Volume 22, Issue 2 (Summer 2025)
2025, 22(2): 111-122 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: IR.TMI.REC.1400.020
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
teimour pour A, Karimi G, Amini-Kafiabad S, Maghsudlu M, Vafaiyan V, Mokhtari shirvani M, et al . Formulating Research Priorities in Iran’s Blood Transfusion: Enhancing Research System for Improved Outcomes. Journal of Iranian Blood Transfusion 2025; 22 (2) :111-122
URL: http://bloodjournal.ir/article-1-1594-en.html
URL: http://bloodjournal.ir/article-1-1594-en.html
Amir Teimour pour 
, Gharib Karimi * , Sedigheh Amini-Kafiabad , Mahtab Maghsudlu , Vida Vafaiyan , Maryam Mokhtari shirvani , Mohadeseh Rastegar , Nahid Aminipour
, Gharib Karimi * , Sedigheh Amini-Kafiabad , Mahtab Maghsudlu , Vida Vafaiyan , Maryam Mokhtari shirvani , Mohadeseh Rastegar , Nahid Aminipour
Abstract: (84 Views)
A B S T R A C T
Background and Objectives
Establishing research priorities is essential for optimizing scientific impact and ensuring that funding is directed toward high-priority areas. This study aimed to identify research priorities for the High Institute for Research and Education in Transfusion Medicine (IRETM) for the period 2023–2026, through the active participation of leading experts and key stakeholders.
Materials and Methods
This qualitative study applied a systematic process based on international models and conventional content analysis. Diverse stakeholder, including policymakers, academic faculty, provincial blood centers directors, and scientific societies participated in the prioritization process through a combination of in-person meetings, group discussions sessions, scoring, and online communication platforms. Scoring criteria were adapted from the "Essential National Health Research" approach, comprising 12 evaluative items. Among these, three criteria were considered essential, including the adequacy and effectiveness of available information, ethical considerations, and legal aspects. Failure to meet any of these three criteria resulted in the exclusion of the proposed topic from the priority list. Data were finalized using structured forms and reviewed by expert and project coordination groups. Final topics and subjects were determined using a quantitative scoring method. In the final stage, the list of subjects under each area was reviewed and approved by Research Council.
Results
A total of 161 prioritized research subjects, categorized in to 13 area, were approved by the steering committee (Research Council) and presented as final research priorities. The highest number of subjects were found in the categories of "Donation and Donors", "Blood Safety" and "clinical aspect of Blood Transfusion" reflecting participants’ perception of their strategic significance. Other areas such as quality system, plasma and its derivatives, and Immunohematology were also notable.
Conclusions
This study showed that using an integrated approach, coupled with active engagement from diverse stake holders, enhance to identify research needs and strengthens the prioritization process. Compared to earlier versions, the new list featured a notable increase in the number of proposed topics and a broader scope of coverage.
Background and Objectives
Establishing research priorities is essential for optimizing scientific impact and ensuring that funding is directed toward high-priority areas. This study aimed to identify research priorities for the High Institute for Research and Education in Transfusion Medicine (IRETM) for the period 2023–2026, through the active participation of leading experts and key stakeholders.
Materials and Methods
This qualitative study applied a systematic process based on international models and conventional content analysis. Diverse stakeholder, including policymakers, academic faculty, provincial blood centers directors, and scientific societies participated in the prioritization process through a combination of in-person meetings, group discussions sessions, scoring, and online communication platforms. Scoring criteria were adapted from the "Essential National Health Research" approach, comprising 12 evaluative items. Among these, three criteria were considered essential, including the adequacy and effectiveness of available information, ethical considerations, and legal aspects. Failure to meet any of these three criteria resulted in the exclusion of the proposed topic from the priority list. Data were finalized using structured forms and reviewed by expert and project coordination groups. Final topics and subjects were determined using a quantitative scoring method. In the final stage, the list of subjects under each area was reviewed and approved by Research Council.
