research agenda of the research

• Public Lectures
• Faculty & Staff Site >>

Creating a Research Agenda

by UW alumni Justin Reedy, Ph.D., Communication, and Madhavi Murty, Ph.D., Communication, in conversation with UW graduate students

Creating a research agenda should be a major goal for all graduate students—regardless of theoretical interests, methodological preferences, or career aspirations. A research agenda helps you orient yourself toward both short- and long-term goals; it will guide your selection of classes, help you decide which academic conferences (and within those, which specific divisions) to engage in, and steer you in recruiting mentors and research collaborators.

What is a research agenda?  It’s a plan and a focus on issues and ideas in a subset of your field. You cannot study everything in your field during your time in graduate school, so decide what to focus on now, and what to defer until another day.

Research agendas are not set in concrete;  they naturally change over time as your knowledge grows and as new research questions emerge.

Don’t be intimidated.  Many students may start a graduate program with only a few ideas of areas they would like to study, or perhaps a few general research questions. Graduate courses, conversations with faculty and fellow students, and time spent reading the literature in the field can help you start to form a research agenda out of those ideas or research questions.

How to get started

• Talk with faculty members about your general interests. Use faculty as a resource to find out which topics are over-studied and where additional work is needed.
• If there are students with similar or overlapping interests, get their perspectives as well.
• Read a great deal, even in the early weeks of your graduate work. Be open to reading research outside your immediate areas of interests and seeing how they link to your own areas.
• Ask faculty for reading lists or copies of syllabi. Such resources help you familiarize yourself with the research already done in areas that interest you. Be sure to follow up on citations that are interesting or intriguing.
• Identify key authors relevant to your interests. Read their scholarship and understand the work that has informed their research.

Advancing your agenda

• Identify courses that will help advance your research agenda—both in terms of specific knowledge about the issues and relevant methods. Remember that the title of a class might not always fully describe it, so contact the professor to find out more about class content.
• Look both inside and outside the department for classes—and look outside especially in your second year in the program. Graduate students in interdisciplinary fields, for example, may find very valuable classes in diverse departments.
• Think specifically about the research questions you want to ask, and think about how you will answer them. Then pick courses to help you in reaching this goal.
• Try to use class assignments to advance your research agenda. If possible, use each seminar paper as a way to focus on a specific part of your overall agenda —whether it be a literature review or a proposal for a study.
• Don’t be afraid to take a chance on a course that seems somewhat outside of your agenda or your comfort zone. If the topics or research methods covered in the course draw your interest, you could find a way to incorporate those into your overarching research agenda.

Conference papers, colloquia, and research articles

• Ask faculty members if they have research projects in which you can participate.
• Work with more than one faculty member. Different faculty members provide different perspectives even if they are interested in the same concepts.
• Talk to faculty and other graduate students about conferences you should attend (and conference paper deadlines). Use conference paper deadlines to pace your own research production.
• Present your work at conferences, listen to others’ ideas, and solicit feedback on your research.
• Consider working towards the publication of your papers. With enough feedback and guidance from faculty, fellow graduate students, and colleagues in the field, what starts out as a seminar or conference paper could turn into a journal article or book chapter.
• Attend talks and colloquia on campus—both inside and outside your department. These talks can help you generate research ideas and help you see your research in a new light.
• Recruit others to work with you on projects. Student collaborations are especially fruitful when the constituent members have similar interests, but bring different yet complementary perspectives and skills to the endeavor.

Be active: Be a part of the conversation in your field!

Early Career Forum

Developing a research agenda.

November 12, 2014

By Milena A. Keller-Margulis, University of Houston

Despite how much and how often the term “research agenda” is used, there seems to be no agreed-upon, or formalized definition to be found. Many different entities may have a research agenda including entire fields of study, funding agencies, and of course individuals. We propose the following definition of a research agenda; a roadmap or framework that guides inquiry. A research agenda may be both global and specific. Ideally it is used to specify gaps in knowledge in a specific area and serves to guide the direction and development of new projects and research questions. A clear research agenda serves two important purposes. First, it can help you communicate to others what you study and the area in which you have developed (or are developing) expertise.  Second, it serves to guide your decision-making about what projects or specific research questions to pursue. Ultimately, you must be interested in and excited about the topic(s) at the heart of your research agenda.

Strategies for Defining Your Agenda It is never too early or too late to begin to develop your research agenda. It should not be considered static, as the process of developing an agenda is inherently reflective and ongoing. The best way to determine the general topic of your research agenda is to pay attention to the topics that interest you the most. You might discover this through reading the literature but these ideas may also surface through your practical or field-based experiences. These opportunities help to refine what might be a more global topic area into more specific or narrow research questions that have practical significance. Lastly, do not be afraid to test drive some areas of interest by getting involved in research, seeking out opportunities to explore new areas, and talking to other people with similar interests. These activities will help you narrow your focus to the topics and questions that are the most interesting to you.

How to Put Your Agenda into Action Once you determine your general topic(s) of interest, the actions you take are what solidify your agenda. The two key ways to accomplish this are to (1)  conduct research  in the areasthat are the focus of your research agenda, and (2)  disseminate the products of  your research agenda. Generating new research and then disseminating it through writing for publication is the most critical way to further your developing agenda, and of course, contribute to the scientific literature. This can take many forms including writing proposals for conference presentations, writing grant proposals (small or large), and writing for publication. Dissemination can also be informal and involve reaching out to others who are doing similar work in order to identify potential collaborative relationships. All of these actions serve to communicate your agenda to others while at the same time developing and further refining your ideas.  Ultimately, having a research agenda means that you not only have specific topics that you are interested in studying but that you actively engage in research to advance that literature base.

Here are some general tips to consider:

• Use your Research Agenda as your Roadmap:  One of the most exciting aspects of working in academia and engaging in research is the limitless topics and projects you can pursue. This is also a challenge because you have to make choices as to where you will invest your time. Evaluate each potential research opportunity for the degree to which it is consistent with your agenda.
• Develop an Infrastructure:  There are some logistic or infrastructure elements that you might consider in the early stages of developing your agenda. You should consider what you need to facilitate your work. Do you need space or support in the form of research assistants? Materials? Access to certain settings or populations of interest? Build a team of students to help you advance your agenda.
• Get Connected:  Another strategy to further develop your research agenda is to collaborate with other scholars who are interested in the same topics. This can be accomplished in an informal way by meeting at conferences (e.g. attend social hours or networking events) or sending a friendly email but there are also structured mentoring/networking opportunities you can utilize. For example, the Society for the Study of School Psychology (SSSP) hosts the School Psychology Research Collaboration Conference every other year. This opportunity brings together junior and senior scholars to support the development of collaborative relationships. Reaching out to other professionals who work in settings that serve populations you want to study is also a great way to develop field-based research partnerships that are mutually beneficial.

Developing and furthering a research agenda takes time and commitment but having a clear area of interest that you find exciting, ensures that it will be a very rewarding endeavor.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• Career Advice

Creating a Research Agenda

You have / 5 articles left. Sign up for a free account or log in.

Creating a research agenda should be a major goal for all graduate students — regardless of theoretical interests, methodological preferences, or career aspirations. A research agenda helps you orient yourself toward both short- and long-term goals; it will guide your selection of classes, help you decide which academic conferences (and within those, which specific divisions) to engage in, and steer you in recruiting mentors and research collaborators.

What is a research agenda? It’s a plan and a focus on issues and ideas in a subset of your field. You cannot study everything in your field during your time in graduate school, so decide what to focus on now, and what to defer until another day.

Research agendas are not set in concrete; they naturally change over time as your knowledge grows and as new research questions emerge.

Don’t be intimidated. Many students may start a graduate program with only a few ideas of areas they would like to study, or perhaps a few general research questions. Graduate courses, conversations with faculty and fellow students, and time spent reading the literature in the field can help you start to form a research agenda out of those ideas or research questions.

How to get started

• Talk with faculty members about your general interests. Use faculty as a resource to find out which topics are over-studied and where additional work is needed.
• If there are students with similar or overlapping interests, get their perspectives as well.
• Read a great deal, even in the early weeks of your graduate work. Be open to reading research outside your immediate areas of interests and seeing how they link to your own areas.
• Ask faculty for reading lists or copies of syllabi. Such resources help you familiarize yourself with the research already done in areas that interest you. Be sure to follow up on citations that are interesting or intriguing.
• Identify key authors relevant to your interests. Read their scholarship and understand the work that has informed their research.

Advancing your agenda

• Identify courses that will help advance your research agenda — both in terms of specific knowledge about the issues and relevant methods. Remember that the title of a class might not always fully describe it, so contact the professor to find out more about class content.
• Look both inside and outside the department for classes — and look outside especially in your second year in the program. Graduate students in interdisciplinary fields, for example, may find very valuable classes in diverse departments.
• Think specifically about the research questions you want to ask, and think about how you will answer them. Then pick courses to help you in reaching this goal.
• Try to use class assignments to advance your research agenda. If possible, use each seminar paper as a way to focus on a specific part of your overall agenda — whether it be a literature review or a proposal for a study.
• Don’t be afraid to take a chance on a course that seems somewhat outside of your agenda or your comfort zone. If the topics or research methods covered in the course draw your interest, you could find a way to incorporate those into your overarching research agenda.

Conference papers, colloquia, and research articles

• Ask faculty members if they have research projects in which you can participate.
• Work with more than one faculty member. Different faculty members provide different perspectives even if they are interested in the same concepts.
• Talk to faculty and other graduate students about conferences you should attend (and conference paper deadlines). Use conference paper deadlines to pace your own research production.
• Present your work at conferences, listen to others’ ideas, and solicit feedback on your research.
• Consider working toward the publication of your papers. With enough feedback and guidance from faculty, fellow graduate students, and colleagues in the field, what starts out as a seminar or conference paper could turn into a journal article or book chapter.
• Attend talks and colloquia on campus — both inside and outside your department. These talks can help you generate research ideas and help you see your research in a new light.
• Recruit others to work with you on projects. Student collaborations are especially fruitful when the constituent members have similar interests, but bring different yet complementary perspectives and skills to the endeavor.

Be active: Be a part of the conversation in your field!

The End of the Academy?

Share this article, more from career advice.

Academia Broke Me

Becoming an academic editor gave me my life back, writes Paulina S.

A Career Option Humanities Ph.D.s Should Consider

Jobs in career advising for grad students call on the natural skills of such Ph.D.s and are both fulfilling and in de

How to Give Up Tenure—Twice—and Thrive

Regardless of our fears and challenges, Heather Braun writes, we all can take actions, however small, that will over

• Become a Member
• Sign up for Newsletters
• Learning & Assessment
• Diversity & Equity
• Career Development
• Labor & Unionization
• Shared Governance
• Academic Freedom
• Books & Publishing
• Financial Aid
• Residential Life
• Free Speech
• Physical & Mental Health
• Race & Ethnicity
• Sex & Gender
• Socioeconomics
• Traditional-Age
• Adult & Post-Traditional
• Teaching & Learning
• Artificial Intelligence
• Digital Publishing
• Data Analytics
• Administrative Tech
• Alternative Credentials
• Financial Health
• Cost-Cutting
• Revenue Strategies
• Academic Programs
• Physical Campuses
• Mergers & Collaboration
• Fundraising
• Research Universities
• Regional Public Universities
• Community Colleges
• Private Nonprofit Colleges
• Minority-Serving Institutions
• Religious Colleges
• Women's Colleges
• Specialized Colleges
• For-Profit Colleges
• Executive Leadership
• Trustees & Regents
• State Oversight
• Accreditation
• Politics & Elections
• Supreme Court
• Student Aid Policy
• Science & Research Policy
• State Policy
• Colleges & Localities
• Employee Satisfaction
• Remote & Flexible Work
• Staff Issues
• Study Abroad
• International Students in U.S.
• U.S. Colleges in the World
• Intellectual Affairs
• Seeking a Faculty Job
• Advancing in the Faculty
• Seeking an Administrative Job
• Advancing as an Administrator
• Beyond Transfer
• Call to Action
• Confessions of a Community College Dean
• Higher Ed Gamma
• Higher Ed Policy
• Just Explain It to Me!
• Just Visiting
• Law, Policy—and IT?
• Leadership & StratEDgy
• Leadership in Higher Education
• Learning Innovation
• Online: Trending Now
• Resident Scholar
• University of Venus
• Student Voice
• Academic Life
• Health & Wellness
• The College Experience
• Life After College
• Academic Minute
• Weekly Wisdom
• Reports & Data
• Quick Takes
• Advertising & Marketing
• Consulting Services
• Data & Insights
• Hiring & Jobs
• Event Partnerships

4 /5 Articles remaining this month.

Sign up for a free account or log in.

• Sign Up, It’s FREE

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Creating a Research Agenda and Setting Research Priorities for Clinical Nurse Specialists

Affiliation.

• 1 Author Affiliations: President (Dr Foster), Nursing Inquiry & Intervention, Inc, The Woodlands, Texas; Associate Professor (Dr Bautista), Egan School of Nursing and Health Studies, Fairfield University, Connecticut; Pulmonary Clinical Nurse Specialist (Dr Ellstrom), VA Loma Linda Healthcare System; and Director (Dr Kalowes), Nursing Research, Innovation and Evidence-Based Practice, Long Beach Memorial Miller Children's & Women's Hospital, California; Associate Dean of Undergraduate Programs (Dr Manning), School of Nursing, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans; Clinical Nurse Specialist (Dr Pasek), Pain/Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh of Medical Center, Pennsylvania.
• PMID: 29200037
• DOI: 10.1097/NUR.0000000000000344

Purpose/objectives: The purpose of this article is to describe the evolution and results of the process for establishing a research agenda and identification of research priorities for clinical nurse specialists, approved by the National Association of Clinical Nurse Specialists (NACNS) membership and sanctioned by the NACNS Board of Directors.

Description of the project/program: Development of the research agenda and identification of the priorities were an iterative process and involved a review of the literature; input from multiple stakeholders, including individuals with expertise in conducting research serving as task force members, and NACNS members; and feedback from national board members.

Outcome: A research agenda, which is to provide an enduring research platform, was established and research priorities, which are to be applied in the immediate future, were identified as a result of this process.

Conclusion: Development of a research agenda and identification of research priorities are a key method of fulfilling the mission and goals of NACNS. The process and outcomes are described in this article.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Pain Management Pillars for the Clinical Nurse Specialist: Summary of National Association of Clinical Nurse Specialists Opioid Pain Management Task Force. Klaess CC, Urton M, Whitehead P, Rosier PK, Burnie J, Michel M. Klaess CC, et al. Clin Nurse Spec. 2019 May/Jun;33(3):136-145. doi: 10.1097/NUR.0000000000000449. Clin Nurse Spec. 2019. PMID: 30946111
• Energize staff to create a research agenda. Bethel SA, Seitz S, Landreth CO, Gibson L, Whitcomb JJ. Bethel SA, et al. Clin Nurse Spec. 2012 Sep-Oct;26(5):272-6. doi: 10.1097/NUR.0b013e31825aeb80. Clin Nurse Spec. 2012. PMID: 22903207
• Research Agenda of the Oncology Nursing Society: 2019-2022 (Executive Summary). [No authors listed] [No authors listed] Oncol Nurs Forum. 2019 Nov 1;46(6):651-653. doi: 10.1188/19.ONF.651-653. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2019. PMID: 31626620
• Developing clinical nurse specialist practice competencies. Baldwin KM, Lyon BL, Clark AP, Fulton J, Davidson S, Dayhoff N. Baldwin KM, et al. Clin Nurse Spec. 2007 Nov-Dec;21(6):297-303. doi: 10.1097/01.NUR.0000299619.28851.69. Clin Nurse Spec. 2007. PMID: 18000443 Review.
• A first agenda in a "Young" nursing research environment: the Swiss research agenda for nursing and its implication for cardiovascular nursing research in Switzerland. Mahrer-Imhof R, Imhof L. Mahrer-Imhof R, et al. Prog Cardiovasc Nurs. 2008 Fall;23(4):184-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-7117.2008.00013.x. Prog Cardiovasc Nurs. 2008. PMID: 19067983 Review. No abstract available.
• What do we know about evidence-informed priority setting processes to set population-level health-research agendas: an overview of reviews. Tan A, Nagraj SK, Nasser M, Sharma T, Kuchenmüller T. Tan A, et al. Bull Natl Res Cent. 2022;46(1):6. doi: 10.1186/s42269-021-00687-8. Epub 2022 Jan 6. Bull Natl Res Cent. 2022. PMID: 35013662 Free PMC article. Review.
• Morbidity and Mortality in Critically Ill Children. II. A Qualitative Patient-Level Analysis of Pathophysiologies and Potential Therapeutic Solutions. Meert KL, Banks R, Holubkov R, Pollack MM; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Collaborative Pediatric Critical Care Research Network. Meert KL, et al. Crit Care Med. 2020 Jun;48(6):799-807. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000004332. Crit Care Med. 2020. PMID: 32301845 Free PMC article.
• Nursing research priorities based on CINAHL database: A scoping review. Hopia H, Heikkilä J. Hopia H, et al. Nurs Open. 2019 Dec 26;7(2):483-494. doi: 10.1002/nop2.428. eCollection 2020 Mar. Nurs Open. 2019. PMID: 32089844 Free PMC article. Review.
• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Ovid Technologies, Inc.
• Wolters Kluwer

Other Literature Sources

• scite Smart Citations

Research Materials

• NCI CPTC Antibody Characterization Program

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Introducing a Research Agenda

• First Online: 19 January 2023

Cite this chapter

• Christian Ydesen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7804-6821 6 ,
• Alison L. Milner 6 ,
• Tali Aderet-German 6 , 7 ,
• Ezequiel Gomez Caride 8 &
• Youjin Ruan 6  

425 Accesses

In the midst of a range of unprecedented global events, geopolitical developments, and health, climate, socio-economic, and humanitarian crises, which have challenged assumptions about the nature and purpose of education, this chapter frames the book as an attempt to engage with a window of opportunity for shaping educational trajectories for the future. The purpose of the chapter is to introduce the principal themes of the book, and the research on which this work is based, through a nuanced and meticulous unpacking of the paradoxes and dilemmas arising between the assessment and inclusion agendas in education. The chapter argues that an analysis of these two agendas offers insights into how assessment and inclusion constitute and epitomise internal and external agendas as well as the multiplicity of dimensions associated with education. Finally, the chapter briefly introduces the empirical case contexts analysed in the book and presents the chapter structure of the book.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

In England, formal, standardised tests are referred to as “exams”. In many classrooms, a test might be considered “an end of unit test”—synonymous with the US term “quiz”. Tests tend to be seen as something “smaller” in England. In Argentina there also is a distinction between test and exam, that is, final exams, mid-term exams, and integrative exams.

It should be duly noted that the tradition of critical pedagogy has been severely criticised from post-structural and feminist perspectives for being “implicated in the very structures they are trying to change” (Ellsworth, 1989 , p. 310) and guilty of reductionism not considering the complexities of societal interactions surrounding education (Stańczyk, 2021 ).

Acosta, F. (2009). Reconfiguration of the secondary school faced with massive entry of students from poor sectors. Revista de Pedagogía, 30 (87), 217–246.

Google Scholar  

Acosta, F. (2019). OECD, PISA and the educationalization of the world: The case of the southern cone countries. In C. Ydesen (Ed.), The OECD’s historical rise in education. Global histories of education (pp. 175–196). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33799-5_9

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Addey, C., & Gorur, R. (2020). Translating PISA, translating the world. Comparative Education, 56 , 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2020.1771873

Article   Google Scholar  

Aderet-German, T. (in press). Rewidening the lens to ethnic and socioeconomic diversity? ‘Othering’ through inclusion and assessment in Israeli educational policy and practice. International Journal of Inclusive Education .

Ainscow, M. (2005). Developing inclusive education systems: What are the levers for change? Journal of Educational Change, 6 (2), 109–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-005-1298-4

Ainscow, M., Booth, T., & Dyson, A. (2006). Inclusion and the standards agenda: Negotiating policy pressures in England. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10 (4–5), 295–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110500430633

Alarcón López, C., & Lawn, M. (2018). Assessment Cultures . Peter Lang Verlag.

Book   Google Scholar  

Althusser, L. (1971). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses. In L. Althusser (Ed.), Lenin and philosophy and other essays . New York: Monthly Review Press.

An, Z. G., Hu, X., & Horn, E. (2018). Chinese inclusive education: The past, present, and future. Intervention in School and Clinic, 54 (2), 118–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451218765244

Armstrong, D., Armstrong, A. C., & Spandagou, I. (2010). Inclusive education: International policy and practice . Routledge.

Baird, J.-A., & Gray, L. (2016). The meaning of curriculum-related examination standards in Scotland and England: A home–international comparison. Oxford Review of Education, 42 (3), 266–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2016.1184866

Ball, S. J. (2021). Response: Policy? Policy research? How absurd? Critical Studies in Education, 62 (3), 387–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2021.1924214

Beech, J., & Barrenechea, I. (2011). Pro-market educational governance: Is Argentina a black swan? Critical Studies in Education, 52 (3), 279–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2011.604077

Bernstein, B. B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control, and identity: Theory, research, critique (Rev. ed.). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Biesta, G. (2017). From the editor: The struggle for education. Educational Theory, 67 (6), 653–656. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12277

Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2011). Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools (2nd ed.). Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education.

Bourdieu, P. (1996). The state nobility: Elite schools in the field of power . Stanford University Press.

Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1977). Reproduction in education, society, and culture . Sage.

Bower, V. (2020). Debates in primary education . Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003091028

Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America . Routledge.

Bundsgaard, J., & Kreiner, S. (2019). Undersøgelse af de nationale tests måleegenskaber [investigation into the measurement properties of the national tests] . Aarhus Universitet DPU.

Caride, E. G., & Cardoner, M. (2018). Inclusion: The Cinderella concept in educational policy in Latin America. In B. Hamre, A. Morin, & C. Ydesen (Eds.), Testing and inclusive education. International challenges and opportunities . Routledge.

Central Bureau of Statistics. (2013, January 14). Skirat hamtzav ha’demografee be’Israel le’shnat 2011 [Demographic situation in Israel - 2011] [Press release]. https://www.cbs.gov.il/he/mediarelease/DocLib/2013/008/01_13_008b.pdf

Central Bureau of Statistics. (2019, December 31). Hoda’a la’tikshoret [Press release for the beginning of 2020].

Council of the European Union & European Commission. (2015). Joint Report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET 2020) New priorities for European cooperation in education and training (2015/C 417/04).

Daniels, J.C. (1947, February 4). Are scholarship exams fair—or useful? Daily Worker .

Daniels, H., Thompson, I., & Emery, J. (2023). Difference and school exclusion in a time of COVID-19. International Journal of Inclusive Education . (forthcoming).

Daniels, H., Thompson, I., & Tawell, A. (2019). After Warnock: The effects of perverse incentives in policies in England for students with special educational needs. Frontiers in Education, 4 , Published online 24th April, 2019. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00036

Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Trans. Brian Massumi . University of Minneapolis.

Dello-Iacovo, B. (2009). Curriculum reform and ‘quality education’ in China: An overview. International Journal of Educational Development, 29 (3), 241–249.

Deng, M., & Poon-McBrayer, K. F. (2012). Reforms and challenges in the era of inclusive education: The case of China. British Journal of Special Education, 39 (3), 117–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8578.2012.00551.x

Depaepe, M., & Smeyers, P. (2008). Educationalization as an ongoing modernization process. Educational Theory, 58 (4), 379–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2008.00295.x

Department for Education. (2022, June 9). Pupil Premium; an Overview . https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pupil-premium/pupil-premium

Department for Education and Department for Health. (2015, January). SEND code of practice: 0–25 years. Statutory guidance for organisations which work with and support children and young people who have special educational needs or disabilities. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/398815/SEND_Code_of_Practice_January_2015.pdf

Douglas, G., McLinden, M., Robertson, C., Travers, J., & Smith, E. (2016). Including pupils with special educational needs and disability in National Assessment: Comparison of three country case studies through an inclusive assessment framework. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 63 (1), 98–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2015.1111306

Dovemark, M., Kosunen, S., Kauko, J., Magnúsdóttir, B., Hansen, P., & Rasmussen, P. (2018). Deregulation, privatisation and marketisation of Nordic comprehensive education: Social changes reflected in schooling. Education Inquiry, 9 (1), 122–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2018.1429768

Durkheim, É. (1956). Education and sociology . Free Press.

Education, Culture and Sports Committee. (2020). Minutes of Proceedings (No. 18. 23rd Knesset, 1st session). Education, Culture, and Sports Committee, Knesset. https://main.knesset.gov.il/Activity/committees/Education/Pages/CommitteeAgenda.aspx?tab=3&ItemID=2141533

Ekholm, M. (2004). OECD-rapport om grundskolen i Danmark - 2004 [OECD report on the compulsory school in Denmark - 2004] . Ministry of Education. http://static.uvm.dk/publikationer/2004/oecd/oecd.pdf

Elfert, M., & Ydesen, C. (2020). The rise of global governance in education: The OEEC and UNESCO, 1945-1960. In K. Gram-Skjoldager, H. A. Ikonomou, & T. Kahlert (Eds.), Organizing the World- International Organization and the Emergence of International Public Administration 1920–1960 (pp. 73–89). Bloomsbury.

Ellsworth, E. (1989). Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 59 , 297–324.

Engsig, T. T., & Johnstone, C. J. (2015). Is there something rotten in the state of Denmark? The paradoxical policies of inclusive education – Lessons from Denmark. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19 (5), 469–486. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2014.940068

Evans, J., & Lunt, I. (2002). Inclusive education: are there limits?, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17 (1), 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250110098980

Francis, B., Archer, L., Hodgen, J., Pepper, D., Taylor, B., & Travers, M.-C. (2017). Exploring the relative lack of impact of research on ‘ability grouping’ in England: A discourse analytic account. Cambridge Journal of Education, 47 (1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2015.1093095

Freire, P. (2018). Pedagogy of the oppressed . (50th anniversary edition ed.). Bloomsbury Academic.

Frydendahl Larsen, B. (2017). When the problem of incorrigible girls became a problem of psychopathy. In B. Formark, H. Mulari, & M. Voipio (Eds.), Nordic girlhoods: New perspectives and outlooks (pp. 137–159). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65118-7_8

Gibton, D. (2011). Post-2000 law-based educational governance in Israel: From equality to diversity? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 39 (4), 434–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143211406559

Gorard, S. (2014). The link between academies in England, student outcomes and local patterns of socio-economic segregation between schools. Research Papers in Education, 29 (3), 268–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2014.885726

Hamre, B. (2013). Optimization as a dispositive in the production of differences in Denmark schools. European Education, 45 (4), 7–25. https://doi.org/10.2753/EUE1056-4934450402

Hamre, B. F. (2018). Inclusion and the management of diversity in the Danish welfare state (M. Best, T. Corcoran, & R. Slee, Red.; s. 33–46). Brill | Sense. https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004391000/BP000015.xml

Hanson, F. A. (1993). Testing testing: Social consequences of the examined life . University of California Press.

Hantrais, L. (1999). Contextualization in cross-national comparative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 2 (2), 93–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/136455799295078

Hardy, I., & Woodcock, S. (2015). Inclusive education policies: Discourses of difference, diversity and deficit. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19 (2), 141–164.

Hartong, S., & Piattoeva, N. (2019). Contextualizing the datafication of schooling – A comparative discussion of Germany and Russia. Critical Studies in Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2019.1618887

Hattie, J., & Larsen, S. N. (2020). The purposes of education: A conversation between John Hattie and Steen Nepper Larsen. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367815561

Hooks, B. (2003). Teaching community: A pedagogy of Hope . Routledge.

Hopfenbeck, T. N. (2019). Does a test have to be fair to be valid? Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 26 (5), 537–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2019.1666229

Hunter, I. (1994). Rethinking the school: Subjectivity, bureaucracy, criticism . St. Martin’s Press.

Kelly, P., Andreasen, K. E., Kousholt, K., McNess, E., & Ydesen, C. (2018). Education governance and standardised tests in Denmark and England. Journal of Education Policy, 33 (6), 739–758. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2017.1360518

Leung, F. K. (1998). The implications of Confucianism for education today. Journal of thought, 33 (2), 25–36.

Li, L. (2020). Lunyu zhong Kongi Jiaoyu sixiang pingxi [An analysis of Confucius’ educational thought in the analects]. Zhisih Wenku, 19 , 9–13.

Lindblad, S., Pettersson, D., & Popkewitz, T. (2018). Education by the numbers and the making of society: The expertise of international assessments . Routledge.

Lingard, B., Sellar, S., & Lewis, S. (2017). Accountabilities in schools and school systems . Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.74

Lingard, B., Wyatt-Smith, C., & Heck, E. (2021). Transforming schooling through digital disruption. In I. C. Wyatt-Smith, B. Lingard, & E. Heck (Eds.), Digital disruption in teaching and testing (pp. 1–44). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003045793-1

Liu, S. (2020). Neoliberalism, globalization, and “elite” education in China: Becoming international . Routledge.

Lodge, R. C. (2014). Plato’s theory of education . Routledge.

Løgstrup, K. E. (1987). Kærlighed og solidaritet. Essays . Gyldendal.

Madaus, G. F., Russell, M. K., & Higgins, J. (2009). The paradoxes of high stakes testing: How they affect students, their parents, teachers, principals, schools, and society . Information Age Pub.

McNess, E., Arthur, L., & Crossley, M. (2015). ‘Ethnographic dazzle’ and the construction of the ‘other’: Revisiting dimensions of insider and outsider research for international and comparative education. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 45 (2), 295–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2013.854616

Menck, P. (2014). In J. A. Comenius & I. D. Phillips (Eds.), Encyclopedia of educational theory and philosophy (Vol. 1, pp. 156–158). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483346229.n70

Meyer, J. W., Tyack, D., Nagel, J., & Gordon, A. (1979). Public education as nation-building in America: Enrollments and bureaucratization in the American states, 1870-1930. American Journal of Sociology, 85 (3), 591–613. https://doi.org/10.1086/227051

Milner, A.L. (in press). Confronting the disadvantage gap: the challenges to transformative leadership in a high-stakes assessment system. International Journal of Inclusive Education.

Ministry of Education. (2001, June 8). Jiaoyubu guanyu yinfa “Jichu jiaoyu kecheng gaige gangyao (shixing)” de tongzhi [ Notice of the Ministry of Education on Printing and Distributing the “Outline of Basic Education Curriculum Reform (Trial)” ]. Ministry of Education of China. http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A26/jcj_kcjcgh/200106/t20010608_167343.html

Ministry of Education. (2010, July 29). Guojia Zhongchangqi jiaoyu gaige he fazhan guihua gangyao (2010–2020) [ National Long-term Education Reform and Development Program Planning for 2010–2020 ]. Ministry of Education of China. http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A01/s7048/201007/t20100729_171904.html

Ministry of Education, National Development and Reform Commission, Ministry of Civil Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security, Health and Family Planning Commission, & China Disabled Persons’ Federation. (2017, July 18). Jaoyubudeng qi bumen guanyu yinfa “Di’er qi teshu jiaoyu tisheng jihua (2017–2020 nian)” de tongzhi [ Notice of the Ministry of Education and other seven departments on the issuance of the “Second Phase Special Education Promotion Plan (2017–2020)” ]. Ministry of Education of China. http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A06/s3331/201707/t20170720_309687.html

Ministry of Education. (2021, July 24). Zhonggong Zhongyang bangongting, Guowuyuan bangongting yinfa “guanyu jinyibu jianqing yiwu jiaoyu xuesheng zuoye fudan he xiaowai peixun fudan de yijian” [ The General Office of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the General Office of the State Council issued the “Opinions on Further Reducing the Burden of Students’ Homework and Off-campus Training in Compulsory Education” ]. Ministry of Education of China. http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_xwfb/gzdt_gzdt/s5987/202107/t20210724_546566.html

Mülberger, A. (2020). Biographies of a scientific subject: The intelligence test. In I. A. Mülberger (Ed.), Oxford research Encyclopedia of psychology . Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.694

Myers, K., & Ydesen, C. (2016). The imperial welfare state? Decolonization, education and professional interventions on immigrant children in Birmingham, 1948-1971. In M. Padovan-Özdemir & C. Ydesen (Eds.), Paedagogica Historica, themed issue: Shaping European welfare nation-states through professional encounters with the post-WWII immigrant (Vol. 52, p. 5). https://doi.org/10.1080/00309230.2016.1192207

Nettleship, R. L. (1906). The theory of education in the republic of Plato . The University of Chicago press.

