Setting Priorities for Research in Medical Nutrition Education: An International Approach
For which topic were research priorities identified?
medical nutrition education
In which location was the research priority setting conducted?
Why was it conducted at all?
There is considerable variability in the quantity and quality of nutrition education provided to medical students and graduates worldwide. Nutrition topics that have been decided as important for inclusion in medical curricula are not always sufficiently taught and may not result in a change of medical practice. Future research should be carefully planned to overcome these challenges and to advance understanding that supports other countries to make similar improvements.
What was the objective?
to identify the research priorities for medical nutrition education worldwide
What was the outcome?
a ranking list of 25 research questions
How long did the research prioritization take?
No information provided.
Which methods were used to identify research priorities?
How were the priorities for research identified exactly?
Step 1: selecting management team. Step 2: determining scope and context of priority setting project. Step 3: stakeholder mapping and survey: survey asked participants to provide up to three research questions deemed as a priority, 37 research questions submitted. Step 4: data processing: 25 unique research questions formulated. Step 5: defining criteria for prioritizing. Step 6: scoring questions: participants were asked to score each research question along criteria
Which stakeholders took part?
Medical educators, medical students, doctors, patients, and researchers; 19 different stakeholder organizations participated.
How were stakeholders recruited?
Categories of potential stakeholders were identified by the management team based on their involvement with the activities described in the scope and context statement. Keywords such as ‘medical', ‘nutrition', ‘education', ‘doctors', ‘patients' and ‘public health' were used to identify the following potential stakeholder groups. A list of stakeholder contact details was developed using publicly available information from English websites.
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.