Key stakeholders’ perspectives and experiences with defining, identifying and displaying gaps in health research: a qualitative study

Abstract

IntroductionMapping the current body of evidence including what is missing helps provide a better understanding of what research is available, ongoing and needed and should be prioritised. Identifying research gaps can inform the design and conduct of health research by providing additional context information about the body of evidence in a given topic area. Despite the commonly used term ‘research gap’ in scientific literature, little is written on how to find a ‘research gap’ in the first place. Moreover, there is no clear methodological guidance to identify and display gaps.ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore how key stakeholders define research gaps and characterise methods/practices used to identify and display gaps in health research to further advance efforts in this area.DesignThis was an exploratory qualitative study using semistructured in-depth interviews. The study sample included the following stakeholder groups: researchers, funders, healthcare providers, patients/public and policy-makers. Interview transcripts were subjected to thematic analysis.ResultsAmong the 20 interviews conducted (20 participants), a variety of research gap definitions were expressed (ie, five main themes, including gaps in information, knowledge/evidence gaps, uncertainties, quality and patient perspective). We identified three main themes for methods used to identify gaps (primary, secondary and both primary and secondary) and finally six main themes for the methods to display gaps (forest plots, diagrams/illustrations, evidence maps, mega maps, 3IE gap maps and info graphics).ConclusionThis study provides insights into issues related to defining research gaps and methods used to identify and display gaps in health research from the perspectives of key stakeholders involved in the process. Findings will be used to inform methodological guidance on identifying research gaps.