make them more migration-aware and responsive to migrants' health needs.

People powered research: what do communities identify as important for happy and healthy children and young people? A multi-disciplinary community research priority setting exercise in the City of Bradford, United Kingdom (UK)

BackgroundInvolving communities in research priority setting can increase the relevance and efficiency of research, leading to better health outcomes. However these exercises often lack clarity in how communities are involved and the extent to which priorities are acted upon is unclear. Seldom-heard groups, for example ethnic minorities may experience barriers to participation. We report methods and outcomes of an inclusive co-produced community research priority setting exercise within the multicultural and deprived city of Bradford, UK. The aim was to identify priorities for keeping children happy and healthy and was undertaken by the Born in Bradford (BiB) research programme to inform future research agendas.MethodsA 12 member multi-disciplinary, multi-ethnic community steering group led the process using a modified James Lind Alliance approach between December 2018-March 2020. Research priorities were collected through a widely distributed paper and online survey. Respondents were asked to list three important things to keep children i) happy, ii) healthy and what needs to change to improve either health or happiness. Free text data were coded iteratively by community researchers, and shared priorities were co-produced in a series of workshops and meetings with the community steering group and community members.ResultsFive hundred eighty-eight respondents to the survey identified 5748 priorities, which were coded into 22 themes. These covered a range of individual, social and wider socioeconomic, environmental and cultural priorities. Diet/nutrition and exercise were most commonly identified as important for health, including what needs to change to improve health. For happiness, home life and family relationships, listening to children, and education/activities were the most commonly identified. Community assets were identified as important to change for both health and happiness. From the survey response the steering group developed 27 research questions. There were mapped onto existing and planned research agendas within BiB.ConclusionsCommunities identified both structural and individual factors as important priorities for health and happiness. We demonstrate how communities can be involved in priority setting using a co-productive approach in the hope this can be used as a model for others. The resulting shared research agenda will shape future research to improve the health of families living in Bradford.

Comparing international dementia research priorities-Systematic review.

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. 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. 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 metall 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. 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.

Research priorities to reduce the impact of musculoskeletal disorders: a priority setting exercise with the child health and nutrition research initiative method.

SummaryInvolving research users in setting priorities for research is essential to ensure the outcomes are patient-centred and maximise its value and impact. The Musculoskeletal Disorders Research Advisory Group Versus Arthritis led a research priority setting exercise across musculoskeletal disorders. The Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method of setting research priorities with a range of stakeholders was used, involving four stages and two surveys, to: (1) gather research uncertainties, (2) consolidate these, (3) score uncertainties against importance and impact, and (4) analyse scoring for prioritisation. 213 people responded to the first survey and 285 people to the second, representing clinicians, researchers, and people with musculoskeletal disorders. Key priorities included developing and testing new treatments, better treatment targeting, early diagnosis, prevention, and better understanding and management of pain, with an emphasis on understanding underpinning mechanisms. We present a call to action to researchers and funders to target these priorities.

Patients' experiences of cannulation of arteriovenous access for haemodialysis: A qualitative systematic review.

Cannulation is an essential part of haemodialysis with arteriovenous access. Patients' experiences of cannulation for haemodialysis are problematic but poorly understood. This review aims to synthesise findings related to patients' experiences of cannulation for haemodialysis from qualitative studies, providing a fuller description of this phenomenon. Eligibility criteria defined the inclusion of studies with a population of patients with end-stage kidney disease on haemodialysis. The phenomena of interest was findings related to patients' experiences of cannulation for haemodialysis and the context was both in-centre and home haemodialysis. MedLine, CINAHL, EMBASE, EMCARE, BNI, PsycInfo and PubMed were last searched between 20/05/2019 and 23/05/2019. The quality of studies was assessed using the using Joanna Briggs Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research. Meta-aggregation was used to synthesise findings and CERQual to assess the strength of accumulated findings. This review included 26 studies. The subject of included studies covered cannulation, pain, experiences of vascular access, experiences of haemodialysis and a research priority setting exercise. From these studies, three themes were meta-aggregated: (1) Cannulation for haemodialysis is an unpleasant, abnormal and unique procedure associated with pain, abnormal appearance, vulnerability and dependency. (2) The necessity of cannulation for haemodialysis emphasises the unpleasantness of the procedure. Success had multiple meanings for patients and patients worry about whether the needle insertion will be successful. (3) Patients survive unpleasant, necessary and repetitive cannulation by learning to tolerate cannulation and exerting control over the procedure. Feeling safe can help them tolerate cannulation better and the cannulator can invoke feeling safe. However, some patients still avoid cannulation, due to its unpleasantness. Cannulation is a pervasive procedure that impacts on patients' experiences of haemodialysis. This review illuminates further patients' experiences of cannulation for haemodialysis, indicating how improvements can be made to cannulation. PROSPERO (CRD42019134583).

