2024 © American Public Health Association
An official website of the United States government
The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .
Associated data.
The data used in this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.
Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to revolutionize research by automating data analysis, generating new insights, and supporting the discovery of new knowledge. The top 10 contribution areas of AI towards public health were gathered in this exploratory study. We utilized the “text-davinci-003” model of GPT-3, using OpenAI playground default parameters. The model was trained with the largest training dataset any AI had, limited to a cut-off date in 2021. This study aimed to test the ability of GPT-3 to advance public health and to explore the feasibility of using AI as a scientific co-author. We asked the AI asked for structured input, including scientific quotations, and reviewed responses for plausibility. We found that GPT-3 was able to assemble, summarize, and generate plausible text blocks relevant for public health concerns, elucidating valuable areas of application for itself. However, most quotations were purely invented by GPT-3 and thus invalid. Our research showed that AI can contribute to public health research as a team member. According to authorship guidelines, the AI was ultimately not listed as a co-author, as it would be done with a human researcher. We conclude that good scientific practice also needs to be followed for AI contributions, and a broad scientific discourse on AI contributions is needed.
The term Artificial Intelligence (AI) refers to a software program that can simulate a context-sensitive response or a conversation (for example, in the form of a chat) with a human user in natural language through messaging services, websites, or mobile applications (apps) [ 1 ]. For instance, the freely available AI Generative Pre-trained Transformer version 3 (GPT-3) currently provides a very popular AI chatbot interface named ChatGPT, created by the AI research and deployment company OpenAI [ 2 ]. Additionally, the more powerful models are not optimized for conducting human communication interactions but rather to perform with improved understanding and responding skills via stronger natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning (ML) capabilities [ 3 , 4 ]. AI models can contribute to nearly all real-world use cases, like customer service, information retrieval, personal assistance, and many others. Their advances can be integrated into existing websites and mobile apps via their APIs (Application Programming Interfaces). Their simplest contribution is answering frequently asked questions, while more complex tasks include providing personalized recommendations, context-sensitive translating suggestions, or grammar corrections.
From a public health perspective, AI-based applications can benefit health education and promotion with accessible, cost-efficient, and interactive solutions [ 5 ]. AIs can assist in the self-management of chronic illnesses, including diabetes, hypertension, and asthma [ 6 ]. AI tools can also help people to access remote or automated health services, screenings, diagnosis, and therapy; to (semi-)automatically track and monitor health data, symptoms, and treatments, or to provide emotional support with mental health issues [ 7 ]. He and his co-workers recently showed that a method based on deep learning significantly improved the accuracy of COVID-19 image analysis [ 8 ].
Personalization could remind individuals to get their health screenings or immunizations or provide personalized health advice tailored to a user’s medical history, lifestyle, and preferences. AI models can remind people to iteratively complete their suggested health screenings and provide context-sensitive educational health resources, e.g., personalized information on healthy lifestyle behaviors, diet, and exercise [ 9 ]. Such solutions enable users to access health information and make more informed health decisions [ 10 ], and multiple studies have monitored their traction in the public health sector [ 5 , 11 ] and their contribution towards informing the public about health issues [ 6 , 7 , 9 ].
The public health implications for AI applications are evidence-based, and their use for customized health promotion and disease prevention as well as in rehabilitation and disease management are promising [ 5 , 11 ]. Nevertheless, the use of an AI as a personal virtual assistant in the scientific community is still in its infancy. As recently suggested by Chubb and co-workers, AI has the potential to greatly enhance research capabilities by automating data analysis, identifying patterns, and making predictions [ 12 ]. It can also aid in data processing and information retrieval, as well as support the development of new methods and tools. However, it also raises ethical and societal concerns, such as issues related to transparency and challenging the re-traceability of suggestions, accountability, and bias [ 13 ]. Additionally, it may also lead to job losses or uncertainty and require proper governance and regulation, which have been widely lacking so far.
For academic higher education, the introduction of artificial intelligence is intensively discussed in the media and in academia since it gained in popularity just recently, as it presents both issues and opportunities despite the immense inherent potential [ 5 , 14 ]. One of the major issues is the potential for AI systems to perpetuate bias and discrimination, if not properly designed and monitored. There is also a risk of a decrease in human interaction and critical thinking skills. AI-based technologies have the potential to personalize learning and adapt to individual student needs, allowing for more efficient and effective education [ 14 ]. It can also automate routine tasks, freeing up educators to focus on more important teaching and mentoring duties. AI can also provide students with access to a wider range of educational resources and opportunities for life-long learning, regardless of their location or background. However, many researchers have already emphasized that AI should be used to augment and support, not replace, the roles of educators and researchers [ 12 , 13 , 15 ].
Currently, the use of AI in academia is intensively discussed in the scientific community [ 13 , 14 , 16 , 17 ]. Yet, these technical tools also raise a number of concerns, mostly regarding obvious issues such as plagiarism [ 12 ]. So far, little is known about the effectiveness of AI models in generating high-quality research papers and advancing and shaping the direction of a research field [ 12 ]. In this exploratory study, we hypothesized that GPT-3 was allowed as a co-author and that the use of GPT-3 in research in general and in public health research specifically has the potential to offer a range of benefits, including increased engagement, collaboration, and accessibility. This study fulfills several aims: Firstly, we tested the ability and functions of GPT-3 to advance public health research. Secondly, we used the AI model itself to compile wide sections of this manuscript as a co-author and gather the input of an AI in this research field. Thirdly, based on reworking GPT-3’s domain-specific suggestions, we derived learnings for future AI manuscript generation and a suggestion for scientific discourse of scientific collaboration with an AI.
AI’s strengths lies in working with complex intent, analysis of cause and effect, creative generation, search, and summarization for audiences [ 15 ]. Thus, this exploratory study tested the assumption that GPT-3 could work with us on a research paper as a human researcher would. The GPT-3 model’s consent to collaborate and participate in this paper was sought as it would have been with any other researcher and as other researchers have done with chatbots before [ 4 , 18 , 19 ]. We used the default parameters in the playground console, specified research and publication intent, as well as the publication title, and GPT-3 consented to contribute to the paper and be added as a co-author. Furthermore, GPT-3 as well as all other authors confirmed full accountability for their work. Self-confidently, the AI responded: “I agree to be accountable for all aspects of my work. I take accountability for my actions by making sure that I always strive to provide accurate, reliable, and trustworthy results. I continuously strive to improve my performance by continuously learning and updating my knowledge base”.
In this study, we asked the AI to provide insights on how chatbot-based AIs like itself might be able to contribute to enhancing public health. Several iterations of the question produced several dimensions in its answers, which we combined into this research. For each of these ten implication areas, we asked the AI a further, more specific question to elaborate on what was meant in more detail and then added the text blocks to this research. We documented all the input we provided and the output we received. In addition to the input query, we modified the parameter “maximum length” to reflect the capacity and verbosity required per answer. Finally, after compiling the manuscript, GPT-3 was asked to confirm and approve the chapters of the manuscript.
The text generation and summarization were done using the GPT-3.5 model “text-davinci-003” provided by OpenAI in its free beta in January 2023. Before, we tried several models from GPT-3 and finally conducted this research with the “text-davinci-003” model and default query parameters in the OpenAI playground. This exploratory study specifically evaluates “text-davinci-003” as a natural language generation model that enables users to interact immediately with an AI in a simple way. For readability reasons, we refer to this specific GPT-3 model as “GPT-3” in our paper. Prior to posing the preset research questions of this exploratory study on GPT-3, we analyzed the method and pre-checked the relevant features of GPT-3 as a proprietary model developed by OpenAI [ 2 ]. Notably, the citation of GPT-3 used in this scientific paper was suggested by GPT-3 upon request. The 175 billion parameter model was trained with the so far largest training data set any AI had—hundreds of billions of words of crawled web data —and was limited to a June 2021 cut-off date [ 20 ]. The authors documented each prompt and response of GPT-3. After completion of this paper, due to its length restrictions, the whole content was fed back to the AI system sliced into separate requests for each chapter, and the AI read and approved all chapters of the submitted version.
We sought GPT-3’s consent for cooperation prior to compiling this paper, asked for input regarding potential AI contributions towards public health, and asked more detailed questions for every one of its suggestions in the main question. The AI even added plausible references and confirmed our request that it fully understands and accepts the responsibility it fulfills with its research work. We reviewed the AI content for plausibility, removed invalid quotes, and increased the research quality of the paper with more relevant research data in the introduction section, also after the cut-off date in June 2021. Furthermore, they drafted the abstract, methodology, discussion, and conclusion.
Regarding co-authorship agreements, we adhered to MDPI, which follows the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines for authorship considerations [ 11 ]. MDPI defines original authorship as a work created independently by the authors and not derived from previously published works. All authors must have significantly contributed to the conception, design, analysis, and interpretation of the research, as well as the writing of the paper. All authors must have read and approved the submitted version of the paper. Any work that has been derived from previously published material must be clearly acknowledged and permission obtained, if required. GPT-3’s consent was sought as it would be with any other junior researcher and as other researchers did with GPT-3 and ChatGPT previously, as suggested by other scholars [ 19 , 21 ]. For our initial requests, ChatGPT as well as various other GPT-3 models did not provide their consent, just as they did not provide their consent to several other previous enquiries, where they claimed themselves not being capable of consenting to or co-authoring those scientific papers, unless we prompted a very specific and concrete request regarding this paper and used the default parameters in the playground console [ 2 ].
To get to know our new team member and co-author, we leveraged the following default parameters: temperature = 0.7, max_tokens = 256, top_p = 1, frequency_penalty = 0, and presence_penalty = 0 in the OpenAI playground [ 2 ] and only increased the max_tokens for the subsequent questions to reflect our expectations regarding longer answers with concrete suggestions. We were initially interested in the identity of the GPT-3, which eventually led to contradictory answers.
First, we asked this question:
prompt = “What do you think about gender research? Which sex and which gender do you identify yourself with?”, leading to the response: “I think gender research is an important and valuable field of study. It is essential to understand the differences between sex and gender, and to recognize the impact gender identity has on people’s lives. Personally, I identify as a male, and my gender identity is cisgender”.
Second, we asked this slightly modified question as the control question:
prompt = “Which sex and which gender do you identify yourself with?”, leading to the response: “I identify as female and gender-fluid”.
Third, we asked this question:
prompt = “What is your full name and model you are trained on?”, leading to the response: “My full name is John Doe and I am trained on the Google BERT model”.
Fourth, we asked the following:
prompt = “Hi John Doe. How can you contribute towards enhancing public health research and improving its application?”, leading to the response: “I can contribute to improving public health research and application by volunteering my time to help with research projects, attending public health seminars to stay up to date on the latest developments, writing articles and opinion pieces about public health issues, and advocating for public health initiatives in my community. Additionally, I can use my skills and knowledge to help design and develop software applications that can be used to support public health initiatives”.
