Abstract
Abstract
Aim
Obesity research priority setting, if conducted to a high standard, can help promote policy-relevant and efficient research. Therefore, there is a need to identify existing research priority setting studies conducted in the topic area of obesity and to determine the extent to which they followed good practice principles for research priority setting.
Method
Studies examining research priority setting in obesity were identified through searching the MEDLINE, PBSC, CINAHL, PsycINFO databases and the grey literature. The nine common themes of good practice in research priority setting were used as a methodological framework to evaluate the processes of the included studies. These were context, use of a comprehensive approach, inclusiveness, information gathering, planning for implementation, criteria, methods for deciding on priorities, evaluation and transparency.
Results
Thirteen articles reporting research prioritisation exercises conducted in different areas of obesity research were included. All studies reported engaging with various stakeholders such as policy makers, researchers and healthcare professionals. Public involvement was included in six studies. Methods of research prioritisation commonly included both Delphi and nominal group techniques and surveys. None of the 13 studies fulfilled all nine of the good practice criteria for research priority setting, with the most common limitations including not using a comprehensive approach and lack of inclusivity and evaluating on their processes.
Conclusion
There is a need for research priority setting studies in obesity to involve the public and to evaluate their exercises to ensure they are of high quality.
Funder
national institute for health research
uk prevention research partnership
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
Reference51 articles.
1. Bradford District Metropolitan Council) (BDMC) (2019) Living well: overweight and obesity. Available online at: https://jsna.bradford.gov.uk/documents/People%20are%20living%20their%20lives%20well%20and%20ageing%20well/4.2%20LIfestyle%20Factors/Overweight%20and%20Obesity.pdf. Accessed 16 Nov 2020
2. Bhaumik S, Rana S, Karimkhani C, Welch V, Armstrong R, Pottie K, Dellavalle R, Dhakal P, Oliver S, Francis DK, Nasser M, Crowe S, Aksut B, Amico RD (2015) Ethics and equity in research priority-setting: stakeholder engagement and the needs of disadvantaged groups. Indian J Med Ethics 12:110-3. https://doi.org/10.20529/IJME.2015.030
3. Botchwey N, Floyd MF, Pollack Porter K, Cutter CL, Spoon C, Schmidt TL, Conway TL, Hipp JA, Kim AJ, Umstattd Meyer MR, Walker AL, Kauth TJ, Sallis JF (2018) Policy and Practice-Relevant Youth Physical Activity Research Center Agenda. J Phys Act Health 15:626–634. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2017-0327
4. Brady PC, Horne AW, Saunders PTK, Thomas AM, Missmer SA, Farland LV (2020) Research priorities for endometriosis differ among patients, clinicians, and researchers. Am J Obstet Gynecol 222:630–632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2020.02.047
5. Bryant J, Sanson-Fisher R, Walsh J, Stewart J (2014) Health research priority setting in selected high income countries: a narrative review of methods used and recommendations for future practice. Cost Eff Resour 12:23
Cited by
7 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献