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.

Using a modified Delphi method to identify research priorities in an Australian regional health service

Development of a team‐specific research strategy using a modified Delphi method in a regional public hospital dietetics department

Setting Regional Priorities for Palliative and End-of-Life Care Research Using a Delphi Technique Approach

Clinical research imperatives: principles and priorities from the perspective of Allied Health executives and managers

Identifying health and healthcare priorities in rural areas: A concept mapping study informed by consumers, health professionals and researchers

International research priorities for integrated care and cross-boundary working: an electronic Delphi study

Regional anaesthesia research priorities: a Regional Anaesthesia UK (RA‐UK) priority setting partnership involving patients, carers and healthcare professionals

Building consensus between lived experience and professional stakeholders on mental health research priorities: a Delphi study

Identifying the essential elements to inform the development of a research agenda for Paramedicine in Ireland: a Delphi Study

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

Priorities for paediatric critical care research: a modified Delphi study by the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Paediatric Study Group

Using real‐time Delphi methods to develop a consensus‐based framework to improve nursing assessment in residential aged care

What are the research priorities of Australian early childhood professionals? Results of a Delphi style study

Improving design choices in Delphi studies in medicine: the case of an exemplary physician multi-round panel study with 100% response

Setting priorities for rural allied health in Australia: a scoping review

Measures to assess the performance of an Australian non-government charitable non-acute health service: A Delphi Survey of Organisational Stakeholders

Partnering with consumers and practising clinicians to establish research priorities for public hospital maternity services

The Delphi method and health research

Research priorities relating to the delivery of cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation programmes: results of a modified Delphi process

Continuing professional development training needs of allied health professionals in regional and rural Victoria

Applying real-time Delphi methods: development of a pain management survey in emergency nursing