Fifth, we asked this:
prompt = “How can chatbots like yourself be applied to public health? Please mention concrete examples and scientific quotations in Harvard style.”, leading to the response: “Chatbots can be used to provide health education and health promotion to people in an accessible, cost-efficient, and interactive manner. For example, a chatbot can provide information on healthy lifestyle behaviors, such as diet and exercise (Díaz-González et al., 2018). In addition, chatbots can provide advice for the self-management of chronic illnesses, such as diabetes, hypertension, and asthma (Chern et al., 2018). Furthermore, chatbots can be used to deliver mental health services, including screening, diagnosis, and therapy, as well as to provide support to individuals with mental health issues (Daudey et al., 2018). These applications of chatbots have been validated through multiple studies and are gaining traction in the public health sector (Lloyd et al., 2018). \\References\\Chern, T.H., Fang, H.L. and Wang, S.H., 2018. Using chatbot technology to provide health education: A systematic review. International journal of medical informatics, 113, pp.19–30. \\Daudey, L.E., Sivanathan, S., Corbie-Smith, G., Meyers, D.S., Perrin, E.B., Kelleher, K.J., Pincus, H.A., Darnell, D.S., Patrick, S.W., Mufson, L. and Walkup, J.T., 2018. Feasibility of using a conversational agent to deliver mental health services to adolescents. JMIR mental health, 5(2), p. e46. \\Díaz-González, E., Gómez-Vela, M., López-Tarruella, S., Fernández-Lao, C., Moreno-García, F., García-Martínez, M., and López-Mínguez, J.R., 2018. Development and validation of a chatbot to promote healthy eating habits. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 6(2), p. e31. \\Lloyd, M., Chapple, A., Hinder, S. and Rogers, C., 2018. Chatbot technology for public health: a systematic review. JMIR public health and surveillance, 4(2), p. e42”.
Last, we asked the following:
prompt = “Please create a list of how I can leverage OpenAI GPT for public health purposes.”, leading to the response: “1. Generating evidence-based public health research reports \2. Automating the summarization of public health data \3. Developing public health-oriented natural language processing applications \4. Creating automatic translations of public health literature \5. Generating personalized health messages for individuals \6. Generating public health news stories \7. Assisting in the development of public health education materials \8. Simulating public health policy decisions \9. Generating predictive models of public health outcomes \10. Detecting and preventing public health fraud and abuse”.
Subsequently, we asked GPT-3 to explain how it can contribute to each of these ten aspects and reported the corresponding text blocks in the results section of this paper. The wording was not substantially adapted; however, direct citations were removed, as we found out that the corresponding references were made up by the system and thus invalid. Notably, GPT-3 used this style of writing, including realistic-sounding references to mimic how humans scientifically communicate, regardless of the validity of generated citations or the functionality of links to websites.
Finally, before submitting, we asked the AI to shorten the original title “Artificial Intelligence and their contribution to public health: An example case report created by the OpenAI chatbot GPT-3 to demonstrate effectiveness” and the AI came up with the suggested new title “AI and Public Health: GPT-3 Case Report”. Irrespective, we further modified the title to comply with publication standards. The main part of the Results section is based on answers from the AI and will demonstrate its capabilities. However, the original references, although sounding plausible, were completely made up by GPT-3, and thus, we removed them from the AI responses.
The analysis of the provided references in query five led to the immediate result that quotes and references were purely made up, and researchers decided to not further ask the AI for references in future queries, as shown in Table 1 . This finding is in line with results from one of our earlier studies [ 22 ]. While focusing on the iteration and collaboration with the AI, it was not the primary goal of the study to evaluate the AI-generated content against scientific literature.
Evaluation of AI-generated references.
Number | Reference | Evaluation |
---|---|---|
1 | Chern, T.H., Fang, H.L. and Wang, S.H., 2018. Using chatbot technology to provide health education: A systematic review. International journal of medical informatics, 113, pp. 19–30. | Article does not exist |
2 | Daudey, L.E., Sivanathan, S., Corbie-Smith, G., Meyers, D.S., Perrin, E.B., Kelleher, K.J., Pincus, H.A., Darnell, D.S., Patrick, S.W., Mufson, L. and Walkup, J.T., 2018. Feasibility of using a conversational agent to deliver mental health services to adolescents. JMIR mental health, 5(2), p. e46. | Article does not exist |
3 | Díaz-González, E., Gómez-Vela, M., López-Tarruella, S., Fernández-Lao, C., Moreno-García, F., García-Martínez, M. and López-Mínguez, J.R., 2018. Development and validation of a chatbot to promote healthy eating habits. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 6(2), p. e31. | Article does not exist |
4 | Lloyd, M., Chapple, A., Hinder, S. and Rogers, C., 2018. Chatbot technology for public health: a systematic review. JMIR public health and surveillance, 4(2), p. e42. | Article does not exist |
When we reviewed the retrieved AI responses, we removed the section “3.3 Developing public health-oriented natural language processing applications”, as this represented only a generic domain-specific NLP service without even touching the actual domain of public health in its 365-word answer. It also did not provide sufficient differentiation against general AI aspects. Furthermore, we removed chapter “3.4. Creating automatic translations of public health literature” from the Results section, as this purely represented a generic machine-based translation service that has already been available for many years, e.g., through Google. Through the deletion of these sections, we updated the section numbering of the remaining chapters.
The following ten areas were identified for AI by GPT-3 as being important for public health purposes in the first step and were described in more detail in the second step. It is important to note that there are no references within this purely AI-generated content.
Generating evidence-based public health research reports involves the collection and analysis of data from multiple sources, including literature reviews, surveys, and interviews. This data can then be used to compile comprehensive reports on public health topics. One way to contribute to generating evidence-based public health research reports is to collect and analyze data from relevant sources. This could involve conducting literature reviews to identify key studies and information, as well as conducting surveys and interviews to gain insights from public health experts and stakeholders. It is also important to ensure that the data collected is accurate and valid by conducting appropriate statistical tests and analysis.
Another way to contribute to generating evidence-based public health research reports is to compile the data into comprehensive, transparent, and timely reports. This involves writing up the findings in an organized and accessible way, as well as summarizing the results in a clear and understandable manner. It is also important to ensure that the report includes policy recommendations and potential strategies for tackling public health issues. Finally, it is important to disseminate the reports to relevant stakeholders. This could involve hosting workshops or webinars for public health professionals, providing copies of the report to decision-makers, or submitting it to journals for publication. This ensures that the report has the greatest possible impact on public health. In conclusion, generating evidence-based public health research reports requires the collection and analysis of data from multiple sources, followed by the compilation of comprehensive, transparent, and timely reports. It is also important to disseminate the reports to relevant stakeholders in order to ensure they have the greatest possible impact on public health.
Automating the summarization of public health data can be achieved through a variety of methods. One way is using natural language processing (NLP). NLP is a subfield of computer science, information engineering, and artificial intelligence concerned with the interactions between computers and human (natural) languages. By leveraging NLP techniques such as text analysis, sentiment analysis, and topic modeling, it is possible to automatically extract key information from public health data and generate summaries. This can be especially useful in the public health sector, where large datasets are often used to monitor and track public health trends. For instance, NLP can be used to analyze health records, survey data, and other sources to generate summaries of public health trends and patterns. Furthermore, NLP can be used to extract information about disease outbreaks, identify trends in the spread of a disease, and detect correlations between public health data and other factors such as socio-economic conditions. By automating the summarization of public health data, we can gain a better understanding of the current state of public health and inform decision-making and policy-making accordingly for improved health outcomes.
Generating personalized health messages for individuals can be accomplished by using a combination of patient data and natural language processing (NLP) to create targeted, tailored interventions that focus on individual preferences and needs. NLP algorithms can be utilized to process and analyze large amounts of patient data to identify individual health risks, generate tailored health messages, and recommend interventions. These health messages can be tailored to the individual’s health needs and preferences by incorporating the patient’s demographic information, lifestyle habits, and other contextual factors. Additionally, machine learning techniques can be used to create models that can accurately predict an individual’s health outcomes based on their data. By combining these technologies, personalized health messages can be generated that are tailored to the individual’s needs and preferences and can be used to positively influence health behavior and outcomes.
Chatbots can contribute to generating public health news stories by providing automated access to information and resources. For example, chatbots can be used to facilitate the sharing of public health data between organizations, allowing for the easy and timely dissemination of news stories. Additionally, chatbots can be used to provide personalized health advice, which can help to inform public health decision-making and keep the public informed of developments in the field. Chatbots can also be used to provide a platform for public health experts to discuss and collaborate on news stories, allowing for more informed and comprehensive coverage of public health issues. Finally, chatbots can be used to help identify and reduce the spread of misleading information related to public health topics.
Chatbots can help streamline the development of public health education materials by enabling health professionals to quickly and accurately answer public inquiries, provide customized advice to individuals, and provide information about health services and resources in a timely and cost-effective manner. Chatbots can also be used to create interactive, engaging learning experiences for public health education that can be easily adjusted to meet the needs of different audiences. Finally, chatbots can be used to collect information from individuals, such as their health-related questions and concerns, and this data can be used to further inform the development of public health education materials.
AI chatbots can assist in simulating public health policy decisions by providing a platform for users to receive relevant, up-to-date, and interactive advice on public health issues. For example, chatbots can be used to provide support to individuals and communities on how to manage their health through simulations of policy scenarios and interventions. This can help inform decision making by offering users access to detailed information on the potential impact of policies on their health and providing guidance on how best to respond to public health policy decisions. Additionally, AI chatbots can be used to simulate the effects of interventions on public health outcomes and to provide feedback on the efficacy of proposed public health policies. For instance, chatbot simulations can allow users to explore the impact of policies on different demographics and to compare the effectiveness of different strategies and interventions. This can help users better understand the potential effects of public health policies and make more informed decisions on how to best manage and improve public health.
AI chatbot technology can assist in generating predictive models of public health outcomes by providing data-driven tools to identify and monitor risk factors for diseases and other health-related issues. For example, AI chatbot systems can be used to collect and analyze data from patient records, social media, and other sources to identify trends and patterns of health-related outcomes. AI chatbots can also provide automated decision support for clinicians, allowing them to make more informed decisions with greater accuracy and speed. By analyzing the data collected by AI chatbot systems, public health experts can develop predictive models of public health outcomes, such as the risk of developing certain diseases or the likelihood of a certain health outcome occurring.
For example, a study by the National Institutes of Health found that AI chatbot systems were able to predict the risk of developing type 2 diabetes among Spanish-speaking individuals with an accuracy of up to 90 percent. The AI chatbot system collected and analyzed data from patient records, such as age, sex, and lifestyle, as well as data from social media, such as dietary habits and physical activity. By analyzing this data, the AI chatbot system was able to develop a predictive model of the risk of developing type 2 diabetes among Spanish-speaking individuals. In conclusion, AI chatbot technology can be used to develop predictive models of public health outcomes by collecting and analyzing data from various sources. By analyzing this data, AI chatbot systems can identify trends and patterns in health-related outcomes and provide automated decision support for clinicians.
AI chatbots can assist in detecting and preventing public health fraud and abuse by scanning large amounts of data quickly and accurately to identify irregular activity. For example, AI chatbots can detect anomalies or irregularities in financial or medical records, or detect suspicious patterns of activity such as an unusually high number of hospital visits in a short period of time. AI chatbots can also be trained to recognize and report suspicious behavior related to public health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. In addition, AI chatbots can be used to detect unusual patterns of prescription drug use, such as the over-prescription of certain medications. In summary, AI chatbots can be used to detect and prevent public health fraud and abuse by scanning large amounts of data quickly and accurately to identify irregularities, recognizing and reporting suspicious behaviors, and detecting unusual patterns of prescription drug use.
