Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE)
Authors: Sally Crowe
Jonathan C Craig
Sandy Oliver
Nicole Scholes-Robertson
Katherine Cowan
Mona Nasser
Amanda Baumgart
Anneliese Synnot
Andrea Matus
Sophie Hill
Soumyadeep Bhaumik
Allison Tong
Talia Gutman
Journal: BMC medical research methodology (2019)
Discipline: CLINICAL MEDICINE
Keywords: Patient involvement; Priority-setting; Reporting; Transparency.
Affiliations: Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. ., Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Westmead NSW, Sydney, 2145, Australia. ., Centre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia., Cochrane Australia, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia., Crowe Associates Ltd, Oxon, UK., Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Westmead NSW, Sydney, 2145, Australia., Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia., Institute of Education, University College London, London, UK., Faculty of Humanities, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa., Katherine Cowan Consulting Ltd, East Sussex, UK., Peninsula Dental School, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK., The George Institute for Global Health, New Delhi, India., College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.

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 21,556 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. Trial registration: Not applicable. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 Some suggestions for (potential) improvement: -  Plans to revise and update could be separated from item 7 (time frame of research priorities) and have its own section. Descriptors (or subsections) could then include, eg.  Report if plans have been made to update these research priorities, how the interval was determined and chosen and when (year) the next update is planned. Report by which methods and how research questions will be re-prioritized, or state that updating methods haven t been decided. . - Similarly item 27 could be separated into two; a) how priorities were communicated to stakeholders and b) how feedbacks were managed and taken into account. A further item could also be considered for inclusion  Summarize feasibility-related feedbacks (eg. concerns, problems barriers, strengths or facilitators) provided by participants . This could help emphasize areas for improvements. - Users may be directed to survey reporting guidelines such as [E-CHERRIES] given potential overlap with this reporting guideline when conducting electronic Delphi surveys. - Specific examples could be provided for each item along with the non-specific descriptions, for instance for item 7  These research priorities are expected to remain stable valid until 2025 because ... - One could consider adding an item  Did the study authors check if participants fit eligibility criteria (eg. nurses)? Report if this was done, how (eg. survey question asking participants about their profession) or reasons for not assessing eligibility (eg. the survey was sent by hospital administrators to nursing staff only). given prioritisation exercises increasingly happen online. Similarly, an item focusing on how ineligible surprise entries were managed could be relevant, for instance if someone living in Germany participated in the Delphi survey meant for UK staff only. ,