What do we know about evidence-informed priority setting processes to set population-level health-research agendas: an overview of reviews

Public participation in decisions about measures to manage the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, governments and health authorities faced tough decisions about infection prevention and control measures such as social distancing, face masks and travel. Judgements underlying those decisions require democratic input, as well as expert input. The aim of this review is to inform decisions about how best to achieve public participation in decisions about public health and social interventions in the context of a pandemic or other public health emergencies.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review examples of public participation in decisions by governments and health authorities about how to control the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN

We searched Participedia and relevant databases in August 2022. Two authors reviewed titles and abstracts and one author screened publications promoted to full text. One author extracted data from included reports using a standard data-extraction form. A second author checked 10% of the extraction forms. We conducted a structured synthesis using framework analysis.

RESULTS

We included 24 reports (18 from Participedia). Most took place in high-income countries (n=23), involved 'consulting' the public (n=17) and involved public meetings (usually online). Two initiatives reported explicit support for critical thinking. 11 initiatives were formally evaluated (only three reported impacts). Many initiatives did not contribute to a decision, and 17 initiatives did not include any explicit decision-making criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Decisions about how to manage the COVID-19 pandemic affected nearly everyone. While public participation in those decisions had the potential to improve the quality of the judgements and decisions that were made, build trust, improve adherence and help ensure transparency and accountability, few examples of such initiatives have been reported and most of those have not been formally evaluated. Identified initiatives did point out potential good practices related to online engagement, crowdsourcing and addressing potential power imbalance. Future research should address improved reporting of initiatives, explicit decision-making criteria, support for critical thinking, engagement of marginalised groups and decision-makers and communication with the public.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

358991.

Identifying research priorities for infection prevention and control. A mixed methods study with a convergent design

Background

Meaningful research creates evidence for Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) practice.

Aim

To establish Infection Prevention Society (IPS) members' research priorities to support future research projects.

Methods

A mixed methods convergent parallel design incorporating a cross-sectional survey of IPS members (2022-2023), and focus group findings from the IPS Consultative Committee, (October 2022). Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were transcribed verbatim, entered into NVivo 12, and analysed using a thematic analysis approach.

Findings/Results

132 IPS members responded to the survey, including 120 (90.9%) nurses. The three most prevalent priorities were: Quality Improvement and Patient Safety (n = 84, 16.1%); IPC Training and Education (n = 77, 14.8%); and IPC Evidence-based Guidelines (n = 76, 14.6%). Analysis of the focus group transcripts identified six emergent themes 'Patient Centred Care', 'Training and Education', 'IPC Role and Identity', 'IPC Leadership', 'IPC is Everyone's Responsibility', and 'Research Activity'. Triangulation of findings demonstrated concordance between quantitative and qualitative findings with Quality Improvement and Patient Safety (QIPS) and Training and Education identified as priority research areas.

Discussion

This study highlights the necessity of developing support systems and incorporating research priorities in QIPS, as well as Training and Education. The findings of this study align with the recommended core competencies and components for effective infection prevention and control programs, making them relevant to QIPS initiatives. The outcomes of the study will serve as a valuable resource to guide the IPS Research and Development Committee in delivering practical support to IPS members.

Priority setting in times of crises: an analysis of priority setting for the COVID-19 response in the Western Pacific Region

BACKGROUND

While priority setting is recognized as critical for promoting accountability and transparency in health system planning, its role in supporting rational, equitable and fair pandemic planning and responses is less well understood. This study aims to describe how priority setting was used to support planning in the initial stage of the pandemic response in a subset of countries in the Western Pacific Region (WPR).

METHODS

We purposively sampled a subset of countries from WPR and undertook a critical document review of the initial national COVID-19 pandemic response plans. A pre-specified tool guided data extraction and the analysis examined the use of quality parameters of priority setting, and equity considerations.

RESULTS

Nine plans were included in this analysis, from the following countries: Papua New Guinea, Tonga, The Philippines, Fiji, China, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and Taiwan. Most commonly the plans described strong political will to respond swiftly, resource needs, stakeholder engagement, and defined the roles of institutions that guided COVID-19 response decision-making. The initial plans did not reflect strong evidence of public engagement or considerations of equity informing the early responses to the pandemic.

CONCLUSION

This study advances an understanding of how priority setting and equity considerations were integrated to support the development of the initial COVID-19 responses in nine countries in WPR and contributes to the literature on health system planning during emergencies. This baseline assessment reveals evidence of the common priority setting parameters that were deployed in the initial responses, the prioritized resources and equity considerations and reinforces the importance of strengthening health system capacity for priority setting to support future pandemic preparedness.

