Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

The double burden of ‘malnutrition’: Under-Nutrition & Obesity

Uptake and impact of priority setting exercises in nutrition research publications

This article has been updated

Abstract

Objective

To assess how priority setting exercises for nutrition research are considered in publication.

Design

Cross-sectional design.

Settings

First, a citation analysis of priority setting exercises found in nutrition research until 2019 was conducted. The reasons for citation were extracted from the text of citing papers and the reasons were defined as: (i) acting on the research questions identified as priorities, (ii) acknowledging the priority setting exercise, (iii) using the same method, or (iv) previous knowledge to support evidence. Second, a survey with authors of the priority setting exercises was done to understand priority setters’ perspectives on the impact and satisfaction of their work.

Participants

Twenty-one priority setting exercise papers were included. In all, 434 citing papers were found, of which 338 were considered in the citation analysis. A sample of 17 authors representing 13 priority setting exercise papers completed the impact and satisfaction survey.

Results

Half of the priority setting exercise papers were published by 2013. After excluding self-citations (n = 60), the priority setting papers had on average 18 citations. Priority setting exercises had a median of 1 (IQR = 0–1) citing manuscript that acted on the recommendations produced from priority setting exercises. Authors of the priority setting exercises expressed a desire for increased uptake of the results of the priority setting exercises by funding agencies. Key barriers for uptake were identified as challenges in involving stakeholders and the general public for participation in the priority setting exercise.

Conclusions

Priority settings exercises are important efforts to guide nutrition research toward effective allocation of resources. However, there seems to be a limited consideration of these priority setting exercises in research papers.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Citation analysis network.

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 29 September 2020

    The original version of this Article was updated shortly after publication to correct an error in the supplementary file ‘Thematic analysis of survey open-ended questions’.

References

  1. Viergever RF, Olifson S, Ghaffar A, Terry RF. A checklist for health research priority setting: nine common themes of good practice. Health Res Policy Syst. 2010;8:36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Guelmezoglu AM, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014;383:156–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Development Initiatives Global Nutrition Report 2017: Nourishing the SDGs. Bristol, UK: Development Initiatives; 2017.

  4. Development Initiatives Global Nutrition Report 2018: Shining a light to spur action on nutrition. Bristol, UK: Development Initiatives; 2017.

  5. Hawwash D, Pinxten W, Bonn NA, Verstraeten R, Kolsteren P, Lachat C. Perspective: consideration of values when setting priorities in nutrition research: guidance for transparency. Adv Nutr. 2018;9:671–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Masters WA, Rosettie K, Kranz S, Pedersen SH, Webb P, Danaei G, et al. Priority interventions to improve maternal and child diets in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Matern Child Nutr. 2018;14:e12526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Guthrie S, Bienkowska-Gibbs T, Manville C, Pollitt A, Kirtley A, Wooding S. The impact of the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme, 2003–13: a multimethod evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2015;19:1–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bakkalbasi N, Bauer K, Glover J, Wang L. Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomed Digit Libr. 2006;3:7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Martín-Martín A, Orduna-Malea E, Thelwall M. Delgado López-Cózar E. Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: a systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. J Informetr. 2018;12:1160–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Wu Y, Lau B, Bleich S, Cheskin L, Boult C, Segal J, et al. Future Research Needs for Childhood Obesity Prevention ProgramsIdentification of Future Research Needs From Comparative Effectiveness. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US). Report no.: 13-EHC036-EF2013; 2013.

  11. Black RE, Victora CG, Walker SP, Bhutta ZA, Christian P, de Onis M, et al. Maternal and child undernutrition and overweight in low-income and middle-income countries. Lancet. 2013;382:427–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lachat C, Roberfroid D, Van den Broeck L, Van den Briel N, Nago E, Kruger A, et al. A decade of nutrition research in Africa: assessment of the evidence base and academic collaboration. Public Health Nutr. 2015;18:1890–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bastian M, Heymann S, Jacomy M. Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks 2009. Available from: https://gephi.org/publications/gephi-bastian-feb09.pdf.

