Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE)

Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE) | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research article Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE) Allison Tong, Anneliese Synnot, Sally Crowe, Sophie Hill, Andrea Matus, and 8 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.2.14215/v3 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 28 Dec, 2019 Read the published version in BMC Medical Research Methodology → Version 3 posted 4 You are reading this latest preprint version Show more versions Abstract Background Research priority setting with stakeholders can help direct the limited resources for health research toward priority areas of need. Ensuring transparency of the priority setting process can strengthen legitimacy and credibility for influencing the research agenda. This study aims to develop a reporting guideline for priority setting of health research. Methods We searched electronic databases and relevant websites for sources (frameworks, guidelines, or models for conducting, appraising, reporting or evaluating health research priority setting, and reviews (including systematic reviews)), and primary studies of research priority setting to July 2019. We inductively developed a list of reporting items and piloted the preliminary guideline with a diverse range of 30 priority setting studies from the records retrieved. Results From 21556 records, we included 26 sources for the candidate REPRISE framework and 455 primary research studies. The REporting guideline for PRIority SEtting of health research(REPRISE) has 31 reporting items that cover 10 domains: context and scope, governance and team, framework for priority setting, stakeholders/participants, identification and collection of priorities, prioritization of research topics, output, evaluation and feedback, translation and implementation, and funding and conflict of interest. Each reporting item includes a descriptor and examples. Conclusions The REPRISE guideline can facilitate comprehensive reporting of studies of research priority setting. Improved transparency in research priority setting may strengthen the acceptability and implementation of the research priorities identified, so that efforts and funding are invested in generating evidence that is of importance to all stakeholders. Health Economics & Outcomes Research Priority-setting Reporting Transparency Patient involvement Background Historically, the health research agenda has been largely investigator-driven with limited input from other stakeholders including patients, caregivers and the community[ 1 , 2 ]. Given the evident mismatch between the research interests of patients and researchers, investment into health research may be misdirected to areas of low priority or fail to address important needs of relevant stakeholders[ 1 , 3–8 ]. For example, an analysis of 14 research priority setting partnerships involving patients with different medical conditions found that pharmacological interventions were prioritized only in 18% of the total priorities but 58% of the clinical trials in those fields evaluated pharmacological interventions[ 4 ]. Globally, there have been calls for research priority setting with stakeholders to be done at all levels of health systems, jurisdictions, and health areas[ 9–12 ]. There is no consensus on the definition of research priority setting but most definitions refer to a range of activities that involve identifying, prioritizing, and achieving consensus on the research areas or questions of importance to stakeholders[ 13 , 14 ]. The past two decades have seen increasing efforts to develop better ways to engage all relevant stakeholders, particularly patients, in setting priorities for research across different health disciplines and populations[ 15–17 ]. Involving stakeholders in an explicit manner in research priority setting can help to: 1) ensure that funding decisions and research meet critical evidence gaps to inform decision making; 2) facilitate shared responsibility and accountability in implementing the research agenda; 3) improve the relevance and legitimacy of research; and 4) ultimately achieve better health outcomes[ 12 , 17 ]. A diverse range of methods are used to prioritize research given the different healthcare contexts, populations, environments and resources available in which the priority setting is undertaken[ 14 ]. The process of research priority setting can be complex, political and value-laden. It can also be challenging to identify, address and integrate the different perspectives and values held by diverse stakeholders. While there is no consensus on what constitutes “successful” research priority setting, it has been advocated that processes must be fair, legitimate, informed by credible evidence, involve a broad spectrum of stakeholders, and be transparent[ 12 , 13 , 18–20 ]. However, reviews of published research priority setting exercises have consistently demonstrated a lack of transparency because of suboptimal reporting[ 17 , 21–26 ]. A systematic review of research priority setting in childhood chronic disease, in which most studies were conducted in the UK, US, and Australia, found that methods for collecting and prioritizing research topics were reported in only 50 (60%) of the 84 studies included[ 23 ]. Another review of research priority setting exercises in Zambia reported that details about the process and the stakeholders involved were omitted in the majority of studies[ 22 ], and similarly, a review of studies in the Islamic Republic of Iran revealed that 22 (61%) of the 36 priority setting studies did not report methods and only listed the research priorities[ 21 ]. Inadequate description of the stakeholders and the methods makes it difficult to assess the validity of research priorities identified, and limits the ability to aggregate, analyze or compare research priorities that have been established[ 27 ]. Frameworks and guidelines are available for conducting and evaluating research priority setting, which mainly focus on criteria related to the process rather than the outcomes and impact of priority setting. There are no published guidelines for reporting priority setting for health research[ 5 , 13 , 18 , 27–29 ]. Ensuring the transparency of the process for research priority setting can strengthen legitimacy and credibility to support implementation and maximise impact. A reporting checklist for research priority setting may facilitate more consistent and comprehensive reporting and enable researchers and end-users to better understand the processes taken in developing research priorities. The aim of this paper is to introduce the reporting guideline for priority setting of health researchREPRISE), describe its development and provide a rationale for the items included. Methods REPRISE Development We used the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) toolkit[ 30 ], for developing the REPRISE Guideline and reported our approach based on the “Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines” where possible.[ 31 ] We have also registered REPRISE with the EQUATOR Network. Purpose and context The purpose of REPRISE is to facilitate comprehensive and transparent reporting of health research priority setting exercises, in which there is direct involvement of stakeholders setting research priorities. The REPRISE guideline is flexible so that it may be used for a range of approaches. The scope of REPRISE does not cover approaches without direct involvement of stakeholders such as documentary analysis (e.g. evidence mapping), and econometrics methods (e.g. value of information). REPRISE is not intended for use to appraise the quality of priority setting studies, establish or evaluate criteria for research priorities (e.g. evidence gaps, prevalence of disease, economic considerations), and does not recommend a preferred approach. Identify the need for a guideline Systematic reviews have consistently shown the reporting of the process of research priority setting with stakeholders is highly variable and limited with many details omitted[ 21 , 23 , 25 , 26 , 32 ]. The need for a reporting guideline has also been identified through our workshops and forums at national and international meetings (e.g. Cochrane Colloquia and Symposia[ 12 , 33–35 ]; James Lind Alliance[ 5 ]), and through our collective experiences of conducting, publishing, reviewing, and using research priority setting studies. We conducted a comprehensive search for frameworks, guidelines or models for conducting, appraising, reporting and evaluating health research priority setting, reviews (including systematic reviews) of research priority setting studies, and primary research priority setting studies. We searched electronic databases including MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO from inception to 23 rd July 2019 using sensitive search strategies provided in Additional File 1. We used Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and text words for research priorities and combined this with terms related to reporting, conduct and evaluation. We also searched Google Scholar, relevant organizational websites (e.g. WHO, EQUATOR, Cochrane, James Lind Alliance and PCORI), and reference lists of articles. The search results are shown in Additional File 2. From the 21 556 records retrieved, we identified 13 frameworks or guidelines for conducting or evaluating research priority guidelines[ 5 , 13 , 18–20 , 28 , 36–42 ] (none designed for reporting research priority setting), and 13 reviews of research priority setting[ 15–17 , 21–27 , 32 , 43 , 44 ], of which four were systematic reviews[ 23–26 ]. (Additional File 3) We also identified 455 primary research priority setting studies. Generating reporting items for the candidate checklist We extracted items related to the process of priority-setting from the frameworks and systematic reviews included (the sources are listed in Additional File 2). We translated these into reporting items for the candidate REPRISE reporting guidelines by grouping similar items and rephrasing the statements as a reporting item. We inductively developed the initial list of reporting items. This was reviewed by two other investigators (AB, AM) to ensure all relevant items were included in the list. The reporting items were compiled into 10 domains: context and scope, governance and team, framework for priority setting, stakeholders/participants, identification and collection of priorities, prioritization of research topics, output, evaluation and feedback, translation and implementation, and funding and conflict of interest. (Additional File 4) We imported all sources (frameworks and systematic reviews) into HyperRESEARCH software for coding textual data, and AT conducted line-by-line coding of each source to the initial items. We generated a report of each reporting item and the corresponding coded text (content). We developed descriptors and examples based on the content of the sources and input from all the investigators. The sources that contributed to each reporting item, and examples of the original extracted items are shown in Additional File 5. Pilot testing the checklist The preliminary REPRISE guideline was presented at the Australasian Cochrane Symposium, in which participants used the guideline to assess the reporting of a research priority exercise, and provided feedback on the guideline[ 34 ]. We subsequently used the REPRISE guideline in two systematic reviews of research priority setting studies in childhood chronic conditions[ 23 ] and organ transplantation[ 26 ]. We also applied the preliminary guideline to report a research priority setting exercise in health communication and participation[ 45 ]. In the final stage, we piloted the guideline with research priority setting studies. We used a purposive sampling strategy to select 30 priority setting exercises from the total of 455 studies retrieved from the search to ensure a diverse range of health topics, regions, stakeholders involved, framework or methods used, and type of output. Using a standardized data extraction template with the reporting items from the REPRISE guideline, the investigators (two per study) independently assessed if the study reported on each item (yes/no), added comments, and suggested new reporting items that were not yet captured. The results are provided in Additional File 6. After completion, the investigators discussed the relevance and applicability of the items, clarity of the items, comprehensiveness of the descriptor and examples, and any new reporting items proposed. These were integrated into the final reporting guideline, which was reviewed and approved by all investigators. REPRISE Framework: content and rationale The REPRISE guideline includes ten domains and a total of 31 reporting items with a descriptor and examples provided. (Table 1) The principles, rationale, and explanation for the domains are detailed below, which are based on the synthesis of sources listed in Additional File 3, priority setting studies, and discussion among the investigators. A) Context and scope (items 1–7) Establishing the context and scope is recommended as these “underpin the process of research priority setting,”[ 13 ] including the selection of relevant stakeholders and methods used. In terms of geographical scope, priority setting may be done at an institutional, local, national, or international level[ 13 , 19 , 21 , 39–41 ]; recognizing that each will have its own “sense of mandate, capacity, culture, and resources.”[ 39 ] Research priorities may address a specific condition, disease or risk factor (e.g. cancer, mental health), population (e.g. elderly, adolescents), health system, research design, or interventions (e.g. vaccination)[ 5 , 13 , 19 , 21 , 24 , 27 , 37 , 38 , 40 , 41 , 44 ]. These can be decided upon based on the evidence[ 5 , 38 ] and initial deliberations with stakeholders[ 38 ]. The intended beneficiaries[ 13 ] may include patients, caregivers, or the general community who could benefit from the priority setting exercise, and the target audience are those who have the potential to implement or fund the research priorities identified[ 13 , 17 , 39–41 ]. The focus, content and type of research to be considered can determine the scope of the priority setting exercise. In terms of the broad research areas, these generally span public health, health services, clinical research and basic science[ 24 , 37 , 41 , 44 ]. The types of research questions that may be included can range from etiology, diagnosis, prognosis, treatment, to behavioural; and social science, economic evaluation and implementation[ 23 , 24 , 27 , 39 ]. It is not necessary for the type of research questions to be determined a priori. Providing an estimated time frame that the priorities are expected to be valid or relevant may be relevant. This is because research priorities may evolve due to the development of new technology or interventions, emerging evidence, or changes to the health system or socio-political contexts[ 13 , 17 , 19 , 37–39 , 41 , 42 ]. If there are plans to update the priority setting or to monitor the priorities for the need to update, these could be described. There has been suggestion of 3–5 year cycles of prioritization if the priority setting exercise is to be repeated[ 37 , 38 ]. B) Governance and team (items 8–10) It has been argued that priority setting requires “credible”[ 39 ] leadership to support acceptability and uptake. This may require leaders who are trusted by stakeholders and who have the necessary expertise, knowledge, decision-making skills, and ability and deliver the project. The leadership and management team is usually responsible for overseeing, developing and implementing the process for priority setting[ 5 , 13 , 19 ]. The leadership group may take the form of, for example, an Executive Committee, Advisory Group, Technical Expert Group[ 13 ]. Members of the leadership team would generally be expected to contribute broad and relevant collective insights, harness their networks for engagement and partnership; and include a diversity of members to offer legitimacy to wider stakeholder networks (e.g. patients, caregivers, researchers, policy makers, clinicians, representatives from other non-government or government organizations)[ 5 , 21 ], and those with technical expertise[ 5 ]. The membership and selection of stakeholders may need to take into consideration the need for equity[ 12 , 36 ]. Also, it has been suggested that the involvement of individuals or organizations with experience in priority setting and relevant research skills can ensure a “high quality process.”[ 5 , 13 , 40 ] With regard to facilitators, neutrality and facilitations skills may be important to elicit input from diverse and mixed stakeholders[ 5 , 36 ]. C) Framework for priority setting (item 11) Some priority setting studies use or adapt frameworks to guide the process[ 17 , 22 , 23 , 25 , 44 ]. Common frameworks include the James Lind Alliance[ 5 ], Council on Health Research for Development Essential National Health Research (COHRED/ENHR)[ 19 ], Essential National Health Research (EHNR), Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHMRI)[ 41 ], and the Dialogue Model[ 36 ]. A summary of these frameworks is provided in Table 2. Some priority setting exercises may develop and use a different approach, and not necessarily follow an existing or established framework. D) Stakeholders or participants (items 12–16) Stakeholder involvement in priority setting can vary across the priority setting exercises. In some cases, they are involved in all key stages of the process and in others, they are consulted in specific steps and existing data or documents are used instead of consultation. Relevant stakeholders whose “values and interests should be respected in setting health research priorities”[ 41 ] can include patients, caregivers, clinicians, policy makers, representatives from non-governmental organizations[ 5 , 18 , 21 , 39 , 44 ]; and diverse groups, for example based on demographic or clinical characteristics, may need to be included in research priority setting[ 5 , 18 , 20 , 36 , 37 , 39 , 40 , 42 ]. It has been emphasized that patients/caregivers (and if relevant the public) need to be directly involved in the priority setting process[ 5 , 18 , 38–40 , 42 ], as they have direct experience of the health condition or context and often have different priorities to researchers and clinicians. There is also recognition of the need to involve individuals from vulnerable or marginalized groups, particularly in equity-focused research priority setting exercises[ 5 , 12 , 21 , 36 , 39 ]. Multiple strategies may be used to engage stakeholders in the priority setting process, and this is namely through partnership with relevant stakeholder organizations[ 5 , 39 ]. The number and characteristics of the participants involved enables assessment of the degree of inclusivity, diversity and equity[ 5 , 13 , 39 ] in priority setting processes. The characteristics to specify may include role and expertise, discipline, organizational affiliations, demographics (e.g. age, sex, socio-economics status, ethnicity), and clinical factors[ 13 , 21–23 , 36 , 42 , 44 ]. Support for patients/caregivers involved in priority setting may include reimbursement for travel, arranging care for dependents, and time[ 5 ]. This may indicate to readers the degree to which the team was able to ensure inclusivity across the different groups. Of note, there is recognition that attention must be given to power dynamics, otherwise the engagement of disadvantaged and marginalized groups may lead to “presence without voice and voice without influence.”[ 2 ] Therefore, it may be relevant to acknowledge and discuss how hierarchies and “asymmetries between stakeholders”[ 36 ] are addressed to maximize constructive and balanced interaction. For example, some groups, such as patients, may require additional time, training, resources, or other strategies to be able to engage; to have the opportunity to contribute meaningfully[ 36 ]. E) Identification and collection of research priorities (items 17–22) Different methods and approaches are available for collecting and selecting initial research priorities from stakeholders and developing the first list of priorities. This can be one or a combination of methods including interviews, focus groups, workshops, and surveys; and consensus methods (e.g. Delphi survey, nominal group technique); and these may be conducted through various modes such as face-to-face or online[ 5 , 13 , 23 , 25–28 , 37–39 ]. Documents such as systematic reviews, technical data, and other relevant reports may be used to identify the initial list of priorities[ 5 , 13 , 18 , 21 , 24 , 39 , 40 ]. In some priority setting exercises, the initial list of research priorities is derived from literature or existing data rather than consultation or engagement of stakeholders[ 46–48 ]. If a wide range of different initial research priorities are submitted or identified, it can be challenging to manage and synthesise to capture the diversity of views in a concise manner, whilst also retaining the context and nuances of the submissions. They may need to be organized, usually by collating and categorizing them into themes, topics or other relevant taxonomy[ 5 , 22 , 36 , 38 , 39 , 41 ]; and by removing those that are “out-of-scope,”[ 5 ] or duplicative[ 39 ]. They may then be translated into “indicative, researchable questions”[ 5 ] and edited for clarity[ 21 , 27 , 35 , 36 , 38 ]. Some priority setting exercises conduct cross checking of the priorities against the evidence (i.e. systematic reviews[ 5 ]) and evidence mapping[ 47 , 49–51 ]. The number of research priorities identified at each stage vary widely[ 24 ]. Generally, 10 to 20 questions/topics are included in the final set of priorities[ 5 , 23–26 , 38 , 40 ]. F) Prioritization of research topics/questions (items 23–24) Prioritization techniques can include scoring, ranking, voting, and ordering, and these are usually embedded in similar methods and modes used for collecting priorities as outlined in Section E. Some frameworks and priority setting exercises use explicit criteria to prioritize questions[ 13 , 21 , 22 , 38 , 39 ]. Examples include condition-related criteria (burden of disease, variation in care and outcome, evidence gaps), and research-related criteria (resources required, likelihood of success and impact)[ 37 , 42 ]. The CHNRI method proposes criteria including: answerability, attractiveness (likely to be published in high-impact journals), novelty, potential for translation, effectiveness (likely to identify better interventions), affordability, deliverability, sustainability, public opinion (acceptability to the general public), equity (leads to interventions that will be accessible to marginalized or vulnerable populations), and cost and feasibility[ 27 , 41 ]. Using specific criteria can facilitate a deliberative and rational process, particularly when there is limited information[ 21 ]. It may be relevant to report the processes for selecting, defining and changing the criteria. Of note, the use of criteria can add complexity to the process, and strategies may be needed to avoid inadvertent exclusion of other stakeholder values that influence prioritization. Whilst assigning scores based on such criteria may be rational, there are concerns that it may give a false sense of objectivity. The method for excluding priorities at this stage i.e. based on a quantified threshold or other criteria should be provided. Any processes to appeal or challenge the results may be specified. G) Output (item 25) The output should be “clear and of value to the research community.”