Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been a growing concern regarding research waste and the mismatch between conducted research and the research needs of knowledge users. The Needs Led Research (NLR) approach is proposed as an effective method to ensure that research address actual evidence gaps that are relevant to the users of the knowledge. By search and reviewing literature and involving knowledge users, NLR aims to identify, verify, and prioritize research needs. This paper describes and compares the implementation of the NLR approach in two separate PhD projects within maternity care, and addresses the challenges encountered throughout the processes, aiming to offer valuable insights for future NLR initiatives. METHODS: The NLR processes consisted of four phases: (1) defining the scope (2) identifying and verifying research needs (3) prioritizing research needs and (4) designing the PhD projects. Literature searches were conducted during Phase 2, while knowledge user involvement took place in Phases 2 and 3. The knowledge user involvement, at a co-thinker and advocatory level, included knowledge user groups and surveys. Project groups, who were responsible for all decision-making, conducted Phases 1 and 4. The scopes of the PhD projects were labor induction (NLR-LINO) and fetal monitoring in low-risk deliveries (NLR-LISTEN). RESULTS: In NLR-LINO, 17 research needs were identified and verified as actual evidence gaps relevant for the knowledge users. Among these, ten were rated as "very important" by a majority of the 322 survey respondents. The aim of the PhD LINO project was defined as "To investigate whether outpatient induction of labor is beneficial in a Norwegian setting." In NLR-LISTEN, seven research needs were identified and verified as actual evidence gaps relevant for the knowledge users. These were prioritized by 466 survey respondents, and the aim of the PhD LISTEN project was defined as "To investigate the methods used for fetal monitoring in low-risk deliveries in Norway and evaluate adherence to evidence-based practice while also exploring potential reasons for any deviations." CONCLUSIONS: This paper shows that the NLR is a viable approach for prioritizing research. The findings highlight the impact of the initial scope on subsequent phases and emphasize the importance of pragmatic decision-making throughout the process. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that NLR requires dedicated resources, and if integrated into PhD projects, additional time and training should be allocated accordingly.