scholarly journals Research priority setting in obesity: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Halima Iqbal ◽  
Rosemary R. C. McEachan ◽  
Jane West ◽  
Melanie Haith-Cooper
Keyword(s):  
Priority Setting ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Good Practice ◽  
Comprehensive Approach ◽  
Nominal Group ◽  
Topic Area ◽  
Research Priority ◽  
Obesity Research ◽  
Research Prioritisation

Abstract Aim Obesity research priority setting, if conducted to a high standard, can help promote policy-relevant and efficient research. Therefore, there is a need to identify existing research priority setting studies conducted in the topic area of obesity and to determine the extent to which they followed good practice principles for research priority setting. Method Studies examining research priority setting in obesity were identified through searching the MEDLINE, PBSC, CINAHL, PsycINFO databases and the grey literature. The nine common themes of good practice in research priority setting were used as a methodological framework to evaluate the processes of the included studies. These were context, use of a comprehensive approach, inclusiveness, information gathering, planning for implementation, criteria, methods for deciding on priorities, evaluation and transparency. Results Thirteen articles reporting research prioritisation exercises conducted in different areas of obesity research were included. All studies reported engaging with various stakeholders such as policy makers, researchers and healthcare professionals. Public involvement was included in six studies. Methods of research prioritisation commonly included both Delphi and nominal group techniques and surveys. None of the 13 studies fulfilled all nine of the good practice criteria for research priority setting, with the most common limitations including not using a comprehensive approach and lack of inclusivity and evaluating on their processes. Conclusion There is a need for research priority setting studies in obesity to involve the public and to evaluate their exercises to ensure they are of high quality.

scholarly journals A systematic review to identify research priority setting in Black and minority ethnic health and evaluate their processes

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. e0251685
Author(s):  
Halima Iqbal ◽  
Jane West ◽  
Melanie Haith-Cooper ◽  
Rosemary R. C. McEachan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Good Practice ◽  
Vulnerable Groups ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Research Priority ◽  
Research Prioritisation ◽  
Minority Ethnic

Background Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities suffer from disproportionately poorer health than the general population. This issue has been recently exemplified by the large numbers of infection rates and deaths caused by covid-19 in BAME populations. Future research has the potential to improve health outcomes for these groups. High quality research priority setting is crucial to effectively consider the needs of the most vulnerable groups of the population. Objective The purpose of this systematic review is to identify existing research priority studies conducted for BAME health and to determine the extent to which they followed good practice principles for research priority setting. Method Included studies were identified by searching Medline, Cinnahl, PsychINFO, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, as well as searches in grey literature. Search terms included “research priority setting”, “research prioritisation”, “research agenda”, “Black and minority ethnic”, “ethnic group”. Studies were included if they identified or elicited research priorities for BAME health and if they outlined a process of conducting a research prioritisation exercise. A checklist of Nine Common Themes of Good Practice in research priority setting was used as a methodological framework to evaluate the research priority processes of each study. Results Out of 1514 citations initially obtained, 17 studies were included in the final synthesis. Topic areas for their research prioritisation exercise included suicide prevention, knee surgery, mental health, preterm birth, and child obesity. Public and patient involvement was included in eleven studies. Methods of research prioritisation included workshops, Delphi techniques, surveys, focus groups and interviews. The quality of empirical evidence was diverse. None of the exercises followed all good practice principles as outlined in the checklist. Areas that were lacking in particular were: the lack of a comprehensive approach to guide the process; limited use of criteria to guide discussion around priorities; unequal or no representation from ethnic minorities, and poor evaluation of their own processes. Conclusions Research priority setting practices were found to mostly not follow good practice guidelines which aim to ensure rigour in priority setting activities and support the inclusion of BAME communities in establishing the research agenda. Research is unlikely to deliver useful findings that can support relevant research and positive change for BAME communities unless they fulfil areas of good practice such as inclusivity of key stakeholders’ input, planning for implementation of identified priorities, criteria for deciding on priorities, and evaluation of their processes in research priority setting.

