Priority setting to support a public health research agenda: a modified Delphi study with public health stakeholders in Germany

Health Research Policy and Systems · 3 authors, 5 centres

AI SUMMARY

FIDELITY 100%

This summary was generated by AI from a single paper. It has not been reviewed by a clinician and is not clinical advice. Verify against the source before acting on it.

AGENT 01 · STRUCTURED SUMMARY

TRACE TO SOURCE

“

TL;DR

It found that while researchers and practitioners agreed on the top five priorities, there were clear differences in the ranking of many other topics.

Full summary

646 CHARS

A modified Delphi study was conducted with public health stakeholders in Germany to prioritize research topics. The process included scoping workshops and two Delphi rounds. In total, 94 organizations nominated 230 respondents, with nearly 90% participating in both rounds. The top five ranked topics were similar between stakeholder groups (public health researchers and practitioners), but differences existed for lower-ranked topics. The authors conclude the results can guide research funding to increase relevance. Limitations include the aggregated nature of the 'public health practitioners' group, which showed lower agreement in ratings.

STUDY TYPE

other

SPECIALTY

public health

SUMMARISED BY

AI pipeline

FIDELITY CHECK

100% · A

ORIGINAL PAPER

PMC10463880

Priority setting to support a public health research agenda: a modified Delphi study with public health stakeholders in Germany

Health Research Policy and Systems

READ THE FULL PAPER

ABSTRACT

Background Research priority setting (RPS) studies are necessary to close the significant gap between the scientific evidence produced and the evidence stakeholders need. Their findings can make resource allocation in research more efficient. However, no general framework for conducting an RPS study among public health stakeholders exists. RPS studies in public health are rare and no such study has been previously conducted and published in Germany. Therefore, we aimed to investigate which research topics in public health are prioritised by relevant stakeholders in Germany. Methods Our RPS study consisted of a scoping stage and a Delphi stage each split into two rounds. Firstly, we invited members of the German Public Health Association to gather expert insights during two initial workshops. Next, we defined the relevant stakeholder groups and recruited respondents. Thereafter, we collected research topics and assessment criteria with the respondents in the first Delphi round and aggregated the responses through content analysis. Finally, we asked the respondents to rate the research topics with the assessment criteria in the second Delphi round. Results In total, 94 out of the 140 invited public health organisations nominated 230 respondents for the Delphi study of whom almost 90% participated in both Delphi rounds. We compiled a comprehensive list of 76 research topics that were rated and ranked by several assessment criteria. We split the research topics into two types, substantive research topics and methodological-theoretical research topics respectively, to ensure the comparability among the research topics. In both types of research topics—substantive research topics and methodological-theoretical research topics—the respective top five ranked research topics hardly differed between public health researchers and public health practitioners. However, clear differences exist in the priority ranking of many (non-top priority) research topics between the stakeholder groups. Conclusions This research demonstrates that it is possible, with limited resources, to prioritise research topics for public health at the national level involving a wide range of pertinent stakeholders. The results can be used by research funding institutions to initiate calls for research projects with an increased relevance for health and/or scientific progress. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12961-023-01039-w.

CITATION EXPORT

Dyon Hoekstra, Ansgar Gerhardus, Stefan K. Lhachimi. Priority setting to support a public health research agenda: a modified Delphi study with public health stakeholders in Germany. Health Research Policy and Systems. (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-023-01039-w

AUTHORS

3 · 5 CENTRES

Dyon Hoekstra, Ansgar Gerhardus, Stefan K. Lhachimi

1grid.7704.40000 0001 2297 4381Research Group for Evidence-Based Public Health, Leibniz-Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology (BIPS) & Institute for Public Health and Nursing Research (IPP), University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
2https://ror.org/04ers2y35grid.7704.40000 0001 2297 4381Health Sciences Bremen, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
3https://ror.org/033n9gh91grid.5560.60000 0001 1009 3608Department of Special Needs Education and Rehabilitation, Carl Von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany
4https://ror.org/04ers2y35grid.7704.40000 0001 2297 4381Department for Health Services Research, Institute for Public Health and Nursing Research (IPP), University Bremen, Bremen, Germany
5grid.461681.c0000 0001 0684 4296Department of Health, Nursing, Management, University of Applied Sciences Neubrandenburg, 17033 Neubrandenburg, Germany