Research priority setting for implementation science and practice: a living systematic review protocol.

IF 6.3 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Junqiang Zhao, Wenjun Chen, Wenhui Bai, Xiaoyan Zhang, Ruixue Hui, Sihan Chen, Guillaume Fontaine, Xiaolin Wei, Ning Zhang, Ian D Graham
{"title":"Research priority setting for implementation science and practice: a living systematic review protocol.","authors":"Junqiang Zhao, Wenjun Chen, Wenhui Bai, Xiaoyan Zhang, Ruixue Hui, Sihan Chen, Guillaume Fontaine, Xiaolin Wei, Ning Zhang, Ian D Graham","doi":"10.1186/s13643-025-02786-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Research priority setting has the potential to bridge knowledge gaps, optimize resource allocation, foster collaborations, and inform funding directions for implementation science and practice when these priorities are properly acted upon. This systematic review aims to determine the extent of research in priority setting for implementation science and practice, examine the methodologies employed, synthesize these research priorities, and identify strategies for evaluating and implementing these priorities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We will conduct a living systematic review following the Cochrane guidance. We will search literature from six databases, the website of James Lind Alliance, five implementation science-focused journals and several related journals, Google Scholar, and the reference lists of included studies. Two reviewers will independently screen studies based on the eligibility criteria. The characteristics of the included documents, their prioritization methods, and outcomes, as well as the evaluation and implementation strategies, will be extracted. We will critically appraise these documents using the nine common themes of good practice for research priority setting, and synthesize data using a narrative approach. We will re-run the search 12 months after the original search date to monitor the development of new literature and determine the time to update the review.</p><p><strong>Discussions: </strong>By conducting this living systematic review, we will gain a comprehensive and dynamic understanding of the potential research gaps and hotspots in implementation science as perceived by researchers and practitioners. The findings of this review will inform the future research directions of implementation science and practice.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>This review has been registered with the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/sr69k ).</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":"14 1","pages":"51"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11871763/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-025-02786-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Research priority setting has the potential to bridge knowledge gaps, optimize resource allocation, foster collaborations, and inform funding directions for implementation science and practice when these priorities are properly acted upon. This systematic review aims to determine the extent of research in priority setting for implementation science and practice, examine the methodologies employed, synthesize these research priorities, and identify strategies for evaluating and implementing these priorities.

Methods: We will conduct a living systematic review following the Cochrane guidance. We will search literature from six databases, the website of James Lind Alliance, five implementation science-focused journals and several related journals, Google Scholar, and the reference lists of included studies. Two reviewers will independently screen studies based on the eligibility criteria. The characteristics of the included documents, their prioritization methods, and outcomes, as well as the evaluation and implementation strategies, will be extracted. We will critically appraise these documents using the nine common themes of good practice for research priority setting, and synthesize data using a narrative approach. We will re-run the search 12 months after the original search date to monitor the development of new literature and determine the time to update the review.

Discussions: By conducting this living systematic review, we will gain a comprehensive and dynamic understanding of the potential research gaps and hotspots in implementation science as perceived by researchers and practitioners. The findings of this review will inform the future research directions of implementation science and practice.

Systematic review registration: This review has been registered with the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/sr69k ).

制定实施科学与实践的研究重点:一个活生生的系统评价方案。
背景:研究重点的设定有可能弥合知识差距,优化资源分配,促进合作,并在这些优先事项得到适当采取行动时,为实施科学和实践提供资助方向。本系统综述旨在确定实施科学和实践中优先事项设置的研究程度,检查所采用的方法,综合这些研究优先事项,并确定评估和实施这些优先事项的策略。方法:我们将按照Cochrane指南进行活体系统评价。我们将检索6个数据库、James Lind Alliance网站、5个实施科学期刊及相关期刊、谷歌Scholar和纳入研究的参考文献列表。两位审稿人将根据资格标准独立筛选研究。将提取所纳入文件的特点、确定优先次序的方法和结果,以及评价和实施战略。我们将使用研究优先级设置的9个良好实践的共同主题对这些文件进行批判性评估,并使用叙述方法综合数据。我们将在原始检索日期12个月后重新进行检索,以监测新文献的发展并确定更新综述的时间。讨论:通过这篇生动的系统综述,我们将全面和动态地了解研究人员和实践者所感知的实施科学的潜在研究差距和热点。本文的研究结果将为今后实施科学与实践的研究方向提供参考。系统综述注册:本综述已在开放科学框架(https://osf.io/sr69k)注册。
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
Systematic Reviews
Systematic Reviews Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
241
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal publishes high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modelling. At this time Systematic Reviews does not accept reviews of in vitro studies. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.
×
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