Establishing Research Priorities in Prevention and Control of Vector-Borne Diseases in Urban Areas: A Collaborative Process

Dagenais et al. (2018) full text summary PDF

For which topic were research priorities identified?

vector-borne disease

In which location was the research priority setting conducted?


Why was it conducted at all?

In 2015, following a call for proposals from the Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR), six scoping reviews on the prevention and control of vector-borne diseases in urban areas were conducted. Those reviews provided a clear picture of the available knowledge and highlighted knowledge gaps, as well as needs and opportunities for future research. Based on the research findings of the scoping reviews, a concept mapping exercise was undertaken to produce a list of priority research needs to be addressed.

What was the objective?

to identify research priorities on vector-borne diseases and other diseases of poverty in the urban context

What was the outcome?

a ranking list of 10 research topics

How long did the research prioritization take?

2 days

Which methods were used to identify research priorities?


How were the priorities for research identified exactly?

Step 1: meeting 1: generating research questions: participants generated a list of items during a brainstorming session to answer the question: In view of the knowledge synthesis (that you conducted) AND your own expertise, what do we still need to know about vector-borne diseases and other infectious diseases of poverty in urban areas?, list of 97 statements, then each statement printed on cards, participants were asked to rate each statement. Step 2: meeting 2: presenting and discussing results

Which stakeholders took part?

VERDAS members (VEctor boRne DiseAses Scoping reviews), decision-makers, representatives from the Pan-American Health organization (PAHO), WHO/the Special program for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR), 11 researchers, 7 decision-makers

How were stakeholders recruited?

No information provided.

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.