What do we know about evidence-informed priority setting processes to set population-level health-research agendas: an overview of reviews

Background This overview aimed to synthesize existing systematic reviews to produce a draft framework of evidence-informed health priority setting that supports countries in identifying appropriate steps and methods when developing and implementing national research agendas. Main body We searched Ovid MEDLINE® and the WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing from 2010 to 2020 for critical or systematic reviews that evaluated research priority setting exercises. We adapted the AMSTAR checklist to assess the quality of included reviews and used adapted frameworks for data extraction and analysis. The search resulted in 2395 titles, of which 31 were included. Populations included in the reviews typically involved patients, families and carers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and research funders. The topics covered in the reviews varied from specific diseases or conditions, approaches for healthcare practice or research priority setting methods itself. All the included systematic reviews were of low or critically low quality. The studies were thematically grouped based on their main focus: identifying and engaging with stakeholders; methods; context; and health area. Conclusion Our overview of reviews has reconfirmed aspects of existing frameworks, but has also identified new concepts for countries to consider while developing their national research agendas. We propose a preliminary framework for consideration that highlights four key phases: (1) preparatory, (2) priority setting, (3) follow-up phase and (4) sustainability phase, which have thirteen sub-domains to consider.

Participatory Research: A Priority Setting Partnership for Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain in Denmark

Background Patient and stakeholder engagements in research have increasingly gained attention in healthcare and healthcare-related research. A common and rigorous approach to establish research priorities based on input from people and stakeholders is the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership (JLA-PSP). The aim of this study was to establish research priorities for chronic musculoskeletal (MSK) pain by engaging with humans living with chronic MSK pain, relatives to humans living with chronic MSK pain, healthcare professionals (HCP), and researchers working with chronic MSK pain. Methods This JLA-PSP included a nation-wide survey in Denmark, an interim prioritisation, and an online consensus building workshop. The information gained from this was the basis for developing the final list of specific research priorities within chronic MSK pain. Results In the initial survey, 1010 respondents (91% people living with chronic MSK pain/relatives, 9% HCPs/researchers) submitted 3121 potential questions. These were summarised into 19 main themes and 36 sub-themes. In the interim prioritisation exercise, 51% people living with pain/relatives and 49% HCPs/researchers reduced the list to 33 research questions prior to the final priority setting workshop. 23 participants attended the online workshop (12 people/relatives, 10 HCPs, and 1 researcher) who reached consensus for the most important research priorities after two rounds of discussion of each question. Conclusion This study identified several specific research questions generated by people living with chronic MSK pain, relatives, HCPs, and researchers. The stakeholders proposed prioritization of the healthcare system's ability to support patients, focus on developing coherent pathways between sectors and education for both patients and HCP. These research questions can form the basis for future studies, funders, and be used to align research with end-users priorities Keywords Chronic musculoskeletal pain, patient and public involvement, research priorities

FLEXIBLE HOUSING SCHEMES ON HOUSING TYPE 36 IN YOGYAKARTA

Flexible housing has the potential to be applied in housing type 36 in Indonesia, especially with a focus on the modeling of the flexible housing scheme. But beforehand, potential redundancies and trend patterns of occupant needs must be identified. The research stages are spaciousness, spatial complexity using statistics, and perceptual clarity using repeated modeling and evaluation. There are 28 research data samples taken from type 36 housing developed by Perum perumnas Regional V of Yogyakarta branches i.e. Perumnas Minomartani, Perumnas Condong Catur, Perumnas Guwosari, and Perumnas Trimulyo. The results of the research are change of rooms needs for the inhabitant, transformation of tipology from the house layout, the priority setting of rooms for the inhabitants, linkage among rooms that is efficient for the inhabitant, limitations of flexible housing, and flexible housing schemes.

Research priority setting in obesity: a systematic review

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.