Key stakeholders' perspectives and experiences with defining, identifying and displaying gaps in health research: a qualitative study

IntroductionMapping the current body of evidence including what is missing helps provide a better understanding of what research is available, ongoing and needed and should be prioritised. Identifying research gaps can inform the design and conduct of health research by providing additional context information about the body of evidence in a given topic area. Despite the commonly used term 'research gap' in scientific literature, little is written on how to find a 'research gap' in the first place. Moreover, there is no clear methodological guidance to identify and display gaps.ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore how key stakeholders define research gaps and characterise methods/practices used to identify and display gaps in health research to further advance efforts in this area.DesignThis was an exploratory qualitative study using semistructured in-depth interviews. The study sample included the following stakeholder groups: researchers, funders, healthcare providers, patients/public and policy-makers. Interview transcripts were subjected to thematic analysis.ResultsAmong the 20 interviews conducted (20 participants), a variety of research gap definitions were expressed (ie, five main themes, including gaps in information, knowledge/evidence gaps, uncertainties, quality and patient perspective). We identified three main themes for methods used to identify gaps (primary, secondary and both primary and secondary) and finally six main themes for the methods to display gaps (forest plots, diagrams/illustrations, evidence maps, mega maps, 3IE gap maps and info graphics).ConclusionThis study provides insights into issues related to defining research gaps and methods used to identify and display gaps in health research from the perspectives of key stakeholders involved in the process. Findings will be used to inform methodological guidance on identifying research gaps

Méthodes d’identification et de représentation des lacunes dans la recherche en santé

The overall topic area of methods to identify and display gaps in health research is still not well established; also, there is no standard definition for the term “research gaps” nor standardized methods to identify research gaps. Furthermore, with a lack of a clear definition, consensus is lacking on what constitutes the best methodological approaches to identify research gaps, determine research priorities and display research gaps or priorities. Therefore, with an aim to improve understanding research gaps as a whole, and specifically defining, identifying and displaying research gaps, I undertook this PhD project. With the specific objectives to 1) identify different definitions reported for the term “research gap” and describe the methods used to identify, prioritize and display gaps in health research by conducting a scoping review ; 2) explore key stakeholders’ perspectives and experiences with defining, identifying and displaying gaps in health research by conducting a qualitative study; and 3) develop methodological guidance for identifying and displaying gaps in health research by merging both the scoping review and qualitative study findings. In the first project, I conducted a scoping review to map reported definitions of research gaps and methods to identify, prioritize and display gaps in health research. The study provided an overview of different definitions and methods used to identify, prioritize, and display gaps or priorities in health research. The second project was a qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews of key informants to investigate their knowledge, perceptions, and experiences with defining research gaps and characterizing methods/practices used for identifying and displaying gaps in health research. In the third project, I focused on the development of methodological guidance, aimed at systematically identifying and reporting research gaps, to provide a clearer picture of the status of the evidence base. The methodological guidance merged findings from the scoping review and the qualitative study. It demonstrates when identifying and addressing research gaps in a topic area, the most important step is to first define clearly what is meant by a research gap in the text. The methodological guidance involves six steps: 1) specify the topic area and/or research question; 2) map and clearly state the existing research gaps ; 3) identify research gap(s); 4) clearly describe the research gaps(s) identified; 5) characterize the research gaps; and 6) present the research gaps. To be able to determine the feasibility and usability of this methodological guidance in practice, the importance, relevance, and applicability of each step proposed needs to be thoroughly discussed among different stakeholders, then implemented and evaluated accordingly. The evaluation of the methodological guidance will help determine its applicability and future implementation and adaption in health research and other fields.La thématique des méthodes d’identification et de représentation des lacunes dans la recherche en santé n’est pas encore bien établie. Il n’existe ni une définition standardisée du terme « lacunes en recherche » (research gaps), ni une méthode standardisée pour identifier ces lacunes. De plus, faute de définition claire, il n’y a pas de consensus sur ce qui constitue les meilleures approches méthodologiques pour identifier ces lacunes, déterminer les priorités de recherche et représenter (par exemple graphiquement) ces lacunes ou priorités en recherche. Les objectifs de cette thèse de doctorat sont : 1) identifier les différentes définitions rapportées pour le terme « lacunes en recherche » et décrire les méthodes utilisées pour identifier, hiérarchiser et représenter les lacunes dans la recherche en santé ; 2) explorer les points de vue et les expériences des principaux intervenants de la recherche sur la définition, l’identification et la représentation des lacunes dans la recherche en santé ; et 3) élaborer un guide méthodologique pour des travaux visant à identifier et représenter les lacunes dans la recherche en santé. Dans un premier projet, j’ai effectué une revue panoramique (scoping review) pour identifier les définitions rapportées des lacunes en recherche et les méthodes utilisées pour identifier, hiérarchiser et représenter ces lacunes dans la recherche en santé. Le deuxième projet est une étude qualitative à partir d’entretiens semi-structurés d’intervenants clés. Ces entretiens avaient pour but d’explorer leur niveau de connaissance, leurs perceptions et expériences avec la définition des lacunes en recherche, et de caractériser les méthodes et pratiques utilisées pour l’identification et la communication des lacunes dans la recherche en santé. Dans le troisième projet, je me suis concentrée sur le développement d’un guide méthodologique, visant à identifier systématiquement et rapporter les lacunes en recherche, pour donner une vision plus claire de l’état des connaissances et du niveau de preuve. Ce guide méthodologique a été construit à partir des résultats de la revue panoramique et de l’étude qualitative. Mon premier résultat est que, pour identifier et combler les lacunes en recherche dans un domaine thématique, l’étape la plus importante est d’abord de clairement définir ce que l’on entend par une lacune de recherche, et de le rapporter de façon explicite. Je recommande d’adopter une définition existante qui décrit la nature de ces lacunes. En combinant les résultats de la revue panoramique et de l’étude qualitative, une liste de termes clés liés à l’identification de lacunes en recherche a été élaborée, ainsi qu’une liste des méthodes principales pour identifier et représenter ces lacunes en recherche. Ces résultats ont ensuite été combinés et utilisés pour développer un guide méthodologique pour les études visant à identifier des lacunes dans la recherche en santé. Six étapes sont à considérer : 1) spécifier le domaine thématique et / ou la question de recherche ; 2) cartographier et énoncer clairement les lacunes en recherche existantes, et prendre en considération les avis d’experts ; 3) identifier les lacunes en recherche ; 4) décrire clairement les lacunes en recherche identifiées ; 5) caractériser ces lacunes en recherche ; et 6) représenter (par exemple graphiquement) ces lacunes en recherche. Pour être en mesure de déterminer la faisabilité et l’utilisabilité de ce guide méthodologique en pratique, l’importance, la pertinence et l’applicabilité de chaque étape proposée doivent être discutées entre les différents intervenants, puis mises en œuvre et évaluées. Le guide méthodologique développé devra être évalué pour déterminer son applicabilité et sa facilité de mise en œuvre dans la recherche en santé. Il sera ensuite possible d’envisager des adaptations pour son extension à d’autres domaines