[ 5 ] The final priorities generated can range from having a specific structure i.e. the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO) format[ 5 , 37 ], to broader outputs such as topics or themes/areas[ 38 ]. It is possible that components of PICO are not specified in original submission of priorities, or that it cannot be applied to some types of research questions [ 5 ]. In some circumstances, attempting to produce very technical research questions can potentially place non-researchers, who may include community members, patients, caregivers, at a disadvantage, as they may feel unable to articulate or consider the specific technical components. Also, consideration may need to be given to ensure that the contextual data and values around the questions are not missed. Some priority setting exercises seek to identify broader themes or areas and translate these into research questions after prioritization. H) Evaluation and feedback (items 26–27) While there is no “gold standard”[ 37 ] approach for evaluating the process of research priority setting, process evaluation can provide information about the acceptability, “reliability and usefulness”[ 37 ] of the process and results[ 5 , 13 , 37 ]. Stakeholder satisfaction with the process in terms of being able to engage and express opinions, and whether the priorities are considered meaningful and valid may be evaluated[ 13 , 18 ]. Participants and stakeholders could have an opportunity to review and provide feedback on the prioritized questions[ 22 , 36 , 39 ]; and having “revision or appeal”[ 18 ] mechanisms available to identify and address disagreements in a constructive manner[ 18 ] have been suggested. I) Implementation (items 28–29) Strategies to implement the research priorities could involve informing and garnering support from government, policy makers, and funding agencies to allocate funding and resources toward the priorities identified[ 13 , 19 , 22 , 39 ], and working with researchers to develop proposals [ 5 , 19 , 39 ]. Assessing the impact of research priority setting is challenging but needs to be considered[ 5 , 22 ]. This may include the impact on decision-making, allocation of funding and resources, and research output[ 18 , 19 , 38 ]. J) Funding and conflict of interest (items 30–31) There are different sources of funding that can affect a priority setting process. The funding and resources used to conduct the priority setting exercise and support the stakeholders (directly or indirectly) and whether the priority setting exercise is connected to a funding source to support the identified research priorities. Reporting the sources of funding and support is usually required. The resources required for research priority setting will depend on the size, scope, timeline, methods used, and personnel required[ 5 , 19 ], and providing information about the budget may be useful for others who are planning on conducting research priority setting. It is recommended that any relevant disclosures be stated for transparency, to allow assessment of potential political or commercial influences or undue bias[ 5 , 13 , 24 ]. For example, pharmaceutical companies may have close ties with patient organisations and clinicians, and the potential influence this may have on the priority setting process would need to be addressed explicitly. This may be declared at an individual level, or at a process or contextual level, for example, providing a narrative of any political issues, conflict or controversies that may affect the process, output or implementation of the priority setting exercise[ 20 ]. Discussion The REPRISE Guideline is intended to facilitate transparent and comprehensive reporting of research priority setting studies that involve stakeholders. The guideline has 31 reporting items that cover 10 domains: context and scope, governance and team, framework for priority setting, stakeholders/participants, identification and collection of research priorities, prioritization of research topics, output, evaluation and feedback, translation and implementation, and funding and conflict of interest. The REPRISE guideline is flexible without being unduly prescriptive because different approaches for health research priority setting are necessary to ensure they are contextually appropriate, respect the underpinning values and criteria, and are feasible based upon resources available. By piloting the guideline with a broad selection of research priority setting studies, we have demonstrated the feasibility, acceptability and relevance of the REPRISE reporting guidelines. We emphasise that REPRISE is not designed for making judgements about the quality of the conduct in research priority setting studies. The REPRISE guideline may be used as a roadmap for reporting research priority setting studies, or to assess reporting of research priority setting studies as has been done in systematic reviews[ 25 , 26 ]. REPRISE is focussed on the reporting of process or conduct and does not address in detail the values and criteria for establishing priorities, though these may be described in reporting the process of prioritizing research topics/questions. We did not conduct a Delphi survey, which has been used in other reporting guidelines to prioritize and achieve consensus on what reporting items should be included[ 30 , 31 ]. Instead, we sought to be comprehensive, included all reporting items, and did not eliminate any items based on judgement about relevance or importance. We believe this increases the practical utility of the REPRISE checklist considering the diverse range of methods and approaches that are used for research priority setting exercises unlike other reporting guidelines which are based on study designs in one particular domain. We acknowledge that there may be other potentially relevant items that could warrant further discussion, consideration, and evidence to support their inclusion in subsequent revisions of this framework. The items addressing diversity and hierarchies amongst group members and the networks they represent, the criteria and degree of formality in decision making processes, and the medium of communication for sharing information and making decisions are all factors affecting good group decision making[ 52 ].. Additional factors, not addressed by the priority setting literature, are the size of a group making decisions, the time available for them to explore their knowledge to make choices or solve problems and the facilitation skills for managing constructive conflict. We seek further feedback from researchers, end-users and other stakeholders, to inform future efforts to refine and revise the guideline as needed. Conclusions The REPRISE guideline has the potential to improve transparency in reporting research priority setting studies. Improved explicitness in how research priority setting studies are conducted could strengthen legitimacy, confidence, and acceptability of the findings, and thereby support the implementation and impact of these efforts. List of abbreviations CHNRI, Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative CINAHL, Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature COHRED, Council on Health Research for Development ENHR, Essential National Health Research EQUATOR, Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research JLA, James Lind Alliance PCORI, Patient-centered outcomes research institute REPRISE, Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research WHO, World Health Organization Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate Not required. Consent for publication Not applicable. Availability of data and materials. Not applicable. All guidelines and publications used for this article are available in the public domain. Competing interests Allison Tong is a member of the Editorial Board of BMC Medical Research Methodology. The authors declare that they have no other competing interests. Funding AT is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Fellowship (APP1106716). The funding organization had no role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript Authors’ contributions AT contributed to the conception and design, acquisition of the data, analysis and interpretation of the data, and drafted the manuscript. AS contributed to the conception and design, acquisition of the data, analysis and interpretation of the data, and drafted the manuscript. SC contributed to the conception and design, acquisition of the data, analysis and interpretation of the data. SH contributed to the conception and design and interpretation of the data. AM acquisition of the data, analysis and interpretation of the data. NSR contributed to the acquisition of the data, analysis and interpretation of the data. SO contributed to design, acquisition of the data, analysis and interpretation of the data. KC contributed to the interpretation of the data. MN contributed to the design, analysis and interpretation of the data. SB contributed to the interpretation of the data. TG contributed to the interpretation of the data. AB contributed to the interpretation of the data. JCC contributed to the conception and design, interpretation of the data. All authors revised the article critically for important intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Acknowledgements Not applicable. References 1.Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I, Dirnagl U, Chalmers I, Ioannidis JP, Al-Shahi Salman R, Chan AW, Glasziou P: Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet 2014, 383( 9912):101–104. 2.Pratt B: Towards inclusive priority-setting for global health research projects: recommendations for sharing power with communities. Health Policy Plan 2019:doi: 10.1093/heapol/czz1041 (ahead of print). 3.Tallon D, Chard J, Dieppe P: Relation between agendas of the research community and the research consumer. Lancet 2000, 355( 9220):2037–2040. 4.Crowe S, Fenton M, Hall M, Cowan K, Chalmers I: Patients’, clinicians’ and the research communities’ priorities for treatment research: there is an important mismatch. Res Involv Engagem 2015, 1: 2. 5.JLA: The James Lind Alliance Guidebook Version 8 November 2018. In . Southampton, UK: National Institute for Health Research Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre University of Southampton; 2018. 6.Corner J, Wright D, Hopkinson J, Gunaratnam Y, McDonald JW, Foster C: The research priorities of patients attending UK cancer treatment centres: findings from a modified nominal group study. Br J Cancer 2007, 96( 6):875–881. 7.Jun M, Manns B, Laupacis A, Manns L, Rehal B, Crowe S, Hemmelgarn BR: Assessing the extent to which current clinical research is consistent with patient priorities: a scoping review using a case study in patients on or nearing dialysis. Can J Kidney Health Dis 2015, 2: 35. 8.Nasser M, Clarke M, Chalmers I, Brurberg KG, Nykvist H, Lund H, Glasziou P: What are funders doing to minimise waste in research? Lancet 2017, 389( 10073):1006–1007. 9.Ferri M, Davoli M, D’Amico R.\: Involving patients in setting the research agenda in drug addiction. BMJ 2013, 347: f4513. 10.Liberati A: Need to realign patient-oriented and commercial and academic research. Lancet 2011, 378( 9805):1777–1778. 11.Richards T, Montori VM, Godlee F, Lapsley P, Paul D: Let the patient revolution begin. BMJ 2013, 346: f2614. 12.Bhaumik S, Rana S, Karimkhani C, Welch V, Armstrong R, Pottie K, Dellavalle R, Dhakal P, Oliver S, Francis DK et al: Ethics and equity in research priority-setting: stakeholder engagement and the needs of disadvantaged groups. Indian J Med Ethics 2015, 12( 2):110–113. 13.Viergever RF, Olifson S, Ghaffar A, Terry RF: A checklist for health research priority setting: nine common themes of good practice. Health Res Policy Sys 2010, 8: 36. 14.Bryant J, Sanson-Fisher R, Walsh J, Stewart J: Health research priority setting in selected high income countries: a narrative review of methods used and recommendations for future practice. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2014, 12: 23. 15.Oliver S, Gray J: A bibliography of research reports about patients’, clinicians’ and researchers’ priorities for new research. In . London UK: James Lind Alliance; 2006. 16.Stewart RJ, Caird J, Oliver K, Oliver S: Patients’ and clinicians’ research priorities. Health Expect 2011, 14( 4):439–448. 17.Tomlinson M, Chopra M, Hoosain N, Rudan I: A review of selected research priority setting processes at national level in low and middle income countries: towards fair and legitimate priority setting. Health Res Policy Syst 2011, 9: 19. 18.Sibbald SL, Singer PA, Upshur R, Martin DK: Priority setting: what constitutes success? A conceptual framework for successful priority setting. BMC Health Serv Res 2009, 9: 43. 19.Montorzi G, De Haan S, Ijsselmuiden C: Priority setting for research for health. A management process for countries. In . Durban, South Africa: Council on Health Research for Development; 2010. 20.Nasser M, Welch V, Tugwell P, Ueffing E, Doyle J, Waters E: Ensuring relevance for Cochrane reviews: evaluating processes and methods for prioritizing topics for Cochrane reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2012, 66( 5):474–482. 21.Badakhshan A, Arab M, Rashidian A, Gholipour M, Mohebbi E, Zendehdel K: Systematic review of priority setting studies in health research in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal 2018, 24( 8):753–769. 22.Chanda-Kapata P, Ngosa W, Hamainza B, Kapiriri L: Health research priority setting in Zambia: a stock taking of approaches conducted from 1998 to 2015. Health Res Policy Sys 2016, 14( 1):72. 23.Odgers HL, Tong A, Lopez-Vargas P, Davidson A, Jaffe A, McKenzie A, Pinkerton R, Wake M, Richmond P, Crowe S et al: Research priority setting in childhood chronic disease: a systematic review. Arch Dis Child 2018, 103( 10):942–951. 24.Rylance J, Pai M, Lienhardt C, Garner P: Priorities for tuberculosis research: a systematic review. Lancet Infect Dis 2010, 10( 12):886–892. 25.Tong A, Chando S, Crowe S, Manns B, Winkelmayer WC, Hemmelgarn B, Craig JC: Research priority setting in kidney disease: a systematic review. Am J Kidney Dis 2015, 65( 5):674–683. 26.Tong A, Sautenet B, Chapman JR, Harper C, MacDonald P, Shackel N, Crowe S, Hanson CS, Hill S, Synnot A et al: Research priority setting in organ transplantation: a systematic review. Transplant International 2017, 30( 4):327–343. 27.Terry RF, Charles E, Purdy B, Sanford A: An analysis of research priority-setting at the World Health Organization - how mapping to a standard template allows for comparison between research priority-setting approaches. Health Res Policy Syst 2018, 16( 1):116. 28.PCORI: Workshop on Methods for Setting Research Priorities. Executive Summary available at https://www.pcori.org/sites/default/files/Workshop-on-Methods-for-Setting-Research-Priorities1.pdf (Accessed 24th July 2019). In . Baltimore, Maryland US: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Methodology Committee; 2012. 29.Greenhalgh T, Hinton L, Finlay T, Macfarlane A, Fahy N, Clyde B, Chant A: Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: Systematic review and co‐design pilot. Health Expect 2019:1–17. 30.EQUATOR: Toolkit. How to develop and reporting guidelines. Available at http://www.equator-network.org/toolkits/developing-a-reporting-guideline/ (Accessed 1 February 2019). In . Oxford, UK: Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network; 2018. 31.Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG: Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLOS Med 2010, 7( 2):e10000217. 32.Reveiz L, Elias V, Terry RF, Alger J, Becerra-Posada F: Comparison of national health research priority-setting methods and characteristics in Latin America and the Caribbean, 2002–2012. Rev Panam Salud Publica 2013, 34( 1):1–13. 33. Cochrane Colloquium Seoul, Korea. (2016) Improving transparency and accountability okf priority setting exercised: time for a reporting guideline? Available at http://2016.colloquium.cochrane.org/workshops/improving-transparency-and-accountability-priority-setting-exercises-time-reporting (accessed 2nd July 2019). In . 34.Synnot A, Tong A, Craig JC, Hills S: Practical approaches to undertaking research priority setting in health, Workshop program and materials available at https://www.latrobe.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/687339/ACC_Nov_15_prioritysettingworkshop_program_vFINAL_251115.pdf (Accessed 24th July 2019. In . Australian Cochrane Symposium. 25–26 November. Melbourne, Australia; 2015. 35.Nasser M, Baumik S, Tong A, Welsh E, Synnot A, Crowe S, Morley R, Pardo Pardo J: Practical approaches to conducting an evidence-informed research priority setting exercise. Cochrane Colloquium 2015 Vienna, Australia available at https://abstracts.cochrane.org/2015-vienna/practical-approaches-conducting-evidence-informed-research-priority-setting-exercise (Accessed 1 February 2019). In . London, UK; 2015. 36.Abma TA, Broerse JEW: Patient participation as dialogue: setting researchagendas. Health Expect 2010, 13: 160–173. 37.Dubois RW, Graff JS: Setting priorities for comparative effectiveness research: from assessing public health benefits to being open with the public. Health Aff 2011, 30( 12):2235–2242. 38.Lomas J, Fulop N, Gagnon D, Allen P: On being a good listener: setting priorities for applied health services research. Milbank Q 2003, 81( 3):363–388. 39.Okello D, Chongtrakul P: A manual for research priority setting using the ENHR strategy. In . Durban, South Africa: The Council on Health Research fo Development (COHRED); 2000. 40.Ranson MK, Benett SC: Priority setting and health policy and systems research. Health Res Policy Syst 2009, 7: 27. 41.Rudan I, Gibson JL, Ameratunga S, El Arifeen S, Bhutta ZA, Black M, Black RE, Brown KH, Campbell H, Carneiro I et al: Setting priorities in global child health research investments: guidelines for implementation of CHNRI method. Croat Med J 2008, 49( 6):720–733. 42.VanLare JM, Conway PH, Sox HC: Five next steps for a new national program for comparative-effectiveness research. N Eng J Med 2010, 362( 11):970–973. 43.McGregor S, Henderson KJ, Kaldor JM: How are health research priorities set in low and middle income countries? A systematic review of published reports. PLOS One 2014, 9( 10):e108787. 44.Swingler GH, Irlam JH, Macharia WM, Tietche F, Meremikwu MM: A systematic review of existing national priorities for child health research in sub-Saharan Africa. Health Res Policy Sys 2005, 3: 7. 45.Synnot A, Bragge P, Lowe D, Nunn JS, O’Sullivan M, Horvat L, Tong A, Kay D, Ghersi D, McDonald S et al: Research priorities in health communication and participation: international survey of consumers and other stakeholders. BMJ Open 2018, 8( 5):e019481. 46.Dear RF, Barratt AL, Evans A, Simes J, Newsom J, Kent D, Crossing S, Holliday C, Segelov E, Hruby G et al: Identifying and prioritising gaps in colorectal cancer trials research in Australia. Med J Aust 2012, 197( 9):507–511. 47.Gierisch JM, Myers ER, Schmit KM, Crowley MJ, McCrory DC, Chatterjee R, Coeytaux RR, Kendrick A, Sanders GD: Prioritization of research addressing management strategies for ductal carcinoma in situ. Ann Intern Med 2014, 160( 7):484–491. 48.Arora NK, Mohapatra A, Gopalan HS, Wazny K, Thavaraj V, Rasaily R, Das MK, Maheshwari M, Bahl R, Qazi SA et al: Setting research priorities for maternal, newborn, child health and nutrition in India by engaging experts from 256 indigenous institutions contributing over 4000 research ideas: a CHNRI exercise by ICMR and INCLEN. J Glob Health 2017, 7( 1):011003. 49.Lindson N, Richards-Doran D, Heath L, Hartmann-Boyce J: Setting research priorities in tobacco control: a stakeholder engagement project. Addiction 2017, 112( 12):2257–2271. 50.O’Neill B, Aversa V, Rouleau K, Lazare K, Sullivan F, Persaud N: Identifying top 10 primary care research priorities from international stakeholders using a modified Delphi method. PLoS ONE 2018, 13( 10):e0206096. 51.Zimmerman EB, Cook SK, Haley AD, Woolf SH, Price SK, Berman D, DeLeire T, Etz R, Khalsa J, Knutson K et al: A Patient and Provider Research Agenda on Diabetes and Hypertension Management. Am J Prev Med 2017, 53( 1):123–129. 52.Oliver S, Hollingworth K, Briner B, Swann C, Hinds K, Roche C: Effective and efficient committee work: a systematic overview of multidisciplinary literatures. . Evidence Base 2018, 2: 1–28. 