Sample records for accountable priority setting

  1. Decentralized health care priority-setting in Tanzania: evaluating against the accountability for reasonableness framework.

    PubMed

    Maluka, Stephen; Kamuzora, Peter; San Sebastiån, Miguel; Byskov, Jens; Olsen, Øystein E; Shayo, Elizabeth; Ndawi, Benedict; Hurtig, Anna-Karin

    2010-08-01

    Priority-setting has become one of the biggest challenges faced by health decision-makers worldwide. Fairness is a key goal of priority-setting and Accountability for Reasonableness has emerged as a guiding framework for fair priority-setting. This paper describes the processes of setting health care priorities in Mbarali district, Tanzania, and evaluates the descriptions against Accountability for Reasonableness. Key informant interviews were conducted with district health managers, local government officials and other stakeholders using a semi-structured interview guide. Relevant documents were also gathered and group priority-setting in the district was observed. The results indicate that, while Tanzania has a decentralized public health care system, the reality of the district level priority-setting process was that it was not nearly as participatory as the official guidelines suggest it should have been. Priority-setting usually occurred in the context of budget cycles and the process was driven by historical allocation. Stakeholders' involvement in the process was minimal. Decisions (but not the reasoning behind them) were publicized through circulars and notice boards, but there were no formal mechanisms in place to ensure that this information reached the public. There were neither formal mechanisms for challenging decisions nor an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that decisions were made in a fair and equitable manner. Therefore, priority-setting in Mbarali district did not satisfy all four conditions of Accountability for Reasonableness; namely relevance, publicity, appeals and revision, and enforcement. This paper aims to make two important contributions to this problematic situation. First, it provides empirical analysis of priority-setting at the district level in the contexts of low-income countries. Second, it provides guidance to decision-makers on how to improve fairness, legitimacy, and sustainability of the priority-setting process. (c

  2. What do District Health Planners in Tanzania think about improving priority setting using 'Accountability for Reasonableness'?

    PubMed Central

    Mshana, Simon; Shemilu, Haji; Ndawi, Benedict; Momburi, Roman; Olsen, Oystein Evjen; Byskov, Jens; Martin, Douglas K

    2007-01-01

    Background Priority setting in every health system is complex and difficult. In less wealthy countries the dominant approach to priority setting has been Burden of Disease (BOD) and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), which is helpful, but insufficient because it focuses on a narrow range of values – need and efficiency – and not the full range of relevant values, including legitimacy and fairness. 'Accountability for reasonableness' is a conceptual framework for legitimate and fair priority setting and is empirically based and ethically justified. It connects priority setting to broader, more fundamental, democratic deliberative processes that have an impact on social justice and equity. Can 'accountability for reasonableness' be helpful for improving priority setting in less wealthy countries? Methods In 2005, Tanzanian scholars from the Primary Health Care Institute (PHCI) conducted 6 capacity building workshops with senior health staff, district planners and managers, and representatives of the Tanzanian Ministry of Health to discussion improving priority setting in Tanzania using 'accountability for reasonableness'. The purpose of this paper is to describe this initiative and the participants' views about the approach. Results The approach to improving priority setting using 'accountability for reasonableness' was viewed by district decision makers with enthusiastic favour because it was the first framework that directly addressed their priority setting concerns. High level Ministry of Health participants were also very supportive of the approach. Conclusion Both Tanzanian district and governmental health planners viewed the 'accountability for reasonableness' approach with enthusiastic favour because it was the first framework that directly addressed their concerns. PMID:17997824

  3. Strengthening fairness, transparency and accountability in health care priority setting at district level in Tanzania

    PubMed Central

    Maluka, Stephen Oswald

    2011-01-01

    Health care systems are faced with the challenge of resource scarcity and have insufficient resources to respond to all health problems and target groups simultaneously. Hence, priority setting is an inevitable aspect of every health system. However, priority setting is complex and difficult because the process is frequently influenced by political, institutional and managerial factors that are not considered by conventional priority-setting tools. In a five-year EU-supported project, which started in 2006, ways of strengthening fairness and accountability in priority setting in district health management were studied. This review is based on a PhD thesis that aimed to analyse health care organisation and management systems, and explore the potential and challenges of implementing Accountability for Reasonableness (A4R) approach to priority setting in Tanzania. A qualitative case study in Mbarali district formed the basis of exploring the sociopolitical and institutional contexts within which health care decision making takes place. The study also explores how the A4R intervention was shaped, enabled and constrained by the contexts. Key informant interviews were conducted. Relevant documents were also gathered and group priority-setting processes in the district were observed. The study revealed that, despite the obvious national rhetoric on decentralisation, actual practice in the district involved little community participation. The assumption that devolution to local government promotes transparency, accountability and community participation, is far from reality. The study also found that while the A4R approach was perceived to be helpful in strengthening transparency, accountability and stakeholder engagement, integrating the innovation into the district health system was challenging. This study underscores the idea that greater involvement and accountability among local actors may increase the legitimacy and fairness of priority-setting decisions. A broader

  4. Healthcare priority setting in Kenya: a gap analysis applying the accountability for reasonableness framework.

    PubMed

    Bukachi, Salome A; Onyango-Ouma, Washington; Siso, Jared Maaka; Nyamongo, Isaac K; Mutai, Joseph K; Hurtig, Anna Karin; Olsen, Oystein Evjen; Byskov, Jens

    2014-01-01

    In resource-poor settings, the accountability for reasonableness (A4R) has been identified as an important advance in priority setting that helps to operationalize fair priority setting in specific contexts. The four conditions of A4R are backed by theory, not evidence, that conformance with them improves the priority setting decisions. This paper describes the healthcare priority setting processes in Malindi district, Kenya, prior to the implementation of A4R in 2008 and evaluates the process for its conformance with the conditions for A4R. In-depth interviews and focus group discussions with key players in the Malindi district health system and a review of key policy documents and national guidelines show that the priority setting process in the district relies heavily on guidelines from the national level, making it more of a vertical, top-down orientation. Multilateral and donor agencies, national government, budgetary requirements, traditions and local culture influence the process. The four conditions of A4R are present within the priority setting process, albeit to varying degrees and referred to by different terms. There exists an opportunity for A4R to provide a guiding approach within which its four conditions can be strengthened and assessed to establish whether conformance helps improve on the priority setting process. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

  5. Improving district level health planning and priority setting in Tanzania through implementing accountability for reasonableness framework: Perceptions of stakeholders.

    PubMed

    Maluka, Stephen; Kamuzora, Peter; San Sebastián, Miguel; Byskov, Jens; Ndawi, Benedict; Hurtig, Anna-Karin

    2010-12-01

    In 2006, researchers and decision-makers launched a five-year project - Response to Accountable Priority Setting for Trust in Health Systems (REACT) - to improve planning and priority-setting through implementing the Accountability for Reasonableness framework in Mbarali District, Tanzania. The objective of this paper is to explore the acceptability of Accountability for Reasonableness from the perspectives of the Council Health Management Team, local government officials, health workforce and members of user boards and committees. Individual interviews were carried out with different categories of actors and stakeholders in the district. The interview guide consisted of a series of questions, asking respondents to describe their perceptions regarding each condition of the Accountability for Reasonableness framework in terms of priority setting. Interviews were analysed using thematic framework analysis. Documentary data were used to support, verify and highlight the key issues that emerged. Almost all stakeholders viewed Accountability for Reasonableness as an important and feasible approach for improving priority-setting and health service delivery in their context. However, a few aspects of Accountability for Reasonableness were seen as too difficult to implement given the socio-political conditions and traditions in Tanzania. Respondents mentioned: budget ceilings and guidelines, low level of public awareness, unreliable and untimely funding, as well as the limited capacity of the district to generate local resources as the major contextual factors that hampered the full implementation of the framework in their context. This study was one of the first assessments of the applicability of Accountability for Reasonableness in health care priority-setting in Tanzania. The analysis, overall, suggests that the Accountability for Reasonableness framework could be an important tool for improving priority-setting processes in the contexts of resource-poor settings

  6. Setting conservation priorities.

    PubMed

    Wilson, Kerrie A; Carwardine, Josie; Possingham, Hugh P

    2009-04-01

    A generic framework for setting conservation priorities based on the principles of classic decision theory is provided. This framework encapsulates the key elements of any problem, including the objective, the constraints, and knowledge of the system. Within the context of this framework the broad array of approaches for setting conservation priorities are reviewed. While some approaches prioritize assets or locations for conservation investment, it is concluded here that prioritization is incomplete without consideration of the conservation actions required to conserve the assets at particular locations. The challenges associated with prioritizing investments through time in the face of threats (and also spatially and temporally heterogeneous costs) can be aided by proper problem definition. Using the authors' general framework for setting conservation priorities, multiple criteria can be rationally integrated and where, how, and when to invest conservation resources can be scheduled. Trade-offs are unavoidable in priority setting when there are multiple considerations, and budgets are almost always finite. The authors discuss how trade-offs, risks, uncertainty, feedbacks, and learning can be explicitly evaluated within their generic framework for setting conservation priorities. Finally, they suggest ways that current priority-setting approaches may be improved.

  7. Priority setting in HIV/AIDS control in West Java Indonesia: an evaluation based on the accountability for reasonableness framework.

    PubMed

    Tromp, Noor; Prawiranegara, Rozar; Subhan Riparev, Harris; Siregar, Adiatma; Sunjaya, Deni; Baltussen, Rob

    2015-04-01

    Indonesia has insufficient resources to adequately respond to the HIV/AIDS epidemic, and thus faces a great challenge in prioritizing interventions. In many countries, such priority setting processes are typically ad hoc and not transparent leading to unfair decisions. Here, we evaluated the priority setting process in HIV/AIDS control in West Java province against the four conditions of the accountability for reasonableness (A4R) framework: relevance, publicity, appeals and revision, and enforcement. We reviewed government documents and conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews based on the A4R framework with 22 participants of the 5-year HIV/AIDS strategy development for 2008-13 (West Java province) and 2007-11 (Bandung). We found that criteria for priority setting were used implicitly and that the strategies included a wide range of programmes. Many stakeholders were involved in the process but their contribution could be improved and particularly the public and people living with HIV/AIDS could be better engaged. The use of appeal and publicity mechanisms could be more transparent and formally stated. Public regulations are not yet installed to ensure fair priority setting. To increase fairness in HIV/AIDS priority setting, West Java should make improvements on all four conditions of the A4R framework. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine © The Author 2014; all rights reserved.

  8. Priority setting: what constitutes success? A conceptual framework for successful priority setting.

    PubMed

    Sibbald, Shannon L; Singer, Peter A; Upshur, Ross; Martin, Douglas K

    2009-03-05

    The sustainability of healthcare systems worldwide is threatened by a growing demand for services and expensive innovative technologies. Decision makers struggle in this environment to set priorities appropriately, particularly because they lack consensus about which values should guide their decisions. One way to approach this problem is to determine what all relevant stakeholders understand successful priority setting to mean. The goal of this research was to develop a conceptual framework for successful priority setting. Three separate empirical studies were completed using qualitative data collection methods (one-on-one interviews with healthcare decision makers from across Canada; focus groups with representation of patients, caregivers and policy makers; and Delphi study including scholars and decision makers from five countries). This paper synthesizes the findings from three studies into a framework of ten separate but interconnected elements germane to successful priority setting: stakeholder understanding, shifted priorities/reallocation of resources, decision making quality, stakeholder acceptance and satisfaction, positive externalities, stakeholder engagement, use of explicit process, information management, consideration of values and context, and revision or appeals mechanism. The ten elements specify both quantitative and qualitative dimensions of priority setting and relate to both process and outcome components. To our knowledge, this is the first framework that describes successful priority setting. The ten elements identified in this research provide guidance for decision makers and a common language to discuss priority setting success and work toward improving priority setting efforts.

  9. Priority setting: what constitutes success? A conceptual framework for successful priority setting

    PubMed Central

    Sibbald, Shannon L; Singer, Peter A; Upshur, Ross; Martin, Douglas K

    2009-01-01

    Background The sustainability of healthcare systems worldwide is threatened by a growing demand for services and expensive innovative technologies. Decision makers struggle in this environment to set priorities appropriately, particularly because they lack consensus about which values should guide their decisions. One way to approach this problem is to determine what all relevant stakeholders understand successful priority setting to mean. The goal of this research was to develop a conceptual framework for successful priority setting. Methods Three separate empirical studies were completed using qualitative data collection methods (one-on-one interviews with healthcare decision makers from across Canada; focus groups with representation of patients, caregivers and policy makers; and Delphi study including scholars and decision makers from five countries). Results This paper synthesizes the findings from three studies into a framework of ten separate but interconnected elements germane to successful priority setting: stakeholder understanding, shifted priorities/reallocation of resources, decision making quality, stakeholder acceptance and satisfaction, positive externalities, stakeholder engagement, use of explicit process, information management, consideration of values and context, and revision or appeals mechanism. Conclusion The ten elements specify both quantitative and qualitative dimensions of priority setting and relate to both process and outcome components. To our knowledge, this is the first framework that describes successful priority setting. The ten elements identified in this research provide guidance for decision makers and a common language to discuss priority setting success and work toward improving priority setting efforts. PMID:19265518

  10. The unfunded priorities: an evaluation of priority setting for noncommunicable disease control in Uganda.

    PubMed

    Essue, Beverley M; Kapiriri, Lydia

    2018-02-20

    The double burden of infectious diseases coupled with noncommunicable diseases poses unique challenges for priority setting and for achieving equitable action to address the major causes of disease burden in health systems already impacted by limited resources. Noncommunicable disease control is an important global health and development priority. However, there are challenges for translating this global priority into local priorities and action. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of national, sub-national and global factors on priority setting for noncommunicable disease control in Uganda and examine the extent to which priority setting was successful. A mixed methods design that used the Kapiriri & Martin framework for evaluating priority setting in low income countries. The evaluation period was 2005-2015. Data collection included a document review (policy documents (n = 19); meeting minutes (n = 28)), media analysis (n = 114) and stakeholder interviews (n = 9). Data were analysed according to the Kapiriri & Martin (2010) framework. Priority setting for noncommunicable diseases was not entirely fair nor successful. While there were explicit processes that incorporated relevant criteria, evidence and wide stakeholder involvement, these criteria were not used systematically or consistently in the contemplation of noncommunicable diseases. There were insufficient resources for noncommunicable diseases, despite being a priority area. There were weaknesses in the priority setting institutions, and insufficient mechanisms to ensure accountability for decision-making. Priority setting was influenced by the priorities of major stakeholders (i.e. development assistance partners) which were not always aligned with national priorities. There were major delays in the implementation of noncommunicable disease-related priorities and in many cases, a failure to implement. This evaluation revealed the challenges that low income countries are

  11. Accountable priority setting for trust in health systems--the need for research into a new approach for strengthening sustainable health action in developing countries.

    PubMed

    Byskov, Jens; Bloch, Paul; Blystad, Astrid; Hurtig, Anna-Karin; Fylkesnes, Knut; Kamuzora, Peter; Kombe, Yeri; Kvåle, Gunnar; Marchal, Bruno; Martin, Douglas K; Michelo, Charles; Ndawi, Benedict; Ngulube, Thabale J; Nyamongo, Isaac; Olsen, Oystein E; Onyango-Ouma, Washington; Sandøy, Ingvild F; Shayo, Elizabeth H; Silwamba, Gavin; Songstad, Nils Gunnar; Tuba, Mary

    2009-10-24

    Despite multiple efforts to strengthen health systems in low and middle income countries, intended sustainable improvements in health outcomes have not been shown. To date most priority setting initiatives in health systems have mainly focused on technical approaches involving information derived from burden of disease statistics, cost effectiveness analysis, and published clinical trials. However, priority setting involves value-laden choices and these technical approaches do not equip decision-makers to address a broader range of relevant values - such as trust, equity, accountability and fairness - that are of concern to other partners and, not least, the populations concerned. A new focus for priority setting is needed.Accountability for Reasonableness (AFR) is an explicit ethical framework for legitimate and fair priority setting that provides guidance for decision-makers who must identify and consider the full range of relevant values. AFR consists of four conditions: i) relevance to the local setting, decided by agreed criteria; ii) publicizing priority-setting decisions and the reasons behind them; iii) the establishment of revisions/appeal mechanisms for challenging and revising decisions; iv) the provision of leadership to ensure that the first three conditions are met.REACT - "REsponse to ACcountable priority setting for Trust in health systems" is an EU-funded five-year intervention study started in 2006, which is testing the application and effects of the AFR approach in one district each in Kenya, Tanzania and Zambia. The objectives of REACT are to describe and evaluate district-level priority setting, to develop and implement improvement strategies guided by AFR and to measure their effect on quality, equity and trust indicators. Effects are monitored within selected disease and programme interventions and services and within human resources and health systems management. Qualitative and quantitative methods are being applied in an action research

  12. SARS and hospital priority setting: a qualitative case study and evaluation.

    PubMed

    Bell, Jennifer A H; Hyland, Sylvia; DePellegrin, Tania; Upshur, Ross E G; Bernstein, Mark; Martin, Douglas K

    2004-12-19

    Priority setting is one of the most difficult issues facing hospitals because of funding restrictions and changing patient need. A deadly communicable disease outbreak, such as the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in Toronto in 2003, amplifies the difficulties of hospital priority setting. The purpose of this study is to describe and evaluate priority setting in a hospital in response to SARS using the ethical framework 'accountability for reasonableness'. This study was conducted at a large tertiary hospital in Toronto, Canada. There were two data sources: 1) over 200 key documents (e.g. emails, bulletins), and 2) 35 interviews with key informants. Analysis used a modified thematic technique in three phases: open coding, axial coding, and evaluation. Participants described the types of priority setting decisions, the decision making process and the reasoning used. Although the hospital leadership made an effort to meet the conditions of 'accountability for reasonableness', they acknowledged that the decision making was not ideal. We described good practices and opportunities for improvement. 'Accountability for reasonableness' is a framework that can be used to guide fair priority setting in health care organizations, such as hospitals. In the midst of a crisis such as SARS where guidance is incomplete, consequences uncertain, and information constantly changing, where hour-by-hour decisions involve life and death, fairness is more important rather than less.

  13. Priority-setting and hospital strategic planning: a qualitative case study.

    PubMed

    Martin, Douglas; Shulman, Ken; Santiago-Sorrell, Patricia; Singer, Peter

    2003-10-01

    To describe and evaluate the priority-setting element of a hospital's strategic planning process. Qualitative case study and evaluation against the conditions of 'accountability for reasonableness' of a strategic planning process at a large urban university-affiliated hospital. The hospital's strategic planning process met the conditions of 'accountability for reasonableness' in large part. Specifically: the hospital based its decisions on reasons (both information and criteria) that the participants felt were relevant to the hospital; the number and type of participants were very extensive; the process, decisions and reasons were well communicated throughout the organization, using multiple communication vehicles; and the process included an ethical framework linked to an effort to evaluate and improve the process. However, there were opportunities to improve the process, particularly by giving participants more time to absorb the information relevant to priority-setting decisions, more time to take difficult decisions and some means to appeal or revise decisions. A case study linked to an evaluation using 'accountability for reasonableness' can serve to improve priority-setting in the context of hospital strategic planning.

  14. Against proportional shortfall as a priority-setting principle.

    PubMed

    Altmann, Samuel

    2018-05-01

    As the demand for healthcare rises, so does the need for priority setting in healthcare. In this paper, I consider a prominent priority-setting principle: proportional shortfall. My purpose is to argue that proportional shortfall, as a principle, should not be adopted. My key criticism is that proportional shortfall fails to consider past health.Proportional shortfall is justified as it supposedly balances concern for prospective health while still accounting for lifetime health, even though past health is deemed irrelevant. Accounting for this lifetime perspective means that the principle may indirectly consider past health by accounting for how far an individual is from achieving a complete, healthy life. I argue that proportional shortfall does not account for this lifetime perspective as it fails to incorporate the fair innings argument as originally claimed, undermining its purported justification.I go on to demonstrate that the case for ignoring past health is weak, and argue that past health is at least sometimes relevant for priority-setting decisions. Specifically, when an individual's past health has a direct impact on current or future health, and when one individual has enjoyed significantly more healthy life years than another.Finally, I demonstrate that by ignoring past illnesses, even those entirely unrelated to their current illness, proportional shortfall can lead to instances of double jeopardy, a highly problematic implication. These arguments give us reason to reject proportional shortfall. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

  15. Using evaluation theory in priority setting and resource allocation.

    PubMed

    Smith, Neale; Mitton, Craig; Cornelissen, Evelyn; Gibson, Jennifer; Peacock, Stuart

    2012-01-01

    Public sector interest in methods for priority setting and program or policy evaluation has grown considerably over the last several decades, given increased expectations for accountable and efficient use of resources and emphasis on evidence-based decision making as a component of good management practice. While there has been some occasional effort to conduct evaluation of priority setting projects, the literatures around priority setting and evaluation have largely evolved separately. In this paper, the aim is to bring them together. The contention is that evaluation theory is a means by which evaluators reflect upon what it is they are doing when they do evaluation work. Theories help to organize thinking, sort out relevant from irrelevant information, provide transparent grounds for particular implementation choices, and can help resolve problematic issues which may arise in the conduct of an evaluation project. A detailed review of three major branches of evaluation theory--methods, utilization, and valuing--identifies how such theories can guide the development of efforts to evaluate priority setting and resource allocation initiatives. Evaluation theories differ in terms of their guiding question, anticipated setting or context, evaluation foci, perspective from which benefits are calculated, and typical methods endorsed. Choosing a particular theoretical approach will structure the way in which any priority setting process is evaluated. The paper suggests that explicitly considering evaluation theory makes key aspects of the evaluation process more visible to all stakeholders, and can assist in the design of effective evaluation of priority setting processes; this should iteratively serve to improve the understanding of priority setting practices themselves.

  16. The accountability for reasonableness approach to guide priority setting in health systems within limited resources--findings from action research at district level in Kenya, Tanzania, and Zambia.

    PubMed

    Byskov, Jens; Marchal, Bruno; Maluka, Stephen; Zulu, Joseph M; Bukachi, Salome A; Hurtig, Anna-Karin; Blystad, Astrid; Kamuzora, Peter; Michelo, Charles; Nyandieka, Lillian N; Ndawi, Benedict; Bloch, Paul; Olsen, Oystein E

    2014-08-20

    Priority-setting decisions are based on an important, but not sufficient set of values and thus lead to disagreement on priorities. Accountability for Reasonableness (AFR) is an ethics-based approach to a legitimate and fair priority-setting process that builds upon four conditions: relevance, publicity, appeals, and enforcement, which facilitate agreement on priority-setting decisions and gain support for their implementation. This paper focuses on the assessment of AFR within the project REsponse to ACcountable priority setting for Trust in health systems (REACT). This intervention study applied an action research methodology to assess implementation of AFR in one district in Kenya, Tanzania, and Zambia, respectively. The assessments focused on selected disease, program, and managerial areas. An implementing action research team of core health team members and supporting researchers was formed to implement, and continually assess and improve the application of the four conditions. Researchers evaluated the intervention using qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methods. The values underlying the AFR approach were in all three districts well-aligned with general values expressed by both service providers and community representatives. There was some variation in the interpretations and actual use of the AFR in the decision-making processes in the three districts, and its effect ranged from an increase in awareness of the importance of fairness to a broadened engagement of health team members and other stakeholders in priority setting and other decision-making processes. District stakeholders were able to take greater charge of closing the gap between nationally set planning and the local realities and demands of the served communities within the limited resources at hand. This study thus indicates that the operationalization of the four broadly defined and linked conditions is both possible and seems to be responding to an actual demand. This

  17. What do hospital decision-makers in Ontario, Canada, have to say about the fairness of priority setting in their institutions?

