Priority setting to support a public health research agenda: a modified Delphi study with public health stakeholders in Germany

Health Research Policy and Systems

Research

Ansgar Gerhardus¹  Stefan K. Lhachimi²  Dyon Hoekstra³ 

[1] Health Sciences Bremen, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany;Department for Health Services Research, Institute for Public Health and Nursing Research (IPP), University Bremen, Bremen, Germany;Research Group for Evidence-Based Public Health, Leibniz-Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology (BIPS) & Institute for Public Health and Nursing Research (IPP), University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany;Health Sciences Bremen, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany;Department for Health Services Research, Institute for Public Health and Nursing Research (IPP), University Bremen, Bremen, Germany;Department of Health, Nursing, Management, University of Applied Sciences Neubrandenburg, 17033, Neubrandenburg, Germany;Research Group for Evidence-Based Public Health, Leibniz-Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology (BIPS) & Institute for Public Health and Nursing Research (IPP), University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany;Health Sciences Bremen, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany;Department of Special Needs Education and Rehabilitation, Carl Von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany;

关键词: Priority setting;    Health priorities;    Stakeholder participation;    Public health;    Delphi technique;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12961-023-01039-w

 received in 2022-09-06, accepted in 2023-08-10,  发布年份 2023

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundResearch priority setting (RPS) studies are necessary to close the significant gap between the scientific evidence produced and the evidence stakeholders need. Their findings can make resource allocation in research more efficient. However, no general framework for conducting an RPS study among public health stakeholders exists. RPS studies in public health are rare and no such study has been previously conducted and published in Germany. Therefore, we aimed to investigate which research topics in public health are prioritised by relevant stakeholders in Germany.MethodsOur RPS study consisted of a scoping stage and a Delphi stage each split into two rounds. Firstly, we invited members of the German Public Health Association to gather expert insights during two initial workshops. Next, we defined the relevant stakeholder groups and recruited respondents. Thereafter, we collected research topics and assessment criteria with the respondents in the first Delphi round and aggregated the responses through content analysis. Finally, we asked the respondents to rate the research topics with the assessment criteria in the second Delphi round.ResultsIn total, 94 out of the 140 invited public health organisations nominated 230 respondents for the Delphi study of whom almost 90% participated in both Delphi rounds. We compiled a comprehensive list of 76 research topics that were rated and ranked by several assessment criteria. We split the research topics into two types, substantive research topics and methodological-theoretical research topics respectively, to ensure the comparability among the research topics. In both types of research topics—substantive research topics and methodological-theoretical research topics—the respective top five ranked research topics hardly differed between public health researchers and public health practitioners. However, clear differences exist in the priority ranking of many (non-top priority) research topics between the stakeholder groups.ConclusionsThis research demonstrates that it is possible, with limited resources, to prioritise research topics for public health at the national level involving a wide range of pertinent stakeholders. The results can be used by research funding institutions to initiate calls for research projects with an increased relevance for health and/or scientific progress.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2023

【 图 表 】

Fig. 6

Fig. 7

Fig. 4

13570_2023_282_Article_IEq11.gif