ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2022
Methods for Identifying Health Research Gaps, Needs, and Priorities: a Scoping Review.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Identifying Common Patient-Oriented Priorities for Child and Adolescent Health Research and Care: A Systematic Review of Priority Setting Partnerships.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Pooled it
- Methodological procedures for priority setting mental health research: a systematic review summarising the methods, designs and frameworks involved with priority setting.Health research policy and systems · 2023Pooled it
- Practice Challenges and Research Directions in Rural Drug and Alcohol Treatment: A Focus Group Study of Clinician Perspectives.Drug and alcohol review · 2026Article
- Regional research priorities for medication safety and pharmacovigilance in gulf cooperation council countries: a modified Delphi consensus study.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2026Article
- Translational human gut microbiome research: What are the missing pieces of the puzzle?Journal of translational medicine · 2026Review
- Article
- Utilizing Artificial Intelligence to create narrative literature reviews.Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2026Review
- Consensus-based research priorities for post-collision care in the Western Cape province of South Africa.African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence · 2025Article
- N-doped TiOScientific reports · 2025Article
- Six Sigma research in healthcare is associated with global health, research and development indicators: A scientometrics study based on countries by income groups.Anales del sistema sanitario de Navarra · 2025Article
- Article
- Combining Machine Learning With Real-World Data to Identify Gaps in Clinical Practice Guidelines: Feasibility Study Using the Prospective German Stroke Registry and the National Acute Ischemic Stroke Guidelines.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Observational
- SQUARE-IT: a proposed approach to square the identified research problem in the literature with the objectives, the appropriate clinical research question, and the research hypothesis.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- The long-term general practice healthcare of women with a history of gestational diabetes: A Scoping Review Protocol.HRB open research · 2025Article
- Key concepts and reporting recommendations for mapping reviews: A scoping review of 68 guidance and methodological studies.Research synthesis methods · 2025Article
- A roadmap for maximizing the use and effectiveness of recovery housing for individuals prescribed medications for opiate use disorders.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Mapping the gap: Misalignment between emergency care research and consensus priorities in the Western Cape.Journal of the colleges of medicine of South Africa · 2025Article
- Global Trends and Evidence Gaps in Medical Errors Research: A Mixed-Methods Scientometrics Study.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
- Seeing the Truth About Double Blinding.Journal of general internal medicine · 2024Review
- Needs led research: ensuring relevant research in two PhD projects within maternity care.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWell-defined, systematic, and transparent processes to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities are vital to ensuring that available funds target areas with the greatest potential for impact.
objectiveThe purpose of this review is to characterize methods conducted or supported by research funding organizations to identify health research gaps, needs, or priorities.
methodWe searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and the Web of Science up to September 2019. Eligible studies reported on methods to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities that had been conducted or supported by research funding organizations. Using a published protocol, we extracted data on the method, criteria, involvement of stakeholders, evaluations, and whether the method had been replicated (i.e., used in other studies).
resultsAmong 10,832 citations, 167 studies were eligible for full data extraction. More than half of the studies employed methods to identify both needs and priorities, whereas about a quarter of studies focused singularly on identifying gaps (7%), needs (6%), or priorities (14%) only. The most frequently used methods were the convening of workshops or meetings (37%), quantitative methods (32%), and the James Lind Alliance approach, a multi-stakeholder research needs and priority setting process (28%). The most widely applied criteria were importance to stakeholders (72%), potential value (29%), and feasibility (18%). Stakeholder involvement was most prominent among clinicians (69%), researchers (66%), and patients and the public (59%). Stakeholders were identified through stakeholder organizations (51%) and purposive (26%) and convenience sampling (11%). Only 4% of studies evaluated the effectiveness of the methods and 37% employed methods that were reproducible and used in other studies. DISCUSSION: To ensure optimal targeting of funds to meet the greatest areas of need and maximize outcomes, a much more robust evidence base is needed to ascertain the effectiveness of methods used to identify research gaps, needs, and priorities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.