Identifying Top 10 Primary Care Research Priorities from International Stakeholders using a Modified Delphi Method
For which topic were research priorities identified?
In which location was the research priority setting conducted?
Why was it conducted at all?
High quality primary care is fundamental to achieving health for all. Research priority setting is a key facilitator of improving how research activity responds to concrete needs. There has never before been an attempt to identify international primary care research priorities, in order to guide resource allocation and to enhance global primary care.
What was the objective?
to identify a list of top 10 primary care research priorities, as identified by members of the public, health professionals working in primary care, researchers, and policymakers
What was the outcome?
a ranking list of 10 research questions
How long did the research prioritization take?
November 2016 - November 2017
Which methods were used to identify research priorities?
How were the priorities for research identified exactly?
Step 1: setting up PSP: stakeholders and partner organizations identified. Step 2: collecting research questions: survey asking: Please suggest up to three important primary care research questions. Step 3: data processing: submitted priorities reviewed, out-of-scope removed, resulting in 279 questions, further reviewed, resulting in 101 questions. Step 4: interim ranking: priorities independently ranked by project team, resulting in top 36 submitted priorities. Step 5: final prioritization: workshop: small group discussion with nominal group technique and small group rankings, participants were asked to review and rank the top 36 priorities
Which stakeholders took part?
Members of the public, health professionals working in primary care, researchers, and policymakers. Survey: 131 participants: mostly clinicians, followed by members of the public and researchers. Workshop: 26 participants.
How were stakeholders recruited?
The survey was disseminated through a purposive strategy, targeting primarily LMIC stakeholders. The project team employed a purposive strategy, disseminating the survey through established relationships with primary care/family medicine global health organizations such as the World Organization of National Colleges, Academies and Academic Associations of General Practitioners/ Family Physicians (WONCA); past and current participants of the Oxford International Primary Care Leadership program; Besrour Centre members (who are family doctors and researchers working in multiple LMIC settings); several national family medicine colleges including members of the College of Family Physicians of Canada and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. The project team also sent out the survey to patient organizations including Patients Canada and the Patient Advisors Network. The project team encouraged respondents to send the link to colleagues who may be interested. For the workshop, all conference attendees took part.
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.