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

Bulletin of the National Research Centre

Mona Nasser¹  Sumanth Kumbagere Nagraj¹  Audrey Tan²  Tarang Sharma³  Tanja Kuchenmüller³ 

[1] Faculty of Health: Medicine, Dentistry and Human Sciences, University of Plymouth, The John Bull Building, Research Way, PL6 8BU, Plymouth, Devon, UK;Office of the Vice-Provost (Research, Innovation and Global Engagement), University College London, 2 Taviton Street, WC1H 0BT, London, UK;WHO Regional Office for Europe, UN City, Marmorvej 51, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark;

关键词: Research priority setting;    Overview of reviews;    Systematic review;    National health research system;    Research agenda;    Research funding;    Resource allocation;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s42269-021-00687-8

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundThis overview aimed to synthesize existing systematic reviews to produce a draft framework of evidence-informed health priority setting that supports countries in identifying appropriate steps and methods when developing and implementing national research agendas.Main bodyWe searched Ovid MEDLINE® and the WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing from 2010 to 2020 for critical or systematic reviews that evaluated research priority setting exercises. We adapted the AMSTAR checklist to assess the quality of included reviews and used adapted frameworks for data extraction and analysis. The search resulted in 2395 titles, of which 31 were included. Populations included in the reviews typically involved patients, families and carers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and research funders. The topics covered in the reviews varied from specific diseases or conditions, approaches for healthcare practice or research priority setting methods itself. All the included systematic reviews were of low or critically low quality. The studies were thematically grouped based on their main focus: identifying and engaging with stakeholders; methods; context; and health area.ConclusionOur overview of reviews has reconfirmed aspects of existing frameworks, but has also identified new concepts for countries to consider while developing their national research agendas. We propose a preliminary framework for consideration that highlights four key phases: (1) preparatory, (2) priority setting, (3) follow-up phase and (4) sustainability phase, which have thirteen sub-domains to consider.

【 授权许可】

CC BY