Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28992810›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2017

Identifying research priorities for public health research to address health inequalities: use of Delphi-like survey methods.

S Turner, E Ollerhead, A Cook

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Capacity building in operational research on obstetric fistula: Experience in the Democratic Republic of Congo, 2017-2021.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Developing a National Set of Health Equity Indicators Using a Consensus Building Process.International journal of health policy and management · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Priority Areas for Adolescent Health Measurement.The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

S TurnerNational Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre (NETSCC), University of Southampton, Alpha House, Enterprise Road, Southampton, SO16 7NS, United Kingdom. s.turner@soton.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2969-2592
E OllerheadWessex Institute, University of Southampton, Alpha House, Enterprise Road, Southampton, SO16 7NS, United Kingdom.
A CookSouthampton University Hospitals Trust, Tremona Road, Southampton, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the funding of health research and public health research it is vital that research questions posed are important and that funded research meets a research need or a gap in evidence. Many methods are used in the identification of research priorities, however, these can be resource intensive, costly and logistically challenging. Identifying such research priorities can be particularly challenging for complex public health problems as there is a need to consult a number of experts across disciplines and with a range of expertise. This study investigated the use of Delphi-like survey methods in identifying important research priorities relating to health inequalities and framing tractable research questions for topic areas identified.

methodsThe study was conducted in two phases, both using Delphi-like survey methods. Firstly, public health professionals with an interest in health inequalities were asked to identify research priorities. Secondly academic researchers were asked to frame tractable research questions relating to the priorities identified. These research priorities identified using Delphi-like survey methods were subsequently compared to those identified using different methods.

resultsA total of 52 public health professionals and 21 academics across the United Kingdom agreed to take part. The response rates were high, from public health professionals across three survey rounds (69%, 50% and 40%) and from academics across one round (52%), indicating that participants were receptive to the method and motivated to respond. The themes identified as encompassing the most important research priorities were mental health, healthy environment and health behaviours. Within these themes, the topic areas that emerged most strongly included community interventions for prevention of mental health problems and the food and alcohol environment. Some responses received from academic researchers were (as requested) in the form of tractable research questions, whereas others contributed further potential topic areas instead.

conclusionsDelphi-like survey methods are practical and productive as a means of obtaining opinions from a wide number of relevant experts identifying potential priority topic areas for research; however, this method is less appropriate for framing tractable research questions.

Indexed as

Delphi TechniqueHealth Status DisparitiesPublic HealthResearch DesignAlcohol DrinkingEnvironmentFood SupplyHealth BehaviorHealth PrioritiesHumansMental HealthUnited KingdomComplex systemsDelphi-like methodsHealth inequalitiesResearch fundingResearch needResearch priority

Identifiers

PMID28992810
PMCPMC5632826

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.