    PubMed Central

    Reeleder, David; Martin, Douglas K; Keresztes, Christian; Singer, Peter A

    2005-01-01

    Background Priority setting, also known as rationing or resource allocation, occurs at all levels of every health care system. Daniels and Sabin have proposed a framework for priority setting in health care institutions called 'accountability for reasonableness', which links priority setting to theories of democratic deliberation. Fairness is a key goal of priority setting. According to 'accountability for reasonableness', health care institutions engaged in priority setting have a claim to fairness if they satisfy four conditions of relevance, publicity, appeals/revision, and enforcement. This is the first study which has surveyed the views of hospital decision makers throughout an entire health system about the fairness of priority setting in their institutions. The purpose of this study is to elicit hospital decision-makers' self-report of the fairness of priority setting in their hospitals using an explicit conceptual framework, 'accountability for reasonableness'. Methods 160 Ontario hospital Chief Executive Officers, or their designates, were asked to complete a survey questionnaire concerning priority setting in their publicly funded institutions. Eight-six Ontario hospitals completed this survey, for a response rate of 54%. Six close-ended rating scale questions (e.g. Overall, how fair is priority setting at your hospital?), and 3 open-ended questions (e.g. What do you see as the goal(s) of priority setting in your hospital?) were used. Results Overall, 60.7% of respondents indicated their hospitals' priority setting was fair. With respect to the 'accountability for reasonableness' conditions, respondents indicated their hospitals performed best for the relevance (75.0%) condition, followed by appeals/revision (56.6%), publicity (56.0%), and enforcement (39.5%). Conclusions For the first time hospital Chief Executive Officers within an entire health system were surveyed about the fairness of priority setting practices in their institutions using the

  18. Effective Planning, Delegating, and Priority Setting.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    St. John, Walter

    1982-01-01

    Offers advice to administrators for increasing their effectiveness in an era of shrinking resources. Stresses the necessity for careful planning, delegation of tasks, and setting of priorities. Includes a guide for setting priorities and a priority planning chart. (WD)

  19. Priority setting in practice: participants opinions on vertical and horizontal priority setting for reallocation.

    PubMed

    Waldau, Susanne; Lindholm, Lars; Wiechel, Anna Helena

    2010-08-01

    In the Västerbotten County Council in Sweden a priority setting process was undertaken to reallocate existing resources for funding of new methods and activities. Resources were created by limiting low priority services. A procedure for priority setting was constructed and fully tested by engaging the entire organisation. The procedure included priority setting within and between departments and political decision making. Participants' views and experiences were collected as a basis for future improvement of the process. Results indicate that participants appreciated the overall approach and methodology and wished to engage in their improvement. Among the improvement proposals is prolongation of the process in order to improve the knowledge base quality. The procedure for identification of new items for funding also needs to be revised. The priority setting process was considered an overall success because it fulfilled its political goals. Factors considered crucial for success are a wish among managers for an economic strategy that addresses existing internal resource allocation; process management characterized by goal orientation and clear leadership; an elaborate communications strategy integrated early in the process and its management; political unity in support of the procedure, and a strong political commitment throughout the process. Generalizability has already been demonstrated by several health care organisations that performed processes founded on this working model. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

  20. A strategy to improve priority setting in developing countries.

    PubMed

    Kapiriri, Lydia; Martin, Douglas K

    2007-09-01

    Because the demand for health services outstrips the available resources, priority setting is one of the most difficult issues faced by health policy makers, particularly those in developing countries. Priority setting in developing countries is fraught with uncertainty due to lack of credible information, weak priority setting institutions, and unclear priority setting processes. Efforts to improve priority setting in these contexts have focused on providing information and tools. In this paper we argue that priority setting is a value laden and political process, and although important, the available information and tools are not sufficient to address the priority setting challenges in developing countries. Additional complementary efforts are required. Hence, a strategy to improve priority setting in developing countries should also include: (i) capturing current priority setting practices, (ii) improving the legitimacy and capacity of institutions that set priorities, and (iii) developing fair priority setting processes.

  1. The accountability for reasonableness approach to guide priority setting in health systems within limited resources – findings from action research at district level in Kenya, Tanzania, and Zambia

    PubMed Central

    2014-01-01

    Background Priority-setting decisions are based on an important, but not sufficient set of values and thus lead to disagreement on priorities. Accountability for Reasonableness (AFR) is an ethics-based approach to a legitimate and fair priority-setting process that builds upon four conditions: relevance, publicity, appeals, and enforcement, which facilitate agreement on priority-setting decisions and gain support for their implementation. This paper focuses on the assessment of AFR within the project REsponse to ACcountable priority setting for Trust in health systems (REACT). Methods This intervention study applied an action research methodology to assess implementation of AFR in one district in Kenya, Tanzania, and Zambia, respectively. The assessments focused on selected disease, program, and managerial areas. An implementing action research team of core health team members and supporting researchers was formed to implement, and continually assess and improve the application of the four conditions. Researchers evaluated the intervention using qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methods. Results The values underlying the AFR approach were in all three districts well-aligned with general values expressed by both service providers and community representatives. There was some variation in the interpretations and actual use of the AFR in the decision-making processes in the three districts, and its effect ranged from an increase in awareness of the importance of fairness to a broadened engagement of health team members and other stakeholders in priority setting and other decision-making processes. Conclusions District stakeholders were able to take greater charge of closing the gap between nationally set planning and the local realities and demands of the served communities within the limited resources at hand. This study thus indicates that the operationalization of the four broadly defined and linked conditions is both possible and seems to

  2. Priority setting and economic appraisal: whose priorities--the community or the economist?

    PubMed

    Green, A; Barker, C

    1988-01-01

    Scarce resources for health require a process for setting priorities. The exact mechanism chosen has important implications for the type of priorities and plans set, and in particular their relationship to the principles of primary health care. One technique increasingly advocated as an aid to priority setting is economic appraisal. It is argued however that economic appraisal is likely to reinforce a selective primary health care approach through its espousal of a technocratic medical model and through its hidden but implicit value judgements. It is suggested that urgent attention is needed to develop approaches to priority setting that incorporate the strengths of economic appraisal, but that are consistent with comprehensive primary health care.

  3. Setting research priorities for Type 1 diabetes.

    PubMed

    Gadsby, R; Snow, R; Daly, A C; Crowe, S; Matyka, K; Hall, B; Petrie, J

    2012-10-01

    Research priorities are often set by academic researchers or the pharmaceutical industry. The interests of patients, carers and clinicians may therefore be overlooked and research questions that matter may be neglected. The aims of this study were to collect uncertainties about the treatment of Type 1 diabetes from patients, carers and health professionals, and to collate and prioritize these uncertainties to develop a top 10 list of research priorities, using a structured priority-setting partnership of patients, carers, health professionals and diabetes organizations, as described by the James Lind Alliance. A partnership of interested organizations was set up, and from this a steering committee of 10 individuals was formed. An online and paper survey was used to identify uncertainties. These were collated, and the steering group carried out an interim priority-setting exercise with partner organizations. This group of uncertainties was then voted on to give a smaller list that went forward to the final priority-setting workshop. At this meeting, a final list of the top 10 research priorities was agreed. An initial 1141 uncertainties were described. These were reduced to 88 indicative questions, 47 of which went out for voting. Twenty-four were then taken forward to a final priority-setting workshop. This workshop resulted in a list of top 10 research priorities in Type 1 diabetes. We have shown that it is possible using the James Lind Alliance process to develop an agreed top 10 list of research priorities for Type 1 diabetes from health professionals, patients and carers. © 2012 The Authors. Diabetic Medicine © 2012 Diabetes UK.

  4. Promoting community participation in priority setting in district health systems: experiences from Mbarali district, Tanzania

    PubMed Central

    Kamuzora, Peter; Maluka, Stephen; Ndawi, Benedict; Byskov, Jens; Hurtig, Anna-Karin

    2013-01-01

    Background Community participation in priority setting in health systems has gained importance all over the world, particularly in resource-poor settings where governments have often failed to provide adequate public-sector services for their citizens. Incorporation of public views into priority setting is perceived as a means to restore trust, improve accountability, and secure cost-effective priorities within healthcare. However, few studies have reported empirical experiences of involving communities in priority setting in developing countries. The aim of this article is to provide the experience of implementing community participation and the challenges of promoting it in the context of resource-poor settings, weak organizations, and fragile democratic institutions. Design Key informant interviews were conducted with the Council Health Management Team (CHMT), community representatives, namely women, youth, elderly, disabled, and people living with HIV/AIDS, and other stakeholders who participated in the preparation of the district annual budget and health plans. Additionally, minutes from the Action Research Team and planning and priority-setting meeting reports were analyzed. Results A number of benefits were reported: better identification of community needs and priorities, increased knowledge of the community representatives about priority setting, increased transparency and accountability, promoted trust among health systems and communities, and perceived improved quality and accessibility of health services. However, lack of funds to support the work of the selected community representatives, limited time for deliberations, short notice for the meetings, and lack of feedback on the approved priorities constrained the performance of the community representatives. Furthermore, the findings show the importance of external facilitation and support in enabling health professionals and community representatives to arrive at effective working arrangement

  5. Priority setting in clinical nursing practice: literature review.

    PubMed

    Hendry, Charles; Walker, Anne

    2004-08-01

    Time is a valuable resource. When nurses experience demands on their services which exceed their available time, then 'rationing' must occur. In clinical practice such rationing requires practitioners to set priorities for care. The aim of this paper is establish what is currently known about priority setting in nursing, including how nurses set priorities and what factors influence this. CINAHL, Medline, ASSIA, and PsychLit databases for the years 1982-2002 were searched, using the terms (clinical decision-making or problem-solving or planning) and (setting priorities or prioriti*). The publications found were used in a selective, descriptive review. Priority setting is an important skill in nursing, and a skill deficit can have serious consequences for patients. Recent studies have suggested that it is a difficult skill for newly qualified nurses to acquire and may not be given sufficient attention in nurse education. Priority setting can be defined as the ordering of nursing problems using notions of urgency and/or importance, in order to establish a preferential order for nursing actions. A number of factors that may impact on priority setting have been identified in the literature. These include: the expertise of the nurse; the patient's condition; the availability of resources; ward organization; philosophies and models of care; the nurse-patient relationship; and the cognitive strategy used by the nurse to set priorities. However, very little empirical work has been conducted in this area. Further study of priority setting in a range of clinical practice settings is necessary. This could inform both practice and education, promote better use of limited resources and maximize patient outcomes.

  6. Priority setting at the micro-, meso- and macro-levels in Canada, Norway and Uganda.

    PubMed

    Kapiriri, Lydia; Norheim, Ole Frithjof; Martin, Douglas K

    2007-06-01

    The objectives of this study were (1) to describe the process of healthcare priority setting in Ontario-Canada, Norway and Uganda at the three levels of decision-making; (2) to evaluate the description using the framework for fair priority setting, accountability for reasonableness; so as to identify lessons of good practices. We carried out case studies involving key informant interviews, with 184 health practitioners and health planners from the macro-level, meso-level and micro-level from Canada-Ontario, Norway and Uganda (selected by virtue of their varying experiences in priority setting). Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed using a modified thematic approach. The descriptions were evaluated against the four conditions of "accountability for reasonableness", relevance, publicity, revisions and enforcement. Areas of adherence to these conditions were identified as lessons of good practices; areas of non-adherence were identified as opportunities for improvement. (i) at the macro-level, in all three countries, cabinet makes most of the macro-level resource allocation decisions and they are influenced by politics, public pressure, and advocacy. Decisions within the ministries of health are based on objective formulae and evidence. International priorities influenced decisions in Uganda. Some priority-setting reasons are publicized through circulars, printed documents and the Internet in Canada and Norway. At the meso-level, hospital priority-setting decisions were made by the hospital managers and were based on national priorities, guidelines, and evidence. Hospital departments that handle emergencies, such as surgery, were prioritized. Some of the reasons are available on the hospital intranet or presented at meetings. Micro-level practitioners considered medical and social worth criteria. These reasons are not publicized. Many practitioners lacked knowledge of the macro- and meso-level priority-setting processes. (ii) Evaluation

  7. Setting Priorities: A Handbook of Alternative Techniques.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Price, Nelson C.

    Six models for setting priorities are presented in a workbook format with exercises for evaluating or practicing five techniques. In the San Mateo model one sets priorities, clarifies priority purpose, lists items, determines criteria, lists items and criteria on a rating sheet, studies all information on items, rates each item, tallies results,…

  8. Setting research priorities by applying the combined approach matrix.

    PubMed

    Ghaffar, Abdul

    2009-04-01

    Priority setting in health research is a dynamic process. Different organizations and institutes have been working in the field of research priority setting for many years. In 1999 the Global Forum for Health Research presented a research priority setting tool called the Combined Approach Matrix or CAM. Since its development, the CAM has been successfully applied to set research priorities for diseases, conditions and programmes at global, regional and national levels. This paper briefly explains the CAM methodology and how it could be applied in different settings, giving examples and describing challenges encountered in the process of setting research priorities and providing recommendations for further work in this field. The construct and design of the CAM is explained along with different steps needed, including planning and organization of a priority-setting exercise and how it could be applied in different settings. The application of the CAM are described by using three examples. The first concerns setting research priorities for a global programme, the second describes application at the country level and the third setting research priorities for diseases. Effective application of the CAM in different and diverse environments proves its utility as a tool for setting research priorities. Potential challenges encountered in the process of research priority setting are discussed and some recommendations for further work in this field are provided.

  9. Priority-setting for achieving universal health coverage

    PubMed Central

    Chalkidou, Kalipso; Glassman, Amanda; Marten, Robert; Vega, Jeanette; Tritasavit, Nattha; Gyansa-Lutterodt, Martha; Seiter, Andreas; Kieny, Marie Paule; Hofman, Karen; Culyer, Anthony J

    2016-01-01

    Abstract Governments in low- and middle-income countries are legitimizing the implementation of universal health coverage (UHC), following a United Nation’s resolution on UHC in 2012 and its reinforcement in the sustainable development goals set in 2015. UHC will differ in each country depending on country contexts and needs, as well as demand and supply in health care. Therefore, fundamental issues such as objectives, users and cost–effectiveness of UHC have been raised by policy-makers and stakeholders. While priority-setting is done on a daily basis by health authorities – implicitly or explicitly – it has not been made clear how priority-setting for UHC should be conducted. We provide justification for explicit health priority-setting and guidance to countries on how to set priorities for UHC. PMID:27274598

  10. Priority Setting in Government: Beyond the Magic Bullet.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Bosin, Morris Robert

    1992-01-01

    Priority setting is examined from the perspective of planning practitioners operating in a major federal regulatory agency. Causes of ambivalence in setting priorities are considered, and ways to reduce ambivalence are suggested. Three models are proposed for setting priorities in the public sector. (SLD)

  11. Evaluating healthcare priority setting at the meso level: A thematic review of empirical literature

    PubMed Central

    Waithaka, Dennis; Tsofa, Benjamin; Barasa, Edwine

    2018-01-01

    Background: Decentralization of health systems has made sub-national/regional healthcare systems the backbone of healthcare delivery. These regions are tasked with the difficult responsibility of determining healthcare priorities and resource allocation amidst scarce resources. We aimed to review empirical literature that evaluated priority setting practice at the meso (sub-national) level of health systems. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, ScienceDirect and Google scholar databases and supplemented these with manual searching for relevant studies, based on the reference list of selected papers. We only included empirical studies that described and evaluated, or those that only evaluated priority setting practice at the meso-level. A total of 16 papers were identified from LMICs and HICs. We analyzed data from the selected papers by thematic review. Results: Few studies used systematic priority setting processes, and all but one were from HICs. Both formal and informal criteria are used in priority-setting, however, informal criteria appear to be more perverse in LMICs compared to HICs. The priority setting process at the meso-level is a top-down approach with minimal involvement of the community. Accountability for reasonableness was the most common evaluative framework as it was used in 12 of the 16 studies. Efficiency, reallocation of resources and options for service delivery redesign were the most common outcome measures used to evaluate priority setting. Limitations: Our study was limited by the fact that there are very few empirical studies that have evaluated priority setting at the meso-level and there is likelihood that we did not capture all the studies. Conclusions: Improving priority setting practices at the meso level is crucial to strengthening health systems. This can be achieved through incorporating and adapting systematic priority setting processes and frameworks to the context where used, and making considerations of both process

  12. Leadership and priority setting: the perspective of hospital CEOs.

    PubMed

    Reeleder, David; Goel, Vivek; Singer, Peter A; Martin, Douglas K

    2006-11-01

    The role of leadership in health care priority setting remains largely unexplored. While the management leadership literature has grown rapidly, the growing literature on priority setting in health care has looked in other directions to improve priority setting practices--to health economics and ethical approaches. Consequently, potential for improvement in hospital priority setting practices may be overlooked. A qualitative study involving interviews with 46 Ontario hospital CEOs was done to describe the role of leadership in priority setting through the perspective of hospital leaders. For the first time, we report a framework of leadership domains including vision, alignment, relationships, values and process to facilitate priority setting practices in health services' organizations. We believe this fledgling framework forms the basis for the sharing of good leadership practices for health reform. It also provides a leadership guide for decision makers to improve the quality of their leadership, and in so doing, we believe, the fairness of their priority setting.

  13. Priority setting in developing countries health care institutions: the case of a Ugandan hospital

    PubMed Central

    Kapiriri, Lydia; Martin, Douglas K

    2006-01-01

    Background Because the demand for health services outstrips the available resources, priority setting is one of the most difficult issues faced by health policy makers, particularly those in developing countries. However, there is lack of literature that describes and evaluates priority setting in these contexts. The objective of this paper is to describe priority setting in a teaching hospital in Uganda and evaluate the description against an ethical framework for fair priority setting processes – Accountability for Reasonableness. Methods A case study in a 1,500 bed national referral hospital receiving 1,320 out patients per day and an average budget of US$ 13.5 million per year. We reviewed documents and carried out 70 in-depth interviews (14 health planners, 40 doctors, and 16 nurses working at the hospital). Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Data analysis employed the modified thematic approach to describe priority setting, and the description was evaluated using the four conditions of Accountability for Reasonableness: relevance, publicity, revisions and enforcement. Results Senior managers, guided by the hospital strategic plan make the hospital budget allocation decisions. Frontline practitioners expressed lack of knowledge of the process. Relevance: Priority is given according to a cluster of factors including need, emergencies and patient volume. However, surgical departments and departments whose leaders "make a lot of noise" are also prioritized. Publicity: Decisions, but not reasons, are publicized through general meetings and circulars, but this information does not always reach the frontline practitioners. Publicity to the general public was through ad hoc radio programs and to patients who directly ask. Revisions: There were no formal mechanisms for challenging the reasoning. Enforcement: There were no mechanisms to ensure adherence to the four conditions of a fair process. Conclusion Priority setting decisions at this hospital do not

  14. Public attitudes and values in priority setting.

    PubMed

    Peacock, Stuart J

    2015-01-01

    There is growing recognition that critical decisions concerning investments in new health care technologies and services should incorporate society's values along with the scientific evidence. From a normative perspective, public engagement can help realize the democratic ideals of legitimacy, transparency, and accountability. On a more pragmatic level, public engagement can help stakeholders understand the degree of popular support for policy options, and may enhance public trust in decision-making processes. To better understand public attitudes and values relating to priority setting in health care, researchers and decision-makers will have to employ a range of quantitative and qualitative approaches, drawing on different disciplines and methodological traditions.

  15. Implementing priority setting frameworks: Insights from leading researchers.

    PubMed

    Angell, Blake; Pares, Jennie; Mooney, Gavin

    2016-12-01

    In spite of a substantial literature developing frameworks for policymakers to use in resource allocation decisions in healthcare, there remains limited published work reporting on the implementation or evaluation of such frameworks in practice. This paper presents findings of a targeted survey of 18 leading researchers around the implementation and evaluation of priority-setting exercises. Approximately one third of respondents knew of situations where recommendations of priority-setting exercises had been implemented, one third knew that recommendations had not been implemented and the final third responded that they did not know whether recommendations had been adopted. The lack of evidence linking the implementation of priority-setting recommendations to equity and efficiency outcomes was highlighted by all respondents. Features identified as facilitating successful implementation of priority-setting recommendations included having a climate ready to accept priority-setting, good leadership or a 'champion' for the priority-setting process and having a health economist to guide the process. Successful disinvestment was very uncommon in the experience of the researchers surveyed. Recommendations emerging from Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis exercises appeared to be more widely implemented than those coming from alternative processes. Identifying if the process was repeated following the initial process was suggested as a means to measure success. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

  16. [The Danish Debate on Priority Setting in Medicine--An Update].

    PubMed

    Pornak, S C; Raspe, H

    2015-09-01

    In the last years, the Danish debate about priority setting in medicine has gained new strength. This paper shows the main focuses of the current discussion based on a research of Danish primary literature. For the first time since the 1990s the Danish Council of Ethics has been involved with priority setting in medicine in a project running from 2011 to 2013. The Council emphasises the importance of legitimate processes and calls for visible values and criteria. A focus of the debate is how to deal with new expensive drugs. Politicians, physicians, health economists and the Council of Ethics have called for a national institution for priority setting in medicine. They have mainly looked to the Norwegian National Council for Priority Setting in Health Care and the British National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for inspiration. The Danish Government considered establishing a national institute for priority setting, but the plans were not put into practice. In the year 2012 a new national project was launched to create clinical guidelines. Danish doctors welcome the guidelines as a good basis for priority setting. Just like in earlier Danish priority setting debates, a coordinating institution is lacking to bundle the discussion and keep it going. The debate seems to have come to an end once again. The fact that it was seriously considered to establish an institute for priority setting is a new development. It can be expected that the discussion will be resumed in the near future, possibly the idea of an institute for priority setting will be readopted. The general conditions for priority setting in health care have improved. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

  17. Basic priority rating model 2.0: current applications for priority setting in health promotion practice.

    PubMed

    Neiger, Brad L; Thackeray, Rosemary; Fagen, Michael C

    2011-03-01

    Priority setting is an important component of systematic planning in health promotion and also factors into the development of a comprehensive evaluation plan. The basic priority rating (BPR) model was introduced more than 50 years ago and includes criteria that should be considered in any priority setting approach (i.e., use of predetermined criteria, standardized comparisons, and a rubric that controls bias). Although the BPR model has provided basic direction in priority setting, it does not represent the broad array of data currently available to decision makers. Elements in the model also give more weight to the impact of communicable diseases compared with chronic diseases. For these reasons, several modifications are recommended to improve the BPR model and to better assist health promotion practitioners in the priority setting process. The authors also suggest a new name, BPR 2.0, to represent this revised model.

  18. Setting priorities for space research: An experiment in methodology

    NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

    1995-01-01

    In 1989, the Space Studies Board created the Task Group on Priorities in Space Research to determine whether scientists should take a role in recommending priorities for long-term space research initiatives and, if so, to analyze the priority-setting problem in this context and develop a method by which such priorities could be established. After answering the first question in the affirmative in a previous report, the task group set out to accomplish the second task. The basic assumption in developing a priority-setting process is that a reasoned and structured approach for ordering competing initiatives will yield better results than other ways of proceeding. The task group proceeded from the principle that the central criterion for evaluating a research initiative must be its scientific merit -- the value of the initiative to the proposing discipline and to science generally. The group developed a two-stage methodology for priority setting and constructed a procedure and format to support the methodology. The first of two instruments developed was a standard format for structuring proposals for space research initiatives. The second instrument was a formal, semiquantitative appraisal procedure for evaluating competing proposals. This report makes available complete templates for the methodology, including the advocacy statement and evaluation forms, as well as an 11-step schema for a priority-setting process. From the beginning of its work, the task group was mindful that the issue of priority setting increasingly pervades all of federally supported science and that its work would have implications extending beyond space research. Thus, although the present report makes no recommendations for action by NASA or other government agencies, it provides the results of the task group's work for the use of others who may study priority-setting procedures or take up the challenge of implementing them in the future.

  19. Setting stroke research priorities: The consumer perspective.

    PubMed

    Sangvatanakul, Pukkaporn; Hillege, Sharon; Lalor, Erin; Levi, Christopher; Hill, Kelvin; Middleton, Sandy

    2010-12-01

    To test a method of engaging consumers in research priority-setting using a quantitative approach and to determine consumer views on stroke research priorities for clinical practice recommendations with lower levels of evidence (Level III and Level IV) and expert consensus opinion as published in the Australian stroke clinical practice guidelines. Survey Urban community Eighteen stroke survivors (n = 12) and carers (n = 6) who were members of the "Working Aged Group - Stroke" (WAGS) consumer support group. Phase I: Participants were asked whether recommendations were "worth" researching ("yes" or "no"); and, if researched, what potential impact they likely would have on patient outcomes. Phase II: Participants were asked to rank recommendations rated by more than 75% of participants in Phase I as "worth" researching and "highly likely" or "likely" to generate research with a significant effect on patient outcomes (n = 13) in order of priority for future stroke research. All recommendations were rated by at least half (n = 9, 50%) of participants as "worth" researching. The majority (67% to 100%) rated all recommendations as "highly likely" or "likely" that research would have a significant effect on patient outcomes. Thirteen out of 20 recommendations were ranked for their research priorities. Recommendations under the topic heading Getting to hospital were ranked highest and Organization of care and Living with stroke were ranked as a lower priority for research. This study provided an example of how to involve consumers in research priority setting successfully using a quantitative approach. Stroke research priorities from the consumer perspective were different from those of health professionals, as published in the literature; thus, consumer opinion should be considered when setting research priorities. Copyright © 2010 Society for Vascular Nursing, Inc. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

  20. Setting Research Priorities for Kidney Cancer.

    PubMed

    Jones, Jennifer M; Bhatt, Jaimin; Avery, Jonathan; Laupacis, Andreas; Cowan, Katherine; Basappa, Naveen S; Basiuk, Joan; Canil, Christina; Al-Asaaed, Sohaib; Heng, Daniel Y C; Wood, Lori; Stacey, Dawn; Kollmannsberger, Christian; Jewett, Michael A S

    2017-12-01

    Defining disease-specific research priorities in cancer can facilitate better allocation of limited resources. Involving patients and caregivers as well as expert clinicians in this process is of value. We undertook this approach for kidney cancer as an example. The Kidney Cancer Research Network of Canada sponsored a collaborative consensus-based priority-setting partnership that identified ten research priorities in the management of kidney cancer. These are discussed in the context of current initiatives and gaps in knowledge. Copyright © 2017 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

  1. Setting priorities in health care organizations: criteria, processes, and parameters of success.

    PubMed

    Gibson, Jennifer L; Martin, Douglas K; Singer, Peter A

    2004-09-08

    Hospitals and regional health authorities must set priorities in the face of resource constraints. Decision-makers seek practical ways to set priorities fairly in strategic planning, but find limited guidance from the literature. Very little has been reported from the perspective of Board members and senior managers about what criteria, processes and parameters of success they would use to set priorities fairly. We facilitated workshops for board members and senior leadership at three health care organizations to assist them in developing a strategy for fair priority setting. Workshop participants identified 8 priority setting criteria, 10 key priority setting process elements, and 6 parameters of success that they would use to set priorities in their organizations. Decision-makers in other organizations can draw lessons from these findings to enhance the fairness of their priority setting decision-making. Lessons learned in three workshops fill an important gap in the literature about what criteria, processes, and parameters of success Board members and senior managers would use to set priorities fairly.

