TY - JOUR
T1 - Approaches to prioritising research for clinical trial networks: a scoping review
AU - Morton, Rachael L.
AU - Tuffaha, Haitham
AU - Blaya-Novakova, Vendula
AU - Spencer, Jenean
AU - Hawley, Carmel M.
AU - Peyton, Phil
AU - Higgins, Alisa
AU - Marsh, Julie
AU - Taylor, William J.
AU - Huckson, Sue
AU - Sillett, Amy
AU - Schneemann, Kieran
AU - Balagurunanthan, Anitha
AU - Cumpston, Miranda
AU - Scuffham, Paul A.
AU - Glasziou, Paul
AU - Simes, Robert J.
N1 - Funding Information:
We thank ACTA’s Research Prioritisation Reference Group.
Funding Information:
This project received grant funding from the Australian Government. Salary support for RLM was provided through an Australian NHMRC TRIP Fellowship #1150989 and University of Sydney Robinson Fellowship. HT was supported by an NHMRC ECR Fellowship #1121232.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022, The Author(s).
PY - 2022/12/12
Y1 - 2022/12/12
N2 - Background: Prioritisation of clinical trials ensures that the research conducted meets the needs of stakeholders, makes the best use of resources and avoids duplication. The aim of this review was to identify and critically appraise approaches to research prioritisation applicable to clinical trials, to inform best practice guidelines for clinical trial networks and funders. Methods: A scoping review of English-language published literature and research organisation websites (January 2000 to January 2020) was undertaken to identify primary studies, approaches and criteria for research prioritisation. Data were extracted and tabulated, and a narrative synthesis was employed. Results: Seventy-eight primary studies and 18 websites were included. The majority of research prioritisation occurred in oncology and neurology disciplines. The main reasons for prioritisation were to address a knowledge gap (51 of 78 studies [65%]) and to define patient-important topics (28 studies, [35%]). In addition, research organisations prioritised in order to support their institution’s mission, invest strategically, and identify best return on investment. Fifty-seven of 78 (73%) studies used interpretative prioritisation approaches (including Delphi surveys, James Lind Alliance and consensus workshops); six studies used quantitative approaches (8%) such as prospective payback or value of information (VOI) analyses; and 14 studies used blended approaches (18%) such as nominal group technique and Child Health Nutritional Research Initiative. Main criteria for prioritisation included relevance, appropriateness, significance, feasibility and cost-effectiveness. Conclusion: Current research prioritisation approaches for groups conducting and funding clinical trials are largely interpretative. There is an opportunity to improve the transparency of prioritisation through the inclusion of quantitative approaches.
AB - Background: Prioritisation of clinical trials ensures that the research conducted meets the needs of stakeholders, makes the best use of resources and avoids duplication. The aim of this review was to identify and critically appraise approaches to research prioritisation applicable to clinical trials, to inform best practice guidelines for clinical trial networks and funders. Methods: A scoping review of English-language published literature and research organisation websites (January 2000 to January 2020) was undertaken to identify primary studies, approaches and criteria for research prioritisation. Data were extracted and tabulated, and a narrative synthesis was employed. Results: Seventy-eight primary studies and 18 websites were included. The majority of research prioritisation occurred in oncology and neurology disciplines. The main reasons for prioritisation were to address a knowledge gap (51 of 78 studies [65%]) and to define patient-important topics (28 studies, [35%]). In addition, research organisations prioritised in order to support their institution’s mission, invest strategically, and identify best return on investment. Fifty-seven of 78 (73%) studies used interpretative prioritisation approaches (including Delphi surveys, James Lind Alliance and consensus workshops); six studies used quantitative approaches (8%) such as prospective payback or value of information (VOI) analyses; and 14 studies used blended approaches (18%) such as nominal group technique and Child Health Nutritional Research Initiative. Main criteria for prioritisation included relevance, appropriateness, significance, feasibility and cost-effectiveness. Conclusion: Current research prioritisation approaches for groups conducting and funding clinical trials are largely interpretative. There is an opportunity to improve the transparency of prioritisation through the inclusion of quantitative approaches.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85143662747&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/s13063-022-06928-z
DO - 10.1186/s13063-022-06928-z
M3 - Review article
C2 - 36510214
AN - SCOPUS:85143662747
SN - 1745-6215
VL - 23
JO - Trials
JF - Trials
IS - 1
M1 - 1000
ER -