Wong Eunice C, Maher Alicia Ruelaz, Motala Aneesa, Ross Rachel, Danz Marjorie, Akinniranye Goke, Larkin Jody, Hempel Susanne
Rand Health Q. 2022 Jun 30;9(3):27. eCollection 2022 Jun.
Well-defined, systematic, and transparent processes to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities are vital to ensuring that available funds target areas with the greatest potential for impact. This study documents a scoping review of published methods used for identifying health research gaps, establishing research needs, and determining research priorities and provides relevant information on 362 studies. Of the 362 studies, 167 were linked to funding decisionmaking and underwent a more detailed data abstraction process. The authors noted that most studies focused on physical health conditions, but few addressed psychological health conditions. The most frequent method for identifying research gaps, needs, and priorities was to convene workshops or conferences. One-third of studies employed quantitative methods, and nearly as many used the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnerships approach. Other methods included literature reviews, qualitative methods, consensus methods, and reviews of source materials. The criterion most widely applied to determine health research gaps, needs, and priorities was the importance to stakeholders, followed by the potential value and feasibility of carrying out the research. The two largest stakeholder groups were researchers and clinicians. More than one-half the studies involved patients and the public as stakeholders. Very few studies have evaluated the impact of methods used to identify research gaps, needs, and priorities. This study provides a roadmap of methods used for identifying health research gaps, needs, and priorities, which may help accelerate progress toward validating methods that ensure the effective targeting of funds to meet the greatest areas of need and to maximize impact.
明确、系统且透明的确定卫生研究差距、需求和优先事项的流程，对于确保可用资金投向具有最大潜在影响力的领域至关重要。本研究记录了一项对用于确定卫生研究差距、确立研究需求和确定研究优先事项的已发表方法的范围审查，并提供了362项研究的相关信息。在这362项研究中，167项与资助决策相关，并经历了更详细的数据提取过程。作者指出，大多数研究聚焦于身体健康状况，但很少涉及心理健康状况。确定研究差距、需求和优先事项最常用的方法是召开研讨会或会议。三分之一的研究采用定量方法，几乎同样多的研究使用了詹姆斯·林德联盟优先事项设定合作方法。其他方法包括文献综述、定性方法、共识方法以及对原始材料的审查。用于确定卫生研究差距、需求和优先事项最广泛应用的标准是对利益相关者的重要性，其次是开展研究的潜在价值和可行性。两个最大的利益相关者群体是研究人员和临床医生。超过一半的研究将患者和公众纳入利益相关者。很少有研究评估用于确定研究差距、需求和优先事项的方法的影响。本研究提供了一份用于确定卫生研究差距、需求和优先事项的方法路线图，这可能有助于加快验证方法的进程，以确保有效地将资金投向最需要的领域并最大化影响力。
