Incarcerated populations experience poor health including chronic diseases, blood-borne viruses, sexually transmitted infections, and mental health problems [1]. Increased all-cause mortality has been described in those exposed to prisons, with the immediate postrelease period being a time of heightened susceptibility to suicide and drug overdose [2,3]. The health disparity between people in prison and the general population has been attributed to socioeconomic factors and health risk behaviors including tobacco smoking, alcohol consumption, and substance use [1,4,5].

To identify the health needs of incarcerated individuals, research is required to develop policies and programs that can address health inequities. The emerging field of epidemiological criminology studies the intersection between public health and justice systems, focusing on the prevalent health issues that affect offending and incarcerated populations. This area seeks to apply the scientific principles and methods of epidemiology and public health to criminal justice outcomes by framing crime and offending as a public health issue involving the inspection of health, well-being, and social and behavioral factors to explain and prevent patterns of offending [6,7].

Although investments in epidemiological criminology research have delivered some important benefits, health has received limited attention [8]. To increase value and reduce waste in research activity, transparent research priority setting is important and should consider the needs of research beneficiaries and end users along with a systematic assessment of existing research activities to assist in addressing gaps and harnessing opportunities [8]. Lund et al [9] proposed 4 essential elements to promote a systematic and transparent research priority–setting process: stakeholder involvement (ie, including research beneficiaries and end users), expert views, ranking methods, and a review of research published in peer-reviewed journals.

Correctional systems often publish research priorities for incarcerated populations, inviting proposals for research in these areas. However, the methods used to identify priorities, including whether stakeholders are consulted as part of the priority setting, are rarely disclosed. In addition, there is not enough published literature on stakeholders’ views on research priorities relating to the health of people in prison [10-14]. A recent study that attempted to determine the research priorities for incarcerated populations in Australia found that mental health was ranked as the top priority by prison health service directors and prisoners alike, with prisoners also ranking prison health services, alcohol and other drug use, education, and infectious diseases as key issues that need to be addressed [14]. Beyond this Australian perspective, such priorities are likely to resonate with prison systems in other parts of the world [15].

Following stakeholder consultation, a logical next step is to analyze the gap between research priorities and the existing research via publications. A source that can provide useful research activity insights into epidemiological criminology is PubMed, a bibliographical database developed by the National Library of Medicine, which covers millions of citations from biomedical journals [16]. Given the voluminous nature of published output, the task of reading and integrating relevant knowledge can be extremely challenging; therefore, any method to automatically extract such information from the relevant literature would be welcomed [17]. A limited number of studies have attempted to automatically extract information from epidemiological data [17-21]. de Bruijn et al [17] recognized key information (eg, eligibility criteria, sample size, and route of treatment) from randomized controlled trial (RCT) reports. The same approach was expanded by Kiritchenko et al [18] to extract additional characteristics (eg, primary outcome names and experimental treatments) from journal articles that reported RCTs. Other efforts included the recognition of phase III clinical trial information such as patient information [19] or the number of participants from RCTs [20] and the automatic identification of key characteristics (ie, study design, populations, exposure, outcome, confounding factors, effect size, and country where the study was conducted) from epidemiological study abstracts related to obesity and environmental health topics [21,22].

In this study, we applied a text mining method on 23,904 PubMed epidemiological criminology abstracts to extract the types of studied determinants and outcomes (hereafter referred to as “themes”). We mapped the extracted results (global and Australian results) against the identified research priorities from our previous study to assess the gaps between research activities and the research priorities of incarcerated people and prison health service directors. Leveraging from our previous work [23], we also identified the income level of the country of affiliation of the first authors to conduct a comparison between the ranking of research priorities and country groups by income levels.

Epidemiological criminology studies are indexed in bibliographical databases related to medicine such as PubMed. Thus, a literature search based on our original query [24] was conducted in PubMed using the query (given later in this section) to identify relevant studies [23]. We decided to use epidemiological abstracts, as they are written in a relatively structured format with their own reporting style that aims to standardize and improve study design and communication, making them ideal for the application of a rule-based text mining method [21].

To capture epidemiological studies, we used the Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) term “epidemiology” to ensure maximum specificity in the search. Because we used a variety of search terms to capture studies related to offenders and prisons, this prevented the inclusion of the articles that made only passing reference to prison work in the data set and resulted in a high-quality corpus for analysis. The search was restricted to articles published in English.

