Premium
Research priority setting in women’s health: a systematic review
Author(s) -
Graham L,
Illingworth BJG,
Showell M,
Vercoe M,
Crosbie EJ,
Gingel LJ,
Farquhar CM,
Horne AW,
Prior M,
Stephenson JM,
Magee LA,
Duffy JMN
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
bjog: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.157
H-Index - 164
eISSN - 1471-0528
pISSN - 1470-0328
DOI - 10.1111/1471-0528.16150
Subject(s) - interim , protocol (science) , alliance , systematic review , medline , relevance (law) , health care , medicine , medical education , health professionals , family medicine , psychology , alternative medicine , political science , pathology , law
Background Developing a shared agenda is an important step in ensuring future research has the necessary relevance. Objective To characterise research priority setting partnerships (PSPs) relevant to women’s health. Search strategy Included studies were identified by searching MEDLINE and the James Lind Alliance (JLA) database. Selection criteria Priority setting partnerships using formal consensus methods. Data collection and analysis Descriptive narrative to describe the study characteristics, methods, and results. Main results Ten national and two international PSPs were identified. All PSPs used the JLA method to identify research priorities. Nine PSPs had published a protocol. Potential research uncertainties were gathered from guidelines (two studies), Cochrane reviews (five studies), and surveys (12 studies). The number of healthcare professionals (31–287), patients (44–932), and others (33–139) who responded to the survey, and the number of uncertainties submitted (52–4767) varied. All PSPs entered confirmed research uncertainties (39–104) into interim priority setting surveys and healthcare professionals (31–287), patients (44–932), and others (33–139) responded. All PSPs entered a short list of research uncertainties into a consensus development meeting, which enabled healthcare professionals (six to 21), patients (eight to 14), and others (two to 13) to identify research priorities (ten to 15). Four PSPs have published their results. Conclusion Future research priority setting studies should publish a protocol, use formal consensus development methods, and ensure their methods and results are comprehensively reported. Tweetable abstract Research published in @BJOGtweets highlights future research priorities across women’s health, including @FertilityTop10, @jamesmnduffy.