Why English? | Reporting REPRISE Research Priority Setting Through Scope, Governance, Stakeholders, Ranking, Feedback and Implementation

ORIENTATION

What this guide owns

Current fact check

REPRISE has 31 reporting items in 10 domains. Its development used 26 framework sources, 455 primary studies and pilot application to 30 diverse priority-setting studies.

Canonical boundary

This article owns transparent reporting of health-research priority setting. It does not own Delphi reporting, general consensus studies, grant allocation or every organisational planning exercise.

Worked example

Every chapter returns to a fictional priority-setting exercise on research questions that could improve academic-support access for new secondary-school students. It is fictional, low-stakes and educational; it does not report a real school, clinical decision or guaranteed outcome.

Warm up with eduKate’s guides to explaining scientific evidence and asking better questions in class.

CHAPTER 1 OF 16

1. Define the Context and Why Prioritisation Is Needed

Back to contents

Why this move matters

Describe the setting, problem, available resources, existing research agenda and reason priorities must be chosen now.

Name the allocation problem

For define the context and why prioritisation is needed, state what scarce resource or attention is being allocated, who benefits and who has authority. Describe the setting, problem, available resources, existing research agenda and reason priorities must be chosen now. Priority language is meaningful only inside that decision context.

Trace a concern into a research question

Use the worked exercise: The exercise addresses uneven access to academic support during school transition with a limited research budget. Preserve the original concern, show who reformulated it and record every merge, exclusion or wording change before ranking.

Audit voice, criteria and power

Ask which groups participated, which could not, what criteria shaped the ranking and who controlled ties or final decisions. A transparent process can still contain unequal influence.

Move from ranking to action

State whether the item is ranked, selected, funded, commissioned or completed, then add this boundary: Urgency can narrow participation or favour immediately measurable questions. Careful stage language prevents a priority list from becoming a false promise.

Student, parent and career transfer

Make one evidence card for “Define the Context and Why Prioritisation Is Needed”: source location, plain-language meaning, limit and next question. A parent or teacher can ask for one everyday explanation and one specialist explanation; both must preserve the same conditions. This habit supports research management, public engagement, education, health policy, funding strategy and collaborative planning without promising a grade, admission, funding decision or job.

CHAPTER 2 OF 16

2. Set the Scope and Intended Beneficiaries

Back to contents

Why this move matters

Specify health or education area, population, geography, research type, time horizon and who should benefit from the final agenda.

Name the allocation problem

For set the scope and intended beneficiaries, state what scarce resource or attention is being allocated, who benefits and who has authority. Specify health or education area, population, geography, research type, time horizon and who should benefit from the final agenda. Priority language is meaningful only inside that decision context.

Trace a concern into a research question

Use the worked exercise: The scope covers school-based support for new secondary students in Singapore and excludes clinical mental-health treatment. Preserve the original concern, show who reformulated it and record every merge, exclusion or wording change before ranking.

Audit voice, criteria and power

Ask which groups participated, which could not, what criteria shaped the ranking and who controlled ties or final decisions. A transparent process can still contain unequal influence.

Move from ranking to action

State whether the item is ranked, selected, funded, commissioned or completed, then add this boundary: A narrow scope improves focus while leaving connected needs outside the exercise. Careful stage language prevents a priority list from becoming a false promise.

Student, parent and career transfer

Make one evidence card for “Set the Scope and Intended Beneficiaries”: source location, plain-language meaning, limit and next question. A parent or teacher can ask for one everyday explanation and one specialist explanation; both must preserve the same conditions. This habit supports research management, public engagement, education, health policy, funding strategy and collaborative planning without promising a grade, admission, funding decision or job.

CHAPTER 3 OF 16

3. State the Objectives and Intended Use

Back to contents

Why this move matters

Explain whether the output will guide funding, commissioning, partnerships, evidence generation or future policy and name the users.

Name the allocation problem

For state the objectives and intended use, state what scarce resource or attention is being allocated, who benefits and who has authority. Explain whether the output will guide funding, commissioning, partnerships, evidence generation or future policy and name the users. Priority language is meaningful only inside that decision context.

