nach oben

Erschienen in:

08.11.2021 | Systematic Review

Methods for Identifying Health Research Gaps, Needs, and Priorities: a Scoping Review

verfasst von: Eunice C. Wong, PhD, Alicia R. Maher, MD, Aneesa Motala, BA, Rachel Ross, MPH, Olamigoke Akinniranye, MA, Jody Larkin, MS, Susanne Hempel, PhD

Erschienen in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Ausgabe 1/2022

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Well-defined, systematic, and transparent processes to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities are vital to ensuring that available funds target areas with the greatest potential for impact.

Objective

The purpose of this review is to characterize methods conducted or supported by research funding organizations to identify health research gaps, needs, or priorities.

Method

We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and the Web of Science up to September 2019. Eligible studies reported on methods to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities that had been conducted or supported by research funding organizations. Using a published protocol, we extracted data on the method, criteria, involvement of stakeholders, evaluations, and whether the method had been replicated (i.e., used in other studies).

Results

Among 10,832 citations, 167 studies were eligible for full data extraction. More than half of the studies employed methods to identify both needs and priorities, whereas about a quarter of studies focused singularly on identifying gaps (7%), needs (6%), or priorities (14%) only. The most frequently used methods were the convening of workshops or meetings (37%), quantitative methods (32%), and the James Lind Alliance approach, a multi-stakeholder research needs and priority setting process (28%). The most widely applied criteria were importance to stakeholders (72%), potential value (29%), and feasibility (18%). Stakeholder involvement was most prominent among clinicians (69%), researchers (66%), and patients and the public (59%). Stakeholders were identified through stakeholder organizations (51%) and purposive (26%) and convenience sampling (11%). Only 4% of studies evaluated the effectiveness of the methods and 37% employed methods that were reproducible and used in other studies.

Discussion

To ensure optimal targeting of funds to meet the greatest areas of need and maximize outcomes, a much more robust evidence base is needed to ascertain the effectiveness of methods used to identify research gaps, needs, and priorities.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Chalkidou K, Whicher D, Kary W, Tunis SR. Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: Identifying Critical Gaps in Evidence for Clinical and Health Policy Decision Making. International journal of technology assessment in health care. 2009;25(3):241-8. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462309990225CrossRefPubMed

Yoshida S. Approaches, Tools and Methods Used for Setting Priorities in Health Research in the 21(st) Century. Journal of global health. 2016;6(1):010507-010507. doi:https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.06.010507CrossRefPubMed

Robinson KA, Saldanha IJ, McKoy NA. Development of a Framework to Identify Research Gaps from Systematic Reviews. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2011;64(12):1325-30. [Comment in: J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 May;66(5):522-3; [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23265604]]. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.009CrossRefPubMed

Saldanha IJ, Wilson LM, Bennett WL, Nicholson WK, Robinson KA. Development and Pilot Test of a Process to Identify Research Needs from a Systematic Review. J Clin Epidemiol. May 2013;66(5):538-45. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.07.009CrossRefPubMed

Viergever RF, Terry R, Matsoso M. Health research prioritization at WHO: an overview of methodology and high level analysis of WHO led health research priority setting exercises. Geneva: World Health Organization. 2010;

Robinson KA, Akinyede O, Dutta T, et al. Framework for Determining Research Gaps During Systematic Review: Evaluation. 2013. AHRQ Methods for Effective Health Care.

Nyanchoka L, Tudur-Smith C, Thu VN, Iversen V, Tricco AC, Porcher R. A Scoping Review describes Methods Used to Identify, Prioritize and Display Gaps in Health Research. J Clin Epidemiol. Jan 30 2019;doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.01.005

Rudan I, Gibson JL, Ameratunga S, et al. Setting priorities in global child health research investments: guidelines for implementation of CHNRI method. Croatian medical journal. 2008;49(6):720-33.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

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. Dec 15 2010;8:36. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-8-36CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

James Lind Alliance. The James Lind Alliance Guidebook. March 2020. http://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/jla-guidebook/downloads/JLA-Guidebook-V9-download-March-2020.pdf

11.

