Research priority setting for implementation science and practice: a living systematic review protocol
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...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2025-02-01
|
| Series: | Systematic Reviews |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-025-02786-3 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850029711797780480 |
|---|---|
| author | Junqiang Zhao Wenjun Chen Wenhui Bai Xiaoyan Zhang Ruixue Hui Sihan Chen Guillaume Fontaine Xiaolin Wei Ning Zhang Ian D. Graham |
| author_facet | Junqiang Zhao Wenjun Chen Wenhui Bai Xiaoyan Zhang Ruixue Hui Sihan Chen Guillaume Fontaine Xiaolin Wei Ning Zhang Ian D. Graham |
| author_sort | Junqiang Zhao |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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 ). |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-856ab623e5e5421b8f570ee1e1d01cda |
| institution | DOAJ |
| issn | 2046-4053 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-02-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Systematic Reviews |
| spelling | doaj-art-856ab623e5e5421b8f570ee1e1d01cda2025-08-20T02:59:28ZengBMCSystematic Reviews2046-40532025-02-011411710.1186/s13643-025-02786-3Research priority setting for implementation science and practice: a living systematic review protocolJunqiang Zhao0Wenjun Chen1Wenhui Bai2Xiaoyan Zhang3Ruixue Hui4Sihan Chen5Guillaume Fontaine6Xiaolin Wei7Ning Zhang8Ian D. Graham9Waypoint Research Institute, Waypoint Centre for Mental Health CareXiangya School of Nursing, Central South UniversityHenan Renmin HospitalBeijing HospitalXiangya School of Nursing, Central South UniversitySchool of Nursing, Beijing University of Chinese MedicineIngram School of Nursing, Mcgill UniversityDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of TorontoSchool of Public Health, Zhejiang UniversityOttawa Hospital Research InstituteAbstract 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 ).https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-025-02786-3Implementation scienceKnowledge mobilizationPriority settingResearch agendaLiving systematic review |
| spellingShingle | Junqiang Zhao Wenjun Chen Wenhui Bai Xiaoyan Zhang Ruixue Hui Sihan Chen Guillaume Fontaine Xiaolin Wei Ning Zhang Ian D. Graham Research priority setting for implementation science and practice: a living systematic review protocol Systematic Reviews Implementation science Knowledge mobilization Priority setting Research agenda Living systematic review |
| title | Research priority setting for implementation science and practice: a living systematic review protocol |
| title_full | Research priority setting for implementation science and practice: a living systematic review protocol |
| title_fullStr | Research priority setting for implementation science and practice: a living systematic review protocol |
| title_full_unstemmed | Research priority setting for implementation science and practice: a living systematic review protocol |
| title_short | Research priority setting for implementation science and practice: a living systematic review protocol |
| title_sort | research priority setting for implementation science and practice a living systematic review protocol |
| topic | Implementation science Knowledge mobilization Priority setting Research agenda Living systematic review |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-025-02786-3 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT junqiangzhao researchprioritysettingforimplementationscienceandpracticealivingsystematicreviewprotocol AT wenjunchen researchprioritysettingforimplementationscienceandpracticealivingsystematicreviewprotocol AT wenhuibai researchprioritysettingforimplementationscienceandpracticealivingsystematicreviewprotocol AT xiaoyanzhang researchprioritysettingforimplementationscienceandpracticealivingsystematicreviewprotocol AT ruixuehui researchprioritysettingforimplementationscienceandpracticealivingsystematicreviewprotocol AT sihanchen researchprioritysettingforimplementationscienceandpracticealivingsystematicreviewprotocol AT guillaumefontaine researchprioritysettingforimplementationscienceandpracticealivingsystematicreviewprotocol AT xiaolinwei researchprioritysettingforimplementationscienceandpracticealivingsystematicreviewprotocol AT ningzhang researchprioritysettingforimplementationscienceandpracticealivingsystematicreviewprotocol AT iandgraham researchprioritysettingforimplementationscienceandpracticealivingsystematicreviewprotocol |