Stakeholders' perspectives on access-to-medicines policy and research priorities in Latin America and the Caribbean: face-to-face and web-based interviews

A scoping review describes methods used to identify, prioritize and display gaps in health research

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Different methods to examine research gaps have been described, but there are still no standard methods for identifying, prioritizing, or reporting research gaps. This study aimed to describe the methods used to identify, prioritize, and display gaps in health research.

METHODS

A scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework was carried out. We included all study types describing or reporting on methods to identify, prioritize, and display gaps or priorities in health research. Data synthesis is both quantitative and qualitative.

RESULTS

Among 1,938 identified documents, 139 articles were selected for analysis; 90 (65%) aimed to identify gaps, 23 (17%) aimed to determine research priorities, and 26 (19%) had both aims. The most frequent methods in the review were aimed at gap identification and involved secondary research, which included knowledge synthesis (80/116 articles, 69%), specifically systematic reviews and scoping reviews (58/80, 73%). Among 49 studies aimed at research prioritization, the most frequent methods were both primary and secondary research, accounting for 24 (49%) reports. Finally, 52 (37%) articles described methods for displaying gaps and/or priorities in health research.

CONCLUSION

This study provides a mapping of different methods used to identify, prioritize, and display gaps or priorities in health research.

Metodologías para la priorización en investigación en salud: una revisión sistemática de la literatura

Objetivo.

Identificar elementos metodológicos clave para la priorización en investigación en salud, a partir de las metodologías reportadas en la literatura científica.

Métodos.

Se realizó una búsqueda sistemática en Medline, Embase, LILACS, y fuentes complementarias de literatura gris. Se utilizaron las palabras clave: research, methods y health priorities, en combinación con términos libres. Dos revisores independientes, de acuerdo con criterios previamente definidos, seleccionaron revisiones de la literatura o documentos metodológicos que presentaran metodologías para priorización en investigación en salud. Se extrajeron las principales características de las metodologías reportadas y se identificaron elementos comunes.

Resultados.

Se incluyeron siete revisiones y cinco documentos metodológicos, que reportaron cuatro metodologías estructuradas específicas y múltiples aproximaciones metodológicas que combinan elementos diversos. En general, estas metodologías integran la perspectiva de actores clave con información objetiva, mediante la aplicación de técnicas estandarizadas de participación, para establecer un ranking de prioridades, con base en criterios previamente definidos. Se identificaron elementos metodológicos comunes relacionados con pasos del proceso, mecanismos de participación, criterios para priorizar y análisis de resultados.

Conclusión.

La priorización en investigación en salud requiere el empleo de una metodología definida a priori, que debe contener como mínimo cuatro elementos clave: pasos claros del proceso, criterios para priorizar, técnicas formales de participación y métodos de análisis de resultados. Estos elementos deben ajustarse a las condiciones y necesidades del contexto de aplicación.

'Knowledge for better health' revisited - the increasing significance of health research systems: a review by departing Editors-in-Chief

How can nations organise research investments to obtain the best bundle of knowledge and the maximum level of improved health, spread as equitably as possible? This question was the central focus of a major initiative from WHO led by Prof Tikki Pang, which resulted in a range of developments, including the publication of a conceptual framework for national health research systems - Knowledge for better health - in 2003, and in the founding of the journal Health Research Policy and Systems (HARPS). As Editors-in-Chief of the journal since 2006, we mark our retirement by tracking both the progress of the journal and the development of national health research systems. HARPS has maintained its focus on a range of central themes that are key components of a national health research system in any country. These include building capacity to conduct and use health research, identifying appropriate priorities, securing funds and allocating them accountably, producing scientifically valid research outputs, promoting the use of research in polices and practice in order to improve health, and monitoring and evaluating the health research system. Some of the themes covered in HARPS are now receiving increased attention and, for example, with the assessment of research impact and development of knowledge translation platforms, the journal has covered their progress throughout that expansion of interest. In addition, there is increasing recognition of new imperatives, including the importance of promoting gender equality in health research if benefits are to be maximised. In this Editorial, we outline some of the diverse and developing perspectives considered within each theme, as well as considering how they are held together by the growing desire to build effective health research systems in all countries.From 2003 until mid-June 2017, HARPS published 590 articles on the above and related themes, with authors being located in 76 countries. We present quantitative data tracing the journal's growth and the increasing external recognition of its role. We thank the many colleagues who have kindly contributed to the journal's success, and finish on an exciting note by welcoming the new Editors-in-Chief who will take HARPS forward.