Collaborative Priority Setting for Human Immunodeficiency Virus Rehabilitation Research: A Case Report
For which topic were research priorities identified?
In which location was the research priority setting conducted?
North America - Canada
Why was it conducted at all?
The meaningful engagement of stakeholders (i.e., affected community members, service providers, and policy makers) from the beginning of the research The meaningful engagement of stakeholders (i.e., affected community members, service providers, and policy makers) from the beginning of the research process is consistent with concepts of client-centred enablement (Townsend et al., 2013), greater involvement of people living with HIV (GIPA; UNAIDS, 2007), and integrated knowledge translation (IKT; Canadian Institutes of Health Research, 2012). The processes of early engagement in deliberations about research priorities are seldom reported in detail or evaluated. However, it is important to examine how deliberative approaches to engaging stakeholders work in different contexts (Boyko, Lavis, Abelson, Dobbins, & Carter, 2012). In this case report, we describe the implementation and evaluation of a forum to engage stakeholders in the development of rehabilitation research priorities for addressing the activity and social participation needs of people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
What was the objective?
to identify priority research topics for addressing the activity and community participation needs of people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and meaningfully involve multiple stakeholders in the development of those priorities
What was the outcome?
a ranking list of 10 research topics
How long did the research prioritization take?
Which methods were used to identify research priorities?
How were the priorities for research identified exactly?
Step 1: workshop: presentation and large-group discussion of issues and ideas related to rehabilitation services for people living with HIV, small group discussions with World Café methodology: at three tables participants discussed the questions: If we were writing a letter to someone in government about the current realities for people living with HIV, what should go in that letter? In the next 2 years, what steps should be taken so that people living with HIV can be more active and involved in their communities? Five years from now you reflect back to think that ___ has really improved the lives of people living with HIV, key ideas noted, collated and refined, resulting in 17 research topics. Step 2: prioritization: Dotmocracy method: participants were given two highest importance dots and two next importance dots to vote on priorities, voting was followed by plenary discussion
Which stakeholders took part?
People living with HIV, researchers, service providers, and policymaker. 26 participants: 6 members of research team, 13 persons living with HIV.
How were stakeholders recruited?
Through existing networks, the project team purposively recruited participants for diversity (i.e., those living with and those without HIV; people of different races, classes, and literacy education levels; and rural and urban dwellers).
Were stakeholders actively involved or did they just participate?
Stakeholders were mere participants of the research prioritization process; they were not actively involved in the process.