Setting Research Priorities Research Articles

Patient and public involvement in HIV research: a mapping review and development of an online evidence map.

Increasing evidence indicates the benefits of patient and public involvement (PPI) in medical research, and PPI is increasingly expected by funders and publishers. We conducted a mapping review of studies reporting examples of PPI implementation in HIV research, and developed an online evidence map to guide HIV researchers. We systematically searched Medline and Embase up until 18 August 2024, including search terms with variations for PPI and HIV. We extracted information from identified studies in duplicate and analysed the data descriptively and qualitatively to describe types of PPI models and reported benefits, challenges, and mitigation strategies. This study was co-initiated and co-led by people living with HIV. We identified 17 studies reporting PPI in HIV research between 1992 and August 2024. Most PPI examples informed prospective clinical studies, but also qualitative research, questionnaire development, research priority setting and surveys. Ten studies described the number and characteristics of PPI members involved. We observed four PPI models, from a model that solely engaged PPI members for a specific task to a model whereby PPI representatives were integrated into the study team with decision-making authority. Benefits reported included wider dissemination of research results, better understanding of research material and results, and higher levels of trust and learning between researcher and communities. The most commonly reported challenges were the lack of specific resources for PPI, differing levels of knowledge and expertise, concern about HIV status disclosure, and lack of diversity of the PPI team. Uneven power dynamics, tensions, and differing expectations between stake-holder groups were also frequently noted. This mapping review summarizes published examples of PPI in HIV research for various phases of research. There is a clear need to strengthen the reporting on PPI processes in HIV research, for example by following the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP) 2 guidelines, and developing guidance on its hands-on implementation. We embedded PPI from study inception onwards, which potentially pre-empted some of the challenges reported in the reviewed examples. The resulting online evidence map is a starting point to guide researchers on integrating PPI into their own research.

Considerations for prioritising clinical research using bacteriophage.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses a significant global health threat, as it contributes to prolonged illness, higher mortality rates and increased healthcare costs. As traditional antibiotics become less effective, treatments such as bacteriophage therapy offer potential solutions. The question remains, however, on how to set research priorities in the face of a growing number of antibiotic-resistant pathogens, some common and/or dangerous. One standard way of making decisions about which research to prioritise is by using the disability-adjusted life year metric to estimate the current global impact of a disease or condition, combined with considerations of social justice although decisions made at a national level by governments, especially in low income countries with forecasting potential over future needs may look very different. Another approach is based on the needs of researchers and regulators given what we know about the technology itself. The biological characteristics of bacteriophage therapies set challenges to a universal and standardised prioritisation method. A proof of principle is still arguably needed. With a preliminary discussion of the scope and complexity of AMR and AMR therapeutics, we propose some implications of regulatory frameworks aiming to integrate bacteriophage therapy into mainstream medical practice while gathering scientific data on safety and efficacy, enhancing the collective action needed to combat AMR.

Embedding voices of under-served communities in Health Research Priority Setting in Thailand

Health research is needed to develop new treatments, diagnostic methods and prevention strategies for many diseases, but resources are limited particularly in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). Our proposed project involves in-depth engagement with community advisory boards and existing community groups in healthcare research priority setting in Thailand. We will use Wellcome’s “Responsive Dialogues” engagement approach, focusing on “underserved” groups, as their voices are seldom heard in healthcare research priority setting. We estimate that we will engage with 6–8 community groups involving 48–80 participants. Our objectives are firstly, to contribute to the health research agenda setting in Thailand for government, non-governmental actors, academia, and others who conduct health research in the next 5 to 10 years. Secondly, we aim to identify ethical and practical issues related to healthcare research priority setting, specifically in relation to involving under-served communities.