  2. Priority setting and evidence based purchasing.

    PubMed

    Frith, L

    1999-01-01

    The purpose of this paper is to consider the role that values play in priority setting through the use of EBP. It is important to be clear about the role of values at all levels of the decision making process. At one level, society as a whole has to make decisions about the kind of health provision that it wants. As is generally accepted, these priority setting questions cannot be answered by medical science alone but involve important judgements of value. However, as I hope to show values come into priority setting questions at another level, one not often explicitly recognised in much of the literature: that of the very definition of the effectiveness of treatments. This has important consequences for patient care. If we do not recognise that the effectiveness of a treatment involve subjective elements--a patient's own assessment of the value of the treatment--then this could lead to the belief that we can purchase one treatment that is the most effective for all patients. This might result in a detrimental reduction in the range of options that a patient is given with some patients not receiving the treatment that is most effective for them.

  3. Setting healthcare priorities in hospitals: a review of empirical studies

    PubMed Central

    Barasa, Edwine W; Molyneux, Sassy; English, Mike; Cleary, Susan

    2015-01-01

    Priority setting research has focused on the macro (national) and micro (bedside) level, leaving the meso (institutional, hospital) level relatively neglected. This is surprising given the key role that hospitals play in the delivery of healthcare services and the large proportion of health systems resources that they absorb. To explore the factors that impact upon priority setting at the hospital level, we conducted a thematic review of empirical studies. A systematic search of PubMed, EBSCOHOST, Econlit databases and Google scholar was supplemented by a search of key websites and a manual search of relevant papers’ reference lists. A total of 24 papers were identified from developed and developing countries. We applied a policy analysis framework to examine and synthesize the findings of the selected papers. Findings suggest that priority setting practice in hospitals was influenced by (1) contextual factors such as decision space, resource availability, financing arrangements, availability and use of information, organizational culture and leadership, (2) priority setting processes that depend on the type of priority setting activity, (3) content factors such as priority setting criteria and (4) actors, their interests and power relations. We observe that there is need for studies to examine these issues and the interplay between them in greater depth and propose a conceptual framework that might be useful in examining priority setting practices in hospitals. PMID:24604831

  4. Setting practical conservation priorities for birds in the Western Andes of Colombia.

    PubMed

    Ocampo-Peñuela, Natalia; Pimm, Stuart L

    2014-10-01

    We aspired to set conservation priorities in ways that lead to direct conservation actions. Very large-scale strategic mapping leads to familiar conservation priorities exemplified by biodiversity hotspots. In contrast, tactical conservation actions unfold on much smaller geographical extents and they need to reflect the habitat loss and fragmentation that have sharply restricted where species now live. Our aspirations for direct, practical actions were demanding. First, we identified the global, strategic conservation priorities and then downscaled to practical local actions within the selected priorities. In doing this, we recognized the limitations of incomplete information. We started such a process in Colombia and used the results presented here to implement reforestation of degraded land to prevent the isolation of a large area of cloud forest. We used existing range maps of 171 bird species to identify priority conservation areas that would conserve the greatest number of species at risk in Colombia. By at risk species, we mean those that are endemic and have small ranges. The Western Andes had the highest concentrations of such species-100 in total-but the lowest densities of national parks. We then adjusted the priorities for this region by refining these species ranges by selecting only areas of suitable elevation and remaining habitat. The estimated ranges of these species shrank by 18-100% after accounting for habitat and suitable elevation. Setting conservation priorities on the basis of currently available range maps excluded priority areas in the Western Andes and, by extension, likely elsewhere and for other taxa. By incorporating detailed maps of remaining natural habitats, we made practical recommendations for conservation actions. One recommendation was to restore forest connections to a patch of cloud forest about to become isolated from the main Andes. © 2014 Society for Conservation Biology.

  5. Application of economic principles in healthcare priority setting.

    PubMed

    Bate, Angela; Mitton, Craig

    2006-06-01

    In healthcare, resources are often insufficient to meet all claims on them. In this respect, resources are considered scarce and have to be managed by prioritizing between competing claims. Economics as a discipline explicitly addresses this reality by acknowledging resource scarcity. However, the extent to which economics actually influences such prioritizing decisions in healthcare is unclear. The purpose of this paper is to review the use of economics in priority setting decision making. We outline the key principles of economics as they apply to priority setting and review the methods reported in the literature with respect to these. We find that these methods, even economic methods (e.g., those typically used in conducting economic evaluations such as cost-effectiveness analyses) do not tend to explicitly incorporate economic principles. We argue therefore that these methods, when applied to the context of priority setting, are not sufficient and that what is required is a broader framework that can incorporate the output from economic methods yet also be pragmatically applicable. We then go on to present an alternative approach - namely program budgeting and marginal analysis. Finally, we put forward our case for using program budgeting and marginal analysis in priority setting practice and set out some future research challenges.

  6. Setting healthcare priorities in hospitals: a review of empirical studies.

    PubMed

    Barasa, Edwine W; Molyneux, Sassy; English, Mike; Cleary, Susan

    2015-04-01

    Priority setting research has focused on the macro (national) and micro (bedside) level, leaving the meso (institutional, hospital) level relatively neglected. This is surprising given the key role that hospitals play in the delivery of healthcare services and the large proportion of health systems resources that they absorb. To explore the factors that impact upon priority setting at the hospital level, we conducted a thematic review of empirical studies. A systematic search of PubMed, EBSCOHOST, Econlit databases and Google scholar was supplemented by a search of key websites and a manual search of relevant papers' reference lists. A total of 24 papers were identified from developed and developing countries. We applied a policy analysis framework to examine and synthesize the findings of the selected papers. Findings suggest that priority setting practice in hospitals was influenced by (1) contextual factors such as decision space, resource availability, financing arrangements, availability and use of information, organizational culture and leadership, (2) priority setting processes that depend on the type of priority setting activity, (3) content factors such as priority setting criteria and (4) actors, their interests and power relations. We observe that there is need for studies to examine these issues and the interplay between them in greater depth and propose a conceptual framework that might be useful in examining priority setting practices in hospitals. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine © The Author 2014; all rights reserved.

  7. [The Danish debate on priority setting in medicine - characteristics and results].

    PubMed

    Pornak, S; Meyer, T; Raspe, H

    2011-10-01

    Priority setting in medicine helps to achieve a fair and transparent distribution of health-care resources. The German discussion about priority setting is still in its infancy and may benefit from other countries' experiences. This paper aims to analyse the Danish priority setting debate in order to stimulate the German discussion. The methods used are a literature analysis and a document analysis as well as expert interviews. The Danish debate about priority setting in medicine began in the 1970s, when a government committee was constituted to evaluate health-care priorities at the national level. In the 1980s a broader debate arose in politics, ethics, medicine and health economy. The discussions reached a climax in the 1990s, when many local activities - always involving the public - were initiated. Some Danish counties tried to implement priority setting in the daily routine of health care. The Council of Ethics was a major player in the debate of the 1990s and published a detailed statement on priority setting in 1996. With the new century the debate about priority setting seemed to have come to an end, but in 2006 the Technology Council and the Danish Regions resumed the discussion. In 2009 the Medical Association called for a broad debate in order to achieve equity among all patients. The long lasting Danish debate on priority setting has entailed only very little practical consequences on health care. The main problems seem to have been the missing effort to bundle the various local initiatives on a national level and the lack of powerful players to put results of the discussion into practice. Nevertheless, today the attitude towards priority setting is predominantly positive and even politicians talk freely about it. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

  8. Accounting and Financial Planning--Top Priorities for School Business Administrators.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Walters, Donald L.

    Success for the business administrator depends largely on ability to identify priorities and to direct time, energy, and know-how accordingly. This study attempted to find out the priorities of the tasks of accounting and financial planning for school business administrators and the precise nature of the school business administrator's…

  9. Setting Priorities: Personal Values, Organizational Results. Ideas into Action Guidebooks

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Cartwright, Talula

    2007-01-01

    Successful leaders get results. To get results, you need to set priorities. This book can help you do a better job of setting priorities, recognizing the personal values that motivate your decision making, the probable trade-offs and consequences of your decisions, and the importance of aligning your priorities with your organization's…

  10. Setting Priorities Among Educational Objectives.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Sutjipto, Sudijarto; And Others

    This publication is intended to aid educational planners in developing nations in translating national goals and aspirations into educational objectives and in establishing and quantifying priorities among educational objectives. Much of the content is based on a model for setting educational objectives that was developed in Indonesia in 1972. The…

  11. Solutions for filling gaps in accountable care measure sets.

    PubMed

    Valuck, Tom; Dugan, Donna; Dubois, Robert W; Westrich, Kimberly; Penso, Jerry; McClellan, Mark

    2015-10-01

    A primary objective of accountable care is to support providers in reforming care to improve outcomes and lower costs. Gaps in accountable care measure sets may cause missed opportunities for improvement and missed signals of problems in care. Measures to balance financial incentives may be particularly important for high-cost conditions or specialty treatments. This study explored gaps in measure sets for specific conditions and offers strategies for more comprehensive measurement that do not necessarily require more measures. A descriptive analysis of measure gaps in accountable care programs and proposed solutions for filling the gaps. We analyzed gaps in 2 accountable care organization measure sets for 20 high-priority clinical conditions by comparing the measures in those sets with clinical guidelines and assessing the use of outcome measures. Where we identified gaps, we looked for existing measures to address the gaps. Gaps not addressed by existing measures were considered areas for measure development or measurement strategy refinement. We found measure gaps across all 20 conditions, including those conditions that are commonly addressed in current measure sets. In addition, we found many gaps that could not be filled by existing measures. Results across all 20 conditions informed recommendations for measure set improvement. Addressing all gaps in accountable care measure sets with more of the same types of measures and approaches to measurement would require an impractical number of measures and would miss the opportunity to use better measures and innovative approaches. Strategies for effectively filling measure gaps include using preferred measure types such as cross-cutting, outcome, and patient-reported measures. Program implementers should also apply new approaches to measurement, including layered and modular models.

  12. Priority setting in Indigenous health: assessing priority setting process and criteria that should guide the health system to improve Indigenous Australian health

    PubMed Central

    2014-01-01

    Introduction The health of Indigenous Australians is worse than that of other Australians. Most of the determinants of health are preventable and the poor health outcomes are inequitable. The Australian Government recently pledged to close that health gap. One possible way is to improve the priority setting process to ensure transparency and the use of evidence such as epidemiology, equity and economic evaluation. The purpose of this research was to elicit the perceptions of Indigenous and non-Indigenous decision-makers on several issues related to priority setting in Indigenous-specific health care services. Specifically, we aimed to: 1. identify the criteria used to set priorities in Indigenous-specific health care services; 2. determine the level of uptake of economic evaluation evidence by decision-makers and how to improve its uptake; and 3. identify how the priority setting process can be improved from the perspective of decision-makers. Methods We used a paper survey instrument, adapted from Mitton and colleagues’ work, and a face-to-face interview approach to elicit decision-makers’ perceptions in Indigenous-specific health care in Victoria, Australia. We used mixed methods to analyse data from the survey. Responses were summarised using descriptive statistics and content analysis. Results were reported as numbers and percentages. Results The size of the health burden; sustainability and acceptability of interventions; historical trends/patterns; and efficiency are key criteria for making choices in Indigenous health in Victoria. There is a need for an explicit priority setting approach, which is systematic, and is able to use available data/evidence, such as economic evaluation evidence. The involvement of Indigenous Australians in the process would potentially make the process acceptable. Conclusions An economic approach to priority setting is a potentially acceptable and useful tool for Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHS). It has

  13. Priority setting for health in emerging markets.

    PubMed

    Glassman, Amanda; Giedion, Ursula; McQueston, Kate

    2013-05-01

    The use of health technology assessment research in emerging economies is becoming an increasingly important tool to determine the uses of health spending. As low- and middle-income countries' gross domestic product grows, the funding available for health has increased in tandem. There is growing evidence that comparative effectiveness research and cost-effectiveness can be used to improve health outcomes within a predefined financial space. The use of these evaluation tools, combined with a systematized process of priority setting, can help inform national and global health payers. This review of country institutions for health technology assessment illustrates two points: the efforts underway to use research to inform priorities are widespread and not confined to wealthier countries; and many countries' efforts to create evidence-based policy are incomplete and more country-specific research will be needed. Further evidence shows that there is scope to reduce these gaps and opportunity to support better incorporation of data through better-defined priority-setting processes.

  14. Setting Priorities in Global Child Health Research Investments: Guidelines for Implementation of the CHNRI Method

    PubMed Central

    Rudan, Igor; Gibson, Jennifer L.; Ameratunga, Shanthi; El Arifeen, Shams; Bhutta, Zulfiqar A.; Black, Maureen; Black, Robert E.; Brown, Kenneth H.; Campbell, Harry; Carneiro, Ilona; Chan, Kit Yee; Chandramohan, Daniel; Chopra, Mickey; Cousens, Simon; Darmstadt, Gary L.; Gardner, Julie Meeks; Hess, Sonja Y.; Hyder, Adnan A.; Kapiriri, Lydia; Kosek, Margaret; Lanata, Claudio F.; Lansang, Mary Ann; Lawn, Joy; Tomlinson, Mark; Tsai, Alexander C.; Webster, Jayne

    2008-01-01

    This article provides detailed guidelines for the implementation of systematic method for setting priorities in health research investments that was recently developed by Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI). The target audience for the proposed method are international agencies, large research funding donors, and national governments and policy-makers. The process has the following steps: (i) selecting the managers of the process; (ii) specifying the context and risk management preferences; (iii) discussing criteria for setting health research priorities; (iv) choosing a limited set of the most useful and important criteria; (v) developing means to assess the likelihood that proposed health research options will satisfy the selected criteria; (vi) systematic listing of a large number of proposed health research options; (vii) pre-scoring check of all competing health research options; (viii) scoring of health research options using the chosen set of criteria; (ix) calculating intermediate scores for each health research option; (x) obtaining further input from the stakeholders; (xi) adjusting intermediate scores taking into account the values of stakeholders; (xii) calculating overall priority scores and assigning ranks; (xiii) performing an analysis of agreement between the scorers; (xiv) linking computed research priority scores with investment decisions; (xv) feedback and revision. The CHNRI method is a flexible process that enables prioritizing health research investments at any level: institutional, regional, national, international, or global. PMID:19090596

  15. Identifying research priorities for health care priority setting: a collaborative effort between managers and researchers

    PubMed Central

    Smith, Neale; Mitton, Craig; Peacock, Stuart; Cornelissen, Evelyn; MacLeod, Stuart

    2009-01-01

    Background To date there has been relatively little published about how research priorities are set, and even less about methods by which decision-makers can be engaged in defining a relevant and appropriate research agenda. We report on a recent effort in British Columbia to have researchers and decision-makers jointly establish an agenda for future research into questions of resource allocation. Methods The researchers enlisted decision-maker partners from each of British Columbia's six health authorities. Three forums were held, at which researchers and decision-makers from various levels in the health authorities considered possible research areas related to three key focus areas: (1) generation and use of decision criteria and measurement of 'benefit' against such criteria; (2) identification of so-called 'disinvestment' opportunities; and (3) evaluation of the effectiveness of priority setting procedures. Detailed notes were taken from each forum and synthesized into a set of qualitative themes. Results Forum participants suggested that future research into healthcare priority setting would benefit from studies that were longitudinal, comparative, and/or interdisciplinary. As well, participants identified two broad theme areas in which specific research projects were deemed desirable. First, future research might usefully consider how formal priority setting and resource allocation projects are situated within a larger organizational and political context. Second, additional research efforts should be devoted to better understanding and improving the actual implementation of priority setting frameworks, particularly with respect to issues of change management and the resolution of impediments to action on recommendations for resource allocation. Conclusion We were able to validate the importance of initial areas posed to the group and observed emergence of additional concerns and directions of critical importance to these decision-makers at this time. It is

  16. Setting Healthcare Priorities at the Macro and Meso Levels: A Framework for Evaluation

    PubMed Central

    Barasa, Edwine W.; Molyneux, Sassy; English, Mike; Cleary, Susan

    2015-01-01

    Background: Priority setting in healthcare is a key determinant of health system performance. However, there is no widely accepted priority setting evaluation framework. We reviewed literature with the aim of developing and proposing a framework for the evaluation of macro and meso level healthcare priority setting practices. Methods: We systematically searched Econlit, PubMed, CINAHL, and EBSCOhost databases and supplemented this with searches in Google Scholar, relevant websites and reference lists of relevant papers. A total of 31 papers on evaluation of priority setting were identified. These were supplemented by broader theoretical literature related to evaluation of priority setting. A conceptual review of selected papers was undertaken. Results: Based on a synthesis of the selected literature, we propose an evaluative framework that requires that priority setting practices at the macro and meso levels of the health system meet the following conditions: (1) Priority setting decisions should incorporate both efficiency and equity considerations as well as the following outcomes; (a) Stakeholder satisfaction, (b) Stakeholder understanding, (c) Shifted priorities (reallocation of resources), and (d) Implementation of decisions. (2) Priority setting processes should also meet the procedural conditions of (a) Stakeholder engagement, (b) Stakeholder empowerment, (c) Transparency, (d) Use of evidence, (e) Revisions, (f) Enforcement, and (g) Being grounded on community values. Conclusion: Available frameworks for the evaluation of priority setting are mostly grounded on procedural requirements, while few have included outcome requirements. There is, however, increasing recognition of the need to incorporate both consequential and procedural considerations in priority setting practices. In this review, we adapt an integrative approach to develop and propose a framework for the evaluation of priority setting practices at the macro and meso levels that draws from these

  17. Setting Healthcare Priorities at the Macro and Meso Levels: A Framework for Evaluation.

    PubMed

    Barasa, Edwine W; Molyneux, Sassy; English, Mike; Cleary, Susan

    2015-09-16

    Priority setting in healthcare is a key determinant of health system performance. However, there is no widely accepted priority setting evaluation framework. We reviewed literature with the aim of developing and proposing a framework for the evaluation of macro and meso level healthcare priority setting practices. We systematically searched Econlit, PubMed, CINAHL, and EBSCOhost databases and supplemented this with searches in Google Scholar, relevant websites and reference lists of relevant papers. A total of 31 papers on evaluation of priority setting were identified. These were supplemented by broader theoretical literature related to evaluation of priority setting. A conceptual review of selected papers was undertaken. Based on a synthesis of the selected literature, we propose an evaluative framework that requires that priority setting practices at the macro and meso levels of the health system meet the following conditions: (1) Priority setting decisions should incorporate both efficiency and equity considerations as well as the following outcomes; (a) Stakeholder satisfaction, (b) Stakeholder understanding, (c) Shifted priorities (reallocation of resources), and (d) Implementation of decisions. (2) Priority setting processes should also meet the procedural conditions of (a) Stakeholder engagement, (b) Stakeholder empowerment, (c) Transparency, (d) Use of evidence, (e) Revisions, (f) Enforcement, and (g) Being grounded on community values. Available frameworks for the evaluation of priority setting are mostly grounded on procedural requirements, while few have included outcome requirements. There is, however, increasing recognition of the need to incorporate both consequential and procedural considerations in priority setting practices. In this review, we adapt an integrative approach to develop and propose a framework for the evaluation of priority setting practices at the macro and meso levels that draws from these complementary schools of thought. © 2015

  18. Past, present and future challenges in health care priority setting.

    PubMed

    Hall, William; Williams, Iestyn; Smith, Neale; Gold, Marthe; Coast, Joanna; Kapiriri, Lydia; Danis, M; Mitton, Craig

    2018-05-21

    Purpose Current conditions have intensified the need for health systems to engage in the difficult task of priority setting. As the search for a "magic bullet" is replaced by an appreciation for the interplay between evidence, interests, culture, and outcomes, progress in relation to these dimensions requires assessment of achievements to date and identification of areas where knowledge and practice require attention most urgently. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach An international survey was administered to experts in the area of priority setting. The survey consisted of open-ended questions focusing on notable achievements, policy and practice challenges, and areas for future research in the discipline of priority setting. It was administered online between February and March of 2015. Findings "Decision-making frameworks" and "Engagement" were the two most frequently mentioned notable achievements. "Priority setting in practice" and "Awareness and education" were the two most frequently mentioned policy and practical challenges. "Priority setting in practice" and "Engagement" were the two most frequently mentioned areas in need of future research. Research limitations/implications Sampling bias toward more developed countries. Future study could use findings to create a more concise version to distribute more broadly. Practical implications Globally, these findings could be used as a platform for discussion and decision making related to policy, practice, and research in this area. Originality/value Whilst this study reaffirmed the continued importance of many longstanding themes in the priority setting literature, it is possible to also discern clear shifts in emphasis as the discipline progresses in response to new challenges.

  19. Strengthening expertise for health technology assessment and priority-setting in Africa

    PubMed Central

    Doherty, Jane E; Wilkinson, Thomas; Edoka, Ijeoma; Hofman, Karen

    2017-01-01

    ABSTRACT Background: Achieving sustainable universal health coverage depends partly on fair priority-setting processes that ensure countries spend scarce resources wisely. While general health economics capacity-strengthening initiatives exist in Africa, less attention has been paid to developing the capacity of individuals, institutions and networks to apply economic evaluation in support of health technology assessment and effective priority-setting. Objective: On the basis of international  lessons, to identify how research organisations and partnerships could contribute to capacity strengthening for health technology assessment and priority-setting in Africa. Methods: A rapid scan was conducted of international formal and grey literature and lessons extracted from the deliberations of two international and regional workshops relating to capacity-building for health technology assessment. ‘Capacity’ was defined in broad terms, including a conducive political environment, strong public institutional capacity to drive priority-setting, effective networking between experts, strong research organisations and skilled researchers. Results: Effective priority-setting requires more than high quality economic research. Researchers have to engage with an array of stakeholders, network closely other research organisations, build partnerships with different levels of government and train the future generation of researchers and policy-makers. In low- and middle-income countries where there are seldom government units or agencies dedicated to health technology assessment, they also have to support the development of an effective priority-setting process that is sensitive to societal and government needs and priorities. Conclusions: Research organisations have an important role to play in contributing to the development of health technology assessment and priority-setting capacity. In Africa, where there are resource and capacity challenges, effective partnerships

  20. Setting priorities for reducing risk and advancing patient safety.

    PubMed

    Gaffey, Ann D

    2016-04-01

    We set priorities every day in both our personal and professional lives. Some decisions are easy, while others require much more thought, participation, and resources. The difficult or less appealing priorities may not be popular, may receive push-back, and may be resource intensive. Whether personal or professional, the urgency that accompanies true priorities becomes a driving force. It is that urgency to ensure our patients' safety that brings many of us to work each day. This is not easy work. It requires us to be knowledgeable about the enterprise we are working in and to have the professional skills and competence to facilitate setting the priorities that allow our organizations to minimize risk and maximize value. © 2016 American Society for Healthcare Risk Management of the American Hospital Association.

  1. Communitarian claims and community capabilities: furthering priority setting?

    PubMed

    Mooney, Gavin

    2005-01-01

    Priority setting in health care is generally not done well. This paper draws on ideas from Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum and adds some communitarian underpinnings to provide a way of improving on current uses of program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) in priority setting. The paper suggests that shifting to a communitarian base for priority setting alters the distribution of property rights over health service decision making and increases the probability that recommendations from PBMA exercises will be implemented. The approach is built on a paradigm which departs from three tenets of welfarism as it is normally conceived: (i) individuals qua individuals seek to maximise their individual utility/well-being; (ii) individuals want to do this; and (iii) it is the values of individuals qua individuals that count. Some of the problems of PBMA, as it has been applied to date, are highlighted. It is argued that these are due largely to a lack of 'credible commitment'. Bringing in the community and communitarian values to PBMA priority setting exercises can help to overcome some of the barriers to getting PBMA recommendations implemented. The approach has the merit of reflecting Sen's concept of capabilities (but extending that to a community level). It avoids the often consequentialist base of a conventional welfarist framework, and it allows community values as opposed to individual values to come to the fore. How to elicit communitarian values is explored.

  2. Health care priority setting: principles, practice and challenges

    PubMed Central

    Mitton, Craig; Donaldson, Cam

    2004-01-01

    Background Health organizations the world over are required to set priorities and allocate resources within the constraint of limited funding. However, decision makers may not be well equipped to make explicit rationing decisions and as such often rely on historical or political resource allocation processes. One economic approach to priority setting which has gained momentum in practice over the last three decades is program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA). Methods This paper presents a detailed step by step guide for carrying out a priority setting process based on the PBMA framework. This guide is based on the authors' experience in using this approach primarily in the UK and Canada, but as well draws on a growing literature of PBMA studies in various countries. Results At the core of the PBMA approach is an advisory panel charged with making recommendations for resource re-allocation. The process can be supported by a range of 'hard' and 'soft' evidence, and requires that decision making criteria are defined and weighted in an explicit manner. Evaluating the process of PBMA using an ethical framework, and noting important challenges to such activity including that of organizational behavior, are shown to be important aspects of developing a comprehensive approach to priority setting in health care. Conclusion Although not without challenges, international experience with PBMA over the last three decades would indicate that this approach has the potential to make substantial improvement on commonly relied upon historical and political decision making processes. In setting out a step by step guide for PBMA, as is done in this paper, implementation by decision makers should be facilitated. PMID:15104792

  3. Setting the top 10 research priorities to improve the health of people with Type 2 diabetes: a Diabetes UK-James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

    PubMed

    Finer, S; Robb, P; Cowan, K; Daly, A; Shah, K; Farmer, A

    2018-07-01

    To describe processes and outcomes of a priority setting partnership to identify the 'top 10 research priorities' in Type 2 diabetes, involving people living with the condition, their carers, and healthcare professionals. We followed the four-step James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership process which involved: gathering uncertainties using a questionnaire survey distributed to 70 000 people living with Type 2 diabetes and their carers, and healthcare professionals; organizing the uncertainties; interim priority setting by resampling of participants with a second survey; and final priority setting in an independent group of participants, using the nominal group technique. At each step the steering group closely monitored and guided the process. In the first survey, 8227 uncertainties were proposed by 2587 participants, of whom 18% were from black, Asian and minority ethnic groups. Uncertainties were formatted and collated into 114 indicative questions. A total of 1506 people contributed to a second survey, generating a shortlist of 24 questions equally weighted to the contributions of people living with diabetes and their carers and those of healthcare professionals. In the final step the 'top 10 research priorities' were selected, including questions on cure and reversal, risk identification and prevention, and self-management approaches in Type 2 diabetes. Systematic and transparent methodology was used to identify research priorities in a large and genuine partnership of people with lived and professional experience of Type 2 diabetes. The top 10 questions represent consensus areas of research priority to guide future research, deliver responsive and strategic allocation of research resources, and improve the future health and well-being of people living with, and at risk of, Type 2 diabetes. © 2018 The Authors. Diabetic Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Diabetes UK.

