Prioritising research to better address high-consequence outbreaks

Researchers from the PSI Policy and Practice Group have published the first mapping of research priority-setting exercises for high-consequence pathogens. 

Disease outbreaks caused by high-consequence pathogens – such as H5N1 virus, Ebola virus, Zika virus and SARS-CoV-2 – have the potential to lead to devastating morbidity and mortality globally.  

When outbreaks occur, research prioritisation is essential to support the allocation of limited resources while maximising impact.  This is especially true in the context of high-consequence pathogens, when research can only be undertaken whilst the outbreak is occurring and research opportunities are dependent on the unpredictability of outbreaks.   

The present study identifies opportunities for improvement and greater alignment to existing standards for enhancing the effectiveness of future research prioritisation exercises.   

Key research findings 

There has been so far limited analysis of research priority-setting in the context of outbreaks caused by high-consequence pathogens. In consultation with the GloPID-R Research in LMICs Working Group, the PSI Policy and Practice Research Group undertook a scoping review of the literature to map priority-setting exercises and analyse the approaches to conducting, reporting and applying the resulting priorities.  

The authors analysed papers presenting priority-setting activities on 17 high-consequence pathogens. Encompassing 125 journal articles and reports published between 1975 and 2022, the review found that:

• Most activities focused on COVID-19 or followed other major disease outbreaks; 

• Research priorities were developed following a variety of approaches, with most involving external consultations via meetings, surveys and interviews; 

• Most publications provided limited details on the  approaches taken to identify research priorities and on plans for monitoring progress. In particular, a  lack of clarity emerged on who the “experts” consulted were and what the rationale for their involvement was. 

Lead author Dr Emilia Antonio, PSI Research and Policy Advisor, said: “Our results highlight the diversity in research prioritisation practice and a limited application of the existing standards in health research prioritisation.  

“An increased uptake of these standards and harmonisation of practice may improve the quality and confidence in priority-setting activities and ultimately the alignment of research with identified research needs”. 

Senior author Dr Alice Norton, Head of the PSI Policy and Practice Research Group, said: “We identified significant research prioritisation efforts in response to disease outbreaks, however very few of these studies included plans to either monitor progress or update priorities.