An analysis of research priority-setting at the World Health Organization – how mapping to a standard template allows for comparison between research priority-setting approaches

Abstract

BackgroundA review of research priorities completed by WHO technical units was undertaken. Results of the mapping were recorded in a database that was used to generate analysis and compare research priorities and the different methodological approaches used in their development.MethodsA total of 116 documents were reviewed for this study. The documents were published between 2002 and 2017 by the technical programmes of WHO headquarters and deposited in the institutional repository, IRIS. Research priorities were extracted from documents into a standard template and mapped to a five-category research cycle type framework defined in the WHO Strategy on Research for Health covering research to describe the research problem, identifying the cause and risk factors, developing solutions and new interventions, understanding the barriers to implementation, and evaluation of the impact of response. Details of the research priority methods were recorded. A database with user interface was created using Microsoft Excel 2010.ResultsA total of 2145 research priorities were extracted from the 116 documents meeting the inclusion criteria. The priorities specifically address 73 diseases/health topics. The document types were 26% Report, 22% WHO Guideline, 26% Research Prioritisation publication and 11% Meeting Notes. The most widely reported method used to identify priorities was expert consultation. Expert consultation was used to identify 86% of the priorities categorised here, with 26% (561) reporting it as the sole method; 52% (1111) explicitly listed a literature review as contributing to the identification of priorities. When the 2145 priorities were categorised across the research cycle framework, the largest portion (43%) addressed implementation challenges. The database is published here under an open access licence.ConclusionComparing research priorities between diseases/health topics requires standardisation and the research cycle type framework is one approach that can be applied across all the health topics found in public health. There is great variation in the use of research priority-setting methodology at WHO Headquarters. Therefore, a standard reporting approach, linked to established good practice, should be an area for future development by the WHO Global Health R&D Observatory. The database reported here can also be used to quickly access and analyse the research priorities for a specific health topic or to compare across a range of health topics.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-018-0391-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

International palliative care research priorities: A systematic review

“…A second issue relates to how information is collected. Variations of methodological approaches exist, with little agreement on what constitutes reporting standards, guidelines or best practice [28,63]. Findings in this study demonstrate great variation in the approaches used to organise research priority-setting exercises.…”

“…Within the ten studies, inconsistent reporting of priority development was noted and was a barrier when synthesizing the evidence across studies. Such variation and lack of consistency make it difficult to judge the validity and transferability of the priorities reported, creating a significant barrier to aggregating and reporting comparative findings across international contexts [63]. Given that credibility of consensus findings is influenced by the rigour application of the approach, we need to ensure the reporting and guidance by acceptable standards in palliative care is advocated [2,64].…”

Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE)

“…elderly, adolescents), health system, research design, or interventions (e.g. vaccination)[5, 13,19,21,24,27,37,38,40,41,44]. These can be decided upon based on the evidence [5,38] and initial deliberations with stakeholders [38].…”

“…In terms of the broad research areas, these generally span public health, health services, clinical research and basic science [24,37,41,44]. The types of research questions that may be included can range from etiology, diagnosis, prognosis, treatment, to behavioural; and social science, economic evaluation and implementation [23,24,27,39]. It is not necessary for the type of research questions to be determined a priori.…”

“…Examples include condition-related criteria (burden of disease, variation in care and outcome, evidence gaps), and research-related criteria (resources required, likelihood of success and impact) [37,42]. The CHNRI method proposes criteria including: answerability, attractiveness (likely to be published in high-impact journals), novelty, potential for translation, effectiveness (likely to identify better interventions), affordability, deliverability, sustainability, public opinion (acceptability to the general public), equity (leads to interventions that will be accessible to marginalized or vulnerable populations), and cost and feasibility [27,41]. Using specific criteria can facilitate a deliberative and rational process, particularly when there is limited information [21].…”