  4. Priority setting in the provincial health services authority: survey of key decision makers

    PubMed Central

    Teng, Flora; Mitton, Craig; MacKenzie, Jennifer

    2007-01-01

    Background In recent years, decision makers in Canada and elsewhere have expressed a desire for more explicit, evidence-based approaches to priority setting. To achieve this aim within health care organizations, knowledge of both the organizational context and stakeholder attitudes towards priority setting are required. The current work adds to a limited yet growing body of international literature describing priority setting practices in health organizations. Methods A qualitative study was conducted using in-depth, face-to-face interviews with 25 key decision makers of the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) of British Columbia. Major themes and sub-themes were identified through content analysis. Results Priorities were described by decision makers as being set in an ad hoc manner, with resources generally allocated along historical lines. Participants identified the Strategic Plan and a strong research base as strengths of the organization. The main areas for improvement were a desire to have a more transparent process for priority setting, a need to develop a culture which supports explicit priority setting, and a focus on fairness in decision making. Barriers to an explicit allocation process included the challenge of providing specialized services for disparate patient groups, and a lack of formal training in priority setting amongst decision makers. Conclusion This study identified factors important to understanding organizational context and informed next steps for explicit priority setting for a provincial health authority. While the PHSA is unique in its organizational structure in Canada, lessons about priority setting should be transferable to other contexts. PMID:17565691

  5. A checklist for health research priority setting: nine common themes of good practice.

    PubMed

    Viergever, Roderik F; Olifson, Sylvie; Ghaffar, Abdul; Terry, Robert F

    2010-12-15

    Health research priority setting processes assist researchers and policymakers in effectively targeting research that has the greatest potential public health benefit. Many different approaches to health research prioritization exist, but there is no agreement on what might constitute best practice. Moreover, because of the many different contexts for which priorities can be set, attempting to produce one best practice is in fact not appropriate, as the optimal approach varies per exercise. Therefore, following a literature review and an analysis of health research priority setting exercises that were organized or coordinated by the World Health Organization since 2005, we propose a checklist for health research priority setting that allows for informed choices on different approaches and outlines nine common themes of good practice. It is intended to provide generic assistance for planning health research prioritization processes. The checklist explains what needs to be clarified in order to establish the context for which priorities are set; it reviews available approaches to health research priority setting; it offers discussions on stakeholder participation and information gathering; it sets out options for use of criteria and different methods for deciding upon priorities; and it emphasizes the importance of well-planned implementation, evaluation and transparency.

  6. Public involvement in health priority setting: future challenges for policy, research and society.

    PubMed

    Hunter, David James; Kieslich, Katharina; Littlejohns, Peter; Staniszewska, Sophie; Tumilty, Emma; Weale, Albert; Williams, Iestyn

    2016-08-15

    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the findings of this special issue and discusses the future challenges for policy, research and society. The findings suggest that challenges emerge as a result of legitimacy deficits of both consensus and contestatory modes of public involvement in health priority setting. Design/methodology/approach - The paper draws on the discussions and findings presented in this special issue. It seeks to bring the country experiences and case studies together to draw conclusions for policy, research and society. Findings - At least two recurring themes emerge. An underlying theme is the importance, but also the challenge, of establishing legitimacy in health priority setting. The country experiences suggest that we understand very little about the conditions under which representative, or authentic, participation generates legitimacy and under which it will be regarded as insufficient. A second observation is that public participation takes a variety of forms that depend on the opportunity structures in a given national context. Given this variety the conceptualization of public participation needs to be expanded to account for the many forms of public participation. Originality/value - The paper concludes that the challenges of public involvement are closely linked to the question of how legitimate processes and decisions can be generated in priority setting. This suggests that future research must focus more narrowly on conditions under which legitimacy are generated in order to expand the understanding of public involvement in health prioritization.

  7. [The national public discourse on priority setting in health care in German print media].

    PubMed

    Liesching, Florian; Meyer, Thorsten; Raspe, Heiner

    2012-01-01

    Germany's Central Ethics Committee of the Federal Chamber of Physicians (FCP) and other relevant national actors called for a public discourse on priority setting in health care. Politicians, members of a Federal Joint Committee and health insurance representatives, however, refused to promote or participate in the establishment of a public discussion. A change to that attitude only became apparent after former FCP President Hoppe's opening speech at the annual FCP assembly in Mainz in 2009. The present paper applies the Sociology of Knowledge Approach to Discourse, implemented through Qualitative Content Analysis and elements of Grounded Theory, to examine the development of the national public discourse in leading German print media. It creates a matrix that represents the discourse development between May 2009 and May 2010 and reflects central actors, their "communicative phenomena" and their interactions. Additionally, the matrix has been extended to cover the period until December 2011. Hoppe's arguments for priority setting in health care are faced with a wide opposition assuming opposing prerequisites and thus demanding alternative remedies. The lack of interaction between the different parties prevents any development of the speakers' positions. Incorrect accounts, reductions and left-outs in the media representation add to this effect. Consequently, the public discussion on priority setting is far from being an evolving rational discourse. Instead, it constitutes an exchange of preformed opposing positions. Copyright © 2012. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

  8. Research for better health: the Panamanian priority-setting experience and the need for a new process

    PubMed Central

    2014-01-01

    Background Panama is, economically, the fastest growing country in Central America and is making efforts to improve management mechanisms for research and innovation. However, due to contextual factors, the Panamanian Health Research System is not well developed and is poorly coordinated with the Health System. Likewise, despite recent efforts to define a National Health Research Agenda, implementing this agenda and aligning it with Panamanians’ health needs remains difficult. This articles aims to review Panama’s experience in health research priority setting by analyzing the fairness of previous prioritization processes in order to promote an agreed-upon national agenda aligned with public health needs. Methods The three health research prioritization processes performed in Panama between 2006 and 2011 were analyzed based on the guidelines established by the four “Accountability for Reasonableness” principles, namely “relevance”, “publicity”, “revision”, and “enforcement”, which provide a framework for evaluating priority-setting fairness. Results The three health research priority-setting events performed in Panama during the reference period demonstrated a heterogeneous pattern of decision-making strategies, stakeholder group composition, and prioritization outcomes. None of the three analyzed events featured an open discussion process with the scientific community, health care providers, or civil society in order to reach consensus. Conclusions This investigation makes evident the lack of a strategy to encourage open discussion by the multiple stakeholders and interest groups that should be involved during the priority-setting process. The analysis reveals the need for a new priority-setting exercise that validates the National Agenda, promotes its implementation by the National Secretariat for Science, Technology and Innovation in conjunction with the Ministry of Health, and empowers multiple stakeholders; such an exercise would, in

  9. Social values and health priority setting in Australia: an analysis applied to the context of health technology assessment.

    PubMed

    Whitty, Jennifer A; Littlejohns, Peter

    2015-02-01

    To describe the role of social values in priority setting related to health technology assessment processes and decision-making in Australia. The processes and decision criteria of the Pharmaceutical and Medical Benefits Advisory Committees are described based on literature and policy sources, and analysed using a framework for identifying social values in priority-setting. Transparency and accountability of processes are apparent. Participation balances inclusiveness and effectiveness of decision-making, but presents an opportunity to enhance priority setting processes. Clinical and cost-effectiveness are important content considerations. Social values related to justice/equity are considered, without quantification of criteria weights for equity relative to other factors. HTA processes support solidarity through subsidising approved technologies for all Australians, whilst retaining autonomy by permitting non-subsidised technologies to be accessed privately, leading to possible tension between the values of solidarity, autonomy and equity. Priority setting related to health technology subsidy incorporates a range of inter-related social values in the processes and content of decision-making. Participation in decision-making could arguably be improved if a patient and public engagement policy were to be formulated alongside more widespread changes across processes to assess social values using approaches such as the Citizens' Jury. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

  10. Patients' views on priority setting in neurosurgery: A qualitative study.

    PubMed

    Gunaratnam, Caroline; Bernstein, Mark

    2016-01-01

    Accountability for Reasonableness is an ethical framework which has been implemented in various health care systems to improve and evaluate the fairness of priority setting. This framework is grounded on four mandatory conditions: relevance, publicity, appeals, and enforcement. There have been few studies which have evaluated the patient stakeholders' acceptance of this framework; certainly no studies have been done on patients' views on the prioritization system for allocating patients for operating time in a system with pressure on the resource of inpatient beds. The aim of this study is to examine neurosurgical patients' views on the prioritization of patients for operating theater (OT) time on a daily basis at a tertiary and quaternary referral neurosurgery center. Semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with thirty-seven patients, recruited from the neurosurgery clinic at Toronto Western Hospital. Family members and friends who accompanied the patient to their clinic visit were encouraged to contribute to the discussion. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and subjected to thematic analysis using open and axial coding. Overall, patients are supportive of the concept of a priority-setting system based on fairness, but felt that a few changes would help to improve the fairness of the current system. These changes include lowering the level of priority given to volume-funded cases and providing scheduled surgeries that were previously canceled a higher level of prioritization. Good communication, early notification, and rescheduling canceled surgeries as soon as possible were important factors that directly reflected the patients' confidence level in their doctor, the hospital, and the health care system. This study is the first clinical qualitative study of patients' perspective on a prioritization system used for allocating neurosurgical patients for OT time on a daily basis in a socialized not-for-profit health care system with

  11. IMPORTANCE OF MULTIPLE CRITERIA FOR PRIORITY SETTING OF HIV/AIDS INTERVENTIONS.

    PubMed

    Tromp, Noor; Prawiranegara, Rozar; Siregar, Adiatma; Sunjaya, Deni; Baltussen, Rob

    2015-01-01

    This study describes the views of various stakeholders on the importance of different criteria for priority setting of HIV/AIDS interventions in Indonesia. Based on a general list of criteria and a focus group discussion with stakeholders (n = 6), a list was developed of thirty-two criteria that play a role in priority setting in HIV/AIDS control in West-Java province. Criteria were categorized according to the World Health Organization's health system goals and building block frameworks. People living with HIV/AIDS (n = 49), healthcare workers (HCW) (n = 41), the general population (n = 43), and policy makers (n = 22) rated the importance of thirty-two criteria on a 5-point Likert-scale. Thereafter, respondents ranked the highest rated criteria to express more detailed preferences. Stakeholders valued the following criteria as most important for the priority setting of HIV/AIDS interventions: an intervention's impact on the HIV/AIDS epidemic, reduction of stigma, quality of care, effectiveness on individual level, and feasibility in terms of current capacity of the health system (i.e., HCW, product, information, and service requirements), financial sustainability, and acceptance by donors. Overall, stakeholders' preferences for the importance of criteria are similar. Our study design outlines an approach for other settings to identify which criteria are important for priority setting of health interventions. For Indonesia, these study results may be used in priority setting processes for HIV/AIDS control and may contribute to more transparent and systematic allocation of resources.

  12. Priority setting for orphan drugs: an international comparison.

    PubMed

    Rosenberg-Yunger, Zahava R S; Daar, Abdallah S; Thorsteinsdóttir, Halla; Martin, Douglas K

    2011-04-01

    To describe the process of priority setting for two orphan drugs - Cerezyme and Fabrazyme - in Canada, Australia and Israel, in order to understand and improve the process based on stakeholder perspectives. We conducted qualitative case studies of how three independent drug advisory committees made decisions relating to the funding of Cerezyme and Fabrazyme. Interviews were conducted with 22 informants, including committee members, patient groups and industry representatives. (1) DESCRIPTION: Orphan drugs reimbursement recommendations by expert panels were based on clinical evidence, cost and cost-effectiveness analysis. (2) EVALUATION: Committee members expressed an overall preference for the current drug review process used by their own committee, but were concerned with the fairness of the process particularly for orphan drugs. Other informants suggested the inclusion of other relevant values (e.g. lack of alternative treatments) in order to improve the priority setting process. Some patient groups suggested the use of an alternative funding mechanism for orphan drugs. Priority setting for drugs is not solely a technical process (involving cost-effective analysis, evidence-based medicine, etc.). Understanding the process by which reimbursement decisions are made for orphan drugs may help improve the system for future orphan drugs. Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

  13. International validation of quality indicators for evaluating priority setting in low income countries: process and key lessons.

    PubMed

    Kapiriri, Lydia

    2017-06-19

    While there have been efforts to develop frameworks to guide healthcare priority setting; there has been limited focus on evaluation frameworks. Moreover, while the few frameworks identify quality indicators for successful priority setting, they do not provide the users with strategies to verify these indicators. Kapiriri and Martin (Health Care Anal 18:129-147, 2010) developed a framework for evaluating priority setting in low and middle income countries. This framework provides BOTH parameters for successful priority setting and proposes means of their verification. Before its use in real life contexts, this paper presents results from a validation process of the framework. The framework validation involved 53 policy makers and priority setting researchers at the global, national and sub-national levels (in Uganda). They were requested to indicate the relative importance of the proposed parameters as well as the feasibility of obtaining the related information. We also pilot tested the proposed means of verification. Almost all the respondents evaluated all the parameters, including the contextual factors, as 'very important'. However, some respondents at the global level thought 'presence of incentives to comply', 'reduced disagreements', 'increased public understanding,' 'improved institutional accountability' and 'meeting the ministry of health objectives', which could be a reflection of their levels of decision making. All the proposed means of verification were assessed as feasible with the exception of meeting observations which would require an insider. These findings results were consistent with those obtained from the pilot testing. These findings are relevant to policy makers and researchers involved in priority setting in low and middle income countries. To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the few initiatives that has involved potential users of a framework (at the global and in a Low Income Country) in its validation. The favorable validation

  14. Setting priorities in primary health care--on whose conditions? A questionnaire study.

    PubMed

    Arvidsson, Eva; André, Malin; Borgquist, Lars; Andersson, David; Carlsson, Per

    2012-11-26

    In Sweden three key criteria are used for priority setting: severity of the health condition; patient benefit; and cost-effectiveness. They are derived from the ethical principles established by the Swedish parliament 1997 but have been used only to a limited extent in primary care. The aim of this study was to describe and analyse: 1) GPs', nurses', and patients' prioritising in routine primary care 2) The association between the three key priority setting criteria and the overall priority assigned by the GPs and nurses to individual patients. Paired questionnaires were distributed to all patients and the GPs or nurses they had contact with during a 2-week period at four health centres in Sweden. The staff registered the health conditions or health problem, and the planned intervention. Then they estimated the severity of the health condition, the expected patient benefit, and the cost-effectiveness of the planned intervention. Both the staff and the patients reported their overall prioritisation of the patient. In total, 1851 paired questionnaires were collected. Compared to the medical staff, the patients assigned relatively higher priority to acute/minor conditions than to preventive check-ups for chronic conditions. Severity of the health condition was the priority setting criterion that had the strongest association with the overall priority for the staff as a whole, but for the GPs it was cost-effectiveness. The challenge for primary care providers is to balance the patients' demands with medical needs and cost-effectiveness. Transparent priority setting in primary care might contribute to a greater consensus between GPs and nurses on how to use the key priority setting criteria.

  15. Setting research priorities across science, technology, and health sectors: the Tanzania experience.

    PubMed

    de Haan, Sylvia; Kingamkono, Rose; Tindamanyire, Neema; Mshinda, Hassan; Makandi, Harun; Tibazarwa, Flora; Kubata, Bruno; Montorzi, Gabriela

    2015-03-12

    Identifying research priorities is key to innovation and economic growth, since it informs decision makers on effectively targeting issues that have the greatest potential public benefit. As such, the process of setting research priorities is of pivotal importance for favouring the science, technology, and innovation (STI)-driven development of low- and middle-income countries. We report herein on a major cross-sectoral nationwide research priority setting effort recently carried out in Tanzania by the Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology (COSTECH) in partnership with the Council on Health Research for Development (COHRED) and the NEPAD Agency. The first of its type in the country, the process brought together stakeholders from 42 sub-sectors in science, technology, and health. The cross-sectoral research priority setting process consisted of a 'training-of-trainers' workshop, a demonstration workshop, and seven priority setting workshops delivered to representatives from public and private research and development institutions, universities, non-governmental organizations, and other agencies affiliated to COSTECH. The workshops resulted in ranked listings of research priorities for each sub-sector, totalling approximately 800 priorities. This large number was significantly reduced by an expert panel in order to build a manageable instrument aligned to national development plans that could be used to guide research investments. The Tanzania experience is an instructive example of the challenges and issues to be faced in when attempting to identify research priority areas and setting an STI research agenda in low- and middle-income countries. As countries increase their investment in research, it is essential to increase investment in research management and governance as well, a key and much needed capacity for countries to make proper use of research investments.

  16. Priority-setting in Finnish healthcare.

    PubMed

    Rissanen, P; Häkkinen, U

    1999-12-01

    The characteristics which affect priority setting in the Finnish healthcare system include strong municipal (local) administration, no clear separation between producers and purchasers, a duality in funding, and the potential for physicians in public hospitals to practice in the private sector. This system has its strengths, such as the possibility to effectively co-ordinate social and healthcare services, and a strong incentive to take care of local needs, because of municipal responsibility to finance these services largely through local taxes. However, the municipalities are typically too small to take advantage of these potentials, their knowledge is scarce especially of secondary care and their negotiating power with respect to hospitals is low. Local politicians also have a dual role: they represent the needs of the local population but simultaneously they are decision-makers in hospitals. Full-time physicians are allowed to act in a dual role as well; they can run a private practice, which is paid for on a fee-for-service basis, while the hospital pays (mostly) a fixed monthly salary. The share of financing which flows from the National Sickness Insurance system to healthcare users may have adverse effects on the local use of resources. The broad national consensus statement on patient-level priorities did not reach any general rules on priorities. Strong support was given to citizens' equal right to access all healthcare services. In healthcare practice, this general rule has some exemptions. First, the reimbursement schemes for prescribed drugs vary depending on the severity and chronic nature of the disease. Secondly, the tax-financed dental services for the young are clearly prioritised over those of older citizens. In the consensus statement, emphasis was put on improving the efficiency of producing health services in order to avoid having to impose patient-level priorities.

  17. What criteria do decision makers in Thailand use to set priorities for vaccine introduction?

    PubMed

    Pooripussarakul, Siriporn; Riewpaiboon, Arthorn; Bishai, David; Muangchana, Charung; Tantivess, Sripen

    2016-08-02

    There is a need to identify rational criteria and set priorities for vaccines. In Thailand, many licensed vaccines are being considering for introduction into the Expanded Program on Immunization; thus, the government has to make decisions about which vaccines should be adopted. This study aimed to set priorities for new vaccines and to facilitate decision analysis. We used a best-worst scaling study for rank-ordering of vaccines. The candidate vaccines were determined by a set of criteria, including burden of disease, target age group, budget impact, side effect, effectiveness, severity of disease, and cost of vaccine. The criteria were identified from a literature review and by in-depth, open-ended interviews with experts. The priority-setting model was conducted among three groups of stakeholders, including policy makers, healthcare professionals and healthcare administrators. The vaccine data were mapped and then calculated for the probability of selection. From the candidate vaccines, the probability of hepatitis B vaccine being selected by all respondents (96.67 %) was ranked first. This was followed, respectively, by pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-13 (95.09 %) and Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine (90.87 %). The three groups of stakeholders (policy makers, healthcare professionals and healthcare administrators) showed the same ranking trends. Most severe disease, high fever rate and high disease burden showed the highest coefficients for criterion levels being selected by all respondents. This result can be implied that a vaccine which can prevent most severe disease with high disease burden and has low safety has a greater chance of being selected by respondents in this study. The priority setting of vaccines through a multiple-criteria approach could contribute to transparency and accountability in the decision-making process. This is a step forward in the development of an evidence-based approach that meets the need of developing country. The

  18. Setting Priorities for Graduate Medical Education,

    DTIC Science & Technology

    1996-02-01

    assist the work of these staffs. 14. SUBJECT TERMS Attrition, data bases, education , mathematical models, medical personnel, military medicine, naval...CRM 95-209 / February 1996 Setting Priorities for Graduate Medical Education Neil B. Carey • Marjorie D. Curia • Oliver A. Smith 19960718 027...the tirae for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources gathering and maintaining the data needed, and reviewing the collection of

  19. Fit for purpose? Introducing a rational priority setting approach into a community care setting.

    PubMed

    Cornelissen, Evelyn; Mitton, Craig; Davidson, Alan; Reid, Colin; Hole, Rachelle; Visockas, Anne-Marie; Smith, Neale

    2016-06-20

    Purpose - Program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) is a priority setting approach that assists decision makers with allocating resources. Previous PBMA work establishes its efficacy and indicates that contextual factors complicate priority setting, which can hamper PBMA effectiveness. The purpose of this paper is to gain qualitative insight into PBMA effectiveness. Design/methodology/approach - A Canadian case study of PBMA implementation. Data consist of decision-maker interviews pre (n=20), post year-1 (n=12) and post year-2 (n=9) of PBMA to examine perceptions of baseline priority setting practice vis-à-vis desired practice, and perceptions of PBMA usability and acceptability. Findings - Fit emerged as a key theme in determining PBMA effectiveness. Fit herein refers to being of suitable quality and form to meet the intended purposes and needs of the end-users, and includes desirability, acceptability, and usability dimensions. Results confirm decision-maker desire for rational approaches like PBMA. However, most participants indicated that the timing of the exercise and the form in which PBMA was applied were not well-suited for this case study. Participant acceptance of and buy-in to PBMA changed during the study: a leadership change, limited organizational commitment, and concerns with organizational capacity were key barriers to PBMA adoption and thereby effectiveness. Practical implications - These findings suggest that a potential way-forward includes adding a contextual readiness/capacity assessment stage to PBMA, recognizing organizational complexity, and considering incremental adoption of PBMA's approach. Originality/value - These insights help us to better understand and work with priority setting conditions to advance evidence-informed decision making.

  20. How have systematic priority setting approaches influenced policy making? A synthesis of the current literature.

    PubMed

    Kapiriri, Lydia; Razavi, Donya

    2017-09-01

    There is a growing body of literature on systematic approaches to healthcare priority setting from various countries and different levels of decision making. This paper synthesizes the current literature in order to assess the extent to which program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA), burden of disease & cost-effectiveness analysis (BOD/CEA), multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), and accountability for reasonableness (A4R), are reported to have been institutionalized and influenced policy making and practice. We searched for English language publications on health care priority setting approaches (2000-2017). Our sources of literature included PubMed and Ovid databases (including Embase, Global Health, Medline, PsycINFO, EconLit). Of the four approaches PBMA and A4R were commonly applied in high income countries while BOD/CEA was exclusively applied in low income countries. PBMA and BOD/CEA were most commonly reported to have influenced policy making. The explanations for limited adoption of an approach were related to its complexity, poor policy maker understanding and resource requirements. While systematic approaches have the potential to improve healthcare priority setting; most have not been adopted in routine policy making. The identified barriers call for sustained knowledge exchange between researchers and policy-makers and development of practical guidelines to ensure that these frameworks are more accessible, applicable and sustainable in informing policy making. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

  1. Public engagement in setting healthcare priorities: a ranking exercise in Cyprus.

    PubMed

    Farmakas, Antonis; Theodorou, Mamas; Galanis, Petros; Karayiannis, Georgios; Ghobrial, Stefanos; Polyzos, Nikos; Papastavrou, Evridiki; Agapidaki, Eirini; Souliotis, Kyriakos

    2017-01-01

    In countries such as Cyprus the financial crisis and the recession have severely affected the funding and priority setting of the health care system. There is evidence highlighting the importance of population' preferences in designing priorities for health care settings. Although public preferences have been thorough analysed in many countries, there is a research gap in terms of simultaneously investigating the relative importance and the weight of differing and competing criteria for determining healthcare priority settings. The main objective of the study was tο investigate public preferences for the relative utility and weight of differing and competing criteria for health care priority setting in Cyprus. The 'conjoint analysis' technique was applied to develop a ranking exercise. The aim of the study was to identify the preferences of the participants for alternative options. Participants were asked to grade in a priority order 16 hypothetical case scenarios of patients with different disease and of diverse socio-economic characteristics awaiting treatment. The sample was purposive and consisted of 100 Cypriots, selected from public locations all over the country. It was revealed that the "severity of the disease" and the " age of the patient" were the key prioritization criteria. Participants assigned the smallest relative value to the criterion " healthy lifestyle" . More precisely, participants older than 35 years old assigned higher relative importance to " age" , while younger participants to the " severity of the disease". The " healthy lifestyle" criterion was assigned to the lowest relative importance to by all participants. In Cyprus, public participation in health care priority setting is almost inexistent. Nonetheless, it seems that the public's participation in this process could lead to a wider acceptance of the healthcare system especially as a result of the financial crisis and the upcoming reforms implemented such as the establishment of the

  2. Priority setting for health technology assessments: a systematic review of current practical approaches.

    PubMed

    Noorani, Hussein Z; Husereau, Donald R; Boudreau, Rhonda; Skidmore, Becky

    2007-01-01

    This study sought to identify and compare various practical and current approaches of health technology assessment (HTA) priority setting. A literature search was performed across PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, and Cochrane. Given an earlier review conducted by European agencies (EUR-ASSESS project), the search was limited to literature indexed from 1996 onward. We also searched Web sites of HTA agencies as well as HTAi and ISTAHC conference abstracts. Agency representatives were contacted for information about their priority-setting processes. Reports on practical approaches selected through these sources were identified independently by two reviewers. A total of twelve current priority-setting frameworks from eleven agencies were identified. Ten countries were represented: Canada, Denmark, England, Hungary, Israel, Scotland, Spain, Sweden, The Netherlands, and United States. Fifty-nine unique HTA priority-setting criteria were divided into eleven categories (alternatives; budget impact; clinical impact; controversial nature of proposed technology; disease burden; economic impact; ethical, legal, or psychosocial implications; evidence; interest; timeliness of review; variation in rates of use). Differences across HTA agencies were found regarding procedures for categorizing, scoring, and weighing of policy criteria. Variability exists in the methods for priority setting of health technology assessment across HTA agencies. Quantitative rating methods and consideration of cost benefit for priority setting were seldom used. These study results will assist HTA agencies that are re-visiting or developing their prioritization methods.