Trace a concern into a research question

Use the worked exercise: The ranked agenda will inform a two-year pilot research fund and partnership discussions. Preserve the original concern, show who reformulated it and record every merge, exclusion or wording change before ranking.

Audit voice, criteria and power

Ask which groups participated, which could not, what criteria shaped the ranking and who controlled ties or final decisions. A transparent process can still contain unequal influence.

Move from ranking to action

State whether the item is ranked, selected, funded, commissioned or completed, then add this boundary: An intended use is not a guarantee that funders will act on the list. Careful stage language prevents a priority list from becoming a false promise.

Student, parent and career transfer

Make one evidence card for “State the Objectives and Intended Use”: source location, plain-language meaning, limit and next question. A parent or teacher can ask for one everyday explanation and one specialist explanation; both must preserve the same conditions. This habit supports research management, public engagement, education, health policy, funding strategy and collaborative planning without promising a grade, admission, funding decision or job.

CHAPTER 4 OF 16

4. Describe Governance and the Decision Team

Back to contents

Why this move matters

Report leadership, steering roles, decision authority, expertise, diversity, conflicts and accountability for process changes.

Name the allocation problem

For describe governance and the decision team, state what scarce resource or attention is being allocated, who benefits and who has authority. Report leadership, steering roles, decision authority, expertise, diversity, conflicts and accountability for process changes. Priority language is meaningful only inside that decision context.

Trace a concern into a research question

Use the worked exercise: Students, teachers, researchers and a fund representative sit on a steering group with published roles. Preserve the original concern, show who reformulated it and record every merge, exclusion or wording change before ranking.

Audit voice, criteria and power

Ask which groups participated, which could not, what criteria shaped the ranking and who controlled ties or final decisions. A transparent process can still contain unequal influence.

Move from ranking to action

State whether the item is ranked, selected, funded, commissioned or completed, then add this boundary: Diverse membership does not automatically equal balanced power. Careful stage language prevents a priority list from becoming a false promise.

Student, parent and career transfer

Make one evidence card for “Describe Governance and the Decision Team”: source location, plain-language meaning, limit and next question. A parent or teacher can ask for one everyday explanation and one specialist explanation; both must preserve the same conditions. This habit supports research management, public engagement, education, health policy, funding strategy and collaborative planning without promising a grade, admission, funding decision or job.

CHAPTER 5 OF 16

5. Name the Priority-Setting Framework or Adaptation

Back to contents

Why this move matters

Identify the framework, principles, modifications and why it fits the topic and stakeholders.

Name the allocation problem

For name the priority-setting framework or adaptation, state what scarce resource or attention is being allocated, who benefits and who has authority. Identify the framework, principles, modifications and why it fits the topic and stakeholders. Priority language is meaningful only inside that decision context.

Trace a concern into a research question

Use the worked exercise: The team adapts a published partnership approach and records changes for student participation. Preserve the original concern, show who reformulated it and record every merge, exclusion or wording change before ranking.

Audit voice, criteria and power

Ask which groups participated, which could not, what criteria shaped the ranking and who controlled ties or final decisions. A transparent process can still contain unequal influence.

Move from ranking to action

State whether the item is ranked, selected, funded, commissioned or completed, then add this boundary: A named framework can still be implemented superficially. Careful stage language prevents a priority list from becoming a false promise.

Student, parent and career transfer

Make one evidence card for “Name the Priority-Setting Framework or Adaptation”: source location, plain-language meaning, limit and next question. A parent or teacher can ask for one everyday explanation and one specialist explanation; both must preserve the same conditions. This habit supports research management, public engagement, education, health policy, funding strategy and collaborative planning without promising a grade, admission, funding decision or job.

CHAPTER 6 OF 16

6. Define Stakeholder Groups and Eligibility

Back to contents

Why this move matters

Explain whose knowledge and experience are relevant, selection criteria, recruitment, numbers and missing perspectives.

Name the allocation problem

For define stakeholder groups and eligibility, state what scarce resource or attention is being allocated, who benefits and who has authority. Explain whose knowledge and experience are relevant, selection criteria, recruitment, numbers and missing perspectives. Priority language is meaningful only inside that decision context.

