Linda Nyanchoka1, Catrin Tudur-Smith2, Van Nguyen Thu3, Valentia Iversen4, Andrea C Tricco5, Raphaël Porcher3. 1. Centre de Recherche Épidémiologie et Statistique Sorbonne Paris Cité (CRESS-UMR1153) Inserm / Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France; University of Liverpool, Institute of Translational Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom. Electronic address: lnyanchoka@gmail.com. 2. University of Liverpool, Institute of Translational Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom. 3. Centre de Recherche Épidémiologie et Statistique Sorbonne Paris Cité (CRESS-UMR1153) Inserm / Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France. 4. Department of Mental Health, Norwegian, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Science and Technology, St Olav's University Hospital HF, Tiller District Psychiatric Centre, Trondheim, Norway. 5. Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario M5BB 1W8, Canada; Epidemiology Division, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, 6th floor, Toronto, Ontario M5T 3M7, Canada.
Abstract
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.
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.
Keywords:
Displaying gaps; Evidence gap maps; Evidence mapping; Evidence synthesis; Gaps in health research; Knowledge synthesis; Research gaps; Research priorities; Scoping review; Treatment uncertainties
Authors: Mirjam Dieckelmann; Juliana J Petersen; Corina Güthlin; Felix Reinhardt; Jasper Plath; Klaus Jeitler; Thomas Semlitsch; Ferdinand M Gerlach; Andrea Siebenhofer Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-10-10 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Tyrone G Harrison; Brenda R Hemmelgarn; Janine F Farragher; Connor O'Rielly; Maoliosa Donald; Matthew James; Deirdre McCaughey; Shannon M Ruzycki; Kelly B Zarnke; Paul E Ronksley Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Chris Noone; Nikolett Warner; Molly Byrne; Hannah Durand; Kim L Lavoie; Brian E McGuire; Jenny Mc Sharry; Oonagh Meade; Eimear Morrissey; Gerry Molloy; Laura O'Connor; Elaine Toomey Journal: HRB Open Res Date: 2020-09-10