Dataset Information

Research priority-setting for human, plant, and animal virology: an online experience for the Virology Institute of the Philippines.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Viral pandemics have had catastrophic consequences on population health and economies. The Philippine government intends to establish the Virology Institute of the Philippines, one of the key areas of which will be virology research. This project aimed to develop the institute's research agenda across the fields of human, plant, and animal virology.

Methodology

Key considerations for the prioritization methodology were (1) the imminent establishment of the Virology Institute of the Philippines, (2) mobility restrictions caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, (3) the timeline to develop the research agenda, and (4) the need to separate the research agenda for the three fields of human, plant, and animal virology. The process was fully conducted online in four steps: stakeholder identification, soliciting research priorities, generating initial research priorities, and final prioritization consultations conducted on Zoom Pro.

Results

Twenty-eight participants attended three online consultations between 21 and 27 July 2020 through Zoom Pro. Participants selected the research prioritization criteria and its weights, and used these to evaluate the research priorities. The final research agenda covers topics in epidemiology, diagnostics, surveillance, biosafety, and genomics.

Conclusion

This initiative resulted in the first research agenda for the Virology Institute of the Philippines across the three fields of human, plant, and animal virology. An expert-driven process which places a premium on consensus-building facilitated through online platforms was the most feasible approach to develop the research agenda. This process resulted in an agenda aligned with the mandates of national research councils but leaves gaps on areas such as emerging infectious diseases. Pre-COVID-19 literature expressed apprehensions on the online medium that weakens social ties necessary for consensus. Our experience with changing the mode of consensus-building shows that users will continually adapt to technology. Online tools are currently able to address the limitations of the virtual space.

SUBMITTER: Sales RK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8082216 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionAO Spine RECODE-DCM was a multi-stakeholder priority setting partnership (PSP) to define the top ten research priorities for degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). Priorities were generated and iteratively refined using a series of surveys administered to surgeons, other healthcare professionals (oHCP) and people with DCM (PwDCM). The aim of this work was to utilise word clouds to enable the perspectives of people with the condition to be heard earlier in the PSP process than is traditionally the case. The objective was to evaluate the added value of word clouds in the process of defining research uncertainties in National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnerships.MethodsPatient-generated word clouds were created for the four survey subsections of the AO Spine RECODE-DCM PSP: diagnosis, treatment, long-term management and other issues. These were then evaluated as a nested methodological study. Word-clouds were created and iteratively refined by an online support group of people with DCM, before being curated by the RECODE-DCM management committee and expert healthcare professional representatives. The final word clouds were embedded within the surveys administered at random to 50% of participants. DCM research uncertainties suggested by participants were compared pre- and post-word cloud presentation.ResultsA total of 215 (50.9%) participants were randomised to the word cloud stream, including 118 (55%) spinal surgeons, 52 (24%) PwDCM and 45 (21%) oHCP. Participants submitted 434 additional uncertainties after word cloud review: word count was lower and more uniform across each survey subsections compared to pre-word cloud uncertainties. Twenty-three (32%) of the final 74 PSP summary questions did not have a post-word cloud contribution and no summary question was formed exclusively on post-word cloud uncertainties. There were differences in mapping of pre- and post-word cloud uncertainties to summary questions, with greater mapping of post-word cloud uncertainties to the number 1 research question priority: raising awareness. Five of the final summary questions were more likely to map to the research uncertainties suggested by participants after having reviewed the word clouds.ConclusionsWord clouds may increase the perspective of underrepresented stakeholders in the research question gathering stage of priority setting partnerships. This may help steer the process towards research questions that are of highest priority for people with the condition.