UK research priority setting for childhood neurological conditions.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dmcn.16021

Abstract B002: Cancer health equity and research advocacy program among immigrant communities

Abstract Introduction: In an effort to ensure an all-inclusive initiative that would close the disparity gap among the immigrant communities in Florida, we developed a pilot project under the Inclusive Cancer Care Research Equity (iCCaRE) for Black Men Consortium with generous support from the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center (MCCCC). The objective is to train cancer advocates to engage their communities and develop and implement cancer prevention and screening navigation programs. The central hypothesis for this program is that community-driven cancer advocacy will significantly improve cancer awareness, knowledge, prevention, risk reduction, screening uptake, and early detection among Black immigrants. Methods: We collaborated with immigrant communities’ leaders to brainstorm on the current state of healthcare access and disparities experienced by Black immigrants and to set program and research priorities through listening sessions. Cancer advocates were trained to engage their communities to (1) develop and implement cancer risk reduction and education programs using train-the-trainer approach, (2) mobilize the resources within the community for cancer health promotion, prevention, and screening strategies, (3) partner with key stakeholders to accomplish targeted objectives; (4) raise funds to support advocacy activities; and (5) develop and successfully organize community-centered programs. Results: We are currently working with 10 Black immigrant organizations, including immigrant churches across different ethnicities, including Nigeria, Ghana, Cameroon, Liberia, South Africa, Haiti, Jamaica, and across different cities in the United States. Eighteen community cancer advocates, including breast and prostate cancer survivors, caregivers, and community influencers, were trained to engage the immigrant communities in cancer risk reduction and research in Florida using multiple channels, including in-person community programs and online engagement approaches. We have engaged 720 immigrants in cancer risk reduction education and the need to participate in research during advocate-led in-person community outreaches. We currently have 26 immigrants who have volunteered in the Mayo Clinic Community Research Registry. The program is ongoing, and we anticipate that more than 750 will be engaged, and 100 will volunteer to be registered in the Mayo Clinic Community Research Registry. Conclusion: Advocate-led advocacy in immigrant communities will provide evidence for compelling arguments about the feasibility and availability of the Black immigrant population for robust and sustainable research and program engagements to eliminate disparity and advance cancer health equity. Citation Format: Opeyemi O. Bolajoko, Caleb Ramirez, Shannon Pressey, Noreen A. Stephenson, Vinessa A. Gordon, Binta Onyibe, Kingsley Efe, Austin Okaiwele, Mubo Oloruntobo, Brittany M. Norris, Folakemi T. Odedina. Cancer health equity and research advocacy program among immigrant communities [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 17th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2024 Sep 21-24; Los Angeles, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2024;33(9 Suppl):Abstract nr B002.

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.

Global emergency medicine research priorities: a mapping review.

Recognizing and prioritizing research areas in emergency care is crucial for generating evidence and advancing research programs, aiming to enhance health outcomes for both individuals and populations. The objective of this review is to document global clinical and nonclinical research priorities. The Emergency Medicine Education and Research by Global Experts network, consisting of 22 sites across six continents, conducted a mapping review of publications on emergency medicine research priorities (2000-2022) across seven databases. We included studies with replicable methodologies for determining research priorities, excluding those limited to individual diseases. Three reviewers independently screened, selected, and categorized results into clinical and nonclinical topics. Discrepancies were resolved by an independent investigator and consensus. Outcomes measures and analysis include descriptive analysis of research priorities grouped into clinical and nonclinical topics, characteristics of publications including countries represented in the author list, target audience (such as researchers or policy makers), participants (e.g. patients), and methods (e.g. Delphi) of priority setting. Among 968 screened papers, 57 publications from all WHO regions were included. Most (36, 63%) had authors from only a single country, primarily in North America and Europe. Patient representatives were included in only 10 (18%). Clinical research priorities clustered into resuscitation, cardiology, central nervous system, emergency medical services, infectious disease, mental health, respiratory disease, and trauma. Distribution was broad in North America and Europe but focused on infectious diseases and resuscitation in Africa and Asia. Eleven nonclinical topics included access to care, health policy, screening/triage, social determinants of health, staffing, technology/simulation, shared decision making, cross-sectoral collaboration, education, patient-centered care, and research networks. Nonclinical topics were broad in Europe and America, focused on access to care and health screening in Africa, and mostly absent in other WHO regions. Published research priorities in emergency medicine are heterogeneous and geographically limited, mostly containing groups of authors from the same country. The majority of publications in global research priority setting stem from Western countries, covering a broad spectrum of clinical and nonclinical topics. Research priorities from Africa and Asia tend to focus on specific issues more prevalent in those regions of the world.

Eating Disorder and Autism Collaborative project outline: promoting eating disorder research embedded in a neurodiversity-affirming culture.