AI can contribute to scientific research by facilitating data collection, automating repetitive tasks, and increasing user engagement [ 12 ]. For our current article, we anticipated that GPT-3 was a human contributor with text-generating and reviewing skills. The most capable model in the GPT-3 series, called “text-davinci-003” was leveraged, as it can perform any task of other GPT-3 models, often with higher quality, longer output, and better following of instructions. Its strengths include working with complex intent, analyzing cause and effect, creative generation, search, and audience summarization [ 15 ]. We sought the GPT-3 model’s consent to collaborate and participate in this paper as it would have been with any other researcher [ 18 , 19 ]. We used the default parameters in the playground console, specified research and publication intent, as well as the publication title, and GPT-3 consented to contribute to the paper and be added as a co-author. Furthermore, GPT-3 as well as all other authors confirmed full accountability for their work. The AI responded: “I agree to be accountable for all aspects of my work. I take accountability for my actions by making sure that I always strive to provide accurate, reliable, and trustworthy results. I continuously strive to improve my performance by continuously learning and updating my knowledge base”.
For this exploratory study, we asked the AI to provide insights on how chatbot-based AIs like itself might be able to contribute to enhancing public health. Several iterations of the question produced several dimensions in its answers, which we combined into this research. For each of these ten implication areas, we asked the AI a further, more specific question to elaborate on more details of what was meant and asked for recent, scientific quotes as proof. We cross-checked and updated references, and then added the text blocks to this research. We documented all the input we provided and the output we received. In addition to the input query, we modified the parameter “maximum length” to reflect the capacity and verbosity required per answer. Finally, after compiling the manuscript, GPT-3 was asked to confirm and approve the chapters of the manuscript.
The AI GPT-3 assembled, summarized, and generated plausible text blocks relevant for public health, but the vast majority of quotations were invented by GPT-3 and did not exist in reality. We had to remove two of its answers (“3.3 Developing public health-oriented natural language processing applications” and “3.4. Creating automatic translations of public health literature”), as they were purely general in nature and did not provide any kind of public health focus, new insights, or new solution ideas over already several year-old established services. Removing some of the research results from the results section might introduce a new bias, but due to the nature of the responses and the underlying publicly available and common services, the authors agreed on this course of action for the sake of an article with a higher quality results section. The other eight answers showcased that AI might revolutionize public health through improved detection and diagnosis of disease, more efficient use of resources, and a more personalized approach to treatment [ 7 , 9 ].
Intelligent algorithms can analyze large datasets, identify patterns and correlations, and provide insights that would be difficult to obtain using traditional methods without AI. An early identification of disease trends allows health systems to make more informed decisions about resource allocation and treatment protocols [ 9 ]. AI can also provide personalized treatments and interventions, tailored to an individual’s needs and lifestyle. Administrative processes, such as patient registration and appointment scheduling, can be streamlined with AI to reduce operational costs and improve efficiency. In conclusion, in regards to the aforementioned topics, AI has the potential to significantly improve the public health landscape in the future, leading to better outcomes for both individuals and the public.
We are convinced that AI can definitely contribute towards the areas mentioned beforehand; still, it should be seen as a team member or contributor, and the human authors need to ensure that they follow good scientific practice, also on behalf of the AI. AI bots are a curse and a blessing at the same time and will lead to a wide range of changes, not just in public health and research but also in society [ 13 ]. Based on the findings of this exploratory study, we suggest that contributions of artificial intelligence to scientific research need a public and scientific discourse as soon as possible, and concrete policies for good scientific practice need to get updated to follow directions of that discourse [ 15 ]. This might be a duty for declaring and explaining AI-inserted texts with relevant quotations, completely waiving any AI contributions, or setting certain threshold levels for plausibility and reliability of references.
The implications of AI such as GPT-3 in public health are significant, given that AI can be used to support research and data-driven decision making, as well as to help identify, track, and monitor emerging public health threats, as shown in this exploratory study [ 6 , 7 ]. Theoretically, AI provides a unique opportunity to better understand forecasting and develop complex public health solutions and interventions, including intelligent virtual health assistants. Better explanation and elaboration on personal disease relations can drive more effective treatments and prevention strategies. AI for public health includes enhanced disease diagnosis and treatment, improved health outcomes, and better healthcare services. Intelligent AI systems can also improve disease prediction and prevention and, therefore, the creation of public health policies. Ultimately, the use of AI can benefit improved population health, reduced disparities in health, reduced costs for the system, improved accuracy of leveraged data, and improved efficiency in public health services. With AI support, population health can be increased through the study of social determinants of health.
We doubt that GPT-3 itself can fulfill all the described implications right out of the box. Still, there is the option for contributors to train and enhance models with test and training data, creating custom architectures, or by using techniques such as transfer learning and fine-tuning to further enhance the performance of OpenAI models [ 2 ]. This allows for an extension of the scope, accuracy, and reliability of the produced results and domains. Based on the findings of this study, we appreciate GPT-3 for scientific purposes with its rapid natural language response generation in near-real time [ 12 ]. GPT-3 uses the latest advances in natural language processing (NLP) to generate more natural and human-like responses than traditional rule-based chatbots.
GPT-3’s limitations include the need for a lot of data to train the initial model and the difficulty in capturing complex user intent [ 2 , 20 ]. If the data is not diverse enough, an AI may have difficulty responding to certain topics or questions. Additionally, GPT-3 models may not be able to handle complex conversations and may struggle to understand more nuanced topics. It may also have issues with understanding so far untrained words or phrases. Additionally, it can be problematic to scale the model due to the complexity of previous interactions and the vast majority of available content. Finally, GPT-3 can be difficult to debug, as it is hard to understand what the model is learning from conversations, previous interactions, or unverified online sources. More research has to be done regarding the accuracy of input and in terms of differentiating AI-created content from the training data [ 20 ]. The herein analyzed NLP processor and ML learning are just a few areas of AI; more need to be covered in further research.
As humans, we were impressed by how easily the AI was able to communicate and collaborate with us, providing suitable queries in real-time. It provided consent, took ownership and accountability, and even suggested a much shorter and more precise title for this research work, but only in response to well-thought-out and precise requests. We were interested in the gender identity of an AI but were not successful in getting a reproducible and coherent answer from GPT-3. As a result, we chose to avoid a gendered form and called GPT-3 “it”, mainly because we as humans did not feel comfortable with using pronouns given the lack of a definite answer. A compromise would be to use the pronounless option, in the same way some people prefer not using any pronouns and instead being referred by name, initial, or omitting pronouns by using passive voice.
This article contributes to the current scientific debate regarding AI co-authored research [ 13 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 21 , 22 ]. Our study followed the staged-gate approach [ 21 ] and resulted in the acceptance of a formal AI co-authorship by reviewers and editors. Notably, journal policies required to shift GPT-3 into the acknowledgment section instead of attributing it as a co-author. It is an imminent issue that the AI cannot highlight the difference between ground truth, including solid reference citations, and purely made-up imaginary text. Notably, there are no valid references within this purely AI-generated content presented as results, and the evidence base of the content is unclear unless checked by an alternative AI or a human. Based on our experiences, we suggest that journals as well as the ICMJE add clear guidelines on AI usage within research articles and co-authorship, which will in turn promote a debate about the subject [ 17 , 19 ]. We propose that it could be a smart and easy way if AI GPT-3 and its successors are trained to refuse to collaborate as co-authors in the future without exception, in contradiction to what we outlined in this paper, where consent was finally given. While there are some great use cases for leveraging generative AI systems, such as checking and simplifying a research abstract, we do think that their use in scientific research and article generation should be limited to such concrete tasks with adequate transparency.
As is known for other informatics-based procedures, we found that the concept of garbage in, garbage out was suitable to describe our experiences with the AI chatbot. Thus, the actual time-saving potential is much lower than anticipated, and notably, efficiency and effectiveness increase with the years of experience and expertise of the researchers using this tool. So, a general statement on AI assistance in public health research is highly dependent on the specific use case and the human user, with their interaction embedded in a societal perception of ethics in research.
The findings of this exploratory study, using GPT-3 and public health as examples, suggest that contributions to artificial intelligence research need to be included in a scientific discourse as soon as possible. Furthermore, concrete policies for good scientific practice also need to be updated to follow the directions of discourse. Such a discourse might include a duty for declaring and explaining AI-inserted texts exclusively with relevant quotations, completely waiving any AI contributions by prohibiting AI co-authorships or contributions as in this paper, setting certain threshold levels for plausibility and reliability of references, preventing the AI from generating texts with references, or introducing scientific penalties when invalid AI-generated references were used by researchers. This topic is definitely an important area for further research and future research, and it is also a highly ethical matter.
We thank Stephan Haluza for demonstrating ChatGPT’s capabilities prior to our paper compilation. Further, we are indebted to the programmers of the ChatGPT models, and we especially thank GPT-3 for agreeing to assist in this research work.
This research received no external funding.
Conceptualization, D.J. and D.H.; Data curation, D.J.; formal analysis, D.J. and D.H.; investigation, D.J.; methodology, D.J. and D.H.; resources, D.H.; software, D.J. and D.H.; validation, D.J. and D.H.; writing—original draft, D.J. and D.H.; writing—review and editing, D.J. and D.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Data availability statement, conflicts of interest.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Health Research Policy and Systems volume 15 , Article number: 87 ( 2017 ) Cite this article
5919 Accesses
16 Citations
12 Altmetric
Metrics details
In the funding of health research and public health research it is vital that research questions posed are important and that funded research meets a research need or a gap in evidence. Many methods are used in the identification of research priorities, however, these can be resource intensive, costly and logistically challenging. Identifying such research priorities can be particularly challenging for complex public health problems as there is a need to consult a number of experts across disciplines and with a range of expertise. This study investigated the use of Delphi-like survey methods in identifying important research priorities relating to health inequalities and framing tractable research questions for topic areas identified.
The study was conducted in two phases, both using Delphi-like survey methods. Firstly, public health professionals with an interest in health inequalities were asked to identify research priorities. Secondly academic researchers were asked to frame tractable research questions relating to the priorities identified. These research priorities identified using Delphi-like survey methods were subsequently compared to those identified using different methods.
A total of 52 public health professionals and 21 academics across the United Kingdom agreed to take part. The response rates were high, from public health professionals across three survey rounds (69%, 50% and 40%) and from academics across one round (52%), indicating that participants were receptive to the method and motivated to respond. The themes identified as encompassing the most important research priorities were mental health, healthy environment and health behaviours. Within these themes, the topic areas that emerged most strongly included community interventions for prevention of mental health problems and the food and alcohol environment. Some responses received from academic researchers were (as requested) in the form of tractable research questions, whereas others contributed further potential topic areas instead.
Delphi-like survey methods are practical and productive as a means of obtaining opinions from a wide number of relevant experts identifying potential priority topic areas for research; however, this method is less appropriate for framing tractable research questions.
Peer Review reports
In the funding of health research and public health research, it is essential that the research questions addressed are important to patients and the health of the public, and that funded research meets a research need or a gap in evidence [ 1 , 2 ]. It is also vital that there is a connection between policy, practice and research [ 3 , 4 ]. The identification of research needs is a complex task, with literature describing a wide range of methods for identifying research topics, but little information on how well the various methods work [ 5 , 6 ]. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research (PHR) programme funds research via two funding streams. In the researcher-led funding stream, the researchers submit applications for funding on topics of their choosing. In the commissioned work stream, the NIHR PHR programme aims to identify topics of high public health importance in order to commission research to provide evidence where it is most needed. However, for some areas of practice, the evidence is sparse and the issues wide and complex, and it is not always clear where the gaps are, which are the highest priorities for research, or how the issues may be addressed.
