Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Dec;16(4):338-50.
doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00716.x. Epub 2011 Aug 12.

Prioritizing research needs based on a systematic evidence review: a pilot process for engaging stakeholders

Rachel Gold  1 , Evelyn P Whitlock, Carrie D Patnode, Paul S McGinnis, David I Buckley, Cynthia Morris
Affiliations

Prioritizing research needs based on a systematic evidence review: a pilot process for engaging stakeholders

Rachel Gold et al. Health Expect. 2013 Dec.

Abstract

Background/context: Systematic evidence reviews (SERs) identify knowledge gaps in the literature, a logical starting place for prioritizing future research. Varied methods have been used to elicit diverse stakeholders' input in such prioritization.

Objective: To pilot a simple, easily replicable process for simultaneously soliciting consumer, clinician and researcher input in the identification of research priorities, based on the results of the 2009 SER on screening adults for depression in primary care.

Methods: We recruited 20 clinicians, clinic staff, researchers and patient advocates to participate in a half-day event in October 2009. We presented SER research methods and the results of the 2009 SER. Participants took part in focus groups, organized by profession; broad themes from these groups were then prioritized in a formal exercise. The focus group content was also subsequently analysed for specific themes.

Results: Focus group themes generally reacted to the evidence presented; few were articulated as research questions. Themes included the need for resources to respond to positive depression screens, the impact of depression screening on delivery systems, concerns that screening tools do not address comorbid or situational causes of depression and a perceived 'disconnect' between screening and treatment. The two highest-priority themes were the system effects of screening for depression and whether depression screening effectively leads to improved treatment.

Conclusion: We successfully piloted a simple, half-day, easily replicable multi-stakeholder engagement process based on the results of a recent SER. We recommend a number of potential improvements in future endeavours to replicate this process.

Keywords: research prioritization; stakeholder involvement; systematic evidence review.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Carter SM et al. Patients’ priorities for health research: focus group study of patients with chronic kidney disease. Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation, 2008; 23: 3206–3214. - PubMed
    1. Department of Health and Human Services . Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative effectiveness research. http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/cer/cerannualrpt.pdf, accessed 5 July 2011.
    1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality . Future research needs – methods research series. Available at: http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/search‐for‐guides‐revi..., accessed 1 April 2011.
    1. Smith N, Mitton C, Peacock S, Cornelissen E, MacLeod S. Identifying research priorities for health care priority setting: a collaborative effort between managers and researchers. BMC Health Services Research, 2009; 9: 165. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Menon D, Stafinski T. Engaging the public in priority‐setting for health technology assessment: findings from a citizens’ jury. Health Expectations, 2008; 11: 282–293. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types