53.Rudan I: Global health research priorities: mobilizing the developing world. Public Health 2012, 126: 237–240. Tables Table 1. Reporting guideline for health research priority setting with stakeholders (REPRISE) No Item Descriptor and/or examples A Context and scope 1 Define geographical scope Global, regional, national, city, local area, institutional/organizational level, health service 2 Define health area, field, focus Disease or condition specific, interventions, healthcare delivery, health system 3 Define the intended beneficiaries This may include the general population or a specific population based on demographic (age, gender), clinical (disease, condition), or other characteristics who may benefit from the research 4 Define the target audience of the priorities Policy makers, funders, researchers, industry or others who have the potential to implement the priorities identified 5 Identify the research area Public health, health services research, clinical research, basic science 6 Identify the type of research questions Etiology, diagnosis, prevention, treatment (interventions), prognosis, health services, psychosocial, behavioral and social science, economic evaluation, implementation; this may not be pre-defined 7 Define the time frame Interim, short-term, long-term priorities, plans to revise and update B Governance and team 8 Describe the selection and structure of the leadership and management team Those responsible for initiating, developing, and guiding the process for priority setting, and examples of structures include; Steering Committee, Advisory Group, Technical Experts 9 Describe the characteristics of the team Stakeholder group or role, institutional affiliations, country or region, demographics (e.g. age sex), discipline, experience, expertise 10 Describe any training or experience relevant to conducting priority setting Consultants or advisors, members with experience or skills relevant to the conducting priority-setting e.g. qualitative methods, surveys, facilitation C Framework for priority setting 11 State the framework used (if any) James Lind Alliance, COHRED, CHNRI, Dialogue Model, no framework (general research priority setting) D Stakeholders or participants 12 Define the inclusion criteria for stakeholders involved in priority-setting Patients, caregivers, general community, health professionals, researchers, policy makers, non-governmental organizations, government, industry; specific groups including vulnerable and marginalized populations 13 State the strategy or method for identifying and engaging stakeholders Partnership with organizations, social media, recruitment through hospitals 14 Indicate the number of participants and/or organizations involved Number of individuals and organizations, include number by stakeholder group 15 Describe the characteristics of stakeholders Stakeholder group, demographic characteristics, areas of interest and expertise, discipline, affiliations 16 State if reimbursement for participation was provided Cash, vouchers, certificates, acknowledgement; what purpose e.g. travel, accommodation, honorarium E Identification and collection of research priorities 17 Describe methods for collecting initial priorities Methods e.g. Delphi survey, surveys, nominal group technique, interviews, focus groups, meetings, workshops; prioritization e.g. voting, ranking; mode e.g. face-to-face, online; may be informed by evidence e.g. systematic reviews, reviews of guidelines/other documents, health technology assessment 18 Describe methods for collating and categorizing priorities Taxonomy or other framework used to organize, summarise, and aggregate topics or questions 19 Describe methods and reasons for modifying (removing, adding, reframing) priorities Based on scope, clarity, definition, duplication, other criteria 20 Describe methods for refining or translating priorities into research topics or questions Reviewed by Steering Committee or project team 21 Describe methods for checking whether research questions or topics have been answered Systematic reviews, evidence mapping, consultation with experts 22 Describe number of research questions or topics Number of priorities at each stage of the process F Prioritization of research topics/questions 23 Describe methods and criteria for prioritizing research topics or questions Methods e.g. Delphi survey, surveys, nominal group technique, interviews, focus groups, meetings, workshops; Prioritization e.g. voting, ranking; Mode e.g. face-to-face, online; Criteria e.g. need, feasibility, novelty, equity 24 State the method or threshold for excluding research topics/questions Thresholds for ranking scores, proportions, votes; other criteria G Output 25 State the approach to formulating the research priorities Area, topic, questions, PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) H Evaluation and feedback 26 Describe how the process of prioritization was evaluated Survey, workshop 27 Describe how priorities were fed back to stakeholders and/or to the public; and how feedback (if received) was addressed and integrated Public meetings or workshop, newsletters, website, email, online presentations I Implementation 28 Outline the strategy or action plans for implementing priorities Communication with target audience, via policies and funding 29 Describe plans, strategies, or suggestions to evaluate impact Integration in decision-making, funding allocation, review of relevant documents J Funding and conflict of interest 30 State sources of funding Name sources of funding for the priority-setting exercise; if relevant include the budget and/or cost 31 Declare any conflicts or competing interests State any conflicts of interest that may be at an individual level and/or at a contextual level (e.g. political issues, controversies) that may affect the process, output or implementation. Table 2. Summary of frameworks for conducting health research priority setting Framework Year Organization* Country* Principles/values/ characteristics Stakeholders Scope Outline of process Output James Lind Alliance (JLA) [ 5 ] 2004 National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) UK Partnership Patients, caregivers, clinicians Diagnosis, intervention, care and support Gather priorities (survey) Process and verify Conduct Interim priority setting (survey) Conduct final priority setting (workshops using nominal group technique) Top 10 research questions for funders Council on Health Research for Development Essential National Health Research (COHRED/ENHR) [ 39 ] 2000 Council on Health Research for Development International Inclusivity, involvement of a broad range of stakeholders, multidisciplinary and cross-sectorial, partnership, participatory and transparent, systematic analysis of health needs, societal and professional expectations Researchers, decision-makers, health service providers, communities - Establish criteria Identify research areas (brainstorming, voting, nominal group technique, roundtable etc) Score against criteria (survey) - Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) [ 41 , 53 ] 2007 Global Forum for Health Research International Systematic, fair, transparent Investors in health research, researchers, general public Fundamental, translation, implementation Discuss criteria Select useful and important criteria Score against criteria (survey) Elicit stakeholder input (reference group) Adjust scores with stakeholder input - Dialogue Model [ 36 ] 2007 VU University The Netherlands Participatory, respect for experiential knowledge, dialogue between different stakeholders, emergent and flexible design Patients, researchers, health professionals Explore (informal discussion) Consult (separate stakeholder consultations, focus groups, interviews, other methods) Prioritize (survey, focus group, Delphi technique) Integrate (meeting) - *Refers to developers Supplementary Files Legend Additional File 1. Search strategies ( docx) Additional File 2. Search results ( docx) Additional File 3. Research priority setting: frameworks and reviews ( docx) Additional File 4. Preliminary REPRISE guideline ( docx) Additional File 5. Sources contributing to the reporting items ( docx) Additional File 6. Results of the pilot test ( docx) Supplementary Files AdditionalFile2.docx AdditionalFile1.docx AdditionalFile5.docx AdditionalFile3.docx AdditionalFile6.docx AdditionalFile4.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 28 Dec, 2019 Read the published version in BMC Medical Research Methodology → Version 3 posted Editorial decision: Accept 16 Dec, 2019 Editor assigned by journal 15 Dec, 2019 Submission checks completed at journal 14 Dec, 2019 Editor invited by journal 14 Dec, 2019 You are reading this latest preprint version Show more versions Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-4912","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":255974,"identity":"09a3d6aa-9a84-4f1d-8c85-8d83be83d9df","order_by":1,"name":"Allison Tong","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8973-9538","institution":"The University of Sydney","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Allison","middleName":"","lastName":"Tong","suffix":""},{"id":255975,"identity":"4092a009-753d-4afe-a06c-a43d55b01a4b","order_by":2,"name":"Anneliese Synnot","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"La Trobe University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Anneliese","middleName":"","lastName":"Synnot","suffix":""},{"id":255976,"identity":"a56b0603-5795-46f8-9f1b-b1ccb9a9943f","order_by":3,"name":"Sally Crowe","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Crowe Associates Ltd","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sally","middleName":"","lastName":"Crowe","suffix":""},{"id":255977,"identity":"678e4704-efb6-4c79-8bfa-57a044549cf7","order_by":4,"name":"Sophie Hill","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"LaTrobe University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sophie","middleName":"","lastName":"Hill","suffix":""},{"id":255978,"identity":"0a70d22b-846f-48fb-93cd-d83a810e67f7","order_by":5,"name":"Andrea Matus","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The University of Sydney","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Andrea","middleName":"","lastName":"Matus","suffix":""},{"id":255979,"identity":"4e5d0c38-1f75-495d-8b79-6b2c0d757ee9","order_by":6,"name":"Nicole Scholes-Robertson","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The University of Sydney","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Nicole","middleName":"","lastName":"Scholes-Robertson","suffix":""},{"id":255980,"identity":"79833e44-9738-43e4-93b2-04f712917e92","order_by":7,"name":"Sandy Oliver","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University College London","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sandy","middleName":"","lastName":"Oliver","suffix":""},{"id":255981,"identity":"4ae94160-fab4-459a-84b5-14d3ec1899e4","order_by":8,"name":"Katherine Cowan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"James Lind Alliance","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Katherine","middleName":"","lastName":"Cowan","suffix":""},{"id":255982,"identity":"c658ebd5-a6f5-428f-b1bb-d2ed87e3fc93","order_by":9,"name":"Mona Nasser","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Plymouth","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mona","middleName":"","lastName":"Nasser","suffix":""},{"id":255983,"identity":"da773812-4709-4137-afad-6a59541a9640","order_by":10,"name":"Soumyadeep Bhaumik","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The George Institute for Global Health","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Soumyadeep","middleName":"","lastName":"Bhaumik","suffix":""},{"id":255984,"identity":"4434cb40-9721-4418-aa20-b9a9073d2564","order_by":11,"name":"Talia Gutman","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The University of Sydney","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Talia","middleName":"","lastName":"Gutman","suffix":""},{"id":255985,"identity":"62177b1f-6f3e-4e36-8968-1f3cbd9f2e05","order_by":12,"name":"Amanda Baumgart","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The University of Sydney","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Amanda","middleName":"","lastName":"Baumgart","suffix":""},{"id":255986,"identity":"8015dd22-5f04-4dec-aeef-a8df794029a6","order_by":13,"name":"Jonathan C Craig","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Flinders University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jonathan","middleName":"C","lastName":"Craig","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2019-09-06 14:08:09","currentVersionCode":3,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.2.14215/v3","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.2.14215/v3","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0889-3","type":"published","date":"2019-12-28T12:00:00+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":13482961,"identity":"4ecedf31-876f-4e15-a6a6-3ffecbf186ee","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2021-09-16 21:51:36","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":409606,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4912/v3/2949e012-e6b4-44a2-b2d8-c315fc52287f.pdf"},{"id":284738,"identity":"4c6300ea-0b79-4568-a3fd-b5daf20eb91e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2019-12-19 20:18:09","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":36498,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"AdditionalFile2.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/e27507eb-0d32-43ec-950c-850ced111371/v3/Additional File 2.docx"},{"id":284737,"identity":"988b2302-2e01-49af-b30a-184070d1c387","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2019-12-19 20:18:09","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":14994,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"AdditionalFile1.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/e27507eb-0d32-43ec-950c-850ced111371/v3/Additional File 1.docx"},{"id":284736,"identity":"bad61d8c-f285-448f-b39f-ab43aa845014","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2019-12-19 20:18:09","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":125705,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"AdditionalFile5.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/e27507eb-0d32-43ec-950c-850ced111371/v3/Additional File 5.docx"},{"id":284735,"identity":"a79e597b-bcac-4f6f-bde9-908e3b26ec12","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2019-12-19 20:18:09","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":27760,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"AdditionalFile3.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/e27507eb-0d32-43ec-950c-850ced111371/v3/Additional File 3.docx"},{"id":284734,"identity":"cd537098-9d88-4d93-b67c-475d64218019","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2019-12-19 20:18:09","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":106986,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"AdditionalFile6.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/e27507eb-0d32-43ec-950c-850ced111371/v3/Additional File 6.docx"},{"id":284733,"identity":"3e343ca1-227e-4df4-b690-a3623e466e58","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2019-12-19 20:18:09","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":18179,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"AdditionalFile4.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/e27507eb-0d32-43ec-950c-850ced111371/v3/Additional File 4.docx"}],"financialInterests":"","formattedTitle":"Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE)","fulltext":[{"header":"Background","content":"\n\n\u003cp\u003eHistorically, the health research agenda has been largely investigator-driven with limited input from other stakeholders including patients, caregivers and the community[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_1\"\u003e1\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_2\"\u003e2\u003c/a\u003e]. Given the evident mismatch between the research interests of patients and researchers, investment into health research may be misdirected to areas of low priority or fail to address important needs of relevant stakeholders[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_1\"\u003e1\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_3\"\u003e3–8\u003c/a\u003e]. For example, an analysis of 14 research priority setting partnerships involving patients with different medical conditions found that pharmacological interventions were prioritized only in 18% of the total priorities but 58% of the clinical trials in those fields evaluated pharmacological interventions[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_4\"\u003e4\u003c/a\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eGlobally, there have been calls for research priority setting with stakeholders to be done at all levels of health systems, jurisdictions, and health areas[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_9\"\u003e9–12\u003c/a\u003e]. There is no consensus on the definition of research priority setting but most definitions refer to a range of activities that involve identifying, prioritizing, and achieving consensus on the research areas or questions of importance to stakeholders[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_13\"\u003e13\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_14\"\u003e14\u003c/a\u003e]. The past two decades have seen increasing efforts to develop better ways to engage all relevant stakeholders, particularly patients, in setting priorities for research across different health disciplines and populations[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_15\"\u003e15–17\u003c/a\u003e]. Involving stakeholders in an explicit manner in research priority setting can help to: 1) ensure that funding decisions and research meet critical evidence gaps to inform decision making; 2) facilitate shared responsibility and accountability in implementing the research agenda; 3) improve the relevance and legitimacy of research; and 4) ultimately achieve better health outcomes[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_12\"\u003e12\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_17\"\u003e17\u003c/a\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eA diverse range of methods are used to prioritize research given the different healthcare contexts, populations, environments and resources available in which the priority setting is undertaken[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_14\"\u003e14\u003c/a\u003e]. The process of research priority setting can be complex, political and value-laden. It can also be challenging to identify, address and integrate the different perspectives and values held by diverse stakeholders. While there is no consensus on what constitutes “successful” research priority setting, it has been advocated that processes must be fair, legitimate, informed by credible evidence, involve a broad spectrum of stakeholders, and be transparent[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_12\"\u003e12\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_13\"\u003e13\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_18\"\u003e18–20\u003c/a\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, reviews of published research priority setting exercises have consistently demonstrated a lack of transparency because of suboptimal reporting[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_17\"\u003e17\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_21\"\u003e21–26\u003c/a\u003e]. A systematic review of research priority setting in childhood chronic disease, in which most studies were conducted in the UK, US, and Australia, found that methods for collecting and prioritizing research topics were reported in only 50 (60%) of the 84 studies included[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_23\"\u003e23\u003c/a\u003e]. Another review of research priority setting exercises in Zambia reported that details about the process and the stakeholders involved were omitted in the majority of studies[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_22\"\u003e22\u003c/a\u003e], and similarly, a review of studies in the Islamic Republic of Iran revealed that 22 (61%) of the 36 priority setting studies did not report methods and only listed the research priorities[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_21\"\u003e21\u003c/a\u003e]. Inadequate description of the stakeholders and the methods makes it difficult to assess the validity of research priorities identified, and limits the ability to aggregate, analyze or compare research priorities that have been established[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_27\"\u003e27\u003c/a\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eFrameworks and guidelines are available for conducting and evaluating research priority setting, \u003cem\u003ewhich mainly focus on criteria related to the process rather than the outcomes and impact of priority setting.\u003c/em\u003e There are no published guidelines for reporting priority setting for health research[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_5\"\u003e5\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_13\"\u003e13\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_18\"\u003e18\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_27\"\u003e27–29\u003c/a\u003e]. Ensuring the transparency of the process for research priority setting can strengthen legitimacy and credibility to support implementation and maximise impact. A reporting checklist for research priority setting may facilitate more consistent and comprehensive reporting and enable researchers and end-users to better understand the processes taken in developing research priorities. The aim of this paper is to introduce the reporting guideline for priority setting of health researchREPRISE), describe its development and provide a rationale for the items included.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\n\n"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eREPRISE Development\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eWe used the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) toolkit[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_30\"\u003e30\u003c/a\u003e], for developing the REPRISE Guideline and reported our approach based on the “Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines” where possible.[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_31\"\u003e31\u003c/a\u003e] We have also registered REPRISE with the EQUATOR Network.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003ePurpose and context\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe purpose of REPRISE is to facilitate comprehensive and transparent reporting of health research priority setting exercises, in which there is direct involvement of stakeholders setting research priorities. The REPRISE guideline is flexible so that it may be used for a range of approaches. The scope of REPRISE does not cover approaches without direct involvement of stakeholders such as documentary analysis (e.g. evidence mapping), and econometrics methods (e.g. value of information). REPRISE is not intended for use to appraise the quality of priority setting studies, establish or evaluate criteria for research priorities (e.g. evidence gaps, prevalence of disease, economic considerations), and does not recommend a preferred approach.