ArticleInternational journal of population data science2026
Identifying local priorities for research with linked routine data: an online workshop method.
Article in International journal of population data science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Introduction: Priority setting with patients, public and professionals is essential for research utilising routinely collected data, as this ensures data are being used in the public interest. However, it is challenging to identify research priorities that are relevant to a wide range of local stakeholders and can be addressed with routinely collected data. Objectives: To describe and present the results of a priority setting exercise aiming to identify research priorities for Born in Bradford for All (BiB4All), a routine data linkage cohort of mothers and babies born in Bradford, a city in the north of England. Methods: We developed a two-hour online workshop to engage a range of stakeholders across Bradford, including parents, early years practitioners, commissioners, and service providers. The workshop method combined elements of existing priority setting approaches to ensure priorities were identified in an inclusive, timely and deliberative way, and supported stakeholders to develop their understanding of using linked routine data for research. Results: The workshop identified seventeen important and urgent research priorities around child and maternal health for research with locally linked routine data. Key topic areas included maternal and infant mental health, the long-term impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on maternal and child health outcomes, inequalities in access to services, and infant feeding experiences. Conclusions: The identified research priorities have been shared widely amongst interested networks and have shaped the BiB4All research agenda, demonstrating the feasibility of the stakeholder engagement method. They also have important implications for policy and practice. For policy, they provide an understanding of the key issues faced by local communities, which can steer policy priorities and investment in evidence generation. For practice, involvement in the workshop has generated a greater understanding of how local service data can be used for research and to inform improvements to service delivery.
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.