Research prioritisation on prevention and management of preterm birth in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) with a special focus on Bangladesh using the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method

Background

Fifteen million babies are born preterm globally each year, with 81% occurring in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Preterm birth complications are the leading cause of newborn deaths and significantly impact health, quality of life, and costs of health services. Improving outcomes for newborns and their families requires prioritising research for developing practical, scalable solutions, especially in low-resource settings such as Bangladesh. We aimed to identify research priorities related to preventing and managing preterm birth in LMICs for 2021-2030, with a special focus on Bangladesh.

Methods

We adopted the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method to set research priorities for preventing and managing preterm birth. Seventy-six experts submitted 490 research questions online, which we collated into 95 unique questions and sent for scoring to all experts. A hundred and nine experts scored the questions using five pre-selected criteria: answerability, effectiveness, deliverability, maximum potential for burden reduction, and effect on equity. We calculated weighted and unweighted research priority scores and average expert agreement to generate a list of top-ranked research questions for LMICs and Bangladesh.

Results

Health systems and policy research dominated the top 20 identified priorities for LMICs, such as understanding and improving uptake of the facility and community-based Kangaroo Mother Care (KMC), promoting breastfeeding, improving referral and transport networks, evaluating the impact of the use of skilled attendants, quality improvement activities, and exploring barriers to antenatal steroid use. Several of the top 20 questions also focused on screening high-risk women or the general population of women, understanding the causes of preterm birth, or managing preterm babies with illnesses (jaundice, sepsis and retinopathy of prematurity). There was a high overlap between research priorities in LMICs and Bangladesh.

Conclusions

This exercise, aimed at identifying priorities for preterm birth prevention and management research in LMICs, especially in Bangladesh, found research on improving the care of preterm babies to be more important in reducing the burden of preterm birth and accelerating the attainment of Sustainable Development Goal 3 target of newborn deaths, by 2030.

Methodological procedures for priority setting mental health research: a systematic review summarising the methods, designs and frameworks involved with priority setting

BACKGROUND

Research priority setting aims to identify research gaps within particular health fields. Given the global burden of mental illness and underfunding of mental health research compared to other health topics, knowledge of methodological procedures may raise the quality of priority setting to identify research with value and impact. However, to date there has been no comprehensive review on the approaches adopted with priority setting projects that identify mental health research, despite viewed as essential knowledge to address research gaps. Hence, the paper presents a summary of the methods, designs, and existing frameworks that can be adopted for prioritising mental health research to inform future prioritising projects.

METHOD

A systematic review of electronic databases located prioritisation literature, while a critical interpretive synthesis was adopted whereby the appraisal of methodological procedures was integrated into the synthesis of the findings. The synthesis was shaped using the good practice checklist for priority setting by Viergever and colleagues drawing on their following categories to identify and appraise methodological procedures: (1) Comprehensive Approach-frameworks/designs guiding the entire priority setting; (2) Inclusiveness -participation methods to aid the equal contribution of stakeholders; (3) Information Gathering-data collecting methods to identify research gaps, and (4) Deciding Priorities-methods to finalise priorities.

RESULTS

In total 903 papers were located with 889 papers removed as either duplicates or not meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria. 14 papers were identified, describing 13 separate priority setting projects. Participatory approaches were the dominant method adopted but existing prioritisation frameworks were modified with little explanation regarding the rationale, processes for adaptation and theoretical foundation. Processes were predominately researcher led, although with some patient involvement. Surveys and consensus building methods gathered information while ranking systems and thematic analysis tend to generate finalised priorities. However, limited evidence found about transforming priorities into actual research projects and few described plans for implementation to promote translation into user-informed research.

CONCLUSION

Prioritisation projects may benefit from justifying the methodological approaches taken to identify mental health research, stating reasons for adapting frameworks alongside reasons for adopting particular methods, while finalised priorities should be worded in such a way as to facilitate their easy translation into research projects.

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

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/ ).

Identifying and prioritizing research to inform a research agenda for Canadian chiropractors working in sport - the Canadian sports chiropractic perspective

Objectives

To identify and prioritize research to inform research agenda development for Canadian chiropractors working in sport.

Methods

Clinicians, researchers and leaders from the Canadian sports chiropractic field were invited to participate in 1) a survey to refine a list of research priorities, 2) a Delphi procedure to determine consensus on these priorities, and 3) a prioritization survey.

Results

The top three research priorities were 1) effects of interventions on athletic outcomes, 2) research about sports healthcare teams, and 3) clinical research related to spinal manipulative and mobilization therapy. The three highest ranked conditions to research were 1) low back pain, 2) neck pain, and 3) concussion. Collaborations with sports physicians and universities/ colleges were rated as important research collaborations to pursue.

Conclusions

These results represent the Canadian sports chiropractic perspective to research priority setting and will be used alongside stakeholder input to set the first research agenda for the Canadian sports chiropractic field.