Research priorities in 2012 for the effective management of childhood obesity

Research priority setting in obesity: a systematic review

AIM

Obesity research priority setting, if conducted to a high standard, can help promote policy-relevant and efficient research. Therefore, there is a need to identify existing research priority setting studies conducted in the topic area of obesity and to determine the extent to which they followed good practice principles for research priority setting.

METHOD

Studies examining research priority setting in obesity were identified through searching the MEDLINE, PBSC, CINAHL, PsycINFO databases and the grey literature. The nine common themes of good practice in research priority setting were used as a methodological framework to evaluate the processes of the included studies. These were context, use of a comprehensive approach, inclusiveness, information gathering, planning for implementation, criteria, methods for deciding on priorities, evaluation and transparency.

RESULTS

Thirteen articles reporting research prioritisation exercises conducted in different areas of obesity research were included. All studies reported engaging with various stakeholders such as policy makers, researchers and healthcare professionals. Public involvement was included in six studies. Methods of research prioritisation commonly included both Delphi and nominal group techniques and surveys. None of the 13 studies fulfilled all nine of the good practice criteria for research priority setting, with the most common limitations including not using a comprehensive approach and lack of inclusivity and evaluating on their processes.

CONCLUSION

There is a need for research priority setting studies in obesity to involve the public and to evaluate their exercises to ensure they are of high quality.

Establishing consensus on key public health indicators for the monitoring and evaluating childhood obesity interventions: a Delphi panel study

BACKGROUND

Childhood obesity is influenced by myriad individual, societal and environmental factors that are not typically reflected in current interventions. Socio-ecological conditions evolve and require ongoing monitoring in terms of assessing their influence on child health. The aim of this study was to identify and prioritise indicators deemed relevant by public health authorities for monitoring and evaluating childhood obesity interventions.

METHOD

A three-round Delphi Panel composed of experts from regions across Europe, with a remit in childhood obesity intervention, were asked to identify indicators that were a priority in their efforts to address childhood obesity in their respective jurisdictions. In Round 1, 16 panellists answered a series of open-ended questions to identify the most relevant indicators concerning the evaluation and subsequent monitoring of interventions addressing childhood obesity, focusing on three main domains: built environments, dietary environments, and health inequalities. In Rounds 2 and 3, panellists rated the importance of each of the identified indicators within these domains, and the responses were then analysed quantitatively.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven expert panellists were invited to participate in the study. Of these, 16/27 completed round 1 (5 9% response rate), 14/16 completed round 2 (87.5% response rate), and 8/14 completed the third and final round (57% response rate). Consensus (defined as > 70% agreement) was reached on a total of 45 of the 87 indicators (49%) across three primary domains (built and dietary environments and health inequalities), with 100% consensus reached for 5 of these indicators (6%).

CONCLUSION

Forty-five potential indicators were identified, pertaining primarily to the dietary environment, built environment and health inequalities. These results have important implications more widely for evaluating interventions aimed at childhood obesity reduction and prevention.

Childhood obesity prevention: priority areas for future research and barriers and facilitators to knowledge translation, coproduced using the nominal group technique

Childhood obesity is a significant public health challenge, yet research priorities for childhood obesity prevention are not established. Coproduction of priorities leads to research which may be more translatable to the domains of policy and practice. The aim of the present study was to identify knowledge gaps and research priorities in addition to facilitators and barriers to knowledge translation in childhood obesity prevention. The nominal group technique involving consensus building with researchers, policymakers, and practitioners was employed during workshops at a national obesity conference held over 2 days in May 2017. Seventy-seven people participated in the first round of research prioritization on Day 1, while 14 stakeholders participated on Day 2. The top five research priorities identified were as follows: (i) Evaluate (including economic evaluation) current programs to inform practice and policy; (ii) How to change culture toward addressing the determinants of health; (iii) Implementation science: process; (iv) How to integrate obesity prevention into existing service structures; (v) How to enhance opportunities for habitual physical activity, including free play and active travel. Key themes emerging from this research prioritization exercise were the importance of funding and resources, coproduction of research, and a focus on both implementation research and social determinants within the field of childhood obesity prevention. The coproduced research priorities may help to shape the research agendas of funders and researchers, and aid in the conduct of policy-relevant research and the translation of research into practice in childhood obesity prevention.

Research priority setting in childhood chronic disease: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate research priority setting approaches in childhood chronic diseases and to describe the priorities of stakeholders including patients, caregivers/families and health professionals.

DESIGN

We conducted a systematic review of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL from inception to 16 October 2016. Studies that elicited stakeholder priorities for paediatric chronic disease research were eligible for inclusion. Data on the prioritisation process were extracted using an appraisal checklist. Generated priorities were collated into common topic areas.

RESULTS

We identified 83 studies (n=15 722). Twenty (24%) studies involved parents/caregivers and four (5%) children. The top three health areas were cancer (11%), neurology (8%) and endocrine/metabolism (8%). Priority topic areas were treatment (78%), disease trajectory (48%), quality of life/psychosocial impact (48%), disease onset/prevention (43%), knowledge/self-management (33%), prevalence (30%), diagnostic methods (28%), access to healthcare (25%) and transition to adulthood (12%). The methods included workshops, Delphi techniques, surveys and focus groups/interviews. Specific methods for collecting and prioritising research topics were described in only 60% of studies. Most reviewed studies were conducted in high-income nations.

CONCLUSIONS

Research priority setting activities in paediatric chronic disease cover many discipline areas and have elicited a broad range of topics. However, child/caregiver involvement is uncommon, and the methods often lack clarity. A systematic and explicit process that involves patients and families in partnership may help to inform a more patient and family-relevant research agenda in paediatric chronic disease.