EDAC (Eating Disorders and Autism Collaborative) is an innovative project aiming to increase research capacity by supporting collaboration in the fields of eating disorders and autism. EDAC comprises four integrated workstreams to co-produce interdisciplinary research, directed by Autistic individuals with lived experience of eating disorders. Workstream 1 will outline best collaborative practices, informing the research network. Workstream 2 will use arts-based methodologies to set research priorities, with emphasis on the perspectives of underrepresented groups. Workstream 3 will support interdisciplinary collaborations to develop innovative research. Finally, workstream 4 will maximise knowledge mobilisation with the aim of reducing barriers to rapid incorporation of research into policy and clinical practice. A core aim of EDAC is to embed a neurodiversity-affirming culture within eating disorder research and to support the development of a new generation of researchers conducting innovative and meaningful research with the potential to improve clinical outcomes.

The 2018 James Lind alliance adult social work priority setting partnership report: Its use and engagement

Summary The James Lind Alliance (JLA) is a nonprofit United Kingdom (UK) organization that builds a set of research priorities for any given topic through the systematic involvement of practitioners, service users, carers, and stakeholders. In 2021/2022, we reviewed the impact of the JLA priority setting partnership (PSP) on adult social work research (2018). Our research question was “How has social work research responded to and changed since the 2018 JLA priority setting report; and where do we need to focus now?” We searched for research which aligned with the published priorities. We then interviewed 23 social work researchers to learn if/how they had engaged with the JLA PSP and what might be needed for future PSP exercises and research. Findings We discuss our findings with reference to other reviews of JLA PSPs. We conclude that the JLA PSP for adult social work was uniquely suited to the field given the history of person-centered practices, and this may account for some of the positive reviews of the report. The JLA process and ethos were respected and the report potentially raised the profile of adult social work research, while highlighting unaddressed questions. Applications Though there are many JLA PSP reviews, this study is one of the few to consider impact, we propose a review process could be applied to PSP exercises more regularly.

Developing research priorities for palliative care in Colombia: a priority setting partnership approach

BackgroundA recent Lancet commission called for more research on palliative care in low- and middle-income (LMIC) countries such as Colombia. A research priority setting approach has been recommended by The Global Forum for Health Research to address the huge gap in research output between LMIC and high-income countries, with influential health service bodies recommending the active involvement of non-research expert stakeholders in establishing research priorities to address service user needs.MethodPriority setting partnership (PSP) following the four stages of the James Lind Alliance methodology; establishing the partnership, identifying evidence uncertainties, refining questions and uncertainties, and prioritization. Data from MS forms were analysed using descriptive statistics.ResultsA total of 33 stakeholders attended an online PSP workshop and completed the Mentimeter exercise in Microsoft Teams. A total of 48 attended the subsequent in person prioritisation exercise in urban Bogota (n = 22) and rural Popayan (n = 25). The stakeholders were a diverse group of health professionals (physicians, medical students, nurses, dentists, physiotherapists, nutritionist, occupational and speech therapists), financial and administrative staff and patients with life-limiting illness and caregivers. Top research priorities included patient and caregiver needs, service provider education and training, and better integration of palliative care with cancer and non-cancer services. The key challenges included a lack of interest in palliative care research, along with funding, time and resource constraints. Key solutions included collaboration across disciplines and settings, highlighting benefits of palliative research to help secure adequate resources, and multicentre, mixed method research, with patient involvement from the research development stage.ConclusionThe findings of this PSP should be disseminated among palliative care associations worldwide to inform international multicentre studies, and among governmental and nongovernmental organisations that promote research in Colombia. A focus on patient and family caregiver palliative care needs in Colombia should be prioritised.