Carey TY, A.; Beadles, C.; Wines, R. Prioritizing Future Research through Examination of Research Gaps in Systematic Reviews. 2012.

12.

Carey T, Yon A, Beadles C, Wines R. Prioritizing future research through examination of research gaps in systematic reviews. Prepared for the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. 2012;

13.

Carey TS, Sanders GD, Viswanathan M, Trikalinos TA, Kato E, Chang S. Framework for Considering Study Designs for Future Research Needs. Methods Future Research Needs Paper No. 8 (Prepared by the RTI–UNC Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007- 10056-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 12-EHC048-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. March 2012. Framework for Considering Study Designs for Future Research Needs. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22624168

14.

O’Haire C, McPheeters M, Nakamoto E, et al. Methods for Engaging Stakeholders To Identify and Prioritize Future Research Needs. Methods Future Research Needs Report No. 4. (Prepared by the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center and the Vanderbilt Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10057-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 11-EHC044-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Vol. Methods Future Research Needs Reports. 2011. June 2011. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK62571/

15.

Trikalinos T, Dahabreh I, Lee J, Moorthy D. Methods Research on Future Research Needs: Defining an Optimal Format for Presenting Research Needs. Methods Future Research Needs Report No. 3. (Prepared by the Tufts Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10057-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 11-EHC027-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. June 2011. www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm.

16.

Kane RL, Guise JM, Hartman K, Rothenberg B, Trikalinos T, Wilt T. Presentation of Future Research Needs. 2012. AHRQ Methods for Effective Health Care.

17.

Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic Review or Scoping Review? Guidance for Authors When Choosing Between a Systematic or Scoping Review Approach. journal article. BMC Medical Research Methodology. November 19 2018;18(1):143. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for Conducting Systematic Scoping Reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. Sep 2015;13(3):141-6. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/xeb.0000000000000050CrossRefPubMed

19.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. The PRISMA-ScR Statement. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2018;169(7):467-473. doi:https://doi.org/10.7326/m18-0850CrossRefPubMed

20.

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 Research Policy and Systems. 2011;9(1):19.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Rylance J, Pai M, Lienhardt C, Garner P. Priorities for tuberculosis research: a systematic review. Lancet Infect Dis. 2010;10(12):886-892.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Tong A, Chando S, Crowe S, et al. Research priority setting in kidney disease: a systematic review. American journal of kidney diseases: the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation. 2015;65(5):674-83. [Comment in: Am J Kidney Dis. 2015 May;65(5):641-3; [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25919496]]. doi:https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2014.11.011CrossRef

23.

Tong A, Sautenet B, Chapman JR, 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):327-343. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/tri.12924CrossRef

24.

Bourne AM, Johnston RV, Cyril S, et al. Scoping Review of Priority Setting of Research Topics for Musculoskeletal Conditions Review. BMJ Open. 2018;8(12):9 e023962. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023962CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Bennett WL, Nicholson WK, Saldanha IJ, Wilson LM, McKoy NA, Robinson KA. Future Research Needs for the Management of Gestational Diabetes. 2010. AHRQ Future Research Needs Papers.

26.

Buckley BS, Grant AM, Glazener CMA. Case study: a patient-clinician collaboration that identified and prioritized evidence gaps and stimulated research development. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2013;66(5):483-9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.03.016CrossRefPubMed

27.

Elberse JE, Pittens CACM, de Cock Buning T, Broerse JEW. Patient Involvement in a Scientific Advisory Process: Setting the Research Agenda for Medical Products. Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2012;107(2-3):231-42. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2012.05.014CrossRef

28.

Fun WH, Sararaks S, Tan EH, et al. Research funding impact and priority setting - advancing universal access and quality healthcare research in Malaysia. BMC Health Services Research. Apr 24 2019;19(1):248.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Husereau D, Boucher M, Noorani H. Priority Setting for Health Technology Assessment at CADTH. Article. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2010;26(3):341-347. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462310000383CrossRefPubMed

30.