Interventions for preventing distal intestinal obstruction syndrome (DIOS) in cystic fibrosis.

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is the most common, life-limiting, genetically inherited disease. It affects multiple organs, particularly the respiratory system. However, gastrointestinal problems such as constipation and distal intestinal obstruction syndrome (DIOS) are also important and well-recognised complications in CF. They share similar symptoms e.g. bloating, abdominal pain, but are distinct conditions. Constipation occurs when there is gradual faecal impaction of the colon, but DIOS occurs when there is an accumulation of faeces and sticky mucus, forming a mass in the distal part of the small intestine. The mass may partially block the intestine (incomplete DIOS) or completely block the intestine (complete DIOS). Symptoms of DIOS can affect quality of life and other aspects of CF health, such as airway clearance, exercise, sleep and nutritional status. Treatment of constipation and prevention of complete bowel obstruction are required for gastrointestinal management in CF. However, many different strategies are used in clinical practice and there is a lack of consensus. The importance of this topic was highlighted in a recent research priority setting exercise by the James Lind Alliance. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of laxative agents of differing types for preventing DIOS (complete and incomplete) in children and adults with CF. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. Date of search: 09 September 2021. We also searched online trial registries. Date of last search: 12 October 2021. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled parallel trials comparing laxative therapy for preventing DIOS (including osmotic agents, stimulants, mucolytics and substances with more than one action) at any dose to placebo, no treatment or an alternative laxative therapy, in people of any age with pancreatic sufficient or insufficient CF and any stage of lung disease. Randomised cross-over trials were judged on an individual basis. Two authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted outcome data and performed a risk of bias assessment for the included data. We judged the certaintyof the evidence using GRADE criteria. We included one cross-over trial (17 participants) with a duration of 12 months, in which participants were randomly allocated to either cisapride (a gastro-prokinetic agent) or placebo for six months each. The trial had an unclear risk of bias for most domains but had a high risk of reporting bias. Radiograph scores revealed no difference in occurrence of DIOS between cisapride and placebo (narrative report, no data provided). There were no adverse effects. Symptom scores were the only secondary outcome within the review that were reported. Total gastrointestinal symptom scores favoured cisapride with a statistically significant mean difference (MD) of -7.60 (95% confidence interval (CI) -14.73 to -0.47). There was no significant difference at six months between cisapride and placebo for abdominal distension, MD -0.90 (95% CI -2.39 to 0.59) or abdominal pain, MD -0.4 (95% CI -2.05 to 1.25). The global symptom scores (whether individuals felt better or worse) were reported in the paper to favour cisapride and be statistically significant (P < 0.05). We assessed the available data to be very low certainty. There was a great deal of missing data from the included trial and the investigators failed to report numerical data for many outcomes. The overall risk of bias of the trial was unclear and it had a high risk for reporting bias. There was also indirectness; the trial drug (cisapride) has since been removed from the market in several countries due to adverse effects, thus it has no current applicability for preventing DIOS. The included trial also had very few participants, which downgraded the certaintya further level for precision. There is an absence of evidence for interventions for the prevention of DIOS. As there was only one included trial, we could not perform a meta-analysis of the data. Furthermore, the included trial compared a prokinetic agent (cisapride) that is no longer licensed for use in a number of countries due to the risk of serious cardiac events, a finding that came to light after the trial was conducted. Therefore, the limited findings from the trial are not applicable in current clinical practice. Overall, a great deal more research needs to be undertaken on gastrointestinal complications in CF, as this is a very poorly studied area compared to respiratory complications in CF.

Sexually transmitted infection (STI) research priority-setting: a two-stage study including the perspectives of patients, the public, clinicians and stakeholders

ObjectivesPatient and public involvement (PPI) in research priority-setting remains limited, especially for non-HIV STI. We identify and compare the top 10 patient and public STI research priorities with those of...

Differing viewpoints around healthcare professions' education research priorities: A Q-methodology approach.

