PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: This scoping review provides a thorough analysis of how stakeholders have so far been involved in research priority setting. The review describes, synthesizes, and evaluates research priority setting projects not only for the field of health-as previous reviews have done-but does so on a much broader scale for any research area.
METHODS: A comprehensive electronic literature search was conducted in the databases PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Reflecting the importance of grey literature, Google Scholar and relevant websites were also screened for eligible publications. A computational approach was then used for the study selection. The final screening for inclusion was done manually.
RESULTS: The scoping review encompasses 731 research priority setting projects published until the end of 2020. Overall, the projects were conducted within the realm of 50 subject areas ranging from agriculture and environment over health to social work and technology. Key learnings include that nearly all priority setting projects aimed to identify research priorities for the field of health (93%), particularly for nursing and care, cancer, pediatrics, and mental, behavioral and neurodevelopmental disorders. Only 6% of the projects were not health-related and 1% identified research priorities at the interface between health and a non-health area. Over time, 30 different stakeholder groups took part in research priority setting. The stakeholders most frequently asked to identify research priorities were doctors, patients, academics/researchers, nurses, allied healthcare professionals, family members, friends, and carers. Nearly two thirds of all projects have been conducted in Europe and North America. Overall, only 9% of the projects emphasized the importance of stakeholders in their goals and rationales and actively involved them. In around a quarter of the projects, stakeholders deliberated on their research priorities throughout the entire process.
CONCLUSIONS: By mapping out the complex landscape of stakeholder involvement in research priority setting, this review guides future efforts to involve stakeholders effectively, inclusively, and transparently, which in turn may increase the overall value of research for society. As a practical addition to this review, the first worldwide research priority setting database was created: https://ois.lbg.ac.at/en/project-database . The database contains all the projects analyzed for this review and is constantly updated with the latest published research priority setting projects.
Involving stakeholders already at the beginning of the research process when deciding what to research is called “research priority setting”. Research priority setting brings research closer to the needs and concerns of its stakeholders, particularly patients, family members, friends, carers and ordinary citizens. There is a general need to map out the complex landscape of stakeholder involvement in research priority setting. I found 731 projects that asked stakeholders to identify priorities for research. The projects were conducted along 50 different subject areas ranging from agriculture and environment over health to social work and technology. Most projects identified research priorities for nursing and care, cancer, pediatrics, and mental, behavioral and neurodevelopmental disorders. The stakeholders most frequently asked to identify research priorities were doctors, patients, academics/researchers, nurses, allied healthcare professionals, family members, friends, and carers. Overall, half of all projects explicitly mentioned that involving stakeholders is important. Around one quarter of all projects also actively involved patients and the public. In around one quarter of all projects, stakeholders deliberated on their priorities for research throughout the entire process. As researchers are still skeptical towards the benefits of involving stakeholders in research priority setting, future research on this matter is greatly needed.
METHODS: A comprehensive electronic literature search was conducted in the databases PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Reflecting the importance of grey literature, Google Scholar and relevant websites were also screened for eligible publications. A computational approach was then used for the study selection. The final screening for inclusion was done manually.
RESULTS: The scoping review encompasses 731 research priority setting projects published until the end of 2020. Overall, the projects were conducted within the realm of 50 subject areas ranging from agriculture and environment over health to social work and technology. Key learnings include that nearly all priority setting projects aimed to identify research priorities for the field of health (93%), particularly for nursing and care, cancer, pediatrics, and mental, behavioral and neurodevelopmental disorders. Only 6% of the projects were not health-related and 1% identified research priorities at the interface between health and a non-health area. Over time, 30 different stakeholder groups took part in research priority setting. The stakeholders most frequently asked to identify research priorities were doctors, patients, academics/researchers, nurses, allied healthcare professionals, family members, friends, and carers. Nearly two thirds of all projects have been conducted in Europe and North America. Overall, only 9% of the projects emphasized the importance of stakeholders in their goals and rationales and actively involved them. In around a quarter of the projects, stakeholders deliberated on their research priorities throughout the entire process.
CONCLUSIONS: By mapping out the complex landscape of stakeholder involvement in research priority setting, this review guides future efforts to involve stakeholders effectively, inclusively, and transparently, which in turn may increase the overall value of research for society. As a practical addition to this review, the first worldwide research priority setting database was created: https://ois.lbg.ac.at/en/project-database . The database contains all the projects analyzed for this review and is constantly updated with the latest published research priority setting projects.
Involving stakeholders already at the beginning of the research process when deciding what to research is called “research priority setting”. Research priority setting brings research closer to the needs and concerns of its stakeholders, particularly patients, family members, friends, carers and ordinary citizens. There is a general need to map out the complex landscape of stakeholder involvement in research priority setting. I found 731 projects that asked stakeholders to identify priorities for research. The projects were conducted along 50 different subject areas ranging from agriculture and environment over health to social work and technology. Most projects identified research priorities for nursing and care, cancer, pediatrics, and mental, behavioral and neurodevelopmental disorders. The stakeholders most frequently asked to identify research priorities were doctors, patients, academics/researchers, nurses, allied healthcare professionals, family members, friends, and carers. Overall, half of all projects explicitly mentioned that involving stakeholders is important. Around one quarter of all projects also actively involved patients and the public. In around one quarter of all projects, stakeholders deliberated on their priorities for research throughout the entire process. As researchers are still skeptical towards the benefits of involving stakeholders in research priority setting, future research on this matter is greatly needed.
