Stakeholder Participation for Legitimate Priority Setting: A Checklist.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Jansen MPM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6326635 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Health research priority setting processes assist researchers and policymakers in effectively targeting research that has the greatest potential public health benefit. Many different approaches to health research prioritization exist, but there is no agreement on what might constitute best practice. Moreover, because of the many different contexts for which priorities can be set, attempting to produce one best practice is in fact not appropriate, as the optimal approach varies per exercise. Therefore, following a literature review and an analysis of health research priority setting exercises that were organized or coordinated by the World Health Organization since 2005, we propose a checklist for health research priority setting that allows for informed choices on different approaches and outlines nine common themes of good practice. It is intended to provide generic assistance for planning health research prioritization processes. The checklist explains what needs to be clarified in order to establish the context for which priorities are set; it reviews available approaches to health research priority setting; it offers discussions on stakeholder participation and information gathering; it sets out options for use of criteria and different methods for deciding upon priorities; and it emphasizes the importance of well-planned implementation, evaluation and transparency.
| S-EPMC3018439 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo identify and prioritise the most impactful, unanswered questions for obesity and weight-related research.DesignPrioritisation exercise of research questions using online surveys and an independently facilitated workshop.SettingOnline/virtual.ParticipantsWe involved members of the public including people living with obesity, researchers, healthcare professionals and policy-makers in all stages of this study.Primary outcome measuresTop 10 research questions to be prioritised in future obesity and weight-related research.ResultsSurvey 1 produced 941 questions, from 278 respondents. Of these, 49 questions held satisfactory evidence in the scientific literature and 149 were out of scope. The remaining 743 questions were, where necessary, amalgamated and rephrased, into a list of 149 unique and unanswered questions. In the second survey, 405 respondents ranked the questions in order of importance. During the workshop, a subset of 38 survey respondents and stakeholders, agreed a final list of 10 priority research questions through small and large group consultation and consensus. The top 10 priority research questions covered: the role of the obesogenic environment; effective weight loss and maintenance strategies; prevention in children; effective prevention and treatment policies; the role of the food industry; access to and affordability of a healthy diet; sociocultural factors associated with weight; the biology of appetite and food intake; and long-term health modelling for obesity.ConclusionsThis systematic and transparent process identified 149 unique and unanswered questions in the field of obesity and weight-related research culminating in a consensus among relevant stakeholders on 10 research priorities. Targeted research funding in these areas of top priority would lead to needed and impactful knowledge generation for the field of obesity and weight regulation and thereby improve population health.
| S-EPMC9305808 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo explore the stakeholders' perceptions of current practices and challenges in priority setting for non-communicable disease (NCD) control in Kenya.DesignA qualitative study approach conducted within a 1-day stakeholder workshop that followed a deliberative dialogue process.SettingStudy was conducted within a 1-day stakeholder workshop that was held in October 2019 in Nairobi, Kenya.ParticipantsStakeholders who currently participate in the national level policymaking process for health in Kenya.Outcome measurePriority setting process for NCD control in Kenya.ResultsDonor funding was identified as a key factor that informed the priority setting process for NCD control. Misalignment between donors' priorities and the country's priorities for NCD control was seen as a hindrance to the process. It was identified that there was minimal utilisation of context-specific evidence from locally conducted research. Additional factors seen to inform the priority setting process included political leadership, government policies and budget allocation for NCDs, stakeholder engagement, media, people's cultural and religious beliefs.ConclusionThere is an urgent need for development aid partners to align their priorities to the specific NCD control priority areas that exist in the countries that they extend aid to. Additionally, context-specific scientific evidence on effective local interventions for NCD control is required to inform areas of priority in Kenya and other low-income and middle-income countries. Further research is needed to develop best practice guidelines and tools for the creation of national-level priority setting frameworks that are responsive to the identified factors that inform the priority setting process for NCD control.