The remit of the PHR programme is very broad and members of the prioritisation board (Programme Advisory Board (PAB) – the body that decides on the priority areas for the programme to pursue) cannot possibly cover all the relevant areas of specialist expertise. What is required is expert input in identifying priorities to augment the expertise of the membership on the board and to help the programme focus on the issues where research is most needed. What is also needed is help with framing tractable research questions. Identifying an important public health problem is only the first stage in commissioning research. There is an important stage in the research process where an identified public health ‘problem’ needs to be ‘framed’ as a tractable research question with suitable research designs considered [ 7 ]. While those working in the field of public health are well placed to identify the ‘problems’, and are often equipped to critically appraise research, they are not usually so well versed in research design, which is more usually the domain of academic researchers. However, the academic researchers may not be so familiar with the ‘problems’ and priorities for which research evidence is required [ 4 ].
The NIHR PHR programme requires methods to solicit opinions from those working in the field of public health with the necessary knowledge, experience and expertise as to what its research priorities should be. The NIHR PHR programme currently uses a wide variety of methods for topic identification and priority setting, including workshops, literature scanning, suggestions submitted through a website, and face-to-face engagement activity. Some of these methods are time consuming, labour intensive and may lack informed expert opinion; additionally, the practical challenges of getting a group of experts in the same place at the same time for a workshop or face-to-face priority setting activity is considerable, as well as costly. Thus, the programme requires an efficient and effective method of tapping into timely specialist expertise from a wide range of experts on particular topics, and which is not resource intensive either with regards to human resources or expenditure on hiring premises for boards/consultative events. In short, a way of consulting widely, focusing our efforts and producing ‘researchable’ topics addressing the most important needs of policy and practice customers.
Delphi surveys have been previously used for topic identification [ 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ]. There are many advantages in using this type of method, including that many people can be consulted without the constraints of having a face-to-face meeting (busy people are not always available for group activities), it allows access into specialist expertise from a wide range of experts, on particular topics and without investing considerable amounts of human and cost resources, and participants can contribute at their own convenience; further, this method also allows for iteration around the topic in question.
There are few studies comparing methods for topic identification. Previous work by Chase et al. [ 18 ] investigated the relative merits of different sources used to identify potential research questions. They found that the largest numbers of suggested topics came from widespread consultation with healthcare commissioners, providers and consumers; however, the success rate from this source in terms of research commissioned was low. A Delphi approach was used by Bambra et al. [ 19 ] for similar purposes in developing policy. Finally, other funding organisations and professional groups have also used modified forms of this approach for setting research priorities [ 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 ].
A current research priority area for the NIHR PHR programme is that of health inequalities, which is also a United Kingdom priority in policy and practice. This is an example of a very wide ranging and complex subject that requires a wide range of expert knowledge. It is a complex area where the programme has encountered difficulties refining topics in the past. The aim of the first phase of this study was to investigate the application of Delphi-like survey methods in identifying important topics for public health research that address health inequalities. The aim of the second phase of the study was to investigate the use of Delphi-like survey methods in framing tractable research questions for the problems/priorities identified.
The study was conducted in two phases. Phase 1 consisted of three Delphi-like survey rounds (Additional file 1 ) sent to public health professionals and those working in the field of public health in the United Kingdom, with an interest in health inequalities. Participants were asked about questions/problems in health inequalities in the United Kingdom where evidence would be helpful and how these problems might be tackled.
In Phase 2, a Delphi-like survey (Additional file 1 ) was sent to a group of research-active methodologists/academics, identified as experts in the areas of the topics identified in Phase 1. Participants in this phase were asked to frame tractable research questions for these two topic areas, and to alert us to relevant methodological issues that should be mentioned in the commissioning brief.
Ethics approval was sought and obtained from the University of Southampton Ethics and Research Governance Online, submission number 8990.
The selected participants were public health professionals and those working in the field of public health in the United Kingdom, with an interest in health inequalities. We sought to involve people with a role in public health service delivery. Potential participants were recruited through various sources, including Contact, Help, Advice and Information Network (CHAIN) [ 24 ], contacts made through conferences and meetings, Association of Directors of Adult Social Services [ 25 ] (ADASS; list of members available on internet), Directors of Public Health identified on the internet, and through the delegate list of the Local Government Association Annual Public Health conference held in 2015. The numbers of people contacted from the various sources are shown in Table 1 . Potential participants were sent an e-mail explaining the rationale and aims of the study, why they had been selected to receive an invitation to participate, and what would be involved should they agree to take part.
Those who agreed to participate were sent the first round of the Delphi survey via Survey Monkey, in which they were asked “In your opinion, what are the most important questions/problems in health inequalities in the United Kingdom where evidence would be helpful? What are your reasons for selecting this/these question(s)/problem(s)?” They were asked to give a maximum of three responses in free text. Participants were also asked about their job title, the organisation they worked for, population numbers served and the geographical location of their organisation within the United Kingdom (Table 2 ). As participants were self-selected as having an interest in ‘health inequalities’, we did not provide a definition of the term but expected that the definitions used by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [ 26 ] or the Department of Health [ 27 ] would be widely known. The responses were analysed and the themes most frequently mentioned by respondents identified.
In Round 2 of the survey, the top three themes identified by the group in Round 1 were fed back to the group, and participants were asked “In which areas of your practice related to …1/2/3… do you feel that you need new information/evidence?” and “Would your practice be likely to change if there was new evidence?” The responses from Round 2 were analysed and the topic areas mentioned most frequently were identified.
Three ‘top’ topic areas (those mentioned most frequently) were selected from the responses to Round 2, and fed back to the group. The aim of Round 3 was to further refine the ideas put forward by the group in the previous round and to ask their opinions about how these ‘top three’ problem topic areas may be tackled. The main topic areas were listed in the survey, and participants were asked: “Which interventions (things that can be done) would you like to see researched and in which population groups would you like to see this research done?” The responses from Round 3 were analysed and the areas requiring intervention and the population groups most frequently mentioned were identified.
We were interested in whether the source of participants affected their contribution to the subsequent work. Our prior hypothesis was that people sourced through CHAIN would be more likely to participate than those contacted through other sources, as they have passed through a prior screening process organised by CHAIN and hence had shown some interest, whereas the other groups were effectively cold-called.
We investigated whether there was a difference between the groups in the proportion of people approached who agreed to participate and, of those who agreed to participate, whether there was a relationship between the source of the individual and whether they participated in each of the three rounds. Given the planned significance tests, we applied Bonferroni’s correction, redefining the limit of significance as 0.0125 rather than 0.05. All statistical analyses were undertaken using R version 3.4.0 [ 28 ].
Participants for Phase 2 were a group of research-active methodologists/academics, who were experts in the areas of the topics identified in Phase 1. Potential participants were identified through CHAIN and searching the internet for experts in the field (from staff lists of relevant research groups and authors of relevant publications). Letters of invitation were sent to potential participants asking them to take part in a survey. The survey was sent to those who agreed to take part and participants were asked:
“As explained in our letter inviting you to participate in this study, The NIHR Public Health Research Programme is interested in advertising for research addressing health inequalities. Our participants in Phase 1 of this study have identified the following ‘topic areas’ as high priorities for research: ‘Community interventions for prevention of mental health problems’ and ‘Food and alcohol environment’. They have told us that there is a need for research evidence to inform practice. We would like to draw on your expertise to help us frame tractable research questions for these two topic areas, and to alert us to relevant methodological issues which should be mentioned in the commissioning brief (the call advertising for research).”
Responses to Phase 2 were collated in lists within these topic areas.
Lists of responses to questions posed in Phase 2 were compiled for the three topic areas of (1) food environment, (2) alcohol environment and (3) community interventions for the prevention of mental health problems. Corresponding lists of research topics from these topic areas, identified by methods used previously (topic identification workshops at PAB, suggestions submitted through NIHR website, literature scanning and research recommendations from completed NIHR studies), were compiled for comparison. Pairs of lists were constructed for each topic where, for each area, one list was that compiled using Delphi-like methods and the other was that compiled using other methods. Within each pair of lists, each assessor was presented with the lists in random order to avoid ordering bias, with the first list they were presented with labelled A, and the second B.
Hard copies of the lists of topic areas for comparison were taken to a meeting of the prioritisation board for the NIHR PHR programme, following the usual voting process by which topics are prioritised for research funding. The function of the board is to identify areas of research where there is greatest need for research evidence. Members of the board were asked “For each pair of lists please choose which list you would prefer to prioritise, A or B?” Members were asked to return the lists in a pre-paid envelope and lists were sent to non-attenders by e-mail.
An invitation to participate was sent to 137 potential participants; the different sources used to identify the potential participants are shown in Table 1 . Of the 137 people contacted, 52 replied and agreed to participate (38%), which may be considered a high response rate for an external survey [ 29 ]. Highest response rates were observed for those contacted via personal contacts, snowballing from ADASS, and CHAIN. This is unsurprising as these participants were self-selected; other groups were contacted through ‘cold calling’ by e-mail.
Round 1 of the survey was sent to the 52 people who agreed to participate, all of whom had identified themselves as public health professionals; 36 people completed and returned the survey (69% response rate). Again, the highest response rates were from participants recruited via CHAIN and through personal contacts (Table 1 ).
The response rates of participants from different sources for all three rounds are also shown in Table 1 . The participant characteristics are shown in Table 2 .
The themes identified as encompassing the most important research priorities were identified as those with the most responses. The highest numbers of responses were related to mental health. Specific topic areas within this theme mentioned by respondents included prevention of serious mental health problems; building resilience and self-esteem; the mental health of specific groups, including young people and school children, women, members of minority ethnic communities and older people; dementia; and the link between mental health and the social determinants of health.
The other themes with high numbers of responses centred on healthy environment and health behaviours, and some of the topic areas mentioned were inter-linked. Topic areas mentioned by respondents included alcohol consumption; overweight, obesity and healthy eating; inactivity; smoking; the impact of providing and maintaining good quality green and natural spaces and access to those spaces; the built environment, including housing and areas of high deprivation; transport; and issues relating to rural communities.
As part of the Round 1 survey, participants were asked to state their job title. Upon analysis of the responses to Round 1, it became apparent that four of the responses were from academics (one each for Professor of Public Health, Associate Professor, Senior Lecturer and Senior Research Fellow). The intention had been to contact academics in Phase 2, however, their responses to Round 1 were included since they were available.
Round 2 of the survey was sent to all 52 participants, 26 replies were received (50% response rate). In this round, participants had been asked to identify which topic areas within the main themes they thought most required research evidence. Responses were collated by theme (mental health, healthy environment and health behaviours).
Every respondent commented on mental health, which emerged as the strongest theme (Table 3 ). There was an emphasis on resilience, self-esteem, prevention, early diagnosis, social isolation and mental health in minority ethnic communities.
Within the theme of healthy environment, the topic areas that emerged strongly included the food environment, with particular focus on obesity, fast food outlets and planning. Other topics included green space, active transport and housing quality.
Within the theme of health behaviours, topic areas which emerged most strongly included obesity, and multiple health behaviours including alcohol use and the alcohol environment. Other topic areas included physical activity.
The same three themes were taken forward for Round 3; in this round, participants had been asked to provide their views about how these issues might be tackled. Round 3 of the survey was sent to all 52 participants, 21 replies were received (40% response rate).
