BackgroundPublic health research is an important component of United Kingdom (UK) health research and strategic analysis of its breadth and balance is key to ensure value. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) is one of the main funders of health research in the UK and includes many research programmes and schools. This study reports on public health research funded by the NIHR between April 2006 and March 2013.MethodsThe NIHR research programmes and schools were asked for information about all research funded during the study period. Firstly, projects were classified as a public health research project according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. The public health research projects were further categorised according to the Public Health Outcomes Framework and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence taxonomy.ResultsApproximately 3000 research projects were funded by the NIHR, of which about 900 were relevant to public health. This represents approximately one-third of the research portfolio. All NIHR research funding programmes and schools funded research related to public health. The most prevalent domain of the Public Health Outcomes Framework was ‘healthcare public health and preventing premature mortality’ and there were a large number of health planning and self-management projects. One-quarter of projects were concerned with mental health and behavioural conditions.ConclusionsThe NIHR is a significant funder of research relevant to public health. This analysis offers a snapshot of the breadth and balance of NIHR research, which forms a basis for discussion. This is important for the NIHR and other research funders as it shows areas that are better represented and opportunities to fill important gaps. Appropriate research priority setting is an integral part of a needs-led research agenda and adds value to research.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-016-3521-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
The remit of the National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research (PHR) Programme is to evaluate public health interventions, providing new knowledge on the benefits, costs, acceptability and wider impacts of interventions, set outside of the National Health Service, intended to improve the health of the public and reduce inequalities. This paper illustrates how the PHR Programme is providing new knowledge for public health decision makers, based on the nine key areas for local authority public health action, described by the King’s Fund. Many funded PHR projects are evaluating interventions, applied in a range of settings, across the identified key areas for local authority influence. For example, research has been funded on children and young people, and for some of the wider determinants of health, such as housing and travel. Other factors, such as spatial planning, or open and green spaces and leisure, are less represented in the PHR Programme. Further opportunities in research include interventions to improve the health of adolescents, adults in workplaces, and communities. Building evidence for public health interventions at local authority level is important to prioritise and implement effective changes to improve population health.
INTRODUCTION:It is vitally important that research questions posed are important and that funded research meets a research need or a gap in evidence; these needs may be observed at a local, national or international level. Identifying such research priorities for a national research funder can be challenging, particularly for complex health problems such as health inequalities, where there is a need to consult a large number of experts with a range of expertise. Many methods are used in the identification of such research priorities, however, these can be resource intensive, costly, and logistically challenging particularly where large numbers of people are required and geographical distances are great.METHODS:This study investigated the use of Delphi type survey methods in identifying important research priorities related to health inequalities. Public health professionals with an interest in health inequalities were asked to identify research priorities, these research priorities were subsequently compared to those identified using different methods.RESULTS:Fifty-two public health professionals agreed to take part, the response rates were high, (69 percent, 50 percent and 40 percent) across three survey rounds; which indicated that participants were receptive to the methodology and motivated to respond. The themes identified as encompassing the most important research priorities were: mental health, environmental issues and health behaviours. Within these themes, topic areas which emerged most strongly included: community interventions for prevention of mental health problems, and the food and alcohol environment.CONCLUSIONS:Delphi type survey methods are effective as a means of obtaining opinions from a wide number of relevant experts identifying potential priority topic areas where there is a need for research evidence. Opinions may be sought at local and national levels in order to inform national research priorities.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.