Using research priority-setting to guide bridging the implementation gap in countries – a case study of the Uganda newborn research priorities in the SDG era

It is critically important to define disease-specific research priorities to better allocate limited resources. There is growing recognition of the value of involving patients and caregivers, as well as expert clinicians in this process. To our knowledge, this has not been done this way for kidney cancer. Using the transparent and inclusive process established by the James Lind Alliance, the Kidney Cancer Research Network of Canada (KCRNC) sponsored a collaborative consensus-based priority-setting partnership (PSP) to identify research priorities in the management of kidney cancer. The final result was identification of 10 research priorities for kidney cancer, which are discussed in the context of current initiatives and gaps in knowledge. This process provided a systematic and effective way to collaboratively establish research priorities with patients, caregivers, and clinicians, and provides a valuable resource for researchers and funding agencies.

Download Full-text

Health Research Priority Setting in Uganda: A Qualitative Study Describing and Evaluating the Processes

10.21203/rs.3.rs-90818/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Lydia Kapiriri ◽

Elizabeth Asege Ekochu ◽

Harriet Nabudere

Keyword(s):

Priority Setting ◽

Health Research ◽

National Level ◽

Stakeholder Involvement ◽

Research Priorities ◽

Political Commitment ◽

Policy Practice ◽

Research Priority ◽

National Priority ◽

Health Research Priority Setting

Abstract Background: Over the years, several approaches to health research priority setting (HRPS) have been devised and applied in low-incomes countries for national level research prioritization. However, there is often a disconnect between the evidence that health policymakers require for decision-making and the research that receives funding. There is a need for countries to evaluate their prioritization processes to support strategies to translate priority setting into policy practice. While health research priority setting is continuously carried out in Uganda, these processes are rarely reported on the scholarly literature and have not been evaluated. This study aimed to describe and evaluate HRPS in Uganda. Methods: This was a qualitative case study consisting of document review and key informant interviews with stakeholders who had either directly participated in or had specialized knowledge of HRPS in Uganda.Results: While Uganda has established and legitimized a National health research organization to set health research priorities, coordinate and provide oversight for health research in the country, several institutions independently conduct their own health research priority setting. The evaluation revealed that while the priority setting processes are often based on systematic approaches and tools and tended to be evidence based, most of the prioritization processes lacked stakeholder involvement and implementation. Moreover, the priorities were not publicized and none had mechanisms for appeals or revisions. In only one case were the priorities implemented.Conclusions: The availability of strong political commitment and a national priority setting institution is an opportunity for strengthening health research priority setting. There should be increased support for the institution to enable it to carry out its duties. The institution should not only invest in participatory, systematic health research priority setting and implementation but evaluation as well in order for them to identify areas for improvement.

Download Full-text

Methodology and criteria for setting national health research priorities in Bhutan: a workshop report

Bhutan Health Journal ◽

10.47811/bhj.78 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 5 (1) ◽

pp. 38-43

Author(s):

Debbie L. Humphries ◽

Hannah Ingber ◽

Mongal Singh Gurung ◽

Kaveh Khoshnood

Keyword(s):

National Health ◽

Priority Setting ◽

Health Research ◽

Research Priorities ◽

Research Capacity ◽

Priority Setting Process ◽

Research Priority ◽

Research Activities ◽

Setting Process ◽

Medical University

The Bhutanese health system is committed to providing health services for all citizens and is interested in strengthening the country’s health research capacity. The objectives of this workshop were to understand the range of health research activities in Bhutan; to formulate a prioritized research agenda for the Ministry of Health (MoH); to share challenges, gaps and opportunities in health research; and to provide insights for future prioritization exercises. The MoH partnered with Khesar Gyalpo University of Medical University of Bhutan and USA-based facilitators to develop and pilot a methodology for health research priority setting. The Bhutan priority setting process was adapted from the Combined Approach Matrix and the Essential National Health Research methods. The methodology proved successful in the systematic creation of a list of health research priorities. Future priority setting processes will build on this workshop, continuing to refine and strengthen the priority setting process in Bhutan.