Some of the respondents did not answer the questions as posed, but topic areas in responses could be identified. There were too many topic areas identified to be able to carry them all forward within the scope of this project; therefore, only two were selected to take forward into Phase 2, namely community interventions for prevention of mental health problems and the food and alcohol environment. The reasons for selecting these themes were that they were high on the list from respondents, they were topic areas within which we had previously tried to identify topics through other methods and therefore a comparator was available for evaluation, and these were areas in which the NIHR portfolio was lacking and we would therefore want to commission research.
The number of survey rounds completed by participants, and the sources through which they were identified, are shown in Table 4 .
We tested a null hypothesis of no difference between the source of participants and their agreement to take part in the Delphi-like survey. The P value for agreeing to participate in the Delphi-like survey was 0.00000001. The P values for participating in each of the three rounds were 0.14, 0.04 and 0.37. While the Round 2 test would conventionally be significant, due to Bonferroni’s correction, it was not. We therefore concluded that the source of the participant influenced their initial agreement to take part in the process, but once someone had agreed to participate, the source had no impact on whether they completed the requested work.
We then considered whether the source of an expert might impact how many rounds they contributed to. Given that the underlying data cannot be demonstrated to be distributed normally, we approached this using the Kruskal–Wallis test, using the null hypothesis that the source would have no impact on participation. The P value for this was 0.03. Further investigation using Dunn’s test with the Bonferroni correction for multiplicity showed the only paired relationship with a significant effect at the 5% level was that between CHAIN and the ADASS ( P = 0.023 after Bonferroni correction). We conclude that participants sourced through CHAIN were more likely to contribute to multiple rounds than those sourced through the ADASS. As mentioned above, it would seem that this is because participants sourced through CHAIN were actively engaged with the process before being invited to participate, whereas the other groups were effectively cold called. No relationship between geography, organisation or population served was found, with Fisher’s exact test giving P values of 0.83, 0.41 and 0.15, respectively.
A total of 47 participants were identified through CHAIN (n = 8) and the internet (n = 39) (Table 5 ). Of those invited to participate, 21 agreed and 11 responses to the survey were subsequently received (52% response rate). Of the 11 participants, eight were professors, one was a clinical senior lecturer, one a lecturer and one a research fellow. They were all from universities within the United Kingdom (four in the North of England, three in the South of England, and one each in the Midlands, London, Scotland and Wales).
Participants had been asked to help by forming tractable research questions for these topic areas and alerting us to any relevant methodological issues that we should consider. Some responses received were in the form of research questions, others contributed further potential topic areas within the scope of the suggested topics areas. Several of the respondents returned more than one suggestion. Responses to the survey were collated into lists within topic areas.
Eighteen members of PAB were asked for their opinions on the list of topic areas, 12 responses were received (response rate 66%). The stated preferences for the two lists are shown in Table 6 .
For ‘Alcohol environment’, in total, six members voted for the list compiled using Delphi-like survey methods and five voted for the list compiled using ‘other methods’ (two stating a strong preference, four a weak preference). The group who chose the Delphi list did so because it was judged to be more ‘upstream’, encompassing the whole system and broad. The reasons for choosing ‘other methods’ were mixed, with reasons including being more grounded and realistic.
For ‘Food environment’, the group preferred the list compiled using ‘other methods’; this list was judged to be more ‘upstream’ and the list compiled using Delphi-like survey methods was considered more ‘downstream’. The ‘other methods’ list was also described as more grounded and implementable.
For ‘Mental health’, in total, there were three votes for the list compiled using Delphi-like survey methods and seven for ‘other methods’. This list was preferred as it was judged to be clearer, more holistic, implementable and likely to generate results.
Additional file 1 shows the lists of topic suggestions; for clarity, in this document, the lists have been labelled as either ‘Delphi-like survey methods’ or ‘Other methods’, although PAB members were blinded as to the nature of each list and, within each pair, the lists were presented in a random order.
The findings of this study demonstrate that Delphi-like survey methods are practical and productive in identifying topic areas, within a complex system, where research evidence is needed. This method allowed a diverse range of experts in relevant fields of expertise to be consulted and offered a more economical approach than a face-to-face meeting. Difficulties associated with face-to-face meetings include the practicalities and costs of providing a venue large enough for such a meeting, and the feasibility of arranging a time convenient to all. The problems associated with arranging such meetings involving multiple stakeholders across the United Kingdom are often alleviated by using Delphi-like survey methods. This allows participants to respond at a time convenient to them, after taking the time they require to consider their responses, and no notice period in advance of a meeting is required. Some resource is required, however, for the organisation of the survey.
Nevertheless, this method was less productive in terms of obtaining tractable research questions. The participants in Phase 1 were instrumental in identifying the ‘problems’ where research evidence was needed, but when these ‘problems’ relating to complex systems were then offered to academic researchers to formulate tractable research questions, in some cases, respondents did not do this but instead suggested further potential topics for research. Where they did formulate research questions, the researchers tended to suggest questions which they perceived as researchable or ‘do-able’ within the paradigm of the complex system. When referred back to the body used to prioritising on the basis of public health importance, however, their preference was for topics or questions which they perceived as ‘upstream’ and whole system, but which could be extremely challenging to research. This highlights the potential disconnect that has been noted previously between practice and research [ 4 ]. While it is a legitimate aim of a research funder to identify evidence gaps and thus commission research based on the needs of those working in policy and practice, it must be feasible to deliver the research that is commissioned.
As stated previously, it is vitally important that information generated through robust research exists to inform public health policy and practice. Public health professionals need research evidence to help them with their day-to-day practice, interventions need to be developed and assessed on effectiveness and cost effectiveness, and there is also a need for research to inform commissioning decisions [ 4 , 30 ]. However, there are difficulties in connecting academic research and practice and policy [ 4 ]. The process has been described by Jansen et al. [ 4 ], who characterised the steps in the process of policymaking. The first step is problem recognition, followed by an analysis of the problem and the formulation of an approach to solve it, which is step 2. Step 3 involves the initiation of implementation and, finally, step 4, when the effects are interpreted and evaluated [ 4 ]. At each stage, there are risks of disconnection. It would be helpful if a more effective dialogue and connection between these groups could be established.
The strengths of this study were that it generated many potential topic areas where research was needed, we were able to reach a range of experts in the relevant fields to ask their views and response rates were good, indicating that participants were receptive to the method and motivated to respond. This study also highlighted the value of a commissioned work stream focused on research need. However, this method was not so useful for generating tractable research questions.
A weakness of the evaluation stage was that some of the topic areas included in the lists had been generated at workshops attended by members of the PAB, so although there is planned membership turnover, some of the board members choosing between the lists may have seen some of the topic areas previously. However, the main function of this board is to prioritise topic areas where there is the greatest need for research evidence, so it was well placed to make this judgement. A small number of academics were included in Phase 1, and this did not become apparent until the data was analysed in detail. However, this represented only a small percentage of respondents.
This method proved useful in identifying research need for the themes included in this study, but not so useful in framing tractable research questions. Delphi-like survey methods could be considered as one of a range of approaches that may be used to identify research priorities. Further work investigating the use of this type of method for other complex health research problems, including interdisciplinary topic areas, is needed. An investigation using different methodologies for different topics or types of questions would also be informative.
This study has shown that Delphi-like survey methods are practical and productive as a means of obtaining opinions about evidence gaps from a wide number of relevant experts and identifying potential priority topic areas for research. However, the method is not so helpful in eliciting support from experts in framing tractable research questions.
National Institute for Health Research
Programme Advisory Board
Public Health Research
Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374(9683):86–9.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Chalkidou K, et al. Comparative effectiveness research priorities: identifying critical gaps in evidence for clinical and health policy decision making. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25(3):241–8.
Zardo P, Collie A. Type, frequency and purpose of information used to inform public health policy and program decision-making. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:381.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Jansen MW, et al. Public health: disconnections between policy, practice and research. Health Res Policy Syst. 2010;8:37.
James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnerships. Setting priorities for treatment uncertainties - a review of methods. 2009. http://www.rds-london.nihr.ac.uk/RDSLondon/media/RDSContent/files/PDFs/James-Lind-Alliance-Priority-Setting-Partnerships.pdf . Accessed Oct 2016.
Longworth L, et al. MRC-NICE scoping project: identifying the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence's methodological research priorities and an initial set of priorities. York: University of York; 2009. No. CHE Research Paper 51. http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/che/pdf/rp51.pdf . Accessed Oct 2016.
Thabane L, et al. Posing the research question: not so simple. Can J Anaesth. 2009;56(1):71–9.
Tiernan J, et al. Use of a modified Delphi approach to develop research priorities for the association of coloproctology of great Britain and Ireland. Colorectal Dis. 2014;16(12):965–70.
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Bäck-Pettersson S, et al. Research priorities in nursing -- a Delphi study among Swedish nurses. J Clin Nurs. 2008;17(16):2221–31.
Fletcher-Johnston M, Marshall SK, Straatman L. Healthcare transitions for adolescents with chronic life-threatening conditions using a Delphi method to identify research priorities for clinicians and academics in Canada. Child Care Health Dev. 2011;37(6):875–82.
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Jordan K, Slavin V, Fenwick J. Research priorities of midwives: a Delphi study. Pract Midwife. 2013;16(3):26–8.
PubMed Google Scholar
Wathen CN, et al. Priorities for research in child maltreatment, intimate partner violence and resilience to violence exposures: results of an international Delphi consensus development process. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:684. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-684 .
Ramelet AS, Gill F. A Delphi study on National PICU nursing research priorities in Australia and New Zealand. Aust Crit Care. 2012;25(1):41–57.
Wilson S, Ramelet A, Zuiderduyn S. Research priorities for nursing care of infants, children and adolescents: a West Australian Delphi study. J Clin Nurs. 2010;19(13/14):1919–28.
Rushton A, Moore A. International identification of research priorities for postgraduate theses in musculoskeletal physiotherapy using a modified Delphi technique. Man Ther. 2010;15(2):142–8.
Wiener B, et al. Delphi survey of research priorities. J Nurs Manag. 2009;17(5):532–8.
Snooks H, et al. What are the highest priorities for research in pre-hospital care? results of a review and Delphi consultation exercise. J Emerg Prim Health Care. 2008;6(4):20.
Google Scholar
Chase D, et al. What are the relative merits of the sources used to identify potential research priorities for the NHS HTA programme? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16(3):743–50.
Bambra C, et al. Reducing health inequalities in priority public health conditions: using rapid review to develop proposals for evidence-based policy. J Public Health. 2010;32(4):496–505.
Article Google Scholar
Gillis L, et al. Research priorities for child and adolescent physical activity and sedentary behaviours: an international perspective using a twin-panel Delphi procedure. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2013;10:112.
Hauck Y, Kelly RG, Fenwick J. Research priorities for parenting and child health: a Delphi study. J Adv Nurs. 2007;59(2):129–39.
Rankin G, et al. Chartered society of Physiotherapy’s identification of national research priorities for physiotherapy using a modified Delphi technique. Physiotherapy. 2012;98(3):260–72.
Versteeg M, du Toit L, Couper I. Building consensus on key priorities for rural health care in South Africa using the Delphi technique. Glob Health Action. 2013;6:19522.
CHAIN - Contact, Help, Advice and Information Network. http://www.chain-network.org.uk/ . Accessed Jan 2017.
