Grill Christiane
Ludwig Boltzmann Gesellschaft (LBG), Open Innovation in Science Center, Nussdorfer Strasse 64/2, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Res Involv Engagem. 2021 Oct 29;7(1):75. doi: 10.1186/s40900-021-00318-6.
This 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.
A 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.
The 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.
By 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.
本范围综述全面分析了到目前为止利益相关者如何参与研究重点的确定。该综述不仅像以往的综述那样描述、综合和评估了卫生领域的研究重点确定项目，而且在更广泛的范围内对任何研究领域进行了这样的工作。
在PubMed、Scopus和Web of Science数据库中进行了全面的电子文献检索。考虑到灰色文献的重要性，还对谷歌学术和相关网站进行了筛选以查找符合条件的出版物。然后采用一种计算方法进行研究选择。最终的纳入筛选是手动完成的。
该范围综述涵盖了截至2020年底发表的731个研究重点确定项目。总体而言，这些项目是在从农业、环境到卫生再到社会工作和技术等50个学科领域内开展的。主要经验教训包括，几乎所有的重点确定项目都旨在确定卫生领域的研究重点（93%），特别是护理与照护、癌症、儿科以及精神、行为和神经发育障碍方面。只有6%的项目与卫生无关，1%的项目确定了卫生与非卫生领域交界处的研究重点。随着时间的推移，30个不同的利益相关者群体参与了研究重点的确定。最常被要求确定研究重点的利益相关者是医生、患者、学者/研究人员、护士、专职医疗人员、家庭成员、朋友和照护者。几乎所有项目的三分之二是在欧洲和北美开展的。总体而言，只有9%的项目在其目标和基本原理中强调了利益相关者的重要性并积极让他们参与。在大约四分之一的项目中，利益相关者在整个过程中都对他们的研究重点进行了审议。
通过描绘利益相关者参与研究重点确定的复杂情况，本综述为未来有效、包容和透明地让利益相关者参与的努力提供了指导，这反过来可能会增加研究对社会的总体价值。作为本综述的实际补充，创建了首个全球研究重点确定数据库：https://ois.lbg.ac.at/en/project-database 。该数据库包含了为本综述分析的所有项目，并会不断更新最新发表的研究重点确定项目。