Newton, P. E. (2007). Clarifying the purposes of educational assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 14 (2), 149–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940701478321

OECD. (2001). The well-being of nations: The role of human and social capital . Centre for educational research and innovation.

Opertti, R., Bueno, C., & Arsendeau, P. (2021) Inclusion in education, Thematic Notes no. 1 , UNESCO-IBE, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000378427

Parish, N., Bryant, B., & Swords, B. (2019). Have we reached a tipping point? Trends in spending for children and young people with SEND in England. Local Government Association and ISOS Partnership. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ce55a5ad4c5c500016855ee/t/5d1cdad6b27e2700017ea7c9/1562172125505/LGA+HN+report+corrected+20.12.18.pdf

Parsons, T. (1951). The Social System . New York: Free Press.

Pons, X., & Maroy, C. (2019). Accountability policies in education a comparative and multilevel analysis in France and Quebec (1st ed.). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01285-4

Popkewitz, T. S. (2020). The impracticality of practical research: A history of contemporary sciences of change that conserve . University of Michigan Press.

Popkewitz, T. S., & Lindblad, S. (2004). Historicizing the future: Educational reform, Systems of Reason, and the making of children who are the future citizens. Journal of Educational Change, 5 (3), 229–247. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JEDU.0000041042.53119.f5

Pring, R. (2021). Education, social reform and philosophical development: Evidence from the past, principles for the future . Routledge.

Rasmussen, A., & Moos, L. (2014). A school for less than all. In U. Blossing, G. Imsen, & L. Moos (Eds.), The nordic education model: ‘A School for all’ encounters neo-liberal policy, policy implications of research in education (Vol. 1, pp. 57–75). Springer Science and Business Media.

Rivas, A., & Sanchez, B. (2020). Race to the classroom: The governance turn in Latin American education. The emerging era of accountability, control and prescribed curriculum. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education., 52 , 250. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2020.1756745

Rivas, A., & Scasso, M. G. (2019). Low stakes, high risks: The problem of intertemporal validity of PISA in Latin America. Journal of Education Policy, 36 , 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2019.1696987

Robbins, D. (1998). The need for an epistemological ‘break’. In M. Grenfell & D. James (Eds.), Bourdieu and education: Acts of practical theory (pp. 27–51). Falmer Press.

Roth, K. (2014). Kant, Immanuel. In D. Phillips (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational theory and philosophy (Vol. 1, pp. 439–445). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483346229.n188

Ryan, K. E., & Feller, I. (2009). Evaluation, accountability and performance measurement in national education systems – Trends, methods, and issues. In K. E. Ryan & J. B. Cousins (Eds.), The Sage International handbook of educational evaluation (pp. 171–189). Sage.

Sadler, S. M. (1979). Selections from Michael Sadler: Studies in world citizenship . Dejall & Meyorre.

Saha, L. J. (2001). Durkheim’s sociology of education: A critical reassessment. Education and Society, 19 (2), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.7459/es/19.2.03

Schuelka, M. J., & Engsig, T. T. (2020). On the question of educational purpose: Complex educational systems analysis for inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 26 , 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1698062

Shaeffer, S. (2019). Inclusive education: A prerequisite for equity and social justice. Asia Pacific Education Review, 20 (2), 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-019-09598-w

Shain, F. (2013). Race, nation and education: An overview of British attempts to ‘manage diversity’ since the 1950s. Education Inquiry, 4 (1), 63–85. https://doi.org/10.3402/edui.v4i1.22062

Shi, Z. (2020). Huigui jiaoyu benti——Dangqian woguo jiaoyu pingjia tixi gaige chuyi [returning to the ontology of education——On the current reform of my country’s education evaluation system]. Educational Research, 9 , 4–15.

Silova, I., Rappleye, J., & Auld, E. (2020). In G. Fan & T. Popkewitz (Eds.), Beyond the Western horizon: Rethinking education, values, and policy transfer . Handbook of Education Policy Studies. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8347-2_1

Sim, M. (2009). Dewey and Confucius: On moral education. Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 36 , 85–105.

Simon, B. (1953). Intelligence testing and the comprehensive school . Lawrence & Wishart Ltd.

Slee, R. (2018a). Defining the scope of inclusive education: think piece prepared for the 2020 Global education monitoring report, Inclusion and education, UNESDOC, ED/GEMR/MRT/2018/T1/1.

Slee, R. (2018b). Defining the scope of inclusive education . Paper commissioned for the 2020 Global Education Monitoring Report, Inclusion and education. UNESCO.

Smith, W. C. (2018). Quality and inclusion in the SDGs: Tension in principle and practice. In B. Hamre, A. Morin, & C. Ydesen (Eds.), Testing and inclusive schooling: International challenges and opportunities (pp. 89–104). Routledge.

Sørensen, T. B. (2011). The bias of markets: A comparative study of the market form and identity politics in English and Danish compulsory education . University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Humanities.

Spandagou, I. (2021). Inclusive education is another country; developments, obstacles and resistance to inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1 , 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.1965805

Stańczyk, P. (2021). The critique of the critical critique of critical pedagogy: Freire, Suchodolski and the materialist pedagogy of emancipation. Critical Education, 12 (4), 1–24. Retrieved from: http://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/criticaled/article/view/186502

State Council. (1999, June 13). Zhonggong zhongyang guowuyuan guanyu shenhua jiaoyu gaige, quanmian tuijin suzhi jiaoyu de jueding [Decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council on deepening education reform and comprehensively promoting quality Education]. Ministry of Education of China. http://old.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_177/200407/2478.html

State Council. (2012, September 7). Guowuyuan guanyu shenru tuijin yiwu jiaoyu junheng fazhan de yijian [ Opinions of the State Council on further promoting the balanced development of compulsory education ]. State Council of China. http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2012-09/07/content_2218783.htm

State Council. (2014, September 4). Guowuyuan guanyu shenhua kaoshi zhaosheng zhidu gaige de shishi yijian [ Opinions of the State Council on Deepening the Reform of Examination and Enrolment system ]. State Council of China. http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2014-09/04/content_9065.htm

State Council. (2017, January 19). Guojia jiaoyu shiye fazhan “shisanwu” guihua [ The 13th Five-year Plan for the Development of National Education ]. State Council of China. http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2017-01/19/content_5161341.htm

Stobart, G. (2008). Testing times: The uses and abuses of assessment . Routledge.

Stugu, O. S. (2001). Educational ideals and nation building in Norway 1840-1900. In S. Ahonen & J. Rantala (Eds.), Nordic lights. Education for nation and civic Society in the Nordic Countries, 1850–2000 . Finnish Literature Society.

Tan, C. (2017). Confucianism and education. In G. W. Noblit (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of education . Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.226

Teige, E. (2016). UNESCO’s Education for Living in a World Community: From teacher seminars to experimental activities, 1947–1963. UNESCO Without Borders. Educational campaigns for international understanding . Routledge.

Tröhler, D. (2017). Tracking the educationalization of the world: Prospects for an emancipated history of education. Pedagogika, 67 (4) Article 4. https://doi.org/10.14712/23362189.2017.1019

Tröhler, D. (2020). National literacies, or modern education and the art of fabricating national minds. Journal of Curriculum Studies , 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2020.1786727

Tröhler, D., Popkewitz, T. S., Labaree, D. F., & (Eds.). (2011). Schooling and the making of citizens in the long nineteenth century: Comparative visions (1st ed.). Routledge.

Tsameret, T. (2005). Zalaman Aran ve’ha’ produktiviziatsia shel bnei edot ha’mizrach [Zalman Aran and the productivation of the Jewish easterners]. In A. Bareli, D. Gutwin, & T. Friling (Eds.), Society and economics in Israel: A historical and contemporary perspective (Vol. 1, pp. 295–326). Yad Ben-zvi and Ben-Gurion Institute for Israel Studies.

UNESCO. (2020). Global education monitoring report 2020: Inclusion and education: All means all . UNESCO.

UNESCO. (2021). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education . UNESCO.

Unterhalter, E. (2019). The many meanings of quality education: Politics of targets and indicators in SDG4. Global Policy, 10 (S1), 39–51.

Vedung, E. (2010). Four waves of evaluation diffusion. Evaluation, 16 (3), 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389010372452

Weber, M. (2009). From Max Weber: Essays in sociology . Routledge.

Wiborg, S. (2013). Neo-liberalism and universal state education: The cases of Denmark, Norway and Sweden 1980–2011. Comparative Education, 49 (4), 407–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2012.700436

Xu, Y. (2011). Thus spoke the master (trans.) . China Intercontinental Press. (Original work published in the 5th century BC).

Yang, L. (2008, November 25). Liu Yandong chuxi Lianheguo jiaokewen zuzhi guoji jiaoyu dahui bing fayan [ Liu Yandong attended UNESCO International Conference on education and delivered a speech ]. Xinhuashe. http://www.gov.cn/ldhd/2008-11/25/content_1159808.htm

Ydesen, C. (2011a). Totality and exteriority: The case of high-stakes testing in intercultural education. In O. Kofoed, M. Paulsen, J. K. Rasmussen, & C. Ydesen (Eds.), Learning from the other (pp. 219–227). NSU Press. Aarhus Universitetsforlag.

Ydesen, C. (2014). High-stakes educational testing and democracy: Antagonistic or symbiotic relationship? Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 9 (2), 97–114.

Ydesen, C. (2021). Crafting globalization – A Bourdieusian historical approach to studying international organizations and global governance in education. In S. Robinson, J. Ernst, O. J. Thomasson, & K. Larsen (Eds.), Pierre Bourdieu in studies of organization and management: Societal change and transforming fields (pp. 134–154). Routledge.

Ydesen, C. (2022). Developing new National Tests for the Danish educational system – Tensions between renewal and orthodoxy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Assessment in Education .

Ydesen, C., Acosta, F., Milner, A. L., Ruan, Y., Aderet-German, T., Caride, E. G., & Hansen, I. S. (2020). Inclusion in testing times: Implications for citizenship and participation. Background paper for the futures of education initiative . UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000374084

Ydesen, C., & Bomholt, A. (2020). Accountability implications of the OECD’s economistic approach to education: A historical case analysis. Journal of Educational Change, 21 (1), 37–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-019-09355-1

Ydesen, C., & Buchardt, M. (2020). Citizen ideals and education in Nordic welfare state school reforms. In G. W. Noblit (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of education . Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.1450

Zou, Y. (2018). Educational opportunity between meritocracy and equity - a review of the National College Entrance Examination in China since 1977. In B. Hamre, A. Morin, & C. Ydesen (Eds.), Testing and inclusive schooling: International challenges and opportunities (pp. 34–46). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Education and Democracy

Dewey, J. (1903). Democracy in education. Elementary School Teacher, 4 (4), 193–204.

Dorn, S. (2007). Accountability Frankenstein: Understanding and taming the monster . Information Age Pub.

Shohamy, E. (2004). Assessment in multicultural societies: Applying democratic principles and practices to language testing. In B. E. Norton (Ed.), Critical pedagogies and language learning (pp. 72–92). Cambridge.

Wiliam, D. (2022, July 17). Dylan Wiliam’s alternative vision for fair and accurate assessment. TES Magazine . https://www.tes.com/magazine/teaching-learning/secondary/dylan-wiliam-exams-assessment-fair-accurate

Ydesen, C. (2011b). The rise of high-stakes educational testing in Denmark, 1920–1970 . Frankfurt a.M.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Culture and Learning, Aalborg University, Aalborg East, Denmark

Christian Ydesen, Alison L. Milner, Tali Aderet-German & Youjin Ruan

Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er Sheva, Israel

Tali Aderet-German

University of San Andrés, Victoria, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Ezequiel Gomez Caride

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Ydesen .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Ydesen, C., Milner, A.L., Aderet-German, T., Caride, E.G., Ruan, Y. (2022). Introducing a Research Agenda. In: Educational Assessment and Inclusive Education . Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19004-9_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19004-9_1

Published : 19 January 2023

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-19003-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-19004-9

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Am J Public Health
• v.107(9); Sep 2017

Development of a Research Agenda Focused on Academic Health Departments

P. C. Erwin conceptualized and drafted this article. P. C. Erwin, R. C. Brownson, W. C. Livingood, C. W. Keck, and K. Amos contributed substantially to editing and revising the article and approved the final version.

An academic health department (AHD) is a formal partnership between an academic institution and a governmental public health agency. Case studies have described the value of individual AHDs in the areas of student engagement, practice-based research, workforce development, and service.

With growing interest in AHDs and the increasing importance of academic–practice linkages in both academic programs’ and public health agencies’ accreditation processes, articulating a research agenda focused on the AHD model can be useful for stimulating the research and practice fields to further develop the evidence base for AHDs.

We provide a research agenda, developed through an iterative process involving academicians, practitioners, and others interested in academic–practice linkages.

The concept of the academic health department (AHD) has gained renewed interest since its description in 2000, 1 spurred on at least in part by the establishment of the Academic Health Department Learning Community (AHDLC) through the Council on Linkages Between Academia and Public Health Practice in 2011 2 and a May 2014 special issue of the Journal of Public Health Management and Practice . Defined as

an arrangement between an academic institution and a governmental public health agency which provides mutual benefits in teaching, research, and service, with academia informing the practice of public health, and the governmental public health agency informing the academic program, 3 (p270)

AHDs have been established concurrently with other forms of academic–practice linkages, including Public Health-Practice Based Research Networks (PH-PBRNs) 4 and Public Health Training Centers (PHTCs). 5 Among these three typologies of academic–practice linkages, however, AHDs are unique in the breadth of their activities, spanning practice-based research (the focus of PH-PBRNs) and workforce development (the focus of PHTCs), as well as providing opportunities for students in public health to apply classroom theory to real-world experiences, for practitioners to participate in educating students, and for academicians to provide service. The importance of bidirectional academic–practice engagement is further reflected in the accreditation requirements of academic programs through the Council on Education for Public Health 6 and the standards and measures of the national voluntary accreditation program for governmental public health agencies through the Public Health Accreditation Board. 7 A recent study indicated that 55% (64 of 117) of accredited schools and programs of public health have some form of AHD partnership, with 39% (46 of 117) having formal written agreements. 8 Partnerships from the practice perspective are also highly prevalent: In the 2016 Profile of Local Health Departments, 63% of local health department respondents reported engagement with schools or programs of public health, with 31% reporting formal written agreements. 9

Although research conducted by AHDs has been expanding, there has been a paucity of research conducted on AHDs. Numerous case reports and descriptive studies focused on individual AHDs have enumerated research publications, tallied grant funding, and described the involvement of public health students and the enhancement of their competencies, in addition to providing models of collaboration. 10–15 There have been isolated reports of more focused study of the AHD model, including an economic evaluation, 16 an examination of its relation to core public health functions, 17 and translational research (comparing colorectal cancer screening conducted through an AHD with that conducted through a controlled intervention trial). 18 There have been, however, few studies to inform the evidence base for AHDs regarding the central question, “Do they make a difference and, if so, how?” More specifically, do AHD relationships make a difference in how either the academic institution or the governmental health agency functions, what they do or how they do it, and the outcomes of their work vis-à-vis their underlying missions? Given the studies that describe the many inputs to AHD partnerships, such a central question is critical to making the best use of scarce resources, especially the resources of time and human capital. Recognizing this evidence gap, the Council on Linkages began a more concerted effort in 2015 to develop a research agenda focused on the AHD model. In this article, we describe the process for developing this research agenda and provide the agenda to the research and practice communities—as well as potential funders of research—for further debate, refinement, and action.

BACKGROUND: LAYING THE FOUNDATION

In a 2000 overview on academic–practice partnerships, Quill and Aday 19 posed the following questions: (1) How are the most effective partnerships achieved and (2) how well are these partnerships suited to the current and future problems of public health? Those questions became the framing for a subsequent review of AHDs by Erwin and Keck. 3 In that review, the attempt to answer the first question considered the prevalence, structure, and processes of AHDs; the approach to the second question explored the perceived or experienced value of the AHD model with respect to quality, accreditation, research, and health reform, and attempted to identify the gaps between what was known and what was necessary to know. In developing a logic model for the AHD, Erwin et al. 20 built on this gap analysis and posed a series of potential research questions by which the AHD model could be evaluated, similar to the approach taken by Joly et al. 21 in developing a logic model for the evaluation of a national voluntary accreditation program for governmental public health agencies. Thus, potential research questions were framed around inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes. The development team was challenged to consider the processes, outputs, and outcomes leading to the ultimate impacts reflected in the potentially disparate missions of academic and practice institutions.

In November 2015, the Council on Linkages (through coauthors C. W. K. and K. A.) invited the primary author (P. C. E.) to lead an effort to draft a research agenda focused on the AHD model. Since its establishment in 1992, the purpose of the Council on Linkages has been to “further academic/practice collaboration to ensure a well-trained, competent workforce and the development and use of a strong evidence base for public health practice.” 22 Through its support and facilitation of the AHDLC, with nearly 500 members, the Council on Linkages is well connected to the field for which a research agenda would likely hold greatest relevance. Others active in academic–practice partnerships and publishing results of practice-based research (R. C. B. and W. C. L.) were recruited to participate in the process of developing an initial draft research agenda. The goal for this work group was to provide a substantive draft of an AHD research agenda to the Council on Linkages by February 1, 2016.

As a starting point, the work group used the logic model and the example research and evaluation questions for the AHD referenced earlier, 20 as shown in Figure 1 . Between November 2015 and January 2016, the work group held three conference calls, with each call focused on a specific aspect of the logic model framework for research questions. After each call, revisions were circulated to the work group, with additional input provided virtually and incorporated into each iteration. After the final call on January 25, 2016, a draft research agenda was provided to the Council on Linkages. On March 16, 2016, the work group presented the draft research agenda to the AHDLC via a webinar, which provided an opportunity for initial reaction and commentary by others active in the field. Information about the webinar had been disseminated to the AHDLC via email, shared with Council on Linkages member organizations and others through the Council on Linkages Update electronic newsletter, and posted on the Public Health Foundation–AHDLC Web site; 28 individuals were listed as attending the webinar. That presentation is archived and available at http://www.phf.org/resourcestools/Pages/AHDLC_Meeting_2016Mar_Archive.aspx .

Logic Model for the Academic Health Department

Source. Adapted from Erwin et al. 20 Used by permission of Wolters Kluwer Health.

On March 18, 2016, the Council on Linkages posted the draft research agenda on http://www.phf.org/phfpulse/Pages/Draft_AHD_Research_Agenda_Now_Available_for_Public_Comment.aspx . Comments were initially accepted through April 29, 2016; a second public comment period opened on June 24, 2016, and ran through July 15, 2016. Requests for comments were distributed to the public health community through the AHDLC electronic mailing list, Council on Linkages Update newsletter, and PHF E-News . Additional targeted input was requested from the PH-PBRNs and PHTCs through their newsletters. Input received was used to refine initial drafts of the research agenda and produce a final draft for review by the Council on Linkages. The final draft research agenda was presented to the Council on Linkages during its conference call meeting on August 15, 2016. Comments and suggestions related to the final draft were made during this meeting, and additional feedback was accepted from Council on Linkages member organizations through August 31, 2016. Final refinement of the research agenda language was completed in September 2016 through an iterative process involving all authors of this article.

The final research agenda was presented to the Council on Linkages and was approved on October 26, 2016. During the approval process, Council on Linkages members suggested several additions to the research agenda. These suggestions resulted in the development of 10 additional potential research questions, as well as minor clarifications to the research agenda. After Council on Linkages member organizations had an opportunity to comment, the research agenda was updated to reflect these suggestions on November 21, 2016. The current version of the research agenda is available online to the public health community at http://www.phf.org/AHDresearchagenda .

The initial draft research agenda (as of January 2016) included 35 questions across the domains of inputs (seven), activities (six), outputs (nine), outcomes (10), and impact (three). Responses to written comments, comments during the AHDLC webinar and Council on Linkages conference call, and subsequent discussion among coauthors resulted in a final research agenda focused on AHDs, provided as the box on page 1371. The final research agenda contains 62 questions across the same domains described earlier, with the distribution of questions as follows: inputs, 14; activities, 8; outputs, 19; outcomes, 18; and impact, 3.

Academic Health Department (AHD) Research Agenda

The purpose of a research agenda focused on AHDs is to stimulate interest in and research focus on the AHD model; developing the evidence base for AHDs will bring us closer to answering the question “Do they make a difference?” The use of the logic model framework for this research agenda is intended to not only reflect the complexity of the overarching question “Do AHDs make a difference?” but to also provide a means of conceptualizing how such a question can be approached by breaking it down into its constituent parts: Does the AHD relationship make a difference in how the academic institution or governmental health agency operates and in what it does, how it does it, what it produces, and what the ultimate impacts may be? Although often depicted as a linear model, we use the logic model as an organizing framework, with no particular emphasis on or requirement for a specific sequence for research on AHDs to follow.

The published literature supports the notion that development of a research agenda can be one valuable means to stirring the research field—and its funders—to action. 23–25 Using a recent and related example, a research agenda for Public Health Services and Systems Research was published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine in 2012, 23 the product of a very comprehensive, year-long process involving multiple stakeholders. A search in PubMed of articles using (“public health services” AND “systems research”) OR (“public health systems” AND “services research”) OR “public health systems research” showed an increase in the number of articles published, comparing pre– and post–research agenda publication time periods. For 2003 to 2012, the search returned 51 articles (5.1 per year); for 2013 to 2016 alone, the same search yielded 32 articles (8.0 per year). Although some of this increase may simply be attributable to better use of terms and keywords by authors and editors or changes in indexing at the National Library of Medicine, it is at least reasonable that a portion of the increase could be attributed to publication of the research agenda in 2012. Moreover, we believe the imprimatur of a research agenda that includes a focus on public health practice provides a clear signal to the academy that such research is fundable, that it is worthy of research attention by faculty, and that it can result in quality research publications that matter for promotion and tenure. In a more recent example, the Public Health Accreditation Board published its research agenda in 2015, 24 using as its starting point the list of research questions generated by the logic model of Joly et al. 21 mentioned earlier. With both examples—Public Health Services and Systems Research and the Public Health Accreditation Board—publication of the research agenda has been followed by action on the part of potential funders and partners, including the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and AcademyHealth. For example, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s major 2015 call for proposals on systems of action that align the delivery and financing systems that support their current focus on a culture of health builds on their many funded studies and initiatives related to the research agenda for Public Health Services and Systems Research. 25 In addition, federal funders in the United States often cite a research agenda from a peer-reviewed journal as evidence of the need for more research on a particular topic or as a source of research ideas for potential applicants.

This work has several limitations. First, the use of the logic model framework may have artificially constrained the questions that were considered. Second, there is some degree of overlap across the various categories within the logic model, especially between outputs and outcomes. Although we attempted to maintain consistency in categorization, we realize other investigators, using slightly different definitions of the categories (e.g., outputs, outcomes), may have produced a different grouping. We do not believe such differences, however, would change the underlying substance of the questions. Third, several of the questions as posed suggest binary responses, although in reality it is more likely that answers would come in gradations. Finally, there are no delineations between questions that may be answered in a rather straightforward manner versus those that may be extremely difficult to answer clearly, and there is no suggested prioritization; however, questions were only included if they were deemed to be generally feasible for research purposes.

We believe a strength of this work is the broad participatory and iterative process used to produce the final set of questions. The questions have been informed by researchers focusing on AHDs, by practitioners who participate or have an interest in AHDs, and by 22 organizations represented under the auspices of the Council on Linkages, and they were open for public comment, scrutiny, and input.

CONCLUSIONS

This research agenda focused on AHDs provides a basis for formulating strategies for mobilizing collaborative research on the structure, functions, and impacts of AHDs. As Kronstadt et al. 24 described in developing a research agenda for public health agency accreditation, the research agenda can help connect the dots from the individual case studies on AHDs—which are becoming more numerous—to more sophisticated studies that are likely to produce a coherent picture of the overall impact of AHDs. The development and sustainment of AHDs provides a series of natural experiments that can offer real-world, mixed-methods (qualitative and quantitative) evidence of impact. Producing a research agenda can facilitate the identification of challenges, from defining and building appropriate data sets, to performing practice-based research with high internal validity, and to producing results that are generalizable. Using the research agenda as a template for building the evidence base on AHDs also presents researchers, practitioners, and funders with a common foundation for tracking subsequent findings in the published literature. An appropriate next step will be to determine what evidence currently exists related to each of the questions in the research agenda, which can serve as a springboard for exploring opportunities for supporting this research.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We acknowledge Scott Frank, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine and the Shaker Heights Health Department, Cleveland, OH, for his contributions to earlier aspects of developing the research agenda.

• Open access
• Published: 20 September 2024

The academic impact of paediatric research agendas: a descriptive analysis

• L. Postma 1 ,
• M. L. Luchtenberg 1 ,
• A. A. E. Verhagen 1 &
• E. L. M. Maeckelberghe 1  

Research Involvement and Engagement volume  10 , Article number:  97 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Increasingly, researchers are involving children and young people in designing paediatric research agendas, but as far as we were able to determine, only one report exists on the academic impact of such an agenda. In our opinion, the importance of insight into the impact of research agendas designed together with children and young people cannot be overstated. The first aim of our study was therefore to develop a method to describe the academic impact of paediatric research agendas. Our second aim was to describe the academic impact of research agendas developed by involving children and young people.

We based our method on aspects of the Research Impact Framework developed by Kuruvilla and colleagues and the Payback Framework developed by Donovan and Hanney. We named it Descriptive Academic Impact Analysis of Paediatric Research Agendas, consisting of five steps: [ 1 ] Identification of paediatric research agendas, [ 2 ] Citation analysis, [ 3 ] Impact analysis, [ 4 ] Author assessment, and [ 5 ] Classification of the ease of determining traceability.

We included 31 paediatric research agendas that were designed by involving children and young people. These agendas were cited 517 times, ranging from 0 to 71 citations. A total of 131 new studies (25%) were published, ranging from 0 to 23 per paediatric research agenda, based on at least one of the research priorities from the agenda. Sixty studies (46%) were developed by at least one of the first, second, or last authors of the paediatric research agenda on which the studies were based. Based on their accessibility and the ease with which we could identify the studies as being agenda-based, we categorised 44 studies (34%) as easy, 62 studies (47%) as medium, and 25 studies (19%) as difficult to identify.

This study reports on the development of a method to describe the academic impact of paediatric research agendas and it offers insight into the impact of 31 such agendas. We recommend that our results be used as a guide for designing future paediatric research agendas, especially by including ways of tracing the academic impact of new studies concerning the agendas’ research priorities.

Plain English Summary

Increasingly, researchers are involving children and young people in designing paediatric research agendas. However, few researchers have described the impact of these agendas on the research undertaken. We strongly believe that it is important to know how such agendas affect research, what their impact is. One of the reasons paediatric research agendas are being designed is to create a clear overview of what the research questions are that need to be investigated - if this question is left unanswered, why bother designing the agendas at all? Therefore, we developed a 5-step tool to identify these agendas and to describe their impact. We tested our tool on 31 paediatric research agendas that were designed together with children and young people. These agendas were mentioned 517 times, 131 new studies were based on these agendas, and 60 studies were performed by the same authors who had designed the agendas. Of the new studies, we found 44 that were easy to identify, 62 that were fairly easy, and 25 that were difficult to identify as being based on paediatric research agendas. We hope that our results will serve as a useful guide for future researchers who aim to involve children and young people in designing research agendas. Especially, if ways are included to trace the impact of new studies in relation to the most important questions stated in the original research agendas.

Peer Review reports

The aim of designing research agendas

Research agendas list research questions addressing knowledge gaps that require further investigation. They serve as a guide for scientists and funders to coordinate and focus research on areas deemed most relevant and impactful. In the past, they were designed primarily by researchers. Currently, the expertise of paediatric patients, their parents, or carers is recognised increasingly as a critical component in paediatric research [ 1 ]. In 1995, Chalmers stated that increased involvement of patients and the public in designing research agendas would likely result in a more open-minded approach about which research questions are worth addressing [ 2 ]. Later, he found a mismatch between the research questions considered as important by patients and the public and those addressed by researchers – a mismatch that resulted in research waste [ 3 ]. Increasingly, funding agencies value and researchers, journal editors, and policymakers demand that waste in research be reduced [ 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ]. To address mismatches and reduce research waste, Chalmers and colleagues developed the James Lind Alliance (JLA) Research Priority Setting Partnerships (PSPs) [ 7 ]. The PSPs ensure that research questions of patients, carers, and healthcare professionals are prioritised.

Involving children in designing paediatric research agendas

Unfortunately, children and young people (CYP) are still rarely involved in designing research agendas on paediatric topics, so-called paediatric research agendas (PRAs). A systematic review published in 2017 showed that CYP were involved in only four PRAs [ 8 ]. Additionally, our recently published review showed that CYP are now involved in 22 additional PRAs since 2017 [ 9 ]. One of the reasons CYP are infrequently involved is because there is still a tendency to underestimate the value of their voices rooted in a belief that they are not competent to speak about health issues related to their bodies [ 10 ]. Partnering with CYP to design PRAs is crucial for understanding what is important to them. Research teams sometimes spend years developing agendas in partnership with patients, parents, and carers, but we found that little is known about whether the research priorities are elaborated upon [ 9 , 11 ]. The question whether the agenda had an impact on what research is undertaken remains [ 12 ]; this is what we refer to as the academic impact.

Describing the academic impact of paediatric research agendas

Describing the academic impact of PRAs holds significant importance. First, the academic impact should be described to evaluate whether the aim of reducing research waste is met. Second, describing the academic impact can help identify areas where progress has been made and where additional research efforts are needed. Third, when evaluating the academic impact, it can be determined whether funding agencies use the priorities. Describing the academic impact of the PRAs in which CYP are involved is particularly crucial. Pediatric research agendas that involve CYP require a significant investment of both time and resources [ 13 , 14 , 15 ]. Researchers need to be flexible when scheduling research meetings with CYP because they have multiple commitments, such as school and sports, during the typical working hours of researchers. This flexibility may involve conducting research activities during evenings, weekends, or school holidays when CYP are more readily available. Furthermore, researchers must overcome ethical considerations, such as power dynamics and facilitating environments, which helps to make CYP feel secure and confident to express themselves freely. Moreover, researchers should respect the authenticity of CYP’s voices [ 15 ]. Finally, one of the participants of the JLA PSP on Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis considered the PSP a waste of time and money should the project end with the publication of the top 10 research priorities [ 16 ] and no attention was paid to whether the priorities were being used. Regrettably, little or no attention is given to reporting the academic impact of PRAs [ 9 ].

Example of a research team describing the academic impact of their paediatric research agenda

To the best of our knowledge, Geldof and colleagues stand alone in evaluating the academic impact of their PRA [ 12 ]. Staley and colleagues performed a qualitative evaluation of what happens after JLA PSPs, however, they did not conduct a systematic search or evaluation of whether the research priorities included in research agendas are elaborated on [ 17 ]. Geldof and colleagues evaluated the impact of their agenda six years after its initiation and three years after publishing the PRA [ 12 ]. Most of the studies based on their PRA were pharmaceutical-driven studies that focused on prioritising the development and validation of new medical treatments (71%). The authors concluded that the extent to which the current research landscape adequately represents the viewpoint of patients is debatable [ 12 ].