Méthodes d’identification et de représentation des lacunes dans la recherche en santé

The overall topic area of methods to identify and display gaps in health research is still not well established; also, there is no standard definition for the term “research gaps” nor standardized methods to identify research gaps. Furthermore, with a lack of a clear definition, consensus is lacking on what constitutes the best methodological approaches to identify research gaps, determine research priorities and display research gaps or priorities. Therefore, with an aim to improve understanding research gaps as a whole, and specifically defining, identifying and displaying research gaps, I undertook this PhD project. With the specific objectives to 1) identify different definitions reported for the term “research gap” and describe the methods used to identify, prioritize and display gaps in health research by conducting a scoping review ; 2) explore key stakeholders’ perspectives and experiences with defining, identifying and displaying gaps in health research by conducting a qualitative study; and 3) develop methodological guidance for identifying and displaying gaps in health research by merging both the scoping review and qualitative study findings. In the first project, I conducted a scoping review to map reported definitions of research gaps and methods to identify, prioritize and display gaps in health research. The study provided an overview of different definitions and methods used to identify, prioritize, and display gaps or priorities in health research. The second project was a qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews of key informants to investigate their knowledge, perceptions, and experiences with defining research gaps and characterizing methods/practices used for identifying and displaying gaps in health research. In the third project, I focused on the development of methodological guidance, aimed at systematically identifying and reporting research gaps, to provide a clearer picture of the status of the evidence base. The methodological guidance merged findings from the scoping review and the qualitative study. It demonstrates when identifying and addressing research gaps in a topic area, the most important step is to first define clearly what is meant by a research gap in the text. The methodological guidance involves six steps: 1) specify the topic area and/or research question; 2) map and clearly state the existing research gaps ; 3) identify research gap(s); 4) clearly describe the research gaps(s) identified; 5) characterize the research gaps; and 6) present the research gaps. To be able to determine the feasibility and usability of this methodological guidance in practice, the importance, relevance, and applicability of each step proposed needs to be thoroughly discussed among different stakeholders, then implemented and evaluated accordingly. The evaluation of the methodological guidance will help determine its applicability and future implementation and adaption in health research and other fields.La thématique des méthodes d’identification et de représentation des lacunes dans la recherche en santé n’est pas encore bien établie. Il n’existe ni une définition standardisée du terme « lacunes en recherche » (research gaps), ni une méthode standardisée pour identifier ces lacunes. De plus, faute de définition claire, il n’y a pas de consensus sur ce qui constitue les meilleures approches méthodologiques pour identifier ces lacunes, déterminer les priorités de recherche et représenter (par exemple graphiquement) ces lacunes ou priorités en recherche. Les objectifs de cette thèse de doctorat sont : 1) identifier les différentes définitions rapportées pour le terme « lacunes en recherche » et décrire les méthodes utilisées pour identifier, hiérarchiser et représenter les lacunes dans la recherche en santé ; 2) explorer les points de vue et les expériences des principaux intervenants de la recherche sur la définition, l’identification et la représentation des lacunes dans la recherche en santé ; et 3) élaborer un guide méthodologique pour des travaux visant à identifier et représenter les lacunes dans la recherche en santé. Dans un premier projet, j’ai effectué une revue panoramique (scoping review) pour identifier les définitions rapportées des lacunes en recherche et les méthodes utilisées pour identifier, hiérarchiser et représenter ces lacunes dans la recherche en santé. Le deuxième projet est une étude qualitative à partir d’entretiens semi-structurés d’intervenants clés. Ces entretiens avaient pour but d’explorer leur niveau de connaissance, leurs perceptions et expériences avec la définition des lacunes en recherche, et de caractériser les méthodes et pratiques utilisées pour l’identification et la communication des lacunes dans la recherche en santé. Dans le troisième projet, je me suis concentrée sur le développement d’un guide méthodologique, visant à identifier systématiquement et rapporter les lacunes en recherche, pour donner une vision plus claire de l’état des connaissances et du niveau de preuve. Ce guide méthodologique a été construit à partir des résultats de la revue panoramique et de l’étude qualitative. Mon premier résultat est que, pour identifier et combler les lacunes en recherche dans un domaine thématique, l’étape la plus importante est d’abord de clairement définir ce que l’on entend