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eIdentify the need for a guideline\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eSystematic reviews have consistently shown the reporting of the process of research priority setting with stakeholders is highly variable and limited with many details omitted[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_21\"\u003e21\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_23\"\u003e23\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_25\"\u003e25\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_26\"\u003e26\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_32\"\u003e32\u003c/a\u003e]. The need for a reporting guideline has also been identified through our workshops and forums at national and international meetings (e.g. Cochrane Colloquia and Symposia[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_12\"\u003e12\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_33\"\u003e33–35\u003c/a\u003e]; James Lind Alliance[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_5\"\u003e5\u003c/a\u003e]), and through our collective experiences of conducting, publishing, reviewing, and using research priority setting studies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eWe conducted a comprehensive search for frameworks, guidelines or models for conducting, appraising, reporting and evaluating health research priority setting, reviews (including systematic reviews) of research priority setting studies, and primary research priority setting studies. We searched electronic databases including MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO from inception to 23\u003csup\u003erd\u003c/sup\u003e July 2019 using sensitive search strategies provided in Additional File 1. We used Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and text words for research priorities and combined this with terms related to reporting, conduct and evaluation. We also searched Google Scholar, relevant organizational websites (e.g. WHO, EQUATOR, Cochrane, James Lind Alliance and PCORI), and reference lists of articles. The search results are shown in Additional File 2. From the 21 556 records retrieved, we identified 13 frameworks or guidelines for conducting or evaluating research priority guidelines[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_5\"\u003e5\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_13\"\u003e13\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_18\"\u003e18–20\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_28\"\u003e28\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_36\"\u003e36–42\u003c/a\u003e] (none designed for reporting research priority setting), and 13 reviews of research priority setting[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_15\"\u003e15–17\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_21\"\u003e21–27\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_32\"\u003e32\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_43\"\u003e43\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_44\"\u003e44\u003c/a\u003e], of which four were systematic reviews[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_23\"\u003e23–26\u003c/a\u003e]. (Additional File 3) We also identified 455 primary research priority setting studies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eGenerating reporting items for the candidate checklist\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eWe extracted items related to the process of priority-setting from the frameworks and systematic reviews included (the sources are listed in Additional File 2). We translated these into reporting items for the candidate REPRISE reporting guidelines by grouping similar items and rephrasing the statements as a reporting item. We inductively developed the initial list of reporting items. This was reviewed by two other investigators (AB, AM) to ensure all relevant items were included in the list. The reporting items were compiled into 10 domains: context and scope, governance and team, framework for priority setting, stakeholders/participants, identification and collection of priorities, prioritization of research topics, output, evaluation and feedback, translation and implementation, and funding and conflict of interest. (Additional File 4) We imported all sources (frameworks and systematic reviews) into HyperRESEARCH software for coding textual data, and AT conducted line-by-line coding of each source to the initial items. We generated a report of each reporting item and the corresponding coded text (content). We developed descriptors and examples based on the content of the sources and input from all the investigators. The sources that contributed to each reporting item, and examples of the original extracted items are shown in Additional File 5.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003ePilot testing the checklist\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe preliminary REPRISE guideline was presented at the Australasian Cochrane Symposium, in which participants used the guideline to assess the reporting of a research priority exercise, and provided feedback on the guideline[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_34\"\u003e34\u003c/a\u003e]. We subsequently used the REPRISE guideline in two systematic reviews of research priority setting studies in childhood chronic conditions[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_23\"\u003e23\u003c/a\u003e] and organ transplantation[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_26\"\u003e26\u003c/a\u003e]. We also applied the preliminary guideline to report a research priority setting exercise in health communication and participation[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_45\"\u003e45\u003c/a\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eIn the final stage, we piloted the guideline with research priority setting studies. We used a purposive sampling strategy to select 30 priority setting exercises from the total of 455 studies retrieved from the search to ensure a diverse range of health topics, regions, stakeholders involved, framework or methods used, and type of output. Using a standardized data extraction template with the reporting items from the REPRISE guideline, the investigators (two per study) independently assessed if the study reported on each item (yes/no), added comments, and suggested new reporting items that were not yet captured. The results are provided in Additional File 6. After completion, the investigators discussed the relevance and applicability of the items, clarity of the items, comprehensiveness of the descriptor and examples, and any new reporting items proposed. These were integrated into the final reporting guideline, which was reviewed and approved by all investigators.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eREPRISE Framework: content and rationale\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe REPRISE guideline includes ten domains and a total of 31 reporting items with a descriptor and examples provided. (Table 1) The principles, rationale, and explanation for the domains are detailed below, which are based on the synthesis of sources listed in Additional File 3, priority setting studies, and discussion among the investigators.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eA) Context and scope (items 1–7)\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eEstablishing the context and scope is recommended as these “underpin the process of research priority setting,”[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_13\"\u003e13\u003c/a\u003e] including the selection of relevant stakeholders and methods used. In terms of geographical scope, priority setting may be done at an institutional, local, national, or international level[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_13\"\u003e13\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_19\"\u003e19\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_21\"\u003e21\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_39\"\u003e39–41\u003c/a\u003e]; recognizing that each will have its own “sense of mandate, capacity, culture, and resources.”[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_39\"\u003e39\u003c/a\u003e] Research priorities may address a specific condition, disease or risk factor (e.g. cancer, mental health), population (e.g. elderly, adolescents), health system, research design, or interventions (e.g. vaccination)[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_5\"\u003e5\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_13\"\u003e13\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_19\"\u003e19\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_21\"\u003e21\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_24\"\u003e24\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_27\"\u003e27\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_37\"\u003e37\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_38\"\u003e38\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_40\"\u003e40\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_41\"\u003e41\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_44\"\u003e44\u003c/a\u003e]. These can be decided upon based on the evidence[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_5\"\u003e5\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_38\"\u003e38\u003c/a\u003e] and initial deliberations with stakeholders[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_38\"\u003e38\u003c/a\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe intended beneficiaries[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_13\"\u003e13\u003c/a\u003e] may include patients, caregivers, or the general community who could benefit from the priority setting exercise, and the target audience are those who have the potential to implement or fund the research priorities identified[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_13\"\u003e13\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_17\"\u003e17\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_39\"\u003e39–41\u003c/a\u003e]. The focus, content and type of research to be considered can determine the scope of the priority setting exercise. In terms of the broad research areas, these generally span public health, health services, clinical research and basic science[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_24\"\u003e24\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_37\"\u003e37\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_41\"\u003e41\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_44\"\u003e44\u003c/a\u003e]. The types of research questions that may be included can range from etiology, diagnosis, prognosis, treatment, to behavioural; and social science, economic evaluation and implementation[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_23\"\u003e23\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_24\"\u003e24\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_27\"\u003e27\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_39\"\u003e39\u003c/a\u003e]. It is not necessary for the type of research questions to be determined a priori.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eProviding an estimated time frame that the priorities are expected to be valid or relevant may be relevant. This is because research priorities may evolve due to the development of new technology or interventions, emerging evidence, or changes to the health system or socio-political contexts[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_13\"\u003e13\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_17\"\u003e17\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_19\"\u003e19\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_37\"\u003e37–39\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_41\"\u003e41\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_42\"\u003e42\u003c/a\u003e]. If there are plans to update the priority setting or to monitor the priorities for the need to update, these could be described. There has been suggestion of 3–5 year cycles of prioritization if the priority setting exercise is to be repeated[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_37\"\u003e37\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_38\"\u003e38\u003c/a\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eB) Governance and team (items 8–10)\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eIt has been argued that priority setting requires “credible”[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_39\"\u003e39\u003c/a\u003e] leadership to support acceptability and uptake. This may require leaders who are trusted by stakeholders and who have the necessary expertise, knowledge, decision-making skills, and ability and deliver the project. The leadership and management team is usually responsible for overseeing, developing and implementing the process for priority setting[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_5\"\u003e5\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_13\"\u003e13\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_19\"\u003e19\u003c/a\u003e]. The leadership group may take the form of, for example, an Executive Committee, Advisory Group, Technical Expert Group[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_13\"\u003e13\u003c/a\u003e]. Members of the leadership team would generally be expected to contribute broad and relevant collective insights, harness their networks for engagement and partnership; and include a diversity of members to offer legitimacy to wider stakeholder networks (e.g. patients, caregivers, researchers, policy makers, clinicians, representatives from other non-government or government organizations)[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_5\"\u003e5\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_21\"\u003e21\u003c/a\u003e], and those with technical expertise[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_5\"\u003e5\u003c/a\u003e]. The membership and selection of stakeholders may need to take into consideration the need for equity[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_12\"\u003e12\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_36\"\u003e36\u003c/a\u003e]. Also, it has been suggested that the involvement of individuals or organizations with experience in priority setting and relevant research skills can ensure a “high quality process.”[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_5\"\u003e5\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_13\"\u003e13\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_40\"\u003e40\u003c/a\u003e] With regard to facilitators, neutrality and facilitations skills may be important to elicit input from diverse and mixed stakeholders[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_5\"\u003e5\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_36\"\u003e36\u003c/a\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eC) Framework for priority setting (item 11)\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eSome priority setting studies use or adapt frameworks to guide the process[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_17\"\u003e17\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_22\"\u003e22\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_23\"\u003e23\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_25\"\u003e25\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_44\"\u003e44\u003c/a\u003e]. Common frameworks include the James Lind Alliance[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_5\"\u003e5\u003c/a\u003e], Council on Health Research for Development Essential National Health Research (COHRED/ENHR)[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_19\"\u003e19\u003c/a\u003e], Essential National Health Research (EHNR), Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHMRI)[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_41\"\u003e41\u003c/a\u003e], and the Dialogue Model[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_36\"\u003e36\u003c/a\u003e]. A summary of these frameworks is provided in Table 2. Some priority setting exercises may develop and use a different approach, and not necessarily follow an existing or established framework.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eD) Stakeholders or participants (items 12–16)\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eStakeholder involvement in priority setting can vary across the priority setting exercises. In some cases, they are involved in all key stages of the process and in others, they are consulted in specific steps and existing data or documents are used instead of consultation. Relevant stakeholders whose “values and interests should be respected in setting health research priorities”[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_41\"\u003e41\u003c/a\u003e] can include patients, caregivers, clinicians, policy makers, representatives from non-governmental organizations[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_5\"\u003e5\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_18\"\u003e18\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_21\"\u003e21\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_39\"\u003e39\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_44\"\u003e44\u003c/a\u003e]; and diverse groups, for example based on demographic or clinical characteristics, may need to be included in research priority setting[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_5\"\u003e5\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_18\"\u003e18\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_20\"\u003e20\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_36\"\u003e36\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_37\"\u003e37\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_39\"\u003e39\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_40\"\u003e40\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_42\"\u003e42\u003c/a\u003e]. It has been emphasized that patients/caregivers (and if relevant the public) need to be directly involved in the priority setting process[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_5\"\u003e5\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_18\"\u003e18\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_38\"\u003e38–40\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_42\"\u003e42\u003c/a\u003e], as they have direct experience of the health condition or context and often have different priorities to researchers and clinicians. There is also recognition of the need to involve individuals from vulnerable or marginalized groups, particularly in equity-focused research priority setting exercises[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_5\"\u003e5\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_12\"\u003e12\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_21\"\u003e21\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_36\"\u003e36\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_39\"\u003e39\u003c/a\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eMultiple strategies may be used to engage stakeholders in the priority setting process, and this is namely through partnership with relevant stakeholder organizations[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_5\"\u003e5\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_39\"\u003e39\u003c/a\u003e]. The number and characteristics of the participants involved enables assessment of the degree of inclusivity, diversity and equity[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_5\"\u003e5\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_13\"\u003e13\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_39\"\u003e39\u003c/a\u003e] in priority setting processes. The characteristics to specify may include role and expertise, discipline, organizational affiliations, demographics (e.g. age, sex, socio-economics status, ethnicity), and clinical factors[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_13\"\u003e13\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_21\"\u003e21–23\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_36\"\u003e36\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_42\"\u003e42\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_44\"\u003e44\u003c/a\u003e]. Support for patients/caregivers involved in priority setting may include reimbursement for travel, arranging care for dependents, and time[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_5\"\u003e5\u003c/a\u003e]. This may indicate to readers the degree to which the team was able to ensure inclusivity across the different groups. Of note, there is recognition that attention must be given to power dynamics, otherwise the engagement of disadvantaged and marginalized groups may lead to “presence without voice and voice without influence.”