Yes / Obesity research priority setting, if conducted to a high standard, can help promote policy-relevant and efficient research. Therefore, there is a need to identify existing research priority setting studies conducted in the topic area of obesity and to determine the extent to which they followed good practice principles for research priority setting. Studies examining research priority setting in obesity were identified through searching the MEDLINE, PBSC, CINAHL, PsycINFO databases and the grey literature. The nine common themes of good practice in research priority setting were used as a methodological framework to evaluate the processes of the included studies. These were context, use of a comprehensive approach, inclusiveness, information gathering, planning for implementation, criteria, methods for deciding on priorities, evaluation and transparency. Thirteen articles reporting research prioritisation exercises conducted in different areas of obesity research were included. All studies reported engaging with various stakeholders such as policy makers, researchers and healthcare professionals. Public involvement was included in six studies. Methods of research prioritisation commonly included both Delphi and nominal group techniques and surveys. None of the 13 studies fulfilled all nine of the good practice criteria for research priority setting, with the most common limitations including not using a comprehensive approach and lack of inclusivity and evaluating on their processes. There is a need for research priority setting studies in obesity to involve the public and to evaluate their exercises to ensure they are of high quality. / National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) Yorkshire and Humber in the form of Ph.D. funding to HI [NIHR200166], the UK Prevention Research Partnership (UKPRP) in the form of funding to JW and RM [MR/S037527/1], the NIHR Clinical Research Network in the form of funding to JW, and the NIHR ARC Yorkshire and Humber in the form of funding to RM

Systematic reviews - appraisal and synthesis of all primary research - are increasingly being used to inform policy and practice in health care. Therefore, it is important to understand how the key questions in systematic reviews are identified and prioritised and whether they are relevant to policy makers, practitioners and members of the public. Research priority setting (RPS) is usually defined as any interpersonal activity that leads to the selection of topics and/or choices of key questions to investigate . Diverse approaches to setting research priorities are used in different countries, regions and organisations. There is no consensus in the literature on the most effective processes with which to set these priorities. However, these decisions define the quality and implications of the evidence, and syntheses of it, available to patients, public and policy makers to help them make informed decisions. My initial scoping work, was to design and conduct a survey across an influential international systematic review organisation (Cochrane Collaboration ) on how they set priorities for their reviews. We identified 13 structured approaches to setting priorities. As part of the project, we developed an evaluation framework that demonstrated whether the priority setting processes meet the values and principles of the Cochrane Collaboration. Subsequently, we developed an equity lens for research priority setting exercises to inform the design of research priority setting processes to ensure that they consider the priorities of disadvantaged groups along with advantaged groups. We used the equity lens to do a second evaluation on the priority setting processes in the Cochrane Collaboration. Both evaluation frameworks demonstrated that the Cochrane Collaboration requires better designed priority setting approaches and must be more transparent in reporting those processes. The evaluation of research priority setting exercises in the Cochrane Collaboration, along with the wider literature, demonstrates that research priority setting exercises cannot be evaluated in isolation from organisational cultures, values and context. Therefore, the next step of the project focused on a specific stakeholder group (major research funders) with significant influence on research, including support for systematic reviews. We selected 11 national research agencies in the UK, Netherlands, France, Norway, Denmark, Germany, Australia, Canada, and the USA. We devised and used a checklist based on Chalmers and Glasziou’s “avoidable research waste” framework (and evaluated the processes and policies of these agencies using this checklist). As previous evaluations had demonstrated, this second evaluation found a lack of transparency in the process of setting priorities for research and other related organisational and policy issues. Increased funding is needed for methodological research to evaluate research practices and to monitor how funding research projects is done and reported. My evaluation of funding agencies and the Cochrane Collaboration found a similar lack of transparency and accountability in the context of conflicting values among stakeholders that decreases accountability and scrutiny of researchers and their institutions. However, the projects have led to organisational and policy changes in the two key stakeholder groups (the Cochrane Collaboration and selected funding agencies). Officials of national health research funding agencies have approached me to collaborate with them to address the issues raised by my work on reducing research waste. This led to the establishment of Funders Forum - the Ensuring Value in Research (EViR) Funders’ Collaboration and Development Forum - to enable agencies in various countries to exchange their experience in addressing issues and creating work groups to address them. The Forum is chaired by individuals from three major research funders: NIHR (UK), ZonMW (Netherlands) and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI; USA). The Forum organises several meetings to establish common principles, standards and work plans to achieve the common objective around reducing research waste and adding value for research for a national research funder.

Yes / British South Asians have a higher prevalence of overweight and obesity than the wider population. Bradford (UK), with its high Pakistani presence and levels of economic deprivation, has exceptionally high instances, especially in deprived areas where many Pakistanis reside. British Pakistani women in Bradford are more likely to be overweight and obese. There is uncertainty on how these women can be aided to manage their weight. Therefore, the objective of this study was to explore the obesity concerns of Pakistani women living in deprived inner-city areas of Bradford. Three focus groups interviews were carried out with 23 Pakistani women living in deprived areas of Bradford. Data were analysed thematically. This exploratory study identified a wide range of concerns that women had around managing their weight. Participants disclosed distrust in information given around medication, conflicting dietary information and reported low levels of trust in women-only organized physical activities. Cultural barriers were identified, which included the gender role of the woman, the lack of culturally appropriate dietary advice, cultural misunderstandings of what constitutes a healthy diet and healthy weight, the lack of culturally suitable exercise facilities and conforming to family and community expectations. Other concerns were language barriers around a lack of understanding, the inability to read Urdu and reliance on others to translate information. These findings have implications for researchers, local authorities, policy makers and others with an interest in reducing the rates of obesity in this population. Recommendations include training health practitioners to be culturally aware of the diet and eating practices of this community, exploring different ways to support socially isolated women to be more physically active at home, addressing physical activity and diet misconceptions and designing obesity management information materials appropriate for a range of literacy levels. Public contributors were involved in the development of the interview guide and design of the research. A pilot focus group with participants not included in the present paper was used to help test and refine the focus group questions. Interview transcripts were member checked by participants, and participants assisted with data analysis. / UKPRP. Grant Number: MR/S037527/1 NIHR. Grant Number: NIHR200166

Yes / British Pakistani women have exceptionally high rates of obesity and yet are seldom heard in a research priority setting concerning weight management. The objectives of this study were (i) to ascertain what multisectoral professionals perceive to be the most pressing unmet obesity needs or topic areas that need more research in relation to Pakistani women living in deprived areas of Bradford and (ii) to determine the top 10 obesity health priorities for this group to develop an obesity research agenda. Methods: A two‐step process was adopted using the following: (i) a survey of a wide range of multisectoral professional stakeholders (n= 159) and (ii) a ranking exercise involving Pakistani women living in deprived areas of Bradford (n= 32) to select and prioritize their top 10 obesity health concerns and unmet needs from a list of 31statements identified in the survey and previous research. Survey data were analysed using inductive content analysis and themes were identified. Themes were translated into statements to be ranked by Pakistani women. The ranking exercise was conducted by telephone either via voice or video call. Data were analysed using a reverse scoring system. Results: Survey responses were grouped into statements reflecting the following three categories: education needs; healthy behaviour barriers and mental well‐being. The highest rankings were given by Pakistani women to statements on mental health and the need for education. The top 10 prioritized statements were developed with members of the public into an obesity research agenda that reflected the target population. Conclusion: Actively engaging British Pakistani women in setting research priorities provided a unique opportunity to understand the key areas they think are important for future research. The culminating research agenda can be used by researchers to advance the field of obesity research in Pakistani communities, thus producing research outputs that are relevant to and have impact in this population. Patient or Public Contribution: Participants in the ranking exercise collected data. Public contributors were involved in developing the prioritized statements into are search agenda. / NIHR, Grant/Award Number: NIHR200166;UKPRP, Grant/Award Number:MR/S037527/1

Background: Obesity disproportionately affects Pakistani women and rates of obesity related conditions are high in Bradford. Research priority setting can guide the development of policy and practice, resulting in more relevant research. There are no research prioritisation exercises targeted at obesity in Pakistani women. Aim: To develop an obesity research agenda with Pakistani women living in deprived inner-city areas of Bradford. Methods: Using a feminist participatory action research design, a five stage process was adopted involving the following: (i) A systematic review to identify the gaps in knowledge (ii) face-to-face interviews with 21 Pakistani women to generate their health concerns (iii) focus groups to explore the obesity concerns of 23 Pakistani women (iv) survey to identify unmet obesity needs of Pakistani women according to 160 local, multisectoral stakeholders (v) adapted consensus method involving 32 Pakistani women to rank their identified concerns and unmet needs in order of importance. Results: The study identified needs related to cultural and language constraints, including barriers in obtaining health promotion information and the social isolation of women. Education needs and misconceptions surrounding diet and physical activity were also identified. Highest rankings were given to concerns and needs surrounding the mental health of Pakistani women, education needs for a healthy diet, and the benefits of physical activity. Conclusion: Pakistani women’s unmet obesity needs highlight the existence of wider determinants of health that are structural in nature. Considering these barriers, a research agenda was developed from the findings and reflect the obesity health needs of this population. / Funding through Born in Bradford

Yes / Participation of community stakeholders in health research priority setting is an emerging trend. Despite this, the involvement of marginalised groups in research prioritisation is limited and where they are involved, sample sizes are small, where individuals are merely consulted with, rather than coproducing the research agenda. Without addressing power dynamics inherent in research prioritisation with marginalised groups, their engagement in the research process can be tokenistic and the resulting research agenda unreflective of their needs. This article, therefore, aims to generate knowledge on how feminist participatory action research was used to co-produce an obesity research agenda with British Pakistani women, a seldom heard population, living in deprived areas. The methodology enabled Pakistani women to be involved in all stages of the project, culminating in the co-production of an obesity research agenda that accurately reflects their unmet needs. Women’s engagement in the project led to their increased confidence, the formation of relationships that lasted beyond the research project, improvements to their lifestyles, and engagement in further research. Feminist participatory action research may be used by researchers as a guiding methodology due to its ability to improve women’s lives and develop research agendas for women’s health. / National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) Yorkshire and Humber [NIHR200166], the UK Prevention Research Partnership (UKPRP) - [MR/S037527/1], the NIHR Clinical Research Network, NIHR ARC Yorkshire and Humber / Research Development Fund Publication Prize Award winner, Jul 2023.