Top 20 research priorities on methods of co-production in evidence synthesis

Background and Objectives: Co-production in evidence synthesis is increasingly recognized as essential for developing meaningful evidence for decision making. However, little is known about when, how and whom to involve, and no clear research agenda exists to guide which methodological aspects of co-production should be prioritized. This study aimed to identify and prioritize research topics through a rigorous process.<br/><br/>Study Design and Setting: We conducted a multi-phase Delphi process to achieve agreement on methodological research priorities. We generated research ideas from a pre-study workshop, a widely rolled out survey, and a review of methodological papers. We qualitatively analyzed and synthesized these ideas into broad topics, each presented with explanations and examples. People representing relevant key interest-holder groups in evidence synthesis, namely (1) experts in co-production, (2) health professionals, (3) patients/carers/public, (4) policy makers, and (5) researchers, rated topics over two Delphi rounds using a 7-point Likert scale (1=of least importance; 7=of greatest importance). We weighted results to address under-representation of interest-holders and visualized group results.<br/><br/>Results: Starting with an interim list of 47 research ideas, we incorporated 86 contributions from 141 survey participants and 109 research needs from 28 methodological research papers. This process yielded 242 items that we grouped into 31 distinct topics. The Delphi process involved 58 participants in round 1, 52 in round 2, and 48 in the final round, with participation of all interest-holder groups. Participants were from 21 countries across all continents. In the final round, 98% of participants agreed on the weighted, final list of the top 20 research priorities, with the highest-ranked topics being methodological research relating to (1) engagement of diverse co-producers, (2) best practice standards for engagement/involvement, (3) power dynamics, (4) communication and relationship with co-producers, and (5) impact of co-production on the evidence synthesis.<br/><br/>Conclusion: Our study establishes a clear research agenda for researchers, policy makers, and funders. These priorities should inform future efforts for advancing methods of co-production in evidence synthesis.