Trace a concern into a research question

Use the worked exercise: Current students, recent graduates, parents, teachers and support staff have distinct eligibility routes. Preserve the original concern, show who reformulated it and record every merge, exclusion or wording change before ranking.

Audit voice, criteria and power

Ask which groups participated, which could not, what criteria shaped the ranking and who controlled ties or final decisions. A transparent process can still contain unequal influence.

Move from ranking to action

State whether the item is ranked, selected, funded, commissioned or completed, then add this boundary: Category labels can conceal differences within a stakeholder group. Careful stage language prevents a priority list from becoming a false promise.

Student, parent and career transfer

Make one evidence card for “Define Stakeholder Groups and Eligibility”: source location, plain-language meaning, limit and next question. A parent or teacher can ask for one everyday explanation and one specialist explanation; both must preserve the same conditions. This habit supports research management, public engagement, education, health policy, funding strategy and collaborative planning without promising a grade, admission, funding decision or job.

CHAPTER 7 OF 16

7. Make Participation Accessible and Safe

Back to contents

Why this move matters

Report formats, language, compensation, support, consent, privacy and adaptations that reduce barriers to contributing.

Name the allocation problem

For make participation accessible and safe, state what scarce resource or attention is being allocated, who benefits and who has authority. Report formats, language, compensation, support, consent, privacy and adaptations that reduce barriers to contributing. Priority language is meaningful only inside that decision context.

Trace a concern into a research question

Use the worked exercise: Students can submit anonymous questions before a facilitated workshop and receive plain-language materials. Preserve the original concern, show who reformulated it and record every merge, exclusion or wording change before ranking.

Audit voice, criteria and power

Ask which groups participated, which could not, what criteria shaped the ranking and who controlled ties or final decisions. A transparent process can still contain unequal influence.

Move from ranking to action

State whether the item is ranked, selected, funded, commissioned or completed, then add this boundary: Accessibility measures cannot remove every power difference or participation cost. Careful stage language prevents a priority list from becoming a false promise.

Student, parent and career transfer

Make one evidence card for “Make Participation Accessible and Safe”: source location, plain-language meaning, limit and next question. A parent or teacher can ask for one everyday explanation and one specialist explanation; both must preserve the same conditions. This habit supports research management, public engagement, education, health policy, funding strategy and collaborative planning without promising a grade, admission, funding decision or job.

CHAPTER 8 OF 16

8. Collect Candidate Research Priorities Transparently

Back to contents

Why this move matters

Describe evidence reviews, surveys, workshops, interviews and how raw concerns became researchable questions.

Name the allocation problem

For collect candidate research priorities transparently, state what scarce resource or attention is being allocated, who benefits and who has authority. Describe evidence reviews, surveys, workshops, interviews and how raw concerns became researchable questions. Priority language is meaningful only inside that decision context.

Trace a concern into a research question

Use the worked exercise: A concern about embarrassment is translated into several testable questions without deleting the student's original meaning. Preserve the original concern, show who reformulated it and record every merge, exclusion or wording change before ranking.

Audit voice, criteria and power

Ask which groups participated, which could not, what criteria shaped the ranking and who controlled ties or final decisions. A transparent process can still contain unequal influence.

Move from ranking to action

State whether the item is ranked, selected, funded, commissioned or completed, then add this boundary: Researchers may over-edit lived concerns into familiar academic language. Careful stage language prevents a priority list from becoming a false promise.

Student, parent and career transfer

Make one evidence card for “Collect Candidate Research Priorities Transparently”: source location, plain-language meaning, limit and next question. A parent or teacher can ask for one everyday explanation and one specialist explanation; both must preserve the same conditions. This habit supports research management, public engagement, education, health policy, funding strategy and collaborative planning without promising a grade, admission, funding decision or job.

CHAPTER 9 OF 16

9. Remove Duplicates Without Erasing Difference

Back to contents

Why this move matters

Explain coding, merging, rewording, exclusions and who checked whether apparently similar questions were genuinely equivalent.

Name the allocation problem

For remove duplicates without erasing difference, state what scarce resource or attention is being allocated, who benefits and who has authority. Explain coding, merging, rewording, exclusions and who checked whether apparently similar questions were genuinely equivalent. Priority language is meaningful only inside that decision context.

