Ethics of research priority setting on substance use disorders: protocol for a systematic review

<ns3:p>Background Research priority setting (RPS) aims to direct research resources towards optimal social benefits. Research on substance use disorders (SUDs) due to the use of alcohol, tobacco or other psychoactive substances currently receives limited funding, making RPS particularly important. RPS are not just a technical exercise but also have ethical dimensions. However, there is no systematic review of ethics of RPS on SUDs. Objectives 1) To examine the extent to which recent RPS exercises on substance use disorders (SUDs) adhere to current reporting guidelines for RPS and 2) discuss our findings in light of the existing ethics literature on RPS and SUDs, and see to what extent ethical dimensions in the literature map onto current practice. Methods We will search MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, screen reference lists and hand search websites from selected organisations (e.g., funders, professional societies) for RPS exercises on SUDs published between 2020 and 2025. Two review authors will independently screen records and extract data using a piloted data extraction form. Any discrepancy will be resolved through consensus with another author acting as an arbiter. To examine adherence to current reporting and ethical guidelines for RPS, we will map adherence to the 2019 REPRISE reporting checklist and the 2025 WHO guidelines on ethics of RPS (e.g., optimise social value, respect special obligations, assess risks, follow fair procedures). We will narratively synthesise data, providing descriptive statistics, where appropriate, and discuss our findings in light of relevant literature. Implications By describing and critically discussing the extent to which current RPS exercises on SUDs adhere to current reporting and ethical guidelines for RPS, we hope this systematic review will inform and strengthen future RPS exercises and help direct available resources to the most valuable research on SUDs.</ns3:p>

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Wellcome Open Research
Published
2026-04-15
DOI
https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.25963.1
Primary Topic
Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Ethics of research priority setting on substance use disorders: protocol for a systematic review

Anant Bhan, Soumyadeep Bhaumik, Abhishek Ghosh, Annette Rid et al.
Wellcome Open Research
Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
article

Ethics of research priority setting on substance use disorders: protocol for a systematic review

Anant Bhan, Soumyadeep Bhaumik, Abhishek Ghosh, Annette Rid, Anshuman Dixit, Dzmitry Krupchanka
article en

Abstract

<ns3:p>Background Research priority setting (RPS) aims to direct research resources towards optimal social benefits. Research on substance use disorders (SUDs) due to the use of alcohol, tobacco or other psychoactive substances currently receives limited funding, making RPS particularly important. RPS are not just a technical exercise but also have ethical dimensions. However, there is no systematic review of ethics of RPS on SUDs. Objectives 1) To examine the extent to which recent RPS exercises on substance use disorders (SUDs) adhere to current reporting guidelines for RPS and 2) discuss our findings in light of the existing ethics literature on RPS and SUDs, and see to what extent ethical dimensions in the literature map onto current practice. Methods We will search MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, screen reference lists and hand search websites from selected organisations (e.g., funders, professional societies) for RPS exercises on SUDs published between 2020 and 2025. Two review authors will independently screen records and extract data using a piloted data extraction form. Any discrepancy will be resolved through consensus with another author acting as an arbiter. To examine adherence to current reporting and ethical guidelines for RPS, we will map adherence to the 2019 REPRISE reporting checklist and the 2025 WHO guidelines on ethics of RPS (e.g., optimise social value, respect special obligations, assess risks, follow fair procedures). We will narratively synthesise data, providing descriptive statistics, where appropriate, and discuss our findings in light of relevant literature. Implications By describing and critically discussing the extent to which current RPS exercises on SUDs adhere to current reporting and ethical guidelines for RPS, we hope this systematic review will inform and strengthen future RPS exercises and help direct available resources to the most valuable research on SUDs.</ns3:p>

Wellcome Open ResearchVol. 11
New South Wales Department of Health (AU), Yenepoya University (IN), UNSW Sydney (AU), Sangath (IN), World Health Organization (CH), The George Institute for Global Health (AU), Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (IN), Fogarty International Center (US), Walter Sisulu University (ZA)
Wellcome
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 15%
Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.