Working with stakeholders to rapidly identify and prioritise COVID-19 health and social care evidence needs for evidence-informed policy and practice decision making: processes, results, and lessons from the Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre

Abstract

Background The COVID-19 pandemic reinforced the role of health and social care research in policy and practice decision-making. Global research priorities were rapidly identified. However, the diverse health, social and economic impacts in different countries and communities, intersecting with local pre-existing inequalities, warranted a rapid, localised approach so that evidence was maximally useful to policy and practice decision makers. The aim of this paper is to describe how the Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre engaged multiple stakeholders in a rapid COVID-19 evidence needs prioritisation process, to present the results of this exercise and evolving evidence needs at three time points during the pandemic, and to describe key learning from working with multiple stakeholders. Methods Stakeholder groups across policy, practice, and public domains were invited to submit up to ten COVID-19-related health and social care evidence needs via our Stakeholder evidence needs Prioritisation Exercise (ScoPE) across three prioritisation rounds (Spring/Summer 2021, Autumn/Winter 2021, and Spring/Summer 2022). Urgent, high-priority needs were also submitted via our fast-tracked process. Returned evidence needs were assessed against agreed prioritisation criteria. Results 44 stakeholder groups proposed 223 questions (212 ScoPE and 11 fast-tracked routes); a total of 78 questions were accepted onto our work programme and answered across 58 different studies (50 evidence syntheses, eight primary research). Evidence needs answered by our work programme mapped closely to the broader and evolving COVID-19 context. Conclusion We successfully engaged multiple stakeholders (including the public) in one process, demonstrated the feasibility of virtual methods, were able to track a rapidly evolving and complex public health situation, and identified evidence needs that directly informed policy and practice guidance. Further investment and resource in the Science-Policy-Practice Interface during early phases of prioritisation exercises could help to enhance research question specificity and impact planning, thus expediting evidence prioritisation, delivery, and impact.