Trace a concern into a research question

Use the worked exercise: Questions about private access and anonymous access remain separate after stakeholder review. Preserve the original concern, show who reformulated it and record every merge, exclusion or wording change before ranking.

Audit voice, criteria and power

Ask which groups participated, which could not, what criteria shaped the ranking and who controlled ties or final decisions. A transparent process can still contain unequal influence.

Move from ranking to action

State whether the item is ranked, selected, funded, commissioned or completed, then add this boundary: Over-merging can silence a distinct mechanism or population need. Careful stage language prevents a priority list from becoming a false promise.

Student, parent and career transfer

Make one evidence card for “Remove Duplicates Without Erasing Difference”: source location, plain-language meaning, limit and next question. A parent or teacher can ask for one everyday explanation and one specialist explanation; both must preserve the same conditions. This habit supports research management, public engagement, education, health policy, funding strategy and collaborative planning without promising a grade, admission, funding decision or job.

CHAPTER 10 OF 16

10. Define Prioritisation Criteria Before Ranking

Back to contents

Why this move matters

State criteria such as importance, feasibility, equity, answerability, potential impact or neglect and explain how they were chosen.

Name the allocation problem

For define prioritisation criteria before ranking, state what scarce resource or attention is being allocated, who benefits and who has authority. State criteria such as importance, feasibility, equity, answerability, potential impact or neglect and explain how they were chosen. Priority language is meaningful only inside that decision context.

Trace a concern into a research question

Use the worked exercise: Participants rate importance, equity and answerability before seeing aggregate rankings. Preserve the original concern, show who reformulated it and record every merge, exclusion or wording change before ranking.

Audit voice, criteria and power

Ask which groups participated, which could not, what criteria shaped the ranking and who controlled ties or final decisions. A transparent process can still contain unequal influence.

Move from ranking to action

State whether the item is ranked, selected, funded, commissioned or completed, then add this boundary: Criteria can favour certain methods, time horizons or institutions. Careful stage language prevents a priority list from becoming a false promise.

Student, parent and career transfer

Make one evidence card for “Define Prioritisation Criteria Before Ranking”: source location, plain-language meaning, limit and next question. A parent or teacher can ask for one everyday explanation and one specialist explanation; both must preserve the same conditions. This habit supports research management, public engagement, education, health policy, funding strategy and collaborative planning without promising a grade, admission, funding decision or job.

CHAPTER 11 OF 16

11. Describe Ranking, Voting and Consensus Procedures

Back to contents

Why this move matters

Report scales, rounds, weighting, facilitation, quorum, ties, missing responses and how disagreement affected decisions.

Name the allocation problem

For describe ranking, voting and consensus procedures, state what scarce resource or attention is being allocated, who benefits and who has authority. Report scales, rounds, weighting, facilitation, quorum, ties, missing responses and how disagreement affected decisions. Priority language is meaningful only inside that decision context.

Trace a concern into a research question

Use the worked exercise: Two survey rounds are followed by a meeting for tied questions, with stakeholder-group results preserved. Preserve the original concern, show who reformulated it and record every merge, exclusion or wording change before ranking.

Audit voice, criteria and power

Ask which groups participated, which could not, what criteria shaped the ranking and who controlled ties or final decisions. A transparent process can still contain unequal influence.

Move from ranking to action

State whether the item is ranked, selected, funded, commissioned or completed, then add this boundary: A majority vote can hide intense minority concern. Careful stage language prevents a priority list from becoming a false promise.

Student, parent and career transfer

Make one evidence card for “Describe Ranking, Voting and Consensus Procedures”: source location, plain-language meaning, limit and next question. A parent or teacher can ask for one everyday explanation and one specialist explanation; both must preserve the same conditions. This habit supports research management, public engagement, education, health policy, funding strategy and collaborative planning without promising a grade, admission, funding decision or job.

CHAPTER 12 OF 16

12. Present the Output With a Decision Trail

Back to contents

Why this move matters

Publish the final priorities, scores or categories, changes, unresolved disagreement and enough process detail to trace each outcome.

Name the allocation problem

For present the output with a decision trail, state what scarce resource or attention is being allocated, who benefits and who has authority. Publish the final priorities, scores or categories, changes, unresolved disagreement and enough process detail to trace each outcome. Priority language is meaningful only inside that decision context.

