Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31481368›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

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

Linda Nyanchoka, Catrin Tudur-Smith, Raphaël Porcher, Darko Hren

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Stakeholder views on mindfulness for youth at risk for psychosis.International journal of mental health nursing · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

4 authors.

Linda NyanchokaUniversité de Paris, CRESS, INSERM, INRA, F-75004, Paris, France lnyanchoka@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-0822-6736
Catrin Tudur-SmithInstitute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Raphaël PorcherUniversité de Paris, CRESS, INSERM, INRA, F-75004, Paris, France.
Darko HrenSchool of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Split, Split, Croatia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIdentifying research gaps can inform the design and conduct of health research, practice and policies by informing the current body of evidence. Audiences including researchers, clinical guideline developers, clinicians, policymakers, research regulatory bodies, funders and patients/the public can also benefit from understanding the status of research and research gaps to make informed choices. This study aims to explore how key informants define research gaps and characterise methods/practices used to identify and display gaps in health research to inform future research practice and policies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an exploratory qualitative study using semi-structured in-depth interviews. The participants will be recruited by purposive sampling from initiatives and organisations previously identified in a scoping review on methods to identify, prioritise and display gaps in health research. We anticipate performing up to 28 interviews with the different key informant groups who are involved in using evidence to inform health policy, practice and research. Interviews will be thematically analysed as outlined by Braun and Clarke. The qualitative data-analysis software NVivo V.12 Pro will be used to aid data management and analysis. DISCUSSION: This is the protocol for a follow-up study that aims to complement and enrich the findings of the scoping review on methods to identify, prioritise and display gaps in health research. The overall project aims to develop methodological guidance for describing, identifying and displaying gaps in health research. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The research obtained ethical approval from the University of Liverpool, UK. The findings will be disseminated via conferences, meetings (organised by the Methods in Research on Research project), peer-reviewed publications and lay magazines because the study participants will include the public/patients.

Indexed as

Health PolicyFollow-Up StudiesHealth Services ResearchHumansProfessional CompetenceQualitative ResearchResearch DesignDisplaying Research GapsEvidence-based decision-makingEvidence SynthesisIdentifying Research gapsQualitative StudyResearch GapsResearch Priorities

Identifiers

PMID31481368
PMCPMC6731867

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.