The full query (run on April 20, 2021) was as follows: “(prison or borstal or jail or jails or engl or gaols or penitentiary or custody or custodial or (corrective and (service or services)) or ((correctional or detention) AND (centre or centres or center or centers or complex or complexes or facility or facilities)) or (closed AND (setting)) or prisoner or prisoners or incarcerated or criminals or criminal or felon or felons or remandee or remandees or delinquent or delinquents or detainee or detainees or convict or convicts or cellmate or cellmates or offenders or offender or ((young or adolescent) AND (offender or offenders)) or ((delinquent or incarcerated) AND youth) or (juvenile AND (delinquents or delinquent or delinquency or detainee or detainees or offender or offenders)) or ((young) and (people) and (in) and (custody)) or ((justice) and (involved) and (youth)) or ((incarcerated) and (young) AND (people or person or persons)) or ((juvenile or juveniles) and (in) and (custody)) AND english[lang] AND (“epidemiology”[Subheading] or “epidemiology”[MeSH Terms] OR epidemiology[Text Word]).”

In our study, we used the study determinants and outcomes in epidemiological study abstracts as “themes.” We considered a study determinant as a factor, characteristic, or other definable entity that brings about change in a health condition or in other defined characteristics, whereas outcome as the consequence of exposure in the population of interest, which in the case of epidemiological criminology includes offending and incarcerated populations. The themes ranged from mental and infectious illnesses (eg, schizophrenia and hepatitis C) to crime-related concepts (eg, recidivism).

To identify the themes, we combined our rules with a manually crafted dictionary populated with terms of epidemiological criminology interest. We incorporated the most common infectious and mental health illnesses by including known synonyms, acronyms, and common abbreviations. Under the supervision of the third author (PS) and the last author (TB), additional and common law enforcement (eg, “jail sanctions,” “rearrests,” “arson,” and “sexual homicide”); social determinants (eg, “bullying” and “school connectedness”); and behavior-related concepts (“violence” and “aggressive behaviour”) were also included, resulting in roughly 2500 terms.

After inspecting a randomly selected sample of 100 abstracts (the training set), we based our rules on common syntactical patterns observed in the text that indicated the presence of a theme. The syntactical patterns made use of (1) frozen lexical expressions as anchors for certain elements built through specific verbs, noun phrases, and prepositions and (2) semantic placeholders, which were identifiable through the dictionary application that suggested a theme.

In the following example of a syntactical pattern (“criminality is a risk factor for severe injury”), to identify the themes of interest (“criminality, severe injury”), the semifrozen lexical expression “is a risk factor for” is matched via a regular expression containing variations of such terms (eg, risk factor, protective factor, and predictors), whereas “criminality” and “severe injury” obtain a match through the dictionary. More than 1 syntactical pattern may be matched in an abstract and may refer to ≥1 theme mention (that can be a duplicate).

General Architecture for Text Engineering [25] was selected for the design and implementation of the rules as well as for the annotation of the themes in the training and development sets. The observed syntactical patterns were converted into rules using the Java Annotations Pattern Engine, which is a pattern-matching language for General Architecture for Text Engineering. An additional (ie, development) set with 100 randomly selected abstracts was used to optimize the performance of the rules. Multimedia Appendix 1 shows some examples of the rules.

The extracted themes were manually inspected to standardize them. Abstracts which had themes with similar meanings (eg, an acronym or synonym) were manually assigned a respective term (eg, “HIV,” “AIDS,” and “human immunodeficiency virus” were assigned to “HIV”; “depression” and “depressive disorder” were assigned to “depression”). To obtain results at the abstract level for each study, we eliminated any duplicate mentions of the standardized themes.

We mapped the standardized themes to the research priority categories identified by stakeholder participants from our previous research to determine any alignment with the details of the methods and priorities reported elsewhere [13,14]. Themes unable to be mapped to any of the categories were assigned to 1 of the 5 new categories we created (“juveniles,” “offence related,” “bio and medical related,” “justice system,” and “behavior”). Any themes (eg, “age,” “accountability,” “church attendance”) that remained unmapped were assigned to an additional category named “other.”

This process was conducted by the first and the third authors (GK and PS), who manually mapped all the unique mentions of the standardized themes to their respective categories, with disagreements in mapping adjudicated by the last author (TB). The interannotator agreement observed was 94%, suggesting a reliable classification. Table 1 presents all categories including category focal points and examples of the mapped themes.