[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_2\"\u003e2\u003c/a\u003e] Therefore, it may be relevant to acknowledge and discuss how hierarchies and “asymmetries between stakeholders”[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_36\"\u003e36\u003c/a\u003e] are addressed to maximize constructive and balanced interaction. For example, some groups, such as patients, may require additional time, training, resources, or other strategies to be able to engage; to have the opportunity to contribute meaningfully[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_36\"\u003e36\u003c/a\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eE) Identification and collection of research priorities (items 17–22)\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eDifferent methods and approaches are available for collecting and selecting initial research priorities from stakeholders and developing the first list of priorities. This can be one or a combination of methods including interviews, focus groups, workshops, and surveys; and consensus methods (e.g. Delphi survey, nominal group technique); and these may be conducted through various modes such as face-to-face or online[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_5\"\u003e5\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_13\"\u003e13\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_23\"\u003e23\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_25\"\u003e25–28\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_37\"\u003e37–39\u003c/a\u003e]. Documents such as systematic reviews, technical data, and other relevant reports may be used to identify the initial list of priorities[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_5\"\u003e5\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_13\"\u003e13\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_18\"\u003e18\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_21\"\u003e21\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_24\"\u003e24\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_39\"\u003e39\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_40\"\u003e40\u003c/a\u003e]. In some priority setting exercises, the initial list of research priorities is derived from literature or existing data rather than consultation or engagement of stakeholders[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_46\"\u003e46–48\u003c/a\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eIf a wide range of different initial research priorities are submitted or identified, it can be challenging to manage and synthesise to capture the diversity of views in a concise manner, whilst also retaining the context and nuances of the submissions. They may need to be organized, usually by collating and categorizing them into themes, topics or other relevant taxonomy[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_5\"\u003e5\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_22\"\u003e22\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_36\"\u003e36\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_38\"\u003e38\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_39\"\u003e39\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_41\"\u003e41\u003c/a\u003e]; and by removing those that are “out-of-scope,”[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_5\"\u003e5\u003c/a\u003e] or duplicative[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_39\"\u003e39\u003c/a\u003e]. They may then be translated into “indicative, researchable questions”[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_5\"\u003e5\u003c/a\u003e] and edited for clarity[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_21\"\u003e21\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_27\"\u003e27\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_35\"\u003e35\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_36\"\u003e36\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_38\"\u003e38\u003c/a\u003e]. Some priority setting exercises conduct cross checking of the priorities against the evidence (i.e. systematic reviews[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_5\"\u003e5\u003c/a\u003e]) and evidence mapping[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_47\"\u003e47\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_49\"\u003e49–51\u003c/a\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe number of research priorities identified at each stage vary widely[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_24\"\u003e24\u003c/a\u003e]. Generally, 10 to 20 questions/topics are included in the final set of priorities[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_5\"\u003e5\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_23\"\u003e23–26\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_38\"\u003e38\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_40\"\u003e40\u003c/a\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eF) Prioritization of research topics/questions (items 23–24)\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003ePrioritization techniques can include scoring, ranking, voting, and ordering, and these are usually embedded in similar methods and modes used for collecting priorities as outlined in Section E. Some frameworks and priority setting exercises use explicit criteria to prioritize questions[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_13\"\u003e13\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_21\"\u003e21\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_22\"\u003e22\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_38\"\u003e38\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_39\"\u003e39\u003c/a\u003e]. Examples include condition-related criteria (burden of disease, variation in care and outcome, evidence gaps), and research-related criteria (resources required, likelihood of success and impact)[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_37\"\u003e37\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_42\"\u003e42\u003c/a\u003e]. The CHNRI method proposes criteria including: answerability, attractiveness (likely to be published in high-impact journals), novelty, potential for translation, effectiveness (likely to identify better interventions), affordability, deliverability, sustainability, public opinion (acceptability to the general public), equity (leads to interventions that will be accessible to marginalized or vulnerable populations), and cost and feasibility[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_27\"\u003e27\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_41\"\u003e41\u003c/a\u003e]. Using specific criteria can facilitate a deliberative and rational process, particularly when there is limited information[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_21\"\u003e21\u003c/a\u003e]. It may be relevant to report the processes for selecting, defining and changing the criteria. Of note, the use of criteria can add complexity to the process, and strategies may be needed to avoid inadvertent exclusion of other stakeholder values that influence prioritization. \u003cem\u003eWhilst assigning scores based on such criteria may be rational, there are concerns that it may give a false sense of objectivity.\u003c/em\u003e The method for excluding priorities at this stage i.e. based on a quantified threshold or other criteria should be provided. Any processes to appeal or challenge the results may be specified.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eG) Output (item 25)\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe output should be “clear and of value to the research community.”[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_5\"\u003e5\u003c/a\u003e] The final priorities generated can range from having a specific structure i.e. the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO) format[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_5\"\u003e5\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_37\"\u003e37\u003c/a\u003e], to broader outputs such as topics or themes/areas[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_38\"\u003e38\u003c/a\u003e]. It is possible that components of PICO are not specified in original submission of priorities, or that it cannot be applied to some types of research questions [\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_5\"\u003e5\u003c/a\u003e]. In some circumstances, attempting to produce very technical research questions can potentially place non-researchers, who may include community members, patients, caregivers, at a disadvantage, as they may feel unable to articulate or consider the specific technical components. Also, consideration may need to be given to ensure that the contextual data and values around the questions are not missed. Some priority setting exercises seek to identify broader themes or areas and translate these into research questions after prioritization.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eH) Evaluation and feedback (items 26–27)\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eWhile there is no “gold standard”[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_37\"\u003e37\u003c/a\u003e] approach for evaluating the process of research priority setting, process evaluation can provide information about the acceptability, “reliability and usefulness”[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_37\"\u003e37\u003c/a\u003e] of the process and results[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_5\"\u003e5\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_13\"\u003e13\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_37\"\u003e37\u003c/a\u003e]. Stakeholder satisfaction with the process in terms of being able to engage and express opinions, and whether the priorities are considered meaningful and valid may be evaluated[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_13\"\u003e13\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_18\"\u003e18\u003c/a\u003e]. Participants and stakeholders could have an opportunity to review and provide feedback on the prioritized questions[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_22\"\u003e22\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_36\"\u003e36\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_39\"\u003e39\u003c/a\u003e]; and having “revision or appeal”[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_18\"\u003e18\u003c/a\u003e] mechanisms available to identify and address disagreements in a constructive manner[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_18\"\u003e18\u003c/a\u003e] have been suggested.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eI) Implementation (items 28–29)\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eStrategies to implement the research priorities could involve informing and garnering support from government, policy makers, and funding agencies to allocate funding and resources toward the priorities identified[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_13\"\u003e13\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_19\"\u003e19\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_22\"\u003e22\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_39\"\u003e39\u003c/a\u003e], and working with researchers to develop proposals [\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_5\"\u003e5\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_19\"\u003e19\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_39\"\u003e39\u003c/a\u003e]. Assessing the impact of research priority setting is challenging but needs to be considered[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_5\"\u003e5\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_22\"\u003e22\u003c/a\u003e]. This may include the impact on decision-making, allocation of funding and resources, and research output[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_18\"\u003e18\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_19\"\u003e19\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_38\"\u003e38\u003c/a\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eJ) Funding and conflict of interest (items 30–31)\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThere are different sources of funding that can affect a priority setting process. The funding and resources used to conduct the priority setting exercise and support the stakeholders (directly or indirectly) and whether the priority setting exercise is connected to a funding source to support the identified research priorities. Reporting the sources of funding and support is usually required. The resources required for research priority setting will depend on the size, scope, timeline, methods used, and personnel required[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_5\"\u003e5\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_19\"\u003e19\u003c/a\u003e], and providing information about the budget may be useful for others who are planning on conducting research priority setting. It is recommended that any relevant disclosures be stated for transparency, to allow assessment of potential political or commercial influences or undue bias[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_5\"\u003e5\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_13\"\u003e13\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_24\"\u003e24\u003c/a\u003e]. For example, pharmaceutical companies may have close ties with patient organisations and clinicians, and the potential influence this may have on the priority setting process would need to be addressed explicitly. This may be declared at an individual level, or at a process or contextual level, for example, providing a narrative of any political issues, conflict or controversies that may affect the process, output or implementation of the priority setting exercise[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_20\"\u003e20\u003c/a\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\n\n"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe REPRISE Guideline is intended to facilitate transparent and comprehensive reporting of research priority setting studies that involve stakeholders. The guideline has 31 reporting items that cover 10 domains: context and scope, governance and team, framework for priority setting, stakeholders/participants, identification and collection of research priorities, prioritization of research topics, output, evaluation and feedback, translation and implementation, and funding and conflict of interest. The REPRISE guideline is flexible without being unduly prescriptive because different approaches for health research priority setting are necessary to ensure they are contextually appropriate, respect the underpinning values and criteria, and are feasible based upon resources available. By piloting the guideline with a broad selection of research priority setting studies, we have demonstrated the feasibility, acceptability and relevance of the REPRISE reporting guidelines. We emphasise that REPRISE is not designed for making judgements about the quality of the conduct in research priority setting studies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe REPRISE guideline may be used as a roadmap for reporting research priority setting studies, or to assess reporting of research priority setting studies as has been done in systematic reviews[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_25\"\u003e25\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_26\"\u003e26\u003c/a\u003e]. REPRISE is focussed on the reporting of process or conduct and does not address in detail the values and criteria for establishing priorities, though these may be described in reporting the process of prioritizing research topics/questions. We did not conduct a Delphi survey, which has been used in other reporting guidelines to prioritize and achieve consensus on what reporting items should be included[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_30\"\u003e30\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_31\"\u003e31\u003c/a\u003e]. Instead, we sought to be comprehensive, included all reporting items, and did not eliminate any items based on judgement about relevance or importance. We believe this increases the practical utility of the REPRISE checklist considering the diverse range of methods and approaches that are used for research priority setting exercises unlike other reporting guidelines which are based on study designs in one particular domain.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eWe acknowledge that there may be other potentially relevant items that could warrant further discussion, consideration, and evidence to support their inclusion in subsequent revisions of this framework. The items addressing diversity and hierarchies amongst group members and the networks they represent, the criteria and degree of formality in decision making processes, and the medium of communication for sharing information and making decisions are all factors affecting good group decision making[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_52\"\u003e52\u003c/a\u003e].. Additional factors, not addressed by the priority setting literature, are the size of a group making decisions, the time available for them to explore their knowledge to make choices or solve problems and the facilitation skills for managing constructive conflict. We seek further feedback from researchers, end-users and other stakeholders, to inform future efforts to refine and revise the guideline as needed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe REPRISE guideline has the potential to improve transparency in reporting research priority setting studies. Improved explicitness in how research priority setting studies are conducted could strengthen legitimacy, confidence, and acceptability of the findings, and thereby support the implementation and impact of these efforts.\u003c/p\u003e\n"},{"header":"List of abbreviations","content":"\n\u003cp\u003eCHNRI, Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCINAHL, Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCOHRED, Council on Health Research for Development\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eENHR, Essential National Health Research\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEQUATOR, Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJLA, James Lind Alliance\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePCORI, Patient-centered outcomes research institute\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eREPRISE, Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWHO, World Health Organization\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot required.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAvailability of data and materials.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable. All guidelines and publications used for this article are available in the public domain.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAllison Tong is a member of the Editorial Board of BMC Medical Research Methodology. The authors declare that they have no other competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFunding\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAT is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Fellowship (APP1106716). The funding organization had no role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAuthors’ contributions\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAT contributed to the conception and design, acquisition of the data, analysis and interpretation of the data, and drafted the manuscript. AS contributed to the conception and design, acquisition of the data, analysis and interpretation of the data, and drafted the manuscript. SC contributed to the conception and design, acquisition of the data, analysis and interpretation of the data. SH contributed to the conception and design and interpretation of the data. AM acquisition of the data, analysis and interpretation of the data. NSR contributed to the acquisition of the data, analysis and interpretation of the data. SO contributed to design, acquisition of the data, analysis and interpretation of the data. KC contributed to the interpretation of the data. MN contributed to the design, analysis and interpretation of the data. SB contributed to the interpretation of the data. TG contributed to the interpretation of the data. AB contributed to the interpretation of the data. JCC contributed to the conception and design, interpretation of the data. All authors revised the article critically for important intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n"},{"header":"References","content":"\n\u003cp\u003e1.Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I, Dirnagl U, Chalmers I, Ioannidis JP, Al-Shahi Salman R, Chan AW, Glasziou P: \u003cem\u003eBiomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eLancet \u003c/em\u003e2014, \u003cem\u003e383(\u003c/em\u003e9912):101–104.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2.Pratt B: \u003cem\u003eTowards inclusive priority-setting for global health research projects: recommendations for sharing power with communities.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eHealth Policy Plan \u003c/em\u003e2019:doi: 10.1093/heapol/czz1041 (ahead of print).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.Tallon D, Chard J, Dieppe P: \u003cem\u003eRelation between agendas of the research community and the research consumer.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eLancet \u003c/em\u003e2000, \u003cem\u003e355(\u003c/em\u003e9220):2037–2040.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.Crowe S, Fenton M, Hall M, Cowan K, Chalmers I: \u003cem\u003ePatients’, clinicians’ and the research communities’ priorities for treatment research: there is an important mismatch.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eRes Involv Engagem \u003c/em\u003e2015, \u003cem\u003e1:\u003c/em\u003e2.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5.JLA: \u003cem\u003eThe James Lind Alliance Guidebook Version 8 November 2018.\u003c/em\u003e In\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e Southampton, UK: National Institute for Health Research Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre University of Southampton; 2018.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e6.Corner J, Wright D, Hopkinson J, Gunaratnam Y, McDonald JW, Foster C: \u003cem\u003eThe research priorities of patients attending UK cancer treatment centres: findings from a modified nominal group study.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eBr J Cancer \u003c/em\u003e2007, \u003cem\u003e96(\u003c/em\u003e6):875–881.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e7.Jun M, Manns B, Laupacis A, Manns L, Rehal B, Crowe S, Hemmelgarn BR: \u003cem\u003eAssessing the extent to which current clinical research is consistent with patient priorities: a scoping review using a case study in patients on or nearing dialysis.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eCan J Kidney Health Dis \u003c/em\u003e2015, \u003cem\u003e2:\u003c/em\u003e35.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e8.Nasser M, Clarke M, Chalmers I, Brurberg KG, Nykvist H, Lund H, Glasziou P: \u003cem\u003eWhat are funders doing to minimise waste in research?\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eLancet \u003c/em\u003e2017, \u003cem\u003e389(\u003c/em\u003e10073):1006–1007.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e9.Ferri M, Davoli M, D’Amico R.\\: \u003cem\u003eInvolving patients in setting the research agenda in drug addiction.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eBMJ \u003c/em\u003e2013, \u003cem\u003e347:\u003c/em\u003ef4513.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e10.Liberati A: \u003cem\u003eNeed to realign patient-oriented and commercial and academic research.