Download Full-text

Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE)

BMC Medical Research Methodology ◽

10.1186/s12874-019-0889-3 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 19 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Allison Tong ◽

Anneliese Synnot ◽

Sally Crowe ◽

Sophie Hill ◽

Andrea Matus ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Priority Setting ◽

Health Research ◽

Research Priorities ◽

Reporting Guideline ◽

Limited Resources ◽

Research Topics ◽

Diverse Range ◽

Research Priority ◽

Setting Process ◽

Health Research Priority Setting

Abstract Background Research priority setting with stakeholders can help direct the limited resources for health research toward priority areas of need. Ensuring transparency of the priority setting process can strengthen legitimacy and credibility for influencing the research agenda. This study aims to develop a reporting guideline for priority setting of health research. Methods We searched electronic databases and relevant websites for sources (frameworks, guidelines, or models for conducting, appraising, reporting or evaluating health research priority setting, and reviews (including systematic reviews)), and primary studies of research priority setting to July 2019. We inductively developed a list of reporting items and piloted the preliminary guideline with a diverse range of 30 priority setting studies from the records retrieved. Results From 21,556 records, we included 26 sources for the candidate REPRISE framework and 455 primary research studies. The REporting guideline for PRIority SEtting of health research (REPRISE) has 31 reporting items that cover 10 domains: context and scope, governance and team, framework for priority setting, stakeholders/participants, identification and collection of priorities, prioritization of research topics, output, evaluation and feedback, translation and implementation, and funding and conflict of interest. Each reporting item includes a descriptor and examples. Conclusions The REPRISE guideline can facilitate comprehensive reporting of studies of research priority setting. Improved transparency in research priority setting may strengthen the acceptability and implementation of the research priorities identified, so that efforts and funding are invested in generating evidence that is of importance to all stakeholders. Trial registration Not applicable.

Download Full-text

Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE)

10.21203/rs.2.14215/v3 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Allison Tong ◽

Anneliese Synnot ◽

Sally Crowe ◽

Sophie Hill ◽

Andrea Matus ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Priority Setting ◽

Health Research ◽

Research Priorities ◽

Reporting Guideline ◽

Limited Resources ◽

Research Topics ◽

Diverse Range ◽

Research Priority ◽

Setting Process ◽

Health Research Priority Setting

Abstract Background Research priority setting with stakeholders can help direct the limited resources for health research toward priority areas of need. Ensuring transparency of the priority setting process can strengthen legitimacy and credibility for influencing the research agenda. This study aims to develop a reporting guideline for priority setting of health research. Methods We searched electronic databases and relevant websites for sources (frameworks, guidelines, or models for conducting, appraising, reporting or evaluating health research priority setting, and reviews (including systematic reviews)), and primary studies of research priority setting to July 2019. We inductively developed a list of reporting items and piloted the preliminary guideline with a diverse range of 30 priority setting studies from the records retrieved. Results From 21556 records, we included 26 sources for the candidate REPRISE framework and 455 primary research studies. The REporting guideline for PRIority SEtting of health research(REPRISE) has 31 reporting items that cover 10 domains: context and scope, governance and team, framework for priority setting, stakeholders/participants, identification and collection of priorities, prioritization of research topics, output, evaluation and feedback, translation and implementation, and funding and conflict of interest. Each reporting item includes a descriptor and examples. Conclusions The REPRISE guideline can facilitate comprehensive reporting of studies of research priority setting. Improved transparency in research priority setting may strengthen the acceptability and implementation of the research priorities identified, so that efforts and funding are invested in generating evidence that is of importance to all stakeholders.

Download Full-text

Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE)

10.21203/rs.2.14215/v2 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Allison Tong ◽

Anneliese Synnot ◽

Sally Crowe ◽

Sophie Hill ◽

Andrea Matus ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Priority Setting ◽

Health Research ◽

Research Priorities ◽

Reporting Guideline ◽

Limited Resources ◽

Research Topics ◽

Diverse Range ◽

Research Priority ◽

Setting Process ◽

Health Research Priority Setting

Abstract Background Research priority setting with stakeholders can help direct the limited resources for health research toward priority areas of need. Ensuring transparency of the priority setting process can strengthen legitimacy and credibility for influencing the research agenda. This study aims to develop a reporting guideline for priority setting of health research. Methods We searched electronic databases and relevant websites for sources (frameworks, guidelines, or models for conducting, appraising, reporting or evaluating health research priority setting, and reviews (including systematic reviews)), and primary studies of research priority setting to July 2019. We inductively developed a list of reporting items and piloted the preliminary guideline with a diverse range of 30 priority setting studies from the records retrieved. Results From 21556 records, we included 26 sources for the candidate REPRISE framework and 455 primary research studies. The REporting guideline for PRIority SEtting of health research (REPRISE) has 31 reporting items that cover 10 domains: context and scope, governance and team, framework for priority setting, stakeholders/participants, identification and collection of priorities, prioritization of research topics, output, evaluation and feedback, translation and implementation, and funding and conflict of interest. Each reporting item includes a descriptor and examples. Conclusions The REPRISE guideline can facilitate comprehensive reporting of studies of research priority setting. Improved transparency in research priority setting may strengthen the acceptability and implementation of the research priorities identified, so that efforts and funding are invested in generating evidence that is of importance to all stakeholders.

