Table 1 Characteristics of included studies
Study ID | Objective | Scope of review | Stakeholder population |
|---|---|---|---|
Alqahtani et al. (2021) | ‘To identify potential future areas of development and research in mobility-assistive technology’ (p. 362) | Global | People with lived experience, healthcare professionals |
Badakhshan et al. (2018) | ‘To evaluate the quality of the priority setting reports about health research in Iran’ (p. 753) | Iranian health research organizations | HCPs, researchers, policymakers |
Booth et al. (2018) | To map research priorities identified from existing research prioritization exercises relevant to infants, children and young people with life-limiting conditions’ (p. 1552) | Health research organizations in OECD countries | Children and young people, parents/carers, HCPs, third sector workers, researchers |
Bourne et al. (2018) | ‘To describe research methods used in priority-setting exercises for MSK conditions and synthesize the priorities identified’ (p. 1) | No setting specifications | Patients/consumers, clinicians, researchers, policymakers and/or funders |
Bragge et al. (2015) | ‘To gain an overview of the volume, nature and findings of studies regarding priorities for spinal cord injury research’ (p. 714) | Global | Patients, patient representatives, families and carers; researchers; clinicians; policymakers; research funders; and representatives of healthcare organizations |
Bryant et al. (2014) | ‘To examine methods, models and frameworks used to set health research priorities’ (p. 1) | Priority setting exercises from North America, Europe and Australia, and New Zealand | HCPs, researchers, policymakers, consumers, educators |
Cadorin et al. (2020) | ‘To describe cancer nurses and patients’ main research priorities and describe their development over time’ (p. 238) | HICs | Patients diagnosed with cancer or nurses involved in their care |
El-Harakeh et al. (2019) | ‘To identify and describe prioritization approaches in the development of clinical, public health, or health systems guidelines’ (p. 1) | Global | Researchers |
El-Harakeh et al. (2020) | ‘To systematically identify and describe prioritization exercises that have been conducted for the purpose of the de novo development, update or adaptation of health practice guidelines’ (p. 1) | Global | Research institutions |
Fadallah et al. (2020) | ‘To systematically review the literature for proposed approaches and exercises conducted to prioritize topics or questions for systematic reviews and other types of evidence syntheses in any health-related area’ (p. 67) | Global | HCPs, researchers, patients, caregivers, general public |
Garcia et al. (2015) | ‘To systematically review literature on priorities in nursing research on health systems and services’ (p. 162) | Region of the Americas | Health institutions, universities, research centres, and practitioners |
Garcia et al. (2017) | ‘To identify and describe strategies to prioritize the updating of systematic reviews, health technology assessments or clinical guidelines’ (p. 11) | Global | Institutions |
Graham et al. (2020) | ‘To characterize research priority setting partnerships relevant to women’s health’ (p. 194) | Global | Women, HCPs |
Hasson et al. (2020) | ‘To identify and synthesize literature on international palliative care research priorities’ (p. 1) | HICs | Palliative care staff, healthcare professionals, patients, families, researchers, social care practitioners, service commissioners, policymakers, academics |
Hawwash et al. (2018) | ‘To review existing nutrition research priority-setting exercises, analyze how values are reported, and provide guidance for transparent consideration of values while setting priorities in nutrition research’ (p. 671) | HICs | HCPs, researchers, research institutes, experts in the field, dieticians, policymakers, family members, self-advocates, patients, Canadian Mental Health Association |
Manafo et al. (2018) | ‘To describe the evidence that exists in relation to patient and public engagement priority setting in both health ecosystem and health research’ (p. 1) | HICs | Health researchers and practitioners, patients, government agencies |
McGregor et al. (2014) | ‘To analyze all reported health research priority setting initiatives involving LMICs with a particular focus on methodologies’ (p. 2) | LMICs | Global or national or regional level populations |
Mörelius et al. (2020) | ‘To systematically identify the nature, range and extent of published pediatric nursing research priorities and synthesize them into themes’ (p.e57) | HICs | Nurses |
Odgers et al. (2018) | ‘To evaluate research priority setting approaches in childhood chronic diseases and to describe the priorities of stakeholders including patients, caregivers/families and health professionals’ (p. 943) | No setting specifications | Patients, family and caregivers, HCPs, policymakers |
Roche et al. (2021) | ‘To explore methodologies for identifying research priorities of the autism communities and whether research priorities identified by studies align across stakeholder groups’ (p. 337) | Global | Adults on autism spectrum, family members, professionals/practitioners, researchers, autism researchers |
Rylance et al. (2010) | ‘To systematically summarize priority topics for tuberculosis research from available publications and to describe how priorities were identified’ (p. 886) | Global | Experts, representative for patients, multidisciplinary international working groups |
Reveiz et al. (2013) | ‘To compare health research priority setting methods and characteristics among countries in Latin America and the Caribbean during 2002–2012’ (p. 1) | Latin America and the Caribbean | Government departments, researchers, policymakers, funders, NGOs |
Rudan et al. (2017) | ‘To review the first 50 examples of application of the CHNRI method, published between 2007 and 2016, and summarize the most important messages that emerged from those experiences’ (p. 1) | Global | Organizations/national bodies |
Stewart et al. (2011) | ‘To ascertain whether there is research literature to inform how patients and clinicians can work in partnership to identify and prioritize suggestions for research’ (p. 440) | Global | Patients and clinicians |
Terry et al. (2018) | ‘To see if the variation between reported research priorities can be overcome by a standardized mapping of the priorities against a common framework’ (p. 2) | No setting specifications | NR |
Tomlinson et al. (2011) | ‘To evaluate priority setting exercises that have taken place at national level in LMICs and recommend the constituents of a good priority setting process’ (p.2) | LMICs | National level priority setting with or without stakeholders |
Tong et al. (2015) | ‘To evaluate approaches to research prioritization in kidney disease and describe research priorities’ (p. 674) | Global | Patients, caregivers, HCPs or policymakers |
Tong et al. (2017) | ‘To evaluate research priority setting in solid organ transplantation and describe stakeholder priorities’ (p. 328) | Global | Transplant patients, caregivers, their HCPs, policymakers and researchers |
Viergever et al. (2010) | ‘To propose a checklist that outlines options for different approaches and defines nine common themes of good practice for health research prioritization processes’ (p.1) | Global | WHO and international research organizations experienced in health research priority setting |
Wade et al. (2021) | ‘To examine occasions of research priority setting in eating disorders’ (p. 346) | Global | Consumers who have lived experience of an eating disorder and their carers or support network |
Yoshida (2016) | ‘To understand the landscape of approaches, tools and methods used to prioritize health research and to assess their relative importance and applicability’ (p. 2) | Global | National and international bodies |