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eLancet \u003c/em\u003e2011, \u003cem\u003e378(\u003c/em\u003e9805):1777–1778.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e11.Richards T, Montori VM, Godlee F, Lapsley P, Paul D: \u003cem\u003eLet the patient revolution begin.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eBMJ \u003c/em\u003e2013, \u003cem\u003e346:\u003c/em\u003ef2614.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e12.Bhaumik S, Rana S, Karimkhani C, Welch V, Armstrong R, Pottie K, Dellavalle R, Dhakal P, Oliver S, Francis DK\u003cem\u003e et al:\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eEthics and equity in research priority-setting: stakeholder engagement and the needs of disadvantaged groups.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eIndian J Med Ethics \u003c/em\u003e2015, \u003cem\u003e12(\u003c/em\u003e2):110–113.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e13.Viergever RF, Olifson S, Ghaffar A, Terry RF: \u003cem\u003eA checklist for health research priority setting: nine common themes of good practice.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eHealth Res Policy Sys \u003c/em\u003e2010, \u003cem\u003e8:\u003c/em\u003e36.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e14.Bryant J, Sanson-Fisher R, Walsh J, Stewart J: \u003cem\u003eHealth research priority setting in selected high income countries: a narrative review of methods used and recommendations for future practice.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eCost Eff Resour Alloc \u003c/em\u003e2014, \u003cem\u003e12:\u003c/em\u003e23.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e15.Oliver S, Gray J: \u003cem\u003eA bibliography of research reports about patients’, clinicians’ and researchers’ priorities for new research.\u003c/em\u003e In\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e London UK: James Lind Alliance; 2006.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e16.Stewart RJ, Caird J, Oliver K, Oliver S: \u003cem\u003ePatients’ and clinicians’ research priorities.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eHealth Expect \u003c/em\u003e2011, \u003cem\u003e14(\u003c/em\u003e4):439–448.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e17.Tomlinson M, Chopra M, Hoosain N, Rudan I: \u003cem\u003eA review of selected research priority setting processes at national level in low and middle income countries: towards fair and legitimate priority setting.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eHealth Res Policy Syst \u003c/em\u003e2011, \u003cem\u003e9:\u003c/em\u003e19.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e18.Sibbald SL, Singer PA, Upshur R, Martin DK: \u003cem\u003ePriority setting: what constitutes success? A conceptual framework for successful priority setting.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eBMC Health Serv Res \u003c/em\u003e2009, \u003cem\u003e9:\u003c/em\u003e43.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e19.Montorzi G, De Haan S, Ijsselmuiden C: \u003cem\u003ePriority setting for research for health. A management process for countries.\u003c/em\u003e In\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e Durban, South Africa: Council on Health Research for Development; 2010.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e20.Nasser M, Welch V, Tugwell P, Ueffing E, Doyle J, Waters E: \u003cem\u003eEnsuring relevance for Cochrane reviews: evaluating processes and methods for prioritizing topics for Cochrane reviews.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eJ Clin Epidemiol \u003c/em\u003e2012, \u003cem\u003e66(\u003c/em\u003e5):474–482.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e21.Badakhshan A, Arab M, Rashidian A, Gholipour M, Mohebbi E, Zendehdel K: \u003cem\u003eSystematic review of priority setting studies in health research in the Islamic Republic of Iran.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eEastern Mediterranean Health Journal \u003c/em\u003e2018, \u003cem\u003e24(\u003c/em\u003e8):753–769.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e22.Chanda-Kapata P, Ngosa W, Hamainza B, Kapiriri L: \u003cem\u003eHealth research priority setting in Zambia: a stock taking of approaches conducted from 1998 to 2015.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eHealth Res Policy Sys \u003c/em\u003e2016, \u003cem\u003e14(\u003c/em\u003e1):72.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e23.Odgers HL, Tong A, Lopez-Vargas P, Davidson A, Jaffe A, McKenzie A, Pinkerton R, Wake M, Richmond P, Crowe S\u003cem\u003e et al:\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eResearch priority setting in childhood chronic disease: a systematic review.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eArch Dis Child \u003c/em\u003e2018, \u003cem\u003e103(\u003c/em\u003e10):942–951.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e24.Rylance J, Pai M, Lienhardt C, Garner P: \u003cem\u003ePriorities for tuberculosis research: a systematic review.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eLancet Infect Dis \u003c/em\u003e2010, \u003cem\u003e10(\u003c/em\u003e12):886–892.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e25.Tong A, Chando S, Crowe S, Manns B, Winkelmayer WC, Hemmelgarn B, Craig JC: \u003cem\u003eResearch priority setting in kidney disease: a systematic review.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eAm J Kidney Dis \u003c/em\u003e2015, \u003cem\u003e65(\u003c/em\u003e5):674–683.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e26.Tong A, Sautenet B, Chapman JR, Harper C, MacDonald P, Shackel N, Crowe S, Hanson CS, Hill S, Synnot A\u003cem\u003e et al:\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eResearch priority setting in organ transplantation: a systematic review.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eTransplant International \u003c/em\u003e2017, \u003cem\u003e30(\u003c/em\u003e4):327–343.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e27.Terry RF, Charles E, Purdy B, Sanford A: \u003cem\u003eAn analysis of research priority-setting at the World Health Organization - how mapping to a standard template allows for comparison between research priority-setting approaches.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eHealth Res Policy Syst \u003c/em\u003e2018, \u003cem\u003e16(\u003c/em\u003e1):116.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e28.PCORI: \u003cem\u003eWorkshop on Methods for Setting Research Priorities. Executive Summary available at \u003c/em\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.pcori.org/sites/default/files/Workshop-on-Methods-for-Setting-Research-Priorities1.pdf\"\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.pcori.org/sites/default/files/Workshop-on-Methods-for-Setting-Research-Priorities1.pdf\"\u003ehttps://www.pcori.org/sites/default/files/Workshop-on-Methods-for-Setting-Research-Priorities1.pdf\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003cem\u003e (Accessed 24th July 2019).\u003c/em\u003e In\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e Baltimore, Maryland US: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Methodology Committee; 2012.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e29.Greenhalgh T, Hinton L, Finlay T, Macfarlane A, Fahy N, Clyde B, Chant A: \u003cem\u003eFrameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: Systematic review and co‐design pilot.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eHealth Expect \u003c/em\u003e2019:1–17.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e30.EQUATOR: \u003cem\u003eToolkit. How to develop and reporting guidelines. Available at \u003c/em\u003e\u003ca href=\"http://www.equator-network.org/toolkits/developing-a-reporting-guideline/\"\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003ca href=\"http://www.equator-network.org/toolkits/developing-a-reporting-guideline/\"\u003ehttp://www.equator-network.org/toolkits/developing-a-reporting-guideline/\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003cem\u003e (Accessed 1 February 2019).\u003c/em\u003e In\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e Oxford, UK: Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network; 2018.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e31.Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG: \u003cem\u003eGuidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003ePLOS Med \u003c/em\u003e2010, \u003cem\u003e7(\u003c/em\u003e2):e10000217.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e32.Reveiz L, Elias V, Terry RF, Alger J, Becerra-Posada F: \u003cem\u003eComparison of national health research priority-setting methods and characteristics in Latin America and the Caribbean, 2002–2012.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eRev Panam Salud Publica \u003c/em\u003e2013, \u003cem\u003e34(\u003c/em\u003e1):1–13.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e33.\u003cem\u003eCochrane Colloquium Seoul, Korea. (2016) Improving transparency and accountability okf priority setting exercised: time for a reporting guideline? Available at \u003c/em\u003e\u003ca href=\"http://2016.colloquium.cochrane.org/workshops/improving-transparency-and-accountability-priority-setting-exercises-time-reporting\"\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003ca href=\"http://2016.colloquium.cochrane.org/workshops/improving-transparency-and-accountability-priority-setting-exercises-time-reporting\"\u003ehttp://2016.colloquium.cochrane.org/workshops/improving-transparency-and-accountability-priority-setting-exercises-time-reporting\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003cem\u003e (accessed 2nd July 2019).\u003c/em\u003e In\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e34.Synnot A, Tong A, Craig JC, Hills S: \u003cem\u003ePractical approaches to undertaking research priority setting in health, Workshop program and materials available at \u003c/em\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.latrobe.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/687339/ACC_Nov_15_prioritysettingworkshop_program_vFINAL_251115.pdf\"\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.latrobe.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/687339/ACC_Nov_15_prioritysettingworkshop_program_vFINAL_251115.pdf\"\u003ehttps://www.latrobe.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/687339/ACC_Nov_15_prioritysettingworkshop_program_vFINAL_251115.pdf\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003cem\u003e (Accessed 24th July 2019.\u003c/em\u003e In\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e Australian Cochrane Symposium. 25–26 November. Melbourne, Australia; 2015.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e35.Nasser M, Baumik S, Tong A, Welsh E, Synnot A, Crowe S, Morley R, Pardo Pardo J: \u003cem\u003ePractical approaches to conducting an evidence-informed research priority setting exercise. Cochrane Colloquium 2015 Vienna, Australia available at \u003c/em\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://abstracts.cochrane.org/2015-vienna/practical-approaches-conducting-evidence-informed-research-priority-setting-exercise\"\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://abstracts.cochrane.org/2015-vienna/practical-approaches-conducting-evidence-informed-research-priority-setting-exercise\"\u003ehttps://abstracts.cochrane.org/2015-vienna/practical-approaches-conducting-evidence-informed-research-priority-setting-exercise\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003cem\u003e (Accessed 1 February 2019).\u003c/em\u003e In\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e London, UK; 2015.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e36.Abma TA, Broerse JEW: \u003cem\u003ePatient participation as dialogue: setting researchagendas.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eHealth Expect \u003c/em\u003e2010, \u003cem\u003e13:\u003c/em\u003e160–173.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e37.Dubois RW, Graff JS: \u003cem\u003eSetting priorities for comparative effectiveness research: from assessing public health benefits to being open with the public.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eHealth Aff \u003c/em\u003e2011, \u003cem\u003e30(\u003c/em\u003e12):2235–2242.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e38.Lomas J, Fulop N, Gagnon D, Allen P: \u003cem\u003eOn being a good listener: setting priorities for applied health services research.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eMilbank Q \u003c/em\u003e2003, \u003cem\u003e81(\u003c/em\u003e3):363–388.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e39.Okello D, Chongtrakul P: \u003cem\u003eA manual for research priority setting using the ENHR strategy.\u003c/em\u003e In\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e Durban, South Africa: The Council on Health Research fo Development (COHRED); 2000.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e40.Ranson MK, Benett SC: \u003cem\u003ePriority setting and health policy and systems research.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eHealth Res Policy Syst \u003c/em\u003e2009, \u003cem\u003e7:\u003c/em\u003e27.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e41.Rudan I, Gibson JL, Ameratunga S, El Arifeen S, Bhutta ZA, Black M, Black RE, Brown KH, Campbell H, Carneiro I\u003cem\u003e et al:\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eSetting priorities in global child health research investments: guidelines for implementation of CHNRI method.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eCroat Med J \u003c/em\u003e2008, \u003cem\u003e49(\u003c/em\u003e6):720–733.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e42.VanLare JM, Conway PH, Sox HC: \u003cem\u003eFive next steps for a new national program for comparative-effectiveness research.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eN Eng J Med \u003c/em\u003e2010, \u003cem\u003e362(\u003c/em\u003e11):970–973.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e43.McGregor S, Henderson KJ, Kaldor JM: \u003cem\u003eHow are health research priorities set in low and middle income countries? A systematic review of published reports.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003ePLOS One \u003c/em\u003e2014, \u003cem\u003e9(\u003c/em\u003e10):e108787.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e44.Swingler GH, Irlam JH, Macharia WM, Tietche F, Meremikwu MM: \u003cem\u003eA systematic review of existing national priorities for child health research in sub-Saharan Africa.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eHealth Res Policy Sys \u003c/em\u003e2005, \u003cem\u003e3:\u003c/em\u003e7.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e45.Synnot A, Bragge P, Lowe D, Nunn JS, O’Sullivan M, Horvat L, Tong A, Kay D, Ghersi D, McDonald S\u003cem\u003e et al:\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eResearch priorities in health communication and participation: international survey of consumers and other stakeholders.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eBMJ Open \u003c/em\u003e2018, \u003cem\u003e8(\u003c/em\u003e5):e019481.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e46.Dear RF, Barratt AL, Evans A, Simes J, Newsom J, Kent D, Crossing S, Holliday C, Segelov E, Hruby G\u003cem\u003e et al:\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eIdentifying and prioritising gaps in colorectal cancer trials research in Australia.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eMed J Aust \u003c/em\u003e2012, \u003cem\u003e197(\u003c/em\u003e9):507–511.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e47.Gierisch JM, Myers ER, Schmit KM, Crowley MJ, McCrory DC, Chatterjee R, Coeytaux RR, Kendrick A, Sanders GD: \u003cem\u003ePrioritization of research addressing management strategies for ductal carcinoma in situ.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eAnn Intern Med \u003c/em\u003e2014, \u003cem\u003e160(\u003c/em\u003e7):484–491.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e48.Arora NK, Mohapatra A, Gopalan HS, Wazny K, Thavaraj V, Rasaily R, Das MK, Maheshwari M, Bahl R, Qazi SA\u003cem\u003e et al:\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eSetting research priorities for maternal, newborn, child health and nutrition in India by engaging experts from 256 indigenous institutions contributing over 4000 research ideas: a CHNRI exercise by ICMR and INCLEN.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eJ Glob Health \u003c/em\u003e2017, \u003cem\u003e7(\u003c/em\u003e1):011003.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e49.Lindson N, Richards-Doran D, Heath L, Hartmann-Boyce J: \u003cem\u003eSetting research priorities in tobacco control: a stakeholder engagement project.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eAddiction \u003c/em\u003e2017, \u003cem\u003e112(\u003c/em\u003e12):2257–2271.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e50.O’Neill B, Aversa V, Rouleau K, Lazare K, Sullivan F, Persaud N: \u003cem\u003eIdentifying top 10 primary care research priorities from international stakeholders using a modified Delphi method.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003ePLoS ONE \u003c/em\u003e2018, \u003cem\u003e13(\u003c/em\u003e10):e0206096.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e51.Zimmerman EB, Cook SK, Haley AD, Woolf SH, Price SK, Berman D, DeLeire T, Etz R, Khalsa J, Knutson K\u003cem\u003e et al:\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eA Patient and Provider Research Agenda on Diabetes and Hypertension Management.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eAm J Prev Med \u003c/em\u003e2017, \u003cem\u003e53(\u003c/em\u003e1):123–129.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e52.Oliver S, Hollingworth K, Briner B, Swann C, Hinds K, Roche C: \u003cem\u003eEffective and efficient committee work: a systematic overview of multidisciplinary literatures. .\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eEvidence Base \u003c/em\u003e2018, \u003cem\u003e2:\u003c/em\u003e1–28.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e53.Rudan I: \u003cem\u003eGlobal health research priorities: mobilizing the developing world.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003ePublic Health \u003c/em\u003e2012, \u003cem\u003e126:\u003c/em\u003e237–240.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\n"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp style=\"margin: 0in 0in 6.0pt 0pt;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eTable 1. Reporting guideline for health research priority setting with stakeholders (REPRISE)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable style=\"width: 517.15pt; border-collapse: collapse; border: none;\" width=\"690\"\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 28.1pt; border-top: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: none; background: #C00000; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"37\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eNo\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 184.3pt; border-top: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: none; background: #C00000; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"246\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eItem\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 304.75pt; border-top: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: none; background: #C00000; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"406\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eDescriptor and/or examples\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 28.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; background: #D9D9D9; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"37\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eA\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 184.3pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; background: #D9D9D9; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"246\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eContext and scope\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 304.75pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; background: #D9D9D9; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"406\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 28.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"37\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 184.3pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"246\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eDefine geographical scope\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 304.75pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"406\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eGlobal, regional, national, city, local area, institutional/organizational level, health service\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 28.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"37\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 184.3pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"246\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eDefine health area, field, focus\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 304.75pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"406\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eDisease or condition specific, interventions, healthcare delivery, health system\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 28.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"37\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 184.3pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"246\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eDefine the intended beneficiaries\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 304.75pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"406\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eThis may include the general population or a specific population based on demographic (age, gender), clinical (disease, condition), or other characteristics who may benefit from the research\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 28.