See the published version of this preprint at BMC Medical Research Methodology.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Allison Tong
The University of Sydney
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8973-9538
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
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 21556 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.
Keywords
Priority-setting, Reporting, Transparency, Patient involvement
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Medical Research Methodology.
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 16 Dec, 2019
Editor assigned
On 15 Dec, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 14 Dec, 2019
Editor invited
On 14 Dec, 2019
Version 2
Posted 02 Dec, 2019
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 11 Dec, 2019
Review #1 received
Received 06 Dec, 2019
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 01 Dec, 2019
Review #2 received
Received 01 Dec, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 26 Nov, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 25 Nov, 2019
Editor assigned
On 20 Nov, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 19 Nov, 2019
Editor invited
On 19 Nov, 2019
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 18 Nov, 2019
Review #2 received
Received 11 Nov, 2019
Review #1 received
Received 09 Nov, 2019
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 20 Oct, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 18 Oct, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 17 Oct, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 05 Sep, 2019
Editor assigned
On 29 Aug, 2019
Editor invited
On 28 Aug, 2019
First submitted
On 26 Aug, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Health Economics & Outcomes Research
Learn more about our company.
See the published version of this preprint at BMC Medical Research Methodology.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Allison Tong
The University of Sydney
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8973-9538
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Medical Research Methodology.
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 16 Dec, 2019
Editor assigned
On 15 Dec, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 14 Dec, 2019
Editor invited
On 14 Dec, 2019
Version 2
Posted 02 Dec, 2019
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 11 Dec, 2019
Review #1 received
Received 06 Dec, 2019
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 01 Dec, 2019
Review #2 received
Received 01 Dec, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 26 Nov, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 25 Nov, 2019
Editor assigned
On 20 Nov, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 19 Nov, 2019
Editor invited
On 19 Nov, 2019
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 18 Nov, 2019
Review #2 received
Received 11 Nov, 2019
Review #1 received
Received 09 Nov, 2019
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 20 Oct, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 18 Oct, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 17 Oct, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 05 Sep, 2019
Editor assigned
On 29 Aug, 2019
Editor invited
On 28 Aug, 2019
First submitted
On 26 Aug, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Health Economics & Outcomes Research
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Medical Research Methodology.
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 21556 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.
Loading...