ArticleHealth research policy and systems2025
Translation of oral health research priorities into research topics in an equity-based priority setting exercise.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Do We Need Systematic Reviews of Research Priority Setting? A Proposal for a New Concept on Conducting Systematic Reviews of Research Priority Setting Exercises.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the context of research priority-setting, participants express their research priorities and ideas in various forms, ranging from narratives to explicit topics or questions. However, the transition from these expressions to well-structured research topics or questions is not always straightforward. Challenges intensify when research priorities pertain to interventions or diagnostic accuracy, requiring the conversion of narratives into the Participant, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO) format. SCOPE AND
findingsThis project aimed to understand the challenges of engaging a diverse, multilingual population in setting oral health research priorities. While not a comprehensive priority-setting effort, we modified James Lind Alliance's (JLA) methods and used thematic analysis to establish a list of priority research topics and questions. This was accomplished by conducting interviews with 40 community participants and 14 dentists from various ethnic backgrounds in Malaysia. The interview language depended on participant preferences, including English, Malay, and Mandarin, with translations handled collaboratively by bilingual research assistants. The process involved thematic analysis, discussion with a research committee, and necessary modifications. Our interpretations revealed distinct categories of participant statements: explicit, complicated, implicit and incomplete. In this study, we identified a three-step approach to translate research ideas that are presented either as explicit statements or as complicated narratives.
conclusionsTranslating community research priorities poses inherent challenges. Our model, although not exhaustive, provides a valuable tool to assist research priority-setting groups in translating these priorities into meaningful research topics and questions, facilitating the equitable inclusion of diverse perspectives. Future research priority-setting endeavours should document their translation processes, thus aiding researchers in understanding and tackling the intricacies of this task.
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.