Identifying research priorities for public health research to address health inequalities: use of Delphi-like survey methods
Identifying research priorities for public health research to address health inequalities: use of Delphi-like survey methods
BACKGROUND:In the funding of health research and public health research it is vital that research questions posed are important and that funded research meets a research need or a gap in evidence. Many methods are used in the identification of research priorities, however, these can be resource intensive, costly and logistically challenging. Identifying such research priorities can be particularly challenging for complex public health problems as there is a need to consult a number of experts across disciplines and with a range of expertise. This study investigated the use of Delphi-like survey methods in identifying important research priorities relating to health inequalities and framing tractable research questions for topic areas identified.
METHODS:The study was conducted in two phases, both using Delphi-like survey methods. Firstly, public health professionals with an interest in health inequalities were asked to identify research priorities. Secondly academic researchers were asked to frame tractable research questions relating to the priorities identified. These research priorities identified using Delphi-like survey methods were subsequently compared to those identified using different methods.
RESULTS:A total of 52 public health professionals and 21 academics across the United Kingdom agreed to take part. The response rates were high, from public health professionals across three survey rounds (69%, 50% and 40%) and from academics across one round (52%), indicating that participants were receptive to the method and motivated to respond. The themes identified as encompassing the most important research priorities were mental health, healthy environment and health behaviours. Within these themes, the topic areas that emerged most strongly included community interventions for prevention of mental health problems and the food and alcohol environment. Some responses received from academic researchers were (as requested) in the form of tractable research questions, whereas others contributed further potential topic areas instead.
CONCLUSIONS:Delphi-like survey methods are practical and productive as a means of obtaining opinions from a wide number of relevant experts identifying potential priority topic areas for research; however, this method is less appropriate for framing tractable research questions.
delphi, evidence, gap, public health
Turner, Sheila
42f19397-8e9f-435d-a348-2cc1639b5eb4
Ollerhead, Liz
a7607a91-00d3-4f18-9595-7f394b2ea3bc
Cook, Andrew
ab9c7bb3-974a-4db9-b3c2-9942988005d5
Turner, Sheila
42f19397-8e9f-435d-a348-2cc1639b5eb4
Ollerhead, Liz
a7607a91-00d3-4f18-9595-7f394b2ea3bc
Cook, Andrew
ab9c7bb3-974a-4db9-b3c2-9942988005d5
Turner, Sheila, Ollerhead, Liz and Cook, Andrew
(2017)
Identifying research priorities for public health research to address health inequalities: use of Delphi-like survey methods.
Health Research Policy and Systems, 15 (87).
(doi:10.1186/s12961-017-0252-2).
Abstract
BACKGROUND:In the funding of health research and public health research it is vital that research questions posed are important and that funded research meets a research need or a gap in evidence. Many methods are used in the identification of research priorities, however, these can be resource intensive, costly and logistically challenging. Identifying such research priorities can be particularly challenging for complex public health problems as there is a need to consult a number of experts across disciplines and with a range of expertise. This study investigated the use of Delphi-like survey methods in identifying important research priorities relating to health inequalities and framing tractable research questions for topic areas identified.
METHODS:The study was conducted in two phases, both using Delphi-like survey methods. Firstly, public health professionals with an interest in health inequalities were asked to identify research priorities. Secondly academic researchers were asked to frame tractable research questions relating to the priorities identified. These research priorities identified using Delphi-like survey methods were subsequently compared to those identified using different methods.
RESULTS:A total of 52 public health professionals and 21 academics across the United Kingdom agreed to take part. The response rates were high, from public health professionals across three survey rounds (69%, 50% and 40%) and from academics across one round (52%), indicating that participants were receptive to the method and motivated to respond. The themes identified as encompassing the most important research priorities were mental health, healthy environment and health behaviours. Within these themes, the topic areas that emerged most strongly included community interventions for prevention of mental health problems and the food and alcohol environment. Some responses received from academic researchers were (as requested) in the form of tractable research questions, whereas others contributed further potential topic areas instead.
CONCLUSIONS:Delphi-like survey methods are practical and productive as a means of obtaining opinions from a wide number of relevant experts identifying potential priority topic areas for research; however, this method is less appropriate for framing tractable research questions.
Text
document
- Version of Record
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 20 September 2017
e-pub ahead of print date: 9 October 2017
Keywords:
delphi, evidence, gap, public health
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 415135
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/415135
ISSN: 1478-4505
PURE UUID: 08232dc6-09e6-4e81-9e1f-aa5192d8253e
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 01 Nov 2017 17:30
Last modified: 16 Mar 2024 03:50
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Sheila Turner
Author:
Liz Ollerhead
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics