|
Citation
|
Mikton CR, Tanaka M, Tomlinson M, Streiner DL, Tonmyr L, Lee BX, Fisher J, Hegadoren K, Evans Pim J, Wang SJS, MacMillan HL. Bull. World Health Organ. 2017; 95: 36-48. |
|
Abstract
|
OBJECTIVE: Despite progress, major gaps in violence prevention research remain. This study aims for the first time to establish global research priorities for interpersonal violence prevention using a systematic approach.
Methods: Global research priorities were identified in a three-round process. In Round 1, global experts inviolence prevention (N=95) generated research questions to be ranked in Round 2, which were collated and organized according to the four-step public health approach to prevention. In Round 2, experts (N=280) ranked priority among the four steps of the public health approach, as well as research priorities within each step. In Round 3, for the public health step identified as the highest priority in Round 2,experts (N=131) rated detailed research questions.
Findings: In Round 2, "developing and evaluating interventions" was identified as the top priority withinthe public health approach for four of six types (child maltreatment, intimate partner violence, armed violence, sexual violence) and "scaling up and evaluating the cost-effectiveness of interventions" wasranked lowest for all types. In Round 3, in relation to "developing and evaluating interventions", research addressing parenting, and laws to regulate the use of firearms received the highest ratings. Key limitations of the study were the response rates and attrition; these were however in line with other similar priority setting exercises.
Conclusion: These findings suggest it is premature to be scaling up violence prevention interventions. Developing and evaluating smaller scale interventions should be the funding priority.
Language: en |