Project description:BackgroundThis scoping review provides a thorough analysis of how stakeholders have so far been involved in research priority setting. The review describes, synthesizes, and evaluates research priority setting projects not only for the field of health-as previous reviews have done-but does so on a much broader scale for any research area.MethodsA comprehensive electronic literature search was conducted in the databases PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Reflecting the importance of grey literature, Google Scholar and relevant websites were also screened for eligible publications. A computational approach was then used for the study selection. The final screening for inclusion was done manually.ResultsThe scoping review encompasses 731 research priority setting projects published until the end of 2020. Overall, the projects were conducted within the realm of 50 subject areas ranging from agriculture and environment over health to social work and technology. Key learnings include that nearly all priority setting projects aimed to identify research priorities for the field of health (93%), particularly for nursing and care, cancer, pediatrics, and mental, behavioral and neurodevelopmental disorders. Only 6% of the projects were not health-related and 1% identified research priorities at the interface between health and a non-health area. Over time, 30 different stakeholder groups took part in research priority setting. The stakeholders most frequently asked to identify research priorities were doctors, patients, academics/researchers, nurses, allied healthcare professionals, family members, friends, and carers. Nearly two thirds of all projects have been conducted in Europe and North America. Overall, only 9% of the projects emphasized the importance of stakeholders in their goals and rationales and actively involved them. In around a quarter of the projects, stakeholders deliberated on their research priorities throughout the entire process.ConclusionBy mapping out the complex landscape of stakeholder involvement in research priority setting, this review guides future efforts to involve stakeholders effectively, inclusively, and transparently, which in turn may increase the overall value of research for society. As a practical addition to this review, the first worldwide research priority setting database was created: https://ois.lbg.ac.at/en/project-database . The database contains all the projects analyzed for this review and is constantly updated with the latest published research priority setting projects.

Project description:BackgroundDiagnostic errors are a major source of preventable harm but the science of reducing them remains underdeveloped.ObjectiveTo identify and prioritize research questions to advance the field of diagnostic safety in the next 5 years.ParticipantsNinety-seven researchers and 42 stakeholders were involved in the identification of the research priorities.DesignWe used systematic prioritization methods based on the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) methodology. We first invited a large international group of expert researchers in various disciplines to submit research questions while considering five prioritization criteria: (1) usefulness, (2) answerability, (3) effectiveness, (4) potential for translation, and (5) maximal potential for effect on diagnostic safety. After consolidation, these questions were prioritized at an in-person expert meeting in April 2019. Top-ranked questions were subsequently reprioritized through scoring on the five prioritization criteria using an online questionnaire. We also invited non-research stakeholders to assign weights to the five criteria and then used these weights to adjust the final prioritization score for each question.Key resultsOf the 207 invited researchers, 97 researchers responded and 78 submitted 333 research questions which were then consolidated. Expert meeting participants (n = 21) discussed questions in different breakout sessions and prioritized 50, which were subsequently reduced to the top 20 using the online questionnaire. The top 20 questions addressed mostly system factors (e.g., implementation and evaluation of information technologies), teamwork factors (e.g., role of nurses and other health professionals in the diagnostic process), and strategies to engage patients in the diagnostic process.ConclusionsTop research priorities for advancing diagnostic safety in the short-term include strengthening systems and teams and engaging patients to support diagnosis. High-priority areas identified using these systematic methods can inform an actionable research agenda for reducing preventable diagnostic harm.

Project description:ObjectiveTo conduct the first UK-wide research priority setting project informing researchers and funders of critical knowledge gaps requiring investigation to improve the health and well-being of patients with eating, drinking and swallowing disorders (dysphagia) and their carers.DesignA priority setting partnership between the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) and the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists using a modified nominal group technique. A steering group and NIHR representatives oversaw four project phases: (1) survey gathering research suggestions, (2) verification and aggregation of suggestions with systematic review research recommendations, (3) multistakeholder workshop to develop research questions, (4) interim priority setting via an online ranking survey and (5) final priority setting.SettingUK health services and community.ParticipantsPatients with dysphagia, carers and professionals who work with children and adults with dysphagia from the UK.ResultsOne hundred and fifty-six speech and language therapists submitted 332 research suggestions related to dysphagia. These were mapped to 88 research recommendations from systematic reviews to form 24 'uncertainty topics' (knowledge gaps that are answerable by research). Four patients, 1 carer and 30 healthcare professionals collaboratively produced 77 research questions in relation to these topics. Thereafter, 387 patients, carers and professionals with experience of dysphagia prioritised 10 research questions using an interim prioritisation survey. Votes and feedback for each question were collated and reviewed by the steering and dysphagia reference groups. Nine further questions were added to the long-list and top 10 lists of priority questions were agreed.ConclusionThree top 10 lists of topics grouped as adults, neonates and children, and all ages, and a further long list of questions were identified by patients, carers and healthcare professionals as research priorities to improve the lives of those with dysphagia.