  3. Setting priorities for zinc-related health research to reduce children's disease burden worldwide: an application of the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative's research priority-setting method.

    PubMed

    Brown, Kenneth H; Hess, Sonja Y; Boy, Erick; Gibson, Rosalind S; Horton, Susan; Osendarp, Saskia J; Sempertegui, Fernando; Shrimpton, Roger; Rudan, Igor

    2009-03-01

    To make the best use of limited resources for supporting health-related research to reduce child mortality, it is necessary to apply a suitable method to rank competing research options. The Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) developed a new methodology for setting health research priorities. To broaden experience with this priority-setting technique, we applied the method to rank possible research priorities concerning the control of Zn deficiency. Although Zn deficiency is not generally recognized as a direct cause of child mortality, recent research indicates that it predisposes children to an increased incidence and severity of several of the major direct causes of morbidity and mortality. Leading experts in the field of Zn research in child health were identified and invited to participate in a technical working group (TWG) to establish research priorities. The individuals were chosen to represent a wide range of expertise in Zn nutrition. The seven TWG members submitted a total of ninety research options, which were then consolidated into a final list of thirty-one research options categorized by the type of resulting intervention. The identified priorities were dominated by research investment options targeting Zn supplementation, and were followed by research on Zn fortification, general aspects of Zn nutrition, dietary modification and other new interventions. In general, research options that aim to improve the efficiency of an already existing intervention strategy received higher priority scores. Challenges identified during the implementation of the methodology and suggestions to modify the priority-setting procedures are discussed.

  4. Process is the point: justice and human rights: priority setting and fair deliberative process.

    PubMed

    Gruskin, Sofia; Daniels, Norman

    2008-09-01

    Most people responsible for setting priorities in health have considerable expertise relevant to deciding how to use resources effectively and the kinds of improvements that should be emphasized. Most are also concerned with distributing improvements equitably. Accordingly, they often invoke human rights or principles of distributive justice to legitimize choices that create winners and losers. We propose an approach that draws on the strengths of both perspectives as a way to add legitimacy to efforts to set priorities in health. Our proposal provides a process for setting priorities but is not a formula or an algorithm for generating particular priorities. We propose an approach that would do away with the process through which priorities are set and decisions made, and suggest the value of a focus on the process of legitimizing these decisions.

  5. Core services and priority-setting: the New Zealand experience.

    PubMed

    Cumming, J

    1994-01-01

    Like people in other countries, New Zealanders have been struggling with the issue of how to decide which health services should be delivered and to whom. The government has established a Core Services Committee to advise on core services, that is, those health care and disability support services to be made available on affordable terms and without unreasonable waiting time. Such a core has a similar role to a standard package of benefits within a managed competition framework. Services not in the core would be left to individuals' own responsibility. Specific objectives for a core are to promote accountability of purchasers, to make explicit the services that are core and those that are not, to promote an efficient and equitable allocation of resources, to limit government expenditure on health care and to involve the public in decision-making. A number of different options for defining a core are identified, and the work undertaken so far is discussed. The original concept of a core has not been implemented in New Zealand. The Core Services Committee has established broad priorities and facilitated a series of consensus development conferences to provide advice on the effectiveness of services. Some of the committee's recommendations have been incorporated into policy guidelines, which set out what the government expects of purchasers. These guidelines include priority areas for health gains, service obligations and principles for purchasing. Service obligations are not sufficiently detailed to meet the specific objectives of a core and do not meet equity objectives, as they allow in effect each of the four purchasers to develop their own core of services. The key issue for the government now is to decide whether to allow RHAs flexibility in determining their own priorities or whether a national approach to efficiency and equity is to be preferred.

  6. Exploring the challenge of health research priority setting in partnership: reflections on the methodology used by the James Lind Alliance Pressure Ulcer Priority Setting Partnership.

    PubMed

    Madden, Mary; Morley, Richard

    2016-01-01

    treatment. There is no formal evaluation yet to examine the different approaches used by individual PSPs and the impact these methods have on the quality of the partnership and subsequent outputs. There is no gold standard method for health research topic identification and priority setting and reporting on public involvement in this area is predominantly descriptive rather than evaluative. The JLA Pressure Ulcer PSP (JLAPUP) was developed and worked between 2009 and 2013 to identify and prioritise the top 10 'uncertainties' , or 'unanswered questions', about the effects of pressure ulcer interventions. JLAPUP identified a mismatch between the nature and quality of RCTs in pressure ulcer prevention and treatment and the kind of research evidence desired by patients or service users, carers and health professionals. Results and methods have been reported fully elsewhere. The consultative and deliberative methods used to establish health research priorities in PSPs are fundamentally interpretive. PSPs are therefore an arena in which 'hard' evidence-informed ideals meet 'soft' participatory practices. This article provides an account of the challenges faced in one particular PSP. We explain the rationale for the approaches taken, difficulties faced and the limitations at each stage, because these aspects are particularly under-reported. The JLAPUP case is used to identify possible areas for evaluation and reporting across PSPs. Engaging people with very different health and life experiences in the complexities of health science based discussions of uncertainty is challenging. This is particularly the case when engaging groups routinely excluded from participating in health research, for example, older people with multiple comorbidities. The JLA principles of transparency, inclusivity and avoiding waste in research require paying close critical attention to PSP methodology, including full evaluation and reporting of PSP processes and outcomes. Assessing the impact of PSPs is

  7. Shared research priorities for pessary use in women with prolapse: results from a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership

    PubMed Central

    Hagen, Suzanne; McClurg, Doreen; Pollock, Alex

    2018-01-01

    Objectives To identify the shared priorities for future research of women affected by and clinicians involved with pessary use for the management of prolapse. Design A priority setting project using a consensus method. Setting A James Lind Alliance Pessary use for prolapse Priority Setting Partnership (JLA Pessary PSP) conducted from May 2016 to September 2017 in the UK. Participants The PSP was run by a Steering Group of three women with experience of pessary use, three experienced clinicians involved with management of prolapse, two researchers with relevant experience, a JLA adviser and a PSP leader. Two surveys were conducted in 2016 and 2017. The first gathered questions about pessaries, and the second asked respondents to prioritise a list of questions. A final workshop was held on 8 September 2017 involving 10 women and 13 clinician representatives with prolapse and pessary experience. Results A top 10 list of priorities for future research in pessary use for prolapse was agreed by consensus. Conclusions Women with experience of pessary use and clinicians involved with prolapse management have worked together to determine shared priorities for future research. Aligning the top 10 results with existing research findings will highlight the gaps in current evidence and signpost future research to areas of priority. Effective dissemination of the results will enable research funding bodies to focus on gathering the evidence to answer the questions that matter most to those who will be affected. PMID:29705767

  8. Involving patients in setting priorities for healthcare improvement: a cluster randomized trial

    PubMed Central

    2014-01-01

    Background Patients are increasingly seen as active partners in healthcare. While patient involvement in individual clinical decisions has been extensively studied, no trial has assessed how patients can effectively be involved in collective healthcare decisions affecting the population. The goal of this study was to test the impact of involving patients in setting healthcare improvement priorities for chronic care at the community level. Methods Design: Cluster randomized controlled trial. Local communities were randomized in intervention (priority setting with patient involvement) and control sites (no patient involvement). Setting: Communities in a canadian region were required to set priorities for improving chronic disease management in primary care, from a list of 37 validated quality indicators. Intervention: Patients were consulted in writing, before participating in face-to-face deliberation with professionals. Control: Professionals established priorities among themselves, without patient involvement. Participants: A total of 172 individuals from six communities participated in the study, including 83 chronic disease patients, and 89 health professionals. Outcomes: The primary outcome was the level of agreement between patients’ and professionals’ priorities. Secondary outcomes included professionals’ intention to use the selected quality indicators, and the costs of patient involvement. Results Priorities established with patients were more aligned with core generic components of the Medical Home and Chronic Care Model, including: access to primary care, self-care support, patient participation in clinical decisions, and partnership with community organizations (p < 0.01). Priorities established by professionals alone placed more emphasis on the technical quality of single disease management. The involvement intervention fostered mutual influence between patients and professionals, which resulted in a 41% increase in agreement on common

  9. Public involvement in the priority setting activities of a wait time management initiative: a qualitative case study.

    PubMed

    Bruni, Rebecca A; Laupacis, Andreas; Levinson, Wendy; Martin, Douglas K

    2007-11-16

    As no health system can afford to provide all possible services and treatments for the people it serves, each system must set priorities. Priority setting decision makers are increasingly involving the public in policy making. This study focuses on public engagement in a key priority setting context that plagues every health system around the world: wait list management. The purpose of this study is to describe and evaluate priority setting for the Ontario Wait Time Strategy, with special attention to public engagement. This study was conducted at the Ontario Wait Time Strategy in Ontario, Canada which is part of a Federal-Territorial-Provincial initiative to improve access and reduce wait times in five areas: cancer, cardiac, sight restoration, joint replacements, and diagnostic imaging. There were two sources of data: (1) over 25 documents (e.g. strategic planning reports, public updates), and (2) 28 one-on-one interviews with informants (e.g. OWTS participants, MOHLTC representatives, clinicians, patient advocates). Analysis used a modified thematic technique in three phases: open coding, axial coding, and evaluation. The Ontario Wait Time Strategy partially meets the four conditions of 'accountability for reasonableness'. The public was not directly involved in the priority setting activities of the Ontario Wait Time Strategy. Study participants identified both benefits (supporting the initiative, experts of the lived experience, a publicly funded system and sustainability of the healthcare system) and concerns (personal biases, lack of interest to be involved, time constraints, and level of technicality) for public involvement in the Ontario Wait Time Strategy. Additionally, the participants identified concern for the consequences (sustainability, cannibalism, and a class system) resulting from the Ontario Wait Times Strategy. We described and evaluated a wait time management initiative (the Ontario Wait Time Strategy) with special attention to public

  10. Public involvement in the priority setting activities of a wait time management initiative: a qualitative case study

    PubMed Central

    Bruni, Rebecca A; Laupacis, Andreas; Levinson, Wendy; Martin, Douglas K

    2007-01-01

    Background As no health system can afford to provide all possible services and treatments for the people it serves, each system must set priorities. Priority setting decision makers are increasingly involving the public in policy making. This study focuses on public engagement in a key priority setting context that plagues every health system around the world: wait list management. The purpose of this study is to describe and evaluate priority setting for the Ontario Wait Time Strategy, with special attention to public engagement. Methods This study was conducted at the Ontario Wait Time Strategy in Ontario, Canada which is part of a Federal-Territorial-Provincial initiative to improve access and reduce wait times in five areas: cancer, cardiac, sight restoration, joint replacements, and diagnostic imaging. There were two sources of data: (1) over 25 documents (e.g. strategic planning reports, public updates), and (2) 28 one-on-one interviews with informants (e.g. OWTS participants, MOHLTC representatives, clinicians, patient advocates). Analysis used a modified thematic technique in three phases: open coding, axial coding, and evaluation. Results The Ontario Wait Time Strategy partially meets the four conditions of 'accountability for reasonableness'. The public was not directly involved in the priority setting activities of the Ontario Wait Time Strategy. Study participants identified both benefits (supporting the initiative, experts of the lived experience, a publicly funded system and sustainability of the healthcare system) and concerns (personal biases, lack of interest to be involved, time constraints, and level of technicality) for public involvement in the Ontario Wait Time Strategy. Additionally, the participants identified concern for the consequences (sustainability, cannibalism, and a class system) resulting from the Ontario Wait Times Strategy. Conclusion We described and evaluated a wait time management initiative (the Ontario Wait Time Strategy

  11. Priority setting partnership to identify the top 10 research priorities for the management of Parkinson's disease

    PubMed Central

    Deane, Katherine H O; Flaherty, Helen; Daley, David J; Pascoe, Roland; Penhale, Bridget; Clarke, Carl E; Sackley, Catherine; Storey, Stacey

    2014-01-01

    Objectives This priority setting partnership was commissioned by Parkinson's UK to encourage people with direct and personal experience of the condition to work together to identify and prioritise the top 10 evidential uncertainties that impact on everyday clinical practice for the management of Parkinson's disease (PD). Setting The UK. Participants Anyone with experience of PD including: people with Parkinson's (PwP), carers, family and friends, healthcare and social care professionals. Non-clinical researchers and employees of pharmaceutical or medical devices companies were excluded. 1000 participants (60% PwP) provided ideas on research uncertainties, 475 (72% PwP) initially prioritised them and 27 (37% PwP) stakeholders agreed a final top 10. Methods Using a modified nominal group technique, participants were surveyed to identify what issues for the management of PD needed research. Unique research questions unanswered by current evidence were identified and participants were asked to identify their top 10 research priorities from this list. The top 26 uncertainties were presented to a consensus meeting with key stakeholders to agree the top 10 research priorities. Results 1000 participants provided 4100 responses, which contained 94 unique unanswered research questions that were initially prioritised by 475 participants. A consensus meeting with 27 stakeholders agreed the top 10 research priorities. The overarching research aspiration was an effective cure for PD. The top 10 research priorities for PD management included the need to address motor symptoms (balance and falls, and fine motor control), non-motor symptoms (sleep and urinary dysfunction), mental health issues (stress and anxiety, dementia and mild cognitive impairments), side effects of medications (dyskinesia) and the need to develop interventions specific to the phenotypes of PD and better monitoring methods. Conclusions These research priorities identify crucial gaps in the existing evidence to

  12. Priority Setting for Improvement of Cervical Cancer Prevention in Iran.

    PubMed

    Majidi, Azam; Ghiasvand, Reza; Hadji, Maryam; Nahvijou, Azin; Mousavi, Azam-Sadat; Pakgohar, Minoo; Khodakarami, Nahid; Abedini, Mehrandokht; Amouzegar Hashemi, Farnaz; Rahnamaye Farzami, Marjan; Shahsiah, Reza; Sajedinejhad, Sima; Mohagheghi, Mohammad Ali; Nadali, Fatemeh; Rashidian, Arash; Weiderpass, Elisabete; Mogensen, Ole; Zendehdel, Kazem

    2015-11-22

    Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer among women worldwide. Organized cervical screening and vaccination against human papilloma virus (HPV) have been successful interventions for prevention of invasive cervical cancer (ICC). Because of cultural and religious considerations, ICC has low incidence in Iran and many other Muslim countries. There is no organized cervical screening in these countries. Therefore, ICC is usually diagnosed in advanced stages with poor prognosis in these countries. We performed a priority setting exercise and suggested priorities for prevention of ICC in this setting. We invited experts and researchers to a workshop and asked them to list important suggestions for ICC prevention in Iran. After merging similar items and removing the duplicates, we asked the experts to rank the list of suggested items. We used a strategy grid and Go-zone analysis to determine final list of priorities for ICC prevention in Iran. From 26 final items suggested as priorities for prevention of ICC, the most important priorities were developing national guidelines for cervical screening and quality control protocol for patient follow-up and management of precancerous lesions. In addition, we emphasized considering insurance coverage for cervical screening, public awareness, and research priorities, and establishment of a cervical screening registry. A comprehensive approach and implementation of organized cervical screening program is necessary for prevention of ICC in Iran and other low incidence Muslim countries. Because of high cost for vaccination and low incidence of cervical cancer, we do not recommend HPV vaccination for the time being in Iran. © 2016 by Kerman University of Medical Sciences.

  13. Priority Setting for Improvement of Cervical Cancer Prevention in Iran

    PubMed Central

    Majidi, Azam; Ghiasvand, Reza; Hadji, Maryam; Nahvijou, Azin; Mousavi, Azam-Sadat; Pakgohar, Minoo; Khodakarami, Nahid; Abedini, Mehrandokht; Amouzegar Hashemi, Farnaz; Rahnamaye Farzami, Marjan; Shahsiah, Reza; Sajedinejhad, Sima; Mohagheghi, Mohammad Ali; Nadali, Fatemeh; Rashidian, Arash; Weiderpass, Elisabete; Mogensen, Ole; Zendehdel, Kazem

    2016-01-01

    Background: Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer among women worldwide. Organized cervical screening and vaccination against human papilloma virus (HPV) have been successful interventions for prevention of invasive cervical cancer (ICC). Because of cultural and religious considerations, ICC has low incidence in Iran and many other Muslim countries. There is no organized cervical screening in these countries. Therefore, ICC is usually diagnosed in advanced stages with poor prognosis in these countries. We performed a priority setting exercise and suggested priorities for prevention of ICC in this setting. Methods: We invited experts and researchers to a workshop and asked them to list important suggestions for ICC prevention in Iran. After merging similar items and removing the duplicates, we asked the experts to rank the list of suggested items. We used a strategy grid and Go-zone analysis to determine final list of priorities for ICC prevention in Iran. Results: From 26 final items suggested as priorities for prevention of ICC, the most important priorities were developing national guidelines for cervical screening and quality control protocol for patient follow-up and management of precancerous lesions. In addition, we emphasized considering insurance coverage for cervical screening, public awareness, and research priorities, and establishment of a cervical screening registry. Conclusion: A comprehensive approach and implementation of organized cervical screening program is necessary for prevention of ICC in Iran and other low incidence Muslim countries. Because of high cost for vaccination and low incidence of cervical cancer, we do not recommend HPV vaccination for the time being in Iran. PMID:27239863

  14. Research priorities in mesothelioma: A James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

    PubMed

    Stephens, R J; Whiting, C; Cowan, K

    2015-08-01

    In the UK, despite the import and use of all forms of asbestos being banned more than 15 years ago, the incidence of mesothelioma continues to rise. Mesothelioma is almost invariably fatal, and more research is required, not only to find more effective treatments, but also to achieve an earlier diagnosis and improve palliative care. Following a debate in the House of Lords in July 2013, a package of measures was agreed, which included a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership, funded by the National Institute for Health Research. The partnership brought together patients, carers, health professionals and support organisations to agree the top 10 research priorities relating to the diagnosis, treatment and care of patients with mesothelioma. Following the established James Lind Alliance priority setting process, mesothelioma patients, current and bereaved carers, and health professionals were surveyed to elicit their concerns regarding diagnosis, treatment and care. Research questions were generated from the survey responses, and following checks that the questions were currently unanswered, an interim prioritisation survey was conducted to identify a shortlist of questions to take to a final consensus meeting. Four hundred and fifty-three initial surveys were returned, which were refined into 52 unique unanswered research questions. The interim prioritisation survey was completed by 202 responders, and the top 30 questions were taken to a final meeting where mesothelioma patients, carers, and health professionals prioritised all the questions, and reached a consensus on the top 10. The top 10 questions cover a wide portfolio of research (including assessing the value of immunotherapy, individualised chemotherapy, second-line treatment and immediate chemotherapy, monitoring patients with pleural thickening, defining the management of ascites in peritoneal mesothelioma, and optimising follow-up strategy). This list is an invaluable resource, which should be

  15. Priority setting in healthcare: towards guidelines for the program budgeting and marginal analysis framework.

    PubMed

    Peacock, Stuart J; Mitton, Craig; Ruta, Danny; Donaldson, Cam; Bate, Angela; Hedden, Lindsay

    2010-10-01

    Economists' approaches to priority setting focus on the principles of opportunity cost, marginal analysis and choice under scarcity. These approaches are based on the premise that it is possible to design a rational priority setting system that will produce legitimate changes in resource allocation. However, beyond issuing guidance at the national level, economic approaches to priority setting have had only a moderate impact in practice. In particular, local health service organizations - such as health authorities, health maintenance organizations, hospitals and healthcare trusts - have had difficulty implementing evidence from economic appraisals. Yet, in the context of making decisions between competing claims on scarce health service resources, economic tools and thinking have much to offer. The purpose of this article is to describe and discuss ten evidence-based guidelines for the successful design and implementation of a program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) priority setting exercise. PBMA is a framework that explicitly recognizes the need to balance pragmatic and ethical considerations with economic rationality when making resource allocation decisions. While the ten guidelines are drawn from the PBMA framework, they may be generalized across a range of economic approaches to priority setting.

  16. Research priority setting in childhood chronic disease: a systematic review.

    PubMed

    Odgers, Harrison Lindsay; Tong, Allison; Lopez-Vargas, Pamela; Davidson, Andrew; Jaffe, Adam; McKenzie, Anne; Pinkerton, Ross; Wake, Melissa; Richmond, Peter; Crowe, Sally; Caldwell, Patrina Ha Yuen; Hill, Sophie; Couper, Jennifer; Haddad, Suzy; Kassai, Behrouz; Craig, Jonathan C

    2018-04-11

    To evaluate research priority setting approaches in childhood chronic diseases and to describe the priorities of stakeholders including patients, caregivers/families and health professionals. We conducted a systematic review of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL from inception to 16 October 2016. Studies that elicited stakeholder priorities for paediatric chronic disease research were eligible for inclusion. Data on the prioritisation process were extracted using an appraisal checklist. Generated priorities were collated into common topic areas. We identified 83 studies (n=15 722). Twenty (24%) studies involved parents/caregivers and four (5%) children. The top three health areas were cancer (11%), neurology (8%) and endocrine/metabolism (8%). Priority topic areas were treatment (78%), disease trajectory (48%), quality of life/psychosocial impact (48%), disease onset/prevention (43%), knowledge/self-management (33%), prevalence (30%), diagnostic methods (28%), access to healthcare (25%) and transition to adulthood (12%). The methods included workshops, Delphi techniques, surveys and focus groups/interviews. Specific methods for collecting and prioritising research topics were described in only 60% of studies. Most reviewed studies were conducted in high-income nations. Research priority setting activities in paediatric chronic disease cover many discipline areas and have elicited a broad range of topics. However, child/caregiver involvement is uncommon, and the methods often lack clarity. A systematic and explicit process that involves patients and families in partnership may help to inform a more patient and family-relevant research agenda in paediatric chronic disease. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

  17. Towards deep inclusion for equity-oriented health research priority-setting: A working model.

    PubMed

    Pratt, Bridget; Merritt, Maria; Hyder, Adnan A

    2016-02-01

    Growing consensus that health research funders should align their investments with national research priorities presupposes that such national priorities exist and are just. Arguably, justice requires national health research priority-setting to promote health equity. Such a position is consistent with recommendations made by the World Health Organization and at global ministerial summits that health research should serve to reduce health inequalities between and within countries. Thus far, no specific requirements for equity-oriented research priority-setting have been described to guide policymakers. As a step towards the explication and defence of such requirements, we propose that deep inclusion is a key procedural component of equity-oriented research priority-setting. We offer a model of deep inclusion that was developed by applying concepts from work on deliberative democracy and development ethics. This model consists of three dimensions--breadth, qualitative equality, and high-quality non-elite participation. Deep inclusion is captured not only by who is invited to join a decision-making process but also by how they are involved and by when non-elite stakeholders are involved. To clarify and illustrate the proposed dimensions, we use the sustained example of health systems research. We conclude by reviewing practical challenges to achieving deep inclusion. Despite the existence of barriers to implementation, our model can help policymakers and other stakeholders design more inclusive national health research priority-setting processes and assess these processes' depth of inclusion. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

  18. Setting research priorities to improve the health of children and young people with neurodisability: a British Academy of Childhood Disability-James Lind Alliance Research Priority Setting Partnership

    PubMed Central

    Morris, Christopher; Simkiss, Doug; Busk, Mary; Morris, Maureen; Allard, Amanda; Denness, Jacob; Janssens, Astrid; Stimson, Anna; Coghill, Joanna; Robinson, Kelly; Fenton, Mark; Cowan, Katherine

    2015-01-01

    Objectives To engage young people, parent carers and clinicians in a systematic process to identify and prioritise research questions regarding ways to improve the health and well-being of children and young people with neurodisability. Design British Academy of Childhood Disability (BACD)-James Lind Alliance research priority setting partnership bringing together patients, carers and clinicians as equal stakeholders. Setting UK health service and community. Methods The BACD Strategic Research Group formed the partnership. A Steering Group was established; charity and professional partner organisations were recruited. Suggestions were gathered in an open survey and from research recommendations for statutory guidance. Items were aggregated to formulate indicative research questions and verified as uncertainties from research evidence. An interim survey was used to rank the questions to shortlist topics. A mixed group of stakeholders discussed the top 25 questions at the final priority setting workshop agreeing a final rank order and the top 10 research priorities. Participants Partner organisations were 13 charities and 8 professional societies. 369 people submitted suggestions (40% non-clinicians). 76 people participated in the interim prioritisation (26 parents, 1 young person, 10 charity representatives, 39 clinicians); 22 took part in the final workshop (3 young people, 7 parents, 3 charity representatives, 9 professionals). Results The top three research priorities related to (1) establishing the optimal frequency and intensity (dose) for mainstream therapies, (2) means for selecting and encouraging use of communication strategies and (3) ways to improve children's attitudes towards disability. The top 10 included evaluating interventions to promote mobility, self-efficacy, mental health, continence, physical fitness, educational inclusion and reduce impacts of sleep disturbance. Conclusions The methodology provided a systematic and transparent process to

  19. Political strategies in difficult times - The "backstage" experience of Swedish politicians on formal priority setting in healthcare.

