Setting Research Priorities Research Articles

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."

Developing the AMPHORA policy guidelines for heritage projects as mental health interventions: a Delphi consultation

PurposeEngaging with heritage to support mental health and wellbeing has become a focus of research and policy, more recently moving towards social prescription of heritage interventions. While there are benefits to active participation, there are potential risks to those taking part and to the non-renewable historic remains and landscape that form the core of these projects. The purpose of the current research paper was to develop best practice guidelines for organisations offering heritage projects as interventions for people who live with mental health issues to protect both participants and heritage.Design/methodology/approachThere were two research phases; a Sandpit with World Café discussions to produce a set of research priorities, and a Delphi Consultation, using three questionnaires distributed over six months, to develop best practice guidelines. The panel in both phases comprised experts through lived experience, policy, practice and research.FindingsThe Authentic and Meaningful Participation in Heritage or Related Activities (AMPHORA) guidelines cover three stages: project development, project delivery and project follow-up, with a set of action points for each stage. Of particular importance was authentic participation and expertise to ensure appropriate management of heritage/ historic environment assets and support for participants.Social implicationsThe AMPHORA guidelines can assist all organisations in the delivery of safe projects that support the mental health of those involved, as well as enhancing and protecting the historic environment.Originality/valueTo the best of the authors’ knowledge, these are the first research-led guidelines that help heritage organisations support those living with mental health issues.

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

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

Research priority-setting is an ethics exercise: lessons from the Global Forum on Bioethics in Research for the Region of the Americas.

Research priority-setting is an ethics exercise: lessons from the Global Forum on Bioethics in Research for the Region of the Americas.

Ideas for bridging the academic-policy divide at the nexus of gender and entrepreneurship

PurposeInspired by the “responsibility turn” in the broader organization/management literature, the overarching aim of this article is to help scholars working at the gender × entrepreneurship intersection produce research with a higher likelihood of being accessed, appreciated and acted upon by policy- practitioners. Consistent with this aim, we hope that our paper contributes to an increased use of academic-practitioner collaborations as a means of producing such research.Design/methodology/approachWe selected Cunliffe and Pavlovich’s (2022) recently formulated “public organization/management studies” (public OMS) approach as our guiding methodology. We implemented this approach by forming a co-authorship team comprised of a policy professional and an entrepreneurship scholar and then engaging in a democratic, collaborative and mutually respectful process of knowledge cogeneration.FindingsOur paper is comprised of four distinct sets of ideas. We start by describing who policy-practitioners are and what they want from academic research in general. We follow this with a comprehensive set of priorities for policy-oriented research at the gender × entrepreneurship nexus, accompanied by references to academic studies that offer initial insight into the identified priorities. We then offer suggestions for the separate and joint actions that scholars and policy-practitioners can take to increase policy-relevant research on gender and entrepreneurship. We end with a description and critical reflection on our application of the public OMS approach.Originality/valueThe ideas presented in our article offer an original response to recent work that has critiqued the policy implications (or lack thereof) within prior research at the gender × entrepreneurship nexus (Foss et al., 2019). Our ideas also complement and extend existing recommendations for strengthening the practical contributions of academic scholarship at this intersection (Nelson, 2020). An especially unique aspect is our description of – and critical reflection upon – how we applied the public OMS approach to bridge the academic-policy divide.

Setting research priorities for global pandemic preparedness: An international consensus and comparison with ChatGPT's output.

In this priority-setting exercise, we sought to identify leading research priorities needed for strengthening future pandemic preparedness and response across countries. The International Society of Global Health (ISoGH) used the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method to identify research priorities for future pandemic preparedness. Eighty experts in global health, translational and clinical research identified 163 research ideas, of which 42 experts then scored based on five pre-defined criteria. We calculated intermediate criterion-specific scores and overall research priority scores from the mean of individual scores for each research idea. We used a bootstrap (n = 1000) to compute the 95% confidence intervals. Key priorities included strengthening health systems, rapid vaccine and treatment production, improving international cooperation, and enhancing surveillance efficiency. Other priorities included learning from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, managing supply chains, identifying planning gaps, and promoting equitable interventions. We compared this CHNRI-based outcome with the 14 research priorities generated and ranked by ChatGPT, encountering both striking similarities and clear differences. Priority setting processes based on human crowdsourcing - such as the CHNRI method - and the output provided by ChatGPT are both valuable, as they complement and strengthen each other. The priorities identified by ChatGPT were more grounded in theory, while those identified by CHNRI were guided by recent practical experiences. Addressing these priorities, along with improvements in health planning, equitable community-based interventions, and the capacity of primary health care, is vital for better pandemic preparedness and response in many settings.