Project description:BackgroundA review of research priorities completed by WHO technical units was undertaken. Results of the mapping were recorded in a database that was used to generate analysis and compare research priorities and the different methodological approaches used in their development.MethodsA total of 116 documents were reviewed for this study. The documents were published between 2002 and 2017 by the technical programmes of WHO headquarters and deposited in the institutional repository, IRIS. Research priorities were extracted from documents into a standard template and mapped to a five-category research cycle type framework defined in the WHO Strategy on Research for Health covering research to describe the research problem, identifying the cause and risk factors, developing solutions and new interventions, understanding the barriers to implementation, and evaluation of the impact of response. Details of the research priority methods were recorded. A database with user interface was created using Microsoft Excel 2010.ResultsA total of 2145 research priorities were extracted from the 116 documents meeting the inclusion criteria. The priorities specifically address 73 diseases/health topics. The document types were 26% Report, 22% WHO Guideline, 26% Research Prioritisation publication and 11% Meeting Notes. The most widely reported method used to identify priorities was expert consultation. Expert consultation was used to identify 86% of the priorities categorised here, with 26% (561) reporting it as the sole method; 52% (1111) explicitly listed a literature review as contributing to the identification of priorities. When the 2145 priorities were categorised across the research cycle framework, the largest portion (43%) addressed implementation challenges. The database is published here under an open access licence.ConclusionComparing research priorities between diseases/health topics requires standardisation and the research cycle type framework is one approach that can be applied across all the health topics found in public health. There is great variation in the use of research priority-setting methodology at WHO Headquarters. Therefore, a standard reporting approach, linked to established good practice, should be an area for future development by the WHO Global Health R&D Observatory. The database reported here can also be used to quickly access and analyse the research priorities for a specific health topic or to compare across a range of health topics.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Describe research methods used in priority-setting exercises for musculoskeletal conditions and synthesise the priorities identified. DESIGN:Scoping review. SETTING AND POPULATION:Studies that elicited the research priorities of patients/consumers, clinicians, researchers, policy-makers and/or funders for any musculoskeletal condition were included. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to November 2017 and the James Lind Alliance top 10 priorities, Cochrane Priority Setting Methods Group, and Cochrane Musculoskeletal and Back Groups review priority lists. The reported methods and research topics/questions identified were extracted, and a descriptive synthesis conducted. RESULTS:Forty-nine articles fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Methodologies and stakeholders varied widely (26 included a mix of clinicians, consumers and others, 16 included only clinicians, 6 included only consumers or patients and in 1 participants were unclear). Only two (4%) reported any explicit inclusion criteria for priorities. We identified 294 broad research priorities from 37 articles and 246 specific research questions from 17 articles, although only four (24%) of the latter listed questions in an actionable format. Research priorities for osteoarthritis were identified most often (n=7), followed by rheumatoid arthritis (n=4), osteoporosis (n=4) and back pain (n=4). Nearly half of both broad and specific research priorities were focused on treatment interventions (n=116?and 111, respectively), while few were economic (n=8, 2.7% broad and n=1, 0.4% specific), implementation (n=6, 2% broad and n=4, 1.6% specific) or health services and systems research (n=15, 5.1% broad and n=9, 3.7% specific) priorities. CONCLUSIONS:While many research priority-setting studies in the musculoskeletal field have been performed, methodological limitations and lack of actionable research questions limit their usefulness. Future studies should ensure they conform to good priority-setting practice to ensure that the generated priorities are of maximum value. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42017059250.