Methods for identifying the research impact of general studies and describing the academic impact of paediatric research agendas

Identifying the academic impact of PRAs differs from identifying the research impact of other studies. Identifying the research impact of general research aims to demonstrate “the contribution that excellent research makes to society,” as defined by the Economic and Social Research Council. [ 18 ]. Nevertheless, the impact of such research is difficult to identify, partly because impacts originating from consecutive activities may accumulate in the longer term. Given this, it becomes difficult, sometimes even impossible, to ascertain which activity ultimately contributes to impact [ 19 ]. Several approaches, such as the Payback Framework developed by Donovan and Hanney [ 20 ] and the Research Impact Framework (RIF) developed by Kuruvilla and colleagues, [ 21 ] have proven robust and useful for describing research impact. The RIF is divided into four broad areas: research-related impact, policy impacts, service impacts and societal impacts. The checklist was developed for academics interested in describing and monitoring the impact of their research. The Payback Framework was originally developed to examine the impact of health services research, but has been adapted to assess the impact of research in other areas such as the social sciences [ 14 ]. The Payback Framework consists of five categories: [ 1 ] Knowledge, [ 2 ] Benefits to future research and research use, [ 3 ] Benefits from informing policy and product development, [ 4 ] Health and health sector benefits, and [ 5 ] Broader economic benefits. Both approaches consist of almost identical categories. Each approach can be used for different circumstances for which researchers may seek to describe impact [ 19 ]. The limitation of these approaches is that they are not specifically developed to describe the impact of PRAs on what research is undertaken after publishing the agenda.

The aim of our study was two-fold. First, to devise a reliable method for describing the academic impact of PRAs. Second, to describe the academic impact of PRAs designed together with CYP. We chose to focus only on describing the academic impact of the PRA in which CYP had been involved because we sought to improve the quality of CYP involvement in designing PRAs. Therefore, we believe that describing the academic impact of these agendas is of utmost importance.

We developed a method to describe the academic impact of PRAs based on the research-related impact of the RIF (Table  1 ) and the first two categories of the Payback Framework: Knowledge, and Benefits for Future Research and Research Use (Table  2 ). The categories of the RIF and the definitions of the Payback Framework that we used are highlighted in both tables. We used these categories because they resemble the academic impact of the PRAs we aimed to evaluate. The other three areas of the RIF and the Payback Framework are related to impacts other than academic impact (e.g., policy, services, and societal impact for the RIF, and policy, health, and economic impact for the Payback Framework). The authors of the RIF state that the themes can be adjusted, including removal, addition, grouping, or modification, to align with the research being described and relevant to assessment criteria [ 21 ]. In consultation with a medical information specialist and a methodologist, we portrayed our method as a Descriptive Academic Impact Analysis of Paediatric Research Agendas (DAIAPRA). The following section describes the development of the method.

Developing the descriptive academic impact analysis of paediatric research agendas

In preparation for creating the impact tool, we defined the academic impact of PRAs using three identifiable factors: [ 1 ] The number of citations referencing the agenda, [ 2 ] The number of new studies based on the priorities, and [ 3 ] The variation in authorship between the original PRA and the subsequent studies. We opted for this approach because the data on citations, new studies, and research teams were readily accessible. Furthermore, we added an evaluative factor to the impact tool, which considered the ease of determining whether a study was based on one of the PRAs. It is important to note that impact encompasses various elements, but our study concentrated solely on those that could be quantified.

We defined the different steps of the impact tool, starting with Step 1: Identifying the PRAs. Next, we determined the data sources and metrics that would serve as the basis for describing impact. We based our PRA impact tool on three components of the section Research-Related Impacts: Publications and Papers, Type of Problem/Knowledge Addressed, and Research Networks and User Involvement (Table  1 ) [ 21 ]. Additionally, our tool drew upon two components of the Payback Framework: Journal Articles and Better Targeting of Future Research (Table  2 ).

In Step 2, we linked the component Publications and Papers of the RIF and the component Journal Articles of the Payback Framework to the number of citations generated by the PRA. Then, in Step 3, we linked the RIF component Type of Problem/Knowledge Addressed and the component Better Targeting of Future Research of the Payback Framework to new, PRA-based studies. Finally, in Step 4, we linked the components Research Networks and User Involvement to the difference in authorship between the PRA and the new studies. To make the impact analysis tool readily accessible, we included only publicly available, easily assessable, metrics or metrics. To determine whether a study should address the priority of the PRA, we included Step 5. We based Steps 1, 3, and 5 on a more subjective evaluation; hence, these steps should be performed independently by at least two people. We based Steps 2 and 4 on objective variables that could only be interpreted in one way. To use the method efficiently, we recommend Steps 3 and 5 to be performed simultaneously (Fig.  1 ). The steps of the DAIAPRA are explained in more detail in the section below.

Descriptive academic impact analysis of paediatric research agendas

Step 1. Identification of paediatric research agendas

The research team, in partnership with an information librarian, developed the literature search strategy. The strategy utilised Medical Subject Headings and keywords for ‘children’, ‘priority setting partnerships’, and ‘paediatric research agenda’. The search terms from each category were combined using the “OR” operator, and the three categories were linked using the “AND” operator. The search was conducted on MEDLINE, EBSCOhost, Web of Science and Google Scholar. We utilised both forward and backwards citation chasing to ensure that we did not miss any important PRAs. This was done by checking the reference lists of the included studies. Furthermore, the James Lind Alliance page, which lists all JLA Priority Setting Partnerships, was reviewed to identify additional Priority Research Areas that were not captured by our search strategy. The resulting articles were then uploaded to the Rayyan screening tool, developed by Qatar Computing Research Institute (Doha, Qatar), and duplicate entries were eliminated. Several inclusion criteria were applicable in the process of identifying the research agendas (Table  3 ). The above described search strategy was utilized in our recently published review [ 9 ]. To include more pediatric research agenda in this study we added the PRAs identified by Odgers and colleagues in which CYP were included, and we repeated the same search after publication of our review.

Step 2. Citation analysis

We uploaded the identified PRAs to Scopus, SciVal, and Altmetric. Scopus is an expertly curated abstract and citation base. It provides access to reliable data, metrics, and analytical tools. We extracted data on citations from the database. A medical information specialist from the University of Groningen helped us download the desired information from all the studies into a Microsoft Excel file format.

Step 3. Impact analysis

Next, we screened the studies that cited one of the PRAs and examined the context in which the PRA was cited. Two researchers (LP and SB) independently screened the citations and examined whether the PRA was referred to because the study addressed one of the priorities. When disagreements arose, the researchers engaged in discussion until they reached a consensus. The inclusion criteria for Step 3 can be found in Table  4 .

Step 4. Author assessment

We compared the authors of the studies included in Step 3 to the authors of the PRA on which the studies were based. We examined whether the first, second, or last author of the PRA was involved in the new studies that were based on a specific PRA.

Step 5. Classification of ease of tracing

Finally, we classified the studies that were included during the impact analysis into three categories based on the ease of tracing whether a study addresses a research priority of the PRA. We distinguished three categories for ease of tracing: easy - the research priority is explicitly stated in the publication, medium - the research priority is not explicitly stated but we could infer it from the text and difficult - the research priority is not stated and could not be inferred from the text.

We included 31 PRAs in which CYP were involved [ 13 , 14 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 ]. Twenty-two PRAs were included because we had identified them in our recently published review [ 9 ], four were identified by Odgers and colleagues [ 8 ], and five were identified after the publication of our review. At the time of this study, the newest PRA was published in November 2022 and the oldest in June 2010. The themes of the included PRAs are shown in Table  5 . Little variation was found in the methods used to develop the PRAs. The JLA method was most frequently used ( n  = 22, workshops ( n  = 2), focus groups ( n  = 2), Research Prioritisation by Affected Communities (RPAC) method ( n  = 1), online survey ( n  = 1), or a combination of the methods mentioned ( n  = 3).

The 31 PRAs were cited 517 times, ranging from 0 to 71 citations per PRA, with a mean of 17 citations per PRA (Supplemental Material 1). The agenda of Batchelor and colleagues received the highest number of citations. Four PRAs have not yet been cited [ 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ]. Figure  2 presents an overview of the citation count for each PRA.

Citations per paediatric research agenda

Cumulatively, the 31 agendas were cited 517 times and 131 new studies (25%) were published based on at least one of the research priorities from the PRAs, ranging from 0 to 23 new studies per PRA, with a mean of 4 new studies per PRA. Hollis and colleagues’ PRA attracted most of the new studies [ 26 ]. Eight PRAs, however, did not yield new studies [ 13 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 ] as we show in Fig.  3 .

New studies per paediatric research agenda

Sixty studies (46%) were developed by at least one of the first, second, or last authors of the PRA on which the study was based. Seventy-one studies (54%) were developed by other researchers who did not author the PRA (Fig.  4 and Supplemental Material 2). It is apparent from Fig.  3 that some research teams, such as Baldacchino [ 30 ], Lam [ 31 ], Medlow [ 32 ], Birnie [ 14 ], Peeks [ 33 ] Aldiss [ 34 ], Parsons [ 35 ], Layton [ 36 ] and Batchelor [ 37 ], developed most of the new studies themselves, based on their own PRAs. For Peeks and colleagues, 10 of the 12 new publications included the original author of the agenda. Batchelor and colleagues’ agenda resulted in 18 new studies, 16 of which included the original author of the agenda. The authors developed most of the new studies themselves (89%). The agendas of authors who had not elaborate on the research priorities themselves, as was the case for eight of the agendas, resulted in the publication of an average of two new studies. The PRA developed by Hollis and colleagues was most successful and resulted in 23 new studies; only one of which was published by these authors themselves (6%).

Paediatric research agendas authored by the same authors versus other authors

Out of the 131 studies analysed (Supplementary Material 2), we could classify 44 studies (34%) as easy to trace, meaning that the article directly quoted the research priority from the agenda that they were addressing. Sixty-two studies (47%) we classified as medium, indicating that even though the research priority was not directly stated in the article, it was clear to us that the priority focused on was based on the aim and research question of the study. The remaining 25 studies (19%) we classified as difficult, meaning that although in the publication the authors claimed that following up on research is deemed as most important by the agendas, it was not clear to us which of the research priorities the studies focused on.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the academic impact of multiple PRAs. To achieve this, we developed the DAIAPRA, a five-step tool. The first step identifies the PRAs, followed by three steps that evaluate the academic impact of PRAs. The last step classifies the ease of tracing whether a study addresses a research priority of the PRA. Using this tool, we found that the citations ranged from 0 to 71 per PRA. New studies based on a PRA ranged from 0 to 23. Furthermore, 46% of the new studies were developed by at least one of the first, second, or last authors of the PRA on which the study was based. Finally, only 34% of the new studies explicitly stated the research priority the study focused on, indicating that in these cases it was easy to trace it.

We found that the number of new studies based on a PRA varied between 0 and 23. A factor that might have influenced this wide range is that we included PRAs from 2010 up to and including 2022. Perhaps older PRAs already had more impact than newer ones. New agendas still need time to create impact. Another possible influence is that new agendas were published during the COVID-19 pandemic. Raynaud and colleagues showed a dramatic increase in COVID-19 publications and a substantial decrease in non-COVID-19 research during that time [ 51 ]. Another element that might play a significant role was whether the agenda received advance funding for elaborating on the research priorities. If that was the case, researchers could start elaborating on the research priorities immediately, instead of first finding appropriate research funders. Moreover, some funding programmes set their priorities for research and then advertise for research teams to conduct the research [ 52 ], which might have resulted in certain agendas being studied more frequently. Another aspect that caught our attention is that eight of the ten PRAs leading to the most new studies were developed in collaboration with the JLA, suggesting that partnerships with established organizations like the JLA can greatly amplify the impact and reach of PRAs. Another factor that could have played a role is that some researchers were unaware of, and thus paid no attention to, the dissemination and implementation of the PRAs [ 53 ]. We interviewed researchers and CYP, who had designed a PRA together, about the academic impact of their PRAs. Authors of the PRA could provide valuable information and examples of impact of their own work, which would otherwise have been unavailable to us. That is why we interviewed researchers and CYP, who had designed a PRA together, about the academic impact of their PRAs. We found that researchers were hardly aware of new studies based on their PRAs [ 11 ]. This lack of awareness is easily addressed by emphasising the importance of disseminating and implementing the PRAs. The awareness of and emphasis on the implementation of PRAs might enhance their academic impact. The JLA guidebook was updated in 2021, and Chaps. 9, 10, and 11 deal with the dissemination and publication of the research agenda, prioritising the research funders and long-term follow-up [ 52 ]. Concentrating on the phase following the PRAs’ design might already create the awareness that researchers need to take responsibility for encouraging the research and funding community to address the research priorities.

Another strong argument in favour of prioritising the implementation of the research agenda, is to ensure continuous and transparent communication with the CYP involved. Keeping CYP updated regarding the progress of research priorities is essential. It shows them that their input is valued and has contributed to meaningful changes [ 54 ]. Mawn and colleagues found that researchers can be criticised for failing to engage or update CYP as research progresses [ 55 ]. The result of doing nothing is that CYP may lose their trust. They may get the impression that what concerns them is unimportant, or that it may not be as important or valued by others in a position to fund research [ 53 ].

Interestingly, almost half of the new studies based on the PRAs were developed by the first, second, or last author of the PRAs. Researchers who design a PRA can use the agenda as a roadmap for their work, helping them to identify research questions and develop studies that are likely to contribute to the broader goals of their field [ 56 ]. Our study opens the door to discussion about whether the academic impact of the PRAs is achieved when a substantial portion of the new studies that are based on the PRAs, are authored by the same researchers as those who developed the agendas. The primary aim of a PRA is to change the broader context of research; it can be questioned whether this aim is achieved when nearly half of the new studies are published by the same researchers. We believe that an important distinction should be made when evaluating the academic impact of PRAs. The expected academic impact of a PRA depends on whether it is designed by an entire research field as opposed to designed by a specific research team. When all key researchers are involved in the design of a PRA, it is inherent that they are the ones who elaborate on the priorities together with their research teams. This approach is particularly fitting for a research agenda designed within a niche. However, when a research agenda is designed for a broad subject such as diabetes, it is practically impossible to include all key stakeholders. Therefore, one might expect that the research priorities of that agenda are elaborated by researchers other than those who designed the agenda. To date, it is impossible to determine whether the PRA was designed by an entire research field or by a specific research team. Consequently, placing the academic impact of a research agenda in context becomes more challenging.

If researchers, who were not involved in designing a PRA, continue to address research questions that they consider important instead of focusing on priorities of the agenda, we question whether the design of a PRA has the intended impact of changing the broader context of research.

Evaluation of the DAIAPRA

We developed the DAIAPRA because no reliable method was available that described the academic impact of PRAs. Our method focuses on quantifiable aspects of impact, such as citations, new studies based on the PRA, and the difference in authorship between the PRA and the new studies. We acknowledge that the method does not consider all potential factors that may contribute to the impact of a PRA, such as conference presentations on the PRAs, or receiving funding for the priorities. It should be noted that the method is still in its infancy. Additional metrics could be incorporated to provide a more complete understanding of academic impact.

Limitations of this evaluation

While we managed to evaluate the academic impact of 31 PRAs, our study has several limitations. The first issue was that the academic impact of the PRAs could not be compared one-on-one because they were published in different years and involved different research areas. Furthermore, it is important to recognise that our study offers an initial perspective on the academic impact of PRAs. With this first evaluation, we included quantifiable aspects of impact only. The qualitative forms (such as: improved collaboration, influence on policy and practice or increasing public understanding of research) of impact that are not measured with our method are nonetheless crucial for understanding the full impact of a research agenda. Therefore, we acknowledge that potentially unknown positive or negative impacts are missed. Our goal was not to classify the agendas according to their levels of impact, but rather to present a comparative analysis of their respective academic impacts. The original inclusion criterion was limited to PRAs with CYP below the age of eighteen. This initial search delivered a limited amount of results. Five more studies were then included, two PRAs in which the age of the CYP was not specified, and an additional three in which the age of the CYP was below 20 or 25 years. Currently, it is challenging to specifically examine research agendas involving only CYP under the age of 18, as the age of the CYP are not always clearly described in the PRA. Furthermore, we acknowledge that by evaluating the English literature only, we may have excluded valuable research published in languages other than English. However, given that English is the predominant language of academic communication and our focus was on studies published in recognised academic databases, it was necessary to prioritise English-language publications. Consequently, important work in non-English or non-academic sources may have been overlooked. The objective of this study was to initiate discussion and create awareness about the academic impact of research agendas. We did not aim to classify research agendas in terms of ‘good’ or ‘bad’ academic impact because the extent to which academic impact is achieved depends on many factors. All those factors must be considered when comparing the agendas, making it challenging to compare the PRAs.

Implications and future research

The DAIAPRA can be used by other researchers when evaluating the academic impact of research agendas. The findings of our study once again indicated the importance of the post-PRA phase. A research project does not end when the top 10 research priorities have been agreed upon. Researchers should disseminate the results of their PRAs to increase exposure to potential funders and researchers. In addition, our results showed that it is difficult to determine whether a research priority is elaborated on. This could argue in favour of establishing a system that enables us to trace a study to determine whether it is based on one of the priorities of a research agenda. For example, researchers could include a statement in the PRAs specifying how the priorities listed should be cited or referenced when researchers elaborate on one of the priorities. Providing an overview of which priorities are addressed by whom and in which country, for each research agenda accessible to everyone, could contribute to more transparency. This clarity also systematically highlights the remaining priorities that require further investigation. Our results indicated that it is challenging to contextualise the academic impact of a PRA because it is unclear who designed the PRA. Therefore, we suggest adding a statement indicating whether the agenda is designed by all key stakeholders or researchers, or whether it has been designed by a specific research team.

Future studies should focus on why some PRAs generated more new studies than others, to guide researchers in creating academic impact. We focused only on the academic impact of the PRAs. Future research should also focus on the policy and societal impact of the PRAs. This is important because, alarmingly, an estimated 85% of medical research evidence never finds its way into clinical practice [ 5 ].

Our study contributes to the development of a methodology to evaluate the academic impact of PRAs and we provide initial insight into the academic impact of 31 PRAs. Our findings could be used to inform future PRA design, especially by incorporating provisions for tracing the academic impact of new studies related to the research priorities outlined in the agenda. Overall, our study provides a valuable foundation for further research into the evaluation of academic impact in the field of paediatric research.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

• Children and young people

Descriptive Academic Impact Analysis of Paediatric Research Agendas

James Lind Alliance

• Patient and public involvement

Pediatric research agenda

Research Impact Framework

Tallon D, Chard J, Dieppe P. Relation between agendas of the research community and the research consumer. Lancet 2000 June 10,;355:2037–40.

Chalmers I. What do I want from health research and researchers when I am a patient? BMJ. 1995;310:1315–8.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Chalmers I, Glasziou P, Library JL, Lind J. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;07–04:374:86–9.

Article   Google Scholar  

Zurynski Y, Smith CL, Knaggs G, Meulenbroeks I, Braithwaite J. Funding research translation: how we got here and what to do next. Australian New Z J Public Health 2021-07-12;45(5):420.

ZonMW, Procedure voor A. 2019; https://www.zonmw.nl/fileadmin/zonmw/documenten/Corporate/ZonMw_A4_ProcedureAanvragers_201906_def_Projectnet_MijnZonMw_MP.pdf

Hughes A, Martin B. Enhancing Impact: The Value of Public Sector R&D. 2012; https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/2012/enhancing-impact-the-value-of-public-sector-rd/ . Accessed February, 2022.

Chalmers I, Atkinson P, Fenton M, Firkins L, Crowe S, Cowan K. Tackling treatment uncertainties together: the evolution of the James Lind Initiative, 2003–2013. J R Soc Med 2013-07-03;106(12):482.

Odgers HL, Tong A, Lopez-Vargas P, Davidson A, Jaffe A, McKenzie A, et al. Research priority setting in childhood chronic disease: a systematic review. Arch Dis Child. 2018;103(10):942–.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Postma L, Luchtenberg ML, Verhagen AAE, Maeckelberghe EL. Involving children and young people in paediatric research priority setting: a narrative review. Bmjpo 2022;6(1).

Mohr WK, Suess S, THE CONUNDRUM OF CHILDREN IN THE US HEALTH CARE SYSTEM. Nurse Ethics 2001 May 8,;3:196–210.

Postma L, Luchtenberg ML, Verhagen AAE, Maeckelberghe ELM. ‘It’s Powerful’ The impact of involving children and young people in developing paediatric research agendas: A qualitative interview study. Health Expect 2024 -04;27(2).

Geldof J, Leblanc J, Lucaciu L, Segal J, Lees CW, Hart A. Are we addressing the top 10 research priorities in IBD? Frontline Gastroenterol 2021;12(7).

Schilstra CE, Sansom-Daly UM, Schaffer M, Fardell JE, Anazodo AC, McCowage G et al. We have all this knowledge to give, so use us as a resource: partnering with adolescent and young adult Cancer survivors to Determine Consumer-Led Research priorities. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol 2021:211–22.

Birnie KA, Dib K, Ouellette C, Dib MA, Nelson K, Pahtayken D, et al. Partnering for Pain: a Priority setting Partnership to identify patient-oriented research priorities for pediatric chronic pain in Canada. CMAJ open. 2019;7(4):E654–64.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Montreuil M, Bogossian A, Laberge-Perrault E, Racine E. A review of approaches, strategies and ethical considerations in Participatory Research with Children. Int J Qualitative Methods. 2021;20:160940692098796.

Aussems K, Schoemaker CG, Verwoerd A, Ambrust W, Cowan K, Dedding C. Research agenda setting with children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: lessons learned. Child: Care Health Dev 2021:68–79.

Staley K, Crowe S, Crocker JC, Madden M, Greenhalgh T. What happens after James Lind Alliance Priority setting partnerships? A qualitative study of contexts, processes and impacts. Res Involv Engagem 2020 Jan 01,;6(1):1–41.

Defining impact. https://www.ukri.org/councils/esrc/impact-toolkit-for-economic-and-social-sciences/defining-impact/ . Accessed November 12, 2022.

Greenhalgh T, Raftery J, Hanney S, Glover M. Research impact: a narrative review. BMC Med 2016-05-23;14(1).

Donovan C, Hanney S. The ‘Payback Framework’ explained. Res Evaluation. 2011;–09(3):181.

Kuruvilla S, Mays N, Pleasant A, Walt G. Describing the impact of health research: a Research Impact Framework. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6(1):12.

Vera San Juan N, Oram S, Pinfold V, Temple R, Foye U, Simpson A et al. Priorities for Future Research about screen use and adolescent Mental Health: a participatory prioritization study. Front Psychiatry 2022 -05;13.

Smith EMD, Egbivwie N, Cowan K, Ramanan AV, Pain CE. Research priority setting for paediatric rheumatology in the UK. Lancet Rheumatol. 2022;4(7):e517–24.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ismail D, Mcateer H, Majeed-ariss R, Mcphee M, Griffiths CEM, Young HS. Research priorities and identification of a health‐service delivery model for psoriasis from the UK Psoriasis Priority setting Partnership. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2020-10-06;46(2):276.

von Scheven E, Nahal BK, Cohen IC, Kelekian R, Franck LS. Research questions that Matter to us: priorities of young people with chronic illnesses and their caregivers. Pediatr Res. 2021;89(7):1659–63.

Hollis C, Sampson S, Simons L, Davies EB, Churchill R, Betton V et al. Identifying research priorities for digital technology in mental health care: results of the James Lind Alliance Priority setting Partnership. Health policy 1984.

Schoemaker CG, Armbrust W, Swart JF, Vastert SJ, van Loosdregt J, Verwoerd A, et al. Dutch juvenile idiopathic arthritis patients, carers and clinicians create a research agenda together following the James Lind Alliance method: a study protocol. Pediatr Rheumatol Online J. 2018;16(1):57.

Knight SR, Metcalfe L, O’Donoghue K, Ball ST, Beale A, Beale W, et al. Defining priorities for Future Research: results of the UK kidney Transplant Priority setting Partnership. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(10):e0162136.

Manikam L, Shah R, Reed K, Santini G, Lakhanpaul M. Using a co-production prioritization exercise involving south Asian children, young people and their families to identify health priorities requiring further research and public awareness. Health Expectations: Int J Public Participation Health Care Health Policy. 2017;20(5):852.

Vella-Baldacchino M, Perry DC, Roposch A, Nicolaou N, Cooke S, Ellis P, et al. Research priorities in children requiring elective surgery for conditions affecting the lower limbs: a James Lind Alliance Priority setting Partnership. BMJ open. 2019;9(12):e033233.

Lam JR, Liu B, Bhate R, Fenwick N, Reed K, Duffy JMN, et al. Research priorities for the future health of multiples and their families: The Global Twins and multiples Priority setting Partnership. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecology: Official J Int Soc Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019;54(6):715–21.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Medlow S, Patterson P. Determining research priorities for adolescent and young adult cancer in Australia. Eur J Cancer Care. 2015;24(4):590–9.

Peeks F, Boonstra WF, de Baere L, Carøe C, Casswall T, Cohen D, et al. Research priorities for liver glycogen storage disease: an international priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance. J Inherit Metab Dis. 2020;43(2):279–89.

Aldiss S, Fern LA, Phillips RS, Callaghan A, Dyker K, Gravestock H, et al. Research priorities for young people with cancer: a UK priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance. BMJ open. 2019;9(8):e028119.

Parsons S, Thomson W, Cresswell K, Starling B, McDonagh JE, Barbara Ansell Natl NA. What do young people with rheumatic disease believe to be important to research about their condition? A UK-wide study. Pediatr Rheumatol 2017;15.

Layton A, Eady EA, Peat M, Whitehouse H, Levell N, Ridd M, et al. Identifying acne treatment uncertainties via a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership. BMJ open. 2015;5(7):e008085.

Batchelor JM, Ridd MJ, Clarke T, Ahmed A, Cox M, Crowe S, et al. The Eczema Priority setting Partnership: a collaboration between patients, carers, clinicians and researchers to identify and prioritize important research questions for the treatment of eczema. Br J Dermatology (1951). 2013;168(3):577–82.

Pagnamenta E, Longhurst L, Breaks A, Chadd K, Kulkarni A, Bryant V, et al. Research priorities to improve the health of children and adults with dysphagia: a National Institute of Health Research and Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists research priority setting partnership. BMJ Open. 2022;12(1):e049459.

Grant A, Crane M, Laupacis A, Griffiths A, Burnett D, Hood A, et al. Engaging patients and caregivers in research for pediatric inflammatory bowel disease: top 10 research priorities. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2019;69(3):317–23.

Rankin G, Summers R, Cowan K, Barker K, Button K, Carroll SP, et al. Identifying priorities for physiotherapy research in the UK: the James Lind Alliance Physiotherapy Priority Setting Partnership. Physiotherapy 2020;107:161–8.

Gill PJ, Bayliss A, Sozer A, Buchanan F, Breen-Reid K, De Castris-Garcia K, et al. Patient, caregiver, and clinician participation in prioritization of research questions in pediatric hospital medicine. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(4):e229085.

Lopez-Vargas P, Tong A, Crowe S, Alexander SI, Caldwell PHY, Campbell DE, et al. Research priorities for childhood chronic conditions: a workshop report. Arch Dis Child 2019;104(3):237–45.

Lim AK, Rhodes S, Cowan K, O’Hare A. Joint production of research priorities to improve the lives of those with childhood onset conditions that impair learning: the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership for ‘learning difficulties’. BMJ open 2019;9(10):e028780.

Fackrell K, Stratmann L, Kennedy V, MacDonald C, Hodgson H, Wray N, et al. Identifying and prioritising unanswered research questions for people with hyperacusis: James Lind Alliance Hyperacusis Priority Setting Partnership. BMJ Open. 2019;9(11):e032178.

Obeid N, McVey G, Seale E, Preskow W, Norris ML. Cocreating research priorities for anorexia nervosa: the Canadian Eating Disorder Priority Setting Partnership. Int J Eat Disord 2020;53(5):392–402.

Shattuck PT, Lau L, Anderson KA, Kuo AA. A national research agenda for the transition of youth with autism. Pediatrics. 2018;141(Suppl 4):S355–61. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-4300M . PMID: 29610417.

Tunnicliffe DJ, Singh-Grewal D, Craig JC, Howell M, Tugwell P, Mackie F, et al. Healthcare and research priorities of adolescents and young adults with systemic lupus erythematosus: a mixed-methods study. J Rheumatol. 2017;44:444–51.

Morris RL, Stocks SJ, Alam R, Taylor S, Rolfe C, Glover SW, et al. Identifying primary care patient safety research priorities in the UK: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership. BMJ open 2018;8(2):e020870.

Finer S, Robb P, Cowan K, Daly A, Shah K, Farmer A. Setting the top 10 research priorities to improve the health of people with Type 2 diabetes: a Diabetes UK–James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership. Diabet Med. 2018;35(7):862–70.

Elwyn G, Crowe S, Fenton M, Firkins L, Versnel J, Walker S, et al. Identifying and prioritizing uncertainties: patient and clinician engagement in the identification of research questions. J Eval Clin Pract. 2018;16(3):627–31.

Raynaud M, Goutaudier V, Louis K, Al-Awadhi S, Dubourg Q, Truchot A et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on publication dynamics and non-COVID-19 research production. BMC Med Res Methodol 2021-11-22;21(1).

James Lind Alliance. The James Lind Alliance Guidebook. 2021; https://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/jla-guidebook/ . Accessed April, 2021.

Gibson F, Aldiss S. What are the consequences of not responding to Research Priority setting exercises? Cancer care Res Online. 2023;3(1):e037.

Jongsma K, van Seventer J, Verwoerd A, van Rensen A. Recommendations from a James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership - a qualitative interview study. Res Involv Engagem. 2020;6(1):68.

Mawn L, Welsh P, Kirkpatrick L, Webster LAD, Stain HJ. Getting it right! Enhancing youth involvement in mental health research. Health Expect. 2015-07-22;19(4):908.

Ertmer PA, Glazewski KD. Developing a research agenda: contributing new knowledge via intent and focus. J Comput High Educ. 2014;26(1):54–68.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our sincere appreciation to Robin Ottjes, Medical Information Specialist, for his remarkable efforts in developing an Excel format that facilitated the extraction of all relevant information from studies that cited one of the included paediatric research agendas. Additionally, we would like to thank Selin Bogers for her valuable contributions as an independent researcher for steps three, four and five. Her contribution ensured an accurate assessment of the academic impact of the paediatric research agendas. We extend our gratitude to Titia van Wulfften Palthe, PhD, for correcting the English manuscript.