  14. Zhao DZ, Strotmann A. Counting first, last, or all authors in citation analysis: a comprehensive comparison in the highly collaborative stem cell research field. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec. 2011;62:654–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Pratt CA, Stevens J, Daniels S. Childhood obesity prevention and treatment: recommendations for future research. Am J Prev Med. 2008;35:249–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ward DS, Vaughn A, Story M. Expert and stakeholder consensus on priorities for obesity prevention research in early care and education settings. Child Obes. 2013;9:116–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kumanyika SK, Gary TL, Lancaster KJ, Samuel-Hodge CD, Banks-Wallace J, Beech BM, et al. Achieving healthy weight in African-American communities: research perspectives and priorities. Obes Res. 2005;13:2037–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Buzzard IM, Sievert YA. Research priorities and recommendations for dietary assessment methodology. First International Conference on Dietary Assessment Methods. Am J Clin Nutr. 1994;59:275S–80S.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Angood C, McGrath M, Mehta S, Mwangome M, Lung’aho M, Roberfroid D, et al. Research priorities to improve the management of acute malnutrition in infants aged less than six months (MAMI). Plos Med. 2015;12:e1001812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Angood C, Khara T, Dolan C, Berkley JA, WaSt Technical Interest G. Research priorities on the relationship between wasting and stunting. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0153221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Haddad L, Hawkes C, Webb P, Thomas S, Beddington J, Waage J, et al. A new global research agenda for food. Nature. 2016;540:30–2.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Aggett PJ. Research priorities in complementary feeding: International Paediatric Association (IPA) and European Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) workshop. Pediatrics. 2000;106:1271.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Curtin C, Must A, Phillips S, Bandini L. The healthy weight research network: a research agenda to promote healthy weight among youth with autism spectrum disorder and other developmental disabilities. Pediatr Obes. 2017;12:e6–e9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. D’Andreamatteo C, Davison KM, Vanderkooy P. Defining research priorities for nutrition and mental health: insights from dietetics practice. Can J Diet Pr Res. 2016;77:35–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ohlhorst SD, Russell R, Bier D, Klurfeld DM, Li Z, Mein JR, et al. Nutrition research to affect food and a healthy life span. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;98:620–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. UNSCN. United nations global nutrition agenda (UNGNA v. 1.0). 2015.

  27. Nagata JM, Ferguson BJ, Ross DA. Research priorities for eight areas of adolescent health in low- and middle-income countries. J Adolesc Health. 2016;59:50–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, UK Aid. Agriculture for Improved Nutrition: A Future Research Agenda. 2017.

  29. Lachat C, Nago E, Roberfroid D, Holdsworth M, Smit K, Kinabo J, et al. Developing a sustainable nutrition research agenda in sub-Saharan Africa-findings from the SUNRAY project. PLoS Med. 2014;11:e1001593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. James Lind Alliance [cited 2019 13th August]. Available from: http://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk.

  31. Ghent University. Better Nutrition Research- Research Priorities 2020. Available from: https://betternutritionresearch.ugent.be/research-priorities.

  32. Sarli CC, Dubinsky EK, Holmes KL. Beyond citation analysis: a model for assessment of research impact. J Med Libr Assoc. 2010;98:17–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Alley DE, Ferrucci L, Barbagallo M, Studenski SA, Harris TB. A research agenda: the changing relationship between body weight and health in aging. J Gerontol A Biol. 2008;63:1257–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Brown KH, Hess SY, Boy E, Gibson RS, Horton S, Osendarp SJ, et al. Setting priorities for zinc-related health research to reduce children’s disease burden worldwide: an application of the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative’s research priority-setting method. Public Health Nutr. 2009;12:389–96.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Byrne S, Wake M, Blumberg D, Dibley M. Identifying priority areas for longitudinal research in childhood obesity: Delphi technique survey. Int J Pediatr Obes. 2008;3:120–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. McKinnon RA, Orleans CT, Kumanyika SK, Haire-Joshu D, Krebs-Smith SM, Finkelstein EA, et al. Considerations for an obesity policy research agenda. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36:351–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. McPherson AC, Ball GD, Maltais DB, Swift JA, Cairney J, Knibbe TJ, et al. A call to action: setting the research agenda for addressing obesity and weight-related topics in children with physical disabilities. Child Obes. 2016;12:59–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Menon P, Covic NM, Harrigan PB, Horton SE, Kazi NM, Lamstein S, et al. Strengthening implementation and utilization of nutrition interventions through research: a framework and research agenda. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2014;1332:39–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Ramirez AG, Chalela P, Gallion KJ, Green LW, Ottoson J. Salud America! developing a national latino childhood obesity research agenda. Health Educ Behav. 2011;38:251–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Antonio Sanna for producing the figure in high quality using Adopt illustrator cc, Joseph Millum, Ph.D., M.Sc. for reviewing and providing feedback.

Funding

There was no outside funding for this study. DH is supported by the special research fund (BOF) from Ghent University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Conceptualization: CL, DH, WP. Supervision: CL, WP. Wrote the first draft of the manuscript: DH. Contributed to the writing of the manuscript: CL, JER, WP, PK. Analysis: DH, JER. Agree with the study design, and findings: DH, JER, WP, CL, PK. All authors have read, and confirm that they meet ICMJE criteria for authorship.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carl Lachat.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

This study was conducted according to the guidelines laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki. Authors were asked to return an informed consent declaration by email. In accordance to Belgian Law, the questionnaire did not need clearance from an ethics committee.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hawwash, D., Pinxten, W., Raneri, J.E. et al. Uptake and impact of priority setting exercises in nutrition research publications. Eur J Clin Nutr 75, 198–208 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-020-00729-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-020-00729-w

Search

Quick links