Involving patients and families in prioritising research in cardiomyopathies

Abstract Background/Introduction Cardiomyopathy affects 1 in 300 of the population and can have profound physical and psychological impacts on patients and families. There remains uncertainty around many aspects of disease management and patient needs. Research can address these uncertainties by identifying definitive treatments, optimal management strategies, and holistic support requirements. To ensure that cardiomyopathy research reflects the shared interests of patients, carers and clinicians, a leading cardiomyopathy patient charity sponsored a Research Priority Setting Partnership (PSP). Methods The Cardiomyopathy PSP was run according to the James Lind Alliance (JLA) method(1, Figure 1). Results A steering group (SG) comprised eight people with lived experience of cardiomyopathies and nine healthcare professionals (HCPs), representing the multidisciplinary team, decided on the scope and breadth of the PSP to cover cardiomyopathies and for a United Kingdom-wide survey. The initial survey was open to the cardiomyopathy community from June-August 2023 (six weeks). They were invited to submit questions that they would like answered by research. The survey was online and hard copies were also sent to peer support groups where group leaders encouraged members to complete the form during their in-person meeting. There were 1020 respondents generating just over 2000 questions. The majority of respondents (78%) were people with lived experience. The SG and an information specialist grouped submitted questions into topic headings, consolidated similar questions, removed those that were out of scope and agreed on the final list of 60 questions for the shortlisting survey. This second survey consisted of 2 steps: 1. Respondents selected from the full list of questions identified by the first survey and 2.They were then asked to choose 10 questions from their selection which were most important to them. A total of 660 responses were collected and selected questions were organised into 2 groups according to the type of respondent (those with lived experience or HCPs). Questions were weighted according to the number of times they were selected within each group and then merged into a single shortlist of 26. The final workshop was conducted on February 2, 2024 where the Top 10 Research Questions from the shortlist were agreed by a mixed group of lived experience and HCP participants (Figure 2). Conclusion A Research PSP using the JLA method facilitates the generation and prioritisation of research questions/uncertainties that address the mismatch between what researchers want to research and the practical solutions/information needed day-to-day by HCPs to give holistic care that is relevant to patients, families and carers.Fig 1James Lind Alliance MethodFig 2Top Ten Research Questions

UK research priority setting for childhood neurological conditions.

To identify research priorities regarding the effectiveness of interventions for children and young people (CYP) with childhood neurological conditions (CNCs). These include common conditions such as epilepsies and cerebral palsy, as well as many rare conditions. The National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) and the James Lind Alliance (JLA) champion and facilitate priority setting partnerships (PSPs) between patients, caregivers, and clinicians (stakeholders) to identify the most important unanswered questions for research (uncertainties). A NIHR-JLA and British Paediatric Neurology Association collaboration used the JLA PSP methodology. This consisted of two surveys to stakeholders: survey 1 (to identify uncertainties) and survey 2 (a prioritization survey). The final top 10 priorities were agreed by consensus in a stakeholder workshop. One hundred and thirty-two charities and partner organizations were invited to participate. In survey 1, 701 participants (70% non-clinicians, including CYP and parent and caregivers) submitted 1800 uncertainties from which 44 uncertainties were identified for prioritization in survey 2; from these, 1451 participants (83% non-clinicians) selected their top 10 priorities. An unweighted amalgamated score across participant roles was used to select 26. In the final workshop, 14 health care professionals, 11 parent and caregivers, and two CYP ranked the 26 questions to finalize the top 10 priorities. Ten top priority questions were identified regarding interventions to treat CYP with CNCs and their associated comorbidities, for example, sleep, emotional well-being, and distressing symptoms. The results of this study will inform research into the effectiveness of interventions for children with neurological conditions.

20 years of herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) research in low-income and middle-income countries: systematic evaluation of progress made in addressing WHO priorities for research in HSV-2/HIV interactions, HSV-2 control and mathematical modelling

IntroductionReviewing and updating research priorities is essential to assess progress and to ensure optimal allocation of financial and human resources in research. In 2001, WHO held a research priority setting...

Dementia in-patient units in psychiatric hospitals: research priority setting

Aims and method Dementia in-patient units (DIU) are mental health wards that care for people living with dementia (PLWD) whose symptoms are causing severe distress or potential risk. DIUs look after some of the most vulnerable and unwell people in society, yet they are environments that are underresearched: a recent systematic review revealed only 36 articles worldwide relating to DIUs. To better understand research priorities in DIUs, we undertook a two-round online Delphi survey of PLWD with experience of DIUs, their carers and professionals who work in DIUs. Results Ten research priorities were described and ranked. The top three were how to use non-pharmacological techniques to manage non-cognitive symptoms of dementia, supporting families and better understanding of how to discharge PLWD safely and healthily. Clinical implications This is the first Delphi consensus to describe DIU research priorities. This paper will help researchers focus on the areas that matter most to people who use DIUs.