This study was conducted without external financial support.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Beatrix Children’s Hospital, Hanzeplein 1, Groningen, 9713 GZ, The Netherlands

L. Postma, M. L. Luchtenberg, A. A. E. Verhagen & E. L. M. Maeckelberghe

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

LP contributed to the conception, design, analysis, and interpretation of the data. She drafted the manuscript. SB contributed to Steps 3, 4, and 5 of the DAIAPRA analysis as an independent researcher (analysis of the data). ML, EV and EM contributed to the conception, design, and interpretation of the data and revised the manuscript. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. Postma .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Postma, L., Luchtenberg, M.L., Verhagen, A.A.E. et al. The academic impact of paediatric research agendas: a descriptive analysis. Res Involv Engagem 10 , 97 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-024-00630-x

Download citation

Received : 27 February 2024

Accepted : 22 August 2024

Published : 20 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-024-00630-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Paediatric research agendas
• Academic impact
• Involvement
• Research impact framework
• Payback Framework

Research Involvement and Engagement

ISSN: 2056-7529

• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Open access
• Published: 16 September 2024

A research agenda to advance the study of implementation mechanisms

• Cara C. Lewis   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8920-8075 1 ,
• Hannah E. Frank 2 ,
• Gracelyn Cruden 3 ,
• Bo Kim 4 , 5 ,
• Aubyn C. Stahmer 6 ,
• Aaron R. Lyon 7 ,
• Bianca Albers 8 ,
• Gregory A. Aarons 9 ,
• Rinad S. Beidas 10 ,
• Brian S. Mittman 11 ,
• Bryan J. Weiner 12 ,
• Nate J. Williams 13 ,
• Byron J. Powell 14 , 15 , 16 &

Implementation Science Communications volume  5 , Article number:  98 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

7 Altmetric

Metrics details

Implementation science scholars have made significant progress identifying factors that enable or obstruct the implementation of evidence-based interventions, and testing strategies that may modify those factors. However, little research sheds light on how or why strategies work, in what contexts, and for whom. Studying implementation mechanisms—the processes responsible for change—is crucial for advancing the field of implementation science and enhancing its value in facilitating equitable policy and practice change. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funded a conference series to achieve two aims: (1) develop a research agenda on implementation mechanisms, and (2) actively disseminate the research agenda to research, policy, and practice audiences. This article presents the resulting research agenda, including priorities and actions to encourage its execution.

Building on prior concept mapping work, in a semi-structured, 3-day, in-person working meeting, 23 US-based researchers used a modified nominal group process to generate priorities and actions for addressing challenges to studying implementation mechanisms. During each of the three 120-min sessions, small groups responded to the prompt: “What actions need to be taken to move this research forward?” The groups brainstormed actions, which were then shared with the full group and discussed with the support of facilitators trained in structured group processes. Facilitators grouped critical and novel ideas into themes. Attendees voted on six themes they prioritized to discuss in a fourth, 120-min session, during which small groups operationalized prioritized actions. Subsequently, all ideas were collated, combined, and revised for clarity by a subset of the authorship team.

From this multistep process, 150 actions emerged across 10 priority areas, which together constitute the research agenda. Actions included discrete activities, projects, or products, and ways to shift how research is conducted to strengthen the study of implementation mechanisms.

Conclusions

This research agenda elevates actions to guide the selection, design, and evaluation of implementation mechanisms. By delineating recommended actions to address the challenges of studying implementation mechanisms, this research agenda facilitates expanding the field of implementation science, beyond studying what works to how and why strategies work, in what contexts, for whom, and with which interventions.

Peer Review reports

Contributions to the literature

This research agenda operationalizes a set of activities to strengthen the implementation science field’s focus on why and how strategies work.

The research agenda addresses the following activities: accumulating knowledge, innovating methods and overcoming design challenges, improving measurement, providing guidance for specifying causal mechanisms, increasing focus on theorizing, engaging the policy and practice community, engaging funders, building capacity, enhancing equity, and effectively disseminating methods.

Studying implementation mechanisms can promote pragmatic strategy development, equitable processes and outcomes, and policy relevance by clarifying pathways for overcoming contextually specific barriers and achieving outcomes of interest.

Some see implementation science as not just a pathway, but the pathway for advancing equity in healthcare access and outcomes, and equitable population health [ 1 ]. Although this research pathway can lead to equity, it is certainly not guaranteed, and in fact, like many fields, most implementation science theories, models, and frameworks did not center equity until recently [ 2 ]. This omission leaves implementation studies and strategies vulnerable to unintended consequences (or ripple effects) that might actually exacerbate disparities [ 3 , 4 ]. The field of implementation science has made significant progress in this regard. Scholars like Woodward et al. [ 5 ] offer practical guidance for incorporating health equity domains into implementation determinant frameworks, and Gaias et al. [ 6 ] proposed a process to evaluate and adapt implementation strategies to promote equity. Walsh-Bailey is developing a resource to guide the integration of equity into strategy selection, design, and specification [ 7 ]. Moreover, numerous efforts collate factors that enable or obstruct the implementation of evidence-based interventions [ 8 , 9 , 10 ], and compile behavior change techniques and implementation strategies that may modify these factors [ 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ]. Even with these advances, little research sheds light on how or why strategies work, in what contexts, and for whom [ 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 ]. Studying implementation mechanisms, or the processes through which strategies exert their effects on outcomes, can address this research gap to meaningfully advance the field of implementation science and enhance its value in facilitating equitable policy and practice change. Mechanistic implementation research can identify potential mediators or moderators that illuminate differential strategy impact based on factors such as gender, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and center on understanding equitable approaches to implementation science and practice.

One of the principles of implementation science is that context matters , and by nature, each context is unique. The people, their interactions, their physical environment and resources, and their history and beliefs about the future, are among the subset of aspects that are diverse among clinics in the same organization, schools in the same district, and hospitals in the same health system. As implementation science evolves, complex and costly strategies are increasingly being deployed, making equity issues especially pronounced for those receiving care in under-resourced settings [ 20 ]. Evidence suggests that tailored implementation may be superior to standardized approaches [ 22 , 23 ], but tailoring in the absence of understanding strategy mechanisms may compromise outcomes for some or undermine scaling positive outcomes. Establishing strategy mechanisms of action means that the essence of how a strategy works is known and empirically supported. Therefore, when tailoring, adapting, or modifying to fit different contexts, the essence of the strategy’s operation can be retained. When strategies are streamlined to fit contextual constraints or adapted to be a better fit, the mechanism ought to be activated if we are to expect the same outcome. Conversely, if strategies underperform or fail to work in certain settings, unpacking the causal pathway can lead to isolation of contextual factors that threaten mechanism activation or demand a new mechanism altogether. This is not to say that simply studying mechanisms will guarantee equitable outcomes, but in studying them, equitable implementation processes and outcomes are more likely.

To this end, in 2017, the Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) conference theme centered implementation mechanisms to elevate dialogue and research about, “What Makes Implementation Work and Why?” [ 24 ]. SIRC is a not-for-profit society that convenes scholars, practitioners, policy makers, and others interested in advancing rigorous evaluation of implementation initiatives. SIRC’s call to action was motivated by the observation across trials that heterogeneity is the rule, not the exception, and weak main effects result. Thus, advancing the study of implementation mechanisms may offer benefits to research and practice communities. For example, identifying and evaluating mechanisms can help researchers learn from null studies [ 17 ] and optimize strategies for subsequent efforts or different objectives (e.g., equity, effectiveness, scalability) [ 25 ]. Articulating mechanisms can guide the practice community to identify the impact that strategies might have on their outcomes and inform their design or tailoring of strategies to the local context [ 26 , 27 ]. Despite this call, only 7% of abstracts included at the subsequent (2019) SIRC conference [ 28 ] explicitly “featured the study of implementation mechanisms” [ 29 ].

In response to this need to advance the study of mechanisms, we convened an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality-funded 3-year conference series titled, “Advancing mechanisms of implementation to accelerate sustainable evidence-based practice integration” [ 30 ]. The specific aims were to (1) develop a research agenda on implementation mechanisms, and (2) disseminate the research agenda to research, policy, and practice audiences. Similar to processes used for generating related research agendas (e.g., sustainability research [ 31 ]), concept mapping was employed in the first two years of the grant to elucidate challenges to advancing implementation mechanisms research [ 30 , 32 ] and to organize these ideas into conceptually distinct clusters. Reported in more detail elsewhere [ 30 , 32 ], concept mapping analyses yielded a 12-cluster solution that organized 105 challenge statements within five “super clusters” of mechanism research domains: (1) Accumulating Knowledge, (2) Conceptualization and Measurement, (3) Methods and Design, (4) Strategy, Mechanisms, Determinant, Outcome Linkages, and (5) Theory, Causality, and Context. See Table  1 for a complete list of identified challenges organized by cluster. These concept mapping results provided the basis for the research agenda. This paper describes how actions that could overcome those challenges were identified and presents the resulting research agenda.

Mechanisms Network of Expertise (MNoE)

The research agenda was developed by the Mechanisms Network of Expertise (MNoE). The MNoE is composed of over 40 invited implementation scientists who are diverse with respect to several dimensions (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, stage of career, focus on priority populations, research settings), but who are predominantly United States (US)-based (4 scholars are from outside the US); See Additional File 1. Expertise ranged across various aspects of implementation mechanism research including strategy development, measurement, design, theory, and practice. We gathered collective wisdom and engaged in reciprocal learning with these experts through immersive, multi-day “Deep Dive” meetings.

Identifying research priorities via nominal group technique: MNoE data generation

A US-based Footnote 1 subset of the MNoE ( N  = 23) met in person for a 3-day Deep Dive to address two goals: 1) expand upon the challenges derived from the previously completed concept mapping, and 2) generate ideas or actions (hereafter just referred to as actions ) organized by priority areas, which constitute the research agenda, to advance the study of implementation mechanisms. To this end, attendees received handouts with the cluster solution from concept mapping and the list of statements associated with each cluster (Table  1 ). These two goals were pursued through four, 120-min sessions comprised of a 75-min small-group activity followed by a 45-min large-group activity. (Table 2 ) Group activities were structured using evidence-informed, semi-structured group problem solving activities—called “scripts”— derived from operations, consulting, and systems science methods [ 33 , 34 ] (Table  3 ). Scripts include discussion prompts, guidelines about how time is spent (e.g., in small versus large groups), roles to be assumed by individuals (e.g., timekeeper), and session goals (e.g., brainstorming actions for a given cluster). A core planning team ( n  = 5) selected scripts from a repository and tailored them to Deep Dive objectives (e.g., identifying actions for addressing challenges to studying implementation mechanisms) across the sessions. Tailoring of scripts included adjusting the time allocated for each script, the examples used, and the wording of the prompts. The planning team assigned small group membership beforehand to ensure diverse groups regarding career stage and content or methodological expertise. The small group composition changed by session to stimulate creative conversation and cross-pollinate ideas by hearing new perspectives.

A tailored Nominal Group Technique process was followed for the first three sessions. Instead of first brainstorming individually, as in the traditional Nominal Group Technique [ 35 ], small groups first generated action ideas before sharing, discussing, and voting on priority ideas with the large group. Attendees did the following in small groups before converging as a large group (Table  3 ): 1) Assign group roles , including scribe (to record discussion), reporter for large group, and timekeeper. Individuals could assume more than one role. 2) Brainstorm actions for inclusion in the research agenda and address the challenges from the five super-clusters (the planning team assigned which super-clusters were discussed during each of these sessions). Actions could include methods, tools, activities, meetings, research products, research foci, disciplines, or people/perspectives to be engaged. 3) Prioritize two actions for full group discussion: based on consensus, one idea favored by the group and one idea that was complex, underdeveloped, or surprising to work through were selected. Small groups were encouraged to spend approximately 60 min brainstorming and 15 min prioritizing actions. Each prioritized action was submitted on paper for sharing in the large group session. Groups were encouraged to write as many actions as they could generate. Scribes’ notes were later analyzed (see below). All actions generated, not just those prioritized for deeper discussion, were considered in developing the research agenda.

During the first three large-group discussions, each group’s reporter briefly described how their two prioritized actions would advance the study of implementation mechanisms. Each group had 5 min to share and take questions. Simultaneous with sharing out, facilitators collected the papers and grouped similar actions on a wall visible to all. After all small groups shared, the facilitator summarized the action themes. The large group collectively reflected on these and used the remaining time to further develop prioritized actions.

The fourth (final) session synthesized and expanded actions brought forth in the preceding sessions. Each attendee used five votes to indicate preferred actions (or group of actions) [ 36 ]. The highest-voted actions ( n  = 6) were prioritized for this session. Attendees self-selected into small groups based on which prioritized actions they wanted to discuss. During the final large-group session, each group shared how the actions had evolved or whether new actions emerged. One facilitator synthesized actions and asked clarifying questions, while another captured actions and priorities on large pieces of paper for the large group to see and discuss.

Data extraction and consolidation

To populate the research agenda, a subgroup ( N  = 6) of attendees extracted data from notes taken across the Deep Dive. Please refer to Table  4 for terms (and definitions) used to organize the research agenda. All unique actions were extracted from each session note that covered at least one super-cluster. Each session note was assigned a primary and a secondary coder. Coders met monthly as a group to refine the process and discuss emergent content. The primary coder extracted action data and refined the language to represent a succinct, coherent action based on: (1) the content of the notes, (2) the context of the larger discussion in the notes, (3) discussion with colleagues (during and/or after the Deep Dive), and (4) consideration of the broader literature. The secondary coder checked data accuracy, separated or grouped actions to ensure each reflected a singular activity, and refined the action verbiage. Coders were encouraged to interpret data to generate additional actions. Coders then worked across sessions to clarify and condense the list of actions, reduce redundancy, and organize actions into priority areas (“priorities”). Given the number of actions identified for each priority area, it became clear that organizing actions within priorities by goals could offer a useful, high-level summary. Coders reviewed all actions in a priority and articulated 2–4 goals that could be achievable by a subset of actions. Each action was then labeled with its corresponding goal. Lastly, the first author synthesized all actions and associated goals within each priority, solicited input from the full authorship team, and refined the data to yield the final research agenda.

Table 5 presents the refined list of the MNoE-generated actions, organized by priorities and goals, into a research agenda to advance the study of implementation mechanisms. Although not required per our method, priorities reflected all five super-clusters from the concept mapping solution. In addition, priorities emerged specific to Engagement (of policy and practice communities, as well as funders) and Growing the Field in terms of capacity (number of knowledgeable researchers) and skills specific to studying mechanisms. The MNoE generated 150 unique actions across 10 priority areas (range: 11–19 actions per area). These actions included a mix of discrete activities, projects, or products, as well as ways to shift how research is conducted to center implementation mechanisms. Wherever possible, citations are included in the table to offer exemplars that represent the intention behind the possibility.

Here, we briefly describe each priority and the types of associated actions. Table 5 presents additional details—including goals that each priority area might achieve. The first set of actions are directly aligned with the concept mapping solution super-clusters.

Accumulate Knowledge within and Across Disciplines includes 19 actions that feature specific systematic reviews and meta-analyses, for example, and research questions that would drive this type of evidence synthesis (e.g., determine whether mechanisms are universal, or if variation across contexts is observed).

Prioritize Mechanism Research and Incorporate Other Knowledge includes 11 actions that would bring together transdisciplinary teams across fields where mechanisms are likely a prominent area of research, such as psychology and epidemiology.

Overcome Design Challenges and Innovate Methods includes 18 actions where new methods are needed (e.g., modeling time in quantitative assessment to isolate specific mechanisms) and identifies underused methods offering specific value (e.g., comparative case studies to generate hypotheses about complex mechanistic pathways).

Improve Measurement includes 13 actions, such as pragmatic approaches for objective data collection and those that capture lived experiences—an essential measurement component to understand when disparities might be addressed or exacerbated through implementation research and practice.

Provide Guidance for Specifying Mechanisms includes 15 actions reflecting mostly tools/aids to improve researchers’ approach to examining mechanisms (e.g., a list of questions and criteria for articulating mechanisms).

Increase Focus on Theorizing includes 12 ways to capitalize on developing, incorporating, and refining theory into mechanistic research to better characterize mechanisms (e.g., make theory explicit in the strategy design phase).

The emergent actions related to Engagement and Growing the Field provide further priorities for action.

Engaging the Policy and Practice Community includes 12 actions or methods for understanding the perspective of these potential partners (e.g., cognitive walkthroughs, plain language, Implementation Mapping [ 64 , 65 ]) and questions about when to include whom and how (e.g., compare “ground up” elucidation of mechanisms to the “top down” or theory-driven approach).

Engaging Funders and the Need for New Funding includes 17 actions to garner interest and expertise (e.g., mock study sections) and inspire novel use of new grant mechanisms (e.g., administrative supplements, trainee funding mechanisms).

Build Capacity includes 17 actions to offer clarification/guidance (e.g., how to understand conceptual/theoretical misalignment between strategies, mechanisms, and outcomes) and avenues to build the field’s capacity (e.g., postdoctoral training grants).

Emphasize Dissemination includes 17 actions like specific manuscript ideas, ways to engage journals to support mechanism-focused manuscripts, forums to host this dialogue, and other methods for generating broader interest beyond academia. Such methods are intended to foster iterative and collaborative advancements in mechanism research across interdisciplinary groups.

This paper articulates opportunities to advance the study of implementation mechanisms in a research agenda organized by priorities for the field and specific actions to advance those priorities. Actions range from those that can be acted upon now by way of shifting the research paradigm (e.g., always articulate mechanisms when designing implementation strategies) to those that may need targeted funding and specialized knowledge/expertise (e.g., conduct sufficiently powered, multilevel tests of mechanisms with multidisciplinary input). What follows is a discussion of each priority area by highlighting actions (represented by A# corresponding to Table  5 ) or exemplars organized by goals (represented by G# in Table  5 ). These actions were articulated by the MNoE (a group of experts) as ways to address challenges identified in their prior concept mapping work.

Accumulating knowledge

With 100 + discrete implementation strategies and behavior change techniques from which to choose [ 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ], balanced with evidence that rarely will a single strategy suffice in realizing sustained and robust change [ 68 , 69 ], accumulating basic knowledge about how strategies work is crucial. Although the MNoE acknowledged that a starting place could be to curate a list of implementation mechanisms, they also emphasized that there is a risk in overreliance on static lists and frameworks at the expense of theorizing or broader critical thinking [ 70 , 71 ] (A22.4), particularly where evidence for strategy functioning and causal processes is thin. To this end, the MNoE prioritized knowledge synthesis across completed studies (G1) and coordination of future studies (G2). Specifically, the MNoE prioritized accumulating knowledge to yield practical information such as: (i) which strategies are needed for specific types of interventions across most contexts (e.g., ‘practice & feedback’ needed for evidence-based psychotherapy implementation) (A1.8); (ii) which strategies hold promise in addressing certain barriers across diverse operationalizations [ 72 , 73 ] (A1.12) (e.g., educational training to address knowledge deficits); (iii) whether strategy-mechanism pairings are universal, or if and how pathways vary across contexts (e.g., service system, level of actor, community, culture) or strategy operationalization (i.e., form versus function [ 74 , 75 ]) (A1.7).

Not only are individual studies needed to test strategy pathways to yield this information (P1.5), which could be done in practical and efficient simulation studies (A2.5), but evidence syntheses are needed to curate this practical information (A1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.6, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 1.12). These possible actions are ripe for those interested in secondary data analysis. Alternatively, meta-laboratories (meta-labs) [ 76 ] offer an approach to testing implementation strategies at scale with the possibility of pooling samples for mediation analyses (A2.3). Meta-labs can harness practical implementation efforts in health systems, for example, where different operationalizations of commonly deployed strategies can be examined using harmonized implementation process, service, and patient-level health outcomes contained in electronic medical records. Grimshaw and colleagues are pioneering the meta-lab by convening subject matter experts to accumulate evidence about audit and feedback [ 76 , 77 ]. It is unclear whether existing grant funding mechanisms can accommodate the infrastructure necessary for multi-study, global coordination, and data sharing in such efforts (A19.5).

To accumulate knowledge efficiently, the MNoE recommended a mechanism-focused study repository for sharing information, evidence, and methods (A2.2). A repository could be used to share measures of mechanisms for cross-study testing and comparison; report impact/effect of strategies with how and why data; and provide diverse exemplar studies, especially those that engage community/practice partners. Web-based resources for implementation science are mounting (e.g., measure repositories [ 78 , 79 ]), but to our knowledge, few living repositories or systematic reviews exist perhaps because they are a relatively novel methodology [ 80 ] expedited into action by the COVID-19 pandemic [ 81 , 82 ].

Finally, the MNoE prioritized drawing on other disciplines (G3) and collaborating with experts from other disciplinary backgrounds (G4), such as scholars who study mechanisms using a multilevel perspective (A3.1). There are dozens of fields in which one entity helps another do something differently (A3.2) (e.g., governance, natural resources, education, health promotion) to integrate evidence-based interventions and strive for equity. The MNoE cautioned against our field ‘recreating the methodological wheel,’ and underscored the utility of multidisciplinary workgroups (A4.1) and workshops (A4.2). The MNoE prioritized actions to make implementation science more accessible (e.g., 1-page documents such as an SBAR: Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation [ 83 ] that conveys the importance of studying implementation mechanisms) to support bidirectional learning and springboard convenings. A recent commentary expressed concern that our field borrows superficially from others when interdisciplinarity or trans-disciplinarity is warranted [ 20 ]. Funders have recently made deep interdisciplinary collaboration a priority through opportunities such as the National Cancer Institute Implementation Science Centers [ 84 ] in which their Research Program Cores bring together numerous disciplines in a Methods Unit to test, refine, and disseminate new approaches [ 85 ] throughout 5-year awards [ 86 ].

Methods and design

The MNoE asserted the importance of overcoming design challenges (e.g., multiple multi-level mechanisms) and innovating methods (e.g., to address the time-varying nature of mechanism activation) specific to the study of mechanisms. They prioritized activities to guide selection and refinement of study designs (G5), enable measurement of pertinent and feasible data (G6), and leverage strengths of different research methods (G7) to enable establishing strategy mechanisms. For instance, much like the overview of designs that emerged from an NIH working session in 2014 [ 52 ], guidance is needed regarding when to use different designs and methods specifically for the purpose of establishing implementation mechanisms (A5.1). The MNoE suggested mechanism activation may offer an earlier signal along the causal pathway to indicate whether a strategy is working as hypothesized (A6.3). Designing trials for early signal testing demands methodological guidance regarding what constitutes reasonable levels of evidence (go/no-go indicators) (A6.4), how to time mechanism measurement or measure intermediate outcomes (A6.5), and how to pivot if the signal is not detected, particularly in a grant-funded study where adapting/changing the implementation strategy (i.e., independent variable) could be deemed a protocol deviation [ 58 ]. Fortunately, methods experts are beginning to apply adaptive trial designs that directly answer this call [ 87 ]. The MNoE also acknowledged the power of qualitative methods [ 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 ] to inform theory development and surface candidate mechanisms (A7.1) and to offer formative evidence for why a strategy did not work as intended (A7.2). The MNoE highlighted that qualitative methods provide richness, unique insights, and critical perspectives of those with lived experience [ 57 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 ]. Engagement with diverse partners will yield more specific, contextualized, and experientially-informed hypotheses of how strategies are working (A7.3) that may be more acceptable and appropriate for a given context and innovation compared to researcher-derived hypotheses. For example, a secondary analysis of a large implementation trial of measurement-based care revealed no significant mediators from the quantitative data but identified important candidate mechanisms from qualitative analyses [ 93 ].

Conceptualization and measurement

In general, great strides have been made to enhance the quality, access, and utility of measurement in implementation science through systematic reviews, guidance documents, and web-based repositories [ 78 , 79 , 94 ]. The MNoE prioritized actions specific to studying mechanisms to develop grounded and generalizable measures (G8), recommend best practices regarding measurement (G9), and clarify ongoing measurement challenges (G10). The MNoE articulated the need to deploy measurement methods that allow for multiple, real-time assessments to detect changes that unfold over time (A8.2), as mechanisms are hypothesized to be activated at varying rates by population and context. The MNoE elevated the possible use of passive data collection approaches for continuous monitoring of mechanisms (A9.2), ecological momentary assessment (EMA), or lower-burden, near-continuous assessments to track changes in mechanisms and determinants (A9.3). As an example, EMA was used to identify predictors of noncompliance of event-based reporting of tobacco use [ 95 ]. Although this example is implementation-adjacent, it reveals how underused approaches like EMA can overcome measurement challenges critical to studying mechanisms such as timing (e.g., multiple, repeated measures) and self-report (e.g., bias, memory).

Strategy, mechanism, determinant, outcome linkages

The MNoE was initially organized to include a subset of scholars who focused on understanding the linkages between strategies, mechanisms, determinants, and outcomes [ 30 ]. Recognizing that strategies are too often disconnected from determinants [ 96 , 97 ] and overpromising outcomes [ 69 ], the MNoE articulated the role of mechanisms in the causal pathway in terms of how a strategy exerts its effects on target outcomes by overcoming barriers [ 98 ]. The MNoE prioritized defining mechanisms as distinct from determinants and establishing reporting standards for mechanisms research (G11) to support deployment of cross-context and multilevel approaches (G12). The MNoE remarked on this as critical “foundational work” for scientific and practical progress to be made. For instance, the MNoE encouraged consideration of which strategies (from compilations such as Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) [ 13 ] and Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) [ 99 ]) have evidence of activating specific mechanisms to resolve particular barriers and achieve specific outcomes. Such foundational knowledge of discrete strategies would be instrumental in designing a practical implementation plan, but no synthesis or repository exists to our knowledge (A11.1), although a 2016 review does offer preliminary evidence on a subset of strategy-mediator pairings [ 21 ]. One activity to contribute this knowledge may be the “salvage strategy” [ 100 , 101 ] in which journals or conferences feature implementation failures and invite exploration of mechanism activation or lack thereof [ 17 ] (A12.9). The MNoE also prioritized using theory to guide articulation of putative mechanisms (A12.3) and the examination of mechanisms across diverse contexts to explore how mechanisms might be activated differently or over a different timeframe across contexts, populations, or interventions (A12.4). Moreover, the MNoE acknowledged the potential to hyperfocus on intrapersonal mechanisms of behavior change, which has a mounting evidence base [ 16 , 72 , 102 ]. To complement this individually focused work, the MNoE explicitly prioritized exploring mechanisms at aggregate levels of analysis that are less studied (e.g., community or policy levels), but where structures should be targeted to improve (A12.6) equitable outcomes [ 32 , 50 ,  52 ,  58 ,  75 ,  87 ,  103 , 104 ].

Theory, causality, and context

Because implementation science is a convergence of many disciplines, there are relevant classic theories (e.g., from social psychology, business, economics, education, anthropology) that articulate mechanisms [ 105 ]. Most utilized are frameworks, from which the theoretical underpinnings that depict relationships among constructs and enable prediction through propositions are absent, leaving a list of measurable factors organized by conceptual coherence, as in the case of the Theoretical Domains Framework [ 106 ] and the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research [ 107 ]. Kislov et al. [ 108 ] wrote about the importance of theorizing as a process that could enable implementation scientists to bidirectionally inform and learn from empirical data to test and advance generalizable knowledge and theory working at the mid-range level to develop and refine grand theories. More recently, Meza and colleagues [ 109 ] attempted to make theorizing more accessible to researchers, and although they use theorizing about determinants as their use case, they name mechanisms as a critical component of causal chains that explain how an implementation initiative is successful. Toward this goal, the MNoE prioritized activities that would incorporate theory (G13) through examples and guidance (G14). Actions included differentiating causal theory from program theory (A13.1), modifying implementation science “grand” theories to better represent mechanisms (A13.2), and making the notion of timing more explicit in the theory of change (A13.6). Consistent with the above-mentioned calls to prioritize theory, the MNoE prioritized guidance to choose relevant theories for study planning (A14.4), to fully integrate theory in an implementation study of mechanisms (A14.3), and to clarify how theory is used to articulate mechanisms (A14.2).

Beyond the five priority clusters initially identified in the concept mapping of challenges stymying the field, two new priority clusters of actions emerged through MNoE discussions: Engagement and Growing the Field . These priorities reflect critical areas of work to advance the study of implementation mechanisms. The Engagement cluster represents actions that, if prioritized early, would amplify the impact of actions in other clusters. Growing the Field actions are foundational and/or underpin the work of the other clusters, which might not be possible otherwise.

In terms of Engagement, the MNoE thought it critical to engage the policy and practice community, as well as funders of implementation science. The MNoE emphasized that the policy and practice communities are critical to establishing mechanisms, yet this area of science can feel obscure and pedantic to those communities. Funders were identified as a separate target for engagement because many of the prioritized actions do not fit neatly within traditional funding mechanisms.

The MNoE articulated priorities for engaging policy and practice partners in mechanism identification, validation, and testing (G15) and in using methods to obtain practice-based data and confirm theory (G16). The MNoE recommended plain-language mechanism definitions and de-jargonized questions for identifying mechanisms with community partners to help scientific teams learn from their perspectives (A15.1). Plain language was repeatedly emphasized because the term “mechanisms” itself may limit idea generation or perceptions of applicability as it tends to surface mechanical or biological underpinnings (A15.2, 15.3). The MNoE saw the policy and practice communities, broadly construed, as central to unearthing putative mechanisms and generated actions for facilitating their engagement, including motivating them to study mechanisms (A15.5), supporting them to collect and track data on mechanisms (A15.7), providing feedback (A15.8), and constructing causal pathways (A15.9). For instance, group model building presents a directed approach to engaging participants in articulating implementation mechanisms [ 110 ]. There are several more general frameworks, models, and approaches that can guide this kind of policy and practice community engagement, including community-based participatory research [ 111 ], community partnered participatory research [ 112 ], participatory action research [ 113 ], integrated knowledge translation [ 114 ], and user-centered design [ 67 , 115 ].

The MNoE articulated goals for engaging funders including emphasizing the study of mechanisms as a priority (G17), growing mechanism expertise (G18), and considering new funding models to support mechanism-focused research (G19). The MNoE suggested that it might be important to clarify, or confirm, that mechanism-focused research can lead to more parsimonious and efficient implementation approaches and reproducibility (A17.5). To this end, the MNoE surfaced the possibility of using scientific administrative supplements for mechanism data testing (A17.1) and making the study of mechanisms an explicit priority in funding opportunities (A17.2). To ensure mechanism evaluation fits within grant budget limits, the MNoE suggested deprioritizing patient and clinical outcomes when the intervention’s efficacy and/or effectiveness is robust and adaptation is minimal (A17.3).

The MNoE highlighted the importance of ensuring that grant reviewers are familiar with implementation mechanisms and can critically review grant proposals on these topics. To grow the capacity of reviewers (and the extramural community more broadly), the MNoE proposed specialized training for reviewers or the reviewer pipeline (A18.1), including conference workshops (A18.2) and mock study sections that center applications proposing implementation mechanisms research (A18.3). The MNoE envisioned a guideline document that would support assessing a study proposal’s plan to evaluate implementation mechanisms and scaffold learning key elements for mechanisms testing for those writing grant applications (A18.4).

Finally, the MNoE articulated several ideas for funding opportunities or suggested elements to emphasize within planned/existing funding opportunities. These included funding a coordinating center to harmonize measures, create the infrastructure for data collection, and integrate findings across numerous studies examining implementation strategy mechanisms (A19.5). The MNoE also wondered about the possibility of mechanism evaluation occurring during a follow-up (e.g., renewal) grant funding period, leveraging the longitudinal nature of the evaluation and the need to engage multiple partners (A19.4). In addition to large cross-study or longer initiatives, the MNoE suggested small and nimble grant opportunities that allow for discrete strategy testing and the need to pivot if the strategy “signal” is not detected (A19.1).

Growing the field

Throughout the Deep Dive, the MNoE called for multi-pronged efforts to grow the field. The MNoE recommended resources for evaluating mechanisms that could scaffold scientists’ efforts (G20) as well as more robust training that would help scholars grow new skillsets in the study of implementation mechanisms (G21). The MNoE prioritized guidance and resources regarding topics such as: how to test a strategy causal pathway (A20.1), how to choose the most appropriate outcome for a given mechanism (A20.2), how to isolate a mechanism from other factors in a causal pathway (A20.3, 20.4), how to disentangle the intervention from implementation strategies (A20.5), when to adapt the intervention versus modify the implementation strategy (A20.6), and when to change the strategy for the context versus change the context using the strategy based on our understanding of mechanisms (A20.8). With respect to this last topic, many scholars see contextual targets that, if changed, boast greater societal benefit (e.g., consideration of social determinants of health; addressing structural racism) as being inappropriate targets for implementation scientists, unless the evidence-based intervention itself is directed at those higher levels. Yet, implementing within existing structures can exacerbate inequities. These are critical questions, answers to which would have serious practical implications if, indeed, empirical guidance could be curated. Moreover, these questions are faced by numerous research teams, making the investment in generating such guidance even more valuable. These are the types of empirical evidence and associated resources that might come from larger investments to support the study of mechanisms, such as center grant awards, from which the scientific field and practice community stand to benefit.

