Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies

From: What do we know about evidence-informed priority setting processes to set population-level health-research agendas: an overview of reviews

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
  1. CG: Clinical guideline; CHNRI: Child Health Nutrition Research Initiative; HCP: health care professional; HIC: high income country; HTA: health technology appraisal; JLA: James Lind Alliance; LMIC: low and middle-income country; MSK: musculoskeletal; OECD: Organisation for Economic Development and Co-Operation; NR: not reported; SCI: spinal cord injury; SR: systematic review