Recently, due to scarce resources and the need to provide an evidence-base for healthcare professions' education (HPE), HPE research centres internationally have turned to identifying priorities for their research efforts. Engaging a range of stakeholders in research priority setting exercises has been posited as one way to address the issues around reducing researcher bias and increasing social accountability. However, assigning individuals to single a priori stakeholder groups is complex, with previous research overlooking cross-category membership and agreement between individuals across groups. Further, analyses have pitched stakeholder groups against one another in an attempt to understand who prioritises what, and often fails to grasp rationales underlying priorities. A deeper understanding of who prioritises what research areas and why is required to consider applicability of results across contexts and deepen social accountability and transferability. A web-based Q-methodological approach with n=91 participants (who) from ten pre-classified stakeholder groups was employed with post-sort interviews (why). Sixty-seven Q-set items (Chinese/English languages) were developed from previous research (what). Participants were mainly from Taiwan, although international researchers were included. Q-sorting was undertakenin groups or individually, followed by post-sort interviews. Eighty-six participants' Q-sorts were included in the final analysis. Intercorrelations among Q-sorts were factor-analysed (Centroid method) and rotated analytically (Varimax method). Interviews were thematically analysed. Six Viewpoints with eigenvalues exceeding 1 were identified (range = 3.55-10.34; 42% total variance; 35/67 topics), mapping high/low priorities for research foci: Workplace teaching and learning; Patient dignity and healthcare safety; Professionalism and healthcare professionals' development; Medical ethics and moral development; Healthcare professionals' retention and success; Preparing for clinical practice. Eighteen rationales for prioritisation were identified: impact, organisational culture and deficit of educators/practitioners were most highly cited. Each Viewpoint, held by multiple stakeholders, comprised a unique set of topic-groupings, target study participants, beneficiaries and rationales. The two most prolific Viewpoints represent how different stakeholder groups highlight key complementary perspectives of healthcare professions' education in the workplace (efficacy of teaching/learning practices, application of knowledge/values). By illuminating the detail around each Viewpoint, and presenting an holistic description of the who-what-why in research priority setting, others wishing to undertake such an exercise can more easily identify how stakeholder Viewpoints and their epistemic beliefs can help shape healthcare professions' research agendas more generally.

Establishing key research questions for the implementation of artificial intelligence in colonoscopy: a modified Delphi method.

Background Artificial intelligence (AI) research in colonoscopy is progressing rapidly but widespread clinical implementation is not yet a reality. We aimed to identify the top implementation research priorities. Methods An established modified Delphi approach for research priority setting was used. Fifteen international experts, including endoscopists and translational computer scientists/engineers, from nine countries participated in an online survey over 9 months. Questions related to AI implementation in colonoscopy were generated as a long-list in the first round, and then scored in two subsequent rounds to identify the top 10 research questions. Results The top 10 ranked questions were categorized into five themes. Theme 1: clinical trial design/end points (4 questions), related to optimum trial designs for polyp detection and characterization, determining the optimal end points for evaluation of AI, and demonstrating impact on interval cancer rates. Theme 2: technological developments (3 questions), including improving detection of more challenging and advanced lesions, reduction of false-positive rates, and minimizing latency. Theme 3: clinical adoption/integration (1 question), concerning the effective combination of detection and characterization into one workflow. Theme 4: data access/annotation (1 question), concerning more efficient or automated data annotation methods to reduce the burden on human experts. Theme 5: regulatory approval (1 question), related to making regulatory approval processes more efficient. Conclusions This is the first reported international research priority setting exercise for AI in colonoscopy. The study findings should be used as a framework to guide future research with key stakeholders to accelerate the clinical implementation of AI in endoscopy.

Research Priorities for mHealth and Innovative Strategies in Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights in the WHO Africa Region

Background: The use of mobile phones continues to rise rapidly in the provision of health related services. Many countries have adopted the use of mobiles to provide sexual and reproductive health and rights and especially among the adolescents where specific messages are tailored for various audiences with specific messages. The purpose of this paper is to present the results of a research priority setting exercise on mHealth and innovative strategies. Methods: We adapted Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative methodology to identify and set research priorities on mHealth and innovative strategies that respond to sexual and reproductive health and rights services. General potential research questions were gathered online from multiple stakeholders in the region and sent for consolidation consolidated to technical experts in World Health Organization headquarters. The second phase involved a meeting with experts to review and thematically analyze the questions list of 33 questions producing a list of 22 research questions. The questions were scored against a six point criteria and ranked accordingly. Ten top priority research questions were identified. Results: Lists of 33 priority research questions for mHealth and innovative strategies were proposed for discussions by 67 stakeholders. The questions were reviewed, scored and ranked in a technical meeting by experts. The highest ranking questions at 87% include evaluation of mHealth for data management and sexual and reproductive health and rights decision making, assessment of innovative local financing techniques to support community based sexual reproductive health and rights and evaluation of the role of mobile technologies in referral and counter referral. Conclusions: Information and communication technology is developing drastically and has a great potential in improving health especially in sexual and reproductive health and rights service delivery. This potential must be demonstrated with more relevant and quality research on mHealth and innovative strategies priorities identified.

