Science Shops as key intermediary structures to respond to the current health research agenda bias: Evidence from the InSPIRES project.

INTRODUCTION

To increase the likelihood of research responding to societal needs, intermediary structures such as Science Shops are being created. Science Shops respond to research needs identified and prioritized through participatory processes involving civil society. However, these are not mainstream structures, and most research needs addressed by the scientific community are not defined by a diversity of stakeholders (including citizens) but are mostly prioritized by researchers and funders. Literature shows this often leads to bias between the research topics investigated and the research needs of other relevant stakeholders. This study analyses how 14 Science Shops contribute to decreasing bias in health research agenda setting.

METHODOLOGY: We compare the research priorities identified through participatory processes by the Science Shops, which participated in the European Union-funded project InSPIRES (2017-2021), to the available research addressed in the literature (identified in Web of Science), which we use as a proxy for current research priorities.

RESULTS

Science Shop projects contributed to decreasing the existing bias in health research agenda setting: (1) between drug and nondrug treatments and (2) between clinical trials of treatments for illnesses affecting high-income versus middle- and low-income countries, which leads to a lack of local strategies for high disease burdens in nonhigh-income regions.

CONCLUSION

This study provides the first evidence of Science Shops' effectiveness in addressing current biases in health research agenda setting. We conclude they could play a key role in shaping local, national and international research policies.