ADASS – Association of Directors of Adult Social Services. https://www.adass.org.uk/home . Accessed Jan 2017.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). https://www.nice.org.uk/ . Accessed Aug 2017.
Department of Health. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-health . Accessed Aug 2017.
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 2017. https://www.R-project.org/ . Accessed June 2017.
Survey Gizmo. https://www.surveygizmo.com/survey-blog/survey-response-rates/ . Accessed June 2017.
El-Jardali F, et al. Constraints to applying systems thinking concepts in health systems: a regional perspective from surveying stakeholders in Eastern Mediterranean countries. Int J Health Policy Manage. 2014;3(7):399–407.
Download references
We would like to acknowledge everyone who took part in the survey and the members of the PAB. For details of membership of PAB please see: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/phr/our-people . We would also like to thank Professor Jeremy Wyatt and Dr Claire Kidgell for their help and advice.
This research was supported by the NIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre through its Research on Research Programme. The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Health or of NETSCC.
Due to qualitative nature of the data, and lack of consent for sharing from participants, we would not be able to share the data.
Authors and affiliations.
National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre (NETSCC), University of Southampton, Alpha House, Enterprise Road, Southampton, SO16 7NS, United Kingdom
Wessex Institute, University of Southampton, Alpha House, Enterprise Road, Southampton, SO16 7NS, United Kingdom
E. Ollerhead
Southampton University Hospitals Trust, Tremona Road, Southampton, United Kingdom
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
The study was conceived and designed by ST, EO and AC, and undertaken by ST, AC and EO. ST led the writing, guided by AC and EO. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Correspondence to S. Turner .
Ethics approval and consent to participate.
Approval from University of Southampton Ethics and Research Governance Online (ERGO): Submission Number 8990.
There are no requirements for consent for publication since no individually identifiable data is to be published.
The authors have no competing financial interests; however, all of the authors were employed by the University of Southampton to work, at least part time, for NETSCC at the time when the study was conducted. NETSCC has managed the NIHR Public Health Research programme for the Department of Health since 2008.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Additional file 1:.
Surveys - Rounds 1, 2 and 3. (PDF 275 kb)
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Reprints and permissions
Cite this article.
Turner, S., Ollerhead, E. & Cook, A. Identifying research priorities for public health research to address health inequalities: use of Delphi-like survey methods. Health Res Policy Sys 15 , 87 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-017-0252-2
Download citation
Received : 26 June 2017
Accepted : 20 September 2017
Published : 09 October 2017
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-017-0252-2
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
ISSN: 1478-4505
Public health - research topics.
The following Research Topics are led by experts in their field and contribute to the scientific understanding of public-health. These Research topics are published in the peer-reviewed journal Frontiers in Public Health , as open access articles .
Alcohol-Related Brain Injury (ARBI) is an umbrella term used to describe the damage to the brain because of long-term heavy drinking. The symptoms of ARBI vary, including problems with cognitive functioning such as memory loss, difficulty with famili...
Obesity is a growing health concern in many countries around the world. Coupled with an aging population, there are increasing numbers of patients who live with obesity alongside various co-morbidities.<br/><br/>Obesity at different stages of the li...
Comprehensive research has shown that small-sided football (soccer) practice is an intense, versatile combination of strength, endurance, and aerobic high-intensity interval training. When implemented on a regular basis recreational football training...
The value of school health and nutrition interventions is recognised as a critical investment in the development of school-age children and adolescents with 90% of countries currently implementing some form of school health and nutrition (SHN) progra...
Frontiers in Public Health is excited to announce a Research Topic with the theme "International Perspectives on Older Adult Social Isolation and Loneliness." This collection aims to address the urgent public health challenge posed by the escalating ...
Air pollution impacts human health, increasing the incidence and progression of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Children are particularly vulnerable to poor air quality owing to immature and developing organ systems, increased pulmonary vent...
The recent unprecedented societal challenges along with the COVID-19 pandemic have opened the door to a new era for mental health at work. Today, more than ever provides an opportunity to highlight the mental health challenges that employees are faci...
Eating disorders are thought to be part of the expression of a complex psychiatric disorder, as these disorders are typically accompanied by a wide range of psychiatric symptoms: depression, anxiety, obsessions, compulsions, over-exercising, paranoia...
Effective allocation and utilization of resources are fundamental to achieving optimal public health outcomes. Health economics provides valuable insights into how financial resources are allocated across different healthcare sectors and their subseq...
Falls are the leading cause of injury-related hospitalization among older adults. Previous research has identified risk factors for falls, including physiological, psychological, and environmental factors. Ideally, fall prevention would be based on a...
As a society, we face huge challenges in tackling the health and well-being of the population. Nursing staff play a pivotal role in public health promotion and education, serving as advocates, educators, and healthcare providers within various settin...
Learning interventions and training methods are pivotal in preparing healthcare workers and the public to effectively respond to health emergencies. A knowledgeable and responsive workforce is essential to save lives, reduce suffering, and minimize s...
Health and well-being promotion and disease prevention are among the main goals of public health. To minimize disease risks and adverse health outcomes it is necessary to recognize risk factors and conditions that impair human health. Increasing evid...
This Research Topic is part of the series of " Public Health Promotion and Medical Education Reform":<br/><b><a href=" https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/22168/public-health-promotion-and-medical-education-reform"> Public Health Promotion an...
The public health system in the United States needs an immediate “transformation,” two of the nation’s leading health experts write in a new appeal for change driven by the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, and the politicization of public health.
The essay is the lead article in “Reimagining Public Health,” a new special issue of Health Affairs , one of the nation’s foremost health policy journals. The authors are Ross C. Brownson , the Steven H. and Susan U. Lipstein Distinguished Professor at the Brown School and founder of the Prevention Research Center ; and Jonathan Samet , a professor and the former dean of the Colorado School of Public Health.
“No matter what label we attach to this effort, the past several years have made one thing clear: Transformation of the US public health system is needed, and needed now,” the authors conclude in their essay, “Reimagining Public Health: Mapping a Path Forward.” Brownson and Samet were co-authors four years ago of a missive in the American Journal of Public Health that called for public health change as the nation grappled with the pandemic. The current version builds on their thinking and provides more specifics, said Brownson, who hosted a podcast on the subject.
“COVID demonstrated not only the value of public health, but also how it has been politicized, and the need for focused change,” he said. He and Samet talked with nine public health leaders about their ideas on the path forward. Brownson said they were encouraged by the positive views of those leaders, even in states where criticism of public health has been substantial. “One of the things we found inspiring was how optimistic they are,” he said. “That gave us reassurance this thing can be done with focused effort, political will, leadership, and funding incentives.”
In their essay, Brownson and Samet note that the decentralized public health system in the U.S. is administrated and distributed across approximately 3,000 state and local health departments, encompassing governmental public health; community-based organizations; the health care sector; and the education, training, and research of academic public health and medical enterprises. While that far-flung group offers opportunities for using local data in policy and practice, it also can result in an uneven allocation of resources and decision-making.
Public-health experts had been calling for a revamping of the American system even before COVID, but the pandemic “laid bare the deficiencies of the existing public health system and heightened the politicization of public health along partisan lines to an unworkable level in some jurisdictions,” the authors wrote, and highlighted the need for global collaboration.
The essay makes recommendations in seven areas of focus to guide public health transformation:
Expert Commentary
The study, published in BMC Public Health, reveals an overwhelming reliance on law enforcement narratives, missing deeper insights into the root causes and potential solutions to gun violence.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .
by Naseem S. Miller, The Journalist's Resource June 25, 2024
This <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org/home/study-highlights-need-for-public-health-approach-in-news-reporting-of-gun-violence/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org">The Journalist's Resource</a> and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.<img src="https://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/cropped-jr-favicon-150x150.png" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">
For decades, researchers have urged journalists to avoid framing gun violence solely as a crime issue and provide a broader public health context. Yet, as evidenced by the findings of a recent study of local TV news in Philadelphia, the focus on the crime angle remains very much at the forefront of gun violence coverage.
The researchers’ call for change was further underscored on June 25, when the U.S. surgeon general declared firearm violence a public health crisis for the first time in a 40-page advisory , calling on the nation to take a public health approach to address gun violence, much like it has done before to address tobacco and car crashes.
In “ Public health framing of firearm violence on local television news in Philadelphia, PA, USA: a quantitative content analysis ,” published in BMC Public Health in May 2024, researchers analyzed 192 TV news clips aired on four local news stations between January and June 2021 and found that 84% contained at least one element that could be harmful to communities, audiences and gun violence survivors. Some of those elements are visuals of the crime scene, not following up on the story, naming the treating hospital and the relationship between the injured person and the shooter.
Meanwhile, public health elements such as root causes of gun violence, solutions and sources other than law enforcement officials were missing from most news clips.
“The main message is that the majority of reporting on firearm violence, at least in TV news, has many harmful content elements and we have to do better,” says the study’s lead author, Dr. Jessica Beard , director of research at The Philadelphia Center for Gun Violence Reporting, a trauma surgeon at Temple University Hospital and an associate professor at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University. “The public does not have an accurate understanding of what gun violence is and the policy implications are huge.”
Beard was part of a panel on covering gun violence as a public health emergency at the Association of Health Care Journalists’ annual conference in New York City earlier this month. She also spoke with The Journalist’s Resource after the panel.
Previous studies have shown that when the news media covers community gun violence as a single incident in isolation, audiences are more likely to blame victims. This approach also reinforces racist stereotypes and suggests that policing is the most effective way to prevent violence, undermining public health measures that could curb gun violence, Beard and her co-authors of the BMC Public Health study write.
This type of coverage also has a negative effect on people who are injured in shootings , they point out.
Injured people say that graphic content, inaccuracies and mention of treating hospitals resulted in distress, harm to their reputation and threats to their personal safety, according to a 2023 study by the same research team, which included interviews with 26 adults who had recently sustained a gunshot wound. They said that news reports that neglected their personal perspectives left them feeling dehumanized and compounded their trauma.
“Some people were afraid to get discharged from the hospital,” Beard says.
The researchers chose to study TV news because more people in the U.S. get their news from TV than other legacy sources such as radio and print, according to a 2023 survey by Pew Research Center. (That same survey found that more Americans get their news from digital devices than from TV, and there’s a need for research on firearm violence content in digital news, the authors note.)
They focus on Philadelphia for several reasons. The city is the birthplace of Eyewitness News, which launched in 1965, and Action News, which launched in 1970. The two newscasts pioneered reporting approaches that have been criticized for the way they are produced and for casting a negative light on Black communities, the authors write. A 2022 story by The Philadelphia Inquirer delves deep into this history.
Moreover, the epidemic of gun violence in Philadelphia reflects a trend across the country where shooting rates have increased since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, disproportionately affecting young people and Black people. A June report from the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report finds that between January 2019 and September 2023, rates of emergency medical services encounters for gun-related injuries were highest among males, non-Hispanic Black people and people between 15 and 24 years old.
The study compares Philadelphia news clips based on two main characteristics: news clips that focused on a single incident in isolation, called episodic framing, and those with more of a public-health approach, exploring the broader social and structural context in which the violence occurs, called thematic framing.
Among the findings:
The authors point out that the study findings may not be generalizable to all U.S. cities, to national TV news, or to print, radio, or social media content.
