Gall, SeanaFarmer, ChristineKitsos, GemmaRehman, SabahPhan, HoangBarker, SeamusBooth, BrendaThrift, AmandaKatzenellenbogen, JudithNelson, MarkKleinig, TimothyFeigin, ValeryCadilhac, DominiqueNedkoff, LeeKim, JoosupKilkenny, MoniqueBasu Roy, Sohini2025-09-212025-09-212025-09-18Health & Social Care in the Community, ISSN: 0966-0410 (Print); 1365-2524 (Online), Wiley, 2025(1). doi: 10.1155/hsc/98897240966-04101365-2524http://hdl.handle.net/10292/19831Background: Research priority setting projects provide a method to engage stakeholders in the prioritisation of research activities. We conducted a priority setting project to identify priorities for research into the primary and secondary prevention of stroke. Methods: A modified James Lind Alliance method was used for this project undertaken in Australia and New Zealand with two online surveys (September–November 2021 and May-June 2022) and an online workshop (August 2022). The main question addressed was ‘What question about preventing stroke would you like to see answered by researchers?’ Responses to Survey 1 were refined and reviewed to identify evidence uncertainties. Questions with uncertain evidence were presented in Survey 2 where participants rated the importance of questions. Quantitative analysis of the importance ratings identified highly rated questions. These questions were taken to the online workshop with two rounds of facilitated discussion to create a final list of priorities. A postworkshop evaluation questionnaire explored user’s perceptions of the process. Results: In Survey 1, 375 people proposed > 700 research questions. These were refined to 134 questions that were checked against evidence with 47 determined to be unanswered and distributed for consideration in Survey 2. Respondents to Survey 2 (n = 97) rated 24 of the 47 questions highly that were then discussed in the online workshop (n = 16 participants). There was agreement on the most highly rated question ‘How can we improve early detection and measurement of stroke risk?’ but limited agreement on the remaining questions. Participants favoured keeping all questions but presenting them thematically. The final list includes 22 questions under behavioural; pharmacological/clinical; structural; policy; individual; population and secondary prevention themes. Participants rated the workshop experience as acceptable. Conclusion: A suite of research priorities for the primary and secondary prevention of stroke were identified by a broad range of stakeholders including people with lived experience of stroke, the public and health professionals.Copyright © 2025 Seana Gall et al. Health & Social Care in the Community published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/1117 Public Health and Health Services1607 Social WorkNursing4203 Health services and systems4206 Public health4409 Social workJournal ArticleOpenAccess10.1155/hsc/9889724