Results
A total of 161 prioritized research subjects, categorized in to 13 area, were approved by the steering committee (Research Council) and presented as final research priorities. The highest number of subjects were found in the categories of "Donation and Donors", "Blood Safety" and "clinical aspect of Blood Transfusion" reflecting participants’ perception of their strategic significance. Other areas such as quality system, plasma and its derivatives, and Immunohematology were also notable.
Conclusions
This study showed that using an integrated approach, coupled with active engagement from diverse stake holders, enhance to identify research needs and strengthens the prioritization process. Compared to earlier versions, the new list featured a notable increase in the number of proposed topics and a broader scope of coverage.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Blood Transfusion
References
1. Nasser M, Crowe S. An introduction to research priority setting (RPS) for research groups in the Cochrane collaboration: Guidance sheet 1; 2018. Available from: https://methods.cochrane.org/prioritysetting/resources.
2. Grill C. Involving stakeholders in research priority setting: a scoping review. Res Involv Engagem 2021; 7(1): 75. [DOI:10.1186/s40900-021-00318-6] [PMID] []
3. Setting Research Priorities: Evidence and Evaluation Guidance Series. Sydney: NSW Health; 2023. p. 4-19. [DOI:10.17925/OHR.2023.19.2.4]
4. Ebrahimipour H, Heidari S, Doshmangir L, Esmailzade H. Research setting priority and different ways of them. jhosp 2009; 8(2): 57-64. [Article in Farsi]
5. 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(1): 36. [DOI:10.1186/1478-4505-8-36] [PMID] []
6. Gammon RR, Coberly E, Dubey R, Jindal A, Nalezinski S, Varisco JL. Patient blood management--It is about transfusing blood appropriately. Annals of Blood 2022 Jun 30;7. [DOI:10.21037/aob-21-70]
7. Yadav SK, Hussein G, Liu B, Vojjala N, Warsame M, El Labban M, Rauf I, et al. A Contemporary Review of Blood Transfusion in Critically Ill Patients. Medicina 2024; 60(8): 1247. [DOI:10.3390/medicina60081247] [PMID] []
8. Martin D, Singer P. A strategy to improve priority setting in health care institutions. Health Care Anal 2003; 11: 59-68. [DOI:10.1023/A:1025338013629] [PMID]
9. Owlia P, Eftekhari MB, Forouzan AS, Bahreini F, Farahani M, Ghanei M. Health research priority setting in Iran: Introduction to a bottom up approach. J Res Med Sci 2011; 16(5): 691-8.
10. Damari B, Aghababa S. Review of setting research priorities in health care of Iran. J Sabzevar Univ Med Sci 1396; 24(6): 19-28. [Article in Farsi]
11. Karimi G, Damari B, Gharehbaghian A, Rahbari M, Vafaiyan V, Minab Salemi E. Need-assessment and research priorities-setting in IBTO Research Center. Sci J Iran Blood Transfus Organ 2005; 2(4): 123-34. [Article in Farsi]
12. Bates I, Hassall O, Mapako T. Transfusion research priorities for blood services in sub‐Saharan Africa. Br J Haematol 2017; 177(6): 855- 63. [DOI:10.1111/bjh.14577] [PMID]
13. Stanworth SJ, Brand A, Kaveri SV, Vrielink H, Greinacher A, Domanović D, et al. The EHA research roadmap: transfusion medicine. HemaSphere 2022; 6(2): e670. [DOI:10.1097/HS9.0000000000000670] [PMID] []
14. Hibbs SP, Brunskill SJ, Donald GC, Saunders HD, Murphy MF. Setting priorities for research in blood donation and transfusion: outcome of the James Lind Alliance priority‐setting partnership. Transfusion 2019; 59(2): 574-81 [DOI:10.1111/trf.15077] [PMID]
15. Garry J, Tomlinson M, Lohan M. The potential role of AI in research priority setting exercises. J Glob Health 2025; 15: 03019. [DOI:10.7189/jogh.15.03019] [PMID] []
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