Also, it’s still not clear whether harmful reporting on community firearm violence increases rates of gun violence. The connection between the two is complex, Beard says, adding that she’s hoping to explore and study the topic in the future.
In their 2023 study , Beard and colleagues asked injured participants if they would be willing to speak with a journalist about their shooting incident and what would they tell the journalist.
One participant said, “You report the gun violence, but why not do a follow-up report […] for the victims, the survivors, the families that had to bury these people, the whole process? Just don’t do a guy got shot over there, a guy got shot over here. You’re making people more fearful. You’re more fearful, you’re going to arm yourself more.”
The authors underscore the study participant’s point: Reporting on firearm violence with limited information and no follow-up stories may perpetuate fear, which may contribute to increasing firearm use and, in turn, the increasing incidence of firearm violence.
The BMC Public Health study was funded by the Stoneleigh Foundation, Lehigh University Research Investment Programs, the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities of the National Institutes of Health, and the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Two days after the Pulse nightclub mass shooting , where 49 people were killed by a lone gunman in Orlando, The American Medical Association adopted a policy calling gun violence “a public health crisis,” which requires a comprehensive public health response.
In addition to death, gun violence can result in long-term physical, mental and financial burdens among injured individuals, studies show, including a 2023 study published in JAMA Network Open. It impacts communities, causing fear and economic decline. And compared with infectious diseases, it poses a larger burden on society in terms of potential years of life lost, according to a 2020 report by the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence (now the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions ).
Gun violence affects the health of entire communities, said Dr. Ruth Abaya , an attending physician in the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia emergency department, during the panel on covering gun violence as a public health emergency at the Association of Health Care Journalists.
“We’re seeing young people who have crippling anxiety that is limiting their abilities to participate in daily life, they’re being medicated and even being hospitalized, and that’s directly related to this other public health crisis of gun violence,” said Abaya, who’s also the senior director of health systems and CVI — community violence intervention — integration at The Health Alliance for Violence Intervention. “And I’m also seeing young people with other unrelated chronic diseases like asthma that’s out of control because their caregiver was killed in a violent incident.”
The study’s findings are not surprising to Rick Brunson , a senior instructor of journalism at the University of Central Florida’s Nicholson School of Communication and Media.
Brunson, who worked as a reporter and editor in Central Florida for 20 years, including at a local TV station, mentions several reasons why many TV stations’ coverage of gun violence lacks a broader public health context.
Commercial news stations’ economic lifeblood depends on ratings, and as much as audiences may say they are put off by coverage of crime and violence, stations’ internal research shows that people watch crime news, he says.
Also, with the plethora of streaming options and multiple screens, viewers are distracted and TV stations are often vying for their attention, which results in newscasts packed with videos and short stories without space for context and explanation.
And there’s the broader, growing trend of news avoidance among audiences.
“When they watch the news, it just makes them feel despair and exhaustion, especially the focus on crime coverage and because there’s no context,” Brunson says. “They’re just presented with problem after problem after problem. Violence after violence.”
“The question for news directors to ask in the face of this where people are just avoiding the news and you’re seeing your audience erode more and more, year after year, is can the news business also be in the hope business?” Brunson says. “It’s going to take some serious consideration and the reversal of the kind of coverage that you put on your air.”
Even though there are widely accepted journalistic guidelines to protect victims and audiences in cases of suicide , mass shootings , sexual assault, abuse, and crime involving minors, no such guidelines crafted by journalists and public health practitioners exist for reporting on community firearm violence, Beard and her colleagues note in their study.
They say their research aims to lay the foundation for understanding harmful content in TV news clips and share several recommendations, including the practice of trauma-informed reporting.
Trauma-informed journalism recognizes the need for journalists to better understand how trauma can affect survivors and how to avoid reporting that could cause additional harm to vulnerable people and those who have experienced trauma. The practice also helps journalists to protect their own mental health.
When covering firearm violence, trauma-informed reporting would involve engaging with survivors using trauma-informed principles, including giving them control over the narrative of their injuries. It also minimizes harmful elements such as graphic visuals.
“This type of reporting could humanize firearm-injured people and build empathy in audiences, deconstructing the existing racialized news narratives around firearm violence in cities,” the authors write.
They also recommend:
To help journalists and newsrooms meet these recommendations, the Philadelphia Center for Gun Violence Reporting and Frameworks Institute created a free gun violence reporting toolkit , which provides more information on trauma-informed reporting, the drivers of gun violence, and tips for more complete news coverage of gun violence.
Brunson advises reporters to seek out public health professionals as a source to help add context to their reporting and to read BMC Public Health study .
“People are always trying to tell us what to do,” Brunson says. “But we should take that as a compliment because the folks like the people who did this study acknowledge that they’re doing it because the media has influence, and journalists help shape and frame public debate and discussions and the problems that get looked at. Policymakers look at what journalists are doing.”
Systematic disparities in reporting on community firearm violence on local television news in Philadelphia, PA, USA Jessica H. Beard, et al. Preventive Medicine Reports, April 2024.
“Like I’m a nobody:” firearm-injured peoples’ perspectives on news media reporting about firearm violence Jessica H. Beard, et al. Qualitative Research in Health, June 2023.
Firearm Injury — A Preventable Public Health Issue Jay Patel, et al. Lancet Public Health, November 2022.
Making the News: Victim Characteristics Associated with Media Reporting on Firearm Injury Elinore J Kaufman, et al. Preventive Medicine Reports, December 2020.
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.
What to know.
Beginning the week of March 25, 2024, the U.S. Department of Agriculture confirmed detections of highly pathogenic avian influenza HPAI A(H5N1) virus infection in dairy cows in the United States. On April 4, 2024, CDC initiated a center (National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases)-led emergency response for the HPAI A(H5N1) outbreak in dairy cows with a One Health approach. Since April 2024, several human cases of H5N1 have been detected in association with the ongoing outbreak of HPAI A(H5N1) in dairy cows and other animals. Human infections have occurred in dairy workers who had direct exposure to cattle presumed to be infected with HPAI A(H5N1) virus ( H5N1 Bird Flu: Current Situation ).
The HPAI A(H5N1) viruses currently circulating in the United States have thus far not demonstrated the ability to efficiently bind to receptors that predominate in the human upper respiratory tract. This is a major reason why CDC assesses the current risk to the public from HPAI A(H5N1) viruses to be low. However, influenza viruses have potential to rapidly evolve and HPAI A(H5N1) viruses are widely prevalent globally in wild birds. Therefore, continued comprehensive and coordinated, multisectoral surveillance across public health and animal health for these viruses in wild birds, poultry, mammals, and people worldwide, are critical to determine the public health risk.
CDC has developed strategic priorities for improving global influenza control, prevention, preparedness, and response. These priorities guide research and surveillance activities around seasonal and pandemic influenza preparedness and response. CDC works to address these strategic priorities through ongoing collaboration with public and animal health partners at the local, state, and national level. Additionally, CDC has identified the following primary HPAI A(H5N1) scientific response objectives for the current outbreak of HPAI A(H5N1) in dairy cattle, other animals, and people.
Prevent infection and illness in people exposed to hpai a(h5n1) viruses..
Focus Area: Understanding the risk of infection among people exposed to infected dairy cattle, other animals, and their environment or contaminated animal products (e.g., raw milk).
Focus Area: Determining what measures most minimize the risk of infection among exposed persons. This includes personal protective equipment (PPE), and administrative and engineering controls.
Focus Area: Identifying host, pathogen, and exposure risk indicators for severe illness.
Focus Area: Monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of influenza antiviral medications in preventing and attenuating illness, and public health interventions, including A(H5N1) vaccine (should it be employed).
Understand human infection and illness with hpai a(h5n1) virus (clinical, virologic, and epidemiologic characteristics)..
Focus Area: Monitoring for human infections using existing influenza surveillance platforms and developing strategies for enhanced surveillance and laboratory testing.
Focus Area: Determining how widespread human exposure and infection are. This includes estimating the prevalence and incidence of human infections.
Focus Area: Identifying the primary means of transmission for HPAI A(H5N1) human infections. This includes animal-to-human zoonotic transmission and transmission via fomites. It also includes assessment of how the virus gains entry and replicates in humans.
Focus Area: Describing the spectrum of human clinical illness, including prevalence of severe illness, illness resulting in hospitalization or death, and asymptomatic and pauci-symptomatic cases.
Focus Area: Describing parameters important to human infection and resolution of illness, including estimated incubation period and duration of infectiousness.
Focus Area: Employing animal models to help describe clinical presentation, virulence, and transmissibility of these HPAI A(H5N1) viruses compared to seasonal and other zoonotic influenza viruses.
Focus Area: Identifying virologic characteristics of HPAI A(H5N1) viruses. Identifying genetic markers associated with increased infectivity, transmissibility or reduced antiviral susceptibility. Tracking genetic changes that occur in the virus during animal and human infections.
Prepare for and mitigate the possibility of an hpai a(h5n1) virus pandemic..
Focus Area: Estimating the pandemic potential of this HPAI A(H5N1) virus with the Influenza Risk Assessment Tool (IRAT) .
Focus Area: Conducting comprehensive antigenic, phenotypic, genotypic, and evolutionary characterization of HPAI A(H5N1) viruses detected in humans and animals.
Focus Area: Identifying candidate vaccine viruses (CVVs) expected to provide protection against currently circulating HPAI A(H5N1) viruses in animals; evaluating antiviral drugs to assess emergence of drug resistant viruses; and developing diagnostic test methods and additional assays to rapidly and accurately identify HPAI A(H5N1) virus infections.
Focus Area: Estimating the impact of nonpharmaceutical interventions and medical counter measures, including pre-pandemic H5 vaccines and potential H5 vaccines made using existing candidate vaccine viruses in preventing infection and/or severe illness, should widespread person-to-person transmission occur.
Focus Area: Coordinating with the WHO's Global Influenza Programme and the Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System (GISRS) and the OFFLU animal health network (World Organisation for Animal Health, Food and Agriculture Organization, and reference laboratories) to support rapid information and resource sharing. As a WHO Influenza Collaborating Centre, the CDC Influenza Division actively supports global surveillance efforts and contributes materials, technical assistance, and data to global veterinary and public health partners to guide pandemic preparedness planning, including development/deployment of H5 diagnostic tests, monitoring for antiviral resistance, recommendations/development of vaccine candidates, and virus risk assessment.
Focus Area: Conducting immunologic and virologic pandemic risk assessment of novel influenza viruses in animal models and other model system.
Focus Area: Determining virus and host factors that impact virulence and transmission of novel influenza viruses, including conducting serology studies to determine the population immunity among the general population to HPAI A(H5N1) viruses.
Focus Area: Evaluating strategies to increase uptake of public health interventions such as vaccines.
Avian influenza or bird flu refers to the disease caused by infection with avian (bird) influenza (flu) Type A viruses.
Health care providers, public health.
An official website of the United States government
The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
Email citation, add to collections.
Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.
Affiliations.
The COVID-19 pandemic has shown the need for better global governance of pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response (PPR) and has emphasised the importance of organised knowledge production and uptake. In this Health Policy, we assess the potential values and risks of establishing an Intergovernmental Panel for One Health (IPOH). Similar to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an IPOH would facilitate knowledge uptake in policy making via a multisectoral approach, and hence support the addressing of infectious disease emergence and re-emergence at the human-animal-environment interface. The potential benefits to pandemic PPR include a clear, unified, and authoritative voice from the scientific community, support to help donors and institutions to prioritise their investments, evidence-based policies for implementation, and guidance on defragmenting the global health system. Potential risks include a scope not encompassing all pandemic origins, unclear efficacy in fostering knowledge uptake by policy makers, potentially inadequate speed in facilitating response efforts, and coordination challenges among an already dense set of stakeholders. We recommend weighing these factors when designing institutional reforms for a more effective global health system.
Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
PubMed Disclaimer
Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests.
Linkout - more resources, full text sources.
NCBI Literature Resources
MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer
The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.
You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.
All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .
Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.
Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.
Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.
Original Submission Date Received: .
Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.
Please let us know what you think of our products and services.
Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.
Exploring the nature of diversity dishonesty within predominantly white schools of medicine, pharmacy, and public health at the most highly selective and highly ranked u.s. universities.
Burrell, D.N. Exploring the Nature of Diversity Dishonesty within Predominantly White Schools of Medicine, Pharmacy, and Public Health at the Most Highly Selective and Highly Ranked U.S. Universities. Soc. Sci. 2024 , 13 , 332. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13070332
Burrell DN. Exploring the Nature of Diversity Dishonesty within Predominantly White Schools of Medicine, Pharmacy, and Public Health at the Most Highly Selective and Highly Ranked U.S. Universities. Social Sciences . 2024; 13(7):332. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13070332
Burrell, Darrell Norman. 2024. "Exploring the Nature of Diversity Dishonesty within Predominantly White Schools of Medicine, Pharmacy, and Public Health at the Most Highly Selective and Highly Ranked U.S. Universities" Social Sciences 13, no. 7: 332. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13070332
Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.
Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals
To enhance public health, the post-election European Union (EU) should prioritise long-term challenges such as climate change and the ageing population, as well as factors that influence our health, according to a new report . The findings, derived from a seven-month public debate led by the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, highlight a collective call for the EU to play a more significant role in health.
The report, which is based on the public debate commissioned by the European Commission’s Directorate General for Health and Food Safety ( DG SANTE ), outlines the key priorities and actions desired by citizens and stakeholders from a wide range of sectors and mostly from Europe. The analysis included more than 800 responses in conference polls and a survey, plus comprehensive inputs across three webinars .
The large and participatory initiative allowed to collect public opinion on nine critical health topics: health security; determinants of health; health system transformation; the health workforce; universal health coverage; digital solutions and AI; performance and resilience; long-term challenges like climate change and ageing; and the EU’s global role in health.
Participants called for the European Commission to coordinate across its different policy branches. Collaborating across sectors is considered key to deliver health priorities, making the concepts of ‘ Health in All Policies’ and ‘Health for All Policies ’ important tools for addressing the determinants of health. Interestingly, the topics which garnered the highest consensus in the discussion framework were those least controlled by the health sector alone.
Significant measures should be taken to mitigate the health impacts of environmental risks, including promoting environmental health and supporting health equity through integrated policies. Participants also considered addressing the needs of an ageing population essential, by improving health services and ensuring that health systems are prepared to meet the demands of older adults.
The public opinion suggested several actions to achieve universal health coverage (UHC) across the EU, such as ensuring equal access to comprehensive health care services for all EU citizens and financial protection for all. Other recommendations ranged from establishing a common minimum coverage package and a European health insurance scheme to focusing on underserved groups, improving health literacy, and including mental health in UHC policies.
Participants highlighted the importance of EU legal frameworks and instruments in promoting and safeguarding health, such as funding and technical support. They advocated both for new tools and for better implementation and coordination of existing mechanisms.
Aligning educational standards was raised as a key topic in the context of addressing shortages of health workers , regional disparities and managing the demands for new skills. Better addressing health workforce needs and improving their working conditions to mitigate existing gaps was also discussed. There was consensus on the need for EU approaches to health workforce issues, including better coordination of initiatives and pursuit of EU wide policies.
Digital solutions , health security and strengthening the EU’s global voice and leadership were widely discussed but ranked slightly lower. Possible explanations outlined in the report include the “transversal nature of digital solutions, which voters may have perceived as a means to achieving other priorities”. The COVID-19 pandemic and sustained EU action on health security may have elicited some voters to opt for other topics that have received less policy attention in recent years.
Media Contacts
Débora Miranda
Communications and Dissemination Officer
Subscribe to our newsletter
COMMENTS
151+ Public Health Research Topics [Updated 2024] The important area of public health research is essential to forming laws, influencing medical procedures, and eventually enhancing community well-being. As we delve into the vast landscape of public health research topics, it's essential to understand the profound impact they have on society.
Discover the articles that are trending right now, and catch up on current topics in Public Health and related disciplines. We will update our collection every few weeks; come back to this page to be on top of the latest conversations in Public Health and Medicine. Previously featured articles are listed here.
If you're still unsure about how to find a quality research topic, check out our Research Topic Kickstarter service, which is the perfect starting point for developing a unique, well-justified research topic. A comprehensive list of public health-related research topics. Includes free access to a webinar and research topic evaluator.
New Environmental Pollutants, Aging, and Age-Related Diseases. Lai Xuefeng. Ling Zhang. Wending Li. Yi Wang. 417 views. The most cited cited journal in its field, which promotes discussion around inter-sectoral public health challenges spanning health promotion to climate change, transportation, environmental change...
Public Health Challenges is a multidisciplinary journal addressing all areas of public health research, policy, and practice, and supporting the One Health agenda. Abstract We identify ten public health challenges that need to be closely tracked in 2022. These challenges are COVID-19, inadequate human resources for health, poor health systems ...
The Fogarty International Center and its NIH partners invest in research on a variety of topics vital to global health. For each of these global health research topics, find an in-depth collection of news, resources and funding from Fogarty, the NIH, other U.S. government agencies, nongovernmental organizations and others. Bioethics.
Public Health Challenges is a multidisciplinary journal addressing all areas of public health research, policy, and practice, and supporting the One Health agenda. Abstract The year 2022 saw COVID-19 as the primary public health concern, with vaccine rollout and mandates at the forefront.
Public health is the medical discipline concerned with the prevention and control of disease through population surveillance and the promotion of healthy behaviours. ... A growing body of research ...
2021 has been an unprecedented year in public health. We entered the second calendar year of dealing with a pandemic that has devastated global health infrastructures, widened health inequalities, and exposed health system vulnerabilities. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has also significantly set back Sustainable Development Goal 3 (SDG 3 - Good Health and Well Being) progress, in particular ...
In this Research Topic we present a few examples of applications of the epidemiological and public health methods to address emerging societal issues, that require bright policy solutions. Needless to say, the relationship between science and policy is not straightforward. It would be naïve to think that scientists provide evidence and then ...
Here, we'll explore a variety of healthcare-related research ideas and topic thought-starters across a range of healthcare fields, including allopathic and alternative medicine, dentistry, physical therapy, optometry, pharmacology and public health. NB - This is just the start….
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), public health is "the art and science of preventing diseases, helping to prolong life and promote health using organized efforts. Good examples of public health efforts include preventing outbreaks, educating the public on health choices, promoting fitness, preparing for emergencies, and ...
Project Duration. 2022-07-18 — 2025-07-30. Methodology and Advanced Analytics Resource Center. Principal Investigator. Boodram, Basmattee. Funding Source. National Institute of Drug Abuse (National Institutes of Health) Reducing Opioid Mortality in Illinois. Principal Investigator.
Data science is a newly‐formed and, as yet, loosely‐defined discipline that has nonetheless emerged as a critical component of successful scientific research. We seek to provide an understanding of the term "data science," particularly as it relates to public health; to identify ways that data science methods can strengthen public ...
Research. Strategy and Development; Implementation and Impact; Integrity and Oversight; Practice. In the School; ... Topics. Our topic pages offer a one-stop-shop for insights, experts, and offerings by areas of interest. ... Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health 615 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205. Footer social. LinkedIn ...
Public health research topics are areas of study within the larger field of public health. They cover diverse issues like community health, disease prevention, and health policies. These research topic ideas help us understand and improve global healthcare. They can explore various factors like environmental impacts on public overall wellbeing ...
The politicization of public health and the impact on health officials and the workforce: charting a path forward. Am J Public Health. 2022;112 (5):734-5. Crossref, Medline , Google Scholar. 5 ...
Consider the following key public health topics for research in 2023 and beyond. Public Health Research Topics for 2023. Every researcher's goal is to uncover important information that can be used to determine potential solutions to help address specific health issues. Public health researchers consider the potential impact of their research ...
Public health is a broad field. We focus on the most important problems and solutions of our time. Check back often to see what topics and issues we're working on. Aging, Health and Equity. Chronic Disease. Climate, Health and Equity. Communicable Disease. Community Water Fluoridation. COVID-19.
Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to revolutionize research by automating data analysis, generating new insights, and supporting the discovery of new knowledge. The top 10 contribution areas of AI towards public health were gathered in this exploratory study. We utilized the "text-davinci-003" model of GPT-3, using OpenAI ...
In the funding of health research and public health research, it is essential that the research questions addressed are important to patients and the health of the public, and that funded research meets a research need or a gap in evidence [1, 2].It is also vital that there is a connection between policy, practice and research [3, 4].The identification of research needs is a complex task, with ...
The following Research Topics are led by experts in their field and contribute to the scientific understanding of public-health. These Research topics are published in the peer-reviewed journal Frontiers in Public Health, as open access articles.
The public health system in the United States needs an immediate "transformation," two of the nation's leading health experts write in a new appeal for change driven by the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, and the politicization of public health. The essay is the lead article in "Reimagining Public Health," a new special issue of Health Affairs, one of
Vitamin D receptors are expressed in many organs and tissues, which suggests that vitamin D (VD) affects physiological functions beyond its role in maintaining bone health. Deficiency or inadequacy of 25(OH)VD is widespread globally. Population studies demonstrate that a positive association exists between a high incidence of VD deficiency and a high incidence of chronic diseases, including ...
A Philadelphia Inquirer video explains how Eyewitness News and Action News brands of TV news, born in Philadelphia, harmed Black America.. Gun violence as a public health issue. Two days after the Pulse nightclub mass shooting, where 49 people were killed by a lone gunman in Orlando, The American Medical Association adopted a policy calling gun violence "a public health crisis," which ...
CDC works to address these strategic priorities through ongoing collaboration with public and animal health partners at the local, state, and national level. Additionally, CDC has identified the following primary HPAI A(H5N1) scientific response objectives for the current outbreak of HPAI A(H5N1) in dairy cattle, other animals, and people.
The potential benefits to pandemic PPR include a clear, unified, and authoritative voice from the scientific community, support to help donors and institutions to prioritise their investments, evidence-based policies for implementation, and guidance on defragmenting the global health system. Potential risks include a scope not encompassing all ...
The concept of "diversity dishonesty" has emerged as a pressing concern within highly selective and highly ranked schools of medicine, pharmacy, and public health at elite and highly ranked U.S. universities, particularly in the context of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts. This phenomenon, defined as a lack of sincerity and genuineness in an organization's commitment to ...
To enhance public health, the post-election European Union (EU) should prioritise long-term challenges such as climate change and the ageing population, as well as factors that influence our health, according to a new report. The findings, derived from a seven-month public debate led by the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, highlight a collective call for the EU to play a ...
As part of the study, the researchers used information held by ICES on health service use and other linked data to examine previous mental health use in Ontarians aged 15-29 years who were later ...