Trace a concern into a research question

Use the worked exercise: Each top question links to its source concern, criterion scores and meeting decision. Preserve the original concern, show who reformulated it and record every merge, exclusion or wording change before ranking.

Audit voice, criteria and power

Ask which groups participated, which could not, what criteria shaped the ranking and who controlled ties or final decisions. A transparent process can still contain unequal influence.

Move from ranking to action

State whether the item is ranked, selected, funded, commissioned or completed, then add this boundary: A top-ten format may imply sharper differences than the underlying scores support. Careful stage language prevents a priority list from becoming a false promise.

Student, parent and career transfer

Make one evidence card for “Present the Output With a Decision Trail”: source location, plain-language meaning, limit and next question. A parent or teacher can ask for one everyday explanation and one specialist explanation; both must preserve the same conditions. This habit supports research management, public engagement, education, health policy, funding strategy and collaborative planning without promising a grade, admission, funding decision or job.

CHAPTER 13 OF 16

13. Evaluate the Process and Invite Feedback

Back to contents

Why this move matters

Report participant feedback, perceived fairness, representation, usability, unexpected effects and any independent evaluation.

Name the allocation problem

For evaluate the process and invite feedback, state what scarce resource or attention is being allocated, who benefits and who has authority. Report participant feedback, perceived fairness, representation, usability, unexpected effects and any independent evaluation. Priority language is meaningful only inside that decision context.

Trace a concern into a research question

Use the worked exercise: Participants review whether their concerns remained recognisable after question refinement and ranking. Preserve the original concern, show who reformulated it and record every merge, exclusion or wording change before ranking.

Audit voice, criteria and power

Ask which groups participated, which could not, what criteria shaped the ranking and who controlled ties or final decisions. A transparent process can still contain unequal influence.

Move from ranking to action

State whether the item is ranked, selected, funded, commissioned or completed, then add this boundary: Positive satisfaction ratings do not prove that the agenda is equitable or effective. Careful stage language prevents a priority list from becoming a false promise.

Student, parent and career transfer

Make one evidence card for “Evaluate the Process and Invite Feedback”: source location, plain-language meaning, limit and next question. A parent or teacher can ask for one everyday explanation and one specialist explanation; both must preserve the same conditions. This habit supports research management, public engagement, education, health policy, funding strategy and collaborative planning without promising a grade, admission, funding decision or job.

CHAPTER 14 OF 16

14. Plan Translation and Implementation

Back to contents

Why this move matters

Explain who will communicate, fund, commission, monitor and update priorities and what happens to important questions below the cut-off.

Name the allocation problem

For plan translation and implementation, state what scarce resource or attention is being allocated, who benefits and who has authority. Explain who will communicate, fund, commission, monitor and update priorities and what happens to important questions below the cut-off. Priority language is meaningful only inside that decision context.

Trace a concern into a research question

Use the worked exercise: The fund publishes calls aligned with the top themes and retains a visible secondary list for partnerships. Preserve the original concern, show who reformulated it and record every merge, exclusion or wording change before ranking.

Audit voice, criteria and power

Ask which groups participated, which could not, what criteria shaped the ranking and who controlled ties or final decisions. A transparent process can still contain unequal influence.

Move from ranking to action

State whether the item is ranked, selected, funded, commissioned or completed, then add this boundary: Implementation may diverge from the ranked agenda because authority and resources sit elsewhere. Careful stage language prevents a priority list from becoming a false promise.

Student, parent and career transfer

Make one evidence card for “Plan Translation and Implementation”: source location, plain-language meaning, limit and next question. A parent or teacher can ask for one everyday explanation and one specialist explanation; both must preserve the same conditions. This habit supports research management, public engagement, education, health policy, funding strategy and collaborative planning without promising a grade, admission, funding decision or job.

CHAPTER 15 OF 16

15. Report Funding and Conflicts of Interest

Back to contents

Why this move matters

Disclose who paid, funder roles, institutional interests, participant conflicts and safeguards around agenda influence.

