Do We Need Systematic Reviews of Research Priority Setting? A Proposal for a New Concept on Conducting Systematic Reviews of Research Priority Setting Exercises

Abstract

With the increasing number of research priority setting (RPS) exercises, systematic reviews synthesising their findings have also grown in prevalence. While these reviews offer a structured way to compare methodologies, identify underrepresented stakeholder groups, and guide funding decisions, conventional systematic review methodologies, designed primarily for clinical and health research, often fail to capture the complexity, contextual nuance, and participatory nature of RPS. In this commentary, we critically examine these limitations and propose methodological adaptations to enhance the relevance and utility of systematic reviews of RPS. Beyond knowledge generation, we highlight the broader implications of RPS, including its role in stakeholder engagement, research funding allocation, and policy translation, as well as its impact on how these exercises are synthesised. By re-evaluating how systematic reviews of RPS are conducted, we advocate for context-sensitive methodologies that better reflect the dynamic and iterative nature of research priority setting.