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

2021 ◽  
pp. sextrans-2021-055054
Author(s):  
Hannah Louise Browne ◽  
Emily Clarke ◽  
Angela I Obasi
Keyword(s):  
Priority Setting ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Health Clinic ◽  
Rapid Diagnostics ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Transmitted Infection ◽  
The Public ◽  
Research Priority

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 clinicians and STI stakeholders.MethodsThis two-stage study was conducted in May–August 2019. First, STI research priorities were canvassed through qualitative questionnaires issued to all patients attending a large sexual health clinic, all clinicians in region-wide mailing lists, all stakeholders identified through existing networks and the Charity Commission database, and to the Liverpool public. Raw responses were organised by theme into a shortlist of 25. In stage 2, these were ranked through priority-setting activities by telephone with patients and the public (n=8) and some clinicians (n=3), and in two workshops with clinicians (n=26) and stakeholders (n=5), respectively. The top 10 priorities were compared.ResultsOf 373 surveys submitted, 106 were analysed (83 patient and public; 23 clinician and stakeholder). Exclusions included lack of completion and responses out of scope. Among patient and public respondents, 55% (n=46) were aged 18–24 years, 51% (n=42) identified as heterosexual women and 23% (n=19) as men who have sex with men. Clinicians included all cadres; stakeholders were academics, commissioners and third sector representatives. In stage 2, 4 of 10 themes (STI education, targeted services for high-risk groups, antibiotic resistance and counselling for those with STI) were prioritised by all. Remote STI services and rapid diagnostics also ranked highly but the rationale differed between groups.ConclusionThis is the first non-HIV STI research priority-setting exercise to be reported in the UK. It identifies overlaps and differences between public and provider concerns, highlights gaps in the public understanding of STI research, and shows how PPI can promote research responsive to the concerns of both those who use and deliver services.

What are Important Ways of Sharing Power in Health Research Priority Setting? Perspectives From People With Lived Experience and Members of the Public

2021 ◽  
pp. 155626462110132
Author(s):  
Bridget Pratt
Keyword(s):  
Lived Experience ◽  
Thematic Analysis ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
The Public ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Research Priority ◽  
Health Research Priority Setting

Community engagement (patient and public involvement) is gaining prominence in health research worldwide. But there remains limited ethical guidance on how to share power with communities in health research priority setting, particularly that which has been informed by the perspectives of those being engaged. This article provides initial evidence about what they think are important ways to share power when setting health research projects’ topics and questions. Twenty-two people with lived experience, engagement practitioners, and members of the public who have been engaged in health research in the United Kingdom and Australia were interviewed. Thematic analysis identified 15 key ways to share power, many of which are relational. This study further demonstrates that tensions exist between certain ways of sharing power in health research priority setting. More research is needed to determine how to navigate those tensions.

scholarly journals Involving stakeholders in research priority setting: a scoping review

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christiane Grill
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Stakeholder Involvement ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Research Area ◽  
Research Priority ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Complex Landscape

Abstract Background This scoping review provides a thorough analysis of how stakeholders have so far been involved in research priority setting. The review describes, synthesizes, and evaluates research priority setting projects not only for the field of health—as previous reviews have done—but does so on a much broader scale for any research area. Methods A comprehensive electronic literature search was conducted in the databases PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Reflecting the importance of grey literature, Google Scholar and relevant websites were also screened for eligible publications. A computational approach was then used for the study selection. The final screening for inclusion was done manually. Results The scoping review encompasses 731 research priority setting projects published until the end of 2020. Overall, the projects were conducted within the realm of 50 subject areas ranging from agriculture and environment over health to social work and technology. Key learnings include that nearly all priority setting projects aimed to identify research priorities for the field of health (93%), particularly for nursing and care, cancer, pediatrics, and mental, behavioral and neurodevelopmental disorders. Only 6% of the projects were not health-related and 1% identified research priorities at the interface between health and a non-health area. Over time, 30 different stakeholder groups took part in research priority setting. The stakeholders most frequently asked to identify research priorities were doctors, patients, academics/researchers, nurses, allied healthcare professionals, family members, friends, and carers. Nearly two thirds of all projects have been conducted in Europe and North America. Overall, only 9% of the projects emphasized the importance of stakeholders in their goals and rationales and actively involved them. In around a quarter of the projects, stakeholders deliberated on their research priorities throughout the entire process. Conclusion By mapping out the complex landscape of stakeholder involvement in research priority setting, this review guides future efforts to involve stakeholders effectively, inclusively, and transparently, which in turn may increase the overall value of research for society. As a practical addition to this review, the first worldwide research priority setting database was created: https://ois.lbg.ac.at/en/project-database. The database contains all the projects analyzed for this review and is constantly updated with the latest published research priority setting projects.

scholarly journals Sharing power in global health research: an ethical toolkit for designing priority-setting processes that meaningfully include communities

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bridget Pratt
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Reflective Equilibrium ◽  
Empirical Work ◽  
The Philippines ◽  
Project Planning ◽  
Global Health Research ◽  
Research Priority ◽  
Health Research Priority Setting