Name the allocation problem

For report funding and conflicts of interest, state what scarce resource or attention is being allocated, who benefits and who has authority. Disclose who paid, funder roles, institutional interests, participant conflicts and safeguards around agenda influence. Priority language is meaningful only inside that decision context.

Trace a concern into a research question

Use the worked exercise: The sponsor cannot alter rankings and its representatives do not chair tie-breaking discussions. Preserve the original concern, show who reformulated it and record every merge, exclusion or wording change before ranking.

Audit voice, criteria and power

Ask which groups participated, which could not, what criteria shaped the ranking and who controlled ties or final decisions. A transparent process can still contain unequal influence.

Move from ranking to action

State whether the item is ranked, selected, funded, commissioned or completed, then add this boundary: Disclosure does not eliminate financial or institutional influence. Careful stage language prevents a priority list from becoming a false promise.

Student, parent and career transfer

Make one evidence card for “Report Funding and Conflicts of Interest”: source location, plain-language meaning, limit and next question. A parent or teacher can ask for one everyday explanation and one specialist explanation; both must preserve the same conditions. This habit supports research management, public engagement, education, health policy, funding strategy and collaborative planning without promising a grade, admission, funding decision or job.

CHAPTER 16 OF 16

16. Use Priority Language Without Overpromising

Back to contents

Why this move matters

Distinguish high priority, selected for funding, commissioned, underway and completed so readers know the actual stage.

Name the allocation problem

For use priority language without overpromising, state what scarce resource or attention is being allocated, who benefits and who has authority. Distinguish high priority, selected for funding, commissioned, underway and completed so readers know the actual stage. Priority language is meaningful only inside that decision context.

Trace a concern into a research question

Use the worked exercise: The report says top-ranked for consideration rather than funded research when no award has been made. Preserve the original concern, show who reformulated it and record every merge, exclusion or wording change before ranking.

Audit voice, criteria and power

Ask which groups participated, which could not, what criteria shaped the ranking and who controlled ties or final decisions. A transparent process can still contain unequal influence.

Move from ranking to action

State whether the item is ranked, selected, funded, commissioned or completed, then add this boundary: Priority status does not guarantee evidence, implementation or benefit. Careful stage language prevents a priority list from becoming a false promise.

Student, parent and career transfer

Make one evidence card for “Use Priority Language Without Overpromising”: source location, plain-language meaning, limit and next question. A parent or teacher can ask for one everyday explanation and one specialist explanation; both must preserve the same conditions. This habit supports research management, public engagement, education, health policy, funding strategy and collaborative planning without promising a grade, admission, funding decision or job.

PRACTICE LAB

Build a priority decision trail

Student route

1. Choose one original report inside this guide’s scope.
2. Copy its objective and underline actor, action, context, evidence and intended decision.
3. Draw the specific reasoning chain used in this article.
4. Mark each step reported, inferred, contested or unknown.
5. Rewrite the conclusion so it preserves the narrowest important limitation.

Parent or teacher route

Ask the learner to explain show how limited research resources became a transparent list of shared priorities twice: once to a classmate and once to a method specialist. Praise a precise correction and a well-stated unknown; both show disciplined attention to evidence.

Early-career route

Create a one-page reprise audit with source link, date checked, scope, method logic, decisive wording, contrary evidence, limit and next action. A colleague should be able to continue without guessing.

Continue with eduKate’s guides to reading course and career information and giving useful feedback in group projects.

USEFUL NEXT READING

Connect this narrow owner to its neighbour

Read the ACCORD consensus-reporting guide for a related but different reader job. Return here when the question is specifically how to show how limited research resources became a transparent list of shared priorities. This boundary keeps one canonical owner per intent.

For English practice across research, school and career communication, visit the Singapore English Tuition Centre learning site.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Questions students and parents often ask

What does REPRISE stand for?

REporting guideline for PRIority SEtting of health research.

How many items and domains are there?

REPRISE has 31 items across 10 domains.

Does REPRISE require one ranking method?

No. It asks authors to report and justify the method they used.

Is priority setting the same as consensus?

They can overlap, but priority setting specifically allocates attention among competing research needs.

Does a top priority guarantee funding?

No. Reporting should distinguish ranking, selection, funding and implementation.

Why report who participated?

The final agenda depends on whose knowledge, needs and values entered the process.