Reinforcement of research priority setting (RPS) in Ayurveda

Reinforcement of research priority setting (RPS) in Ayurveda

Twenty years of herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) research in low-income and middle-income countries: systematic evaluation of progress made in addressing WHO prioritiesfor research in HSV-2 epidemiology and diagnostics

IntroductionLow-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) have a high burden of herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) infection, which has been strongly associated with HIV. In 2001, the WHO hosted a...

Exploring Health Research Priority Setting in a South African Province: A Nominal Group Technique Approach.

In August 2022, the Free State Provincial Health Research Committee used the online nominal group technique (NGT) for Health Research Priority Setting (HRPS) for the Free State Department of Health (FSDoH) and the research community, considering various stakeholders' perspectives. This paper explores and describes the identified health research priorities. It also assesses their alignment with the National Health Research Strategy. Additionally, it provides an opinion on the feasibility of using the online NGT for collaborative co-creation of provincial-level health research priorities. Most of the identified health research priorities resonate with the national health research priorities identified by the National Health Research Committee. However, research to "strengthen surveillance" was uniquely perceived to be a priority by the participants in the Free State HRPS exercise. A plausible reason for this might be their heightened awareness of the vital role optimal surveillance systems play in coordinating intersectoral responses to pandemics, particularly considering the serious challenges emerging during the initial stages of the COVID-19 outbreak.

Emerging Role of Environmental Epitranscriptomics and RNA Modifications in Parkinson's Disease.

Environmental risk factors and gene-environment interactions play a critical role in Parkinson's disease (PD). However, the relatively large contribution of environmental risk factors in the overwhelming majority of PD cases has been widely neglected in the field. A "PD prevention agenda" proposed in this journal laid out a set of research priorities focused on preventing PD through modification of environmental risk factors. This agenda includes a call for preclinical studies to employ new high-throughput methods for analyzing transcriptomics and epigenomics to provide a deeper understanding of the effects of exposures linked to PD. Here, we focus on epitranscriptomics as a novel area of research with the potential to add to our understanding of the interplay between genes and environmental exposures in PD. Both epigenetics and epitranscriptomics have been recognized as potential mediators of the complex relationship between genes, environment, and disease. Multiple studies have identified epigenetic alterations, such as DNA methylation, associated with PD and PD-related exposures in human studies and preclinical models. In addition, recent technological advancements have made it possible to study epitranscriptomic RNA modifications, such as RNA N6-methyladenosine (m6A), and a handful of recent studies have begun to explore epitranscriptomics in PD-relevant exposure models. Continued exploration of epitranscriptomic mechanisms in environmentally relevant PD models offers the opportunity to identify biomarkers, pre-degenerative changes that precede symptom onset, and potential mitigation strategies for disease prevention and treatment.

Experience is central and connections matter: A Leximancer analysis of the research priorities of people with lived experience of mental health issues in Australia

Mental health research priority-setting has a long history internationally. Many of these studies use expert panels or consensus methods across multiple mental health stakeholder groups. Whilst such approaches are designed to produce agreed research priorities, there is a risk that the specific and nuanced priorities of less powerful groups, especially those with lived experience of mental health issues, are lost in translation. We aimed to develop Australian mental health research priorities from the perspectives of people living with mental ill-health and their carers, families and kinship group members. A cross-sectional, open-ended survey was conducted nationally in Australia during January and February 2022. We asked participants to list three priorities on which mental health research should focus. Responses were analysed using Leximancer, a text analytics tool, to examine the concepts and their connections across the data. A total of 365 people with lived experience of mental ill-health participated in the survey. The majority (57%) identified as consumers, with 14% identifying as carers and 29% reporting both types of lived experience. Participants were from all Australian states and territories and from metropolitan, regional and remote areas. The Leximancer analysis generated 30 concepts in six thematic priority areas. The most prominent themes were experience, treatment and impact, followed by stigma, peer and trauma. The concept maps displayed complex connections and interrelationships between specific concepts, with lived experience a large and central concept. Analysis of the textual responses emphasised the importance of examining specifics, as the nuanced research priorities traversed themes and concept across the maps. This project provides robust evidence on the central importance of experience as driving mental health lived experience research priorities. Further, it demonstrates that people with lived experience describe the key issues in complex, interrelated ways that require multi-factorial research approaches to address.

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.