Abstract:Purpose: COVID-19 has caused unprecedented disruption to health systems. There is much to be gained by capturing what was learned from changes and adaptations made by health services and systems. The Ministry of Health in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, sought to prioritise health services research (HSR) to address critical issues arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. We tested a priority setting methodology to create priorities for a specific funding opportunity and to extract generalisable lessons. Design/methodology/approach: A virtual roundtable meeting of key stakeholders was held in June 2020. We used a modified Nominal Group Technique (NGT) for priority setting, with potential items (n = 35) grouped under headings. Data was analysed through a reflective deliberative process. Findings: We engaged 89 senior policy makers, health service executives, clinicians and researchers in the roundtable. The NGT proved an efficient method with participants reaching consensus on eight priorities. Findings included strong support for learning from the rapid response to COVID-19 and addressing needs of vulnerable populations and the health workforce. Opinions differed about strategic areas investment and where learnings should be via internal evaluation rather than funded research. Three of the eight recommended priorities were included in the funding opportunity. Research limitations/implications: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) required unprecedented change and adaptations within health systems, and rapid, applied health services research can help to create, understand and (where relevant) sustain change beyond the immediate impact of the pandemic. While final decisions may be dependent on a wider range of considerations by government, stakeholder enthusiasm for engagement in priority setting exercises may be dampened if they do not perceive their application in decision-making. Practical implications: A modified nominal group technique can be used to set research priorities in constrained conditions by engaging large numbers of stakeholders in rankings and then using an online delivery of a roundtable and to reach consensus on priorities in real time. Recommended priorities for health services research can be readily generated through rapid engagement but does not guarantee their application. Social implications: Australia's swift response to COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 was perceived as a relative success due to the rapid public health and policy response and a relatively low number of cases. This response was underpinned by systematic knowledge mobilisation including support for targeted and prioritised health services research to fill knowledge gaps. Originality/value: Setting priority processes can provide rich, engaged input to support government funding decisions about HSR. A wide range of dynamic and iterative processes influence decision-making in a rapidly evolving situation in the health system response to COVID-19. It is crucial to consider how major investment decisions will support a value-based healthcare system.

Saving millions of lives but some resources squandered: emerging lessons from health research system pandemic achievements and challenges

The economic case for scaling up health research and development: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic

How scientific research reacts to international public health emergencies: a global analysis of response patterns

Lessons from COVID-19 for rescalable data collection

Comparing research and development, launch, and scale up timelines of 18 vaccines: lessons learnt from COVID-19 and implications for other infectious diseases

COVID-19 research response to immediate demands: setting priorities with key stakeholders to enable health services research in NSW, Australia

A comparison of 2020 health policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada, Ireland, the United Kingdom and the United States of America

Learning from COVID-19: strengthening Australia's research capacity through preparedness and collaboration

Sociopolitical Diagnostic Tools to Understand National and Local Response Capabilities and Vulnerabilities to Epidemics and Guide Research into How to Improve the Global Response to Pathogens

Revisiting COVID-19 policies: 10 evidence-based recommendations for where to go from here

Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic: Promoting Vaccination and Public Health Resilience, a Narrative Review

Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response

Lessons from past pandemics: a systematic review of evidence-based, cost-effective interventions to suppress COVID-19

Operational Research to Support Rapid Evidence-Based Responses to Outbreaks: Learnings from COVID-19

Mobilizing data during a crisis: Building rapid evidence pipelines using multi-institutional real world data

Surprising Resilience of Science During a Global Pandemic: A Large-Scale Descriptive Analysis

Stopping pandemics before they start: Lessons learned from SARS-CoV-2

Field based research in the era of the pandemic in resource limited settings: challenges and lessons for the future

The role of the social sciences and humanities in pandemic preparedness responses: insights gained from COVID-19, HIV and AIDS and related epidemics

Factors, enablers and challenges for COVID-19 vaccine development

Responding to COVID-19: an exploration of EU country responses and directions for further research