Background:Agreeing on priority topics for stroke research can help make best use of limited funding, people and time. Formal priority setting exercises collate stakeholder opinion to reach consensus on the most important research questions. Several stroke research priority setting exercises have been published. Exploring commonalities and differences between these exercises could bring a better understanding of priority research topics. Aim:We collated and compared published stroke research priority setting exercises across international healthcare systems. Summary of review:Multidisciplinary, electronic literature databases were searched from 2000 – 2021, using a validated search syntax. Inclusion criteria were:full paper; stroke focus (any subtype); prioritization method described; lists priorities for research. Priorities were extracted, coded and assigned to categories using thematic analysis. The Nine Common Themes of Good Practice (9CTGP) and the Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE) checklists were used to assess methodological and reporting quality respectively. From 623 titles assessed, fourteen studies were eligible for inclusion, including 2410 participants and describing 165 priorities. The majority of priority setting exercises were conducted in high-income countries (86%, n=12 papers), published between 2011-2021 (64%, n=9), and included views of healthcare professionals (57%, n=8), and stroke survivors (50%, n=7). Care-givers (n=3, 21%) were under-represented. The James Lind Alliance priority setting method was most commonly used (50%, n=7). Priorities were grouped in ten thematic categories. Rehabilitation and follow-up was the most common priority theme (15%, n=25 priorities), followed by psychological recovery (14%, n=23), pathology (14%, n=23) and caregivers and support (14%, n=23). Priorities differed by year and case-mix (stakeholder group and demographics) of respondents. No paper was judged high quality for all aspects of method or reporting. Common limitations were around inclusiveness and evaluation of the exercise. Conclusions:Stroke research priorities are dynamic and context specific. However, there was a common theme of prioritising research that considered the life after stroke. Future priority setting should consider inclusion of non-industrialised countries and stroke survivors with a range of impairments.

Objectives: Research priority setting aims to collate stakeholder opinion to determine the most pressing research questions. Priority setting exercises influence decisions around research funding, development and policy. We compared published dementia research priority setting exercises from international healthcare systems. Methods: Four multidisciplinary, international, electronic databases were searched for relevant studies (2010 until 2021). Priorities were extracted, coded and assigned to categories using thematic analysis. The Nine Common Themes of Good Practice (9CTGP) and the Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE) checklists were used to assess methodological and reporting quality respectively.Results: From 265 titles, 10 priority setting exercises (1179 participants, 147 priorities) were included. Studies spanned four continents and the majority included people living with dementia and their care-givers in the priority setting process (68%). Only one paper met all the best practice indicators. Issues around inclusiveness, implementation and evaluation of the priorities were apparent in nine papers. We categorised priorities under eight themes: caregivers (25%, n = 37), support (24%, n = 35), awareness and education (16%, n = 24), drugs and interventions (14%, n = 21), diagnosis (8%, n = 12), pathology (6%, n = 9), research design (5%, n = 7), and prevention (1%, n = 2). Priorities varied by geographical region, with awareness and education of higher priority in low-middle income countries, compared to caregivers and support in high income countries.Conclusions: Key priorities were identified with some commonality around themes considered of greatest importance. There is scope to improve the process and reporting of priority setting. Priorities differed according to contextual factors and so, priorities specific to one healthcare setting may not be applicable to others.