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"37\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 184.3pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"246\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eDefine the target audience of the priorities\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 304.75pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"406\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003ePolicy makers, funders, researchers, industry or others who have the potential to implement the priorities identified\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 28.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"37\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 184.3pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"246\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eIdentify the research area\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 304.75pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"406\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003ePublic health, health services research, clinical research, basic science\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 28.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"37\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 184.3pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"246\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eIdentify the type of research questions\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 304.75pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"406\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eEtiology, diagnosis, prevention, treatment (interventions), prognosis, health services, psychosocial, behavioral and social science, economic evaluation, implementation; this may not be pre-defined\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 28.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"37\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 184.3pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"246\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eDefine the time frame\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 304.75pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"406\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eInterim, short-term, long-term priorities, plans to revise and update\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 28.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; background: #D9D9D9; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"37\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eB\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 184.3pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; background: #D9D9D9; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"246\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eGovernance and team\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 304.75pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; background: #D9D9D9; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"406\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 28.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"37\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 184.3pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"246\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eDescribe the selection and structure of the leadership and management team\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 304.75pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"406\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eThose responsible for initiating, developing, and guiding the process for priority setting, and examples of structures include; Steering Committee, Advisory Group, Technical Experts\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 28.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"37\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 184.3pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"246\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eDescribe the characteristics of the team\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 304.75pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"406\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eStakeholder group or role, institutional affiliations, country or region, demographics (e.g. age sex), discipline, experience, expertise\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 28.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"37\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 184.3pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"246\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eDescribe any training or experience relevant to conducting priority setting\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 304.75pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"406\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eConsultants or advisors, members with experience or skills relevant to the conducting priority-setting e.g. qualitative methods, surveys, facilitation\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 28.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; background: #D9D9D9; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"37\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eC\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 184.3pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; background: #D9D9D9; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"246\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eFramework for priority setting\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 304.75pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; background: #D9D9D9; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"406\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 28.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"37\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 184.3pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"246\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eState the framework used (if any)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 304.75pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"406\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eJames Lind Alliance, COHRED, CHNRI, Dialogue Model, no framework (general research priority setting)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 28.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; background: #D9D9D9; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"37\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eD\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 184.3pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; background: #D9D9D9; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"246\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eStakeholders or participants\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 304.75pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; background: #D9D9D9; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"406\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 28.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"37\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 184.3pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"246\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eDefine the inclusion criteria for stakeholders involved in priority-setting\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 304.75pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"406\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003ePatients, caregivers, general community, health professionals, researchers, policy makers, non-governmental organizations, government, industry; specific groups including vulnerable and marginalized populations\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 28.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"37\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 184.3pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"246\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eState the strategy or method for identifying and engaging stakeholders\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 304.75pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"406\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003ePartnership with organizations, social media, recruitment through hospitals\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 28.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"37\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 184.3pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"246\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eIndicate the number of participants and/or organizations involved\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 304.75pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"406\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eNumber of individuals and organizations, include number by stakeholder group\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 28.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"37\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 184.3pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"246\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eDescribe the characteristics of stakeholders\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 304.75pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"406\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eStakeholder group, demographic characteristics, areas of interest and expertise, discipline, affiliations\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 28.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"37\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 184.3pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"246\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eState if reimbursement for participation was provided\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 304.75pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"406\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eCash, vouchers, certificates, acknowledgement; what purpose e.g. travel, accommodation, honorarium\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 28.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; background: #D9D9D9; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"37\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eE\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 184.3pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; background: #D9D9D9; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"246\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eIdentification and collection of research priorities\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 304.75pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; background: #D9D9D9; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"406\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 28.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"37\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 184.3pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"246\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eDescribe methods for collecting initial priorities\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 304.75pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"406\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eMethods e.g. Delphi survey, surveys, nominal group technique, interviews, focus groups, meetings, workshops; prioritization e.g. voting, ranking; mode e.g. face-to-face, online; may be informed by evidence e.g. systematic reviews, reviews of guidelines/other documents, health technology assessment\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 28.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"37\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 184.3pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"246\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eDescribe methods for collating and categorizing priorities\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 304.75pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"406\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eTaxonomy or other framework used to organize, summarise, and aggregate topics or questions \u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 28.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"37\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 184.3pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"246\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eDescribe methods and reasons for modifying (removing, adding, reframing) priorities\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 304.75pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"406\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eBased on scope, clarity, definition, duplication, other criteria\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 28.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"37\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 184.3pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"246\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eDescribe methods for refining or translating priorities into research topics or questions\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 304.75pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"406\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eReviewed by Steering Committee or project team\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 28.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"37\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 184.3pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"246\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eDescribe methods for checking whether research questions or topics have been answered\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 304.75pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"406\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eSystematic reviews, evidence mapping, consultation with experts\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 28.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"37\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 184.3pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"246\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eDescribe number of research questions or topics\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 304.75pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"406\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eNumber of priorities at each stage of the process\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 28.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; background: #BFBFBF; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"37\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eF\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 184.3pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; background: #BFBFBF; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"246\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003ePrioritization of research topics/questions\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 304.75pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; background: #BFBFBF; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"406\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 28.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"37\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 184.3pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"246\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eDescribe methods and criteria for prioritizing research topics or questions\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 304.75pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"406\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eMethods e.g. Delphi survey, surveys, nominal group technique, interviews, focus groups, meetings, workshops; \u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003ePrioritization e.g. voting, ranking; \u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eMode e.g. face-to-face, online;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eCriteria e.g. need, feasibility, novelty, equity\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 28.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"37\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 184.3pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"246\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eState the method or threshold for excluding research topics/questions\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 304.75pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"406\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eThresholds for ranking scores, proportions, votes; other criteria\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 28.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; background: #D9D9D9; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"37\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eG\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 184.3pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; background: #D9D9D9; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"246\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eOutput\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 304.75pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; background: #D9D9D9; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"406\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 28.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"37\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 184.3pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"246\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eState the approach to formulating the research priorities\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 304.75pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"406\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eArea, topic, questions, PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 28.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; background: #D9D9D9; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"37\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eH\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 184.3pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; background: #D9D9D9; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"246\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eEvaluation and feedback\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 304.75pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; background: #D9D9D9; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"406\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 28.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"37\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 184.3pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"246\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eDescribe how the process of prioritization was evaluated\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 304.75pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"406\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eSurvey, workshop\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 28.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"37\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 184.3pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"246\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eDescribe how priorities were fed back to stakeholders and/or to the public; and how feedback (if received) was addressed and integrated\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 304.75pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"406\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003ePublic meetings or workshop, newsletters, website, email, online presentations\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 28.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; background: #D9D9D9; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"37\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eI\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 184.3pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; background: #D9D9D9; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"246\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eImplementation\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 304.75pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; background: #D9D9D9; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"406\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 28.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"37\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 184.3pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"246\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eOutline the strategy or action plans for implementing priorities\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 304.75pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"406\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eCommunication with target audience, via policies and funding\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 28.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"37\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 184.3pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"246\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eDescribe plans, strategies, or suggestions to evaluate impact\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 304.75pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"406\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eIntegration in decision-making, funding allocation, review of relevant documents\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 28.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; background: #D9D9D9; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"37\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eJ\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 184.3pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; background: #D9D9D9; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"246\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eFunding and conflict of interest\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 304.75pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; background: #D9D9D9; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"406\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 28.