For each PubMed article, we used the country affiliation of the first author as described in previous research, with a total of 127 countries being identified [23]. Cases in which affiliations had >1 country were also included in the analysis. We classified countries into 4 categories (high income, upper-middle income, lower-middle income, and low income) based on the income status using the World Bank’s country classification schema [26].

No ethics approval was sought for this type of work as the data are all publicly available, do not have any identifying information and do not involve the authors recruiting human participants.

We evaluated the system’s performance at the abstract level by considering whether the themes (present as study determinants and outcomes) were correctly extracted from the text. We used the standard definitions of precision, recall, and the F₁-score [27]. We defined true positive as the detection of either all the correct mentions of an exposure or outcome or the recognition of a number of mentions for 1 exposure or outcome, even if the system failed to pick up some mentions in an abstract. For example, if an exposure in 1 abstract is “hepatitis C” and there are 2 mentions in the text (“HPC” and “hepatitis C”), then the detection of either 1 or both mentions would be considered a true positive at the abstract level with “hepatitis C” as a theme in this abstract. This also applies in cases where >1 exposure or outcome is present. A false positive (FP) at the abstract level is the extraction of unrelated exposure or outcome mentions that were not annotated manually. A false negative (FN) is the unrecognized mentions of exposure or outcomes that were not extracted by the system. For example, if an abstract contains ≥1 mention of “hepatitis C” (either as an exposure or an outcome) and our method did not pick up any of these, then this theme would be classified as FN.

We randomly sampled 100 PubMed abstracts for the evaluation set, which were annotated for their theme by the first (GK) and the last (TB) authors. We calculated the interannotator agreement as the absolute agreement rate, with a value of 90% suggesting reliable annotations [28]. At the abstract level, the returned precision and recall were 92.1% and 88%, respectively, whereas the F₁-score was 90%, indicating reliable performance. An observed (and expected) drop of approximately 3% (3.2%-3.8%) occurred from the training set to the evaluation set for all 3 metrics (Multimedia Appendix 2).

The query returned 23,904 studies, with the earliest study recorded in 1946 (Figure 1). A total of 1543 (N=23,904, 6.45%) PubMed citations had no abstract, resulting in 22,361 (N=23,904, 93.6%) articles that were used in the text mining exercise. More than 50% (11,927/22,361, 53.3%) of the articles had at least 1 extracted theme, whereas overall, 600 distinct themes were identified. As the query was implemented in April 2021, results from that year were excluded (113/11,927, 0.95%), leaving 11,814 articles for the analysis. The reasons for this are outlined in the Application to the Large Corpus section.

The most common theme was substance use (1533/11,814, 12.97%), followed by HIV (1493/11,814, 12.64%) and mortality (940/11,814, 7.96%; Table 2). If an abstract had >1 (ie, different) theme, these were counted separately. The “biomedical related” category had 6 of the most common themes within the top 20 (ie, mortality, age, sex, injury, gender, and youth). Although HIV was the most common theme, the proportion of these PubMed abstracts declined over the 30-year period (1990-2020; Figure 2). Although both alcohol and substance use showed stable abstract numbers, tuberculosis, after an initial peak in the mid-90s (ie, 1997), started to decline until 2020. By contrast, few articles proportionally examined hepatitis C in the 1990s, demonstrating an increase, particularly after and onward the mid-2000s (ie, 2005).

In the 11,814 articles, infectious diseases and infections (n=2949, 24.96%) was the most common research priority category, followed by mental health (n=2840, 24.04%) and alcohol and other drug use (n=2433, 20.59%). Education appeared in <2% (172/11,814, 1.46%) of PubMed abstracts, whereas unclassified themes (ie, others) were the third most mentioned category (2552/11,814, 21.6%; Multimedia Appendix 3). Despite infectious diseases and infections having proportionally the highest percentage of PubMed articles in 1990 (26/74, 35%), this was followed by a gradual decline toward the mid-2000s and then a resurgence until 2020 (231/633, 36.4%). Although mental health had the second lowest proportion of articles (6/74, 8%) among the 5 most common categories in 1990, it increased after 2004 (100/347, 28.8%; Figure 3).