    PubMed

    Garpenby, Peter; Nedlund, Ann-Charlotte

    2016-08-01

    This paper contributes to the knowledge on the governing of healthcare in a democratic context in times of austerity. Resource allocation in healthcare is a highly political issue but the political nature of healthcare is not always made clear and the role of politicians is often obscure. The absence of politicians in rationing/disinvestment arrangements is usually explained with blame-shifting arguments; they prefer to delegate "the burden of responsibility" to administrative agencies or professionals. Drawing on a case where Swedish regional politicians involved themselves in setting priorities at a more detailed level than previously, the findings suggest that the subject of "blame avoidance" is more complicated than usually assumed. A qualitative case study was designed, involving semi-structured interviews with 14 regionally elected politicians in one Swedish health authority, conducted in June 2011. The interviews were analysed through a thematic analysis in accordance with the "framework approach" by Ritchie and Lewis. Findings show that an overarching strategy among the politicians was to appear united and to suppress conflict, which served to underpin the vital strategy of bringing the medical profession into the process. A key finding is the importance that politicians, when appearing "backstage", attach to the prevention of blame from the medical profession. This case illustrates that one has to take into account that priority settings requires various types of skills and knowledges - not only technical but also political and social. Another important lesson points toward the need to broaden the political leadership repertoire, as leadership in the case of priority setting is not about politicians being all in or all out. The results suggest that in a priority-setting process it is of importance to have politics on-board at an early stage to secure loyalty to the process, although not necessarily being involved in all details. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier

  20. Introducing priority setting and resource allocation in home and community care programs.

    PubMed

    Urquhart, Bonnie; Mitton, Craig; Peacock, Stuart

    2008-01-01

    To use evidence from research to identify and implement priority setting and resource allocation that incorporates both ethical practices and economic principles. Program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) is based on two key economic principles: opportunity cost (i.e. doing one thing instead of another) and the margin (i.e. resource allocation should result in maximum benefit for available resources). An ethical framework for priority setting and resource allocation known as Accountability for Reasonableness (A4R) focuses on making sure that resource allocations are based on a fair decision-making process. It includes the following four conditions: publicity; relevance; appeals; and enforcement. More recent literature on the topic suggests that a fifth condition, that of empowerment, should be added to the Framework. The 2007-08 operating budget for Home and Community Care, excluding the residential sector, was developed using PBMA and incorporating the A4R conditions. Recommendations developed using PBMA were forwarded to the Executive Committee, approved and implemented for the 2007-08 fiscal year operating budget. In addition there were two projects approved for approximately $200,000. PBMA is an improvement over previous practice. Managers of Home and Community Care are committed to using the process for the 2008-09 fiscal year operating budget and expanding its use to include mental health and addictions services. In addition, managers of public health prevention and promotion services are considering using the process.

  1. Integrating Public Input into Healthcare Priority-Setting Decisions

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Mitton, Craig; Smith, Neale; Peacock, Stuart; Evoy, Brian; Abelson, Julia

    2011-01-01

    Decision makers are pressed to involve the public in priority setting. However, public input is only one form of evidence. So, how can information from the public be combined with other knowledge? The authors qualitatively analysed articles that explicitly address this question. We identified the other forms of information that tend to be used in…

  2. Involving patients in setting priorities for healthcare improvement: a cluster randomized trial.

    PubMed

    Boivin, Antoine; Lehoux, Pascale; Lacombe, Réal; Burgers, Jako; Grol, Richard

    2014-02-20

    Patients are increasingly seen as active partners in healthcare. While patient involvement in individual clinical decisions has been extensively studied, no trial has assessed how patients can effectively be involved in collective healthcare decisions affecting the population. The goal of this study was to test the impact of involving patients in setting healthcare improvement priorities for chronic care at the community level. Cluster randomized controlled trial. Local communities were randomized in intervention (priority setting with patient involvement) and control sites (no patient involvement). Communities in a canadian region were required to set priorities for improving chronic disease management in primary care, from a list of 37 validated quality indicators. Patients were consulted in writing, before participating in face-to-face deliberation with professionals. Professionals established priorities among themselves, without patient involvement. A total of 172 individuals from six communities participated in the study, including 83 chronic disease patients, and 89 health professionals. The primary outcome was the level of agreement between patients' and professionals' priorities. Secondary outcomes included professionals' intention to use the selected quality indicators, and the costs of patient involvement. Priorities established with patients were more aligned with core generic components of the Medical Home and Chronic Care Model, including: access to primary care, self-care support, patient participation in clinical decisions, and partnership with community organizations (p < 0.01). Priorities established by professionals alone placed more emphasis on the technical quality of single disease management. The involvement intervention fostered mutual influence between patients and professionals, which resulted in a 41% increase in agreement on common priorities (95%CI: +12% to +58%, p < 0.01). Professionals' intention to use the selected quality

  3. Patient and public engagement in priority setting: A systematic rapid review of the literature.

    PubMed

    Manafò, Elizabeth; Petermann, Lisa; Vandall-Walker, Virginia; Mason-Lai, Ping

    2018-01-01

    Current research suggests that while patients are becoming more engaged across the health delivery spectrum, this involvement occurs most often at the pre-preparation stage to identify 'high-level' priorities in health ecosystem priority setting, and at the preparation phase for health research. The purpose of this systematic rapid review of the literature is to describe the evidence that does exist in relation to patient and public engagement priority setting in both health ecosystem and health research. HealthStar (via OVID); CINAHL; Proquest Databases; and Scholar's Portal. i) published in English; ii) published within the timeframe of 2007-Current (10 years) unless the report/article was formative in synthesizing key considerations of patient engagement in health ecosystem and health research priority setting; iii) conducted in Canada, the US, Europe, UK, Australia/New Zealand, or Scandinavian countries. i) Is the research valid, sound, and applicable?; ii) what outcomes can we potentially expect if we implement the findings from this research?; iii) will the target population (i.e., health researchers and practitioners) be able to use this research?. A summary of findings from each of the respective processes was synthesized to highlight key information that would support decision-making for researchers when determining the best priority setting process to apply for their specific patient-oriented research. Seventy articles from the UK, US, Canada, Netherlands and Australia were selected for review. Results were organized into two tiers of public and patient engagement in prioritization: Tier 1-Deliberative and Tier 2-Consultative. Highly structured patient and public engagement planning activities include the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnerships (UK), Dialogue Method (Netherlands), Global Evidence Mapping (Australia), and the Deep Inclusion Method/CHoosing All Together (US). The critical study limitations include challenges in comprehensively

  4. The influence of power and actor relations on priority setting and resource allocation practices at the hospital level in Kenya: a case study.

    PubMed

    Barasa, Edwine W; Cleary, Susan; English, Mike; Molyneux, Sassy

    2016-09-30

    Priority setting and resource allocation in healthcare organizations often involves the balancing of competing interests and values in the context of hierarchical and politically complex settings with multiple interacting actor relationships. Despite this, few studies have examined the influence of actor and power dynamics on priority setting practices in healthcare organizations. This paper examines the influence of power relations among different actors on the implementation of priority setting and resource allocation processes in public hospitals in Kenya. We used a qualitative case study approach to examine priority setting and resource allocation practices in two public hospitals in coastal Kenya. We collected data by a combination of in-depth interviews of national level policy makers, hospital managers, and frontline practitioners in the case study hospitals (n = 72), review of documents such as hospital plans and budgets, minutes of meetings and accounting records, and non-participant observations in case study hospitals over a period of 7 months. We applied a combination of two frameworks, Norman Long's actor interface analysis and VeneKlasen and Miller's expressions of power framework to examine and interpret our findings RESULTS: The interactions of actors in the case study hospitals resulted in socially constructed interfaces between: 1) senior managers and middle level managers 2) non-clinical managers and clinicians, and 3) hospital managers and the community. Power imbalances resulted in the exclusion of middle level managers (in one of the hospitals) and clinicians and the community (in both hospitals) from decision making processes. This resulted in, amongst others, perceptions of unfairness, and reduced motivation in hospital staff. It also puts to question the legitimacy of priority setting processes in these hospitals. Designing hospital decision making structures to strengthen participation and inclusion of relevant stakeholders could

  5. Top ten research priorities for spinal cord injury: the methodology and results of a British priority setting partnership.

    PubMed

    van Middendorp, J J; Allison, H C; Ahuja, S; Bracher, D; Dyson, C; Fairbank, J; Gall, A; Glover, A; Gray, L; Masri, W El; Uttridge, A; Cowan, K

    2016-05-01

    This is a mixed-method consensus development project. The objective of this study was to identify a top ten list of priorities for future research into spinal cord injury (SCI). The British Spinal Cord Injury Priority Setting Partnership was established in 2013 and completed in 2014. Stakeholders included consumer organisations, healthcare professional societies and caregivers. This partnership involved the following four key stages: (i) gathering of research questions, (ii) checking of existing research evidence, (iii) interim prioritisation and (iv) a final consensus meeting to reach agreement on the top ten research priorities. Adult individuals with spinal cord dysfunction because of trauma or non-traumatic causes, including transverse myelitis, and individuals with a cauda equina syndrome (henceforth grouped and referred to as SCI) were invited to participate in this priority setting partnership. We collected 784 questions from 403 survey respondents (290 individuals with SCI), which, after merging duplicate questions and checking systematic reviews for evidence, were reduced to 109 unique unanswered research questions. A total of 293 people (211 individuals with SCI) participated in the interim prioritisation process, leading to the identification of 25 priorities. At a final consensus meeting, a representative group of individuals with SCI, caregivers and health professionals agreed on their top ten research priorities. Following a comprehensive, rigorous and inclusive process, with participation from individuals with SCI, caregivers and health professionals, the SCI research agenda has been defined by people to whom it matters most and should inform the scope and future activities of funders and researchers for the years to come. The NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre provided core funding for this project.

  6. Community views and public health priority setting: how do health department priorities, community views, and health indicator data compare?

    PubMed

    Earle-Richardson, Giulia; Scribani, Melissa; Wyckoff, Lynae; Strogatz, David; May, John; Jenkins, Paul

    2015-01-01

    New York, like many other states, provides county-level health statistics for use in local priority settings but does not provide any data on public views about priority health issues. This study assessed whether health department priorities are notably different from community concerns about health, and how both groups' priorities compare with local health statistics. Data from a 2009 rural survey on community health concerns were compared to priorities named by the seven area county health departments, and to local health indicator data. Health care/insurance cost (60%), obesity (53%), and prescription cost (41%) were leading community concerns, regardless of age, education, sex, or Internet in the home. Six of seven county health departments selected access to quality health care (which includes health care/insurance cost) as a leading public health priority, but only three identified obesity. The following leading local health issues were suggested by health indicators: Physical activity and nutrition, Smoking, and Unintentional injury. Health departments diverged from community priorities, from health indicator data, and from one another in choosing priorities. Adding a question about community health priorities to existing state telephone surveys on health behavior and lifestyle would provide an important tool to local health departments. © 2014 Society for Public Health Education.

  7. Priority setting in health care: trends and models from Scandinavian experiences.

    PubMed

    Hofmann, Bjørn

    2013-08-01

    The Scandinavian welfare states have public health care systems which have universal coverage and traditionally low influence of private insurance and private provision. Due to raises in costs, elaborate public control of health care, and a significant technological development in health care, priority setting came on the public agenda comparatively early in the Scandinavian countries. The development of health care priority setting has been partly homogeneous and appears to follow certain phases. This can be of broader interest as it may shed light on alternative models and strategies in health care priority setting. Some general trends have been identified: from principles to procedures, from closed to open processes, and from experts to participation. Five general approaches have been recognized: The moral principles and values based approach, the moral principles and economic assessment approach, the procedural approach, the expert based practice defining approach, and the participatory practice defining approach. There are pros and cons with all of these approaches. For the time being the fifth approach appears attractive, but its lack of true participation and the lack of clear success criteria may pose significant challenges in the future.

  8. Ethics and equity in research priority-setting: stakeholder engagement and the needs of disadvantaged groups.

    PubMed

    Bhaumik, Soumyadeep; Rana, Sangeeta; Karimkhani, Chante; Welch, Vivian; Armstrong, Rebecca; Pottie, Kevin; Dellavalle, Robert; Dhakal, Purushottam; Oliver, Sandy; Francis, Damian K; Nasser, Mona; Crowe, Sally; Aksut, Baran; Amico, Roberto D

    2015-01-01

    A transparent and evidence-based priority-setting process promotes the optimal use of resources to improve health outcomes. Decision-makers and funders have begun to increasingly engage representatives of patients and healthcare consumers to ensure that research becomes more relevant. However, disadvantaged groups and their needs may not be integrated into the priority-setting process since they do not have a "political voice" or are unable to organise into interest groups. Equitable priority-setting methods need to balance patient needs, values, experiences with population-level issues and issues related to the health system.

  9. Burden of Disease Study and Priority Setting in Korea: an Ethical Perspective

    PubMed Central

    2016-01-01

    When thinking about priority setting in access to healthcare resources, decision-making requires that cost-effectiveness is balanced against medical ethics. The burden of disease has emerged as an important approach to the assessment of health needs for political decision-making. However, the disability adjusted life years approach hides conceptual and methodological issues regarding the claims and value of disabled people. In this article, we discuss ethical issues that are raised as a consequence of the introduction of evidence-based health policy, such as economic evidence, in establishing resource allocation priorities. In terms of ethical values in health priority setting in Korea, there is no reliable rationale for the judgment used in decision-making as well as for setting separate and distinct priorities for different government bodies. An important question, therefore, is which ethical values guiding the practice of decision-making should be reconciled with the economic evidence found in Korean healthcare. The health technology assessment core model from the European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) project is a good example of incorporating ethical values into decision-making. We suggest that a fair distribution of scarce healthcare resources in South Korea can be achieved by considering the ethical aspects of healthcare. PMID:27775247

  10. Shared research priorities for pessary use in women with prolapse: results from a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

    PubMed

    Lough, Kate; Hagen, Suzanne; McClurg, Doreen; Pollock, Alex

    2018-04-28

    To identify the shared priorities for future research of women affected by and clinicians involved with pessary use for the management of prolapse. A priority setting project using a consensus method. A James Lind Alliance Pessary use for prolapse Priority Setting Partnership (JLA Pessary PSP) conducted from May 2016 to September 2017 in the UK. The PSP was run by a Steering Group of three women with experience of pessary use, three experienced clinicians involved with management of prolapse, two researchers with relevant experience, a JLA adviser and a PSP leader. Two surveys were conducted in 2016 and 2017. The first gathered questions about pessaries, and the second asked respondents to prioritise a list of questions. A final workshop was held on 8 September 2017 involving 10 women and 13 clinician representatives with prolapse and pessary experience. A top 10 list of priorities for future research in pessary use for prolapse was agreed by consensus. Women with experience of pessary use and clinicians involved with prolapse management have worked together to determine shared priorities for future research. Aligning the top 10 results with existing research findings will highlight the gaps in current evidence and signpost future research to areas of priority. Effective dissemination of the results will enable research funding bodies to focus on gathering the evidence to answer the questions that matter most to those who will be affected. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

  11. Patient and public engagement in priority setting: A systematic rapid review of the literature

    PubMed Central

    Vandall-Walker, Virginia; Mason-Lai, Ping

    2018-01-01

    Background Current research suggests that while patients are becoming more engaged across the health delivery spectrum, this involvement occurs most often at the pre-preparation stage to identify ‘high-level’ priorities in health ecosystem priority setting, and at the preparation phase for health research. Objective The purpose of this systematic rapid review of the literature is to describe the evidence that does exist in relation to patient and public engagement priority setting in both health ecosystem and health research. Data sources HealthStar (via OVID); CINAHL; Proquest Databases; and Scholar’s Portal. Study eligibility criteria i) published in English; ii) published within the timeframe of 2007—Current (10 years) unless the report/article was formative in synthesizing key considerations of patient engagement in health ecosystem and health research priority setting; iii) conducted in Canada, the US, Europe, UK, Australia/New Zealand, or Scandinavian countries. Study appraisal and synthesis i) Is the research valid, sound, and applicable?; ii) what outcomes can we potentially expect if we implement the findings from this research?; iii) will the target population (i.e., health researchers and practitioners) be able to use this research?. A summary of findings from each of the respective processes was synthesized to highlight key information that would support decision-making for researchers when determining the best priority setting process to apply for their specific patient-oriented research. Results Seventy articles from the UK, US, Canada, Netherlands and Australia were selected for review. Results were organized into two tiers of public and patient engagement in prioritization: Tier 1—Deliberative and Tier 2—Consultative. Highly structured patient and public engagement planning activities include the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnerships (UK), Dialogue Method (Netherlands), Global Evidence Mapping (Australia), and the Deep

  12. Bottom-up priority setting revised. A second evaluation of an institutional intervention in a Swedish health care organisation.

    PubMed

    Waldau, Susanne

    2015-09-01

    Transparent priority setting in health care based on specific ethical principles is requested by the Swedish Parliament since 1997. Implementation has been limited. In this case, transparent priority setting was performed for a second time round and engaged an entire health care organisation. Objectives were to refine a bottom-up priority setting process, reach a political decision on service limits to make reallocation towards higher prioritised services possible, and raise systems knowledge. An action research approach was chosen. The national model for priority setting was used with addition of dimensions costs, volumes, gender distribution and feasibility. The intervention included a three step process and specific procedures for each step which were created, revised and evaluated regarding factual and functional aspects. Evaluations methods included analyses of documents, recordings and surveys. Vertical and horizontal priority setting occurred and resources were reallocated. Participants' attitudes remained positive, however less so than in the first priority setting round. Identifying low-priority services was perceived difficult, causing resentment and strategic behaviour. The horizontal stage served to raise quality of the knowledge base, level out differences in ranking of services and raise systems knowledge. Existing health care management systems do not meet institutional requirements for transparent priority setting. Introducing transparent priority setting constitutes a complex institutional reform, which needs to be driven by management/administration. Strong managerial commitment is required. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

  13. Defining Priorities for Future Research: Results of the UK Kidney Transplant Priority Setting Partnership

    PubMed Central

    Metcalfe, Leanne; O’Donoghue, Katriona; Ball, Simon T.; Beale, Angela; Beale, William; Hilton, Rachel; Hodkinson, Keith; Lipkin, Graham W.; Loud, Fiona; Marson, Lorna P.; Morris, Peter J.

    2016-01-01

    Background It has been suggested that the research priorities of those funding and performing research in transplantation may differ from those of end service users such as patients, carers and healthcare professionals involved in day-to-day care. The Kidney Transplant Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) was established with the aim of involving all stakeholders in prioritising future research in the field. Methods The PSP methodology is as outlined by the James Lind Alliance. An initial survey collected unanswered research questions from patients, carers and clinicians. Duplicate and out-of-scope topics were excluded and the existing literature searched to identify topics answered by current evidence. An interim prioritisation survey asked patients and professionals to score the importance of the remaining questions to create a ranked long-list. These were considered at a final consensus workshop using a modified nominal group technique to agree a final top ten. Results The initial survey identified 497 questions from 183 respondents, covering all aspects of transplantation from assessment through to long-term follow-up. These were grouped into 90 unanswered “indicative” questions. The interim prioritisation survey received 256 responses (34.8% patients/carers, 10.9% donors and 54.3% professionals), resulting in a ranked list of 25 questions that were considered during the final workshop. Participants agreed a top ten priorities for future research that included optimisation of immunosuppression (improved monitoring, choice of regimen, personalisation), prevention of sensitisation and transplanting the sensitised patient, management of antibody-mediated rejection, long-term risks to live donors, methods of organ preservation, induction of tolerance and bioengineering of organs. There was evidence that patient and carer involvement had a significant impact on shaping the final priorities. Conclusions The final list of priorities relates to all stages of the

  14. Defining Priorities for Future Research: Results of the UK Kidney Transplant Priority Setting Partnership.

    PubMed

    Knight, Simon R; Metcalfe, Leanne; O'Donoghue, Katriona; Ball, Simon T; Beale, Angela; Beale, William; Hilton, Rachel; Hodkinson, Keith; Lipkin, Graham W; Loud, Fiona; Marson, Lorna P; Morris, Peter J

    2016-01-01

    It has been suggested that the research priorities of those funding and performing research in transplantation may differ from those of end service users such as patients, carers and healthcare professionals involved in day-to-day care. The Kidney Transplant Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) was established with the aim of involving all stakeholders in prioritising future research in the field. The PSP methodology is as outlined by the James Lind Alliance. An initial survey collected unanswered research questions from patients, carers and clinicians. Duplicate and out-of-scope topics were excluded and the existing literature searched to identify topics answered by current evidence. An interim prioritisation survey asked patients and professionals to score the importance of the remaining questions to create a ranked long-list. These were considered at a final consensus workshop using a modified nominal group technique to agree a final top ten. The initial survey identified 497 questions from 183 respondents, covering all aspects of transplantation from assessment through to long-term follow-up. These were grouped into 90 unanswered "indicative" questions. The interim prioritisation survey received 256 responses (34.8% patients/carers, 10.9% donors and 54.3% professionals), resulting in a ranked list of 25 questions that were considered during the final workshop. Participants agreed a top ten priorities for future research that included optimisation of immunosuppression (improved monitoring, choice of regimen, personalisation), prevention of sensitisation and transplanting the sensitised patient, management of antibody-mediated rejection, long-term risks to live donors, methods of organ preservation, induction of tolerance and bioengineering of organs. There was evidence that patient and carer involvement had a significant impact on shaping the final priorities. The final list of priorities relates to all stages of the transplant process, including access to

  15. Theories of justice and their implications for priority setting in health care.

    PubMed

    Olsen, J A

    1997-12-01

    The paper aims to show how three theories of distributive justice; utilitarianism, egalitarianism and maximum, can provide a clearer understanding of the normative basis of different priority setting regimes in the health service. The paper starts with a brief presentation of the theories, followed by their prescriptions for distribution, as illustrated with their respective preferred points on a utility possibility frontier. After this general discussion, attention is shifted from utils to health. The paper discusses how the recent Norwegian guidelines for priority setting can be understood in the light of the theories.

  16. Development of a new model to engage patients and clinicians in setting research priorities.

    PubMed

    Pollock, Alex; St George, Bridget; Fenton, Mark; Crowe, Sally; Firkins, Lester

    2014-01-01

    Equitable involvement of patients and clinicians in setting research and funding priorities is ethically desirable and can improve the quality, relevance and implementation of research. Survey methods used in previous priority setting projects to gather treatment uncertainties may not be sufficient to facilitate responses from patients and their lay carers for some health care topics. We aimed to develop a new model to engage patients and clinicians in setting research priorities relating to life after stroke, and to explore the use of this model within a James Lind Alliance (JLA) priority setting project. We developed a model to facilitate involvement through targeted engagement and assisted involvement (FREE TEA model). We implemented both standard surveys and the FREE TEA model to gather research priorities (treatment uncertainties) from people affected by stroke living in Scotland. We explored and configured the number of treatment uncertainties elicited from different groups by the two approaches. We gathered 516 treatment uncertainties from stroke survivors, carers and health professionals. We achieved approximately equal numbers of contributions; 281 (54%) from stroke survivors/carers; 235 (46%) from health professionals. For stroke survivors and carers, 98 (35%) treatment uncertainties were elicited from the standard survey and 183 (65%) at FREE TEA face-to-face visits. This contrasted with the health professionals for whom 198 (84%) were elicited from the standard survey and only 37 (16%) from FREE TEA visits. The FREE TEA model has implications for future priority setting projects and user-involvement relating to populations of people with complex health needs. Our results imply that reliance on standard surveys may result in poor and unrepresentative involvement of patients, thereby favouring the views of health professionals.

  17. Setting priorities for safe motherhood programme evaluation: a participatory process in three developing countries.

    PubMed

    Madi, Banyana Cecilia; Hussein, Julia; Hounton, Sennen; D'Ambruoso, Lucia; Achadi, Endang; Arhinful, Daniel Kojo

    2007-09-01

    A participatory approach to priority setting in programme evaluation may help improve the allocation and more efficient use of scarce resources especially in low-income countries. Research agendas that are the result of collaboration between researchers, programme managers, policy makers and other stakeholders have the potential to ensure rigorous studies are conducted on matters of local priority, based on local, expert knowledge. This paper describes a process involving key stakeholders to elicit and prioritise evaluation needs for safe motherhood in three developing countries. A series of reiterative consultations with safe motherhood stakeholders from each country was conducted over a period of 36 months. In each country, the consultation process consisted of a series of participatory workshops; firstly, stakeholder's views on evaluation were elicited with parallel descriptive work on the contexts. Secondly, priorities for evaluation were identified from stakeholders; thirdly, the evaluation-priorities were refined; and finally, the evaluation research questions, reflecting the identified priorities, were agreed and finalised. Three evaluation-questions were identified in each country, and one selected, on which a full scale evaluation was undertaken. While there is a great deal written about the importance of transparent and participatory priority setting in evaluation; few examples of how such processes could be implemented exist, particularly for maternal health programmes. Our experience demonstrates that the investment in a participatory priority-setting effort is high but the process undertaken resulted in both globally and contextually-relevant priorities for evaluation. This experience provides useful lessons for public health practitioners committed to bridging the research-policy interface.