“I want to see them thrive!”: exploring health service research priorities for young Aboriginal children growing up in Alice Springs – a qualitative study

To better understand the specific influences of early life on the long-term health and well-being of local Aboriginal children in Alice Springs, high-quality local longitudinal data is required. The Central Australian Aboriginal Congress and the Murdoch Children's Research Institute are exploring the feasibility of establishing a cohort study to fill this gap. A nested qualitative study was conducted to identify priority issues that can be translated into research questions answerable through the proposed cohort study. Semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with a range of key community stakeholders, parents and caregivers of young Aboriginal children from Alice Springs in the Northern Territory between 2020 and 2021. Two Aboriginal and two non-Aboriginal researchers conducted 27 interviews and 3 FGDs with 42 participants. Three broad themes were constructed through reflexive thematic analysis representing the areas of focus community stakeholders and parents want future research to prioritise: (1) social determinants of health (2) building positive connections, and (3) making sure kids grow up strong and healthy. Priority setting for future research should be driven by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in order to be of practical benefit to their community. This qualitative study found that housing, transport and positive connections through nurturing and engaged parents were some of the most important issues raised. Participants also wanted future research to focus on issues specific to children such as nutrition, hearing loss, language development and capacity to learn. These findings will guide future work led by local Aboriginal researchers to co-design the proposed cohort study.

Effective mission-oriented research: A new framework for systemic research impact assessment

Abstract Mission-oriented research combines a wide array of natural and social science disciplines to offer solutions for complex and multi-dimensional challenges such as climate change, loss of biodiversity, and scarcity of natural resources. The utilization of the outputs of mission-oriented research aims for changes in behavior, policy and practice resulting in real world impacts. Systematically assessing such research impacts and impact-generating processes is novel and offers great potential to plan for impactful research. This article develops a framework for systemic research impact assessment (RIA) on the basis of a literature review taking natural resource management (NRM) research as an example. The review compiles and analyzes 70 relevant RIA approaches. The resulting framework combines four components for improving societal impacts (1) an integrated component enabling reflection of impacts on all sustainability dimensions, (2) a missions component orienting toward societal goals to ensure societal relevance, (3) an inclusive component enabling wide participation to ensure legitimacy of research and its impact, and (4) a strategic component to choose appropriate assessment scales and time dimensions to ensure effectiveness. We provide suitable examples for the framework and we conclude with a call for an increased use of systemic and formative RIA that incorporate participatory strategies for research priority setting as well as socially deliberated target systems (e.g. SDGs), to plan for impactful mission-oriented research.

Top ten research priorities for alcohol use disorder and alcohol-related liver disease: results of a multistakeholder research priority setting partnership

Top ten research priorities for alcohol use disorder and alcohol-related liver disease: results of a multistakeholder research priority setting partnership

Setting research priorities for applied cognitive sciences—What do teachers want from research?

AbstractWhile research evidence has the potential to improve classroom practice, research–practice gaps continue to persist not least owing to the limited relevance of research findings for practice. A common approach in healthcare to address the research–practice gap is to form research priority setting partnerships (PSPs) in which stakeholders identify questions they would like research to answer. This paper presents the results from such a PSP in education with a focus on cognitive science research, which has received increased attention in the past few years owing to its potential to explain memory and learning processes and inform classroom practice. Over 400 questions from teachers were collected using an online survey. The final 15 research priorities highlight the need for research on a wider range of subjects, settings and phases as well as research designs that take the complexity of classrooms into consideration and aim to answer how different teaching strategies interact with each other as well as student motivation and agency at the micro‐ and macro‐level. The role of teacher expertise vs. fidelity to original research designs should also be investigated further. Overall, this paper highlights the importance of taking teacher voice into account to ensure that new research in the field is both academically rigorous and practically relevant.

International Atherosclerosis Society Roadmap for Familial Hypercholesterolaemia.

Familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH), a common monogenic disorder, is a preventable cause of premature coronary artery disease and death. Up to 35 million people worldwide have FH, but most remain undetected and undertreated. Several clinical guidelines have addressed the gaps in care of FH, but little focus has been given to implementation science and practice. The International Atherosclerosis Society (IAS) has developed an evidence-informed guidance for the detection and management of patients with FH, supplemented with implementation strategies to optimize contextual models of care. The guidance is partitioned into detection, management and implementation sections. Detection deals with screening, diagnosis, genetic testing and counselling. Management includes risk stratification, treatment of adults and children with heterozygous and homozygous FH, management of FH during pregnancy, and use of lipoprotein apheresis. Specific and general implementation strategies, guided by processes specified by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy, are provided. Core generic implementation strategies are given for improving care. Nation-specific cholesterol awareness campaigns should be utilized to promote better detection of FH. Integrated models of care should be underpinned by health policy and adapted to meet local, regional and national needs. Clinical centres of excellence are important for taking referrals from the community. General practitioners should work seamlessly with multidisciplinary teams. All health-care providers must receive training in essential skills for caring for patients and families with FH. Management should be supported by shared decision-making and service improvement driven by patient-reported outcomes. Improvements in services require sharing of existing resources that can support care. Advocacy should be utilized to ensure sustainable funding. Digital health technologies and clinical quality registries have special value. Finally, academic-service partnerships need to be developed to identify gaps in care and set priorities for research. This new IAS guidance on FH complements the recent World Heart Federation Cholesterol Roadmap.

What are the priorities for research of older people living in their own home, including those living with frailty? A systematic review and content analysis of studies reporting older people's priorities and unmet needs.

There is limited evidence regarding the needs of older people, including those living with frailty, to inform research priority setting. This systematic review aimed to identify the range of research priorities of community-dwelling older people living in their own home, including those living with frailty. Included studies were from economically developed countries and designed to identify the priorities for research or unmet needs of community-dwelling older people. Studies were excluded if they described priorities relating to specific health conditions. Medline, Embase, PsycInfo and CINAHL were searched (January 2010-June 2022), alongside grey literature. Study quality was assessed, but studies were not excluded on the basis of quality. A bespoke data extraction form was used and content analysis undertaken to synthesise findings. Seventy-five reports were included. Seven explicitly aimed to identify the priorities or unmet needs of frail older people; 68 did not specify frailty as a characteristic. Study designs varied, including priority setting exercises, surveys, interviews, focus groups and literature reviews. Identified priorities and unmet needs were organised into themes: prevention and management, improving health and care service provision, improving daily life, meeting carers' needs and planning ahead. Many priority areas were raised by older people, carers and health/care professionals, but few were identified explicitly by/for frail older people. An overarching need was identified for tailored, collaborative provision of care and support. Review findings provide a valuable resource for researchers and health/care staff wishing to focus their research or service provision on areas of importance for older people.

Ethics and health research priority setting: a narrative review.

This narrative review aims to describe current practice and ongoing discussions in the academic literature regarding ethics and health research priority setting. It begins with some preliminary distinctions regarding types of research priority setting. It then gives some background on current practice with respect to formal research priority setting exercises, including summaries of The Ad Hoc Committee on Health Research method, the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method, the Combined Approach Matrix (CAM), the Delphi method, the Essential National Health Research (ENHR) strategy for priority setting, and the James Lind Alliance (JLA) framework. The majority of the paper reports the results of a literature review covering specifically ethical issues under the thematic headings of process criteria, substantive criteria, global justice, the obligations of specific actors, and research topics. It closes with some summary thoughts about apparent gaps and directions for future investigation.

Sea Grant Research Funding: Advancing the Scientific Discourse by Addressing Local Research Priorities

Scientific research is often supported by public funds for the public good, and there is a trend toward using public funds to support actionable science that can be integrated into policy or practice. Funding agencies can set research priorities through the focus and timing of their research calls and funding decisions. There is a need to study funding models to better understand the relationship between agency priorities and scientific discourse. We present a case study of the National Sea Grant College Program’s research funding. Sea Grant is a federally funded network of 34 state- or territory-​based programs that fund research and perform education and outreach work on coastal environmental and natural resource issues. Individual Sea Grant programs set research priorities based on local needs, often focusing on actionable science. To assess the contributions of Sea Grant-funded research, we analyzed available citations and abstracts from Web of Science and examined patterns in article authors, journals, citations, keywords, and abstracts. The study shows that Sea Grant has significantly contributed to the scientific literature while being effective on cost-per-​publication and cost-per-citation bases. The results illustrated how targeted funding can address important local issues while substantially contributing to the broader scientific literature.

