Scoping review protocol on research prioritisation for preparedness and response to outbreaks of high consequence pathogens
Creators
- 1. Global Research Collaboration for Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R) Research and Policy Team, Global Research Collaboration for Infectious Pandemic Sciences Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- 2. Bodleian Health Care Libraries, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK
Description
Background : Prioritisation of research activities for infectious disease pathogens is usually undertaken through the identification of important research and knowledge gaps. Research prioritisation is an essential element of both effective responses to disease outbreaks and adequate preparedness. There is however currently no published mapping of activities on and evidence from research prioritisation for high consequence pathogens. The objectives of this review are to map all published research prioritisation exercises on high-consequence pathogens; provide an overview of methodologies employed for prioritising research for these pathogens; describe monitoring and evaluation processes for research areas prioritised; and identify any standards and guidance for effectively undertaking research prioritisation activities for high consequence pathogens.
Methods: The Joanna Briggs Institute guidance of scoping review conduct will be used. The search will be undertaken using the key terms of "research prioritisation", "response", "control", and related terms, and a list of high-consequence pathogens derived from WHO (2020), EMERGE (2019), Europe CDC (2022) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (2021). We will search WHO Global Index Medicus; Ovid Medline; Ovid Embase; Ovid Global Health; and Scopus. Backward citations review of the included full text documents will also be conducted. Google Scholar and Overton will be searched for grey literature. Two independent reviewers will screen the retrieved documents using Rayyan and extract data in a data extraction template in Microsoft Excel 2021. Screening results will be presented using the PRISMA-ScR template with narrative synthesis undertaken for the extracted data.
Conclusion: This review will map existing research priorities for high consequence pathogens. Further, it will provide an understanding of methodologies used for prioritisation, processes for monitoring and evaluation of progress made against research agendas, and evidence on standards that could be recommended for effective prioritisation of research for high consequence pathogens.
Files
openreseurope-3-16578.pdf
Files
(691.6 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:8d5d558cd5e9700ee8ccaf40b9807817
|
691.6 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
References
- Rudan I (2016). Setting health research priorities using the CHNRI method: IV. Key conceptual advances. J Glob Health. doi:10.7189/jogh.06.010501
- Ghaffar A, Collins T, Matlin SA (2009). The 3D CombineD ApproACh mATrix: An improved tool for setting priorities in reseArch for heAlth.
- Manera K, Hanson CS, Gutman T (2019). Consensus methods: Nominal group technique. Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences. doi:10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_100
- Norton A, de La Horra Gozalo A, Feune de Colombi N (2020). The remaining unknowns: a mixed methods study of the current and global health research priorities for COVID-19. BMJ Glob Health. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003306
- Ledford H, Cyranoski D, van Noorden R (2020). The UK has approved a COVID vaccine - here's what scientists now want to know. Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-03441-8
- (2015). The ring vaccination trial: a novel cluster randomised controlled trial design to evaluate vaccine efficacy and effectiveness during outbreaks, with special reference to Ebola. BMJ. doi:10.1136/bmj.h3740
- Hoerger M, Alonzi S, Mossman B (2022). Scenario planning: a framework for mitigating uncertainty in implementing strategic behavioral medicine initiatives during the COVID-19 pandemic. Transl Behav Med. doi:10.1093/tbm/ibab155
- Terry RF, Charles E, Purdy B (2018). 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. doi:10.1186/s12961-018-0391-0
- Viergever RF (2010). Health research prioritization at WHO An overview of methodology and high level analysis of WHO led health research priority setting exercises.
- Viergever RF, Olifson S, Ghaffar A (2010). A checklist for health research priority setting: Nine common themes of good practice. Health Res Policy Syst. doi:10.1186/1478-4505-8-36
- Tong A, Synnot A, Crowe S (2019). Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE). BMC Med Res Methodol. doi:10.1186/s12874-019-0889-3
- Noad RJ, Simpson K, Fooks AR (2019). UK vaccines network: Mapping priority pathogens of epidemic potential and vaccine pipeline developments. Vaccine. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.09.009
- Gilsdorf A, Krause G (2011). Prioritisation of infectious diseases in public health: Feedback on the prioritisation methodology, 15 July 2008 to 15 January 2009. Euro Surveill. doi:10.2807/ese.16.27.19912-en
- Antonio E, Chepkirui D, levanita S (2022). Scoping Review Protocol: Search Strategy. figshare.
- Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. doi:10.7326/M18-0850