  18. Six Common Mistakes in Conservation Priority Setting

    PubMed Central

    Game, Edward T; Kareiva, Peter; Possingham, Hugh P

    2013-01-01

    Abstract A vast number of prioritization schemes have been developed to help conservation navigate tough decisions about the allocation of finite resources. However, the application of quantitative approaches to setting priorities in conservation frequently includes mistakes that can undermine their authors’ intention to be more rigorous and scientific in the way priorities are established and resources allocated. Drawing on well-established principles of decision science, we highlight 6 mistakes commonly associated with setting priorities for conservation: not acknowledging conservation plans are prioritizations; trying to solve an ill-defined problem; not prioritizing actions; arbitrariness; hidden value judgments; and not acknowledging risk of failure. We explain these mistakes and offer a path to help conservation planners avoid making the same mistakes in future prioritizations. Seis Errores Comunes en la Definición de Prioridades de Conservación Resumen Se ha desarrollado un vasto número de esquemas de priorización para ayudar a que la conservación navegue entre decisiones difíciles en cuanto a la asignación de recursos finitos. Sin embargo, la aplicación de métodos cuantitativos para la definición de prioridades en la conservación frecuentemente incluye errores que pueden socavar la intención de sus autores de ser más rigurosos y científicos en la manera en que se establecen las prioridades y se asignan los recursos. Con base en los bien establecidos principios de la ciencia de la decisión, resaltamos seis errores comúnmente asociados con la definición de prioridades para la conservación: no reconocer que los planes de conservación son priorizaciones; tratar de resolver un problema mal definido; no priorizar acciones; arbitrariedad; juicios de valor ocultos y no reconocer el riesgo de fracasar. Explicamos estos errores y ofrecemos un camino para que planificadores de la conservación no cometan los mismos errores en priorizaciones

  19. Setting health priorities in a community: a case example

    PubMed Central

    Sousa, Fábio Alexandre Melo do Rego; Goulart, Maria José Garcia; Braga, Antonieta Manuela dos Santos; Medeiros, Clara Maria Oliveira; Rego, Débora Cristina Martins; Vieira, Flávio Garcia; Pereira, Helder José Alves da Rocha; Tavares, Helena Margarida Correia Vicente; Loura, Marta Maria Puim

    2017-01-01

    ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE To describe the methodology used in the process of setting health priorities for community intervention in a community of older adults. METHODS Based on the results of a health diagnosis related to active aging, a prioritization process was conceived to select the priority intervention problem. The process comprised four successive phases of problem analysis and classification: (1) grouping by level of similarity, (2) classification according to epidemiological criteria, (3) ordering by experts, and (4) application of the Hanlon method. These stages combined, in an integrated manner, the views of health team professionals, community nursing and gerontology experts, and the actual community. RESULTS The first stage grouped the identified problems by level of similarity, comprising a body of 19 issues for analysis. In the second stage these problems were classified by the health team members by epidemiological criteria (size, vulnerability, and transcendence). The nine most relevant problems resulting from the second stage of the process were submitted to expert analysis and the five most pertinent problems were selected. The last step identified the priority issue for intervention in this specific community with the participation of formal and informal community leaders: Low Social Interaction in Community Participation. CONCLUSIONS The prioritization process is a key step in health planning, enabling the identification of priority problems to intervene in a given community at a given time. There are no default formulas for selecting priority issues. It is up to each community intervention team to define its own process with different methods/techniques that allow the identification of and intervention in needs classified as priority by the community. PMID:28273229

  20. Treatment costs and priority setting in health care: A qualitative study

    PubMed Central

    McKie, John; Shrimpton, Bradley; Richardson, Jeff; Hurworth, Rosalind

    2009-01-01

    Background The aim of this study is to investigate whether the public believes high cost patients should be a lower priority for public health care than low cost patients, other things being equal, in order to maximise health gains from the health budget. Semi-structured group discussions were used to help participants reflect critically upon their own views and gain exposure to alternative views, and in this way elicit underlying values rather than unreflective preferences. Participants were given two main tasks: first, to select from among three general principles for setting health care priorities the one that comes closest to their own views; second, to allocate a limited hospital budget between two groups of imaginary patients. Forty-one people, varying in age, occupation, income and education level, participated in a total of six group discussions with each group comprising between six and eight people. Results After discussion and deliberation, 30 participants rejected the most cost-effective principle for setting priorities, citing reasons such as 'moral values' and 'a personal belief that we shouldn't discriminate'. Only three participants chose to allocate the entire hospital budget to the low cost patients. Reasons for allocating some money to inefficient (high cost) patients included 'fairness' and the desire to give all patients a 'chance'. Conclusion Participants rejected a single-minded focus on efficiency – maximising health gains – when setting priorities in health care. There was a concern to avoid strategies that deny patients all hope of treatment, and a willingness to sacrifice health gains for a 'fair' public health system. PMID:19416546

  1. Monitoring drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene in non-household settings: Priorities for policy and practice.

    PubMed

    Cronk, Ryan; Slaymaker, Tom; Bartram, Jamie

    2015-11-01

    -household settings as a priority. National and international monitoring systems will be important to better understand status, trends, to identify priorities and target resources accordingly, and to improve accountability for progressive improvements in WaSH in non-household settings. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

  2. Rapid research and implementation priority setting for wound care uncertainties.

    PubMed

    Gray, Trish A; Dumville, Jo C; Christie, Janice; Cullum, Nicky A

    2017-01-01

    People with complex wounds are more likely to be elderly, living with multimorbidity and wound related symptoms. A variety of products are available for managing complex wounds and a range of healthcare professionals are involved in wound care, yet there is a lack of good evidence to guide practice and services. These factors create uncertainty for those who deliver and those who manage wound care. Formal priority setting for research and implementation topics is needed to more accurately target the gaps in treatment and services. We solicited practitioner and manager uncertainties in wound care and held a priority setting workshop to facilitate a collaborative approach to prioritising wound care-related uncertainties. We recruited healthcare professionals who regularly cared for patients with complex wounds, were wound care specialists or managed wound care services. Participants submitted up to five wound care uncertainties in consultation with their colleagues, via an on-line survey and attended a priority setting workshop. Submitted uncertainties were collated, sorted and categorised according professional group. On the day of the workshop, participants were divided into four groups depending on their profession. Uncertainties submitted by their professional group were viewed, discussed and amended, prior to the first of three individual voting rounds. Participants cast up to ten votes for the uncertainties they judged as being high priority. Continuing in the professional groups, the top 10 uncertainties from each group were displayed, and the process was repeated. Groups were then brought together for a plenary session in which the final priorities were individually scored on a scale of 0-10 by participants. Priorities were ranked and results presented. Nominal group technique was used for generating the final uncertainties, voting and discussions. Thirty-three participants attended the workshop comprising; 10 specialist nurses, 10 district nurses, seven

  3. Rapid research and implementation priority setting for wound care uncertainties

    PubMed Central

    Dumville, Jo C.; Christie, Janice; Cullum, Nicky A.

    2017-01-01

    Introduction People with complex wounds are more likely to be elderly, living with multimorbidity and wound related symptoms. A variety of products are available for managing complex wounds and a range of healthcare professionals are involved in wound care, yet there is a lack of good evidence to guide practice and services. These factors create uncertainty for those who deliver and those who manage wound care. Formal priority setting for research and implementation topics is needed to more accurately target the gaps in treatment and services. We solicited practitioner and manager uncertainties in wound care and held a priority setting workshop to facilitate a collaborative approach to prioritising wound care-related uncertainties. Methods We recruited healthcare professionals who regularly cared for patients with complex wounds, were wound care specialists or managed wound care services. Participants submitted up to five wound care uncertainties in consultation with their colleagues, via an on-line survey and attended a priority setting workshop. Submitted uncertainties were collated, sorted and categorised according professional group. On the day of the workshop, participants were divided into four groups depending on their profession. Uncertainties submitted by their professional group were viewed, discussed and amended, prior to the first of three individual voting rounds. Participants cast up to ten votes for the uncertainties they judged as being high priority. Continuing in the professional groups, the top 10 uncertainties from each group were displayed, and the process was repeated. Groups were then brought together for a plenary session in which the final priorities were individually scored on a scale of 0–10 by participants. Priorities were ranked and results presented. Nominal group technique was used for generating the final uncertainties, voting and discussions. Results Thirty-three participants attended the workshop comprising; 10 specialist nurses

  4. An Emergency Medicine Research Priority Setting Partnership to establish the top 10 research priorities in emergency medicine.

    PubMed

    Smith, Jason; Keating, Liza; Flowerdew, Lynsey; O'Brien, Rachel; McIntyre, Sam; Morley, Richard; Carley, Simon

    2017-07-01

    Defining research priorities in a specialty as broad as emergency medicine is a significant challenge. In order to fund and complete the most important research projects, it is imperative that we identify topics that are important to all clinicians, society and to our patients. We have undertaken a priority setting partnership to establish the most important questions facing emergency medicine. The top 10 questions reached through a consensus process are discussed. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

  5. Setting Priorities in Global Child Health Research Investments: Addressing Values of Stakeholders

    PubMed Central

    Kapiriri, Lydia; Tomlinson, Mark; Gibson, Jennifer; Chopra, Mickey; El Arifeen, Shams; Black, Robert E.; Rudan, Igor

    2007-01-01

    Aim To identify main groups of stakeholders in the process of health research priority setting and propose strategies for addressing their systems of values. Methods In three separate exercises that took place between March and June 2006 we interviewed three different groups of stakeholders: 1) members of the global research priority setting network; 2) a diverse group of national-level stakeholders from South Africa; and 3) participants at the conference related to international child health held in Washington, DC, USA. Each of the groups was administered different version of the questionnaire in which they were asked to set weights to criteria (and also minimum required thresholds, where applicable) that were a priori defined as relevant to health research priority setting by the consultants of the Child Health and Nutrition Research initiative (CHNRI). Results At the global level, the wide and diverse group of respondents placed the greatest importance (weight) to the criterion of maximum potential for disease burden reduction, while the most stringent threshold was placed on the criterion of answerability in an ethical way. Among the stakeholders’ representatives attending the international conference, the criterion of deliverability, answerability, and sustainability of health research results was proposed as the most important one. At the national level in South Africa, the greatest weight was placed on the criterion addressing the predicted impact on equity of the proposed health research. Conclusions Involving a large group of stakeholders when setting priorities in health research investments is important because the criteria of relevance to scientists and technical experts, whose knowledge and technical expertise is usually central to the process, may not be appropriate to specific contexts and in accordance with the views and values of those who invest in health research, those who benefit from it, or wider society as a whole. PMID:17948948

  6. Self-management priority setting and decision-making in adults with multimorbidity: A narrative review of literature

    PubMed Central

    Bratzke, Lisa C.; Muehrer, Rebecca J.; Kehl, Karen A.; Lee, Kyoung Suk; Ward, Earlise C.; Kwekkeboom, Kristine L.

    2014-01-01

    Objectives The purpose of this narrative review was to synthesize current research findings related to self-management, in order to better understand the processes of priority setting and decision-making in among adults with multimorbidity. Design A narrative literature review was undertaken, synthesizing findings from published, peer-reviewed empirical studies that addressed priority setting and/or decision-making in self-management of multimorbidity. Data sources A search of PubMed, PsychINFO, CINAHL and SocIndex databases was conducted from database inception through December 2013. References lists from selected empirical studies and systematic reviews were evaluated to identify any additional relevant articles. Review methods Full text of potentially eligible articles were reviewed and selected for inclusion if they described empirical studies that addressed priority setting or decision-making in self-management of multimorbidity among adults. Two independent reviewers read each selected article and extracted relevant data to an evidence table. Processes and factors and processes of multimorbidity self-management were identified and sorted into categories of priority setting, decision-making, and facilitators/barriers. Results Thirteen articles were selected for inclusion; most were qualitative studies describing processes, facilitators, and barriers of multimorbidity self-management. The findings revealed that patients prioritize a dominant chronic illness and re-prioritize over time as conditions and treatments change; that multiple facilitators (e.g. support programs) and barriers (e.g. lack of financial resources) impact individuals’ self-management priority setting and decision-making ability; as do individual beliefs, preferences, and attitudes (e.g., perceived personal control, preferences regarding treatment). Conclusions Health care providers need to be cognizant that individuals with multimorbidity engage in day-to-day priority setting and decision

  7. Self-management priority setting and decision-making in adults with multimorbidity: a narrative review of literature.

    PubMed

    Bratzke, Lisa C; Muehrer, Rebecca J; Kehl, Karen A; Lee, Kyoung Suk; Ward, Earlise C; Kwekkeboom, Kristine L

    2015-03-01

    The purpose of this narrative review was to synthesize current research findings related to self-management, in order to better understand the processes of priority setting and decision-making among adults with multimorbidity. A narrative literature review was undertaken, synthesizing findings from published, peer-reviewed empirical studies that addressed priority setting and/or decision-making in self-management of multimorbidity. A search of PubMed, PsychINFO, CINAHL and SocIndex databases was conducted from database inception through December 2013. References lists from selected empirical studies and systematic reviews were evaluated to identify any additional relevant articles. Full text of potentially eligible articles were reviewed and selected for inclusion if they described empirical studies that addressed priority setting or decision-making in self-management of multimorbidity among adults. Two independent reviewers read each selected article and extracted relevant data to an evidence table. Processes and factors of multimorbidity self-management were identified and sorted into categories of priority setting, decision-making, and facilitators/barriers. Thirteen articles were selected for inclusion; most were qualitative studies describing processes, facilitators, and barriers of multimorbidity self-management. The findings revealed that patients prioritize a dominant chronic illness and re-prioritize over time as conditions and treatments change; that multiple facilitators (e.g. support programs) and barriers (e.g. lack of financial resources) impact individuals' self-management priority setting and decision-making ability; as do individual beliefs, preferences, and attitudes (e.g., perceived personal control, preferences regarding treatment). Health care providers need to be cognizant that individuals with multimorbidity engage in day-to-day priority setting and decision-making among their multiple chronic illnesses and respective treatments. Researchers

  8. Relevance or Excellence? Setting Research Priorities for Mental Health and Psychosocial Support in Humanitarian Settings

    PubMed Central

    Tol, Wietse A; Patel, Vikram; Tomlinson, Mark; Baingana, Florence; Galappatti, Ananda; Silove, Derrick; Sondorp, Egbert; van Ommeren, Mark; Wessells, Michael G; Catherine, Panter-Brick

    2012-01-01

    Background: Humanitarian crises are associated with an increase in mental disorders and psychological distress. Despite the emerging consensus on intervention strategies in humanitarian settings, the field of mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) in humanitarian settings lacks a consensus-based research agenda. Methods: From August 2009 to February 2010, we contacted policymakers, academic researchers, and humanitarian aid workers, and conducted nine semistructured focus group discussions with 114 participants in three locations (Peru, Uganda, and Nepal), in both the capitals and remote humanitarian settings. Local stakeholders representing a range of academic expertise (psychiatry, psychology, social work, child protection, and medical anthropology) and organizations (governments, universities, nongovernmental organizations, and UN agencies) were asked to identify priority questions for MHPSS research in humanitarian settings, and to discuss factors that hamper and facilitate research. Results: Thematic analyses of transcripts show that participants broadly agreed on prioritized research themes in the following order: (1) the prevalence and burden of mental health and psychosocial difficulties in humanitarian settings, (2) how MHPSS implementation can be improved, (3) evaluation of specific MHPSS interventions, (4) the determinants of mental health and psychological distress, and (5) improved research methods and processes. Rather than differences in research themes across countries, what emerged was a disconnect between different groups of stakeholders regarding research processes: the perceived lack of translation of research findings into actual policy and programs; misunderstanding of research methods by aid workers; different appreciation of the time needed to conduct research; and disputed universality of research constructs. Conclusions: To advance a collaborative research agenda, actors in this field need to bridge the perceived disconnect between

  9. Determining and broadening the definition of impact from implementing a rational priority setting approach in a healthcare organization.

    PubMed

    Cornelissen, Evelyn; Mitton, Craig; Davidson, Alan; Reid, Colin; Hole, Rachelle; Visockas, Anne-Marie; Smith, Neale

    2014-08-01

    Techniques to manage scarce healthcare resources continue to evolve in response to changing, growing and competing demands. Yet there is no standard definition in the priority setting literature of what might constitute the desired impact or success of resource management activities. In this 2006-09 study, using action research methodology, we determined the impact of implementing a formal priority setting model, Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA), in a Canadian health authority. Qualitative data were collected through post year-1 (n = 12) and year-2 (n = 9) participant interviews, meeting observation and document review. Interviews were analyzed using a constant comparison technique to identify major themes. Impact can be defined as effects at three levels: system, group, and individual. System-level impact can be seen in the actual selection of priorities and resource re-allocation. In this case, participants prioritized a list of $760,000 worth of investment proposals and $38,000 of disinvestment proposals; however, there was no clear evidence as to whether financial resources were reallocated as a result. Group and individual impacts, less frequently reported in the literature, included changes in priority setting knowledge, attitudes and practice. PBMA impacts at these three levels were found to be interrelated. This work argues in favor of attempts to expand the definition of priority setting success by including both desired system-level outcomes like resource re-allocation and individual or group level impacts like changes to priority setting knowledge, attitudes and practice. These latter impacts are worth pursuing as they appear to be intrinsic to successful system-wide priority setting. A broader definition of PBMA impact may also suggest conceptualizing PBMA as both a priority setting approach and as a tool to develop individual and group priority setting knowledge and practice. These results should be of interest to researchers and

  10. Setting research priorities to improve the health of children and young people with neurodisability: a British Academy of Childhood Disability-James Lind Alliance Research Priority Setting Partnership.

    PubMed

    Morris, Christopher; Simkiss, Doug; Busk, Mary; Morris, Maureen; Allard, Amanda; Denness, Jacob; Janssens, Astrid; Stimson, Anna; Coghill, Joanna; Robinson, Kelly; Fenton, Mark; Cowan, Katherine

    2015-01-28

    To engage young people, parent carers and clinicians in a systematic process to identify and prioritise research questions regarding ways to improve the health and well-being of children and young people with neurodisability. British Academy of Childhood Disability (BACD)-James Lind Alliance research priority setting partnership bringing together patients, carers and clinicians as equal stakeholders. UK health service and community. The BACD Strategic Research Group formed the partnership. A Steering Group was established; charity and professional partner organisations were recruited. Suggestions were gathered in an open survey and from research recommendations for statutory guidance. Items were aggregated to formulate indicative research questions and verified as uncertainties from research evidence. An interim survey was used to rank the questions to shortlist topics. A mixed group of stakeholders discussed the top 25 questions at the final priority setting workshop agreeing a final rank order and the top 10 research priorities. Partner organisations were 13 charities and 8 professional societies. 369 people submitted suggestions (40% non-clinicians). 76 people participated in the interim prioritisation (26 parents, 1 young person, 10 charity representatives, 39 clinicians); 22 took part in the final workshop (3 young people, 7 parents, 3 charity representatives, 9 professionals). The top three research priorities related to (1) establishing the optimal frequency and intensity (dose) for mainstream therapies, (2) means for selecting and encouraging use of communication strategies and (3) ways to improve children's attitudes towards disability. The top 10 included evaluating interventions to promote mobility, self-efficacy, mental health, continence, physical fitness, educational inclusion and reduce impacts of sleep disturbance. The methodology provided a systematic and transparent process to identify research priorities that included stakeholders that have

  11. The quest for a framework for sustainable and institutionalised priority-setting for health research in a low-resource setting: the case of Zambia.

    PubMed

    Kapiriri, Lydia; Chanda-Kapata, Pascalina

    2018-02-17

    Priority-setting for health research in low-income countries remains a major challenge. While there have been efforts to systematise and improve the processes, most of the initiatives have ended up being a one-off exercise and are yet to be institutionalised. This could, in part, be attributed to the limited capacity for the priority-setting institutions to identify and fund their own research priorities, since most of the priority-setting initiatives are driven by experts. This paper reports findings from a pilot project whose aim was to develop a systematic process to identify components of a locally desirable and feasible health research priority-setting approach and to contribute to capacity strengthening for the Zambia National Health Research Authority. Synthesis of the current literature on the approaches to health research prioritisations. The results of the synthesis were presented and discussed with a sample of Zambian researchers and decision-makers who are involved in health research priority-setting. The ultimate aim was for them to explore the different approaches available for guiding health research priority-setting and to identify an approach that would be relevant and feasible to implement and sustain within the Zambian context. Based on the evidence that was presented, the participants were unable to identify one approach that met the criteria. They identified attributes from the different approaches that they thought would be most appropriate and proposed a process that they deemed feasible within the Zambian context. While it is easier to implement prioritisation based on one approach that the initiator might be interested in, researchers interested in capacity-building for health research priority-setting organisations should expose the low-income country participants to all approaches. Researchers ought to be aware that sometimes one shoe may not fit all, as in the case of Zambia, instead of choosing one approach, the stakeholders may select

  12. Priority setting and implementation in a centralized health system: a case study of Kerman province in Iran.

    PubMed

    Khayatzadeh-Mahani, Akram; Fotaki, Marianna; Harvey, Gillian

    2013-08-01

    The question of how priority setting processes work remains topical, contentious and political in every health system across the globe. It is particularly acute in the context of developing countries because of the mismatch between needs and resources, which is often compounded by an underdeveloped capacity for decision making and weak institutional infrastructures. Yet there is limited research into how the process of setting and implementing health priorities works in developing countries. This study aims to address this gap by examining how a national priority setting programme works in the centralized health system of Iran and what factors influence its implementation at the meso and micro levels. We used a qualitative case study approach, incorporating mixed methods: in-depth interviews at three levels and a textual analysis of policy documents. The data analysis showed that the process of priority setting is non-systematic, there is little transparency as to how specific priorities are decided, and the decisions made are separated from their implementation. This is due to the highly centralized system, whereby health priorities are set at the macro level without involving meso or micro local levels or any representative of the public. Furthermore, the two main benefit packages are decided by different bodies (Ministry of Health and Medical Education and Ministry of Welfare and Social Security) and there is no co-ordination between them. The process is also heavily influenced by political pressure exerted by various groups, mostly medical professionals who attempt to control priority setting in accordance with their interests. Finally, there are many weaknesses in the implementation of priorities, resulting in a growing gap between rural and urban areas in terms of access to health services.

  13. Research priority setting in Barrett's oesophagus and gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.

    PubMed

    Britton, James; Gadeke, Lisa; Lovat, Laurence; Hamdy, Shaheen; Hawkey, Chris; McLaughlin, John; Ang, Yeng

    2017-11-01

    The incidence of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and Barrett's oesophagus is increasing. Barrett's oesophagus is the main precursor to oesophageal adenocarcinoma, which has a poor prognosis. In view of the vast potential burden of these diseases on patients and health-care resources, there is a real need to define and focus research efforts. This priority setting exercise aimed to produce a list of the top ten uncertainties in the field that reflect the priorities of patients and health-care providers. We adopted the robust and transparent methodologies previously outlined by the James Lind Alliance. This qualitative approach firstly involves an ideas gathering survey that, once distilled, generates a longlist of research uncertainties. These uncertainties are then prioritised via an interim ranking survey and a final workshop to achieve consensus agreement. The initial 629 uncertainties, generated from a survey of 170 individual respondents (47% professional, 53% non-professional) and one workshop, were narrowed down to the final top ten uncertainties of priority for future research. These priorities covered a range of issues, including a need for improved patient risk stratification, alternative diagnostic and surveillance tests, efficacy of a dedicated service for Barrett's oesophagus, cost-effectiveness and appropriateness of current surveillance, advances in development of non-drug treatments for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, safety of long-term drug treatment, and questions regarding the durability and role of different endoscopic therapies for dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus. This is the first patient-centred assessment of priorities for researchers in this chronic disease setting. We hope that recognition and dissemination of these results will shape the future direction of research and translate into meaningful gains for patients. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

  14. The kidney cancer research priority-setting partnership: Identifying the top 10 research priorities as defined by patients, caregivers, and expert clinicians.

    PubMed

    Jones, Jennifer; Bhatt, Jaimin; Avery, Jonathan; Laupacis, Andreas; Cowan, Katherine; Basappa, Naveen; Basiuk, Joan; Canil, Christina; Al-Asaaed, Sohaib; Heng, Daniel; Wood, Lori; Stacey, Dawn; Kollmannsberger, Christian; Jewett, Michael A S

    2017-12-01

    It is critically important to define disease-specific research priorities to better allocate limited resources. There is growing recognition of the value of involving patients and caregivers, as well as expert clinicians in this process. To our knowledge, this has not been done this way for kidney cancer. Using the transparent and inclusive process established by the James Lind Alliance, the Kidney Cancer Research Network of Canada (KCRNC) sponsored a collaborative consensus-based priority-setting partnership (PSP) to identify research priorities in the management of kidney cancer. The final result was identification of 10 research priorities for kidney cancer, which are discussed in the context of current initiatives and gaps in knowledge. This process provided a systematic and effective way to collaboratively establish research priorities with patients, caregivers, and clinicians, and provides a valuable resource for researchers and funding agencies.