Arts-Based Approaches to Priority Setting: Current Applications and Future Possibilities

Background: Arts-based research methods and priority setting research both reflect growing commitments towards public and participant involvement in research activities. This has contributed to a growth of these respective methods across research disciplines and sectors, but their intersection has not been explored. Methods: We conducted a scoping review to map the state-of-the-science of arts-based approaches within priority setting research. We conducted an open search of three databases, conducted reference list mining, and hand-searched two journals to identify relevant articles. Of 5457 records retrieved, 11 met our pre-established inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Data were extracted using Microsoft Excel to produce narrative and descriptive summaries. Findings: All articles had some degree of health focus. Areas of priority setting centered on chronic illness, hard to reach populations, cancer survivorship, dental reform, and youth. In terms of artistic approaches, the majority of the articles included visual methods, with some articles utilizing multiple art approaches such as music, drawing, and filmmaking. Qualitative methods were used in all articles alongside the arts-based approaches, encompassing techniques such as interviews, discussions, and storytelling. Priority setting activites were mainly facilitated in group settings. The suggested benefits of arts-based approaches included enhancing participant communication, improving accessible research dissemination, and encouraging dialogues on identified health concerns. Challenges with using arts-based approaches included limitations on time and resources. Conclusion: Arts-based approaches to priority setting is an expanding field, with clear applications across various research contexts and priority focal areas. Further attention to the integration of arts-based approaches within priority setting, their theoretical underpinnings, and concurrent development and evaluation of arts-based priority setting methods are warranted.

Getting around the roundworms: Identifying knowledge gaps and research priorities for the ascarids.

The ascarids are a large group of parasitic nematodes that infect a wide range of animal species. In humans, they cause neglected diseases of poverty; many animal parasites also cause zoonotic infections in people. Control measures include hygiene and anthelmintic treatments, but they are not always appropriate or effective and this creates a continuing need to search for better ways to reduce the human, welfare and economic costs of these infections. To this end, Le Studium Institute of Advanced Studies organized a two-day conference to identify major gaps in our understanding of ascarid parasites with a view to setting research priorities that would allow for improved control. The participants identified several key areas for future focus, comprising of advances in genomic analysis and the use of model organisms, especially Caenorhabditis elegans, a more thorough appreciation of the complexity of host-parasite (and parasite-parasite) communications, a search for novel anthelmintic drugs and the development of effective vaccines. The participants agreed to try and maintain informal links in the future that could form the basis for collaborative projects, and to co-operate to organize future meetings and workshops to promote ascarid research.

OLDER ADULTS’ PERSPECTIVES ON ETHICAL ISSUES RELATED TO AGETECH

Abstract Most funding programs in the AgeTech sector emphasise the involvement of the end user in research and innovation activities in order to strengthen relevance, appropriateness and real-world impact. However, this engaged approach is still a work in progress and often remains a matter of tokenism with older adults. Involving older adults is seen as key when creating ethically appropriate and inclusive AgeTech for their age group. This paper based on the reflections from members of two AgeTech groups: AGE-WELL’s Older Adults and Caregivers Advisory Committee and the Research Group of Seniors 411 in Vancouver, BC. This paper highlights some ethical problems inherent in AgeTech, particularly how ageist assumptions can be built into technology-based healthcare, including the ongoing challenges of community participation, and presents a more radical agenda of older adults at the forefront of setting research priorities and shaping the development and implementation of AgeTech. Central to this is the building of community capacity; training to facilitate older adults’ engagement in the research process: mobilizing expertise within the community to address local needs; developing mechanisms for connecting older adults and researchers in an integrated knowledge mobilization process. The paper reflects on how this approach can have a significant impact on the lives of older people, and address the digital divide that marginalizes them. Remaining challenges include how to sustain older adults’ participation in innovation initiatives, and providing hard evidence to demonstrate that a more engaged approach has tangible benefits and impact in terms of developing new products and services.