Top 10 research priorities for people living with pulmonary fibrosis, their caregivers, healthcare professionals and researchers

IntroductionPeople with pulmonary fibrosis (PF) experience a high symptom burden, reduced quality of life and a shortened lifespan. Treatment options are limited and little is known about what patients, caregivers...

Health Research Priority Setting in Oman: Towards better utilization of the available resources

Objective: This concept paper aims to portray the steps and strategies followed in setting the health research priorities in Sultanate of Oman.&#x0D; Methods: This exercise was developed based on COHRED management process to priority setting for planning a high-quality health research priority setting exercise at national and sub national levels. Ranking for the diseases and risk factors in Oman was based on the estimates obtained from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2016 study by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). The most important topics were generated from a panel of experts to tackle the above ranked problems, which was supported with a feasibility score to plan for conducting research.&#x0D; Results: A list of top 30 diseases and 10 risk factors based on DALYs estimates was ranked and listed. Sub-research topics were listed under each category. Feasibility scores were obtained from all the sub-national levels based on available human resources, infrastructure, financing, technology, legality, and ethical consideration. A plan for the next 15 years was developed for each sub national level based on the feasibility score.&#x0D; Conclusion: Prioritisation mechanisms are necessary to facilitate the current demand for increased harmonisation of health research to meet health services needs particularly in combination with translating the results into actions that improve overall population health. Due to the immense importance of health research in improving the health system and health services, the decision to prioritise health research was the first step in the direction to enhance health research and thereby enhance health service in Oman by the Centre of Studies &amp; Research. This intervention will lead the health system to achieve better planning for effective utilization of available resources.

Involving Individuals with Developmental Language Disorder and their Parents/Carers in Research Priority Setting.

A protocol for involving individuals presenting with developmental language disorder (DLD) (iDLD) and their parents/carers (iDLDPC) in a research priority setting exercise is presented. iDLD have difficulties with communication skills, such as understanding language, word-finding and discourse. Such difficulties mean existing research priority setting protocols are difficult for iDLD to access, since they require sophisticated communication skills. Thus, a novel protocol for involving iDLD in these exercises is warranted. The same protocol is recommended for use with iDLDPC, to ensure accessibility. The protocol is presented in 4 steps. Step 1 describes a program of activities delivered by trained, specialist DLD speech and language therapists (SLTs) that prepares iDLD/iDLDPC for involvement. Step 2 outlines an approach to elicit iDLD/iDLDPC's opinions on research priorities. Steps 3 and 4 describe methods to analyze and integrate this data at multiple stages of the research priority setting process. 9 trained specialist DLD SLTs delivered steps 1 and 2. 17 iDLDs and 25 iDLDPCs consented to involvement. Opinions from all participants were elicited, and this data was used to influence the process and output of the exercise. An advantage of this protocol is its accommodation of the heterogeneity in support needs of iDLD/iDLDPC, through a menu of options, whilst also providing a structured framework. Due to the novelty of the protocol, the methods for data integration were developed by the research group. These are potential limitations of the protocol, and may bring the reliability and validity under scrutiny, which are yet to be tested. This protocol enables meaningful involvement of iDLD/iDLDPC inresearch priority setting and could be utilized for people with other kinds of speech, language or communication needs. Further research should evaluate the effectiveness of the protocol and whether it can be adapted for involvement of such populations in other research studies.

Understanding the implications of the Sustainable Development Goals for health policy and systems research: results of a research priority setting exercise

