Determining Priorities for Research in Ageing: A Community Survey

Byles et al. (2007) full text summary PDF

For which topic were research priorities identified?


In which location was the research priority setting conducted?

Australia - Australia

Why was it conducted at all?

With the triumph of longevity, then, comes the challenge of providing for the health and social needs of this increasing group. Research that builds a healthy ageing evidence base will become increasingly important as the population age. There have been few published attempts to set research priorities for older people at the regional level.

What was the objective?

to identify and prioritize perceived ageing research priorities

What was the outcome?

a list of 38 research topics

How long did the research prioritization take?

4 weeks, 2001

Which methods were used to identify research priorities?


How were the priorities for research identified exactly?

Step 1: collecting research priorities: via 4-round Delphi survey and round table discussion at a widely advertised community seminar on ageing, list of 38 research topics and priorities items compiled. Step 2: survey: participants were asked to rate how important it was for HAR to research issues for people aged 70 years and older from a list of 25 diseases and conditions, 9 items promoting healthy lifestyle and 4 items on healthcare needs

Which stakeholders took part?

694 private households

How were stakeholders recruited?

The Telstra electronic White Pages was used to randomly select 1500 households in the Hunter region, Australia. Data were collected using a self-completed postal questionnaire, sent according to the modified Dillman procedures. A letter, consent form and survey were sent to each household inviting one adult member (18 years and older) to participate. After 1 week, a thank you reminder was mailed and after 3 weeks, telephone contact was made. Replacement surveys were sent if necessary.+

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.