Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE)

Allison Tong(The University of Sydney), Anneliese Synnot(La Trobe University), Sally Crowe, Sophie Hill(La Trobe University), Andrea Matus(Children's Hospital at Westmead), Nicole Scholes‐Robertson(The University of Sydney), Sandy Oliver(University of Johannesburg), Katherine Cowan(East Sussex County Council), Mona Nasser(University of Plymouth), Soumyadeep Bhaumik(George Institute for Global Health), Talia Gutman(The University of Sydney), Amanda Baumgart(The University of Sydney), Jonathan C. Craig(Flinders University)
BMC Medical Research Methodology
December 1, 2019
Cited by 286Open Access
Full Text

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Research priority setting with stakeholders can help direct the limited resources for health research toward priority areas of need. Ensuring transparency of the priority setting process can strengthen legitimacy and credibility for influencing the research agenda. This study aims to develop a reporting guideline for priority setting of health research. METHODS: We searched electronic databases and relevant websites for sources (frameworks, guidelines, or models for conducting, appraising, reporting or evaluating health research priority setting, and reviews (including systematic reviews)), and primary studies of research priority setting to July 2019. We inductively developed a list of reporting items and piloted the preliminary guideline with a diverse range of 30 priority setting studies from the records retrieved. RESULTS: From 21,556 records, we included 26 sources for the candidate REPRISE framework and 455 primary research studies. The REporting guideline for PRIority SEtting of health research (REPRISE) has 31 reporting items that cover 10 domains: context and scope, governance and team, framework for priority setting, stakeholders/participants, identification and collection of priorities, prioritization of research topics, output, evaluation and feedback, translation and implementation, and funding and conflict of interest. Each reporting item includes a descriptor and examples. CONCLUSIONS: The REPRISE guideline can facilitate comprehensive reporting of studies of research priority setting. Improved transparency in research priority setting may strengthen the acceptability and implementation of the research priorities identified, so that efforts and funding are invested in generating evidence that is of importance to all stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis