Methods for identifying and displaying gaps in health research

The overall topic area of methods to identify and display gaps in health research is still not well established, also there is no standard definition for the term “research gaps” nor standardized methods to identify research gaps. Furthermore, with a lack of a clear definition, consensus is lacking on what constitutes the best methodological approaches to identify research gaps, determine research priorities and display research gaps or priority. The specific objectives of this PhD project were to 1) identify different definitions reported for the term “research gap” and describe the methods used to identify, prioritize and display gaps in health research; 2) explore key stakeholders’ perspectives and experiences with defining, identifying and displaying gaps in health research; and 3) make preliminary recommendations for methodological guidance on identifying and displaying gaps in health research. In the first project, I conducted a scoping review to map reported definitions of research gaps and methods to identify, prioritize and display gaps in health research. The study provided an overview of different definitions and methods used to identify, prioritize, and display gaps or priorities in health research. The most frequent methods in the review aimed at gap identification and involved secondary research, which included evidence synthesis (80/116 articles, 69%), specifically systematic reviews and scoping reviews (58/80 articles, 73%). Among studies aimed at research prioritization, the most frequent methods were combined primary and secondary research, accounting for 24 (49%) articles, followed by secondary methods, 8 (16%) articles. Finally, 37% articles described methods for displaying gaps and/or priorities in health research. The second project was a qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews of key informants to investigate their knowledge, perceptions, and experiences with defining research gaps and characterizing methods/practices used for identifying and displaying gaps in health research. The results provided evidence on what participants reported as gaps in health research: the terms ranged from “lack of information”, “inadequate information”, “insufficient information”, “quality of evidence” and “treatment uncertainty”. The study showed detailed participants’ experiences with and perceptions of different research methodologies used (i.e., primary, secondary, both). Researcher participants also expressed a difficulty in systematically identifying research gaps. With experiences in displaying research gaps, participants expressed the importance of data visualization and the difficulty in researcher- participants finding the right tool to use to present research findings. Finally, the findings of both the scoping review and qualitative study were combined, from which was gathered a list of definitions related to research gaps as well as key examples of methods to identify and display research gaps, which were combined and used to inform the development of methodological guidance to identify gaps in health research. The preliminary recommended methodological guidance involves four steps: 1) specify the topic area and/or research question; 2) map, identify and clearly state the existing research gap(s); 3) clearly describe the research gaps(s) identified; and 4) present the research gaps. To be able to determine the feasibility and usability of this recommendations for methodological guidance in practice, the importance, relevance and applicability of each step proposed needs to be thoroughly discussed among different stakeholders, then implemented and evaluated accordingly. The evaluation of the methodological guidance will help determine its applicability and future implementation and adaption in health research and other fields