The MNoE also generated several actions that were characterized as training-like approaches to build capacity. These included efforts like brief, recorded, didactic sessions regarding definitional issues surrounding mechanisms (A21.1), as well as more process-oriented training on, for example, how to specify causal chains (A21.2) and how to regularly reflect on why an implementation strategy is or is not working throughout the course of a study (A21.3). A team at the IMPACT Center has begun to produce videos aligned with these actions with funding from the US National Institute of Mental Health (P50MH126219) [ 116 ]. Acknowledging that videos might not be sufficient, this team has also offered in-person workshop training followed by office hours and one year of expert consultation around causal pathway diagramming [ 117 ]. Multipronged training and consultation will be critical for capacity building in new areas like the study of implementation mechanisms. Somewhat innovative actions were also shared, including a workgroup to support a series of training grants focused on the study of mechanisms (A21.4) and a data summit in which underutilized data from grants could be made available for secondary analysis paired with postdoctoral researchers using a shared mentoring model. The sentiment was that the expertise required to advance the study of mechanisms is sparse and approaches that extend the reach to new teams and data sources would be critical.

Although several of the above suggestions function as dissemination, the MNoE articulated four specific dissemination-related goals: produce focused manuscripts (G22); partner with journals to generate new paper types (G23); establish forums for dialog (G24); and generate broad interest using strategies that reach community partners (G25). The MNoE articulated numerous manuscripts that would be helpful such as Mechanisms Made Too Simple , inspired by Curran’s article [ 118 ]. They also imagined new paper types, such as one that centered on “learning from failure with wisdom,” which would essentially unpack implementation failures with a mechanistic lens. An example of such a commentary was written by researchers (not members of the original research team) regarding a recently published null trial that appears fruitful [ 17 ], and yet another approach is to ensure that implementers have opportunities to share “salvage strategies” that make the most out of opportunities to retain rigor when unexpected events threaten to derail studies that could shed light on mechanisms [ 100 , 101 ]. Finally, the MNoE underscored the importance of clarifying the “why” behind the study of mechanisms, particularly given the importance of learning from and supporting the policy and practice community. As they discussed dissemination, they surfaced a marketing problem in that not all would agree that the study of mechanisms could advance both science and practice, and some members believed this reductionist approach is misaligned with the very nature of implementation [ 20 ].

Limitations

Importantly, the MNoE may not be representative of those who could contribute and/or stand to benefit from this work. Although we made efforts to engage researchers from outside the United States (US; e.g., open attendance during a SIRC breakout; international representation in MNoE paper writing groups), the inputs and outputs of this research agenda largely reflect a US perspective. Indeed, parallel and complementary work from scholars in the United Kingdom (UK) includes an ontology of mechanisms of action in behavior change interventions that begins to address several aspects of the Research Agenda [ 119 ]. We hope readers with different perspectives will consider building from the US and UK work, for example, writing a commentary to further the dialogue and/or pursuing research that advances some of the priorities discussed above. Moreover, although some of the MNoE identify more as clinically or practically oriented researchers, the MNoE did not include policy and practice community members. Thus, it is likely that new actions across the priority clusters would have emerged if different groups were engaged in the process of generating this content. Also, the focus of this research agenda is on implementation strategy mechanisms, or the processes through which strategies exert their effects to achieve outcomes [ 30 ]. This focus overlooks contextual mechanisms, such as those surfaced through realist reviews [ 120 ]. This focus is consistent with prior work by our team [ 19 ], but can limit the field’s ability to explain how and why implementation occurs.

Implementation science needs to further expand from what works to how and why certain strategies work, for whom, when, and in which contexts [ 121 ]. This research agenda outlines a roadmap of concrete actions for advancing the study of mechanisms. To carry out this research agenda, concerted and strategic effort is needed. There are numerous training forums that grow implementation research capacity [ 122 ]. We hope some will highlight the priorities articulated herein, bring together transdisciplinary experts with mechanism-specific expertise, and contribute to the study of implementation mechanisms.

Availability of data and materials

MNoE members from other countries were invited, but unable to attend due to COVID restrictions.

Abbreviations

Society for Implementation Research Collaboration

Mechanisms Network of Expertise

Shelton RC, Chambers DA, Glasgow RE. An extension of RE-AIM to enhance sustainability: Addressing dynamic context and promoting health equity over time. Front Public Health. 2020;8:1–8.

Article   Google Scholar  

Gustafson P, Abdul Aziz Y, Lambert M, Bartholomew K, Rankin N, Fusheini A, et al. A scoping review of equity-focused implementation theories, models and frameworks in healthcare and their application in addressing ethnicity-related health inequities. Implement Sci. 2023;18:51.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Pullmann MD, Dorsey S, Duong MT, Lyon AR, Muse I, Corbin CM, et al. Expect the unexpected: A qualitative study of the ripple effects of children’s mental health services implementation efforts. Implementation Research and Practice. 2022;3:26334895221120796.

Dadich A, Vaughan P, Boydell K. The unintended negative conse- quences of knowledge translation in healthcare: A systematic scoping review. Health Sociol Rev. 2023;32:75–93.

Woodward EN, Singh RS, Ndebele-Ngwenya P, Melgar Castillo A, Dickson KS, Kirchner JE. A more practical guide to incorporating health equity domains in implementation determinant frameworks. Implementation Science Communications. 2021;2:61.

Gaias LM, Arnold KT, Liu FF, Pullmann MD, Duong MT, Lyon AR. Adapting strategies to promote implementation reach and equity (ASPIRE) in school mental health services. Psychol Sch. 2022;59:2471–85.

Building health equity into implementation strategies and mechanisms. Available from: https://reporter.nih.gov/search/0xJrdiFN8EeuIS8eEAKZCA/project-details/10597777 . Cited 2023 Aug 9

Flottorp SA, Oxman AD, Krause J, Musila NR, Wensing M, Godycki-Cwirko M, et al. A checklist for identifying determinants of practice: A systematic review and synthesis of frameworks and taxonomies of factors that prevent or enable improvements in healthcare professional practice. Implement Sci. 2013;8:1–11.

Squires JE, Graham ID, Santos WJ, Hutchinson AM, Backman C, Bergström A, et al. The Implementation in Context (ICON) framework: a meta-framework of context domains, attributes and features in healthcare. Health Res Pol Syst. 2023;21:81.

Birken SA, Powell BJ, Presseau J, Kirk MA, Lorencatto F, Gould NJ, et al. Combined use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF): A systematic review. Implement Sci. 2017;12:2.

Powell BJ, McMillen JC, Proctor EK, Carpenter CR, Griffey RT, Bunger AC, et al. A compilation of strategies for implementing clinical innovations in health and mental health. Med Care Res Rev. 2012;69:123–57.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Michie S, Richardson M, Johnston M, Abraham C, Francis J, Hardeman W, et al. The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: Building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Ann Behav Med. 2013;46:81–95.

Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, Damschroder LJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, et al. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: Results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci. 2015;10:1–14.

Kok G, Gottlieb NH, Peters GY, Mullen PD, Parcel GS, Ruiter RAC, et al. A taxonomy of behaviour change methods: An Intervention Mapping approach. Health Psychol Rev. 2016;10:297–312.

McHugh S, Presseau J, Luecking CT, Powell BJ. Examining the complementarity between the ERIC compilation of implementation strategies and the behaviour change technique taxonomy: a qualitative analysis. Implement Sci. 2022;17:56.

Marques M, Wright A, Johnston M, West R, Hastings J, Zhang L, et al. The Behaviour Change Technique Ontology: Transforming the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy v1. PsyArXiv; 2023. Available from: https://psyarxiv.com/vxypn/ . Cited 2023 Aug 8

Geng EH, Baumann AA, Powell BJ. Mechanism mapping to advance research on implementation strategies. PLoS Med. 2022;19:e1003918.

Lewis CC, Klasnja P, Powell BJ, Lyon AR, Tuzzio L, Jones S, et al. From classification to causality: advancing understanding of mechanisms of change in implementation science. Front Public Health. 2018;6:1–6.

Lewis CC, Boyd MR, Walsh-Bailey C, Lyon AR, Beidas R, Mittman B, et al. A systematic review of empirical studies examining mechanisms of implementation in health. Implement Sci. 2020;15:1–25.

Beidas RS, Dorsey S, Lewis CC, Lyon AR, Powell BJ, Purtle J, et al. Promises and pitfalls in implementation science from the perspective of US-based researchers: learning from a pre-mortem. Implement Sci. 2022;17:55.

Williams NJ. Multilevel mechanisms of implementation strategies in mental health: Integrating theory, research, and practice. Admin Pol Mental Health Mental Health Serv Res. 2016;43:783–98.

Baker R, Comosso-Stefinovic J, Gillies C, Shaw EJ, Cheater F, Flottorp S, et al. Tailored interventions to address determinants of practice. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;4:1–118.

Google Scholar  

Lewis CC, Marti CN, Scott K, Walker MR, Boyd M, Puspitasari A, et al. Standardized versus tailored implementation of measurement-based care for depression in community mental health clinics. PS. 2022;73:1094–101.

Lewis CC, Stanick C, Lyon A, Darnell D, Locke J, Puspitasari A, et al. Proceedings of the Fourth Biennial Conference of the Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) 2017: implementation mechanisms: what makes implementation work and why? part 1. Implement Sci. 2018;13(Suppl 2):1–5.

Guastaferro K, Collins LM. Optimization methods and implementation science: an opportunity for behavioral and biobehavioral interventions. Implement Res Pract. 2021;2:26334895211054364.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

McHugh SM, Riordan F, Curran GM, Lewis CC, Wolfenden L, Presseau J, et al. Conceptual tensions and practical trade-offs in tailoring implementation interventions. Frontiers in Health Services. 2022;2. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frhs.2022.974095 . Cited 2022 Nov 19

Riordan F, Kerins C, Pallin N, Albers B, Clack L, Morrissey E, et al. Characterising processes and outcomes of tailoring implementation strategies in healthcare: a protocol for a scoping review. HRB Open Research; 2022. Available from: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/5-17 . Cited 2022 Nov 19

Landes SJ, Kerns SEU, Pilar MR, Walsh-Bailey C, Yu SH, Byeon YV, et al. Proceedings of the Fifth Biennial Conference of the Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) 2019: where the rubber meets the road: the intersection of research, policy, and practice - part 1. Implement Sci. 2020;15(Suppl 3):1–5.

Vejnoska SF, Mettert K, Lewis CC. Mechanisms of implementation: An appraisal of causal pathways presented at the 5th biennial Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) conference. Implement Res Pract. 2022;3:26334895221086270.

Lewis CC, Powell BJ, Brewer SK, Nguyen AM, Schriger SH, Vejnoska SF, et al. Advancing mechanisms of implementation to accelerate sustainable evidence-based practice integration: protocol for generating a research agenda. BMJ Open. 2021;11:e053474.

Proctor EK, Luke D, Calhoun A, McMillen JC, McCrary S, Padek M. Sustainability of evidence-based healthcare: research agenda, methodological advances, and infrastructure support. Implement Sci. 2015;10:1–13.

Powell BJ. Challenges related to the study of implementation mechanisms: A concept mapping approach. San Diego, CA: Conference presentation at the Society for Implementation Research Collaboration Biennial Conference; 2022.

Vennix JA. Group model building. System. Dynamics. 1996;2:123–32.

Hovmand PS, Rouwette EAJA, Andersen DF, Richardson GP, and Kraus A. Scriptapedia 4.0.6. Cambridge: The 31st International Conference of the System Dynamics Society; 2013. Available from: https://proceedings.systemdynamics.org/2013/proceed/papers/P1405.pdf . Cited 2024 Sept 6.

Cantrill JA, Sibbald B, Buetow S. Delphi and nominal group techniques in health services research. Int J Pharm Pract. 1996;4:67–74.

American Society for Quality. What is multivoting? 2023. Available from: https://asq.org/quality-resources/multivoting . Cited 2023 Aug 8

Ertmer PA, Glazewski KD. Developing a research agenda: contributing new knowledge via intent and focus. J Comput High Educ. 2014;26:54–68.

Kane M, Trochim WMK. Concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2007.

Book   Google Scholar  

Albers B, Metz A, Burke K, Bührmann L, Bartley L, Driessen P, et al. The mechanisms of implementation support - findings from a systematic integrative review. Res Soc Work Pract. 2022;32:259–80.

Miech EJ, Rattray NA, Flanagan ME, Damschroder L, Schmid AA, Damush TM. Inside help: An integrative review of champions in healthcare-related implementation. SAGE Open Med. 2018;6:2050312118773261.

Zamboni K, Baker U, Tyagi M, Schellenberg J, Hill Z, Hanson C. How and under what circumstances do quality improvement collaboratives lead to better outcomes? A systematic review. Implement Sci. 2020;15:27.

Kilbourne AM, Geng E, Eshun-Wilson I, Sweeney S, Shelley D, Cohen DJ, et al. How does facilitation in healthcare work? Using mechanism mapping to illuminate the black box of a meta-implementation strategy. Implement Sci Commun. 2023;4:53.

Ivers NM, Grimshaw JM, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, O’Brien MA, French SD, et al. Growing literature, stagnant science? Systematic review, meta-regression and cumulative analysis of audit and feedback interventions in health care. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29:1534–41.

Akiba CF, Powell BJ, Pence BW, Nguyen MXB, Golin C, Go V. The case for prioritizing implementation strategy fidelity measurement: benefits and challenges. Transl Behav Med. 2022;12:335–42.

Akiba CF, Powell BJ, Pence BW, Muessig K, Golin CE, Go V. “We start where we are”: a qualitative study of barriers and pragmatic solutions to the assessment and reporting of implementation strategy fidelity. Implement Sci Commun. 2022;3:117.

Akiba CF, Go VF, Powell BJ, Muessig K, Golin C, Dussault JM, et al. Champion and audit and feedback strategy fidelity and their relationship to depression intervention fidelity: A mixed method study. SSM - Mental Health. 2023;3:100194.

Brookman-Frazee L, Stahmer AC. Effectiveness of a multi-level implementation strategy for ASD interventions: study protocol for two linked cluster randomized trials. Implement Sci. 2018;13:66.

Brookman-Frazee L, Chlebowski C, Suhrheinrich J, Finn N, Dickson KS, Aarons GA, et al. Characterizing shared and unique implementation influences in two community services systems for autism: applying the EPIS framework to two large-scale autism intervention community effectiveness trials. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2020;47:176–87.

Rothman AJ, Sheeran P. What is slowing us down? Six challenges to accelerating advances in health behavior change. Ann Behav Med. 2020;54:948–59.

Luke DA, Powell BJ, Paniagua-Avila A. Bridges and mechanisms: Integrating systems science thinking into implementation research. Ann Rev Public Health. 2024;45:7.

Swedberg R. Can you visualize theory? On the use of visual thinking in theory pictures, theorizing diagrams, and visual sketches. Sociol Theory. 2016;34:250–75.

Brown CH, Curran G, Palinkas LA, Aarons GA, Wells KB, Jones L, et al. An overview of research and evaluation designs for dissemination and implementation. Annu Rev Public Health. 2017;38:1–22.

Mercer SL, DeVinney BJ, Fine LJ, Green LW, Dougherty D. Study designs for effectiveness and translation research: Identifying trade-offs. Am J Prev Med. 2007;33:139–54.

Mazzucca S, Tabak RG, Pilar M, Ramsey AT, Baumann AA, Kryzer E, et al. Variation in research designs used to test the effectiveness of dissemination and implementation strategies: A review. Front Public Health. 2018;6:1–10.

Hwang S, Birken SA, Melvin CL, Rohweder CL, Smith JD. Designs and methods for implementation research: advancing the mission of the CTSA program. J Clin Transl Sci. 2020;4:159–67.

Institute of Medicine. Assessing the Use of Agent-Based Models for Tobacco Regulation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2015. Available from: https://doi.org/10.17226/19018

Bonell C, Warren E, Melendez-Torres G. Methodological reflections on using qualitative research to explore the causal mechanisms of complex health interventions. Evaluation. 2022;28:166–81.

Frank HE, Kemp J, Benito KG, Freeman JB. Precision implementation: an approach to mechanism testing in implementation research. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2022;49:1084–94.

Glaser J, Laudel G. The Discovery of Causal Mechanisms: Extractive Qualitative Content Analysis as a Tool for Process Tracing. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 2019;20. Available from: https://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/3386 . Cited 2023 Aug 9

Stone AA, Schneider S, Smyth JM. Evaluation of pressing issues in ecological momentary assessment. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2023;19:107–31.

Kerwer M, Chasiotis A, Stricker J, Günther A, Rosman T. Straight From the scientist’s mouth—plain language summaries promote laypeople’s comprehension and knowledge acquisition when reading about individual research findings in psychology. Collabra: Psychology. 2021;7:18898.

Jones L, Wells K. Strategies for academic and clinician engagement in community-participatory partnered research. JAMA. 2007;297:407–10.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

London RA, Glass RD, Chang E, Sabati S, Nojan S. “We Are About Life Changing Research”: Community Partner Perspectives on Community-Engaged Research Collaborations. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement. 2022;26. Available from: https://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/jheoe/article/view/2512 . Cited 2023 Aug 9

Fernandez ME, ten Hoor GA, van Lieshout S, Rodriguez SA, Beidas RS, Parcel G, et al. Implementation mapping: Using intervention mapping to develop implementation strategies. Front Public Health. 2019;7:1–15.

Fernandez ME, Powell BJ, Ten Hoor GA. Editorial: Implementation Mapping for selecting, adapting and developing implementation strategies. Front Public Health. 2023;11:1–4.

Lyon AR, Coifman J, Cook H, McRee E, Liu FF, Ludwig K, et al. The Cognitive Walkthrough for Implementation Strategies (CWIS): a pragmatic method for assessing implementation strategy usability. Implement Sci Commun. 2021;2:78.

Graham AK, Wildes JE, Reddy M, Munson SA, Taylor CB, Mohr DC. User-centered design for technology-enabled services for eating disorders. Int J Eat Disord. 2019;52:1095–107.

Oxman AD, Thomson MA, Davis DA, Haynes B. No magic bullets: A systematic review of 102 trials of interventions to improve professional practice. Can Med Assoc J. 1995;153:1424–31.

Shojania KG, Grimshaw JM. Still no magic bullets: pursuing more rigorous research in quality improvement. Am J Med. 2004;116:778–80.

Walsh Bailey C, Wiltsey Stirman S, Helfrich CD, Moullin J, Nilsen P, Oladunni O, et al. The hazards of overreliance on theories, models, and frameworks and how the study of mechanisms can offer a solution. San Diego, CA: Society for Implementation Research Collaboration Conference; 2022.

Connors EH, Martin JK, Aarons GA, Barwick M, Bunger AC, Bustos TE, et al. Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the Sixth Conference of the Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) 2022: from implementation foundations to new frontiers. Implement Res Pract. 2023;4:S1–185.

Johnston M, Carey RN, Connell Bohlen LE, Johnston DW, Rothman AJ, de Bruin M, et al. Development of an online tool for linking behavior change techniques and mechanisms of action based on triangulation of findings from literature synthesis and expert consensus. Transl Behav Med. 2021;11:1049–65.

Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Fernández ME, Abadie B, Damschroder LJ. Choosing implementation strategies to address contextual barriers: Diversity in recommendations and future directions. Implement Sci. 2019;14:1–15.

Perez Jolles M, Lengnick-Hall R, Mittman BS. Core functions and forms of complex health interventions: A patient-centered medical home illustration. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34:1032–8.

Lengnick-Hall R, Stadnick NA, Dickson KS, Moullin JC, Aarons GA. Forms and functions of bridging factors: specifying the dynamic links between outer and inner contexts during implementation and sustainment. Implement Sci. 2021;16:34.

Grimshaw JM, Ivers N, Linklater S, Foy R, Francis JJ, Gude WT, et al. Reinvigorating stagnant science: implementation laboratories and a meta-laboratory to efficiently advance the science of audit and feedback. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019;28:416–23.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

The Audit & Feedback MetaLab. Available from: https://www.ohri.ca/auditfeedback/ . Cited 2023 Aug 9

Implementation Outcome Repository. Available from: https://implementationoutcomerepository.org . Cited 2023 Aug 9

Systematic Reviews of Methods to Measure Implementation Constructs. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/topic/collections-irp/irp-1-systematic_reviews_of_methods_to_measure_implementation_constructs/irp . Cited 2023 Aug 9

Living systematic reviews | Cochrane Community. Available from: https://community.cochrane.org/review-development/resources/living-systematic-reviews . Cited 2023 Aug 9

Maguire BJ, Guérin PJ. A living systematic review protocol for COVID-19 clinical trial registrations. Wellcome Open Res. 2020;5:60.

Negrini S, Ceravolo MG, Côté P, Arienti C. A systematic review that is ``rapid’’ and ``living’’: A specific answer to the COVID-19 pandemic. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;138:194–8.

Compton J, Copeland K, Flanders S, Cassity C, Spetman M, Xiao Y, et al. Implementing SBAR across a large multihospital health system. Joint Comm J Qual Pat Safety. 2012;38:261–8.

Oh A, Vinson CA, Chambers DA. Future directions for implementation science at the National Cancer Institute: Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control. Transl Behav Med. 2021;11:669–75.

Lewis CC, Hannon PA, Klasnja P, Baldwin L-M, Hawkes R, Blackmer J, et al. Optimizing Implementation in Cancer Control (OPTICC): protocol for an implementation science center. Implement Sci Commun. 2021;2:44.

Oh AY, Emmons KM, Brownson RC, Glasgow RE, Foley KL, Lewis CC, et al. Speeding implementation in cancer: The National Cancer Institute’s Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2023;115:131–8.

Kilbourne AM, Almirall D, Eisenberg D, Waxmonsky J, Goodrich DE, Fortney JC, et al. Protocol: Adaptive Implementation of Effective Programs Trial (ADEPT): cluster randomized SMART trial comparing a standard versus enhanced implementation strategy to improve outcomes of a mood disorders program. Implement Sci. 2014;9:1–14.

Ramanadhan S, Revette AC, Lee RM, Aveling EL. Pragmatic approaches to analyzing qualitative data for implementation science: an introduction. Implement Sci Commun. 2021;2:1–10.

National Cancer Institute. Qualitative methods in implementation science. Bethesda, Maryland; 2019. Available from: https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/nci-dccps-implementationscience-whitepaper.pdf

Gertner AK, Franklin J, Roth I, Cruden GH, Haley AD, Finley EP, et al. A scoping review of the use of ethnographic approaches in implementation research and recommendations for reporting. Implement Res Pract. 2021;2:1–13.

Hamilton AB, Finley EP. Qualitative methods in implementation research: An introduction. Psychiatry Res. 2019;280:112516.

Lemire S, Kwako A, Nielsen SB, Christie CA, Donaldson SI, Leeuw FL. What is this thing called a mechanism? Findings from a review of realist evaluations. N Dir Eval. 2020;167:73–86.

Lewis CC, Boyd MR, Marti CN, Albright K. Mediators of measurement-based care implementation in community mental health settings: results from a mixed-methods evaluation. Implement Sci. 2022;17:71.

Rabin BA, Lewis CC, Norton WE, Neta G, Chambers D, Tobin JN, et al. Measurement resources for dissemination and implementation research in health. Implement Sci. 2016;11:1–9.

Kendall AD, Robinson CSH, Diviak KR, Hedeker D, Mermelstein RJ. Introducing a real-time method for identifying the predictors of noncompliance with event-based reporting of tobacco use in ecological momentary assessment. Ann Behav Med. 2023;57:399–408.

Bosch M, van der Weijden T, Wensing M, Grol R. Tailoring quality improvement interventions to identified barriers: A multiple case analysis. J Eval Clin Pract. 2007;13:161–8.

Wensing M, Grol R. Knowledge translation in health: How implementation science could contribute more. BMC Med. 2019;17:1–6.

Lewis CC, Klasnja P, Lyon AR, Powell BJ, Lengnick-Hall R, Buchanan G, et al. The mechanics of implementation strategies and measures: advancing the study of implementation mechanisms. Implement Sci Commun. 2022;3:114.

EPOC Taxonomy. Available from: https://epoc.cochrane.org/epoc-taxonomy . Cited 2023 Aug 9

Hoagwood KE, Chaffin M, Chamberlain P, Bickman L, Mittman B. Implementation salvage strategies: maximizing methodological flexibility in children's mental health research. In 4th Annual NIH conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation: Policy and Practice; 2011.

Dunbar J, Hernan A, Janus E, Davis-Lameloise N, Asproloupos D, O’Reilly S, et al. Implementation salvage experiences from the Melbourne diabetes prevention study. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:1–9.

Carey RN, Connell LE, Johnston M, Rothman AJ, de Bruin M, Kelly MP, et al. Behavior change techniques and their mechanisms of action: a synthesis of links described in published intervention literature. Ann Behav Med. 2019;53:693–707.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Crable EL, Lengnick-Hall R, Stadnick NA, Moullin JC, Aarons GA. Where is “policy” in dissemination and implementation science? Recommendations to advance theories, models, and frameworks: EPIS as a case example. Implement Sci. 2022;17:80.

Purtle J, Moucheraud C, Yang LH, Shelley D. Four very basic ways to think about policy in implementation science. Implement Sci Commun. 2023;4:111.

Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci. 2015;10:1–13.

Cane J, O’Connor D, Michie S. Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implement Sci. 2012;7:1–17.

Damschroder LJ, Reardon CM, Widerquist MAO, Lowery J. The updated consolidated framework for implementation research based on user feedback. Implement Sci. 2022;17:75.

Kislov R, Pope C, Martin GP, Wilson PM. Harnessing the power of theorising in implementation science. Implement Sci. 2019;14:1–8.

Meza RD, Moreland JC, Pullmann MD, Klasnja P, Lewis CC, Weiner BJ. Theorizing is for everybody: Advancing the process of theorizing in implementation science. Frontiers in Health Services. 2023;3. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frhs.2023.1134931 . Cited 2023 Mar 19

Northridge ME, Metcalf SS. Enhancing implementation science by applying best principles of systems science. Health Res Pol Syst. 2016;14:1–8.

Wallerstein N, Duran B. Community-based participatory research contributions to intervention research: The intersection of science and practice to improve health equity. Am J Public Health. 2010;100:S40–6.

Wells K, Jones L. “Research” in community-partnered. Participatory Res JAMA. 2009;302:320–1.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Baum F, MacDougall C, Smith D. Participatory action research. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60:854.

Nguyen T, Graham ID, Mrklas KJ, Bowen S, Cargo M, Estabrooks CA, et al. How does integrated knowledge translation (IKT) compare to other collaborative research approaches to generating and translating knowledge? Learning from experts in the field. Health Res Pol Syst. 2020;18:35.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Lyon AR, Bruns EJ. User-centered redesign of evidence-based psychosocial interventions to enhance implementation: Hospitable soil or better seeds? JAMA Psychiat. 2019;76:3–4.

Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute. Causal Pathway Diagrams. 2022. Available from: https://vimeo.com/740549106

Klasnja P, Meza RD, Pullmann MP, Mettert KD, Hawkes R, Palazzo L, et al. 1354 Getting cozy with causality: A causal pathway diagramming method to 1355 enhance implementation precision. Implement Res Pract. 2024; 5:1–14.

Curran GM. Implementation science made too simple: a teaching tool. Implement Sci Commun. 2020;1:1–3.

Schenk PM, Wright AJ, West R, Hastings J, Lorencatto F, Moore C, et al. An ontology of mechanisms of action in behaviour change interventions. Wellcome Open Res. 2024;8:337.

Salter KL, Kothari A. Using realist evaluation to open the black box of knowledge translation: a state-of-the-art review. Implement Sci. 2014;9:115.

Hamilton AB, Mittman BS. Implementation science in health care. In: Brownson RC, Colditz GA, Proctor EK, editors. Dissemination and implementation research in health: Translating science to practice. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2018. p. 385–400.

Viglione C, Stadnick NA, Birenbaum B, Fang O, Cakici JA, Aarons GA, et al. A systematic review of dissemination and implementation science capacity building programs around the globe. Implement Sci Commun. 2023;4:34.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

In addition to federal funding, we are grateful to have received funding support from the Society for Implementation Research Collaboration, which helped make our Deep Dive meetings possible. Moreover, we would like to thank attendees at SIRC’s 2019 conference who provided input into the challenges associated with studying implementation mechanisms. Finally, we wish to thank each member of the MNoE, some of whom contributed to the development of the R13 grant proposal (Gregory Aarons, Rinad Beidas, Aaron Lyon, Brian Mittman, Byron Powell, Bryan Weiner, Nate Williams), and the rest of whom participated in one or more Deep Dive meetings, between event virtual sessions, or in the paper writing groups; see Additional File 1. Gracelyn Cruden began this work at her prior institution, Oregon Social Learning Center, and completed it at her current institution.

This research was supported by funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R13HS025632), National Institute of Mental Health (P50MH126219, R01MH111950, R01MH111981, K01MH128769, R25MH080916, K01MH113806, K01MH128761), and National Cancer Institute (P50CA244432 and R01CA262325, P50CA244690).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, 1730 Minor Avenue, Suite 1600, Seattle, WA, 98101, USA

Cara C. Lewis

The Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Box G-BH, Providence, RI, 02912, USA

Hannah E. Frank

Chestnut Health System, Lighthouse Institute – OR Group, 1255 Pearl St, Ste 101, Eugene, OR 97401, USA

Gracelyn Cruden

Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, VA Boston Healthcare System, 150 South Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, 02130, USA

Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, 25 Shattuck Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA

UC Davis MIND Institute, 2825 50Th St, Sacramento, CA, 95819, USA

Aubyn C. Stahmer

Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific Street Box 356560, Seattle, WA, 98195-6560, USA

Aaron R. Lyon

Institute for Implementation Science in Health Care, University of Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland

Bianca Albers

Department of Psychiatry, University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive La Jolla California, San Diego, 92093, CA, USA

Gregory A. Aarons

Department of Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 625 N Michigan Avenue, Evanston, IL, 60661, USA

Rinad S. Beidas

Division of Health Services Research & Implementation Science, Department of Research & Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, 100 S Los Robles Ave, Pasadena, CA, 91101, USA

Brian S. Mittman

Department of Global Health, School of Public Health, Box 357965, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA

Bryan J. Weiner

School of Social Work, Boise State University, Boise, ID, 83725, USA

Nate J. Williams

Center for Mental Health Services Research, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA

Byron J. Powell

Center for Dissemination & Implementation, Institute for Public Health, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA

Division of Infectious Diseases, John T. Milliken Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

• Maria E. Fernandez
• , Sarah Masyuko
• , Michael Pullmann
• , Lisa Saldana
• , Anjuli D. Wagner
• , Callie Walsh-Bailey
•  & Shannon Wiltsey Stirman

Contributions

CCL, HEF, BK, AS, GC, and BJP contributed to the conceptualization of the manuscript, engaged in the coding, and participated in data interpretation. CCL drafted the introduction, results, and discussion. HEF and GC drafted the method section. ARL and BA reviewed preliminary results and contributed to revisions to the results table. BJP and CCL worked the manuscript through several cycles of review by all coauthors. All authors (CCL, HEF, BK, AS, GC, BJP GAA, RSB, BSM, BJW, NJW, MF, SM, MP, LS, AW, CWB, SWS) reviewed, edited, and approved the final content of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cara C. Lewis .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This study was reviewed and approved by Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute’s IRB and was deemed Not Human Subjects Research.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

Drs. Lewis and Weiner receive royalties from Springer Publishing. Dr. Beidas is principal at Implementation Science & Practice, LLC. She receives royalties from Oxford University Press, consulting fees from United Behavioral Health and OptumLabs, and serves on the advisory boards for Optum Behavioral Health, AIM Youth Mental Health Foundation, and the Klingenstein Third Generation Foundation outside of the submitted work. Dr. Aarons is a Co-Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Beidas is an Associate Editor, and Drs. Powell and Weiner are on the Editorial Board of Implementation Science , none of whom will play a role in the editorial process of this manuscript.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Lewis, C.C., Frank, H.E., Cruden, G. et al. A research agenda to advance the study of implementation mechanisms. Implement Sci Commun 5 , 98 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-024-00633-5

Download citation

Received : 17 January 2024

Accepted : 30 August 2024

Published : 16 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-024-00633-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Implementation science
• Determinants
• Implementation strategies
• Measurement

Implementation Science Communications

ISSN: 2662-2211

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Higher Ed Professor

Demystifying higher education.