Download Full-text

Identifying integrated health services and social care research priorities in kidney disease in Wales: research prioritisation exercise

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-036872 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (9) ◽

pp. e036872

Author(s):

Leah Mc Laughlin ◽

Susan Spence ◽

Jane Noyes

Keyword(s):

Kidney Disease ◽

Health Services ◽

Priority Setting ◽

Social Care ◽

Research Priorities ◽

Social Contexts ◽

Service Improvement ◽

Research Priority ◽

Services Delivery ◽

Health And Social Care

ObjectivesTo identify the shared research priorities of patients, caregivers and multidisciplinary renal health and social care professionals across Wales for integrated renal health and social care in Wales.DesignResearch priority setting exercise adapted from the James Lind Alliance national priority setting partnership framework in UK healthcare.SettingTwo workshops: one in North Wales with patients, caregivers and multidisciplinary renal health and social care professionals and one in South Wales with the Welsh Renal Clinical Network (commissioners of renal services in Wales). Additional input provided from stakeholders via email correspondence and face to face communications.ParticipantsAcademics n=14, patients n=16, family/carers n=6, multidisciplinary renal healthcare professionals n=40, local authority councils n=3, renal charities n=6 wider third sector organisations n=8, renal industries n=4, Welsh government social care n=3, renal service commissioners n=8.Results38 research priority questions grouped into 10 themes were agreed. The themes included: (1) integrating health and social care, (2) education, (3) acute kidney injury, (4) chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular disease, (5) transplantation, (6) dialysis, (7) personalised medicines, (8) cross-cutting priorities, (9) specific social contexts and (10) transitional services and children. Research questions were broad and covered a range of health and social care topics. Patient and professional perspectives broadly overlapped. Research priority setting activities revealed gaps in knowledge in overall service provision and potential areas for service improvement.ConclusionsMapping priorities in health services and social care highlighted the research needed to support renal health services delivery and commissioning in Wales.

Download Full-text

Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE)

10.21203/rs.2.14215/v1 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Allison Tong ◽

Anneliese Synnot ◽

Sally Crowe ◽

Sophie Hill ◽

Andrea Matus ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Priority Setting ◽

Health Research ◽

Research Priorities ◽

Reporting Guideline ◽

Limited Resources ◽

Research Topics ◽

Diverse Range ◽

Research Priority ◽

Setting Process ◽

Health Research Priority Setting

Abstract Background Research priority setting with stakeholders can help direct the limited resources for health research toward priority areas of need. Ensuring transparency of the priority setting process can strengthen legitimacy and credibility for influencing the research agenda. This study aims to develop a reporting guideline for priority setting of health research. Methods We searched electronic databases and relevant websites for were searched for sources (frameworks, guidelines, or models for conducting, appraising, reporting or evaluating health research priority setting, and reviews (including systematic reviews)), and primary studies of research priority setting to July 2019. We inductively developed a list of reporting items and piloted the preliminary guideline with a diverse range of 30 priority setting studies from the records retrieved. Results From 21556 records, we included 26 sources for the candidate REPRISE framework and 455 primary research studies. The REporting guideline for PRIority SEtting of health research (REPRISE) has 31 reporting items that cover 10 domains: context and scope, governance and team, framework for priority setting, stakeholders/participants, identification and collection of priorities, prioritization of research topics, output, evaluation and feedback, translation and implementation, and funding and conflict of interest. Each reporting item includes a descriptor and examples. Conclusions The REPRISE guideline can facilitate comprehensive reporting of studies of research priority setting. Improved transparency in research priority setting may strengthen the acceptability and implementation of the research priorities identified, so that efforts and funding are invested in generating evidence that is of importance to all stakeholders.

Download Full-text

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

Sexually Transmitted Infections ◽

10.1136/sextrans-2021-055054 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

An Emergency Medicine Research Priority Setting Partnership to establish the top 10 research priorities in emergency medicine

Emergency Medicine Journal ◽

10.1136/emermed-2017-206702 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 34 (7) ◽

pp. 454-456 ◽

Cited By ~ 27

Author(s):

Jason Smith ◽

Liza Keating ◽

Lynsey Flowerdew ◽

Rachel O'Brien ◽

Sam McIntyre ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Emergency Medicine ◽

Priority Setting ◽

Research Priorities ◽

Important Research ◽

Research Projects ◽

Consensus Process ◽

Medicine Research ◽

Significant Challenge ◽

Research Priority ◽

Priority Setting Partnership

Defining research priorities in a specialty as broad as emergency medicine is a significant challenge. In order to fund and complete the most important research projects, it is imperative that we identify topics that are important to all clinicians, society and to our patients. We have undertaken a priority setting partnership to establish the most important questions facing emergency medicine. The top 10 questions reached through a consensus process are discussed.

Download Full-text