Health Research Priority Agenda for Ministry of Health, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from 2020 to 2025

METHOD: The current study applied e-Delphi technique via online self-administered questionnaire was distributing to headquarter, and 16 health affairs directorates spanning 75 hospitals and specialized health centers, 24 primary health-care centers, 2 health-care clusters, and 5 medical cities. In addition, community involvement was represented by 26 organizations: 7 universities, 9 scientific health associations, 5 charitable associations, and 5 key Saudi health partner organizations. Research field’s prioritization was performed by ranking weighed mean aggregate score via application of the combined consensus and metrics-based approach. Then the top five research topics were analyzed, verified, refined and classified into specific health research themes. RESULTS: The study included 2252 participants and attained a 90% response rate. The study deliverables were listed into two research priority domains: health system research priorities (1st agenda) and diseases and health problems priorities (2nd agenda). Overall, the types of the top five research priorities in the first agenda included service delivery (40.9%), health workforce (14.4%), governance and leadership (13.0%) ,preparedness and response to disasters and emergency (10.2%), health information systems (9.3%), access to essential medicines products and vaccines (6.97%), and financing (5.1%). On the other hand, the top five research priority areas in the second agenda were non-communicable diseases (16.9%), child and neonatal health (15.9%), medications (13.6%), women health (10.4%), dental health (10.4%). furthermore, biomedical and radiology technology and devices (5.6%), communicable diseases (3.7%), nutrition (3.2%), trauma and general management (3.2%), innovative approaches (2.4%), emergency management (2.7%), physical therapy and rehabilitation (2.3%), public health (2.3%), holistic approaches to health and wellness, behavior and lifestyle (1.5%), environmental health (0.6%),pilgrims’ health (0.6%), geriatric health (0.3%), and family medicine (0.3%). CONCLUSION: Adequate description of the stakeholders and methodology can strengthen legitimacy and credibility and maximize the impact of the priority-setting process. Involvement of policymakers, researchers and funding organizations increases the opportunity of translation into actual research, supports redesigning the research landscape and ensures uptake of results and integration. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s44197-022-00061-5.