Prioritization of Themes and Research Questions for Health Outcomes in Natural Disasters, Humanitarian Crises or Other Major Healthcare Emergencies

EAPSG (2013) full text summary PDF

For which topic were research priorities identified?

health outcomes in natural disasters, humanitarian crises or other major healthcare emergencies

In which location was the research priority setting conducted?


Why was it conducted at all?

People making decisions about interventions, actions and strategies for natural disasters, humanitarian crises and other major healthcare emergencies need access to reliable evidence to help ensure that the choices they make are likely to do more good than harm. However, there are many gaps in this evidence base in a wide range of areas.

What was the objective?

to identify thirty priorities for up-to-date systematic reviews of the effects of interventions, actions and strategies on health outcomes, which would be particularly relevant to those involved in disaster risk reduction, planning response and recovery at an international level

What was the outcome?

a ranking list of 30 research questions

How long did the research prioritization take?

No information provided.

Which methods were used to identify research priorities?

meeting; survey

How were the priorities for research identified exactly?

Step 1: survey 1: participants were asked to provide up to three research questions or areas of uncertainty for which they need research evidence. Step 2: submissions supplemented with input from two conferences and literature, list of 216 research questions compiled. Step 3: survey 2: list of 43 topics, participants were asked to select and rank their top ten topics. Step 4: meeting: rankings of survey were aggregated, top 10 topics circulated to participants in advance of the meeting and participants were asked to rank the questions within each topic, during meeting: small group discussions, resulting in top 30 research questions

Which stakeholders took part?

Humanitarian aid workers, NGOs, UN Agencies, academic researchers. Survey 1: 101 participants. Survey 2: 233 participants. Meeting: 28 participants.

How were stakeholders recruited?

Survey 1 was publicized to humanitarian aid workers, agencies, NGOs and others, including those working in low- and middle-income countries through, for example, distribution to a list of people involved in the HINARI initiative which is seeking to improve access to healthcare journals in low- and middle-income countries. For survey 2, the snowballing technique was used for distribution of links to the survey. Information was also distributed using Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, the Evidence Aid website, the Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action (ALNAP) discussion forum, other relevant websites, and a variety of e-mail lists.

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.