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"37\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 184.3pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"246\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eState sources of funding\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 304.75pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"406\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eName sources of funding for the priority-setting exercise; if relevant include the budget and/or cost\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 28.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"37\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 184.3pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"246\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eDeclare any conflicts or competing interests\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 304.75pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"406\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 2.0pt 0in 2.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eState any conflicts of interest that may be at an individual level and/or at a contextual level (e.g. political issues, controversies) that may affect the process, output or implementation.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin-left: 0pt;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eTable 2. Summary of frameworks for conducting health research priority setting\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable style=\"margin-left: 0pt; border-collapse: collapse; border: none;\" width=\"1049\"\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 85.1pt; border-top: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: none; background: #C00000; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"113\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eFramework\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 35.45pt; border-top: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: none; background: #C00000; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eYear\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 77.95pt; border-top: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: none; background: #C00000; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"104\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eOrganization*\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 85.05pt; border-top: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: none; background: #C00000; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"113\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eCountry*\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 113.4pt; border-top: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: none; background: #C00000; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"151\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003ePrinciples/values/\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003echaracteristics\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 77.95pt; border-top: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: none; background: #C00000; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"104\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eStakeholders\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 85.05pt; border-top: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: none; background: #C00000; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"113\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eScope\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 170.1pt; border-top: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: none; background: #C00000; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"227\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eOutline of process\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 56.7pt; border-top: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right: none; background: #C00000; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"76\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eOutput\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 85.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"113\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eJames Lind Alliance (JLA)\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_5\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"text-decoration: none;\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 35.45pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 77.95pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"104\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 85.05pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"113\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eUK\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 113.4pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"151\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003ePartnership \u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 77.95pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"104\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003ePatients, caregivers, clinicians\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 85.05pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"113\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eDiagnosis, intervention, care and support\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 170.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"227\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eGather priorities (survey)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eProcess and verify\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eConduct Interim priority setting (survey)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eConduct final priority setting (workshops using nominal group technique)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 56.7pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"76\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eTop 10 research questions for funders\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 85.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"113\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eCouncil on Health Research for Development Essential National Health Research (COHRED/ENHR)\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_39\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"text-decoration: none;\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 35.45pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 77.95pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"104\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eCouncil on Health Research for Development\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 85.05pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"113\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eInternational\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 113.4pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"151\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eInclusivity, involvement of a broad range of stakeholders, multidisciplinary and cross-sectorial, partnership, participatory and transparent, systematic analysis of health needs, societal and professional expectations\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 77.95pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"104\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eResearchers, decision-makers, health service providers, communities\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 85.05pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"113\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e-\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 170.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"227\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eEstablish criteria\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eIdentify research areas (brainstorming, voting, nominal group technique, roundtable etc)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eScore against criteria (survey)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 56.7pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"76\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e-\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 85.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"113\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eChild Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI)\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_41\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"text-decoration: none;\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e, \u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_53\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"text-decoration: none;\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 35.45pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 77.95pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"104\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eGlobal Forum for Health Research\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 85.05pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"113\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eInternational\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 113.4pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"151\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eSystematic, fair, transparent\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 77.95pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"104\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eInvestors in health research, researchers, general public\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 85.05pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"113\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eFundamental, translation, implementation\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 170.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"227\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eDiscuss criteria\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eSelect useful and important criteria\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eScore against criteria (survey)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eElicit stakeholder input (reference group)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eAdjust scores with stakeholder input\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 56.7pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"76\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e-\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 85.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"113\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eDialogue Model\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e[\u003ca href=\"#_ENREF_36\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"text-decoration: none;\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 35.45pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"47\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 77.95pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"104\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eVU University\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 85.05pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"113\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eThe Netherlands\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 113.4pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"151\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eParticipatory, respect for experiential knowledge, dialogue between different stakeholders, emergent and flexible design\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 77.95pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"104\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003ePatients, researchers, health professionals\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 85.05pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"113\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 170.1pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"227\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eExplore (informal discussion)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eConsult (separate stakeholder consultations, focus groups, interviews, other methods)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003ePrioritize (survey, focus group, Delphi technique)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003eIntegrate (meeting)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd style=\"width: 56.7pt; border: none; border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\" width=\"76\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin: 3.0pt 0in 3.0pt 0in;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e-\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"margin-left: 0pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003e*Refers to developers\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Supplementary Files Legend","content":"\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdditional File 1. Search strategies (\u003c/em\u003edocx)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdditional File 2. Search results (\u003c/em\u003edocx)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdditional File 3. Research priority setting: frameworks and reviews (\u003c/em\u003edocx)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdditional File 4. Preliminary REPRISE guideline (\u003c/em\u003edocx)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdditional File 5. Sources contributing to the reporting items (\u003c/em\u003edocx)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdditional File 6. Results of the pilot test (\u003c/em\u003edocx)\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-medical-research-methodology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"bmrm","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Medical Research Methodology](http://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/bmrm/default.aspx","title":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Priority-setting, Reporting, Transparency, Patient involvement ","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.2.14215/v3","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.2.14215/v3","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eBackground \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eResearch priority setting with stakeholders can help direct the limited resources for health research toward priority areas of need. Ensuring transparency of the priority setting process can strengthen legitimacy and credibility for influencing the research agenda. This study aims to develop a reporting guideline for priority setting of health research.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMethods\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe searched electronic databases and relevant websites for sources (frameworks, guidelines, or models for conducting, appraising, reporting or evaluating health research priority setting, and reviews (including systematic reviews)), and primary studies of research priority setting to July 2019. We inductively developed a list of reporting items and piloted the preliminary guideline with a diverse range of 30 priority setting studies from the records retrieved. \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eResults\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrom 21556 records, we included 26 sources for the candidate REPRISE framework and 455 primary research studies. The\u0026nbsp;REporting guideline for PRIority SEtting of health research(REPRISE) has 31 reporting items that cover 10 domains:\u0026nbsp;context and scope, governance and team, framework for priority setting, stakeholders/participants, identification and collection of priorities, prioritization of research topics, output, evaluation and feedback, translation and implementation, and funding and conflict of interest. Each reporting item includes a descriptor and examples. \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eConclusions \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe REPRISE guideline can facilitate comprehensive reporting of studies of research priority setting. Improved transparency in research priority setting may\u0026nbsp;strengthen the acceptability and implementation of the research priorities identified, so that efforts and funding are invested in generating evidence that is of importance to all stakeholders.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE)","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":3,"date":"2019-12-19 20:18:08","doi":"10.21203/rs.2.14215/v3","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Accept","date":"2019-12-16T12:00:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2019-12-15T12:00:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2019-12-14T12:00:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2019-12-14T12:00:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-medical-research-methodology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"bmrm","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Medical Research Methodology](http://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/bmrm/default.aspx","title":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}},{"code":2,"date":"2019-12-02 19:15:15","doi":"10.21203/rs.2.14215/v2","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Minor revision","date":"2019-12-11T12:00:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2019-12-06T12:00:00+00:00","index":1,"fulltext":"Recommendation: Reviewer's comments unavailable pending editorial decision\n"},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"","date":"2019-12-01T12:00:00+00:00","index":2,"fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2019-12-01T12:00:00+00:00","index":2,"fulltext":"Recommendation: Reviewer's comments unavailable pending editorial decision\n"},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"","date":"2019-11-26T12:00:00+00:00","index":1,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2019-11-25T12:00:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2019-11-20T12:00:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2019-11-19T12:00:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2019-11-19T12:00:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-medical-research-methodology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"bmrm","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Medical Research Methodology](http://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/bmrm/default.aspx","title":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}},{"code":1,"date":"2019-09-09 20:12:12","doi":"10.21203/rs.2.14215/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Major revision","date":"2019-11-18T12:00:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2019-11-11T12:00:00+00:00","index":2,"fulltext":"Form responses:\n---\n* Are the methods appropriate and well described?: **Yes**\n* Does the work include the necessary controls?: **Yes**\n* Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?: **Yes**\n* Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an additional statistical review?: **Not relevant to this manuscript**\n* Quality of written English: **Acceptable**\n* Declaration of competing interests: **I have no competing interests**\n* Does the work include the necessary controls?\nIf not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.\tYes: **Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?\nIf not, please explain in your comments to the authors.\tYes**\n"},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2019-11-09T12:00:00+00:00","index":1,"fulltext":"Form responses:\n---\n* Are the methods appropriate and well described?: **Yes**\n* Does the work include the necessary controls?: **Yes**\n* Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?: **Yes**\n* Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an additional statistical review?: **Not relevant to this manuscript**\n* Quality of written English: **Acceptable**\n* Declaration of competing interests: **I declare that I have no competing interests**\n* Does the work include the necessary controls?\nIf not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.\tYes: **Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?\nIf not, please explain in your comments to the authors.\tYes**\n"},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"","date":"2019-10-20T12:00:00+00:00","index":2,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"","date":"2019-10-18T12:00:00+00:00","index":1,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2019-10-17T12:00:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2019-09-05T12:00:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2019-08-29T12:00:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2019-08-28T12:00:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"","date":"2019-08-26T12:00:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-medical-research-methodology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"bmrm","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Medical Research Methodology](http://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/bmrm/default.aspx","title":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"4f059c71-a180-481d-8813-2f5d8d4e217a","owner":[],"postedDate":"December 19th, 2019","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[{"id":44249,"name":"Health Economics \u0026 Outcomes Research"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2020-05-14T05:29:38+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-4912","link":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0889-3","journal":{"identity":"bmc-medical-research-methodology","isVorOnly":false,"title":"BMC Medical Research Methodology"},"publishedOn":"2019-12-28 12:00:00","publishedOnDateReadable":"December 28th, 2019"},"versionCreatedAt":"2019-12-19 20:18:08","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1186/s12874-019-0889-3","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0889-3","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v3","identity":"rs-4912","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"identity":"rs-4912","version":["v3"]},"buildId":"J0_U0BvcaRcwD8yVFaRlm","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}