Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2022

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Research

Lack of systematicity in research prioritisation processes — a scoping review of evidence syntheses

Authors: Hans Lund, Lars Tang, Ingrid Poulsen, Karen la Cour, Merete Bjerrum, Claus Vinther Nielsen, Thomas Maribo

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

A systematically and transparently prepared research priority-setting process within a specific scientific area is essential in order to develop a comprehensive and progressive evidence-based approach that will have a substantial societal impact on the site of interest. On the basis of two consensus workshops, the authors suggest the following methods for all such processes: use of experts, stakeholder involvement, literature review, and ranking.

Objectives

The identification, categorisation, and discussion of methods for preparing a research prioritisation process.

Methods

Eligibility criteria: Evidence synthesis includes original studies presenting a research prioritisation process and which listed the methods used to create a research prioritisation process. Only evidence syntheses related to health research were included.
Data sources: We searched the following electronic databases, without limiting by date or language: MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Epistemonikos, and CINAHL EBSCO.
Charting methods: The methods used were mapped and broken down into different elements, and the use of the elements was determined. To support the mapping, (A) all of the elements were collapsed into unique categories, and (B) four essential categories were selected as crucial to a successful research prioritisation process.

Results

Twelve evidence syntheses were identified, including 416 original studies. The identification and categorisation of methods used resulted in 13 unique categories of methods used to prepare a research agenda.

Conclusion

None of the identified categories was used in all of the original studies. Surprisingly, all four of the essential categories were used in only one of the 416 original studies identified. There is seemingly no international consensus on which methods to use when preparing a research prioritisation process.