• Productivity
• Issue Discussion
• Current Events

The role and purpose of a research agenda

A research agenda plays a valuable role in helping design scholarly activities for graduate students and faculty. Simply put, a research agenda means identifying the areas you will research and the methodologies you will use to answer questions. You probably have heard from professors in graduate school and beyond that you can’t research everything so you need to pick what you can feasibly study. Moreover, a scattershot approach can keep you from focusing on important questions and pull you in a number of different directions. In today’s post, I will describe research agenda and why they can be of benefit for researchers.

Just as a meeting agenda provides the items to be discussed during a meeting, a research agenda provides clarity and a framework for making decisions regarding your research activities.

It can be tempting to jump on any research idea that comes along and seems interesting.

Rather, what you need is a lens through which you can consider new ideas and projects as they come along.

A clearly articulated research agenda provides boundaries for you to make decisions regarding your scholarly work.

New projects will undoubtedly be attractive at first, but they should be considered in light of your agenda as the first step in reviewing them.

Only once the new idea is in line with your agenda to you move on to consider if you have the time and desire to move forward.

In addition to serving as a useful guide, research agenda help others understand and view the research work that you do.

Research agendas are comprised of a strand (or possibly two or three related ones) of research that you explore. These may be topics or questions that your research seeks to explore.

Many people that I have know do not have a single line of inquiry that forms their research agenda.

Everyone has different and even related interests for their scholarship so you may not have a single, isolated line of research that you explore.

Even tenure committees (that value firm agendas) realize that tenure candidates may have two related concepts that they studied extensively in graduate school, had experience in working on in a laboratory, or were part of their dissertation.

As long as you can articulate each line of inquiry, the relationships between each line, and demonstrate your expertise in the two (or at most three) lines of inquiry that you are studying, most everyone in higher education will find this appropriate.

However, if your research appears to be a collection of random projects lacking a common thread between them, hiring and tenure committees will rightly question whether you have demonstrated expertise and developed a level of sophistication in your research.

For pre-tenure faculty, research agendas can be useful for helping you build up a reputation of expertise and work around a specific topic.

College and universities want to see that pre-tenure are establishing or have achieved a national reputation in the field of expertise.

A tightly focused research agenda helps to achieve prominence by focusing on a specific area.

If someone’s research bounces around among a variety of relatively disconnected projects, then it becomes difficult to establish and validate areas of expertise particularly to external reviewers.

Moreover, working on similar research studies creates significant efficiencies. For example, you do not need to learn a new body of research in order to write the literature review and you are already familiar with journals that publish on your topic.

Overall, if you maintain a sense of consistency with your topic, you can more easily and quickly publish your research.

If you are struggling with articulating your own research agendas, I recommend studying the careers of major researchers in your discipline.

To do this, get a copy of the vita of a significant and well-respected researcher.

Next, look at the years prior to when the established scholar received tenure.

You are looking for how their line of research progressed throughout their career. Research takes a while to build up knowledge and data to answer specific questions.

Over time, as methodologies advance and the knowledge base grows, you will probably see research questions morph and change.

When looking at a full professor with 25 years of research experience, many pre-tenure faculty fail to fully appreciate how research agendas evolve. These professors did not magically come out of graduate school with the focus and expertise they possess today.

Studying these other agendas can help you learn how research agendas evolve over time, which can help in creating your own research agendas.

Establishing a research agenda and sharing this with professors, mentors, and colleagues provides an important groundwork and foundation for your research activities and I highly suggest taking the time to think about and articulate your own agenda.

Cookies Notification

• ATS Scholar
• Conference Abstracts
• Out of the Blue
• Clinician to Clinician
• The Lung Science Podcast
• About the ATS Journals
• ATS Copyright Notice
• Author Use Policies
• Advertising and Recruitment
• Press Releases
• Permissions
• Reprints and E-Prints
• Subscriptions

American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

A research agenda to improve outcomes in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cardiovascular disease: an official american thoracic society research statement.

• Supplements

Background: Individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are often at risk for or have comorbid cardiovascular disease and are likely to die of cardiovascular-related causes.

Objectives: To prioritize a list of research topics related to the diagnosis and management of patients with COPD and comorbid cardiovascular diseases (heart failure, atherosclerotic vascular disease, and atrial fibrillation) by summarizing existing evidence and using consensus-based methods.

Methods: A literature search was performed. References were reviewed by committee co-chairs. An international, multidisciplinary committee, including a patient advocate, met virtually to review evidence and identify research topics. A modified Delphi approach was used to prioritize topics in real time on the basis of their potential for advancing the field.

Results: Gaps spanned the translational science spectrum from basic science to implementation: 1 ) disease mechanisms; 2 ) epidemiology; 3 ) subphenotyping; 4 ) diagnosis and management; 5 ) clinical trials; 6 ) care delivery; 7 ) medication access, adherence, and side effects; 8 ) risk factor mitigation; 9 ) cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation; and 10 ) health equity. Seventeen experts participated, and quorum was achieved for all votes (>80%). Of 17 topics, ≥70% agreement was achieved for 12 topics after two rounds of voting. The range of summative Likert scores was −15 to 25. The highest priority was “Conduct pragmatic clinical trials with patient-centered outcomes that collect both pulmonary and cardiac data elements.” Health equity was identified as an important topic that should be embedded within all research.

Conclusions: We propose a prioritized research agenda with the purpose of stimulating high-impact research that will hopefully improve outcomes among people with COPD and cardiovascular disease.

Introduction

Committee Composition

Literature Search and Review of Existing Evidence

Meetings and Modified Delphi Rounds

Document Development

Conclusions

This research statement sets forth a prioritized research agenda that is based on expert opinion with the purpose of stimulating high-impact research for the optimal management of COPD and cardiovascular disease.

The burden of COPD is significant, affecting 479 million individuals worldwide in 2020 ( 1 ). The global burden of COPD is projected to increase by 23% between 2020 and 2050 ( 1 ). Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of death worldwide ( 2 ). Comorbid cardiovascular conditions are common in patients with COPD ( 3 – 9 ). Compared with the general public, patients with COPD are ∼2.5 times more likely to have cardiovascular disease ( 7 ). Across cohorts, the prevalence of heart failure (7–42%), ischemic cardiovascular disease (2–18%), and arrhythmia (3–21%) is consistently high in people with COPD ( 3 – 9 ). Approximately 35% of deaths among patients with COPD are attributed to cardiovascular events ( 10 – 12 ), irrespective of airflow obstruction ( 13 ), which means that optimally treating cardiovascular disease in patients with COPD could have significant benefit at the population level.

These complexities have limited our ability to affect the disease course of COPD. Risk factors for cardiovascular disease are well known and modifiable (cholesterol, blood pressure control, etc.), and mortality from ischemic heart disease has trended downward over time. Meanwhile, mortality from COPD has not ( 39 ). Trials to treat patients with COPD using new combinations of inhalers have not decreased mortality, which could be because patients are not being treated optimally for all of their comorbid conditions. Understanding the complex interplay between the heart and lungs could open new avenues for population health management and new therapeutics ( 40 ). After performing a literature review, we used consensus-based methods to prioritize research topics related to the diagnosis and management of common comorbid cardiovascular conditions that exist in patients with COPD. For the purposes of this workshop, we defined “cardiovascular disease” as heart failure, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and atrial fibrillation, using the clinical framework of pump, ischemia, and rhythm. This research statement is a call to action with the goal of expediting research that will have the greatest impact on patients with COPD and cardiovascular disease.

This project was approved by the American Thoracic Society (ATS) Program Review Subcommittee. The co-chairs (L.C.M., M.D., V.G.P.) convened a multidisciplinary, international committee of members representing internal medicine, pulmonology, cardiology, geriatrics, nursing, pharmacy, drug development, quality improvement and policy, learning health systems, patient experience, and patient advocacy. Members represented urban and rural healthcare settings, academic and nonacademic institutions, and professional societies. Before confirming the final roster, potential conflicts of interest were disclosed and managed per the policies and procedures of the ATS.

The lead co-chair (L.C.M.) performed a literature search with help from a Kaiser Permanente librarian. The search methodology is described in Figure E1 in the data supplement. Using Medical Subject Headings “Cardiovascular Diseases/therapy”(MAJR) AND “Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive/therapy”(MAJR) together with filters for adults ≥18 years of age and published in the past 5 years, separate queries were done for articles related to 1 ) diagnosis, 2 ) management, and 3 ) rehabilitation. Articles were reviewed to inform the agenda for Day 1.

Two separate meetings were held virtually (September 5, 2023, and September 27, 2023). The first day was a 6-hour session comprising six presentations and four discussions that were led by experts in the field. Presentations focused on existing literature and identifying existing gaps related to three cardiovascular conditions common in COPD (heart failure; atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, which includes vessels in the heart, brain, and periphery; and atrial fibrillation). These three conditions were chosen using the clinical framework of “cardiovascular pump, ischemia, rhythm.” Content and discussion spanned the outpatient to inpatient care spectrum and addressed the complex relationships that exist between COPD and cardiovascular disease. Discussion of drugs were done at the class level. A patient representative with COPD and cardiovascular disease (C.G.) participated and provided the patient perspective. She stressed the importance of developing new technologies (drugs and devices) to facilitate the care and day-to-day management of COPD, streamline the care of patients with COPD who have multimorbidity to prevent siloed management among specialists, limit polypharmacy, decrease cost for patients, and improve adherence to guideline-based therapies. Twenty-two experts attended the first session. The audio file was transcribed using the TranscribeMe service and loaded into a word cloud that examined the frequency of words and their proximity to one another. The co-chairs generated a list of 10 domains of gaps from Day 1’s discussion that mapped onto the framework for the translational science spectrum, courtesy of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute ( 41 ).

The second day was a 2-hour session to review the proposed list of research topics that were generated by the co-chairs and to perform a modified Delphi process in real time to prioritize the list ( 42 , 43 ). Eighteen experts attended the second session. Seventeen of the 18 experts voted in all polls; the remaining person (co-chair V.G.P.) facilitated the Delphi rounds and was reserved to break a tie (if needed). Participants were given an opportunity to fully read the list of research topics before voting to prevent bias based on the order in which topics were listed. For each topic, participants were asked whether the topic should be considered a top priority, which was defined as holding significant potential for advancing the field and ultimately improving the lives of patients with COPD and cardiovascular disease. Participants voted via Zoom poll using a five-point Likert scale (strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, and strongly agree). Participants were limited to using a vote of strongly agree or agree a maximum of five times to facilitate generating a prioritized list with a gradient. The anonymized results were displayed in real time after each round. If ≥70% agreement was not achieved after the first round (agreeing that the topic is either a priority or not a priority), a short (<10-min) discussion ensued to highlight key strengths and limitations of the proposed topic. A second and final poll was then launched. Additional details about the polling are provided in the data supplement.

A co-chair (M.D.) performed the data analysis. The summative Likert score from the final round was calculated, where strongly disagree was assigned a score of −2, disagree was assigned a score of −1, neutral was assigned a score of 0, agree was assigned a score of +1, and strongly agree was assigned a score of +2. The final list of prioritized topics was then ordered by the summative Likert score from the final round. Results were sent to participants electronically for feedback. The lead co-chair (L.C.M.) drafted the initial version of the manuscript, which was then circulated to the full committee and iteratively revised. The ATS Board of Directors approved the final document. This document does not include clinical treatment recommendations.

Committee members were diverse in terms of sex, race and ethnicity, geographic location, medical specialty, clinical discipline, research experience/expertise, and perspective ( Table 1 ). The literature search for COPD and cardiovascular disease yielded 97 articles (34 for diagnosis, 43 for management, and 20 for rehabilitation). The key citations that informed Day 1’s content are highlighted in Table 2 .

Definition of abbreviation : COPD = chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Key Citations That Informed the Content of the Committee’s First Meeting

