Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE)

Allison Tong, Anneliese Synnot, Sally Crowe, Sophie Hill, Andrea Matus, Nicole Scholes-Robertson, Sandy Oliver, Katherine Cowan, Mona Nasser, Soumyadeep Bhaumik, Talia Gutman, Amanda Baumgart, Jonathan C. Craig

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

102 Citations (Scopus)


Background: Research priority setting with stakeholders can help direct the limited resources for health research toward priority areas of need. Ensuring transparency of the priority setting process can strengthen legitimacy and credibility for influencing the research agenda. This study aims to develop a reporting guideline for priority setting of health research. Methods: We searched electronic databases and relevant websites for sources (frameworks, guidelines, or models for conducting, appraising, reporting or evaluating health research priority setting, and reviews (including systematic reviews)), and primary studies of research priority setting to July 2019. We inductively developed a list of reporting items and piloted the preliminary guideline with a diverse range of 30 priority setting studies from the records retrieved. Results: From 21,556 records, we included 26 sources for the candidate REPRISE framework and 455 primary research studies. The REporting guideline for PRIority SEtting of health research (REPRISE) has 31 reporting items that cover 10 domains: Context and scope, governance and team, framework for priority setting, stakeholders/participants, identification and collection of priorities, prioritization of research topics, output, evaluation and feedback, translation and implementation, and funding and conflict of interest. Each reporting item includes a descriptor and examples. Conclusions: The REPRISE guideline can facilitate comprehensive reporting of studies of research priority setting. Improved transparency in research priority setting may strengthen the acceptability and implementation of the research priorities identified, so that efforts and funding are invested in generating evidence that is of importance to all stakeholders.

Original languageEnglish
Article number243
Number of pages11
JournalBMC Medical Research Methodology
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 28 Dec 2019


  • Patient involvement
  • Priority-setting
  • Reporting
  • Transparency

Cite this