Protocol registration

The protocol was registered in Open Science Framework (https://​osf.​io/​dygz8/​).
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Tomlinson M, Chopra M, Hoosain N, Rudan I. A review of selected research priority setting processes at national level in low and middle income countries: towards fair and legitimate priority setting. Health Res Policy Syst. 2011;9:19.CrossRef Tomlinson M, Chopra M, Hoosain N, Rudan I. A review of selected research priority setting processes at national level in low and middle income countries: towards fair and legitimate priority setting. Health Res Policy Syst. 2011;9:19.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gulmezoglu AM, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):156–65.CrossRef Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gulmezoglu AM, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):156–65.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Viergever RF, Olifson S, Ghaffar A, Terry RF. A checklist for health research priority setting: nine common themes of good practice. Health Res Policy Syst. 2010;8:36.CrossRef Viergever RF, Olifson S, Ghaffar A, Terry RF. A checklist for health research priority setting: nine common themes of good practice. Health Res Policy Syst. 2010;8:36.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Ranson MK, Bennett SC. Priority setting and health policy and systems research. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009;7:27.CrossRef Ranson MK, Bennett SC. Priority setting and health policy and systems research. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009;7:27.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Conceicao C, Leandro A, McCarthy M. National support to public health research: a survey of European ministries. BMC Public Health. 2009;9:203.CrossRef Conceicao C, Leandro A, McCarthy M. National support to public health research: a survey of European ministries. BMC Public Health. 2009;9:203.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference WHO. WHO’s role and responsibilities in health research: WHO; 2010. WHO. WHO’s role and responsibilities in health research: WHO; 2010.
7.
go back to reference Rudan I, Kapiriri L, Tomlinson M, Balliet M, Cohen B, Chopra M. Evidence-based priority setting for health care and research: tools to support policy in maternal, neonatal, and child health in Africa. PLoS Med. 2010;7(7):e1000308.CrossRef Rudan I, Kapiriri L, Tomlinson M, Balliet M, Cohen B, Chopra M. Evidence-based priority setting for health care and research: tools to support policy in maternal, neonatal, and child health in Africa. PLoS Med. 2010;7(7):e1000308.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Yoshida S. Approaches, tools and methods used for setting priorities in health research in the 21(st) century. J Glob Health. 2016;6(1):010507. Yoshida S. Approaches, tools and methods used for setting priorities in health research in the 21(st) century. J Glob Health. 2016;6(1):010507.
9.
go back to reference McGregor S, Henderson KJ, Kaldor JM. How are health research priorities set in low and middle income countries? A systematic review of published reports. PLoS One. 2014;9(9):e108787.CrossRef McGregor S, Henderson KJ, Kaldor JM. How are health research priorities set in low and middle income countries? A systematic review of published reports. PLoS One. 2014;9(9):e108787.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Bryant J, Sanson-Fisher R, Walsh J, Stewart J. Health research priority setting in selected high income countries: a narrative review of methods used and recommendations for future practice. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2014;12:23. Bryant J, Sanson-Fisher R, Walsh J, Stewart J. Health research priority setting in selected high income countries: a narrative review of methods used and recommendations for future practice. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2014;12:23.
11.
go back to reference Lund H, Juhl CB, Norgaard B, Draborg E, Henriksen M, Andreasen J, et al. Evidence-based research series-paper 2: using an evidence-based research approach before a new study is conducted to ensure value. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;129:158–66.CrossRef Lund H, Juhl CB, Norgaard B, Draborg E, Henriksen M, Andreasen J, et al. Evidence-based research series-paper 2: using an evidence-based research approach before a new study is conducted to ensure value. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;129:158–66.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Lund H, Juhl CB, Norgaard B, Draborg E, Henriksen M, Andreasen J, et al. Evidence-based research series-paper 3: using an evidence-based research approach to place your results into context after the study is performed to ensure usefulness of the conclusion. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;129:167–71.CrossRef Lund H, Juhl CB, Norgaard B, Draborg E, Henriksen M, Andreasen J, et al. Evidence-based research series-paper 3: using an evidence-based research approach to place your results into context after the study is performed to ensure usefulness of the conclusion. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;129:167–71.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Robinson KA, Brunnhuber K, Ciliska D, Juhl CB, Christensen R, Lund H, et al. Evidence-based research series-paper 1: what evidence-based research is and why is it important? J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;129:151–7.CrossRef Robinson KA, Brunnhuber K, Ciliska D, Juhl CB, Christensen R, Lund H, et al. Evidence-based research series-paper 1: what evidence-based research is and why is it important? J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;129:151–7.