To explore whether it was reasonable to compare priority-setting categories determined by Australian stakeholders with all PubMed articles, we compared the 679 abstracts with Australia as the first author country affiliation to all PubMed abstracts (Multimedia Appendix 3, column 4). A similar pattern of research activity emerged between the entire PubMed article data set and Australian-identified abstracts. Given this similarity in the remaining analyses, we examined all the PubMed articles.

The most common themes (in terms of the number of PubMed articles) in the infectious diseases and infections category were HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, tuberculosis, and COVID-19 (Table 3). Almost 50.63% (1493/2949) of the PubMed articles reported HIV as a research theme. For mental illness, specific mental disorders were researched, including depression at 11.34% (322/2840), followed by antisocial personality disorder at 6.83% (194/2840). In the alcohol and other drug use category, 34.4% (837/2433) of PubMed articles reported research on alcohol use and abuse, followed by 3.62% (88/2433) for cannabis use.

Comparing the text-mined (then mapped) research themes with the stakeholder research priorities revealed an alignment across the 3 groups (ie, prisoners, researchers, and prison medical service directors) for mental health, infectious diseases, and alcohol and other drug use, as well as some notable differences or gaps (Figure 4). Both incarcerated participants and prison health service directors identified cognitive and intellectual disabilities and transition to community or postrelease health maintenance as research priorities; however, these were not included in the PubMed research activities. Although incarcerated people identified hygiene, nutrition, and lifestyle in prison as priorities, there has been little PubMed research activity in these categories. Research activities on health care services, education, and women or maternal health were low compared with the priority rank; these categories were given by incarcerated participants (and prison health service directors for integrated services).

Most studies derived from PubMed (N=11,814) were from high-income countries (n=10,083, 85.35%), whereas low-income countries accounted for >1% (n=91, 0.77%; Multimedia Appendix 4). Upper-middle–income and lower-middle–income countries had 6.26% (740/11,814) and 3.68% (435/11,814) of PubMed articles, respectively. Furthermore, 4.14% (489/11,814) articles did not have any affiliated country.

High-income countries focused one-fourth of their research on mental health (2590/10,083, 25.69%) as opposed to 9.4% (41/435) in lower-middle–income countries and 18% (16/91) in low-income countries. Those with lower-income status focused their research on infectious diseases, particularly the lower- and low-income countries, with 42.7% (186/435) and 52% (47/91), respectively (Figure 5). Furthermore, 21.64% (2182/10,083) of research from high-income countries was on alcohol and other drug use, almost 5 times more than those from low-income countries (4/91, 4%; Figure 5).

For research themes that were not among the top 5, it should be noted that education and women’s and reproductive health were ranked at the bottom in all country income groups (0.1%-2.5%, Multimedia Appendix 4). Notable is the proportion of research on health care services in low-income countries (13/91, 14%), which is more than double that of high-income countries (794/10,083, 7.87%) and almost 3 times higher than that of upper-middle–income (41/740, 5.5%) and lower-middle–income countries (29/435, 5.9%; Multimedia Appendix 4).

This study assessed 70 years of epidemiological criminology research by automatically extracting research themes from 22,361 PubMed abstracts through the application of a rule-based method and mapping them against identified research priorities identified by Australian prisons and prison medical service directors [14]; we also examined the alignment of these priorities with published research globally, including a breakdown by income group of the countries involved.

Overall, of the 11,814 published articles that had an extracted research theme, there was a large decade-by-decade increase in research activities from 1986 onward. A number of plausible factors may have contributed to this exponential rise in research activities toward the health of incarcerated populations. For example, the “tough on crime” and “the war on drugs” approaches started in 1971 in the United States and led to increasing imprisonment rates and prison overcrowding [29], HIV emerged in the 1980s, and key 1970s events such as the riots in Bathurst Prison (Australia) prompted the creation of the Nagle Royal Commission, which exposed a culture of poor management and abuse in 2 New South Wales prisons, and the Royal Commission Into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (1987-1990) [30-32]. The occurrence of such events could be considered a catalyst for the increased attention to prison conditions and the health of those in prison and potentially explain the post-1980 increase in published research on prisoner health.