par une lacune de recherche, et de le rapporter de façon explicite. Je recommande d’adopter une définition existante qui décrit la nature de ces lacunes. En combinant les résultats de la revue panoramique et de l’étude qualitative, une liste de termes clés liés à l’identification de lacunes en recherche a été élaborée, ainsi qu’une liste des méthodes principales pour identifier et représenter ces lacunes en recherche. Ces résultats ont ensuite été combinés et utilisés pour développer un guide méthodologique pour les études visant à identifier des lacunes dans la recherche en santé. Six étapes sont à considérer : 1) spécifier le domaine thématique et / ou la question de recherche ; 2) cartographier et énoncer clairement les lacunes en recherche existantes, et prendre en considération les avis d’experts ; 3) identifier les lacunes en recherche ; 4) décrire clairement les lacunes en recherche identifiées ; 5) caractériser ces lacunes en recherche ; et 6) représenter (par exemple graphiquement) ces lacunes en recherche. Pour être en mesure de déterminer la faisabilité et l’utilisabilité de ce guide méthodologique en pratique, l’importance, la pertinence et l’applicabilité de chaque étape proposée doivent être discutées entre les différents intervenants, puis mises en œuvre et évaluées. Le guide méthodologique développé devra être évalué pour déterminer son applicabilité et sa facilité de mise en œuvre dans la recherche en santé. Il sera ensuite possible d’envisager des adaptations pour son extension à d’autres domaines

Methods for identifying and displaying gaps in health research

The overall topic area of methods to identify and display gaps in health research is still not well established, also there is no standard definition for the term “research gaps” nor standardized methods to identify research gaps. Furthermore, with a lack of a clear definition, consensus is lacking on what constitutes the best methodological approaches to identify research gaps, determine research priorities and display research gaps or priority. The specific objectives of this PhD project were to 1) identify different definitions reported for the term “research gap” and describe the methods used to identify, prioritize and display gaps in health research; 2) explore key stakeholders’ perspectives and experiences with defining, identifying and displaying gaps in health research; and 3) make preliminary recommendations for methodological guidance on identifying and displaying gaps in health research. In the first project, I conducted a scoping review to map reported definitions of research gaps and methods to identify, prioritize and display gaps in health research. The study provided an overview of different definitions and methods used to identify, prioritize, and display gaps or priorities in health research. The most frequent methods in the review aimed at gap identification and involved secondary research, which included evidence synthesis (80/116 articles, 69%), specifically systematic reviews and scoping reviews (58/80 articles, 73%). Among studies aimed at research prioritization, the most frequent methods were combined primary and secondary research, accounting for 24 (49%) articles, followed by secondary methods, 8 (16%) articles. Finally, 37% articles described methods for displaying gaps and/or priorities in health research. The second project was a qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews of key informants to investigate their knowledge, perceptions, and experiences with defining research gaps and characterizing methods/practices used for identifying and displaying gaps in health research. The results provided evidence on what participants reported as gaps in health research: the terms ranged from “lack of information”, “inadequate information”, “insufficient information”, “quality of evidence” and “treatment uncertainty”. The study showed detailed participants’ experiences with and perceptions of different research methodologies used (i.e., primary, secondary, both). Researcher participants also expressed a difficulty in systematically identifying research gaps. With experiences in displaying research gaps, participants expressed the importance of data visualization and the difficulty in researcher- participants finding the right tool to use to present research findings. Finally, the findings of both the scoping review and qualitative study were combined, from which was gathered a list of definitions related to research gaps as well as key examples of methods to identify and display research gaps, which were combined and used to inform the development of methodological guidance to identify gaps in health research. The preliminary recommended methodological guidance involves four steps: 1) specify the topic area and/or research question; 2) map, identify and clearly state the existing research gap(s); 3) clearly describe the research gaps(s) identified; and 4) present the research gaps. To be able to determine the feasibility and usability of this recommendations for methodological guidance in practice, the importance, relevance and applicability of each step proposed needs to be thoroughly discussed among different stakeholders, then implemented and evaluated accordingly. The evaluation of the methodological guidance will help determine its applicability and future implementation and adaption in health research and other fields

