Eunice C Wong1, Alicia R Maher2, Aneesa Motala2,3, Rachel Ross2, Olamigoke Akinniranye2, Jody Larkin2, Susanne Hempel2,3. 1. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA. ewong@rand.org. 2. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA. 3. Department of Population and Public Health Sciences, University of Southern California Gehr Family Center for Health Systems Science & Innovation, Los Angeles, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Well-defined, systematic, and transparent processes to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities are vital to ensuring that available funds target areas with the greatest potential for impact. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review is to characterize methods conducted or supported by research funding organizations to identify health research gaps, needs, or priorities. METHOD: We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and the Web of Science up to September 2019. Eligible studies reported on methods to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities that had been conducted or supported by research funding organizations. Using a published protocol, we extracted data on the method, criteria, involvement of stakeholders, evaluations, and whether the method had been replicated (i.e., used in other studies). RESULTS: Among 10,832 citations, 167 studies were eligible for full data extraction. More than half of the studies employed methods to identify both needs and priorities, whereas about a quarter of studies focused singularly on identifying gaps (7%), needs (6%), or priorities (14%) only. The most frequently used methods were the convening of workshops or meetings (37%), quantitative methods (32%), and the James Lind Alliance approach, a multi-stakeholder research needs and priority setting process (28%). The most widely applied criteria were importance to stakeholders (72%), potential value (29%), and feasibility (18%). Stakeholder involvement was most prominent among clinicians (69%), researchers (66%), and patients and the public (59%). Stakeholders were identified through stakeholder organizations (51%) and purposive (26%) and convenience sampling (11%). Only 4% of studies evaluated the effectiveness of the methods and 37% employed methods that were reproducible and used in other studies. DISCUSSION: To ensure optimal targeting of funds to meet the greatest areas of need and maximize outcomes, a much more robust evidence base is needed to ascertain the effectiveness of methods used to identify research gaps, needs, and priorities.
BACKGROUND: Well-defined, systematic, and transparent processes to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities are vital to ensuring that available funds target areas with the greatest potential for impact. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review is to characterize methods conducted or supported by research funding organizations to identify health research gaps, needs, or priorities. METHOD: We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and the Web of Science up to September 2019. Eligible studies reported on methods to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities that had been conducted or supported by research funding organizations. Using a published protocol, we extracted data on the method, criteria, involvement of stakeholders, evaluations, and whether the method had been replicated (i.e., used in other studies). RESULTS: Among 10,832 citations, 167 studies were eligible for full data extraction. More than half of the studies employed methods to identify both needs and priorities, whereas about a quarter of studies focused singularly on identifying gaps (7%), needs (6%), or priorities (14%) only. The most frequently used methods were the convening of workshops or meetings (37%), quantitative methods (32%), and the James Lind Alliance approach, a multi-stakeholder research needs and priority setting process (28%). The most widely applied criteria were importance to stakeholders (72%), potential value (29%), and feasibility (18%). Stakeholder involvement was most prominent among clinicians (69%), researchers (66%), and patients and the public (59%). Stakeholders were identified through stakeholder organizations (51%) and purposive (26%) and convenience sampling (11%). Only 4% of studies evaluated the effectiveness of the methods and 37% employed methods that were reproducible and used in other studies. DISCUSSION: To ensure optimal targeting of funds to meet the greatest areas of need and maximize outcomes, a much more robust evidence base is needed to ascertain the effectiveness of methods used to identify research gaps, needs, and priorities.
Authors: Janneke Elisabeth Elberse; Carina Anna Cornelia Maria Pittens; Tjard de Cock Buning; Jacqueline Elisabeth Willy Broerse Journal: Health Policy Date: 2012-06-25 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: Igor Rudan; Jennifer L Gibson; Shanthi Ameratunga; Shams El Arifeen; Zulfiqar A Bhutta; Maureen Black; Robert E Black; Kenneth H Brown; Harry Campbell; Ilona Carneiro; Kit Yee Chan; Daniel Chandramohan; Mickey Chopra; Simon Cousens; Gary L Darmstadt; Julie Meeks Gardner; Sonja Y Hess; Adnan A Hyder; Lydia Kapiriri; Margaret Kosek; Claudio F Lanata; Mary Ann Lansang; Joy Lawn; Mark Tomlinson; Alexander C Tsai; Jayne Webster Journal: Croat Med J Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 1.351
Authors: Mai T Pham; Andrijana Rajić; Judy D Greig; Jan M Sargeant; Andrew Papadopoulos; Scott A McEwen Journal: Res Synth Methods Date: 2014-07-24 Impact factor: 5.273