Literature DB >> 30204831

Perspective: Consideration of Values When Setting Priorities in Nutrition Research: Guidance for Transparency.

Dana Hawwash1, Wim Pinxten2, Noémie Aubert Bonn2, Roosmarijn Verstraeten3, Patrick Kolsteren1, Carl Lachat1.   

Abstract

Nutrition research can guide interventions to tackle the burden of diet-related diseases. Setting priorities in nutrition research, however, requires the engagement of various stakeholders with diverse insights. Consideration of what matters most in research from a scientific, social, and ethical perspective is therefore not an automatic process. Systematic ways to explicitly define and consider relevant values are largely lacking. Here, we review existing nutrition research priority-setting exercises, analyze how values are reported, and provide guidance for transparent consideration of values while setting priorities in nutrition research. Of the 27 (n = 22 peer-reviewed manuscripts and 5 grey literature documents) studies reviewed, 40.7% used a combination of different methods, 59.3% described the represented stakeholders, and 49.1% reported on follow-up activities. All priority-setting exercises were led by research groups based in high-income countries. Via an iterative qualitative content analysis, reported values were identified (n = 22 manuscripts). Three clusters of values (i.e., those related to impact, feasibility, and accountability) were identified. These values were organized in a tool to help those involved in setting research priorities systematically consider and report values. The tool was finalized through an online consultation with 7 international stakeholders. The value-oriented tool for priority setting in nutrition research identifies and presents values that are already implicitly and explicitly represented in priority-setting exercises. It provides guidance to enable explicit deliberation on research priorities from an ethical perspective. In addition, it can serve as a reporting tool to document how value-laden choices are made during priority setting and help foster the accountability of stakeholders involved.

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30204831      PMCID: PMC6247169          DOI: 10.1093/advances/nmy039

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Adv Nutr        ISSN: 2161-8313            Impact factor:   8.701


  38 in total

1.  Research priorities in complementary feeding: International Paediatric Association (IPA) and European Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) workshop.

Authors:  P J Aggett
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 7.124

Review 2.  A strategy to improve priority setting in health care institutions.

Authors:  Doug Martin; Peter Singer
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  2003-03

3.  Measuring the societal impact of research: research is less and less assessed on scientific impact alone--we should aim to quantify the increasingly important contributions of science to society.

Authors:  Lutz Bornmann
Journal:  EMBO Rep       Date:  2012-07-10       Impact factor: 8.807

4.  A new global research agenda for food.

Authors:  Lawrence Haddad; Corinna Hawkes; Patrick Webb; Sandy Thomas; John Beddington; Jeff Waage; Derek Flynn
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2016-11-30       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  An equity lens can ensure an equity-oriented approach to agenda setting and priority setting of Cochrane Reviews.

Authors:  Mona Nasser; Erin Ueffing; Vivian Welch; Peter Tugwell
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2013-03-09       Impact factor: 6.437

6.  How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set.

Authors:  Iain Chalmers; Michael B Bracken; Ben Djulbegovic; Silvio Garattini; Jonathan Grant; A Metin Gülmezoglu; David W Howells; John P A Ioannidis; Sandy Oliver
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2014-01-08       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Research Priorities on the Relationship between Wasting and Stunting.

Authors:  Chloe Angood; Tanya Khara; Carmel Dolan; James A Berkley
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-05-09       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 8.  Assessing the impact of healthcare research: A systematic review of methodological frameworks.

Authors:  Samantha Cruz Rivera; Derek G Kyte; Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi; Thomas J Keeley; Melanie J Calvert
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2017-08-09       Impact factor: 11.069

9.  What drives political commitment for nutrition? A review and framework synthesis to inform the United Nations Decade of Action on Nutrition.

Authors:  Phillip Baker; Corinna Hawkes; Kate Wingrove; Alessandro Rhyl Demaio; Justin Parkhurst; Anne Marie Thow; Helen Walls
Journal:  BMJ Glob Health       Date:  2018-02-10

10.  Global, regional, and national age-sex specific mortality for 264 causes of death, 1980-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016.

Authors: 
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2017-09-16       Impact factor: 79.321

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  What do we know about evidence-informed priority setting processes to set population-level health-research agendas: an overview of reviews.

Authors:  Audrey Tan; Sumanth Kumbagere Nagraj; Mona Nasser; Tarang Sharma; Tanja Kuchenmüller
Journal:  Bull Natl Res Cent       Date:  2022-01-06
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.