BackgroundGiven the paradigmatic shift represented by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as compared to the Millennium Development Goals - in particular their broad and interconnected nature - a new set of health policy and systems research (HPSR) priorities are needed to inform strategies to address these interconnected goals.ObjectivesTo identify high priority HPSR questions linked to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.MethodsWe focused on three themes that we considered to be central to achieving the health related SDGs: (i) Protecting and promoting access to health services through systems of social protection (ii) Strengthening multisectoral collaborations for health and (iii) Developing more participatory and accountable institutions. We conducted 54 semi-structured interviews and two focus group discussions to investigate policy-maker perspectives on evidence needs. We also conducted an overview of literature reviews in each theme. Information from these sub-studies was extracted into a matrix of possible research questions and developed into three domain-specific lists of 30–36 potential priority questions. Topic experts from the global research community then refined and ranked the proposed questions through an online platform. A final webinar on each theme sought feedback on findings.ResultsPolicy-makers continue to demand HPSR for many well-established issues such as health financing, human resources for health, and service delivery. In terms of service delivery, policy-makers wanted to know how best to strengthen primary health care and community-based systems. In the themes of social protection and multisectoral collaboration, prioritized questions had a strong emphasis on issues of practical implementation. For participatory and accountable institutions, the two priority questions focused on political factors affecting the adoption of accountability measures, as well as health worker reactions to such measures.ConclusionsTo achieve the SDGs, there is a continuing need for research in some already well established areas of HPSR as well as key areas highlighted by decision-makers. Identifying appropriate conceptual frameworks as well as typologies of examples may be a prerequisite for answering some of the substantive policymaker questions. In addition, implementation research engaging non-traditional stakeholders outside of the health sector will be critical.

Setting priorities in child health research in India for 2016-2025: a CHNRI exercise undertaken by the Indian Council for Medical Research and INCLEN Trust.

BackgroundMillennium Development Goal 4 (MDGs) mobilised countries to reduce child mortality by two thirds the 1990 rate in 2015. While India did not reach MDG 4, it considerably reduced child mortality in the MDG-era. Efficient and targeted interventions and adequate monitoring are necessary to further progress in improvements to child health. Looking forward to the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG)-era, the Indian Council of Medical Research and The INCLEN Trust International conducted a national research priority setting exercise for maternal, child, newborn health, and maternal and child nutrition. Here, results are reported for child health.MethodsThe Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method for research priority setting was employed. Research ideas were crowd-sourced from a network of child health experts from across India; these were refined and consolidated into research options (ROs) which were scored against five weighted criteria to arrive weighted Research Priority Scores (wRPS). National and regional priority lists were prepared.Results90 experts contributed 596 ideas that were consolidated into 101 research options (ROs). These were scored by 233 experts nationwide. National wRPS for ROs ranged between 0.92 and 0.51. The majority of the top research priorities related to development of cost-effective interventions and their implementation, and impact evaluations, improving data quality; and monitoring of existing programs, or improving the management of morbidities. The research priorities varied between regions, the Economic Action Group and North-Eastern states prioritised questions relating to delivering interventions at community- or household-level, whereas the North-Eastern states and Union Territories prioritised research questions involving managing and measuring malaria, and the Southern and Western states prioritised research questions involving pharmacovigilance of vaccines, impact of newly introduced vaccines, and delivery of vaccines to hard-to-reach populations.ConclusionsResearch priorities varied geographically, according the stage of development of the area and mostly pertained to implementation sciences, which was expected given diversity in epidemiological profiles. Priority setting should help guide investment decisions by national and international agencies, therefore encouraging researchers to focus on priority areas. The ICMR has launched a grants programme for implementation research on maternal and child health to pursue research priorities identified by this exercise.

Operationalizing the Development of the National Unified Health Research Agenda 2017-2022

Introduction. The National Unified Health Research Agenda is a major document whose creation by the Philippine National Health Research Systems is mandated by Philippine Law. Multiple frameworks, methods, and approaches for the development of a health research agenda exists. Available literature on research priority setting have mostly focused on its methods, results, or implementation. There are limited studies on the operations management of conducting a national health research priority-setting exercise.&#x0D; Objectives. This paper aims to describe the operational components utilized to develop the NUHRA 2017-2022 and provide lessons learned for future research priority setting endeavors. Methods. This paper identified and categorized the operational components to develop the NUHRA 2017-2022 using the Enabler Criterion of the European Foundation for Quality Management’s (EFQM) Excellence Model.&#x0D; Results. Operationalizing the development of a national health research agenda requires the harmonization of multiple components. Having region-based staff involved in the production of a regional situational analysis improved its context and accuracy. The workload for each cluster team must be considered and anticipated by the management. Stakeholder engagement requires political, diplomatic, advocacy, marketing, management, and technical skills. The process requires building relationships with various institutions. In a largescale project, management processes must be in place to effectively track and monitor its progress.&#x0D; Conclusion. Operations and management are usually a neglected area in research and development projects. In a bottoms-up research priority-setting approach, iteration and flexibility is needed which requires a lot of management skills and insight. Duration of the project, planning, resources available, and quality of outputs have a strong interconnected relationship.