Research priority setting in women’s health: a systematic review

Abstract

Background Developing a shared agenda is an important step in ensuring future research has the necessary relevance. Objective To characterise research priority setting partnerships (PSPs) relevant to women’s health. Search strategy Included studies were identified by searching MEDLINE and the James Lind Alliance (JLA) database. Selection criteria Priority setting partnerships using formal consensus methods. Data collection and analysis Descriptive narrative to describe the study characteristics, methods, and results. Main results Ten national and two international PSPs were identified. All PSPs used the JLA method to identify research priorities. Nine PSPs had published a protocol. Potential research uncertainties were gathered from guidelines (two studies), Cochrane reviews (five studies), and surveys (12 studies). The number of healthcare professionals (31–287), patients (44–932), and others (33–139) who responded to the survey, and the number of uncertainties submitted (52–4767) varied. All PSPs entered confirmed research uncertainties (39–104) into interim priority setting surveys and healthcare professionals (31–287), patients (44–932), and others (33–139) responded. All PSPs entered a short list of research uncertainties into a consensus development meeting, which enabled healthcare professionals (six to 21), patients (eight to 14), and others (two to 13) to identify research priorities (ten to 15). Four PSPs have published their results. Conclusion Future research priority setting studies should publish a protocol, use formal consensus development methods, and ensure their methods and results are comprehensively reported. Tweetable abstract Research published in @BJOGtweets highlights future research priorities across women’s health, including @FertilityTop10, @jamesmnduffy.

A core outcome set for pre‐eclampsia research: an international consensus development study

“…There is currently a research priority setting partnership developing research priorities for hypertension in pregnancy. 35 This work should be considered complementary to a wider agenda of reducing research waste across hypertension in pregnancy research. Such agendas have been proposed in areas relevant to women's health, including twin and multiple pregnancy research with research priority setting and core outcome set development as important components.…”

Developing a core outcome set for future infertility research: an international consensus development study

“…Research priority setting presents an opportunity to develop a prioritized research agenda (17). A research priority setting study has recently been completed for infertility and identified research priorities related to the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of male, female, and unexplained infertility (14).…”

Top 10 priorities for future infertility research: an international consensus development study

“…The steering group was convened during the development of the study protocol, before the launch of the initial survey and interim prioritization survey, and before the consensus development meeting. A systematic review of registered, progressing, and completed priority setting research settings was completed to assist with the planning and delivery of the study (11).…”

“…This study has followed this guidance to ensure the research priorities were developed using a clear and transparent process using formal consensus development methods. The study design, development, and delivery was also informed by a systematic review of research priority setting studies relevant to women's health (11). With 388 respondents from 40 countries participating in the initial survey, 317 respondents from 43 countries participating in the interim prioritization survey, and 41 participants from 11 countries included in the consensus development meeting, the global participation achieved in this study should secure the generalizability of the results within an international context.…”

“…It is unlikely that such prioritization has used formal consensus methods, engaged wider stakeholders, including people with fertility problems, and was independent of commercial interests. There has been modest improvement in some countries, including The Netherlands, UK, and the USA, which has emphasized the importance of including patients and the public in developing research priorities (11).…”