AbstractTo promote social justice and equity, global health research should meaningfully engage communities throughout projects: from setting agendas onwards. But communities, especially those that are considered disadvantaged or marginalised, rarely have a say in the priorities of the research projects that aim to help them. So far, there remains limited ethical guidance and resources on how to share power with communities in health research priority-setting. This paper presents an “ethical toolkit” for academic researchers and their community partners to use to design priority-setting processes that meaningfully include the communities impacted by their projects. An empirical reflective equilibrium approach was employed to develop the toolkit. Conceptual work articulated ethical considerations related to sharing power in g0l0o0bal health research priority-setting, developed guidance on how to address them, and created an initial version of the toolkit. Empirical work (51 in-depth interviews, 1 focus group, 2 case studies in India and the Philippines) conducted in 2018 and 2019 then tested those findings against information from global health research practice. The final ethical toolkit is a reflective project planning aid. It consists of 4 worksheets (Worksheet 1- Selecting Partners; Worksheet 2- Deciding to Partner; Worksheet 3- Deciding to Engage with the Wider Community; Worksheet 4- Designing Priority-setting) and a Companion Document detailing how to use them. Reflecting on and discussing the questions in Worksheets 1 to 4 before priority-setting will help deliver priority-setting processes that share power with communities and projects with research topics and questions that more accurately reflect their healthcare and system needs.

scholarly journals Exploring patient safety outcomes for people with learning disabilities in acute hospital settings: a scoping review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. e047102
Author(s):  
Gemma Louch ◽  
Abigail Albutt ◽  
Joanna Harlow-Trigg ◽  
Sally Moore ◽  
Kate Smyth ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Patient Safety ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Good Practice ◽  
Hospital Setting ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Infant Outcomes ◽  
Safety Outcomes

ObjectivesTo produce a narrative synthesis of published academic and grey literature focusing on patient safety outcomes for people with learning disabilities in an acute hospital setting.DesignScoping review with narrative synthesis.MethodsThe review followed the six stages of the Arksey and O’Malley framework. We searched four research databases from January 2000 to March 2021, in addition to handsearching and backwards searching using terms relating to our eligibility criteria—patient safety and adverse events, learning disability and hospital setting. Following stakeholder input, we searched grey literature databases and specific websites of known organisations until March 2020. Potentially relevant articles and grey literature materials were screened against the eligibility criteria. Findings were extracted and collated in data charting forms.Results45 academic articles and 33 grey literature materials were included, and we organised the findings around six concepts: (1) adverse events, patient safety and quality of care; (2) maternal and infant outcomes; (3) postoperative outcomes; (4) role of family and carers; (5) understanding needs in hospital and (6) supporting initiatives, recommendations and good practice examples. The findings suggest inequalities and inequities for a range of specific patient safety outcomes including adverse events, quality of care, maternal and infant outcomes and postoperative outcomes, in addition to potential protective factors, such as the roles of family and carers and the extent to which health professionals are able to understand the needs of people with learning disabilities.ConclusionPeople with learning disabilities appear to experience poorer patient safety outcomes in hospital. The involvement of family and carers, and understanding and effectively meeting the needs of people with learning disabilities may play a protective role. Promising interventions and examples of good practice exist, however many of these have not been implemented consistently and warrant further robust evaluation.

scholarly journals A more comprehensive approach offering instruments in one portal to facilitate higher uptake

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
C Rossmann ◽  
F De Bock
Keyword(s):  
Health Promotion ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Good Practice ◽  
Community Setting ◽  
Comprehensive Approach ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Activity Promotion

Abstract The good practice portal of the Federal Centre for Health Education (BZgA) consists of a nationwide collection of projects and interventions to promote the health of socially disadvantaged groups at community/setting level. An exchange platform (inforo) is also offered via the operating agency, although its use is still limited. The results of the evaluation of the platform suggest that the provision of practical projects and exchange of knowledge alone is not sufficient to support policy makers and practitioners who want to promote health in the community/setting. There is a need for advice on needs assessment, selection and appropriate implementation of health promotion measures. A comprehensive approach currently being tested in the field of activity promotion for older people is the provision of a web-based “toolbox” comprising the following tools: assessment instruments for analysing the need for health promotion measures, a user-friendly intervention/project database and broader evidence synthesis documents, as well as information on project management (organisational, legal, financial). Following the example of other best practice portals, a ranking methodology was developed to make the level of effectiveness of interventions visible and the evaluation requirements transparent. Evidence synthesis documents provide an entry point to learn more generally what works in a particular area of health promotion. In order to make the “toolbox” accessible to policy-makers and practitioners, information from previous studies was used in the development with regard to content and graphical presentation. BZgA is currently working on integrating evidence into the good practice portal. The evaluation of the toolbox in a small area of health promotion will provide initial insights into the inclusion of evidence and its added value. This presentation will conclude with a discussion of possibilities for improvement, challenges and limitations of this approach.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document