Topic

Summary of Key Points

Burden, impact and complexities of cardiovascular comorbidities in COPD

• Cardiovascular disease is common among individuals with COPD ( – ). For instance, the prevalence of heart failure (7–42%), ischemic cardiovascular disease (2–18%), and arrhythmia (3–21%) is consistently high across cohorts over decades ( – ). • There is underdiagnosis and underprediction of cardiovascular disease in patients with COPD ( , ). • Approximately 35% of deaths among individuals with COPD are attributed to cardiovascular disease ( – ). • Patients with COPD have markedly increased risk of cardiovascular events in the 30 d after an exacerbation that persists for up to 1 yr ( – ). • Many patients with COPD with only mild to moderate obstruction by FEV are dying of cardiovascular outcomes ( , , ). • Confirmatory testing for COPD is less common than confirmatory testing for heart failure in patients with both conditions ( – ). • It is diagnostically difficult to tease apart a COPD exacerbation vs. heart failure exacerbation or cardiac ischemia ( , , – ). • Control of cardiovascular risk factors in patients with COPD remains poor ( ). • Patients with COPD have certain phenotypes that tend to have more or less risk of cardiovascular disease in addition to the historical binary classification of “blue bloater” and “pink puffer” ( , , ). • Cardiovascular events in patients with COPD increase with number of exacerbations and symptoms of breathlessness but not with FEV decline ( , – ). • Incident heart failure in patients with COPD is associated with a 3× increase in mortality at 1 yr ( ), but risks of mortality and hospitalization have not been quantified by heart failure severity (i.e., how low the ejection fraction is). • COPD promotes the occurrence of atrial fibrillation, progression, recurrence after cardioversion, reduced efficacy of catheter-based antiarrhythmic therapy, and worse outcomes ( , ). • Smoking, in addition to occupational exposures and lifestyle habits such as diet and exercise, is believed to be the common underlying cause of many of the comorbidities seen in COPD, including cardiovascular disease ( ). • The biological pathways underlying COPD and cardiovascular disease include inflammation (TNF-α, IL-6, CRP, fibrinogen, amyloid, surfactant) and accelerated aging (telomere shortening, cellular senescence, reduced cell proliferation) ( , ). • The mechanisms underlying COPD and cardiovascular disease include acute inflammation, oxidative stress, protein imbalance, elastin degradation, hypoxia/hypercapnia, endothelial dysfunction, atherosclerosis, and arterial stiffness ( , , ). • COPD treatments affect the cardiovascular system (LABAs, LAMAs, azithromycin) and treatments of cardiovascular disease affect the lung (β-blockers, amiodarone) ( , ). Some effects may be beneficial, such as the antiinflammatory properties of statins, and others may be detrimental, such as the pulmonary toxicity from amiodarone. • Pulmonary medications ○ Inhaled β-agonists do not increase cardiovascular events in trials of patients with COPD, but many trials exclude patients with cardiovascular disease. Historically, there has been concern because β-agonists cause tachycardia ( , ). ○ In meta-regression, inhaled steroid therapy was associated with lower risk of cardiovascular events compared with long-acting bronchodilator therapy, regardless of cardiovascular history ( ). However, in randomized clinical trials of patients with COPD, groups receiving inhaled steroid did not have fewer cardiovascular events (SUMMIT comparison groups were ICS, LABA, LAMA, and triple therapy; IMPACT comparison groups were ICS/LABA, LAMA/LABA, and triple therapy) ( , ). Cardiovascular outcomes were not the primary outcomes of either trial; the primary outcomes were mortality in SUMMIT and annual rate of moderate to severe COPD exacerbations in IMPACT. ○ A 5-d course of azithromycin, which is commonly used in COPD patients to treat exacerbation, was associated with a small absolute increase in the risk of cardiovascular death compared with no antibiotics or amoxicillin, which was most pronounced for patients at highest risk of cardiovascular events ( ). ○ Statins do not lower risk of COPD exacerbations or cardiovascular events, though the major trial was done in patients without cardiovascular disease or diabetes ( , ). ○ Cardioselective (B1) β-blockers alleviate symptoms and improve survival in patients with heart failure but are underused in patients with concurrent COPD because of fear of bronchoconstriction ( – ). ○ β-Blockers should not be used to prevent COPD exacerbations in patients who do not have cardiac indications ( ). ○ There were fewer cardiovascular events in patients with COPD with acute myocardial infarction if treated with P2Y receptor antagonists vs. thienopyridine ( ). ○ Amiodarone causes direct lung toxicity, which can manifest in the form of interstitial pneumonitis, organizing pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and diffuse alveolar damage ( ). ○ Certain treatments (e.g., SGLT2i) might have a larger benefit in the COPD subgroup with heart failure, though further research is needed to assess if there is truly heterogeneity of treatment effect ( ). • Patient-centered outcomes should be incorporated into current clinical trials. The working definition of treatment benefit is a favorable effect on a meaningful aspect of how a patient feels or functions in their usual life. Examples include respiratory symptoms, quality of life, and functional capacity. • Research activities should engage patients in active, meaningful, collaborative interaction across any and ideally all stages of the research process, where decision making is guided by patients’ contributions as partners, recognizing their specific experiences, values, and expertise ( ). • Physician/hospital payment models and research funding are geared toward managing a patient with one condition as “principal discharge diagnosis,” which is not patient-centric, practical, or reflective of the complexity of their comorbidity profile. • New technologies (drugs and devices) should be developed to facilitate the care and day-to-day management of COPD. An example is an oxygen support device that automatically titrates to oxygen saturation to promote patient mobility and exercise. • Care of patients with COPD who have multimorbidity should be streamlined to prevent siloed management among specialists, limit polypharmacy, decrease cost for patients, and improve adherence to guideline-based therapies. • There are strong published clinical recommendations for the following patients to undertake pulmonary rehabilitation, with choice of telerehabilitation: ) those with stable COPD and ) those who have been hospitalized for COPD exacerbation ( , ). • Patients with high comorbidity burden, such as those with heart failure, are unlikely to participate in pulmonary rehabilitation ( ). • The goals of pulmonary and cardiac rehabilitation are similar (education, exercise, lifestyle modification, and behavior change), but little is known about combined cardiopulmonary rehabilitation programs among patients with COPD and cardiovascular disease. • Disparities exist in both the diagnosis and management of patients with COPD and multimorbidity. Numerous factors are important to consider, such as race, socioeconomic status, sex, and urban/rural residence ( – ). • Guideline-concordant statin care is less common in patients with both COPD and cardiovascular disease than those with cardiovascular disease alone ( ). • Patients with ischemic heart disease are less likely to receive β-blockers and revascularization if they have COPD ( , ). • There is variability in comorbidity profile among patients with COPD of different races ( ). For example, hypertension and history of stroke are more common in non-Hispanic Black patients, whereas dyslipidemia and history of myocardial infarction are more common in non-Hispanic White patients. • There are differences by gender in the prevalence of cardiovascular comorbidities in patients with COPD ( ). Women with COPD tended to have more heart failure and hypertension and less ischemic heart disease compared with men with COPD. Definition of abbreviations : COPD = chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; ICS = inhaled corticosteroids; IMPACT = Informing the Pathway of COPD Treatment; LABA = long-acting β 2 -agonist; LAMA = long-acting muscarinic antagonist; SGLT2i = sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors; SUMMIT = Study to Evaluate the Effect of Fluticasone Furoate/Vilanterol on Survival in Subjects With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. One important and controversial point of discussion from Day 1 was the concept of COPD as a potential “risk-enhancing factor” for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. In the cardiovascular prevention guidelines ( 44 , 45 ), certain clinical conditions characterized by systemic inflammation, such as rheumatoid arthritis, have been identified as risk-enhancing factors. When a risk-enhancing factor is identified, more intensive primary prevention goals are indicated, because patients’ risk of developing cardiovascular disease is significantly higher. COPD is well known to cause systemic inflammation and increase the risk of cardiovascular disease ( 46 ) but is not currently listed as a risk-enhancing factor for primary prevention ( 45 ). Experts on the committee believed that research on how to translate existing knowledge about the risk of developing cardiovascular disease in COPD into clinical practice is warranted. They believed that it was a potential missed opportunity not to intensively manage cardiovascular disease risk, which likely explains why so many patients with COPD die of cardiovascular disease. The 10 domains of gaps identified on Day 1 were mapped along the translational science spectrum from basic and preclinical research to clinical and population science research to knowledge translation and implementation science research ( Figure 1 ). These included 1 ) mechanisms of disease; 2 ) epidemiology; 3 ) subphenotyping; 4 ) diagnosis and management; 5 ) trials; 6 ) care delivery; 7 ) medication access, adherence, and side effects; 8 ) risk factor mitigation; 9 ) cardiac/pulmonary rehabilitation; and 10 ) health equity. A word cloud that reflects the frequency of the words said during the meeting on Day 1 by the size of the font can be seen in Figure 2 . The locations of the words in the word cloud reflect how they were used in relation to other words. Figure 1. Span of domains across the translational science spectrum. We used the NHLBI’s translational science spectrum as a framework to generate the list of 10 domains between Days 1 and 2. The domains range from basic science about the mechanisms of disease to the implementation of evidence-based treatments into everyday practice. Figure 2. Word cloud from transcript of Day 1 committee meeting. This word cloud was generated by feeding the transcript from Day 1 of the committee meeting into an online large language model that examined the frequency of words and their proximity to one another and generated this figure in the shape of the lungs. The words that are larger in size were said more frequently during the committee meeting on Day 1. On Day 2, the committee unanimously agreed to reposition the two disparity-related topics from the list as ones that cross-cut all other topics. The two specific topics were:1) reduce disparities in the diagnosis and management of patients with COPD and cardiovascular disease (age, gender, race/ethnicity, low literacy, payer), including appropriate and timely diagnosis and adherence to guideline-based recommendations, and 2 ) expand trial recruitment to include, and potentially focus directly on, patients with COPD and cardiovascular disease, especially those with low socioeconomic status. After removing the 2 disparity-related topics, the remaining 17 topics underwent Delphi rounds for prioritization. We achieved >80% to fulfill quorum for all rounds of voting, with no one abstaining from voting. Of the 17 topics that were voted on, agreement of ≥70% was achieved for 10 topics in the first round of voting and 2 additional topics in the second round of voting. Figure 3 shows the distribution of responses for each topic during the final round of voting. Table 3 contains a full description of the prioritized list of topics, ordered from high to low summative Likert score from the final round of voting. The range of summative Likert score was −15 to 25. The topic that was overwhelmingly voted to be the top priority was “Conduct pragmatic clinical trials with patient-centered outcomes that collect both pulmonary and cardiac data elements.” Examples are listed in Table 3 to highlight the types of trials that the committee believed would be most useful. Figure 3. Breakdown of responses for prioritization of the research topics in final Delphi round across the five-point Likert scale. If a color/percentage is missing along a row, that means that the value was zero, such as strongly disagree for priority 1. The text of each of the 17 prioritized topics is listed in Table 3 . Briefly, they are 1 ) pragmatic trials with patient-centered outcomes, 2 ) cost-effectiveness of cardiac and respiratory tests, 3 ) phenotyping, 4 ) cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation, 5 ) knowledge translation about COPD as a risk-enhancing diagnosis, 6 ) epidemiology of subgroups, 7 ) leverage lung cancer screening computed tomography scans, 8 ) simplified inhaler regimens that are accessible, 9 ) mechanisms of disease, 10 ) clinician awareness about evidence-based risks of cardiovascular treatments on lung function, 11 ) optimal roles of clinicians that prioritizes patients’ needs, 12 ) leverage technology, 13 ) longitudinal studies following stable and exacerbated patients with cardiac rhythm monitors, 14 ) risks and benefits of conservative medication management versus advanced cardiac testing/catheterization in patients with COPD with troponin leak, 15 ) impact of using active language to describe COPD exacerbation, 16 ) environmental triggers, and 17 ) performing spirometry in hospitalized patients. COPD = chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Prioritized List of Research Topics to Fill the Most Urgent Gaps in the Field of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Cardiovascular Disease Priority Research Topic Number of Rounds Degree of Agreement in Final Round Summative Likert Score in Final Round 1 Conduct pragmatic clinical trials with patient-centered outcomes that collect both pulmonary and cardiac data elements. Specifically:  • Use pragmatic clinical trial designs to expedite the recruitment and retention of patients with COPD and cardiovascular disease, especially those with low health literacy and poor access to medications. • Ensure that pulmonary-related data (mMRC, CAT, spirometry) are reported in prospective trials focused on cardiovascular drugs, and cardiac-related data (biomarkers, echocardiographic studies) are reported in prospective trials focused on pulmonary drugs. • Integrate patient-centered outcomes into trials with the pairing of qualitative and quantitative methods to evaluate the impact of medications and interventions on patients’ symptoms. • Conduct real-world effectiveness trials of medications in the broad COPD population with concurrent cardiovascular disease, especially medications that decrease the burden of taking multiple inhalers and pills per day (i.e., polypuff, polypill). • Conduct stepped-wedge implementation trials in large health systems, to examine the benefit of newer medications, such as SGLT2i, in patients with COPD who have indications to receive this class of medication (type 2 diabetes, heart failure, chronic kidney disease). Definition of abbreviations : AF = atrial fibrillation; CAT = COPD assessment test; COPD = chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CT = computed tomography; ECG = electrocardiography; mMRC = Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale; NNT = number needed to treat; SGLT2i = sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. Seventeen participants voted on all questions. Participants were allowed to vote strongly agree or agree on only 5 of 17 priorities to facilitate generating a prioritized list with a gradient. The degree of agreement is the percentage of respondents who voted strongly disagree/disagree or neutral/agree/strongly agree about whether the gap should be considered a top priority, which was defined as significant potential for advancing the field and ultimately improving the lives of patients with COPD and cardiovascular disease. The last column is the summative Likert score, from which the final round was calculated, where strongly disagree was assigned −2, disagree was assigned −1, neutral was assigned 0, agree was assigned +1, and strongly agree was assigned +2. The final list of priorities was then ordered by the final-round summative Likert score. Our expert committee identified and prioritized research topics regarding the diagnosis and management of patients with COPD and cardiovascular disease, specifically heart failure, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and atrial fibrillation. Spanning the full translational science spectrum, the gaps encompassed the following 10 domains: 1 ) mechanisms of disease; 2 ) epidemiology; 3 ) subphenotyping; 4 ) diagnosis and management; 5 ) clinical trials; 6 ) care delivery; 7 ) medication access, adherence, and side effects; 8 ) risk factor mitigation; 9 ) cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation; and 10 ) health equity. The committee believed strongly that consideration of disparities should be part of research done across all topics. For the remaining 17 topics, we used robust methods (a modified Delphi consensus-building approach) and successfully achieved quorum for all and agreement for the majority (12 of 17 topics after two rounds of Delphi). The topic with the highest priority score was “Conduct pragmatic clinical trials with patient-centered outcomes that collect both pulmonary and cardiac data elements.” A pragmatic trial is a clinical trial that tests an intervention in a real-world setting ( 47 ). Although multimorbidity is common in COPD ( 5 , 48 , 49 ), patients with comorbid cardiovascular diseases are often excluded from trials in the COPD population ( 50 – 52 ), which hinders our ability to provide evidence-based care to patients in the community. Several examples do exist, though, in which both COPD and cardiovascular disease were addressed: 1 ) One trial comparing inhaler regimens in patients with COPD specifically enrolled patients with and those without stable cardiac disease, which the investigators defined as no myocardial ischemic event in 6 months, no hospitalization for advanced heart failure, and no life-threatening arrhythmia in 12 months ( 53 ). 2 ) An important lesson was gleaned from a post hoc subgroup analysis of a trial that enrolled patients with COPD with cardiovascular disease; the results suggested that among patients with heart failure, those with COPD had similar relative risk reduction with sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors compared with those without COPD, but the absolute risk reduction was greater in those with COPD, likely because of the higher frequency of cardiovascular events in this population ( 54 ). 3 ) A trial randomized patients with moderate to severe COPD who did not already have indications for β-blockers to receive metoprolol and showed no difference in time until exacerbation ( 55 ). Future trials should specifically target the enrollment of patients with COPD with cardiovascular disease and collect both pulmonary and cardiovascular-specific data elements, especially on outcomes that are important to patients, such as symptom relief, ability to do activities of daily living, and exacerbation frequency and acuity. In practice, this means that COPD trials should not exclude patients with cardiovascular disease, and cardiovascular disease trials should characterize the respiratory characteristics of patients better. The optimal trial design should be used, whether that is randomization at the individual level or stepped wedge by provider or clinic. The committee believed strongly that the evidence gained in clinical trials should be practical and useful in community settings, that is, apply to the broad population, be developed in conjunction with community organizations, and reflect the real-world effectiveness of the medications. Ideally, trials that address the real-world effectiveness of medications in patients with COPD and cardiovascular disease, especially those that limit the burden of taking multiple pills or inhalers per day (polypill or polypuff), should be prioritized. Pairing qualitative analysis with quantitative analysis to understand patient perspectives is critical, as well as a focus on vulnerable patient populations. Patients with low literacy and English as a second language should be able to access the medications being tested, so designing the trials to successfully engage with diverse populations is crucial. Given that smoking underlies much of the risk of developing COPD and cardiovascular disease, interventions related to smoking cessation are an important target, as well as research that seeks to understand the differential uptake of smoking cessation tools ( 56 ). In addition, trials are needed that examine the benefit of newer medications, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, which could have pleiotropic effects on other organs and, therefore, provide benefit in patients with COPD and multimorbidity who have approved indications for the drugs (type 2 diabetes, heart failure, chronic kidney disease). After some deliberation, the committee believed that the concept of COPD as a risk-enhancing factor was important. Because patients with COPD are so much more likely than the general population to develop atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease ( 7 ), the consensus was that screening and aggressive mitigation of atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk factors in the long term (cholesterol, blood pressure, etc.) might improve outcomes. However, a definitive study has not demonstrated this. Given that this research statement is not intended to make clinical recommendations, the committee believed strongly that the statement should at least call for research to quantify the benefit of treating individuals with COPD and concomitant cardiovascular disease with aggressive risk factor control. Trials that examine cardiac risk screening and aggressive risk factor management strategy would likely strengthen the evidence in favor of treating COPD as a risk-enhancing factor and inform future iterations of clinical guidelines. Patients with COPD and cardiovascular disease should not be excluded from receiving guideline-directed primary and secondary prevention for cardiovascular disease ( 38 , 57 ). A recent article in the Journal proposes a shift in the guideline-based paradigm of how to choose which inhalers to initiate first in stable patients with COPD ( 58 ). Instead of the 2023 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease paradigm of A-B-E classification by Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale score, COPD Assessment Test score, and number of exacerbations, the authors suggest adding a third dimension (E+ and B+), whereby patients with COPD and known cardiovascular disease should be initiated on triple therapy first. This is based on some evidence, albeit not completely consistent ( 59 ), that patients with COPD and cardiovascular disease have better outcomes on inhaled corticosteroid-containing therapy ( 60 , 61 ). Expert clinical consensus is needed to adjudicate whether the body of evidence exists to support this proposed paradigm. There are policy implications affecting patients with COPD and cardiovascular disease. For instance, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has a Hospital Readmission Reduction Program that financially penalizes hospitals for excess readmissions after index admissions for diseases including COPD, acute myocardial infarction, and heart failure ( 62 ). Since the penalties were implemented, evidence has shown potential inverse relationships between reduced readmissions and mortality for both COPD and heart failure ( 63 , 64 ). Understanding the interplay between these two diseases and, ultimately, how hospitalizations related to COPD and heart failure can be prevented is important for reimbursement for hospitals ( 65 ). There are several benefits to the modified Delphi approach we took, but there are also limitations. The virtual Delphi approach allows a large number of experts from distant places to participate. Because we made sure that voting results were anonymous, the group could not be swayed by the votes of individuals. However, the ideas presented in this research statement are based on expert opinion. Also, the committee believed that all of the topics identified are important and worthy of further investigation. Because the goal was to prioritize the topics on the basis of urgency and potential impact, we limited to five the number of votes experts could cast for agreeing or strongly agreeing with a topic being a priority to create a gradient for prioritization. We tried to engage as many stakeholders as possible but did not engage payers (insurance agencies) or pharmaceutical representatives. This research statement sets forth a prioritized research agenda with the purpose of stimulating high-impact research and improving the lives of patients with COPD and cardiovascular disease. Although topics with lower priority ratings were still deemed to be important by the committee, pragmatic clinical trials with patient-centered outcomes that address health disparities were deemed to be the most urgent. The authors thank Rachel Kaye from the ATS for facilitating the Zoom meetings, specifically the voting during the Delphi rounds. The authors also acknowledge the Behavioral Science and Health Services Research and Clinical Problems assemblies of the ATS for the opportunity to convene this committee. This official research statement was prepared by an ad hoc subcommittee of the ATS Assembly on Behavioral Science and Health Services Research. Members of the subcommittee are as follows: L aura C. M yers , M.D., M.P.H. ( Co-Chair ) 1 M iguel D ivo , M.D. ( Co-Chair ) 2 V alerie G. P ress , M.D., M.P.H. ( Co-Chair ) 3 R. G raham B arr , M.D., Dr.P.H. 4,5 * S urya P. B hatt , M.D., M.S.P.H. 6‡ M ark D ransfield , M.D. 6 * C aroline G ainer 7§ A ndrea S. G ershon , M.D. 8 * A lan H amilton , Ph.D. 7§ N athaniel M. H awkins , M.D. 9‡§ S adiya S. K han , M.D., M.Sc. 10 * ‡ T odd L ee , Pharm.D., Ph.D. 11ǁ P eter L indenauer , M.D. 12§ D avid M. M annino , M.D. 7 * R ichard M ularski , M.D. 13ǁ H uong N guyen , R.N., Ph.D. 14ǁ N irupama P utcha , M.D., M.H.S. 15§ J ennifer K. Q uint , M.D. 16‡§ S agar P. S hah , M.D., M.P.H. 1‡ A llan W alkey , M.D. 17ǁ J. M ichael W ells , M.D., M.S.P.H. 6 * L eah J. W itt , M.D. 18,19‡ *Discussant. ǁ Participant. 1 Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California; 2 Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; 3 University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois; 4 Department of Medicine and 5 Department of Epidemiology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York; 6 University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama; 7 COPD Foundation, Miami, Florida; 8 University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; 9 Division of Cardiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; 10 Department of Medicine and Preventive Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois; 11 Department of Medicine, University of Illinois, Chicago, Illinois; 12 Baystate Health, Springfield, Massachusetts; 13 Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon; 14 Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, California; 15 Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; 16 School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom; 17 University of Massachusetts, Worcester, Massachusetts; and 18 Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Allergy and Sleep Medicine and 19 Division of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California 1. Boers E, Barrett M, Su JG, Benjafield AV, Sinha S, Kaye L, Global burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease through 2050. 2023;6:e2346598. , ,  2. Vaduganathan M, Mensah George A, Turco Justine V, Fuster V, Roth Gregory A. The global burden of cardiovascular diseases and risk. 2022;80:2361–2371. , ,  3. Divo M, Cote C, de Torres JP, Casanova C, Marin JM, Pinto-Plata V, ; BODE Collaborative Group. Comorbidities and risk of mortality in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 2012;186:155–161. , ,  4. Balbirsingh V, Mohammed AS, Turner AM, Newnham M. Cardiovascular disease in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a narrative review. [online ahead of print] 30 Jun 2022; DOI: . , ,  5. Fabbri LM, Celli BR, Agustí A, Criner GJ, Dransfield MT, Divo M, COPD and multimorbidity: recognising and addressing a syndemic occurrence. 2023;11:1020–1034. , ,  6. Zhu Z, Wang X, Li X, Lin Y, Shen S, Liu C-L, ; International COPD Genetics Consortium. Genetic overlap of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cardiovascular disease-related traits: a large-scale genome-wide cross-trait analysis. 2019;20:64. , ,  7. Chen W, Thomas J, Sadatsafavi M, FitzGerald JM. Risk of cardiovascular comorbidity in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2015;3:631–639. , ,  8. Ioannides AE, Tayal U, Quint JK. Spirometry in atrial fibrillation: what’s the catch? 2023;17:937–950. , ,  9. Morgan AD, Rothnie KJ, Bhaskaran K, Smeeth L, Quint JK. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and the risk of 12 cardiovascular diseases: a population-based study using UK primary care data. 2018;73:877–879. , ,  10. Vilkman S, Keistinen T, Tuuponen T, Kivela SL. Survival and cause of death among elderly chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients after first admission to hospital. 1997;64:281–284. , ,  11. McGarvey LP, John M, Anderson JA, Zvarich M, Wise RA; TORCH Clinical Endpoint Committee. Ascertainment of cause-specific mortality in COPD: operations of the TORCH Clinical Endpoint Committee. 2007;62:411–415. , ,  12. Brassington K, Selemidis S, Bozinovski S, Vlahos R. New frontiers in the treatment of comorbid cardiovascular disease in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 2019;133:885–904. , ,  13. Whittaker H, Rothnie KJ, Quint JK. Cause-specific mortality in COPD subpopulations: a cohort study of 339 647 people in England. 2024;79:202–208. , ,  14. Wilson KC, Gould MK, Krishnan JA, Boyd CM, Brozek JL, Cooke CR, ; ATS Guideline Methodology Working Group. An official American Thoracic Society workshop report: a framework for addressing multimorbidity in clinical practice guidelines for pulmonary disease, critical illness, and sleep disorders. 2016;13:S12–S21. , ,  15. Roversi S, Fabbri LM, Sin DD, Hawkins NM, Agusti A. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cardiac diseases: an urgent need for integrated care. 2016;194:1319–1336. , ,  16. Ghoorah K, De Soyza A, Kunadian V. Increased cardiovascular risk in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and the potential mechanisms linking the two conditions: a review. 2013;21:196–202. , ,  17. Shnoda M, Gajjar K, Ivanova V. COPD and cardiovascular disease: a review of association, interrelationship, and basic principles for integrated management. 2021;44:91–102. , ,  18. Barnes PJ, Celli BR. Systemic manifestations and comorbidities of COPD. 2009;33:1165–1185. , ,  19. Morgan AD, Zakeri R, Quint JK. Defining the relationship between COPD and CVD: what are the implications for clinical practice? 2018;12:1753465817750524. ,  20. Maclay JD, MacNee W. Cardiovascular disease in COPD: mechanisms. 2013;143:798–807. , ,  21. Trinkmann F, Saur J, Borggrefe M, Akin I. Cardiovascular comorbidities in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)—current considerations for clinical practice. 2019;8:69. , ,  22. Romiti GF, Corica B, Pipitone E, Vitolo M, Raparelli V, Basili S, ; AF-COMET International Collaborative Group. Prevalence, management and impact of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 4,200,000 patients. 2021;42:3541–3554. , ,  23. Barr RG, Bluemke DA, Ahmed FS, Carr JJ, Enright PL, Hoffman EA, Percent emphysema, airflow obstruction, and impaired left ventricular filling. 2010;362:217–227. , ,  24. Lammi MR, Ciccolella D, Marchetti N, Kohler M, Criner GJ. Increased oxygen pulse after lung volume reduction surgery is associated with reduced dynamic hyperinflation. 2012;40:837–843. , ,  25. Dransfield MT, Criner GJ, Halpin DMG, Han MK, Hartley B, Kalhan R, Time-dependent risk of cardiovascular events following an exacerbation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: post hoc analysis from the IMPACT trial. 2022;11:e024350. , ,  26. Hawkins NM, Nordon C, Rhodes K, Talukdar M, McMullen S, Ekwaru P, Heightened long-term cardiovascular risks after exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 2024;110:702–709. , ,  27. Rothnie KJ, Connell O, Müllerová H, Smeeth L, Pearce N, Douglas I, Myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke after exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 2018;15:935–946. , ,  28. Graul EL, Nordon C, Rhodes K, Marshall J, Menon S, Kallis C, Temporal risk of non-fatal cardiovascular events post COPD exacerbation: a population-based study. 2024;209:960–972. , ,  29. Rabe KF, Hurst JR, Suissa S. Cardiovascular disease and COPD: dangerous liaisons? 2018;27:180057. , ,  30. Ray WA, Murray KT, Hall K, Arbogast PG, Stein CM. Azithromycin and the risk of cardiovascular death. 2012;366:1881–1890. , ,  31. Papiris SA, Triantafillidou C, Kolilekas L, Markoulaki D, Manali ED. Amiodarone: review of pulmonary effects and toxicity. 2010;33:539–558. , ,  32. Hawkins NM, Petrie MC, Macdonald MR, Jhund PS, Fabbri LM, Wikstrand J, Heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease the quandary of beta-blockers and beta-agonists. 2011;57:2127–2138. , ,  33. Salpeter S, Ormiston T, Salpeter E. Cardioselective beta-blockers for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 2005;2005:CD003566. ,  34. Hawkins NM, MacDonald MR, Petrie MC, Chalmers GW, Carter R, Dunn FG, Bisoprolol in patients with heart failure and moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized controlled trial. 2009;11:684–690. , ,  35. Agusti A, Böhm M, Celli B, Criner GJ, Garcia-Alvarez A, Martinez F, GOLD COPD document 2023: a brief update for practicing cardiologists. 2023;113:195–204. , ,  36. Axson EL, Bottle A, Cowie MR, Quint JK. Relationship between heart failure and the risk of acute exacerbation of COPD. 2021;76:807–814. , ,  37. Celli BR, Fabbri LM, Aaron SD, Agusti A, Brook RD, Criner GJ, Differential diagnosis of suspected chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations in the acute care setting: best practice. 2023;207:1134–1144. , ,  38. Rothnie KJ, Smeeth L, Herrett E, Pearce N, Hemingway H, Wedzicha J, Closing the mortality gap after a myocardial infarction in people with and without chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 2015;101:1103–1110. , ,  39. Rana JS, Khan SS, Lloyd-Jones DM, Sidney S. Changes in mortality in top 10 causes of death from 2011 to 2018. 2021;36:2517–2518. , ,  40. Bhatt SP, Wells JM, Dransfield MT. Cardiovascular disease in COPD: a call for action. 2014;2:783–785. , ,  41. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Translational science spectrum. Bethesda, MD: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; 2023 [accessed 2024 Feb 4]. Available from: . 42. Nair R, Aggarwal R, Khanna D. Methods of formal consensus in classification/diagnostic criteria and guideline development. 2011;41:95–105. , ,  43. Williamson K. The Delphi method. In: Williamson K, editor. Research methods for students, academics and professionals. New York: Elsevier Science and Technology; 2002. pp. 209–220. ,  44. Arnett DK, Goodman RA, Halperin JL, Anderson JL, Parekh AK, Zoghbi WA. AHA/ACC/HHS strategies to enhance application of clinical practice guidelines in patients with cardiovascular disease and comorbid conditions: from the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and US Department of Health and Human Services. 2014;130:1662–1667. , ,  45. Arnett DK, Blumenthal RS, Albert MA, Buroker AB, Goldberger ZD, Hahn EJ, 2019 ACC/AHA guideline on the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. 2019;140:e596–e646. ,  46. Walter RE, Wilk JB, Larson MG, Vasan RS, Keaney JF, Lipinska I, Systemic inflammation and COPD: the Framingham Heart Study. 2008;133:19–25. , ,  47. Ford I, Norrie J. Pragmatic trials. 2016;375:454–463. , ,  48. Divo M, Celli BR. Multimorbidity in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 2020;41:405–419. , ,  49. Divo MJ, Casanova C, Marin JM, Pinto-Plata VM, de-Torres JP, Zulueta JJ, ; BODE Collaborative Group. COPD comorbidities network. 2015;46:640–650. , ,  50. Papi A, Vestbo J, Fabbri L, Corradi M, Prunier H, Cohuet G, Extrafine inhaled triple therapy versus dual bronchodilator therapy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (TRIBUTE): a double-blind, parallel group, randomised controlled trial. 2018;391: 1076–1084. , ,  51. Singh D, Papi A, Corradi M, Pavlišová I, Montagna I, Francisco C, Single inhaler triple therapy versus inhaled corticosteroid plus long-acting beta2-agonist therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (TRILOGY): a double-blind, parallel group, randomised controlled trial. 2016;388:963–973. , ,  52. Vogelmeier C, Hederer B, Glaab T, Schmidt H, Rutten-van Mölken MPMH, Beeh KM, ; POET-COPD Investigators. Tiotropium versus salmeterol for the prevention of exacerbations of COPD. 2011;364:1093–1103. , ,  53. Wise RA, Anzueto A, Cotton D, Dahl R, Devins T, Disse B, ; TIOSPIR Investigators. Tiotropium Respimat inhaler and the risk of death in COPD. 2013;369:1491–1501. , ,  54. Dewan P, Docherty KF, Bengtsson O, de Boer RA, Desai AS, Drozdz J, Effects of dapagliflozin in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: an analysis of DAPA-HF. 2021;23:632–643. , ,  55. Dransfield MT, Voelker H, Bhatt SP, Brenner K, Casaburi R, Come CE, ; BLOCK COPD Trial Group. Metoprolol for the prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD. 2019;381:2304–2314. , ,  56. Smith CE, Hill SE, Amos A. Impact of population tobacco control interventions on socioeconomic inequalities in smoking: a systematic review and appraisal of future research directions. 2020;30:e87–e95. , ,  57. Hawkins NM, Peterson S, Ezzat AM, Vijh R, Virani SA, Gibb A, Control of cardiovascular risk factors in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 2022;19:1102–1111. , ,  58. Kostikas K, Gogali A, Hillas G. Cardiovascular disease and COPD: adding a third dimension to the ABE GOLD 2023 COPD classification. 2023;208:502–504. , ,  59. Vestbo J, Anderson JA, Brook RD, Calverley PMA, Celli BR, Crim C, ; SUMMIT Investigators. Fluticasone furoate and vilanterol and survival in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with heightened cardiovascular risk (SUMMIT): a double-blind randomised controlled trial. 2016;387:1817–1826. , ,  60. Lipson DA, Barnhart F, Brealey N, Brooks J, Criner GJ, Day NC, ; IMPACT Investigators. Once-daily single-inhaler triple versus dual therapy in patients with COPD. 2018;378:1671–1680. , ,  61. Gadhvi K, Kandeil M, Raveendran D, Choi J, Davies N, Nanchahal S, Inhaled corticosteroids and risk of cardiovascular disease in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-regression. 2023;10:317–327. ,  62. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program. Baltimore, MD: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; 2019 [accessed 2019 May 14]. Available from: . 63. Puebla Neira DA, Hsu ES, Kuo YF, Ottenbacher KJ, Sharma G. Readmissions Reduction Program, mortality and readmissions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 2020;203:437–446. ,  64. Wadhera RK, Joynt Maddox KE, Wasfy JH, Haneuse S, Shen C, Yeh RW. Association of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program with mortality among Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, and pneumonia. 2018;320:2542–2552. , ,  65. Press VG, Myers LC, Feemster LC. Preventing COPD readmissions under the hospital readmissions reduction program: how far have we come? 2021;159:996–1006. , ,  66. Groenewegen A, Zwartkruis VW, Rienstra M, Hollander M, Koffijberg H, Cramer MJM, Improving early diagnosis of cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes and COPD: protocol of the RED-CVD cluster randomised diagnostic trial. 2021;11:e046330. , ,  67. Amegadzie JE, Gao Z, Quint JK, Russell R, Hurst JR, Lee TY, QRISK3 underestimates the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with COPD. 2024;79:718–724. , ,  68. Lenoir A, Whittaker H, Gayle A, Jarvis D, Quint JK. Mortality in non-exacerbating COPD: a longitudinal analysis of UK primary care data. 2023;78:904–911. , ,  69. Gayle AV, Minelli C, Quint JK. Respiratory-related death in individuals with incident asthma and COPD: a competing risk analysis. 2022;22:28. , ,  70. Damarla M, Celli BR, Mullerova HX, Pinto-Plata VM. Discrepancy in the use of confirmatory tests in patients hospitalized with the diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or congestive heart failure. 2006;51:1120–1124. ,  71. Press VG, Cifu AS, White SR. Screening for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 2017;318:1702–1703. , ,  72. Spero K, Bayasi G, Beaudry L, Barber KR, Khorfan F. Overdiagnosis of COPD in hospitalized patients. 2017;12:2417–2423. , ,  73. Prieto Centurion V, Huang F, Naureckas ET, Camargo CA, Charbeneau J, Joo MJ, Confirmatory spirometry for adults hospitalized with a diagnosis of asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation. 2012;12:73. , ,  74. Gulea C, Zakeri R, Kallis C, Quint JK. Impact of COPD and asthma on in-hospital mortality and management of patients with heart failure in England and Wales: an observational analysis. 2022;12:e059122. , ,  75. Gulea C, Zakeri R, Quint JK. Differences in outcomes between heart failure phenotypes in patients with coexistent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a cohort study. 2022;19:971–980. , ,  76. Angelini ED, Yang J, Balte PP, Hoffman EA, Manichaikul AW, Sun Y, Pulmonary emphysema subtypes defined by unsupervised machine learning on CT scans. 2023;78:1067–1079. , ,  77. Martinez CH, Mannino DM, Divo MJ. Defining COPD-related comorbidities, 2004–2014. 2014;1:51–63. ,  78. Whittaker HR, Bloom C, Morgan A, Jarvis D, Kiddle SJ, Quint JK. Accelerated FEV decline and risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality in a primary care population of COPD patients. 2021;57:2000918. , ,  79. Bhatt SP, Wells JM, Kinney GL, Washko GR, Budoff M, Kim Y-I, ; COPDGene Investigators. β-Blockers are associated with a reduction in COPD exacerbations. 2016;71:8–14. , ,  80. Dransfield MT, Rowe SM, Johnson JE, Bailey WC, Gerald LB. Use of beta blockers and the risk of death in hospitalised patients with acute exacerbations of COPD. 2008;63:301–305. , ,  81. Axson EL, Sundaram V, Bloom CI, Bottle A, Cowie MR, Quint JK. Temporal trends in the incidence of heart failure among patients with COPD and its association with mortality. 2020;17:939–948. , ,  82. Simons SO, Elliott A, Sastry M, Hendriks JM, Arzt M, Rienstra M, Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and atrial fibrillation: an interdisciplinary perspective. 2021;42:532–540. , ,  83. Bermingham M, O’Callaghan E, Dawkins I, Miwa S, Samsudin S, McDonald K, Are beta2-agonists responsible for increased mortality in heart failure? 2011;13:885–891. , ,  84. Criner GJ, Connett JE, Aaron SD, Albert RK, Bailey WC, Casaburi R, ; Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Simvastatin for the prevention of exacerbations in moderate-to-severe COPD. 2014;370:2201–2210. , ,  85. Young RP, Hopkins RJ, Agusti A. Statins as adjunct therapy in COPD: how do we cope after STATCOPE? 2014;69:891–894. , ,  86. Andell P, James SK, Cannon CP, Cyr DD, Himmelmann A, Husted S, ; PLATO Investigators. Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: an analysis from the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial. 2015;4:e002490. , ,  87. Harrington RL, Hanna ML, Oehrlein EM, Camp R, Wheeler R, Cooblall C, Defining patient engagement in research: results of a systematic review and analysis. Report of the ISPOR Patient-Centered Special Interest Group. Jun 2020;23:677–688. , ,  88. Lindenauer PK, Stefan MS, Pekow PS, Mazor KM, Priya A, Spitzer KA, Association Between initiation of pulmonary rehabilitation after hospitalization for COPD and 1-year survival among Medicare beneficiaries. 2020;323:1813–1823. , ,  89. Rochester CL, Alison JA, Carlin B, Jenkins AR, Cox NS, Bauldoff G, Pulmonary rehabilitation for adults with chronic respiratory disease: an official American Thoracic Society clinical practice guideline. 2023;208:e7–e26. , ,  90. Spitzer KA, Stefan MS, Priya A, Pack QR, Pekow PS, Lagu T, Participation in pulmonary rehabilitation following hospitalization for COPD among Medicare beneficiaries. 2019;16:99–106. , ,  91. Ejike CO, Woo H, Galiatsatos P, Paulin LM, Krishnan JA, Cooper CB, Contribution of individual and neighborhood factors to racial disparities in respiratory outcomes. 2021;203:987–997. , ,  92. McCormack MC, Balasubramanian A, Matsui EC, Peng RD, Wise RA, Keet CA. Race, lung function, and long-term mortality in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III. 2022;205:723–724. , ,  93. Gaffney AW, Hawks L, White AC, Woolhandler S, Himmelstein D, Christiani DC, Health care disparities across the urban-rural divide: a national study of individuals with COPD. 2022;38:207–216. , ,  94. Zarrabian B, Mirsaeidi M. A trend analysis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease mortality in the United States by race and sex. 2021;18:1138–1146. , ,  95. Malla G, Bodduluri S, Sthanam V, Sharma G, Bhatt SP. Access to pulmonary rehabilitation among Medicare beneficiaries with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 2023;20: 516–522. , ,  96. Lee H, Shin SH, Gu S, Zhao D, Kang D, Joi YR, Racial differences in comorbidity profile among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 2018;16:178. , ,  97. Almagro P, López García F, Cabrera FJ, Montero L, Morchón D, Díez J, ; Grupo Epoc de la Sociedad Española de Medicina Interna. Comorbidity and gender-related differences in patients hospitalized for COPD: the ECCO study. 2010;104:253–259. , ,  98. Krishnan JK, Mallya SG, Nahid M, Baugh AD, Han MK, Aronson KI, Disparities in guideline concordant statin treatment in individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 2023;10:369–379. ,  99. Quint JK, Herrett E, Bhaskaran K, Timmis A, Hemingway H, Wedzicha JA, Effect of β blockers on mortality after myocardial infarction in adults with COPD: population based cohort study of UK electronic healthcare records. 2013;347:f6650. , ,  * Co–senior authors. T his official research statement of the A merican T horacic S ociety was approved M ay 2024 Supported by the American Thoracic Society. A data supplement for this article is available via the Supplements tab at the top of the online article. Subcommittee Disclosures: L.C.M. holds stock in Amgen. J.K.Q. served as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, and Insmed; and received research support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Health Data Research, Insmed, the Medical Research Council, NIHR, and Sanofi. N.M.H. served as a consultant, speaker, and received research support from AstraZeneca. N.P. served on an advisory board and as a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline and Verona; and received research support from NIH/NIEHS. A.H. served as a consultant for the COPD Foundation. P.L. served as a consultant for Kivo Health. J.M.W. served on an advisory board for GlaxoSmithKline and Takeda; served on an endpoint review committee for AstraZeneca and Bavarian Nordic; holds patent PCT/GB2021/050658 with Mereo BioPharma; received research support from Alpha-1 Foundation, ARCUS-Med, Department of Veteran Affairs, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols, InhibrX, Medscape, Mereo BioPharma, NIH/NHLBI, Takeda, and Verona Pharma; and holds stock in Alveolus Bio. L.J.W. received honoraria from Curbsiders Podcast, Elsevier, and Medscape/WebMD; received research support from the Health Resources and Services Administration; and received royalties from McGraw Hill. H.N. served on an advisory board for NIH/UCSF; and received research support from NIH and PCORI. A.W. received research support from NIH/NHLBI; and received royalties from UpToDate. D.M.M. served as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Regeneron, and UpToDate; served as an expert witness for Schlesinger Law Firm; served in a leadership role for the COPD Foundation; received royalties from UpToDate; and holds stock in GlaxoSmithKline. S.P.B. served on an advisory board for GlaxoSmithKline, NIH, and Regeneron; served as a consultant for Apreo, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Verona; received honoraria from Horizon CME, Integrity CE, and Medscape; received research support from Genentech, NIH, Nuvaira, and Sanofi/Regeneron; and received royalties from Springer. R.G.B. served in a leadership role for the COPD foundation; and received research support from the American Lung Association, the COPD Foundation, and the NIH. R.M. served on an advisory board for the COPD Foundation; and received research support from PCORI, Pfizer, and Sanofi. M.D. served on the board of directors for the COPD Foundation; served as a consultant for Aer Therapeutics, Apreo, AstraZeneca, the COPD Foundation, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pulmonx, and Teva; received research support from the American Lung Association, the NIH, and the U.S. Department of Defense; received royalties from UpToDate; and received travel support from GlaxoSmithKline. S.S.K. received research support from the NHLBI. A.S.G. served on an advisory committee for the Canadian Thoracic Society, the Chest Foundation, and the European Respiratory Society; served as a mentor for Novartis; and received research support from the Canadian Institute of Health Research and the Ontario Ministry of Economic Development and Innovation. M.D. served as a consultant for Regeneron and Sanofi. V.G.P. served as a consultant for Humana and Vizient; served on the data safety and monitoring board for NIH and PCORI; received honoraria from AboutHealth COPD Collaborative, Dell, KUMC, and UCLA; served in a leadership role for the Chest Foundation, Journal of COPD Foundation, and Journal of General Internal Medicine ; received research support from the NIH/NHLBI and the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality; and received travel support from the American College of Physicians and the Society of Hospital Medicine. S.P.S., T.L., and C.G. reported no commercial or relevant non-commercial interests from ineligible companies. Comments New User Registration  •  A Unique User Profile that will allow you to manage your current subscriptions (including online access)  •  The ability to create favorites lists down to the article level  •  The ability to customize email alerts to receive specific notifications about the topics you care most about and special offers Click to see any corrections or updates and to confirm this is the authentic version of record Search MERLOT Discipline MERLOT Discipline Navigation Main Navigation Section Navigation Content Join MERLOT/ Login to MERLOT Career Talk Faculty Life: Teaching Faculty Life: Research Faculty Life: Service About CDIP Commons Sharing Ideas: MERLOT Interests, Agendas and Assumptions Faculty Research Interests Baylor Business Vignettes describe business faculty research interests and how they are revised as careers progress. Planning Your Research Agenda New Faculty Institute, UMass Dartmouth Ways for new faculty members to develop a research agenda. Faculty success: Developing a Research and Publication Agenda King, K. P. (2010). University of South Florida Scholar Commons. Strategies for new faculty to build research agenda and set publication timeline.  