Translation of oral health research priorities into research topics in an equity-based priority setting exercise.

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Sumanth Nagraj Kumbargere, Cath Quinn, Lynne Callaghan, Martha Paisi, Mona Nasser
{"title":"Translation of oral health research priorities into research topics in an equity-based priority setting exercise.","authors":"Sumanth Nagraj Kumbargere, Cath Quinn, Lynne Callaghan, Martha Paisi, Mona Nasser","doi":"10.1186/s12961-024-01261-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In the context of research priority-setting, participants express their research priorities and ideas in various forms, ranging from narratives to explicit topics or questions. However, the transition from these expressions to well-structured research topics or questions is not always straightforward. Challenges intensify when research priorities pertain to interventions or diagnostic accuracy, requiring the conversion of narratives into the Participant, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO) format.</p><p><strong>Scope and findings: </strong>This project aimed to understand the challenges of engaging a diverse, multilingual population in setting oral health research priorities. While not a comprehensive priority-setting effort, we modified James Lind Alliance's (JLA) methods and used thematic analysis to establish a list of priority research topics and questions. This was accomplished by conducting interviews with 40 community participants and 14 dentists from various ethnic backgrounds in Malaysia. The interview language depended on participant preferences, including English, Malay, and Mandarin, with translations handled collaboratively by bilingual research assistants. The process involved thematic analysis, discussion with a research committee, and necessary modifications. Our interpretations revealed distinct categories of participant statements: explicit, complicated, implicit and incomplete. In this study, we identified a three-step approach to translate research ideas that are presented either as explicit statements or as complicated narratives.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Translating community research priorities poses inherent challenges. Our model, although not exhaustive, provides a valuable tool to assist research priority-setting groups in translating these priorities into meaningful research topics and questions, facilitating the equitable inclusion of diverse perspectives. Future research priority-setting endeavours should document their translation processes, thus aiding researchers in understanding and tackling the intricacies of this task.</p>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":"23 1","pages":"12"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11749132/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Research Policy and Systems","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01261-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In the context of research priority-setting, participants express their research priorities and ideas in various forms, ranging from narratives to explicit topics or questions. However, the transition from these expressions to well-structured research topics or questions is not always straightforward. Challenges intensify when research priorities pertain to interventions or diagnostic accuracy, requiring the conversion of narratives into the Participant, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO) format.

Scope and findings: This project aimed to understand the challenges of engaging a diverse, multilingual population in setting oral health research priorities. While not a comprehensive priority-setting effort, we modified James Lind Alliance's (JLA) methods and used thematic analysis to establish a list of priority research topics and questions. This was accomplished by conducting interviews with 40 community participants and 14 dentists from various ethnic backgrounds in Malaysia. The interview language depended on participant preferences, including English, Malay, and Mandarin, with translations handled collaboratively by bilingual research assistants. The process involved thematic analysis, discussion with a research committee, and necessary modifications. Our interpretations revealed distinct categories of participant statements: explicit, complicated, implicit and incomplete. In this study, we identified a three-step approach to translate research ideas that are presented either as explicit statements or as complicated narratives.

Conclusions: Translating community research priorities poses inherent challenges. Our model, although not exhaustive, provides a valuable tool to assist research priority-setting groups in translating these priorities into meaningful research topics and questions, facilitating the equitable inclusion of diverse perspectives. Future research priority-setting endeavours should document their translation processes, thus aiding researchers in understanding and tackling the intricacies of this task.

在以公平为基础的优先事项设定练习中将口腔健康研究优先事项转化为研究主题。
背景:在研究重点设定的背景下,参与者以各种形式表达他们的研究重点和想法,从叙述到明确的主题或问题。然而,从这些表达到结构良好的研究主题或问题的过渡并不总是直截了当的。当研究重点涉及干预措施或诊断准确性时,挑战加剧,需要将叙述转换为参与者,干预,比较者,结果(PICO)格式。范围和发现:本项目旨在了解在制定口腔健康研究优先事项时,让不同、多语言人群参与所面临的挑战。虽然不是一个全面的优先级设置工作,但我们修改了詹姆斯·林德联盟(JLA)的方法,并使用主题分析来建立优先研究主题和问题的列表。这是通过对马来西亚不同种族背景的40名社区参与者和14名牙医进行访谈来完成的。访谈语言取决于参与者的偏好,包括英语、马来语和普通话,翻译由双语研究助理协作处理。这一过程包括专题分析、与研究委员会的讨论以及必要的修改。我们的解释揭示了参与者陈述的不同类别:明确的、复杂的、隐含的和不完整的。在这项研究中,我们确定了一个三步的方法来翻译研究思想,无论是作为明确的陈述还是作为复杂的叙述。结论:翻译社区研究重点存在固有的挑战。我们的模型,虽然不是详尽的,但提供了一个有价值的工具,帮助研究优先事项设置小组将这些优先事项转化为有意义的研究主题和问题,促进公平包容不同的观点。未来的研究重点应该记录他们的翻译过程,从而帮助研究人员理解和解决这一任务的复杂性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Research Policy and Systems
Health Research Policy and Systems HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
7.50%
发文量
124
审稿时长
27 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Research Policy and Systems is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal that aims to provide a platform for the global research community to share their views, findings, insights and successes. Health Research Policy and Systems considers manuscripts that investigate the role of evidence-based health policy and health research systems in ensuring the efficient utilization and application of knowledge to improve health and health equity, especially in developing countries. Research is the foundation for improvements in public health. The problem is that people involved in different areas of research, together with managers and administrators in charge of research entities, do not communicate sufficiently with each other.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信