Zhao Junqiang, Chen Wenjun, Bai Wenhui, Zhang Xiaoyan, Hui Ruixue, Chen Sihan, Fontaine Guillaume, Wei Xiaolin, Zhang Ning, Graham Ian D
Waypoint Research Institute, Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, Penetanguishene, ON, Canada.
Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Syst Rev. 2025 Feb 28;14(1):51. doi: 10.1186/s13643-025-02786-3.
Research priority setting has the potential to bridge knowledge gaps, optimize resource allocation, foster collaborations, and inform funding directions for implementation science and practice when these priorities are properly acted upon. This systematic review aims to determine the extent of research in priority setting for implementation science and practice, examine the methodologies employed, synthesize these research priorities, and identify strategies for evaluating and implementing these priorities.
We will conduct a living systematic review following the Cochrane guidance. We will search literature from six databases, the website of James Lind Alliance, five implementation science-focused journals and several related journals, Google Scholar, and the reference lists of included studies. Two reviewers will independently screen studies based on the eligibility criteria. The characteristics of the included documents, their prioritization methods, and outcomes, as well as the evaluation and implementation strategies, will be extracted. We will critically appraise these documents using the nine common themes of good practice for research priority setting, and synthesize data using a narrative approach. We will re-run the search 12 months after the original search date to monitor the development of new literature and determine the time to update the review.
By conducting this living systematic review, we will gain a comprehensive and dynamic understanding of the potential research gaps and hotspots in implementation science as perceived by researchers and practitioners. The findings of this review will inform the future research directions of implementation science and practice.
This review has been registered with the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/sr69k ).
当这些优先事项得到妥善执行时，研究优先级设定有潜力弥合知识差距、优化资源分配、促进合作，并为实施科学与实践的资金投入方向提供信息。本系统评价旨在确定实施科学与实践中优先级设定的研究程度，检查所采用的方法，综合这些研究优先级，并确定评估和实施这些优先级的策略。
我们将按照Cochrane指南进行一项动态系统评价。我们将检索六个数据库、詹姆斯·林德联盟网站、五本专注于实施科学的期刊和几本相关期刊、谷歌学术以及纳入研究的参考文献列表中的文献。两名评审员将根据纳入标准独立筛选研究。将提取纳入文献的特征、其优先级确定方法和结果，以及评估和实施策略。我们将使用研究优先级设定良好实践的九个共同主题对这些文献进行严格评估，并采用叙述性方法综合数据。我们将在原始检索日期12个月后重新进行检索，以监测新文献的发展情况并确定更新评价的时间。
通过进行这项动态系统评价，我们将全面、动态地了解研究人员和实践者所认为的实施科学中的潜在研究差距和热点。本评价的结果将为实施科学与实践的未来研究方向提供信息。
本评价已在开放科学框架（https://osf.io/sr69k）注册。