摘要：
背景：这项范围界定审查提供了对利益相关者迄今为止如何参与研究优先级设置的透彻分析。审查描述，合成，并评估研究优先设置项目不仅为健康领域-正如以前的审查所做的那样-而且在更广泛的范围内对任何研究领域都这样做。
方法：在PubMed数据库中进行了全面的电子文献检索，Scopus,和WebofScience。反映了灰色文学的重要性，谷歌学者和相关网站也被筛选为合格的出版物。然后将计算方法用于研究选择。最终的纳入筛选是手动进行的。
结果：范围审查涵盖了截至2020年底发布的731个研究优先级设置项目。总的来说,这些项目是在50个主题领域内进行的，从农业和环境到健康，再到社会工作和技术。关键学习包括几乎所有旨在确定健康领域研究重点的优先项目（93％），特别是护理和护理，癌症,儿科,和精神，行为和神经发育障碍。只有6％的项目与健康无关，1％的项目确定了健康与非健康领域之间的研究重点。随着时间的推移,30个不同的利益相关者团体参与了研究优先级的设置。最经常被要求确定研究重点的利益相关者是医生，病人,学者/研究人员，护士,专职医疗专业人员,家庭成员,朋友,和照顾者。近三分之二的项目在欧洲和北美进行。总的来说,只有9%的项目强调利益相关者在其目标和理由中的重要性，并积极参与其中。在大约四分之一的项目中，利益相关者在整个过程中审议了他们的研究重点。
结论：通过绘制利益相关者参与研究优先级设置的复杂景观，这项审查指导未来努力有效地让利益相关者参与进来，包容性，透明地，这反过来可能会增加社会研究的整体价值。作为本评论的实际补充，创建了第一个全球研究优先级设置数据库：https://ois。lbg.AC.在/en/项目数据库。该数据库包含本次审查分析的所有项目，并不断更新最新发表的研究优先设置项目。
在决定研究什么时，已经在研究过程开始时涉及利益相关者称为“研究优先级设置”。研究优先级的设定使研究更接近其利益相关者的需求和关注，特别是患者，家庭成员,朋友,照顾者和普通公民。通常需要绘制利益相关者参与研究优先级设置的复杂环境。我找到了731个项目，要求利益相关者确定研究的优先事项。这些项目围绕50个不同的主题领域进行，从农业和环境到健康，再到社会工作和技术。大多数项目确定了护理和护理的研究重点，癌症,儿科,和精神，行为和神经发育障碍。最经常被要求确定研究重点的利益相关者是医生，病人,学者/研究人员，护士,专职医疗专业人员,家庭成员,朋友,和照顾者。总的来说,所有项目中有一半明确提到让利益相关者参与很重要。大约四分之一的项目也积极参与患者和公众。在大约四分之一的项目中，利益相关者在整个过程中审议了他们的研究重点。由于研究人员仍然对让利益相关者参与研究优先级设置的好处持怀疑态度，未来对这一问题的研究是非常需要的。
方法：在PubMed数据库中进行了全面的电子文献检索，Scopus,和WebofScience。反映了灰色文学的重要性，谷歌学者和相关网站也被筛选为合格的出版物。然后将计算方法用于研究选择。最终的纳入筛选是手动进行的。
结果：范围审查涵盖了截至2020年底发布的731个研究优先级设置项目。总的来说,这些项目是在50个主题领域内进行的，从农业和环境到健康，再到社会工作和技术。关键学习包括几乎所有旨在确定健康领域研究重点的优先项目（93％），特别是护理和护理，癌症,儿科,和精神，行为和神经发育障碍。只有6％的项目与健康无关，1％的项目确定了健康与非健康领域之间的研究重点。随着时间的推移,30个不同的利益相关者团体参与了研究优先级的设置。最经常被要求确定研究重点的利益相关者是医生，病人,学者/研究人员，护士,专职医疗专业人员,家庭成员,朋友,和照顾者。近三分之二的项目在欧洲和北美进行。总的来说,只有9%的项目强调利益相关者在其目标和理由中的重要性，并积极参与其中。在大约四分之一的项目中，利益相关者在整个过程中审议了他们的研究重点。
结论：通过绘制利益相关者参与研究优先级设置的复杂景观，这项审查指导未来努力有效地让利益相关者参与进来，包容性，透明地，这反过来可能会增加社会研究的整体价值。作为本评论的实际补充，创建了第一个全球研究优先级设置数据库：https://ois。lbg.AC.在/en/项目数据库。该数据库包含本次审查分析的所有项目，并不断更新最新发表的研究优先设置项目。
在决定研究什么时，已经在研究过程开始时涉及利益相关者称为“研究优先级设置”。研究优先级的设定使研究更接近其利益相关者的需求和关注，特别是患者，家庭成员,朋友,照顾者和普通公民。通常需要绘制利益相关者参与研究优先级设置的复杂环境。我找到了731个项目，要求利益相关者确定研究的优先事项。这些项目围绕50个不同的主题领域进行，从农业和环境到健康，再到社会工作和技术。大多数项目确定了护理和护理的研究重点，癌症,儿科,和精神，行为和神经发育障碍。最经常被要求确定研究重点的利益相关者是医生，病人,学者/研究人员，护士,专职医疗专业人员,家庭成员,朋友,和照顾者。总的来说,所有项目中有一半明确提到让利益相关者参与很重要。大约四分之一的项目也积极参与患者和公众。在大约四分之一的项目中，利益相关者在整个过程中审议了他们的研究重点。由于研究人员仍然对让利益相关者参与研究优先级设置的好处持怀疑态度，未来对这一问题的研究是非常需要的。
