Abstract：
Well-defined, systematic, and transparent processes to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities are vital to ensuring that available funds target areas with the greatest potential for impact.
The purpose of this review is to characterize methods conducted or supported by research funding organizations to identify health research gaps, needs, or priorities.
We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and the Web of Science up to September 2019. Eligible studies reported on methods to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities that had been conducted or supported by research funding organizations. Using a published protocol, we extracted data on the method, criteria, involvement of stakeholders, evaluations, and whether the method had been replicated (i.e., used in other studies).
Among 10,832 citations, 167 studies were eligible for full data extraction. More than half of the studies employed methods to identify both needs and priorities, whereas about a quarter of studies focused singularly on identifying gaps (7%), needs (6%), or priorities (14%) only. The most frequently used methods were the convening of workshops or meetings (37%), quantitative methods (32%), and the James Lind Alliance approach, a multi-stakeholder research needs and priority setting process (28%). The most widely applied criteria were importance to stakeholders (72%), potential value (29%), and feasibility (18%). Stakeholder involvement was most prominent among clinicians (69%), researchers (66%), and patients and the public (59%). Stakeholders were identified through stakeholder organizations (51%) and purposive (26%) and convenience sampling (11%). Only 4% of studies evaluated the effectiveness of the methods and 37% employed methods that were reproducible and used in other studies.
To ensure optimal targeting of funds to meet the greatest areas of need and maximize outcomes, a much more robust evidence base is needed to ascertain the effectiveness of methods used to identify research gaps, needs, and priorities.
The purpose of this review is to characterize methods conducted or supported by research funding organizations to identify health research gaps, needs, or priorities.
We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and the Web of Science up to September 2019. Eligible studies reported on methods to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities that had been conducted or supported by research funding organizations. Using a published protocol, we extracted data on the method, criteria, involvement of stakeholders, evaluations, and whether the method had been replicated (i.e., used in other studies).
Among 10,832 citations, 167 studies were eligible for full data extraction. More than half of the studies employed methods to identify both needs and priorities, whereas about a quarter of studies focused singularly on identifying gaps (7%), needs (6%), or priorities (14%) only. The most frequently used methods were the convening of workshops or meetings (37%), quantitative methods (32%), and the James Lind Alliance approach, a multi-stakeholder research needs and priority setting process (28%). The most widely applied criteria were importance to stakeholders (72%), potential value (29%), and feasibility (18%). Stakeholder involvement was most prominent among clinicians (69%), researchers (66%), and patients and the public (59%). Stakeholders were identified through stakeholder organizations (51%) and purposive (26%) and convenience sampling (11%). Only 4% of studies evaluated the effectiveness of the methods and 37% employed methods that were reproducible and used in other studies.
To ensure optimal targeting of funds to meet the greatest areas of need and maximize outcomes, a much more robust evidence base is needed to ascertain the effectiveness of methods used to identify research gaps, needs, and priorities.
摘要：
定义明确,系统，以及确定卫生研究差距的透明过程，需要,和优先事项对于确保可用资金针对具有最大影响潜力的领域至关重要。
本综述的目的是描述由研究资助组织进行或支持的方法，以确定健康研究的差距，需要,或优先事项。
我们搜索了MEDLINE,PsycINFO,和WebofScience至2019年9月。合格的研究报告了确定健康研究差距的方法，需要,以及由研究资助组织进行或支持的优先事项。使用已发布的协议，我们提取了该方法的数据，标准,利益相关者的参与，评估，以及该方法是否已被复制(即，用于其他研究)。
在10,832篇引文中，167项研究符合完整数据提取条件。超过一半的研究采用了确定需求和优先事项的方法，而大约四分之一的研究只专注于识别差距(7%)，需求（6%），或仅优先事项（14％）。最常用的方法是召开讲习班或会议(37%)，定量方法（32%），和詹姆斯·林德联盟的方法，多方利益相关者的研究需求和优先级设置过程（28％）。应用最广泛的标准是对利益相关者的重要性(72%)，潜在价值（29%），可行性（18%）。利益相关者的参与在临床医生中最为突出(69%)，研究人员（66%），以及患者和公众(59%)。利益相关者是通过利益相关者组织（51％），目的性（26％）和便利性抽样（11％）确定的。只有4%的研究评估了这些方法的有效性，37%的研究采用了可重复的方法，并在其他研究中使用。
为了确保资金的最佳目标，以满足最大的需求领域并最大程度地实现成果，需要更强大的证据基础来确定用于识别研究差距的方法的有效性，需要,和优先事项。
本综述的目的是描述由研究资助组织进行或支持的方法，以确定健康研究的差距，需要,或优先事项。
我们搜索了MEDLINE,PsycINFO,和WebofScience至2019年9月。合格的研究报告了确定健康研究差距的方法，需要,以及由研究资助组织进行或支持的优先事项。使用已发布的协议，我们提取了该方法的数据，标准,利益相关者的参与，评估，以及该方法是否已被复制(即，用于其他研究)。
在10,832篇引文中，167项研究符合完整数据提取条件。超过一半的研究采用了确定需求和优先事项的方法，而大约四分之一的研究只专注于识别差距(7%)，需求（6%），或仅优先事项（14％）。最常用的方法是召开讲习班或会议(37%)，定量方法（32%），和詹姆斯·林德联盟的方法，多方利益相关者的研究需求和优先级设置过程（28％）。应用最广泛的标准是对利益相关者的重要性(72%)，潜在价值（29%），可行性（18%）。利益相关者的参与在临床医生中最为突出(69%)，研究人员（66%），以及患者和公众(59%)。利益相关者是通过利益相关者组织（51％），目的性（26％）和便利性抽样（11％）确定的。只有4%的研究评估了这些方法的有效性，37%的研究采用了可重复的方法，并在其他研究中使用。
为了确保资金的最佳目标，以满足最大的需求领域并最大程度地实现成果，需要更强大的证据基础来确定用于识别研究差距的方法的有效性，需要,和优先事项。