Setting research priorities for English as an Additional Language

Abstract We report a priority setting partnership (PSP), which sought to establish the priorities for new research among research users (educators, parents, and learners) in the field of English as an Additional Language (EAL). A steering committee consisting of members of these research user groups was established to oversee the project. An online ‘uncertainty questionnaire’ was distributed to research users inviting them to identify areas of their practice about which they are uncertain. These ‘raw’ uncertainties were consolidated and converted into a list of research questions, which was then distributed to the same groups to rank in order of priority. The 25 highest ranked questions were then discussed and debated in a workshop, consisting of research user representatives, to collectively and democratically produce a final Top 10 list of questions. The Top 10 shows what EAL research users regard as priorities, which we hope will inform research agendas and funding decisions.

Enhancing evidence-informed policymaking in medicine and healthcare: stakeholder involvement in the Commons Project for rare diseases in Japan

BackgroundAlthough stakeholder involvement in policymaking is attracting attention in the fields of medicine and healthcare, a practical methodology has not yet been established. Rare-disease policy, specifically research priority setting for the allocation of limited research resources, is an area where evidence generation through stakeholder involvement is expected to be effective. We generated evidence for rare-disease policymaking through stakeholder involvement and explored effective collaboration among stakeholders.MethodsWe constructed a space called ‘Evidence-generating Commons’, where patients, family members, researchers, and former policymakers can share their knowledge and experiences and engage in continual deliberations on evidence generation. Ten rare diseases were consequently represented. In the ‘Commons’, 25 consecutive workshops were held predominantly online, from 2019 to 2021. These workshops focused on (1) clarification of difficulties faced by rare-disease patients, (2) development and selection of criteria for priority setting, and (3) priority setting through the application of the criteria. For the first step, an on-site workshop using sticky notes was held. The data were analysed based on KJ method. For the second and third steps, workshops on specific themes were held to build consensus. The workshop agendas and methods were modified based on participants’ feedback.ResultsThe ‘Commons’ was established with 43 participants, resulting in positive effects such as capacity building, opportunities for interactions, mutual understanding, and empathy among the participants. The difficulties faced by patients with rare diseases were classified into 10 categories. Seven research topics were identified as priority issues to be addressed including ‘impediments to daily life’, ‘financial burden’, ‘anxiety’, and ‘burden of hospital visits’. This was performed by synthesising the results of the application of the two criteria that were particularly important to strengthen future research on rare diseases. We also clarified high-priority research topics by using criteria valued more by patients and family members than by researchers and former policymakers, and criteria with specific perspectives.ConclusionWe generated evidence for policymaking in the field of rare diseases. This study’s insights into stakeholder involvement can enhance evidence-informed policymaking. We engaged in comprehensive discussions with policymakers regarding policy implementation and planned analysis of the participants’ experiences in this project.

Research priorities for improving menstrual health across the life-course in low- and middle-income countries

ABSTRACT Background Research on menstrual health is required to understand menstrual needs and generate solutions to improve health, wellbeing, and productivity. The identification of research priorities will help inform where to invest efforts and resources. Objectives To identify research priorities for menstrual health across the life-course, in consultation with a range of stakeholder groups from a variety of geographic regions, and to identify if menstrual health research priorities varied by expertise. Methods A modified version of the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative approach was utilized to reach consensus on a set of research priorities. Multisector stakeholders with menstrual health expertise, identified through networks and the literature, were invited to submit research questions through an online survey. Responses were consolidated, and individuals were invited to rank these questions based on novelty, potential for intervention, and importance/impact. Research priority scores were calculated and evaluated by participants’ characteristics. Results Eighty-two participants proposed 1135 research questions, which were consolidated into 94 unique research questions. The mean number of questions did not differ between low- and middle-income country (LMIC) and high-income country (HIC) participants, but significantly more questions were raised by participants with expertise in mental health and WASH. Sixty-six participants then ranked these questions. The top ten-ranked research questions included four on ‘understanding the problem’, four on ‘designing and implementing interventions’, one on ‘integrating and scaling up’, and one on ‘measurement’. Indicators for the measurement of adequate menstrual health over time was ranked the highest priority by all stakeholders. Top ten-ranked research questions differed between academics and non-academics, and between participants from HICs and LMICs, reflecting differences in needs and knowledge gaps. Conclusions A list of ranked research priorities was generated through a consultative process with stakeholders across LMICs and HICs which can inform where to invest efforts and resources.