COVID-19 research response to immediate demands: setting priorities with key stakeholders to enable health services research in NSW, Australia

• Published in: Journal of health organization and management 2024-09, Vol.38 (9), p.344-359
• Main Authors: Rankin, Nicole M., Nutbeam, Don, Levesque, Jean-Frederic, Ko, Henry, Jennings, Garry, Walczak, Adam, Jorm, Christine
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adaptation; Collaboration; COVID-19; COVID-19 - epidemiology; Decision making; Disruption; Funding; Government; Health Priorities; Health services; Health Services Research; Humans; Investment decision; Leadership; Medical research; New South Wales; Nominal group technique; Pandemics; Policy making; Priorities; Prioritizing; Public health; Research Paper; SARS-CoV-2; Stakeholder Participation; Stakeholders; Value; Vulnerability; Workforce
• ISSN: 1477-7266; 1758-7247; 1758-7247
• DOI: 10.1108/JHOM-03-2023-0059

PurposeCOVID-19 has caused unprecedented disruption to health systems. There is much to be gained by capturing what was learned from changes and adaptations made by health services and systems. The Ministry of Health in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, sought to prioritise health services research (HSR) to address critical issues arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. We tested a priority setting methodology to create priorities for a specific funding opportunity and to extract generalisable lessons.Design/methodology/approachA virtual roundtable meeting of key stakeholders was held in June 2020. We used a modified Nominal Group Technique (NGT) for priority setting, with potential items (n = 35) grouped under headings. Data was analysed through a reflective deliberative process.FindingsWe engaged 89 senior policy makers, health service executives, clinicians and researchers in the roundtable. The NGT proved an efficient method with participants reaching consensus on eight priorities. Findings included strong support for learning from the rapid response to COVID-19 and addressing needs of vulnerable populations and the health workforce. Opinions differed about strategic areas investment and where learnings should be via internal evaluation rather than funded research. Three of the eight recommended priorities were included in the funding opportunity.Research limitations/implicationsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) required unprecedented change and adaptations within health systems, and rapid, applied health services research can help to create, understand and (where relevant) sustain change beyond the immediate impact of the pandemic. While final decisions may be dependent on a wider range of considerations by government, stakeholder enthusiasm for engagement in priority setting exercises may be dampened if they do not perceive their application in decision-making.Practical implicationsA modified nominal group technique can be used to set research priorities in constrained conditions by engaging large numbers of stakeholders in rankings and then using an online delivery of a roundtable and to reach consensus on priorities in real time. Recommended priorities for health services research can be readily generated through rapid engagement but does not guarantee their application.Social implicationsAustralia’s swift response to COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 was perceived as a relative success due to the rapid public health and policy response and a relatively low