| S-EPMC8023733 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSelecting priority occupational carcinogens is important for cancer prevention efforts; however, standardized selection methods are not available. The objective of this paper was to describe the methods used by CAREX Canada in 2015 to establish priorities for preventing occupational cancer, with a focus on exposure estimation and descriptive profiles.MethodsFour criteria were used in an expert assessment process to guide carcinogen prioritization: (1) the likelihood of presence and/or use in Canadian workplaces; (2) toxicity of the substance (strength of evidence for carcinogenicity and other health effects); (3) feasibility of producing a carcinogen profile and/or an occupational estimate; and (4) special interest from the public/scientific community. Carcinogens were ranked as high, medium or low priority based on specific conditions regarding these criteria, and stakeholder input was incorporated. Priorities were set separately for the creation of new carcinogen profiles and for new occupational exposure estimates.ResultsOverall, 246 agents were reviewed for inclusion in the occupational priorities list. For carcinogen profile generation, 103 were prioritized (11 high, 33 medium, and 59 low priority), and 36 carcinogens were deemed priorities for occupational exposure estimation (13 high, 17 medium, and 6 low priority).ConclusionPrioritizing and ranking occupational carcinogens is required for a variety of purposes, including research, resource allocation at different jurisdictional levels, calculations of occupational cancer burden, and planning of CAREX-type projects in different countries. This paper outlines how this process was achieved in Canada; this may provide a model for other countries and jurisdictions as a part of occupational cancer prevention efforts.
| S-EPMC6005921 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Multi-stakeholder platforms have become mainstream in projects, programmes and policy interventions aiming to improve innovation and livelihoods systems, i.e. research for development interventions in low- and middle-income contexts. However, the evidence for multi-stakeholder platforms' contribution to the performance of research for development interventions and their added value is not compelling. This paper focuses on stakeholder participation as one of the channels for multi-stakeholder platforms' contribution to the performance of research for development interventions, i.e. stakeholder participation. It uses a quantitative approach and utilizes descriptive statistics and ARIMA models. It shows that, in three Ugandan multi-stakeholder platform cases studied, participation increased both in nominal and in unique terms. Moreover, participation was rather cyclical and fluctuated during the implementation of the research for development interventions. The study also shows that, in addition to locational and intervention factors such as type of the area along a rural-urban gradient targeted by the intervention and human resources provided for multi-stakeholder platform implementation, temporal elements such as phases of research for development intervention objectives and the innovation development process play significant roles in influencing participation. The study concludes that contribution of multi-stakeholder platforms to the performance of research for development projects, programs, policies and other initiatives is constrained by locational and temporal context and conditional on the participation requirements of the objectives pursued by research for development intervention.
| S-EPMC6855456 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:The Translating Research in Elder Care (TREC) program is a longitudinal partnered program of research in Western Canada that aims to improve the quality of care and quality of life for residents and quality of worklife for staff in long-term care settings. This program of research includes researchers, citizens (persons living with dementia and caregivers of persons living in long-term care), and stakeholders (representatives from provincial and regional health authorities, owner-operators of long-term care homes). The aim of this paper is to describe how we used priority setting methods with citizens and stakeholders to identify ten priorities for research using the TREC data. Methods:We adapted the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership method to ensure our citizens and stakeholders could identify priorities within the existing TREC data. We administered an online survey to our citizen and stakeholder partners. An in-person priority setting workshop was held in March 2019 in Alberta, Canada to establish consensus on ten research priorities. The in-person workshop used a nominal group technique and involved two rounds of small group prioritization and one final full group ranking. Results:We received 72 online survey respondents and 19 persons (citizens, stakeholders) attended the in-person priority setting workshop. The workshop resulted in an unranked list of their ten research priorities for the TREC program. These priorities encompassed a range of non-clinical topics, including: influence of staffing (ratios, type of care provider) on residents and staff work life, influence of the work environment on resident outcomes, and the impact of quality improvement activities on residents and staff. Conclusions:This modified priority setting approach provided citizens and stakeholders with an opportunity to identify their own research priorities within the TREC program, without the external pressures of researchers. These priorities will inform the secondary analyses of the TREC data and the development of new projects. This modified priority setting may be a useful approach for research teams trying to engage their non-academic partners and to identify areas for future research.
| S-EPMC7229578 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Countries around the world are experiencing an ever-increasing need to make choices in investments in health and healthcare. This makes it incumbent upon them to have formal processes in place to optimize the legitimacy of eventual decisions. There is now growing experience among countries of the implementation of stakeholder participation, and a developing convergence of methods to support decision-makers within health authorities in making tough decisions when faced with the stark reality of limited resources. We call for further interaction among health authorities, and the research community to develop best practices in order to confront the difficult choices that need to be made.