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Lund H, Brunnhuber K, Juhl C, Robinson K, Leenaars M, Dorch BF, et al. Towards evidence based research. BMJ. 2016;355:i5440.CrossRef Lund H, Brunnhuber K, Juhl C, Robinson K, Leenaars M, Dorch BF, et al. Towards evidence based research. BMJ. 2016;355:i5440.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Li T, Vedula SS, Scherer R, Dickersin K. What comparative effectiveness research is needed? A framework for using guidelines and systematic reviews to identify evidence gaps and research priorities. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(5):367–77.CrossRef Li T, Vedula SS, Scherer R, Dickersin K. What comparative effectiveness research is needed? A framework for using guidelines and systematic reviews to identify evidence gaps and research priorities. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(5):367–77.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.CrossRef Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Donnelly CA, Boyd I, Campbell P, Craig C, Vallance P, Walport M, et al. Four principles to make evidence synthesis more useful for policy. Nature. 2018;558(7710):361–4.CrossRef Donnelly CA, Boyd I, Campbell P, Craig C, Vallance P, Walport M, et al. Four principles to make evidence synthesis more useful for policy. Nature. 2018;558(7710):361–4.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):210.CrossRef Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):210.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Badakhshan A, Arab M, Rashidian A, Gholipour M, Mohebbi E, Zendehdel K. Systematic review of priority setting studies in health research in the Islamic Republic of Iran. East Mediterr Health J. 2018;24(8):753-69. Badakhshan A, Arab M, Rashidian A, Gholipour M, Mohebbi E, Zendehdel K. Systematic review of priority setting studies in health research in the Islamic Republic of Iran. East Mediterr Health J. 2018;24(8):753-69.
21.
go back to reference Booth A, Maddison J, Wright K, Fraser L, Beresford B. Research prioritisation exercises related to the care of children and young people with life-limiting conditions, their parents and all those who care for them: A systematic scoping review. Palliat Med. 2018;32(10):1552-66. Booth A, Maddison J, Wright K, Fraser L, Beresford B. Research prioritisation exercises related to the care of children and young people with life-limiting conditions, their parents and all those who care for them: A systematic scoping review. Palliat Med. 2018;32(10):1552-66.
22.
go back to reference Erntoft S. Pharmaceutical priority setting and the use of health economic evaluations: a systematic literature review. Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. 2011;14(4):587-99. Erntoft S. Pharmaceutical priority setting and the use of health economic evaluations: a systematic literature review. Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. 2011;14(4):587-99.
23.
go back to reference Garcia AB, Cassiani SH, Reveiz L. A systematic review of nursing research priorities on health system and services in the Americas. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2015;37(3):162-71. Garcia AB, Cassiani SH, Reveiz L. A systematic review of nursing research priorities on health system and services in the Americas. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2015;37(3):162-71.
24.
go back to reference Manafo E, Petermann L, Vandall-Walker V, Mason-Lai P. Patient and public engagement in priority setting: A systematic rapid review of the literature. PLoS One. 2018;13(3):e0193579. Manafo E, Petermann L, Vandall-Walker V, Mason-Lai P. Patient and public engagement in priority setting: A systematic rapid review of the literature. PLoS One. 2018;13(3):e0193579.
25.
go back to reference Pii KH, Schou LH, Piil K, Jarden M. Current trends in patient and public involvement in cancer research: a systematic review. Health expectations: an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy. 2019;22(1):3–20.CrossRef Pii KH, Schou LH, Piil K, Jarden M. Current trends in patient and public involvement in cancer research: a systematic review. Health expectations: an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy. 2019;22(1):3–20.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Reveiz L, Elias V, Terry RF, Alger J, Becerra-Posada F. Comparison of national health research priority-setting methods and characteristics in Latin America and the Caribbean, 2002-2012. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2013;34(1):1-13. Reveiz L, Elias V, Terry RF, Alger J, Becerra-Posada F. Comparison of national health research priority-setting methods and characteristics in Latin America and the Caribbean, 2002-2012. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2013;34(1):1-13.
27.
go back to reference Rylance J, Pai M, Lienhardt C, Garner P. Priorities for tuberculosis research: a systematic review. Lancet Infect Dis. 2010;10(12):886-92. Rylance J, Pai M, Lienhardt C, Garner P. Priorities for tuberculosis research: a systematic review. Lancet Infect Dis. 2010;10(12):886-92.
28.
go back to reference Tong A, Sautenet B, Chapman JR, Harper C, MacDonald P, Shackel N, et al. Research priority setting in organ transplantation: a systematic review. Transplant international: official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation. 2017;30(4):327-43. Tong A, Sautenet B, Chapman JR, Harper C, MacDonald P, Shackel N, et al. Research priority setting in organ transplantation: a systematic review. Transplant international: official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation. 2017;30(4):327-43.
29.
go back to reference Tong A, Chando S, Crowe S, Manns B, Winkelmayer WC, Hemmelgarn B, et al. Research priority setting in kidney disease: a systematic review. Am J Kidney Dis. 2015;65(5):674-83. Tong A, Chando S, Crowe S, Manns B, Winkelmayer WC, Hemmelgarn B, et al. Research priority setting in kidney disease: a systematic review. Am J Kidney Dis. 2015;65(5):674-83.