Assessment of the Capacity and Capability of Burn Centers to Respond to Burn Disasters in Belgium: A Mixed-Method Study

Burn disaster is defined as a massive influx of patients that exceeds a burn center's capacity and capability. This study investigates the capacity and capability of burn centers to respond to burn disasters in the Belgian ground. Quantitative survey and qualitative semi-structured interview questionnaires were administered directly to key informants of burn centers. The data collected from both methods were compared to get a more in-depth overview of the issue. Quantitative data were converted into a narrative to enrich the qualitative data and included in the thematic analysis. Finally, data from both methods were analyzed and organized into five themes. The Belgian Association of Burn Injury (BABI) has a specific pre-hospital plan for burn disaster management. Once the BABI plan is activated, all burn centers respond as one entity. Burn Team (B-team) is a professional team that is formed in case of urgent need and it is deployed to a scene or to non-burn specialized hospitals to help in disaster relief. The challenges for burn disasters response occur particularly in the area of triage, transfer, communication, funding, and training. We conclude that there is a variation in the capacity and capability of burn centers. Overall, the system of burn disaster management is advanced and it is comparable to other high-income countries. Nevertheless, further improvement in the areas of preparation, triage, communication, and finally training would make disaster response more resilient in the future. Therefore, there is still space for further improvement of the management of burn disasters in Belgium

A scoping review describes methods used to identify, prioritize and display gaps in health research

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:Different methods to examine research gaps have been described, but there are still no standard methods for identifying, prioritizing, or reporting research gaps. This study aimed to describe the methods used to identify, prioritize, and display gaps in health research. METHODS:A scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework was carried out. We included all study types describing or reporting on methods to identify, prioritize, and display gaps or priorities in health research. Data synthesis is both quantitative and qualitative. RESULTS:Among 1,938 identified documents, 139 articles were selected for analysis; 90 (65%) aimed to identify gaps, 23 (17%) aimed to determine research priorities, and 26 (19%) had both aims. The most frequent methods in the review were aimed at gap identification and involved secondary research, which included knowledge synthesis (80/116 articles, 69%), specifically systematic reviews and scoping reviews (58/80, 73%). Among 49 studies aimed at research prioritization, the most frequent methods were both primary and secondary research, accounting for 24 (49%) reports. Finally, 52 (37%) articles described methods for displaying gaps and/or priorities in health research. CONCLUSION:This study provides a mapping of different methods used to identify, prioritize, and display gaps or priorities in health research

eRegistries: Electronic registries for maternal and child health

The Global Roadmap for Health Measurement and Accountability sees integrated systems for health information as key to obtaining seamless, sustainable, and secure information exchanges at all levels of health systems. The Global Strategy for Women's, Children's and Adolescent's Health aims to achieve a continuum of quality of care with effective coverage of interventions. The WHO and World Bank recommend that countries focus on intervention coverage to monitor programs and progress for universal health coverage. Electronic health registries - eRegistries - represent integrated systems that secure a triple return on investments: First, effective single data collection for health workers to seamlessly follow individuals along the continuum of care and across disconnected cadres of care providers. Second, real-time public health surveillance and monitoring of intervention coverage, and third, feedback of information to individuals, care providers and the public for transparent accountability. This series on eRegistries presents frameworks and tools to facilitate the development and secure operation of eRegistries for maternal and child health

Additional file 1: of eRegistries: Electronic registries for maternal and child health

Systematic review methodology supplementing information. (DOCX 141 kb