Research priority setting in health professions education: A systematic review

Javier Flores-Cohaila¹Fritz Fidel Váscones-Román²Brayan Miranda- Chavez³Miguel Pinto-Salinas⁴Jeff Huarcaya-Victoria⁵Cesar Copaja-Corzo^6*

• ¹Universidad Cientifica del Sur, Miraflores, Peru
• ²Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima District, Peru
• ³Universidad Privada de Tacna, Tacna, Peru
• ⁴Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima District, Peru
• ⁵Universidad Privada San Juan Bautista, Lima District, Peru
• ⁶School of Human Medicine, San Ignacio de Loyola University, Lima, Peru

Background: Research priority-setting exercises can guide resource allocation, strengthen methodological rigor, and align research efforts with educational and clinical needs in health professions education (HPE). However, existing exercises have not been appraised against recognized reporting standards, and no synthesis of their identified priorities has been attempted, limiting the ability to identify common threads across the HPE community. Aim: To synthesize existing research priority-setting studies conducted in HPE by identifying, critically appraising, and mapping the current body of literature. Methods: This systematic review followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines and the STORIES statement. PubMed, Scopus, and the Web of Science were searched for peer-reviewed studies reporting research priority-setting exercises in HPE published between January 2000 and February 2026. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligibility. Data extraction was guided by the REPRISE guidelines. Studies were critically appraised using the checklist of nine common themes of good practice for research priority-setting exercises (9CTGP). A thematic analysis classified research priorities using the Medical Education Research Library framework. Protocol registration: PROSPERO CRD42023400999. Results: Twenty-four studies met the inclusion criteria, most published in the last decade and predominantly focused on medical education within national or regional settings. No study used an existing framework for research priority setting, and none included plans for evaluating or updating their priorities. Fewer than one-third reported using a comprehensive approach (29.2%), and only 16.7% planned for implementation. Patients and trainees were underrepresented. The thematic analysis identified 14 themes and 46 subthemes. The most prevalent priorities across studies were curriculum and program evaluation (45.8%), development and evaluation of technology in HPE (45.8%), interprofessional education (41.7%), and faculty recruitment, motivation, and retention (37.5%). Conclusions: Research priority-setting exercises in HPE are growing but show methodological inconsistencies, limited stakeholder diversity, and absence of evaluation plans. These findings highlight the need for specific guidance on conducting research prioritization in HPE and support efforts to develop a set of global research priorities built on common threads while respecting disciplinary and contextual specificities.