Challenges in developing national orthopedic health research agendas in the Netherlands: process overview and recommendations
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2023.12402Keywords:
Evidence uncertainties, Health Research Agenda, Health Research Prioritization, Knowledge gap, Orthopedic(s), Priority settingAbstract
Growing demand for clinical research to improve evidence-based medicine in daily medical practice led to healthcare evaluation, which assesses the effectiveness of the existing care. The first step is identifying and prioritizing the most important evidence uncertainties. A health research agenda (HRA) can be valuable and helps determine funding and resource allocation, aiding researchers and policymakers to design successful research programs and implement the results in daily medical practice. We provide an overview of the development process of the first 2 HRAs within orthopedic surgery in the Netherlands and the following research process. In addition, we developed a checklist with recommendations for the future development of an HRA. This perspective guides the development of highquality and widely supported nationwide HRAs, including preparatory actions. This improves the uptake of evidence uncertainties in a successful research program and disseminates evidence-based literature in daily medical practice to improve patient care.
Downloads
References
Andronis L. Analytic approaches for research priority-setting: issues, challenges and the way forward. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2015; 15(5): 745-54. doi: 10.1586/14737167.2015.1087317. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1586/14737167.2015.1087317
Brouwers M C, Kho M E, Browman G P, Burgers J S, Cluzeau F, Feder G, et al. AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care. CMAJ 2010; 182(18): E839-E42. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.090449.
Dutch Association of Medical Specialists, health care evaluation steering committee. Advisory report. Health care evaluation: from project to process. Utrecht; 2016. p. 48.
Brouwers M C, Kho M E, Browman G P, Burgers J S, Cluzeau F, Feder G, et al. AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care. CMAJ 2010; 182(18): E839-42. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.090449. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.090449
Abma T A, Pittens C A C M, Visse M, Elberse J E, Broerse J E W. Patient involvement in research programming and implementation. Health Expect 2015; 18(6): 2449-64. doi: 10.1111/hex.12213. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12213
Caron-Flinterman J F, Broerse J E W, Teerling J, van Alst M L Y, Klaasen S, Swart L E, et al. Stakeholder participation in health research agenda setting: the case of asthma and COPD research in the Netherlands. Science and Public Policy 2006; 33(4): 291-304. doi: 10.3152/147154306781778993. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3152/147154306781778993
Dutch Orthopaedic Association, steering committee Health Research Agenda. Dutch Health Research Agenda orthopaedics: towards value-based patient care. ’s-Hertogenbosch: Nederlandse Orthopaedische Vereniging; 2015. p 43.
Dutch Orthopaedic Association, steering committee Health Research Agenda. Health Care Evaluation Orthopaedics: On the way to value based health care. ’s-Hertogenbosch: Nederlandse Orthopaedische Vereniging; 2019. p 31.
Chambers N, Harvey G, Mannion R, Bond J, Marshall J. Towards a framework for enhancing the performance of NHS boards: a synthesis of the evidence about board governance, board effectiveness and board development. Southampton, UK: NIHR Journals Library; 2013. doi: 10.3310/hsdr01060. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr01060
Viergever R F, Olifson S, Ghaffar A, Terry R F. A checklist for health research priority setting: nine common themes of good practice. Health Res Policy Syst 2010; 8(36): 9. doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-8-36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-8-36
Abma T A. Patients as partners in a health research agenda setting. Eval Health Prof 2016; 29(4): 424-39. doi: 10.1177/0163278706293406. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278706293406
Sassi F. Setting priorities for the evaluation of health interventions: when theory does not meet practice. Health Policy 2003; 63: 14. doi: 10.1016/s0168-8510(02)00061-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-8510(02)00061-1
Burgers J S, Wittenberg J, Keuken D G, Dekker F, Hohmann F P, Leereveld D, et al. Development of a research agenda for general practice based on knowledge gaps identified in Dutch guidelines and input from stakeholders. Eur J Gen Pract 2019; 25(1): 19-24. doi: 10.1080/13814788.2018.1532993. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2018.1532993
Sibbald S L, Singer P A, Upshur R, Martin D K. Priority setting: what constitutes success? A conceptual framework for successful priority setting. BMC Health Serv Res 2009; 9(1): 43. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-9-43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-9-43
Ulehake M J. Criteria and methods for prioritizing knowledge gaps in healthcare setting in western countries: a systematic review. Nijmegen: Radboud UMC; 2018. p 16.
Cowan K, Oliver S. The James Lind Alliance guidebook. 10th ed. Alliance TJL, editor. Southampton, UK: National Institute for Health Research; 2021. p 96.
Hoddinott P, Pollock A, O’Cathain A, Boyer I, Taylor J, MacDonald C, et al. How to incorporate patient and public perspectives into the design and conduct of research. F1000Res 2018; 7: 752. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.15162.1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15162.1
Chalmers I, Bracken M B, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gülmezoglu A M, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet 2014; 383(9912): 156-65. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62229-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62229-1
Agee J. Developing qualitative research questions: a reflective process. Int J Qual Stud Educ 2009; 22(4): 431-47. doi: 10.1080/09518390902736512. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390902736512
Tong A, Synnot A, Crowe S, Hill S, Matus A, Scholes-Robertson N, et al. Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE). BMC Med Res Methodol 2019; 19(1). doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0889-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0889-3
Jongsma K R, Milota M M. Establishing a multistakeholder research agenda: lessons learned from a James Lind Alliance Partnership. BMJ Open 2022; 12(5): e059006. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059006
Rudan I, Chopra M, Kapiriri L, Gibson J, Ann Lansang M, Carneiro I, et al. Setting priorities in global child health research investments: universal challenges and conceptual framework. Croat Med J 2008; 49(3): 307-17. doi: 10.3325/cmj.2008.3.307. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2008.3.307
Aslam S, Emmanuel P. Formulating a researchable question: a critical step for facilitating good clinical research. Indian J Sex Transm Dis AIDS 2010; 31(1): 47-50. doi: 10.4103/0253-7184.69003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0253-7184.69003
Ratan S K, Anand T, Ratan J. Formulation of research question: stepwise approach. J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg 2019; 24(1): 15. doi: 10.4103/jiaps.JIAPS_76_18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/jiaps.JIAPS_76_18
Deverka P A, Lavallee D C, Desai P J, Esmail L C, Ramsey S D, Veenstra D L, et al. Stakeholder participation in comparative effectiveness research: defining a framework for effective engagement. J Comp Eff Res 2012; 1: 181-94. doi: 10.2217/cer.12.7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2217/cer.12.7
Gostin L O, Levit L A, Nass S J. The national academies collection: reports funded by national institutes of health in beyond the HIPAA privacy rule: enhancing privacy, improving health through research. Washington (DC); 2009. p 320. doi: 10.17226/12458. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17226/12458
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Annabelle R Iken, Rudolf W Poolman, Rob G H H Nelissen, Maaike G J Gademan, On behalf of the advisory board members of the Dutch Orthopedic Association’s first and second health research agenda
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
