Approaches to prioritising primary health research: a scoping review

Abstract

ObjectiveTo systematically identify and describe approaches to prioritise primary research topics in any health-related area.MethodsWe searched Medline and CINAHL databases and Google Scholar. Teams of two reviewers screened studies and extracted data in duplicate and independently. We synthesised the information across the included approaches by developing common categorisation of relevant concepts.ResultsOf 44 392 citations, 30 articles reporting on 25 approaches were included, addressing the following fields: health in general (n=9), clinical (n=10), health policy and systems (n=10), public health (n=6) and health service research (n=5) (10 addressed more than 1 field). The approaches proposed the following aspects to be addressed in the prioritisation process: situation analysis/ environmental scan, methods for generation of initial list of topics, use of prioritisation criteria, stakeholder engagement, ranking process/technique, dissemination and implementation, revision and appeal mechanism, and monitoring and evaluation. Twenty-two approaches proposed involving stakeholders in the priority setting process. The most commonly proposed stakeholder category was ‘researchers/academia’ (n=17, 77%) followed by ‘healthcare providers’ (n=16, 73%). Fifteen of the approaches proposed a list of criteria for determining research priorities. We developed a common framework of 28 prioritisation criteria clustered into nine domains. The criterion most frequently mentioned by the identified approaches was ‘health burden’ (n=12, 80%), followed by ‘availability of resources’ (n=11, 73%).ConclusionWe identified and described 25 prioritisation approaches for primary research topics in any health-related area. Findings highlight the need for greater participation of potential users (eg, policy-makers and the general public) and incorporation of equity as part of the prioritisation process. Findings can guide the work of researchers, policy-makers and funders seeking to conduct or fund primary health research. More importantly, the findings should be used to enhance a more coordinated approach to prioritising health research to inform decision making at all levels.

Explanations for higher-than-expected mortality from April 2021: a scoping review

“…In order to prioritise hypotheses for further work, we identified relevant criteria from an existing review of research prioritisation frameworks 17 and adapted these to focus on two key questions: Is there sufficient existing research or research effort on this hypothesis? Would additional research on this area have potential to change policy or practice? Due to potential variation in the relevance of each hypothesis to mortality trends across different high income countries, we chose to focus on a UK context when completing this prioritisation exercise. Based on discussion amongst authors, we ranked hypotheses highest priority where we judged that there was insufficient existing research or research effort likely to be applicable to a UK setting, and where additional research was felt to have the potential for changing policy or practice in the UK.…”

“…In order to prioritise hypotheses for further work, we identified relevant criteria from an existing review of research prioritisation frameworks 17 and adapted these to focus on two key questions:…”

A Quantitative Framework to Identify and Prioritize Opportunities in Biomedical Product Innovation

“…Public health leaders and industry funders who rely on select metrics like mortality to inform strategic priorities and funding decisions can potentially overlook important considerations, including the effects of disability, cost of treatment, and health disparities. Furthermore, medical research priorities are frequently determined by expert consensus or stakeholder ranking 1 , 2 and can be influenced by advocacy for or bias against select medical disorders. 3 A quantitative framework with comprehensive metrics that leverages latest or currently available data across the health ecosystem can help identify, track, prioritize, and align opportunities in biomedical product innovation to address unmet health needs in communities.…”