Mador RL, Kornas K, Simard A, Haroun V. Using the Nine Common Themes of Good Practice Checklist as a Tool for Evaluating the Research Priority Setting Process of a Provincial Research and Program Evaluation Program. Health research policy and systems. 2016;14:22. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-016-0092-5CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Sanders GD, Powers B, Crowley M, et al. Future Research Needs for Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors or Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers Added to Standard Medical Therapy for Treating Stable Ischemic Heart Disease: Identification of Future Research Needs from Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 18. Future Research Needs for Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors or Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers Added to Standard Medical Therapy for Treating Stable Ischemic Heart Disease: Identification of Future Research Needs from Comparative Effectiveness Review No 18. 2010. AHRQ Future Research Needs Papers.

32.

Minelli C, Baio G. Value of Information: a Tool to Improve Research Prioritization and Reduce Waste. PLos Med. 2015;12(9):e1001882-e1001882. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001882CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-7547-12-23CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Tong A, Synnot A, Crowe S, et al. Reporting Guideline for Priority Setting of Health Research (REPRISE). BMC Med Res Methodol. Dec 28 2019;19(1):243. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0889-3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Uneke CJ, Ezeoha AE, Ndukwe CD, Oyibo PG, Onwe F, Aulakh BK. Research Priority Setting for Health Policy and Health Systems Strengthening in Nigeria: the Policymakers and Stakeholders Perspective and Involvement. The Pan African medical journal. 2013;16:10. doi:https://doi.org/10.11604/pamj.2013.16.10.2318CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

MacFarlane A, Galvin R, O’Sullivan M, et al. Participatory Methods for Research Prioritization in Primary Care: an Analysis of the World Cafe Approach in Ireland and the USA. Family practice. 2017;34(3):278-284. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmw104CrossRefPubMed

37.

Nelson ML, McKellar KA, Munce S, et al. Addressing the Evidence Gap in Stroke Rehabilitation for Complex Patients: a Preliminary Research Agenda. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation. 2018;99(6):1232-1241. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2017.08.488CrossRefPubMed

38.

Restall GJ, Carnochan TN, Roger KS, Sullivan TM, Etcheverry EJ, Roddy P. Collaborative Priority Setting for Human Immunodeficiency Virus Rehabilitation Research: a Case Report. Canadian journal of occupational therapy Revue canadienne d’ergotherapie. 2016;83(1):7-13. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0008417415577423CrossRefPubMed

39.

Abma TA, Broerse JEW. Patient Participation as Dialogue: Setting Research Agendas. Health expectations: an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy. 2010;13(2):160-73. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00549.xCrossRef

40.

Rudan I. Setting Health Research Priorities Using the CHNRI Method: IV. Key conceptual advances. J Glob Health. 2016;6(1):010501. doi:https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh-06-010501CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Yoshida S, Wazny K, Cousens S, Chan KY. Setting Health Research Priorities Using the CHNRI Method: III Involving Stakeholders. J Glob Health. Jun 2016;6(1):010303. doi:https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.06.010303CrossRef

42.

Rudan I, Yoshida S, Chan KY, et al. Setting Health Research Priorities Using the CHNRI Method: VII. A Review of the First 50 Applications of the CHNRI Method. J Glob Health. 2017;7(1):011004. doi:https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.07.011004CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

43.

Nygaard A, Halvorsrud L, Linnerud S, Grov EK, Bergland A. The James Lind Alliance Process Approach: Scoping Review. BMJ Open. 2019;9(8):e027473. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027473CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

44.

Okello D, Chongtrakul P, The COHRED Working Group on Priority Setting. A Manual for Research Priority Setting using the ENHR Strategy. Reference mining. Accessed July 24, 2019. http://www.cohred.org/downloads/578.pdf

45.

Fadlallah R, El-Harakeh A, Bou-Karroum L, et al. A Common Framework of Steps and Criteria for Prioritizing Topics for Evidence Syntheses: a Systematic Review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;120:67-85. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.009CrossRefPubMed

46.

Natale CV, Gross D. The ROI of engaged patients. Healthc Financ Manage. 2013;67(8):90-7.PubMed

47.

Clavisi O, Bragge P, Tavender E, Turner T, Gruen RL. Effective Stakeholder Participation in Setting Research Priorities Using a Global Evidence Mapping Approach. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2013;66(5):496-502.e2. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.04.002CrossRefPubMed

48.