The Imperialism of Categories: Situating Knowledge in a Globalizing World Hoeber Rudolph, S. (2005). Perspectives on Politics Questions assumptions researchers make about the democracy of knowledge. Developing a Research Agenda Becoming a producer of research One of the most rewarding aspects of a career in academia is generating new knowledge.  Graduate students learn the research process, and new faculty members begin a journey as researchers.  While there is a lot of leeway concerning what is studied and research methodology, all faculty members in the California State University system are expected to engage in research. Deciding where to begin is a challenge for new faculty members.  The decision is made much easier by outlining a research agenda early in the process. Clear pattern of inquiry Peer review committees look for evidence of a clear, consistent and progressing research line of inquiry when considering whether a faculty member is ready for promotion and tenure.  As a career progresses a body of research should build in scope, depth, and means of dissemination.  Accomplished faculty members develop this pattern through planning and setting goals. Short, medium and long term goals It is helpful for faculty members to outline tentative 1 year, 5 year, 10 year, 15 year and 20 year goals at the outset of a faculty appointment.  While the goals may change, this early focus on an intended plan will help guide decisions made throughout a scholarly research career, merely by asking the question, “Does this new project enhance the goals of my research agenda or a related line of inquiry?” Annual update A research agenda should be revisited and updated annually.  At the same time, any new endeavors or progress on existing ones should be regularly updated on the curriculum vitae.  These updates serve as opportunities to reflect, redirect, revise or shift emphasis as needed. Possible questions to ask about Developing a Research Agenda: Knowledge production What are some issues to think about as new faculty members become producers of knowledge? Pattern of inquiry How do new faculty members go about building a pattern of increasing scope, depth and means of dissemination for their research? Setting goals What sorts of goals might new faculty members set for 1 year, 5 years, 10 years and so on? Regularly updating goals How do faculty members stay focused on their short, medium and make long range goals and progress towards them? The Innovation Process Humanitarian Parameters Enabling Factors Ethics Resource Glossary of Terms About the Guide Activity 5.2 C Design your research agenda. This activity will help you develop a document articulating how you will undertake your research, the methods you will use, the data you will collect, and the learning outputs you intend to produce. The purpose of Research Design is to provide a core document to share with team members and other stakeholders articulating how you will undertake your research, the techniques and methods you will use, the type of data you will collect, and the learning outputs you intend to produce. The Research Design is a planning document that clearly and concisely lays out key decisions on how information will be generated, analysed and applied to meet your learning objectives, and why you have made these decisions. We recommend inclusion of the following elements: A set of research questions that examine hypotheses regarding your solution. The selection of an experimental or evaluative approach that will guide your data collection and analysis efforts. An explanation of your sample frame , including specific units of analysis, sites and participants you will examine. A description of the data collection activities and analytical techniques you will use, and a discussion around the key variables that are important to pay attention to, and how you will measure them. A step-by-step procedure , including a roadmap, project timeline and tasks. A set of assumptions and parameters for accepting or refuting hypotheses that will ultimately govern the research agenda and hold the project accountable. In the following sections we provide guidance on how to approach each of these elements, along with some other things you’ll need to consider. Translate Learning Objectives into Research Questions All research and learning activities should be guided by a set of simple and clearly defined research questions. Depending on your learning objectives, these questions will be any of the following, or a combination of all three: Descriptive: To describe contexts, people, interactions and other aspects of a particular problem or situation. Evaluative: To assess the impact of a particular programme, intervention or service against measurable changes in social conditions or organisational effectiveness. Explanatory: To develop and test viable hypotheses about what is causing, or contributing to, phenomena of interest. Assess potential positive and negative outcomes An ethical approach to carrying out your pilot requires that you have a clear understanding of the range of possible outcomes, so that you can explicitly acknowledge risks and mitigate them where possible. Generally, there are two dimensions of potential outcomes: (a) positive vs negative; (b) expected vs unexpected. Expected outcomes can be thought of at the start of the process, but unexpected ones can’t, as by definition they are unexpected. For example, a prototype mobile data management system might lead to more timely, precise and cost-efficient food distribution. This would be a positive and expected outcome. Alternatively, your pilot – by bringing together multiple community-based organisations – might improve social cohesion between religious, ethnic and politically-oriented groups. This would be a positive but perhaps unexpected outcome. But a pilot might also produce negligible impact, meaning that financial, material and human resources have been diverted away from conventional, life-saving food-security efforts. This would be an unintended, but potentially foreseeable , outcome. Worse, it could lead to the accidental disclosure of sensitive data that results in protection issues. Understanding this will help your team plan for the best, but be equipped to anticipate, monitor and respond to a range of outcomes, including worst-case scenarios. As a team, think through the possible impacts of the pilot, both in the Implementation workstream and the Research and Learning workstream. Review your Assumptions Log , and work through a risk assessment and threat modelling exercise to identify and take stock of potentially harmful adverse scenarios. When you’ve completed these activities, map out potential outcomes to orient your research and program management activities. If you have negative expected outcomes, you will need to decide whether they are acceptable or not, and that they are mitigated against where possible. Some small negative impacts may be acceptable if counterbalanced by significant positive impacts (eg, side effects from life-saving medicine, such as nausea or headaches), but if they aren’t, then you will need to put your pilot on hold. The positive expected impacts should be the same as described in your value proposition. These are the aspects that you can anticipate. The unexpected impacts are those that you have not anticipated but become apparent during the implementation of the pilot (and sometimes after). When they are identified they should be logged and fed into the Periodic Reviews and After-Action Review . Select the Right Approach To ensure that you meet your learning objectives, you will need to select the right methods and techniques to generate evidence of the required standard. Refer to your Learning Objectives and Research Feasibility Assessment and finalise which methods and techniques you will use. The key choices you make will be between explanatory, evaluative and descriptive approaches and methods. We are currently developing a Research Approaches and Methods Table to help you understand the different research techniques that you might apply. We do not expand on each of the individual approaches, as these can be found in other guidance material. The aim of this Research and Learning workstream is to point you in the right direction, so that you can hone down on appropriate approaches and methods. If you are not a researcher, we hope to provide an accessible framework that enables you to have more detailed discussions with research experts. Evaluate Tensions and Tradeoffs Choosing your approach and methods is not as simple as choosing from a menu. There are tensions and trade-offs that must be considered in order to identify the best possible approach. First, look at the approach and methods you have chosen and cross-reference them with your Research Feasibility Assessment . Do you see any tensions or trade-offs? For example, will access to the project sites be limited, reducing face-to-face access to the target group? Does this affect the technique you are proposing? If so, what trade-offs might you need to make on the technique you use? Because there is no single ‘right way’ to measure the impact of innovation, our goal is to ensure that you can make context-appropriate choices around the approaches and methods that are most fit for the job by taking stock of the tensions and trade-offs that come into play when making choices between various options. Key factors to think through include: Context appropriateness Time and resource requirements Skill levels of your researchers and enumerators Risk levels Evidentiary standards required Selecting Research sites and a Research Sample The importance of site selection and sampling cannot be over-stated. The decision of precisely what ‘subjects’ you will be researching will have a significant impact on the standards of the evidence you produce in your research. In contrast to many conventional evaluation approaches where considerations around sampling and site selection are chosen as a matter of course (ie, evaluating existing programmes), innovation projects can sometimes be more proactive in choosing a site that is beneficial for the preferred research and learning activities. However, the pilot must still be carried out in the context for which it is designed. Considerations around site selection and sampling will derive from a number of factors, including: Accessibility of potential users and target groups The nature and complexity of the solution being researched The security conditions and physical infrastructure The costs of using a particular methodology in a given context The unit of analysis (eg, individual, household, village) We recommend taking time to discuss the site selection and sampling with a researcher while you are designing your pilot to ensure that it has the best chance of delivering robust evidence without undermining the implementation of the project itself. Define Variables and Select Data Collection Tools Whether or not you are making use of explanatory, evaluative or descriptive approaches, you will need to find creative ways to measure the variables and indicators factors that you need. These variables and indicators are those that will prove or disprove whether you are having the impact and outcomes you are seeking; whether you have the coverage, reach and functionality you are looking for. Working through decisions on measurement starts with an understanding of levels of measurement (the unit of measurement, eg, time, number) and whether it is quantitative (numerical data or information that can be converted into numbers) or qualitative (non-numerical data). You will then need to think through the best techniques for collecting the data, eg, surveys tools, interviews, direct observation, shadowing and focus group discussions, among other techniques. When deciding what you are measuring, it is critical to find out whether there are standard indicators being used in humanitarian or development programmes that could provide data you need. This is particularly important for comparative studies, as you will need to be able to prove that your solution works as well as, or better than existing solutions. To do this, you would need to measure the same thing for direct comparison, eg, weight-for-height z-scores for nutritional innovations. Further inspiration DG ECHO’s website includes lists indicators available to download. They are not exhaustive lists, but they can act as a guide to the types of indicators that are collected, and the results indicators are helpfully broken down by sector. Draft Your Research Procedure Once you have finalised your Research Design you will need to translate it into a step-by-step procedure for carrying out the research. We recommend that this includes the following: A set of activities and project timeline that translates your Research Design into an actionable plan for your researchers. A set of measures and expectations that will govern the research agenda and hold the project accountable (eg, assumptions, parameters for accepting or refuting hypotheses, and discussion around limitations and potential risks). Orientation and training materials for researchers, enumerators and other participants. Data collection materials , such as interview guides, survey tools or focus group agendas. A plan for calibration and testing of measurement approaches and data management systems. Baseline data or pre-test assessments. NIH Releases Mpox Research Agenda Plan will advance knowledge of virus biology to improve detection, treatment and prevention. September 17, 2024 Colorized transmission electron micrographs of mpox virus particles (orange) found within infected VERO E6 cells (green), including a foreground closeup. Captured at the NIAID Integrated Research Facility in Fort Detrick, Maryland. As part of the U.S. government response to the current mpox outbreak , the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) has released an update on its priorities for mpox research . The NIAID mpox research agenda focuses on four key objectives: increasing knowledge about the biology of all clades—also known as strains—of the virus that causes mpox, including how the virus is transmitted and how people’s immune systems respond to it; evaluating dosing regimens of current vaccines to stretch the vaccine supply and developing novel vaccine concepts; advancing existing and novel treatments, including antivirals and monoclonal antibodies; and supporting strategies for detecting the virus to facilitate clinical care and epidemiological surveillance. The first human case of mpox was recorded in 1970 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The disease is endemic in central and western Africa. Two types of the virus that causes mpox have been identified: Clade I is endemic in Central Africa and can cause severe illness. Clade II, endemic in West Africa, tends to result in milder illness and caused the global mpox outbreak in 2022 . People with compromised immune systems, children, and people who are pregnant are especially vulnerable to severe mpox regardless of the virus clade. NIAID continues to collaborate closely with U.S. and international partners to reduce the impact of the current mpox outbreak and safeguard public health globally. NIAID will leverage both its domestic and international research infrastructures to achieve the Institute’s research objectives.  WHAT: ; NIAID Research Agenda for 2024 Mpox – September 2024 WHO: NIAID Director Jeanne M. Marrazzo, M.D., M.P.H., is available to discuss the Institute’s mpox research agenda. Access the audio-described version of the video . Submit a Media Request Contact the NIAID News & Science Writing Branch. 301-402-1663 [email protected] All Media Contacts Nebraska Medicine Give to GCHS NIH releases mpox research agenda Published Sep 18, 2024 NIH Plan will advance knowledge of virus biology to improve detection, treatment and prevention. As part of the U.S. government response to the  current mpox outbreak(link is external) , the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) has  released an update on its priorities for mpox research . The NIAID mpox research agenda focuses on four key objectives: increasing knowledge about the biology of all clades—also known as strains—of the virus that causes mpox, including how the virus is transmitted and how people’s immune systems respond to it; evaluating dosing regimens of current vaccines to stretch the vaccine supply and developing novel vaccine concepts; advancing existing and novel treatments, including antivirals and monoclonal antibodies; and supporting strategies for detecting the virus to facilitate clinical care and epidemiological surveillance.  The first human case of mpox was recorded in 1970 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The disease is endemic in central and western Africa. Two types of the virus that causes mpox have been identified: Clade I is endemic in Central Africa and can cause severe illness. Clade II, endemic in West Africa, tends to result in milder illness and  caused the global mpox outbreak in 2022(link is external) . People with compromised immune systems, children, and people who are pregnant are especially vulnerable to severe mpox regardless of the virus clade. NIAID continues to collaborate closely with U.S. and international partners to reduce the impact of the current mpox outbreak and safeguard public health globally. NIAID will leverage both its domestic and international research infrastructures to achieve the Institute’s research objectives. Continue reading Leave a comment Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed . Research Agenda of Ethical Recommender Systems based on Explainable AI New citation alert added. This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to: You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited. To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below. New Citation Alert! Please log in to your account Information & Contributors Bibliometrics & citations, view options, index terms. Human-centered computing Collaborative and social computing Collaborative and social computing theory, concepts and paradigms Social recommendation Human computer interaction (HCI) HCI design and evaluation methods User studies Information systems Information retrieval Retrieval tasks and goals Recommender systems Information systems applications Data mining Collaborative filtering Security and privacy Human and societal aspects of security and privacy Privacy protections Social and professional topics Professional topics Computing profession Codes of ethics Recommendations Llm-generated explanations for recommender systems. Users are often confronted with situations where they have to decide in favor or against an offered item, like a book, movie, or recipe. Those suggested items are commonly determined by a recommender system, which considers personal preferences to ... Mapping the landscape of ethical considerations in explainable AI research With its potential to contribute to the ethical governance of AI, eXplainable AI (XAI) research frequently asserts its relevance to ethical considerations. Yet, the substantiation of these claims with rigorous ethical analysis and reflection ... Explainable Matrix Factorization for Collaborative Filtering Explanations have been shown to increase the user's trust in recommendations in addition to providing other benefits such as scrutability, which is the ability to verify the validity of recommendations. Most explanation methods are designed for ... Information Published in. Elsevier Science Publishers B. V. Netherlands Publication History Author tags. Explainable artificial intelligence Explanations Human-computer interaction Research-article Contributors Other metrics, bibliometrics, article metrics. 0 Total Citations 0 Total Downloads Downloads (Last 12 months) 0 Downloads (Last 6 weeks) 0 View options Login options. Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article. Full Access Share this publication link. Copying failed. Share on social media Affiliations, export citations. Please download or close your previous search result export first before starting a new bulk export. Preview is not available. By clicking download, a status dialog will open to start the export process. The process may take a few minutes but once it finishes a file will be downloadable from your browser. You may continue to browse the DL while the export process is in progress. Download Download citation Copy citation We are preparing your search results for download ... We will inform you here when the file is ready. Your file of search results citations is now ready. Your search export query has expired. Please try again. WTO / Business / Agendas / Research Agenda Examples: How to Write [10 Free Templates] Research Agenda Examples: How to Write [10 Free Templates] A research agenda is an action plan that outlines the tasks that need to be prioritised within a particular field of study or research and the execution system of these tasks. This agenda is a guiding tool for students with specific interests in a subject or field of research who intend to attain predetermined objectives by the end of their studies.  Most students joining college and university or undertaking research projects will usually have vague ideas of what they want to achieve. A research agenda helps them have a starting point based on their interests, short-term and long-term goals – factors that are vital in decision making, such as deciding the courses and classes to take. The agenda is adaptable in that students can adjust themselves as they progress with their studies or research based on their interactions with faculty, fellow students, research on a particular field, and gaining more knowledge on their chosen academic path . The agenda improves the student’s sense of direction, thus allowing them to focus on specific areas of their chosen field study. Having an agenda improves your effectiveness as time and resources can be directed to the significant areas of the research topic. A good agenda for research will outline the type of research project, research methods, and tasks to be completed. Download Templates Pre-Writing Considerations A research agenda should help a student get more organised and plan their immediate and future plans within the academic institution. Therefore, the agenda should be specific to the student and must be helpful for them. Before writing your agenda, consider the following pre-writing considerations: Discuss your area of interest with the faculty Consult with faculty and let them know your general interests. Faculty members are typically more informed on general areas of study. They can help you narrow down to the lines of study where there is demand for more expertise and where you can explore your interests further. Do research Carry out exhaustive research on the particular field of interest. This will involve a lot of reading and consultations. Gather enough information , and do not hesitate to use external sources and areas outside your immediate interests; it is not unusual to stumble upon a subject that really captures your attention and interest. Ask your faculty for resources  Ask faculty for additional resources where you can get further insight into the options available to you. They might recommend relevant dissertations, books, seminars, or conferences you can attend to gather more information on what you should focus on in school. Also, ask for any ongoing projects you can participate in. Ensure to consult more than one faculty member; different members will have diverse inputs and perspectives, all of which can be used to improve your agenda. Note that you can use resources within and without the department; for example, engaging with other graduate students on which conferences are better suited for your field of study can be greatly beneficial. Consider the second year of the program you are assessing. Sometimes, valuable classes in other interdisciplinary fields may provide further insight into creating a research agenda that helps you arrive at the best possible study options. Identify key authors relevant to your interests Visit the library or search online for authors whose bodies of work are related to your interests. Read their books, dissertations, and scholarly work and see how they applied their knowledge to your area of interest in research or real-life scenarios. This can help you determine your role in society after successfully completing your course. Citations are also good sources for materials to read. Take courses relevant to your interests Try as much as possible to select courses that align with your interests. This gives you extra motivation to undertake their requirements and be extra motivated throughout them. However, this should not be the sole factor of taking courses. Expand your list of options by identifying areas that spark a novel interest even though they appear to be apart from your passions.  Use class assignments to advance your research agenda Class assignments are also viable tools for acquiring more information on how to improve your research agenda. Look into the term papers and identify topics or areas of study being majored on and research further on the same. Talk to students with similar interests and collaborate Anytime you interact with students with similar or overlapping interests, get their opinion on the particular areas of study. They may have a different perspective on the courses or areas of study that would best suit your interests. How to Write Research Agenda A research agenda should be comprehensive and detailed enough to help you make an informed decision on what you should be aiming for or prioritising to study. Below are steps to help you write a good agenda: Describe your area of interest Firstly, indicate your area of interest. You can provide some background information on how your specific interest came about, its significance in society, and list any accomplishments in this particular field. Describe the problem statement(s) Next, justify the identified area of interest. The agenda should show the problems that the specified area of research can be applied to solve. These problems can be narrowed down to those that align with your interests. Therefore, if there is a challenge you always wanted to solve or be part of the solution, and you would like to focus on areas that help you work towards that, you can expound on how this is possible at this point.  Research methods relevant to your topical area After the problem statement , identify the research methods you will use to collect information and make the decision on which classes to take. Different methods can be used at this stage, including research groups, conference papers, programs, research articles, observing trends, scholarly works, consultations, etc. Be specific when indicating the research methods. For example, when consulting with faculty members, talk to multiple members as it broadens the perspective with which you will write the agenda. Include research questions The next step in creating this agenda is formulating questions that arose during your exploration of the identified areas of study. Questions can be associated with a specific topic, approach, argument, or method of doing things. As you advance in your studies or research, you may find answers to these questions by using what is already known or discovering new ways to address the questions. Name collaborators, if any Afterward, indicate any collaborators you have worked with or intend to work with. List the collaborators’ names and their respective capacities or positions. Collaborators can be professors, faculty members, or organisations that deal with the area of study you will be focused on.   List your finest ideas Next, indicate any ideas that will be helpful in actualizing your research agenda. These can range from in-between certifications you wish to achieve, applications that will be of use down the line, or targets you wish to achieve every year. Come up with ideas that will be sustainable for two to five years from now. Describe the grants and their deadlines The agenda should then outline any funding opportunities available to support your research in the particular area of study. Provide a brief description that indicates the name of the grant program, the grantor, a brief overview of the type of research they support, and the associated deadline for submission of proposals . Include scholarly communication outlets Lastly, indicate scholarly platforms related to your interest in the research area where you plan on joining and sharing your work. Examples of scholarly platforms are conferences, journals, research papers , publications, and books. Consider actively participating in these outlets by presenting your work and asking for feedback. Try not to limit yourself to conferences within your department; venture into other departmental conferences, as you can always pick up a new idea that enhances your research agenda. Essential Tips to Write a Good Research Agenda To improve the quality of your research agenda, below are several writing and planning techniques you can use. They include: Clarify your ideas first Choose an area of study, whether it is from a point of curiosity, brainstorming, or educated analysis. Gather background information and engage with professors and colleagues as you work to refine your idea. Also, research your course to develop strong research questions. Divide and prioritise all tasks Create your agenda by breaking down the field of study into subsets or tasks that contribute to the overall objectives you wish to achieve. There are multiple requirements any student has to satisfy in order to complete a graduate program successfully; list them as items that define your journey in the particular area of research. Examples of tasks that a student may have to complete include test results targets, presentations that one has to present at a conference, submission of a proposal, etc.  Keep your agenda flexible Always create a flexible agenda to accommodate different alternatives and opportunities for accomplishing your set goals . It is acceptable to change to a plan with a more positive impact or better outcome than the original plan. Keep refining Keep your agenda up-to-date as you acquire more knowledge in your field of study. Add any supporting data such as a Venn diagram , research findings, or concept maps that add objectivity to your agenda. Don’t be intimidated Do not be scared to start your research agenda even if you do not have much knowledge on the specific research area to go on. Carry out personal research, consult with faculty members, and discuss with course mates to get more insight.  Final Thoughts A research agenda is a good opportunity for students to align what they study with their interests and things they care about. It helps students plan for the tasks they need to undertake to complete their graduate programs in an organised fashion successfully. An agenda should be a continuously changing document as the user progressively gains more insight into their specific area of study. A comprehensive research agenda outlines what needs to be done, the methods that will be used to grow in the field of study, academic and professional targets, collaborators, and any other details that make up the system of the set goals.  About This Article Was this helpful? Great! Tell us more about your experience Not up to par help us fix it, keep reading. 30 Free Team Meeting Agenda Templates Agendas , Business Free weekly team meeting agenda templates (format). 14 Perfect Meeting Minutes & Notes Templates (Word) Family , Personal Free reunion agenda templates (family, college, friends). 10 Free Meeting Agenda Templates in Word How to Prepare an Agenda for Event Planning (Free Templates) 15 Free Sales Meeting Agenda Templates (Progressive Agendas) 8 Free Meeting Notes Templates Budget , Education Free school budget templates (excel | word | pdf). How to Write a Descriptive Essay (12 Best Examples) 12 Outline Templates for Stories and Book Writing How to Structure Informative Speech | Outline Examples Thank you for your feedback. Your Voice, Our Progress. Your feedback matters a lot to us. Partnership working top of Bayes' research agenda Discussion at the Bayes Research Day covered everything from the increased support and networks to stimulate inquiry to tasters of current research. Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Share by email Interdisciplinary working across the newly expanded City St George’s University was the focal point of the Bayes Business School Research Day this week. Opening the event, Bayes Associate Dean for Research, Professor Feng Li , outlined the School’s four cross-cutting research themes: Alleviating societal challenges The future of finance and insurance Technologies and innovation, with a particular focus on AI Making sense of the transforming world. Acknowledging the broad scope of these themes, Professor Li said: “Engaging with business and the professions is an important part of our strategy. Take the future of finance theme: we want to be the intellectual hub for the City of London. We are already doing a lot of exciting work in these areas, but there are emerging issues that need further exploration – to improve understanding and influence practice and policy in those spaces.” Gaze beyond Bayes The University’s Vice-President for Research, Professor Leanne Aitken, outlined the additional support planned for the academic year, encouraging academics to explore collaboration opportunities with colleagues across other schools. She emphasised the value of interdisciplinary research, saying: “Interdisciplinary research offers unique – and often more impactful – solutions to societal problems. Many of these challenges are addressed by the School’s four research themes.” While commending the high quality of Bayes research, Leanne urged colleagues to consider factors such as external research funding, impact, and stakeholder engagement when planning their work. The event continued with a Panel Discussion on key issues related to the School’s four cross-cutting research themes. Professors Scott Moelle r, Canan Kocabasoglu , Vladimir Kaishev , Neil Maiden and Bobby Banerjee explored ongoing research and emerging opportunities, offering insights into alleviating societal challenges, the future of finance and insurance, AI and innovation, and how to navigate a rapidly transforming world. Associate Deans for Research & Enterprise from across City St George’s outlined the research focuses of their respective schools. Professor Steven Gillard from the School of Health & Psychological Sciences discussed the need to evaluate roles within the health workforce, aligning research with the priorities of Wes Streeting, the new Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. Dr Lea Hellmueller from the School of Communication & Creativity spoke about the declining trust in journalism amidst growing competition for audiences, as well as safeguarding media freedom and information. Professor Inderjeet Parmar from the School of Policy & Global Affairs highlighted the newly formed Finsbury Institute as a key player in addressing the global ‘polycrisis’, and Professor David Townend from The City Law School summarised the role of sociolegal philosophy and the law-making process in their research activities, focusing on the consistency of law. Tasters from a futuristic menu The afternoon saw 20 rapid-fire presentations showcasing the rich research at Bayes. The first session focused on Innovations in AI and the Future of Finance, with contributions on topics such as shipping energy efficiency, SME business models, machine learning in finance and the impact of climate and political uncertainty on Europe’s electricity markets. The second session, chaired by Professor Pawel Bilinski , addressed societal challenges in a rapidly-changing world, covering issues such as career changes, innovative systems for healthcare workforce deployment, supply chain imbalances and the perceptions of premium brand consumers. The Dean, Professor Andre Spicer, delivered the closing remarks, highlighting the importance of interdisciplinary work in addressing the significant challenges facing business and society. While recognising the School’s strong tradition of individual research excellence, he encouraged Bayes colleagues to collaborate more both within the School and across the University, aiming for increased external funding and a greater impact on policy and practice. He also reflected on his favourite part of the day – the rapid-fire presentations, which showcased the breadth of research at Bayes, ranging from societal inequality to the role of AI in healthcare, and solutions to global challenges such as energy crises and leadership transitions in business. Featured Bayes Experts Related stories Ideas fizz at School Research Day 24 Jan 2024 Bayes Research Day: The value of research and collaboration 27 Jan 2022 StartMyResearch Training Login IACUC Login RCR Speaker Series Each semester the OVCRI offers a Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) Speaker Series to help researchers at all levels understand their responsibilities and to promote integrity and ethical practices on our campus and beyond. This series is intended to support the specific RCR education requirements of the National Science Foundation (NSF) , the National Institutes of Health (NIH) , and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Institute of Food and Agriculture (USDA-NIFA) . Please register using the form here to receive a Zoom link to attend remotely, or to record your attendance at in-person sessions. When you register, you will have the option to receive a certificate of the RCR sessions you attended at the end of each semester’s series. 09-25-2024 Sheena Bishop, Online 10-02-2024 , Assistant Vice Chancellor for Research & Innovation in Compliance Forbes Natural History Building (1816 S. Oak St., Champaign) and Online 10-09-2024 , Office of Animal Research Compliance (ARC) Online 10-16-2024   To be Determined   10-23-2024 , Faculty Fellow for Research Integrity Online 10-30-2024 Linda Arsenau, Online 11-06-2024 , Export Control Online 11-13-2024 Josh Erenberg, Online 11-20-2024 , Director of Strategic Regulatory Programs and Conflict of Interest Officer 1901 S. First Street, Champaign (Second Floor) and Online If you have questions about the RCR Speaker Series, or to offer suggestions of future topics, please reach out to us at [email protected] . Past Presentations 09-18-2024 , Office for the Protection of Research Subjects 09-11-2024 , Research Integrity Officer and , Faculty Fellow for Research Integrity 264 IMAGES Research Agenda Examples: How to Write [10 Free Templates] Sample Research Agenda Research Agenda Research Agenda Research Agenda Template Agenda, Policies and Programs VIDEO Register now for the European Research and Innovation Days 2021 Conference on Research Careers 2023 IAAC Open Thesis Fabrication 2010: Respira: Breathing Wall Academic Writing Workshop A Systematic Review of Research on Community Participation by People with Disabilities Reinders, H. Research agenda: Language learning beyond the classroom COMMENTS Shaping the research agenda A research agenda is a strategic plan that outlines the goals, priorities, and areas of investigation for future research endeavors. It serves as a roadmap, guiding researchers toward meaningful and impactful work. In the context of WHO, a research agenda identifies priority areas and gaps in health information and research, shaping new avenues ... Creating a Research Agenda Creating a research agenda should be a major goal for all graduate students—regardless of theoretical interests, methodological preferences, or career aspirations. A research agenda helps you orient yourself toward both short- and long-term goals; it will guide your selection of classes, help you decide which academic conferences (and within ... Developing a Research Agenda A clear research agenda serves two important purposes. First, it can help you communicate to others what you study and the area in which you have developed (or are developing) expertise. Second, it serves to guide your decision-making about what projects or specific research questions to pursue. Ultimately, you must be interested in and excited ... (PDF) Developing a research agenda: Contributing new knowledge via A research agenda provides a map for your career—or at least for. the next few years (e.g., 3-5) of your career. Typically your research agenda will. include a set of questions, issues, or ... Developing a research agenda: contributing new knowledge via ... A research agenda helps ensure that you will hit the ground running and that you know exactly what steps you need to take to move your career forward. However, the more important reason for developing a research agenda is internal—a research agenda gives you both purpose and focus. This is important for a couple of reasons. Creating a Research Agenda Creating a research agenda should be a major goal for all graduate students — regardless of theoretical interests, methodological preferences, or career aspirations. A research agenda helps you orient yourself toward both short- and long-term goals; it will guide your selection of classes, help you decide which academic conferences (and ... Creating a Research Agenda and Setting Research Priorities for Clinical Abstract. Purpose/objectives: The purpose of this article is to describe the evolution and results of the process for establishing a research agenda and identification of research priorities for clinical nurse specialists, approved by the National Association of Clinical Nurse Specialists (NACNS) membership and sanctioned by the NACNS Board of ... Shaping the research agenda The approach provides a systematic guide to assist planning and implementing a quality research priority-setting exercise that will match the context. The resulting exercise should contain legitimate and credible priorities that have been developed in an ethical and equitable manner. The objectives will support achievement of WHO's Triple ... How research agendas are framed: Insights for ... Moreover, as the research agenda was developed, team members were proud to be identified and selected as formal leaders based on their science contributions, embraced their increased "accountability", and began to view development of the team research agenda as their core role - "our job". Regarding research agenda design, the data ... Shaping the Research Agenda Despite the global efforts in research, training, and control over the years, tropical diseases remain a major cause of ill-health in poor populations. An estimated 2.7 billion people living on less than US$2 per day, in both rural and impoverished urban areas of low-income countries, are affected [1], [2]. Thirteen neglected tropical diseases ... Developing a research agenda Your research agenda plays a critical role in designing and planning your scholarly research and publication activities. Establishing your research agenda means deciding which research areas you will explore and the methodologies you will employ, then letting these guide your research activities. As we have all probably heard from our own graduate school professors, it Introducing a Research Agenda Abstract. In the midst of a range of unprecedented global events, geopolitical developments, and health, climate, socio-economic, and humanitarian crises, which have challenged assumptions about the nature and purpose of education, this chapter frames the book as an attempt to engage with a window of opportunity for shaping educational ... Development of a Research Agenda Focused on Academic Health Departments Producing a research agenda can facilitate the identification of challenges, from defining and building appropriate data sets, to performing practice-based research with high internal validity, and to producing results that are generalizable. Using the research agenda as a template for building the evidence base on AHDs also presents ... The academic impact of paediatric research agendas: a descriptive Developing the descriptive academic impact analysis of paediatric research agendas. In preparation for creating the impact tool, we defined the academic impact of PRAs using three identifiable factors: [] The number of citations referencing the agenda, [] The number of new studies based on the priorities, and [] The variation in authorship between the original PRA and the subsequent studies. A research agenda to advance the study of implementation mechanisms Mechanisms Network of Expertise (MNoE) The research agenda was developed by the Mechanisms Network of Expertise (MNoE). The MNoE is composed of over 40 invited implementation scientists who are diverse with respect to several dimensions (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, stage of career, focus on priority populations, research settings), but who are predominantly United States (US)-based (4 ... The role and purpose of a research agenda A research agenda plays a valuable role in helping design scholarly activities for graduate students and faculty. Simply put, a research agenda means identifying the areas you will research and the methodologies you will use to answer questions. You probably have heard from professors in graduate school and beyond that you can't research everything so you need to pick what you can feasibly ... Writing a Research Plan One person I spoke to said that a research plan should be "about three pages of 1.5-spaced text, and NEVER more than five." Another source prefers "three semi-independent (but related) sub-proposals not more than about three to four pages (single-spaced) each with a half page of important and relevant references." A Research Agenda to Improve Outcomes in Patients with Chronic This research statement sets forth a prioritized research agenda with the purpose of stimulating high-impact research and improving the lives of patients with COPD and cardiovascular disease. Although topics with lower priority ratings were still deemed to be important by the committee, pragmatic clinical trials with patient-centered outcomes ... Developing a Research Agenda Developing a Research Agenda. One of the most rewarding aspects of a career in academia is generating new knowledge. Graduate students learn the research process, and new faculty members begin a journey as researchers. While there is a lot of leeway concerning what is studied and research methodology, all faculty members in the California State ... PDF Research agenda setting workshop iii Using the facilitator's guide. The purpose of a research agenda setting workshop is to engage participants (for example, a state or local education agency, or a research alliance) in a collaborative process to identify research priorities and develop a set of research questions aligned to these priorities. Design your research agenda Design your research agenda. This activity will help you develop a document articulating how you will undertake your research, the methods you will use, the data you will collect, and the learning outputs you intend to produce. The purpose of Research Design is to provide a core document to share with team members and other stakeholders ... NIH Releases Mpox Research Agenda As part of the U.S. government response to the current mpox outbreak, the National Institutes of Health's (NIH) National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) has released an update on its priorities for mpox research.The NIAID mpox research agenda focuses on four key objectives: increasing knowledge about the biology of all clades—also known as strains—of the virus that ... The importance of a Research Agenda Dec 4, 2018. 142. A research agenda identifies research priorities which will lead to more successful research, outlining a clear framework for making decisions about future research activities ... PDF SLDS Issue Brief The first step in implementing a research agenda is to define the goals and desired outcomes of the implementation. This vision statement will reflect the research agenda's purpose within an organization or a group of partner organizations. The vision statement should reflect the desired future for the research agenda. NIH releases mpox research agenda The NIAID mpox research agenda focuses on four key objectives: increasing knowledge about the biology of all clades—also known as strains—of the virus that causes mpox, including how the virus is transmitted and how people's immune systems respond to it; evaluating dosing regimens of current vaccines to stretch the vaccine supply and ... Research Agenda of Ethical Recommender Systems based on Explainable AI Based on the current state-of-the-art literature, this paper aims to provide a comprehensive overview of XAI for RS and its ethical implications, with the aim of proposing a research agenda for ethical RS based on XAI. A systematic review of predictors of international students' cross The reviewed studies placed more emphasis on predictors in resources clusters than on those in demands/barriers clusters. Research strengths, gaps and inconsistencies in the literature were identified and discussed. Accordingly, an agenda was developed to highlight opportunities for theoretical and empirical advancement for future research. Research Agenda Examples: How to Write [10 Free Templates] A research agenda is an action plan that outlines the tasks that need to be prioritised within a particular field of study or research and the execution system of these tasks. This agenda is a guiding tool for students with specific interests in a subject or field of research who intend to attain predetermined objectives by the end of their ... Partnership working top of Bayes' research agenda While commending the high quality of Bayes research, Leanne urged colleagues to consider factors such as external research funding, impact, and stakeholder engagement when planning their work. The event continued with a Panel Discussion on key issues related to the School's four cross-cutting research themes. RCR Speaker Series Each semester the OVCRI offers a Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) Speaker Series to help researchers at all levels understand their responsibilities and to promote integrity and ethical practices on our campus and beyond.This series is intended to support the specific RCR education requirements of the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the U.S ... essay homework paper phd project resume review study thesis