Key stakeholders' perspectives and experiences with defining, identifying and displaying gaps in health research: a qualitative study protocol.

Linda Nyanchoka, Catrin Tudur-Smith, Raphaël Porcher, Darko Hren
Author Information
  1. Linda Nyanchoka: Université de Paris, CRESS, INSERM, INRA, F-75004, Paris, France lnyanchoka@gmail.com. ORCID
  2. Catrin Tudur-Smith: Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
  3. Raphaël Porcher: Université de Paris, CRESS, INSERM, INRA, F-75004, Paris, France.
  4. Darko Hren: School of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Split, Split, Croatia.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Identifying research gaps can inform the design and conduct of health research, practice and policies by informing the current body of evidence. Audiences including researchers, clinical guideline developers, clinicians, policymakers, research regulatory bodies, funders and patients/the public can also benefit from understanding the status of research and research gaps to make informed choices. This study aims to explore how key informants define research gaps and characterise methods/practices used to identify and display gaps in health research to inform future research practice and policies.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an exploratory qualitative study using semi-structured in-depth interviews. The participants will be recruited by purposive sampling from initiatives and organisations previously identified in a scoping review on methods to identify, prioritise and display gaps in health research. We anticipate performing up to 28 interviews with the different key informant groups who are involved in using evidence to inform health policy, practice and research. Interviews will be thematically analysed as outlined by Braun and Clarke. The qualitative data-analysis software NVivo V.12 Pro will be used to aid data management and analysis.
DISCUSSION: This is the protocol for a follow-up study that aims to complement and enrich the findings of the scoping review on methods to identify, prioritise and display gaps in health research. The overall project aims to develop methodological guidance for describing, identifying and displaying gaps in health research.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The research obtained ethical approval from the University of Liverpool, UK. The findings will be disseminated via conferences, meetings (organised by the Methods in Research on Research project), peer-reviewed publications and lay magazines because the study participants will include the public/patients.

Keywords

References

  1. Br Dent J. 2008 Mar 22;204(6):291-5 [PMID: 18356873]
  2. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011 Jul;27(3):247-52 [PMID: 21756412]
  3. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 May;73:43-9 [PMID: 26912124]
  4. BMJ. 1995 Jul 22;311(6999):251-3 [PMID: 7627048]
  5. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 May;73:2-5 [PMID: 26898706]
  6. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 May;73:36-42 [PMID: 26891951]
  7. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Nov;79:120-129 [PMID: 27387966]
  8. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 May;109:99-110 [PMID: 30708176]
  9. Res Synth Methods. 2014 Dec;5(4):371-85 [PMID: 26052958]
  10. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 May;73:6-7 [PMID: 26883637]
  11. Medsurg Nurs. 2016 Nov;25(6):435-6 [PMID: 30304614]
  12. Heart Lung. 2014 Sep-Oct;43(5):453-61 [PMID: 25012634]
  13. Indian J Dermatol. 2016 Sep-Oct;61(5):505-9 [PMID: 27688438]
  14. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 May;73:29-35 [PMID: 26891948]
  15. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 May;73:11-4 [PMID: 26912122]
  16. Lancet. 2009 Jul 4;374(9683):86-9 [PMID: 19525005]
  17. Qual Health Res. 2017 Mar;27(4):591-608 [PMID: 27670770]
  18. Implement Sci. 2010 Sep 20;5:69 [PMID: 20854677]
  19. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 May;73:50-7 [PMID: 26912123]
  20. J Adv Nurs. 2004 Nov;48(4):388-96 [PMID: 15500533]
  21. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 May;73:8-10 [PMID: 26883638]
  22. Qual Quant. 2018;52(4):1893-1907 [PMID: 29937585]
  23. BMJ Open. 2018 Oct 18;8(10):e020568 [PMID: 30341111]
  24. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Dec;64(12):1325-30 [PMID: 21937195]
  25. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 May;73:19-28 [PMID: 26891949]
  26. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 May;73:15-8 [PMID: 26891947]

MeSH Term

Follow-Up Studies
Health Policy
Health Services Research
Humans
Professional Competence
Qualitative Research
Research Design

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0researchgapshealthResearchstudywillinformpracticeaimsidentifydisplayqualitativeIdentifyingcanpoliciesevidencekeyusedANDusinginterviewsparticipantsscopingreviewmethodsprioritiseprotocolfindingsprojectidentifyingdisplayingGapsINTRODUCTION:designconductinformingcurrentbodyAudiencesincludingresearchersclinicalguidelinedevelopersclinicianspolicymakersregulatorybodiesfunderspatients/thepublicalsobenefitunderstandingstatusmakeinformedchoicesexploreinformantsdefinecharacterisemethods/practicesfutureMETHODSANALYSIS:exploratorysemi-structuredin-depthrecruitedpurposivesamplinginitiativesorganisationspreviouslyidentifiedanticipateperforming28differentinformantgroupsinvolvedpolicyInterviewsthematicallyanalysedoutlinedBraunClarkedata-analysissoftwareNVivoV12ProaiddatamanagementanalysisDISCUSSION:follow-upcomplementenrichoveralldevelopmethodologicalguidancedescribingETHICSDISSEMINATION:obtainedethicalapprovalUniversityLiverpoolUKdisseminatedviaconferencesmeetingsorganisedMethodspeer-reviewedpublicationslaymagazinesincludepublic/patientsKeystakeholders'perspectivesexperiencesdefiningresearch:DisplayingEvidenceSynthesisEvidence-baseddecision-makingQualitativeStudyPriorities

Similar Articles

Cited By