Introduction
Nine common themes of good practice in research priority setting
Theme | Description |
---|---|
Preparatory work | |
1 - Context | 1 The resources available for the exercise are reported. 2 The focus of the exercise is clearly stated, i.e. what it is about and who it is for). 3 The underlying values or principles are clear. 4 The health environment in which the process took place is described. 5 The research environment in which the process took place is described. 6 The political environment in which the process took place is described. 7 The economic/financial environment in which the process took place is described. |
2 - Use of a comprehensive approach | 8 The process of priority setting is described in detail. |
3 - Inclusiveness | 9 The participants involved in setting research priorities are described. 10 An appropriate representation of expertise is included. 11 An appropriate representation of the sexes is included. 12 An appropriate representation of regional participation is included. 13 Relevant health sectors and other constituencies are included. |
4 - Information gathering | 14 The information and sources used to inform the priority setting exercise are referenced. |
5 - Planning for implementation | 15 Plans for translation of research priorities are discussed. 16 Who will implement the research priorities and how? |
Deciding on priorities | |
6 - Criteria | 17 Relevant criteria to focus discussion on setting priorities are stated. |
7 - Methods for deciding on priorities | 18 Approach for deciding on priorities is described (e.g. consensus or metrics based). |
After priorities have been set | |
8 - Evaluation | 19 When and how evaluation of the established priorities and the priority setting process will take place is defined (e.g. multiple sessions). |
9 -Transparency | 20 Clarity about the approach used exists, i.e. how priorities are set. |
Objectives
Methods
Search strategy and process of study selection
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Quality assessment tool
Data synthesis and extraction
Results
Study ID | Country | Topic and scope | Population included in the identification of priorities | Method | Main outcome (research priorities) | Quality score (based on met criteria in the checklist) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Botchwey et al. (2018) | USA | To develop a research agenda to address youth physical activity and healthy weight | Researchers from various disciplines. Health practitioners. No public involvement. Total n=unknown | Systematic literature reviews, online survey, discussions with practitioners and researchers | Research priorities were identified within various domains. Parks: How do different racial/ethnic groups use parks/trails to be physically active, especially children? Transportation, land use, urban design and community settings: How do play streets promote physical activity in elementary and middle school-aged kids, among different racial/ethnic groups living in lower-income rural communities? Out-of-school time: Which settings (hospitals, parks, etc.), provide the best opportunity to engage with and reach high-risk children in need of summer care? | 12/20 (60%) |
Byrne et al. (2008) | AUS | To identify priorities for longitudinal research in child obesity | Researchers, medical practitioners, dietitians, scientists and other healthcare professionals interested in obesity research, treatment or public health initiatives directed at the prevention of obesity. No public involvement. (Total n=71) | Two-stage Delphi | Research questions were identified and ranked in order of importance. The highest-priority questions related to modifiable environmental risk/protective factors; parental and family factors; longitudinal relationships between the development of obesity and physical, social and mental health; predisposing prenatal and early childhood patterns of growth and nutrition; identification of stronger early markers of chronic disease risk in later years, and better understanding of the natural course of overweight in childhood | 8/20 (40%) |
Curtin et al. (2017) | USA | To develop a research agenda to address obesity in children with autism and developmental disabilities | Researchers, family members, self-advocates and policy makers. (Total n=38) | Three-round modified Delphi | The five research areas identified for priority were: (1) family practices around food/mealtimes; (2) physical activity and sedentary behaviours in relation to weight; (3) relationship between food patterns, behaviour, and weight gain; (4) programme-adaption and delivery; and (5) influence of school and community-based organizations on food intake and physical activity | 12/20 (60%) |
Gallagher et al. (2010) | USA | To identify interdisciplinary research priorities for pediatric obesity prevention and treatment | University faculties from dentistry, education, medicine, nursing, nutrition, pediatrics, psychology, public health, and social work. No public involvement. (Total n=55) | Workshops. Focus groups | Top 10 prioritised areas included: (1) integration of behavioural and cultural components into research; (2) contribution of health disparities on rates of childhood obesity in our communities; (3) social determinants of health and identification of previously unmeasured factors; (4) effectiveness of behavioural approaches targeted towards families; and (5) translating current evidence into practice in the clinic and community | 12/20 (60%) |
Hennessy et al. (2018) | UK | To identify research priorities in childhood obesity prevention | Researchers, policy makers, and healthcare practitioners. No public involvement. (Total n=77) | Two rounds of nominal group technique | The top five research priorities identified were: (1) evaluation (including economic evaluation), current programmes to inform practice and policy; (2) how to change culture towards addressing the determinants of health; (3) implementation science: investigate process; (4) how to integrate obesity prevention into existing service structures; and (5) how to enhance opportunities for habitual physical activity, including free play and active travel | 10/20 (50%) |
Hill et al. (2019) | AUS | To generate preconception research priorities for maternal obesity prevention | Researchers, clinical stakeholders, academics, public representatives*. (Total n=21). *Public stakeholders constituted 10% of total sample | Systematic review, three rounds of modified Delphi, and nominal group technique | Five preconception research priorities and four overarching principles were identified. The priorities were: (1) healthy diet and nutrition; (2) weight management; (3) physical activity; (4) planned pregnancy; and (5) physical, mental and psychosocial health | 14/20 (70%) |