| S-EPMC5337249 | biostudies-other
Project description:Evidence-based practice provides the foundation for high quality patient care, and in the NHS, research is seen as vital to enable service transformation and improve outcomes. Research is one of the four pillars of enhanced and advanced clinical practice and is therefore a fundamental part of podiatric surgery services. In order to meet the UK health research strategies, the most recent being 'Saving and Improving Lives: The Future of UK Clinical Research Delivery' (2021), the Faculty of Podiatric Surgery in the UK agreed to support the development of research priorities in order to inform a future research strategy.The Podiatric Surgery Research Strategy Group was set up and embarked on a project with the aim of engaging its members in formulating and agreeing national research priorities. The initial stage included a national research scoping survey to identify key themes, topic, and research questions. The final stage consisted of developing and enabling a live consensus vote conducted at the 2022 national Faculty of Podiatric Surgery Conference. At the end of the vote, the top five research topics that met the agreement criteria were: 1. Surgical treatment - forefoot, 2. Patient reported outcome measures, 3. Post-operative management, 4. Surgical treatment - midfoot and 5. Service delivery. The top five research questions that met the criteria were1. How does quality of life improve following elective foot surgery? 2. How does podiatric surgery benefit the health of the population? 3. How does podiatric surgery benefit the health of the population in the at-risk foot? 4. What is the most effective Lapidus fixation option? and 5. What is the benefit of utilising PASCOM-10 to improve large scale outcome data? These will inform the initial UK podiatric surgery research priorities in the next three to five years.
| S-EPMC10235831 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionCochrane Eyes and Vision (CEV) is an international network of individuals working to prepare, maintain and promote access to systematic reviews of interventions to treat, prevent or diagnose eye diseases or vision impairment. CEV plans to undertake a priority setting exercise to identify systematically research questions relevant to our scope, and to formally incorporate input from a wide range of stakeholders to set priorities for new and updated reviews.Methods and analysisThe scope of CEV is broad and our reviews include conditions that are common and have a high global disease burden, for example, cataract and dry eye disease, and conditions that are rare but have a high impact on quality of life and high individual cost such as eye cancer. We plan to focus on conditions prioritised by WHO during the development of the Package of Eye Care Interventions. These conditions were selected based on a combination of data on disease magnitude, healthcare use and expert opinion. We will identify priority review questions systematically by summarising relevant data on research in Eyes and Vision from a range of sources, and compiling a list of 10-15 potential review questions (new and/or updates) for each condition group. We will seek the views of external and internal stakeholders on this list by conducting an online survey. Equity will be a specific consideration.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the ethics committee of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. We will disseminate the findings through Cochrane channels and prepare a summary of the work for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
| S-EPMC8237719 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Research priority setting with stakeholders can help direct the limited resources for health research toward priority areas of need. Ensuring transparency of the priority setting process can strengthen legitimacy and credibility for influencing the research agenda. This study aims to develop a reporting guideline for priority setting of health research. METHODS:We searched electronic databases and relevant websites for sources (frameworks, guidelines, or models for conducting, appraising, reporting or evaluating health research priority setting, and reviews (including systematic reviews)), and primary studies of research priority setting to July 2019. We inductively developed a list of reporting items and piloted the preliminary guideline with a diverse range of 30 priority setting studies from the records retrieved. RESULTS:From 21,556 records, we included 26 sources for the candidate REPRISE framework and 455 primary research studies. The REporting guideline for PRIority SEtting of health research (REPRISE) has 31 reporting items that cover 10 domains: context and scope, governance and team, framework for priority setting, stakeholders/participants, identification and collection of priorities, prioritization of research topics, output, evaluation and feedback, translation and implementation, and funding and conflict of interest. Each reporting item includes a descriptor and examples. CONCLUSIONS:The REPRISE guideline can facilitate comprehensive reporting of studies of research priority setting. Improved transparency in research priority setting may strengthen the acceptability and implementation of the research priorities identified, so that efforts and funding are invested in generating evidence that is of importance to all stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Not applicable.
| S-EPMC6935471 | biostudies-literature