The research priorities of our stakeholder groups in terms of the frequency of research output were infectious diseases or infections, mental health, and alcohol and other drug use. Some differences in the frequency of research activities undertaken were noted in these categories according to a country’s income level and between all studies published and studies relevant to only Australia. High-income countries focused one-fourth (25.7%) of their research on mental health, in contrast to 8.4% in lower-middle–income countries and 17.6% in low-income countries. Just over one-fifth (21.6%) of the published articles from high-income countries were devoted to alcohol and other drug use, nearly 5 times more than those in low-income countries. Lower-income countries focused most of their research on infectious diseases (38%-51.6%), compared with 22.5% in high-income countries. These differences based on a country’s income level are likely to be explained by local health priorities that possibly reflect an emphasis on easily treated conditions that pose a more immediate risk to life, whereby infectious diseases such as HIV and tuberculosis take policy precedence over mental health and alcohol and substance use disorders in lower-income countries. More attention and investment are directed toward mental health conditions and alcohol and substance use disorders in high-income countries. These different priorities may also help explain the minor differences found between all PubMed published articles and only those relevant to Australia regarding the proportionate differences between mental health, infectious diseases, and alcohol and other drug use.

Looking at each category, most infectious disease research activities concerned HIV. Although the number of articles on HIV began to decrease 2016 onward, an increase in studies on hepatitis C resulted in a rise in the overall number of infectious disease articles in PubMed. These trends likely reflect historical developments in disease prevalence and advances in treatment. In the case of hepatitis C, direct-acting antiviral medication became available in 2013, which offered significant improvements in efficacy, reduced side effects, and a shorter treatment duration [33]. Interestingly, COVID-19, despite the first known case emerging in December 2019, featured as a research theme in 3.66% (108/2949) of infectious disease category articles, higher than sexual transmissible disease (85/2949, 2.88%) and malaria (66/2949, 2.24%), indicating the concern posed by this new viral illness within the correctional system space.

Although the broad term “mental illness” featured as a research theme in most mental health category articles, depression, antisocial personality disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder were the most frequent theme disorders extracted. In the alcohol and other drug use categories, almost one-third of the articles were related to alcohol (837/2433, 34.4%), followed by cannabis (88/2433, 3.62%). Given the public and media interest in amphetamine use and narratives connecting crime with amphetamine use, it is surprising that research activities did not necessarily reflect this topic [34].

Notable gaps were identified between the stakeholder research priority areas and research activity outputs. Prison health services and education (health and vocational) were the second most often ranked priorities by the incarcerated populations and endorsed by the World Health Organization as an important policy and research area [15]. However, as research theme categories, they received 7.71% (911/11,814) and 1.46% (172/11,814) of PubMed articles, respectively. In addition, only 9.71% (1147/11,814) of PubMed articles reported a theme within the social determinants of the health research priority category. This may be an artifact of publication bias or self-publication selection, that is, these stakeholder research priorities are more focused on social factors and systems, and thus, authors may tend to prefer publishing in less biomedically oriented journals that feature in other bibliographic databases. Nonetheless, given the developments in and the growing recognition of health services research [35] and the importance that quality health services are likely to have for incarcerated people, we contend that more research should be conducted and published in this area.

To examine whether the research priorities were current, we also mapped the themes from the last 10 years only (ie, 2010-2020) and observed them to be almost identical in rank to those from 1946 to 2020.

The stakeholder research priorities of women’s and maternal health featured in <0.11% (13/11,814) of the PubMed articles. This may reflect that historically, women have been underrepresented in incarcerated populations despite having drastically increased incarceration rates in recent years [36]. However, the reporting style of some epidemiological criminology studies might omit details of the gender aspect of certain research themes in the abstract, focusing instead on the general research aspects of incarcerated populations. This argument could also be extended to lower-priority research areas (see the Application to the Large Corpus section). A lack of interest in research on nutrition in prison may stem from researchers assessing the issue as a less pressing matter when compared with infectious disease transmission, posttraumatic stress disorder, or opiate substitution therapy. Given the encroaching privatization of correctional systems and administrative pursuits to provide system efficiencies and cost savings, nutrition services are likely to be the easy targets for efficiency savings [37] and thus likely warrant further research investigation.

Finally, disability, both physical and intellectual, despite being stakeholder research priorities, had little research activity. In the research priority category of mental health, learning disability had only 1.19% (34/2840) of articles. Although incarceration of people with disabilities is not a new phenomenon, this population and relevant support have been poorly understood even though incarceration rates of people living with a disability saw an increase in recent years [38], indicating that more research should be conducted to understand the needs of this susceptible population.