Hill et al. (2020) | AUS | To generate pregnancy research priorities to address rising maternal obesity | Researchers, public representatives*. (total n=20) *Public stakeholders constituted 10% of total sample | Modified Delphi and nominal group technique | Research priorities identified included optimising: (1) healthy diet and nutrition; (2) gestational weight management; (3) screening for and managing pregnancy complications and pre-existing conditions; (4) physical activity; (5) mental health; and (6) postpartum (including intrapartum) care | 13/20 (65%) |
Mama et al. (2014) | USA | To explore and describe community perceptions of the causes of obesity and possible solutions to inform a collaborative research agenda | Community members representing a wide range of occupations including healthcare practitioners and technicians, financial and business, and community and social services. (Total n=22) | Interviews. | Common problems identified were: (1) childhood obesity; (2) balancing a healthy diet and physical activity. Additional emergent themes focused on solutions, including increasing awareness and education, coordinated efforts among organizations, and using an ecologic approach to combat obesity | 11/20 (55%) |
McPherson et al. (2016) | USA | To identify the obesity needs of children with physical disabilities to inform future research | Researchers, trainees, front line clinicians, decision makers, parents*, former clients with disabilities*, community partners*. (Total n=38). *Public stakeholders constituted 7% of total sample | Modified nominal group technique | Three high-priority areas were: (1) early, sustained engagement of families; (2) rethinking determinants of obesity and health; and (3) evidence-informed measurement and outcomes | 14/20 (70%) |
Ramirez et al. (2011) | USA | To identify research priorities to address Latino childhood obesity | Academics, researchers, health educators, administrators, managers, clinicians, public health workers, students, community*. (Total n=313). *Public stakeholders constituted 0.6% of total sample | Modified three-round Web-based Delphi | Twenty-five research priorities identified within the domains of society, community, school, family and individual. These included policies that subsidize accessibility of healthy foods to improve diet among Latino families, built environment policies involving collaborations with multiple stakeholders to promote physical activity, school health, nutrition and active physical education classes as part of the school curriculum, and engaging Latino families as advocates of childhood obesity prevention initiatives at the community and school levels. Individual: programs making physical activity more attractive than watching TV or playing video games | 14/20 (70%) |
McKinnon et al. (2009) | USA | To identify priorities for a research agenda to inform obesity policy | Experts in medicine, public health, nutrition, physical activity, economics, health policy and legislation, and healthcare delivery systems. No public involvement. (Total n=27) | Semi-structured telephone interviews. Modified nominal group process | Themes that emerged were: (1) the embryonic nature of obesity policy research; (2) the need to study ‘natural experiments’ resulting from policy-based efforts to address the obesity epidemic; (3) the importance of research focused beyond individual-level behaviour change; (4) the need for economic research across several relevant policy areas; and (5) the overall urgency of taking action in the policy arena | 10/20 (50%) |
Taylor et al. (2013) | AUS | To determine which research topics are considered most important for the effective management of obesity in children | Researchers. No public involvement. (Total n=78) | Three-round Delphi | The highest research priorities identified were: (1) determining the best strategies for long-term weight management; and (2) identifying how best to support the primary healthcare system to achieve these strategies | 6/20 (30%) |
Ward et al. (2013) | USA | To develop priorities for future research on healthy weight development in children aged 2–5 years | Researchers, investigators, and leaders in early care and education. No public involvement. (Total n=43) | Meeting Survey. | Highest-rated issues included: (1) assessment of the quality of children’s meals and snacks; (2) use of financial incentives; (3) interventions that involve healthcare providers (4); the role of screen time; and (5) the need for multilevel interventions | 10/20 (50%) |
Countries key | ||||||
USA | United States of America | |||||
AUS | Australia | |||||
UK | United Kingdom |
Item | Studies that fulfilled the principles outlined in the checklist | Total studies (out of a total of 13) |
---|---|---|
Context | ||
1 - The resources available for the exercise are reported | 9 | |
2 - The focus of the exercise is clearly stated, i.e. what it is about and who it was for | 13 | |
3 - The underlying values or principles are clear | 13 | |
4 - The health environment in which the process took place is described | 11 | |
5 - The research environment in which the process took place is described | 12 | |
6 - The political environment in which the process took place is described | 0 | 0 |
7 - The economic/financial environment in which the process took place is described | 0 | 0 |
Use of a comprehensive approach | ||
8 - The process of priority setting is described in detail | 0 | 0 |
Inclusiveness | ||
9 - The participants involved in setting research priorities are described | 13 | |
10 - An appropriate representation of expertise is included | 6 | |
11 - An appropriate representation of the sexes is included | Mama et al. (2014) | 1 |
12 - An appropriate representation of regional participation is included | 10 | |
13 - Relevant health sectors and other constituencies are included | 8 | |
Information gathering | ||
14 - The information and sources used to inform the priority setting exercise are referenced | 13 | |
Planning for implementation | ||
15 - Plans for translation of research priorities are discussed | 6 | |
16 - Who has implemented the research priorities and how? | 4 | |
Criteria | ||
17 - Relevant criteria to focus discussion on setting priorities are stated | 6 | |
Methods for deciding on priorities | ||
18 - Approach for deciding on priorities is described (e.g. consensus or metrics based) | 13 | |
Evaluation | ||
19 - When and how evaluation of the established priorities and the priority setting process will take place is defined (e.g. multiple sessions) | 0 | 0 |
Transparency | ||
20 - Clarity about the approach used exists, i.e. how priorities are set | 12 |