Tallon D, Chard J, Dieppe P. Relation Between Agendas of the Research Community and the Research Consumer. Lancet. 2000;355(9220):2037-40. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02351-5CrossRefPubMed

49.

Crowe S, Fenton M, Hall M, Cowan K, Chalmers I. Patients’, Clinicians’ and the Research Communities’ Priorities for Treatment Research: There is an Important Mismatch. Res Involv Engagem. 2015;1:2. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-015-0003-xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

50.

Kapiriri L, Tomlinson M, Gibson J, et al. Setting priorities in global child health research investments: addressing values of stakeholders. Croatian medical journal. 2007;48(5):618-627.PubMedPubMedCentral

51.

Guise J-M, O’Haire C, McPheeters M, et al. A Practice-Based Tool for Engaging Stakeholders in Future Research: a Synthesis of Current Practices. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2013;66(6):666-74. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.12.010CrossRefPubMed

52.

Sibbald SL, Singer PA, Upshur R, Martin DK. Priority Setting: What Constitutes Success? A Conceptual Framework for Successful Priority Setting. Article. Bmc Health Services Research. 2009;9:12. 43. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-9-43CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

53.

Pham MT, Rajić A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA. A Scoping Review of Scoping Reviews: Advancing the Approach and Enhancing the Consistency. Research synthesis methods. 2014;5(4):371-385. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1123CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: Methods for Identifying Health Research Gaps, Needs, and Priorities: a Scoping Review
verfasst von: Eunice C. Wong, PhD
Alicia R. Maher, MD
Aneesa Motala, BA
Rachel Ross, MPH
Olamigoke Akinniranye, MA
Jody Larkin, MS
Susanne Hempel, PhD
Publikationsdatum: 08.11.2021
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Journal of General Internal Medicine / Ausgabe 1/2022
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Elektronische ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-021-07064-1

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

^{Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag}

Kostenlos registrieren

Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin

Echinokokkose medikamentös behandeln oder operieren?

06.05.2024 DCK 2024 Kongressbericht

Die Therapie von Echinokokkosen sollte immer in spezialisierten Zentren erfolgen. Eine symptomlose Echinokokkose kann – egal ob von Hunde- oder Fuchsbandwurm ausgelöst – konservativ erfolgen. Wenn eine Op. nötig ist, kann es sinnvoll sein, vorher Zysten zu leeren und zu desinfizieren.

Umsetzung der POMGAT-Leitlinie läuft

03.05.2024 DCK 2024 Kongressbericht

Seit November 2023 gibt es evidenzbasierte Empfehlungen zum perioperativen Management bei gastrointestinalen Tumoren (POMGAT) auf S3-Niveau. Vieles wird schon entsprechend der Empfehlungen durchgeführt. Wo es im Alltag noch hapert, zeigt eine Umfrage in einem Klinikverbund.

Proximale Humerusfraktur: Auch 100-Jährige operieren?

01.05.2024 DCK 2024 Kongressbericht

Mit dem demographischen Wandel versorgt auch die Chirurgie immer mehr betagte Menschen. Von Entwicklungen wie Fast-Track können auch ältere Menschen profitieren und bei proximaler Humerusfraktur können selbst manche 100-Jährige noch sicher operiert werden.

Die „Zehn Gebote“ des Endokarditis-Managements

30.04.2024 Endokarditis Leitlinie kompakt

Worauf kommt es beim Management von Personen mit infektiöser Endokarditis an? Eine Kardiologin und ein Kardiologe fassen die zehn wichtigsten Punkte der neuen ESC-Leitlinie zusammen.

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Background

Objective

Method

Results

Discussion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2022

Tips for Busy Clinicians to Gauge Conclusions from Clinical Trials

Association Between Unmet Essential Social Needs and Influenza Vaccination in US Adults

Providing a Second Opinion to Dr. Google with the WWW Framework

Reducing Frustration and Improving Management of Chronic Pain in Primary Care: Is Shared Decision-making Sufficient?

Letter Relating to “Mobility and Mortality During the COVID-19 Pandemic” (J Gen Intern Med 2020 35, 3100–3101)

Breaking the Language Barrier