30.
go back to reference WHO. Research priorities for the environment, agriculture and infectious diseases of poverty: technical report of the TDR Thematic Reference Group on Environment, Agriculture and Infectious Diseases of Poverty. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013. WHO. Research priorities for the environment, agriculture and infectious diseases of poverty: technical report of the TDR Thematic Reference Group on Environment, Agriculture and Infectious Diseases of Poverty. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013.
31.
go back to reference Fergusson D, Glass KC, Hutton B, Shapiro S. Randomized controlled trials of aprotinin in cardiac surgery: could clinical equipoise have stopped the bleeding? Clinical Trials. 2005;2(3):218-29; discussion 29-32. Fergusson D, Glass KC, Hutton B, Shapiro S. Randomized controlled trials of aprotinin in cardiac surgery: could clinical equipoise have stopped the bleeding? Clinical Trials. 2005;2(3):218-29; discussion 29-32.
32.
go back to reference Chalmers I, Hedges LV, Cooper H. A brief history of research synthesis. Eval Health Prof. 2002;25(1):12-37. Chalmers I, Hedges LV, Cooper H. A brief history of research synthesis. Eval Health Prof. 2002;25(1):12-37.
33.
go back to reference Warren J. Remarks on angina pectoris. New England Journal of Medicine. 1812;1(1):1-11. Warren J. Remarks on angina pectoris. New England Journal of Medicine. 1812;1(1):1-11.
34.
go back to reference Clarke M. Partially systematic thoughts on the history of systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews. 2018;7(1):176. Clarke M. Partially systematic thoughts on the history of systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews. 2018;7(1):176.
35.
go back to reference Light RJ, Pillemer DB. Summing up. The science of reviewing research. Boston: HarvardUniversity Press; 1984. Light RJ, Pillemer DB. Summing up. The science of reviewing research. Boston: HarvardUniversity Press; 1984.
36.
go back to reference Grady C. Science in the service of healing. Hastings Cent Rep. 1998;28(6):34-8. Grady C. Science in the service of healing. Hastings Cent Rep. 1998;28(6):34-8.
37.
go back to reference Freedman B. Scientific value and validity as ethical requirements for research: a proposed explication. IRB: Ethics & Human Research. 1987;9(6):7-10. Freedman B. Scientific value and validity as ethical requirements for research: a proposed explication. IRB: Ethics & Human Research. 1987;9(6):7-10.
38.
go back to reference Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA. 2000;283(20):2701-11. Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA. 2000;283(20):2701-11.
39.
go back to reference Andrews J. Prioritization criteria methodology for future research needs proposals within the effective health care program: PiCMe-prioritization criteria methods. AHRQ methods for effective health care. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2013. Andrews J. Prioritization criteria methodology for future research needs proposals within the effective health care program: PiCMe-prioritization criteria methods. AHRQ methods for effective health care. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2013.
40.
go back to reference Terry RF, Charles E, Purdy B, Sanford A. An analysis of research priority-setting at the World Health Organization - how mapping to a standard template allows for comparison between research priority-setting approaches. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16(1):116.CrossRef Terry RF, Charles E, Purdy B, Sanford A. An analysis of research priority-setting at the World Health Organization - how mapping to a standard template allows for comparison between research priority-setting approaches. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16(1):116.CrossRef
41.
go back to reference Tan A, Nagraj SK, Nasser M, Sharma T, Kuchenmüller T. What do we know about evidenceinformed priority setting processes to set population-level health-research agendas: an overview of reviews. Bulletin of the National Research Centre. 2022;46(1):6. Tan A, Nagraj SK, Nasser M, Sharma T, Kuchenmüller T. What do we know about evidenceinformed priority setting processes to set population-level health-research agendas: an overview of reviews. Bulletin of the National Research Centre. 2022;46(1):6.
42.
go back to reference Uttley L, Indave BI, Hyde C, White V, Lokuhetty D, Cree I. Invited commentary-WHO classification of tumours: how should tumors be classified? Expert consensus, systematic reviews or both? Int J Cancer. 2020;146(12):3516–21.CrossRef Uttley L, Indave BI, Hyde C, White V, Lokuhetty D, Cree I. Invited commentary-WHO classification of tumours: how should tumors be classified? Expert consensus, systematic reviews or both? Int J Cancer. 2020;146(12):3516–21.CrossRef
43.
go back to reference Nasser M, Welch V, Ueffing E, Crowe S, Oliver S, Carlo R. Evidence in agenda setting: new directions for the Cochrane Collaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(5):469–71.CrossRef Nasser M, Welch V, Ueffing E, Crowe S, Oliver S, Carlo R. Evidence in agenda setting: new directions for the Cochrane Collaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(5):469–71.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Lack of systematicity in research prioritisation processes — a scoping review of evidence syntheses
Authors
Hans Lund
Lars Tang
Ingrid Poulsen
Karen la Cour
Merete Bjerrum
Claus Vinther Nielsen
Thomas Maribo
Publication date
01-12-2022
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-02149-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Systematic Reviews 1/2022 Go to the issue