Despite good results in both the development and evaluation sets (ie, F₁-score of 92.7% and 90%, respectively), the application of this method in the 22,361 epidemiological criminology abstracts revealed that only in slightly >50% (n=11,927, 53.3%) of the articles, we extracted research themes. Because we included a more diverse literature space from epidemiological criminology and considered all study design types that could range from the relatively strict reporting structure of a clinical trial to the informal style that certain observational designs bear, it is not surprising to note that a certain number of articles did not explicitly state their research theme, at least in the abstract text.

To further test the robustness of our method, a random sample of 50 articles was inspected by the first and the last authors (GK and TB) to examine whether any studied variables were mentioned in the abstract text. We found FNs (12%) in 6 abstracts due to the lack of related terms from our dictionary (eg, “female problem gambling” and “assessment of prison life”) and the lack of implemented rules that was based on extremely common generic patterns, both explained as sources of FNs in the Text Mining Error Analysis section. Other reasons that might have contributed to the low number of abstracts with extracted themes were as follows: articles in the sample that were not epidemiological studies (eg, reports, technical notes, and opinion pieces; 23/50, 46%); articles that were epidemiological studies but not conducted in the area of criminology (16/50, 32%); 1 (N=50, 2%) abstract that was animal based; and 4 (N=50, 8%) abstracts did not state their research variable (eg, “characteristics that preceded a crime”). This analysis indicates that even though our system might miss some abstracts’ research themes, its results are reliable enough to indicate a map regarding the research priorities of marginalized populations who come in contact with the justice system.

Our study has several limitations. First, PubMed articles might not be sufficient to capture an accurate picture of offending and incarcerated populations, as relevant government articles and reports are often not published in academic journals. Furthermore, studies with a more sociological and criminal focus are unlikely to appear in journals covered by PubMed. Therefore, our data set likely underestimated the total number of research outputs in this area. In addition, our query may not be broad enough to capture all related articles in this area due to the use of a MeSH term (ie, “epidemiology”). The inclusion of extra MeSH terms such as “clinical trial” and “observational study” could potentially increase the number of articles that could provide a different picture in theory. The study also carries the risk of “English-language bias,” as including non-English articles presented resource challenges in terms of prospective costs, time, and expertise in non-English languages. The inclusion of non-English articles would help ensure greater generalizability and reduce bias [39].

The focus on abstracts might indicate a problem of theme representation, as we did not use full-text articles because it is possible that explicit information about study determinants and outcomes might not be available. It would be interesting to explore whether applying this method to full-text articles would improve the extraction performance. In addition, the type of the written abstract might have contributed to the generation of FPs and FNs. Although we designed the rules based on common lexical patterns that suggest the presence of a research theme, less structured abstracts might make it difficult to recognize such information automatically because structured abstracts offer higher-quality information as opposed to those that rely on free text [40].

Although the performance of our rule-based approach is reliable, the number of identified themes could be underrepresented. Using the manually crafted dictionaries based on terms, as opposed to more nuanced and complex concepts of cross-disciplinary nature that are described in sentences, could have resulted in a number of FNs, so the dictionary coverage could be limited. Although a relatively small number of rules were used to identify the study determinants and outcomes in the text, it is possible to have a restrained scope as it was shown with FNs that were not extracted due to a lack of implementation within the rule set. The application of other methods (eg, topic modeling) could potentially decrease the number of FNs.

The identification of research themes (as study determinants and outcomes) in a large-scale sample of epidemiological criminology PubMed abstracts is feasible by using a rule-based approach with reliable performance (F₁-score=90%). Recognizing themes can be useful in highlighting research gaps and potential biases in epidemiological criminology. We observed that the highest research activity concerned infectious diseases, mental health, and alcohol and drug use, which were the 3 research areas that were identified as priorities in our previous study by people in Australian prisons and Australian prison health service directors. The gaps between these stakeholder research priorities and actual research activity demonstrate the potential need for further research on prison health services, social determinants of health, women’s and maternal health, nutrition, and disabilities. We recommend others in different jurisdictions, countries, and regions to undertake similar systematic and transparent research priority–setting processes that include stakeholder involvement, expert views, and reviews of conducted research [9]. Such processes can be considered in other disciplines and fields.