  15. Differences between patients' and clinicians' research priorities from the Anaesthesia and Peri-operative Care Priority Setting Partnership.

    PubMed

    Boney, O; Nathanson, M H; Grocott, M P W; Metcalf, L

    2017-09-01

    The James Lind Alliance Anaesthesia and Peri-operative Care Priority Setting Partnership was a recent collaborative venture bringing approximately 2000 patients, carers and clinicians together to agree priorities for future research into anaesthesia and critical care. This secondary analysis compares the research priorities of 303 service users, 1068 clinicians and 325 clinicians with experience as service users. All three groups prioritised research to improve patient safety. Service users prioritised research about improving patient experience, whereas clinicians prioritised research about clinical effectiveness. Clinicians who had experience as service users consistently prioritised research more like clinicians than like service users. Individual research questions about patient experience were more popular with patients and carers than with clinicians in all but one case. We conclude that patients, carers and clinicians prioritise research questions differently. All groups prioritise research into patient safety, but service users also favour research into patient experience, whereas clinicians favour research into clinical effectiveness. © 2017 The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland.

  16. [Priority setting of health interventions. Review of criteria, approaches and role of assessment agencies].

    PubMed

    Varela-Lema, Leonor; Atienza-Merino, Gerardo; López-García, Marisa

    This study was carried out to develop an explicit health priority setting methodology to support decision-making regarding the technologies to be assessed for inclusion in the National Health Service service portfolio. The primary objective is to identify and analyse the criteria, approaches and conceptual frameworks used for national/international priority setting. An exhaustive review of the literature was carried out. For this purpose, a search of the main biomedical databases was performed and assessment agency websites were reviewed, among other sources. In general terms, it was found that there are no standardised criteria for priority setting, although some consensus and common trends have been identified regarding key elements (criteria, models and strategies, key actors, etc.). Globally, 8 key domains were identified: 1) need for intervention; 2) health outcomes; 3) type of benefit of the intervention; 4) economic consequences; 5) existing knowledge on the intervention/quality of and uncertainties regarding the evidence; 6) implementation and complexity of the intervention/feasibility; 7) priority, justice and ethics; and 8) overall context. The review provides a thorough analysis of the relevant issues and offers key recommendations regarding considerations for developing a national prioritisation framework. Findings are envisioned to be useful for different public organisations that are aiming to establish healthcare priorities. Copyright © 2016 SESPAS. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.

  17. Priority setting in purchasing.

    PubMed

    Carroll, G

    The NHS cannot deliver full comprehensive health care to all the population. In this article the need to define a range of basic health services is emphasized. Agreement on priorities requires ethical, economic and clinical debate.

  18. Research priority setting for health policy and health systems strengthening in Nigeria: the policymakers and stakeholders perspective and involvement.

    PubMed

    Uneke, Chigozie Jesse; Ezeoha, Abel Ebeh; Ndukwe, Chinwendu Daniel; Oyibo, Patrick Gold; Onwe, Friday; Aulakh, Bhupinder Kaur

    2013-01-01

    Nigeria is one of the low and middle income countries (LMICs) facing severe resource constraint, making it impossible for adequate resources to be allocated to the health sector. Priority setting becomes imperative because it guides investments in health care, health research and respects resource constraints. The objective of this study was to enhance the knowledge and understanding of policymakers on research priority setting and to conduct a research priority setting exercise. A one-day evidence-to-policy research priority setting meeting was held. The meeting participants included senior and middle level policymakers and key decision makers/stakeholders in the health sector in Ebonyi State southeastern Nigeria. The priorities setting meeting involved a training session on priority setting process and conduction of priority setting exercise using the essential national health research (ENHR) approach. The focus was on the health systems building blocks (health workforce; health finance; leadership/governance; medical products/technology; service delivery; and health information/evidence). Of the total of 92 policymakers invited 90(97.8%) attended the meeting. It was the consensus of the policymakers that research should focus on the challenges of optimal access to health products and technology; effective health service delivery and disease control under a national emergency situation; the shortfalls in the supply of professional personnel; and the issues of governance in the health sector management. Research priority setting exercise involving policymakers is an example of demand driven strategy in the health policymaking process capable of reversing inequities and strengthening the health systems in LMICs.

  19. Value congruence in health care priority setting: social values, institutions and decisions in three countries.

    PubMed

    Landwehr, Claudia; Klinnert, Dorothea

    2015-04-01

    Most developed democracies have faced the challenge of priority setting in health care by setting up specialized agencies to take decisions on which medical services to include in public health baskets. Under the influence of Daniels and Sabin's seminal work on the topic, agencies increasingly aim to fulfil criteria of procedural justice, such as accountability and transparency. We assume, however, that the institutional design of agencies also and necessarily reflects substantial value judgments on the respective weight of distributive principles such as efficiency, need and equality. The public acceptance of prioritization decisions, and eventually of the health care system at large, will ultimately depend not only on considerations of procedural fairness, but also on the congruence between a society's values and its institutions. We study social values, institutions and decisions in three countries (France, Germany and the United Kingdom) in order to assess such congruence and formulate expectations on its effects.

  20. SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 3: Setting priorities for supporting evidence-informed policymaking

    PubMed Central

    2009-01-01

    This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. Policymakers have limited resources for developing – or supporting the development of – evidence-informed policies and programmes. These required resources include staff time, staff infrastructural needs (such as access to a librarian or journal article purchasing), and ongoing professional development. They may therefore prefer instead to contract out such work to independent units with more suitably skilled staff and appropriate infrastructure. However, policymakers may only have limited financial resources to do so. Regardless of whether the support for evidence-informed policymaking is provided in-house or contracted out, or whether it is centralised or decentralised, resources always need to be used wisely in order to maximise their impact. Examples of undesirable practices in a priority-setting approach include timelines to support evidence-informed policymaking being negotiated on a case-by-case basis (instead of having clear norms about the level of support that can be provided for each timeline), implicit (rather than explicit) criteria for setting priorities, ad hoc (rather than systematic and explicit) priority-setting process, and the absence of both a communications plan and a monitoring and evaluation plan. In this article, we suggest questions that can guide those setting priorities for finding and using research evidence to support evidence-informed policymaking. These are: 1. Does the approach to prioritisation make clear the timelines that have been set for addressing high-priority issues in different ways? 2. Does the approach incorporate explicit criteria for determining priorities? 3. Does the approach incorporate an explicit process for determining priorities? 4. Does the approach incorporate a communications strategy and a monitoring and evaluation plan? PMID:20018110

  1. SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 3: Setting priorities for supporting evidence-informed policymaking.

    PubMed

    Lavis, John N; Oxman, Andrew D; Lewin, Simon; Fretheim, Atle

    2009-12-16

    This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. Policymakers have limited resources for developing--or supporting the development of--evidence-informed policies and programmes. These required resources include staff time, staff infrastructural needs (such as access to a librarian or journal article purchasing), and ongoing professional development. They may therefore prefer instead to contract out such work to independent units with more suitably skilled staff and appropriate infrastructure. However, policymakers may only have limited financial resources to do so. Regardless of whether the support for evidence-informed policymaking is provided in-house or contracted out, or whether it is centralised or decentralised, resources always need to be used wisely in order to maximise their impact. Examples of undesirable practices in a priority-setting approach include timelines to support evidence-informed policymaking being negotiated on a case-by-case basis (instead of having clear norms about the level of support that can be provided for each timeline), implicit (rather than explicit) criteria for setting priorities, ad hoc (rather than systematic and explicit) priority-setting process, and the absence of both a communications plan and a monitoring and evaluation plan. In this article, we suggest questions that can guide those setting priorities for finding and using research evidence to support evidence-informed policymaking. These are: 1. Does the approach to prioritisation make clear the timelines that have been set for addressing high-priority issues in different ways? 2. Does the approach incorporate explicit criteria for determining priorities? 3. Does the approach incorporate an explicit process for determining priorities? 4. Does the approach incorporate a communications strategy and a monitoring and evaluation plan?

  2. The National Occupational Research Agenda: a model of broad stakeholder input into priority setting.

    PubMed Central

    Rosenstock, L; Olenec, C; Wagner, G R

    1998-01-01

    OBJECTIVES: No single organization has the resources necessary to conduct occupational safety and health research to adequately serve the needs of workers in the United States. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) undertook the task of setting research priorities in response to a broadly perceived need to systematically address those topics most pressing and most likely to yield gains to workers and to the nation. METHODS: NIOSH and its public and private partners used a consensus-building process to set priorities for the next decade for occupational safety and health research--the National Occupational Research Agenda. RESULTS: The process resulted in the identification of 21 research priorities grouped into 3 categories: disease and injury, work environment and workforce, and research tools and approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Although the field of occupational safety and health is often contentious and adversarial, these research priorities reflect a remarkable degree of concurrence among a broad range of stakeholders who provided input into a clearly defined and open process. PMID:9518963

  3. Priorities for research in miscarriage: a priority setting partnership between people affected by miscarriage and professionals following the James Lind Alliance methodology

    PubMed Central

    Bagness, Carmel; Brewin, Jane; Coomarasamy, Arri; Easthope, Lucy; Hepworth-Jones, Barbara; Hinshaw, Kim; O'Toole, Emily; Orford, Julie; Regan, Lesley; Raine-Fenning, Nick; Shakespeare, Judy; Small, Rachel; Thornton, Jim; Metcalf, Leanne

    2017-01-01

    Objectives To identify and prioritise important research questions for miscarriage. Design A priority setting partnership using prospective surveys and consensus meetings following methods advocated by the James Lind Alliance. Setting UK. Participants Women and those affected by miscarriage working alongside healthcare professionals. Results In the initial survey, 1093 participants (932 women who have experienced miscarriage, 8 partners, 17 family members, friends or colleagues, 104 healthcare professionals and eight charitable organisations) submitted 3279 questions. A review of existing literature identified a further 64. Non-questions were removed, and the remaining questions were categorised and summarised into 58 questions. In an interim electronic survey, 2122 respondents chose their top 10 priorities from the 58 summary questions. The 25 highest ranked in the survey were prioritised at a final face-to-face workshop. In summary, the top 10 priorities were ranked as follows: research into preventative treatment, emotional aspects in general, investigation, relevance of pre-existing medical conditions, emotional support as a treatment, importance of lifestyle factors, importance of genetic and chromosomal causes, preconception tests, investigation after different numbers of miscarriage and male causal factors. Conclusions These results should be the focus of future miscarriage research. Presently, studies are being conducted to address the top priority; however, many other priorities, especially psychological and emotional support, are less well researched areas. We hope our results will encourage both researchers and funders to focus on these priorities. PMID:28838896

  4. A population-based model for priority setting across the care continuum and across modalities

    PubMed Central

    Segal, Leonie; Mortimer, Duncan

    2006-01-01

    Background The Health-sector Wide (HsW) priority setting model is designed to shift the focus of priority setting away from 'program budgets' – that are typically defined by modality or disease-stage – and towards well-defined target populations with a particular disease/health problem. Methods The key features of the HsW model are i) a disease/health problem framework, ii) a sequential approach to covering the entire health sector, iii) comprehensiveness of scope in identifying intervention options and iv) the use of objective evidence. The HsW model redefines the unit of analysis over which priorities are set to include all mutually exclusive and complementary interventions for the prevention and treatment of each disease/health problem under consideration. The HsW model is therefore incompatible with the fragmented approach to priority setting across multiple program budgets that currently characterises allocation in many health systems. The HsW model employs standard cost-utility analyses and decision-rules with the aim of maximising QALYs contingent upon the global budget constraint for the set of diseases/health problems under consideration. It is recognised that the objective function may include non-health arguments that would imply a departure from simple QALY maximisation and that political constraints frequently limit degrees of freedom. In addressing these broader considerations, the HsW model can be modified to maximise value-weighted QALYs contingent upon the global budget constraint and any political constraints bearing upon allocation decisions. Results The HsW model has been applied in several contexts, recently to osteoarthritis, that has demonstrated both its practical application and its capacity to derive clear evidenced-based policy recommendations. Conclusion Comparisons with other approaches to priority setting, such as Programme Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA) and modality-based cost-effectiveness comparisons, as typified by

  5. Priority setting partnership to identify the top 10 research priorities for the management of Parkinson's disease.

    PubMed

    Deane, Katherine H O; Flaherty, Helen; Daley, David J; Pascoe, Roland; Penhale, Bridget; Clarke, Carl E; Sackley, Catherine; Storey, Stacey

    2014-12-14

    This priority setting partnership was commissioned by Parkinson's UK to encourage people with direct and personal experience of the condition to work together to identify and prioritise the top 10 evidential uncertainties that impact on everyday clinical practice for the management of Parkinson's disease (PD). The UK. Anyone with experience of PD including: people with Parkinson's (PwP), carers, family and friends, healthcare and social care professionals. Non-clinical researchers and employees of pharmaceutical or medical devices companies were excluded. 1000 participants (60% PwP) provided ideas on research uncertainties, 475 (72% PwP) initially prioritised them and 27 (37% PwP) stakeholders agreed a final top 10. Using a modified nominal group technique, participants were surveyed to identify what issues for the management of PD needed research. Unique research questions unanswered by current evidence were identified and participants were asked to identify their top 10 research priorities from this list. The top 26 uncertainties were presented to a consensus meeting with key stakeholders to agree the top 10 research priorities. 1000 participants provided 4100 responses, which contained 94 unique unanswered research questions that were initially prioritised by 475 participants. A consensus meeting with 27 stakeholders agreed the top 10 research priorities. The overarching research aspiration was an effective cure for PD. The top 10 research priorities for PD management included the need to address motor symptoms (balance and falls, and fine motor control), non-motor symptoms (sleep and urinary dysfunction), mental health issues (stress and anxiety, dementia and mild cognitive impairments), side effects of medications (dyskinesia) and the need to develop interventions specific to the phenotypes of PD and better monitoring methods. These research priorities identify crucial gaps in the existing evidence to address everyday practicalities in the management of the

  6. Setting research priorities to improve global newborn health and prevent stillbirths by 2025

    PubMed Central

    Yoshida, Sachiyo; Martines, José; Lawn, Joy E; Wall, Stephen; Souza, Joăo Paulo; Rudan, Igor; Cousens, Simon; Aaby, Peter; Adam, Ishag; Adhikari, Ramesh Kant; Ambalavanan, Namasivayam; Arifeen, Shams EI; Aryal, Dhana Raj; Asiruddin, Sk; Baqui, Abdullah; Barros, Aluisio JD; Benn, Christine S; Bhandari, Vineet; Bhatnagar, Shinjini; Bhattacharya, Sohinee; Bhutta, Zulfiqar A; Black, Robert E; Blencowe, Hannah; Bose, Carl; Brown, Justin; Bührer, Christoph; Carlo, Wally; Cecatti, Jose Guilherme; Cheung, Po–Yin; Clark, Robert; Colbourn, Tim; Conde–Agudelo, Agustin; Corbett, Erica; Czeizel, Andrew E; Das, Abhik; Day, Louise Tina; Deal, Carolyn; Deorari, Ashok; Dilmen, Uğur; English, Mike; Engmann, Cyril; Esamai, Fabian; Fall, Caroline; Ferriero, Donna M; Gisore, Peter; Hazir, Tabish; Higgins, Rosemary D; Homer, Caroline SE; Hoque, DE; Irgens, Lorentz; Islam, MT; de Graft–Johnson, Joseph; Joshua, Martias Alice; Keenan, William; Khatoon, Soofia; Kieler, Helle; Kramer, Michael S; Lackritz, Eve M; Lavender, Tina; Lawintono, Laurensia; Luhanga, Richard; Marsh, David; McMillan, Douglas; McNamara, Patrick J; Mol, Ben Willem J; Molyneux, Elizabeth; Mukasa, G. K; Mutabazi, Miriam; Nacul, Luis Carlos; Nakakeeto, Margaret; Narayanan, Indira; Olusanya, Bolajoko; Osrin, David; Paul, Vinod; Poets, Christian; Reddy, Uma M; Santosham, Mathuram; Sayed, Rubayet; Schlabritz–Loutsevitch, Natalia E; Singhal, Nalini; Smith, Mary Alice; Smith, Peter G; Soofi, Sajid; Spong, Catherine Y; Sultana, Shahin; Tshefu, Antoinette; van Bel, Frank; Gray, Lauren Vestewig; Waiswa, Peter; Wang, Wei; Williams, Sarah LA; Wright, Linda; Zaidi, Anita; Zhang, Yanfeng; Zhong, Nanbert; Zuniga, Isabel; Bahl, Rajiv

    2016-01-01

    Background In 2013, an estimated 2.8 million newborns died and 2.7 million were stillborn. A much greater number suffer from long term impairment associated with preterm birth, intrauterine growth restriction, congenital anomalies, and perinatal or infectious causes. With the approaching deadline for the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2015, there was a need to set the new research priorities on newborns and stillbirth with a focus not only on survival but also on health, growth and development. We therefore carried out a systematic exercise to set newborn health research priorities for 2013–2025. Methods We used adapted Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) methods for this prioritization exercise. We identified and approached the 200 most productive researchers and 400 program experts, and 132 of them submitted research questions online. These were collated into a set of 205 research questions, sent for scoring to the 600 identified experts, and were assessed and scored by 91 experts. Results Nine out of top ten identified priorities were in the domain of research on improving delivery of known interventions, with simplified neonatal resuscitation program and clinical algorithms and improved skills of community health workers leading the list. The top 10 priorities in the domain of development were led by ideas on improved Kangaroo Mother Care at community level, how to improve the accuracy of diagnosis by community health workers, and perinatal audits. The 10 leading priorities for discovery research focused on stable surfactant with novel modes of administration for preterm babies, ability to diagnose fetal distress and novel tocolytic agents to delay or stop preterm labour. Conclusion These findings will assist both donors and researchers in supporting and conducting research to close the knowledge gaps for reducing neonatal mortality, morbidity and long term impairment. WHO, SNL and other partners will work to

  7. Setting research priorities to improve global newborn health and prevent stillbirths by 2025.

    PubMed

    Yoshida, Sachiyo; Martines, José; Lawn, Joy E; Wall, Stephen; Souza, Joăo Paulo; Rudan, Igor; Cousens, Simon; Aaby, Peter; Adam, Ishag; Adhikari, Ramesh Kant; Ambalavanan, Namasivayam; Arifeen, Shams Ei; Aryal, Dhana Raj; Asiruddin, Sk; Baqui, Abdullah; Barros, Aluisio Jd; Benn, Christine S; Bhandari, Vineet; Bhatnagar, Shinjini; Bhattacharya, Sohinee; Bhutta, Zulfiqar A; Black, Robert E; Blencowe, Hannah; Bose, Carl; Brown, Justin; Bührer, Christoph; Carlo, Wally; Cecatti, Jose Guilherme; Cheung, Po-Yin; Clark, Robert; Colbourn, Tim; Conde-Agudelo, Agustin; Corbett, Erica; Czeizel, Andrew E; Das, Abhik; Day, Louise Tina; Deal, Carolyn; Deorari, Ashok; Dilmen, Uğur; English, Mike; Engmann, Cyril; Esamai, Fabian; Fall, Caroline; Ferriero, Donna M; Gisore, Peter; Hazir, Tabish; Higgins, Rosemary D; Homer, Caroline Se; Hoque, D E; Irgens, Lorentz; Islam, M T; de Graft-Johnson, Joseph; Joshua, Martias Alice; Keenan, William; Khatoon, Soofia; Kieler, Helle; Kramer, Michael S; Lackritz, Eve M; Lavender, Tina; Lawintono, Laurensia; Luhanga, Richard; Marsh, David; McMillan, Douglas; McNamara, Patrick J; Mol, Ben Willem J; Molyneux, Elizabeth; Mukasa, G K; Mutabazi, Miriam; Nacul, Luis Carlos; Nakakeeto, Margaret; Narayanan, Indira; Olusanya, Bolajoko; Osrin, David; Paul, Vinod; Poets, Christian; Reddy, Uma M; Santosham, Mathuram; Sayed, Rubayet; Schlabritz-Loutsevitch, Natalia E; Singhal, Nalini; Smith, Mary Alice; Smith, Peter G; Soofi, Sajid; Spong, Catherine Y; Sultana, Shahin; Tshefu, Antoinette; van Bel, Frank; Gray, Lauren Vestewig; Waiswa, Peter; Wang, Wei; Williams, Sarah LA; Wright, Linda; Zaidi, Anita; Zhang, Yanfeng; Zhong, Nanbert; Zuniga, Isabel; Bahl, Rajiv

    2016-06-01

    In 2013, an estimated 2.8 million newborns died and 2.7 million were stillborn. A much greater number suffer from long term impairment associated with preterm birth, intrauterine growth restriction, congenital anomalies, and perinatal or infectious causes. With the approaching deadline for the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2015, there was a need to set the new research priorities on newborns and stillbirth with a focus not only on survival but also on health, growth and development. We therefore carried out a systematic exercise to set newborn health research priorities for 2013-2025. We used adapted Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) methods for this prioritization exercise. We identified and approached the 200 most productive researchers and 400 program experts, and 132 of them submitted research questions online. These were collated into a set of 205 research questions, sent for scoring to the 600 identified experts, and were assessed and scored by 91 experts. Nine out of top ten identified priorities were in the domain of research on improving delivery of known interventions, with simplified neonatal resuscitation program and clinical algorithms and improved skills of community health workers leading the list. The top 10 priorities in the domain of development were led by ideas on improved Kangaroo Mother Care at community level, how to improve the accuracy of diagnosis by community health workers, and perinatal audits. The 10 leading priorities for discovery research focused on stable surfactant with novel modes of administration for preterm babies, ability to diagnose fetal distress and novel tocolytic agents to delay or stop preterm labour. These findings will assist both donors and researchers in supporting and conducting research to close the knowledge gaps for reducing neonatal mortality, morbidity and long term impairment. WHO, SNL and other partners will work to generate interest among key national

  8. How Are Health Research Priorities Set in Low and Middle Income Countries? A Systematic Review of Published Reports

    PubMed Central

    McGregor, Skye; Henderson, Klara J.; Kaldor, John M.

    2014-01-01

    Background Priority setting is increasingly recognised as essential for directing finite resources to support research that maximizes public health benefits and drives health equity. Priority setting processes have been undertaken in a number of low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings, using a variety of methods. We undertook a critical review of reports of these processes. Methods and Findings We searched electronic databases and online for peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed literature. We found 91 initiatives that met inclusion criteria. The majority took place at the global level (46%). For regional or national initiatives, most focused on Sub Saharan Africa (49%), followed by East Asia and Pacific (20%) and Latin America and the Caribbean (18%). A quarter of initiatives aimed to cover all areas of health research, with a further 20% covering communicable diseases. The most frequently used process was a conference or workshop to determine priorities (24%), followed by the Child Health and Nutrition Initiative (CHNRI) method (18%). The majority were initiated by an international organization or collaboration (46%). Researchers and government were the most frequently represented stakeholders. There was limited evidence of any implementation or follow-up strategies. Challenges in priority setting included engagement with stakeholders, data availability, and capacity constraints. Conclusions Health research priority setting (HRPS) has been undertaken in a variety of LMIC settings. While not consistently used, the application of established methods provides a means of identifying health research priorities in a repeatable and transparent manner. In the absence of published information on implementation or evaluation, it is not possible to assess what the impact and effectiveness of health research priority setting may have been. PMID:25275315

  9. From papers to practices: district level priority setting processes and criteria for family planning, maternal, newborn and child health interventions in Tanzania.

    PubMed

    Chitama, Dereck; Baltussen, Rob; Ketting, Evert; Kamazima, Switbert; Nswilla, Anna; Mujinja, Phares G M

    2011-10-21

    Successful priority setting is increasingly known to be an important aspect in achieving better family planning, maternal, newborn and child health (FMNCH) outcomes in developing countries. However, far too little attention has been paid to capturing and analysing the priority setting processes and criteria for FMNCH at district level. This paper seeks to capture and analyse the priority setting processes and criteria for FMNCH at district level in Tanzania. Specifically, we assess the FMNCH actor's engagement and understanding, the criteria used in decision making and the way criteria are identified, the information or evidence and tools used to prioritize FMNCH interventions at district level in Tanzania. We conducted an exploratory study mixing both qualitative and quantitative methods to capture and analyse the priority setting for FMNCH at district level, and identify the criteria for priority setting. We purposively sampled the participants to be included in the study. We collected the data using the nominal group technique (NGT), in-depth interviews (IDIs) with key informants and documentary review. We analysed the collected data using both content analysis for qualitative data and correlation analysis for quantitative data. We found a number of shortfalls in the district's priority setting processes and criteria which may lead to inefficient and unfair priority setting decisions in FMNCH. In addition, participants identified the priority setting criteria and established the perceived relative importance of the identified criteria. However, we noted differences exist in judging the relative importance attached to the criteria by different stakeholders in the districts. In Tanzania, FMNCH contents in both general development policies and sector policies are well articulated. However, the current priority setting process for FMNCH at district levels are wanting in several aspects rendering the priority setting process for FMNCH inefficient and unfair (or

  10. Environmental reporting and accounting in Australia: progress, prospects and research priorities.

    PubMed

    van Dijk, Albert; Mount, Richard; Gibbons, Philip; Vardon, Michael; Canadell, Pep

    2014-03-01

    Despite strong demand for information to support the sustainable use of Australia's natural resources and conserve environmental values and despite considerable effort and investment, nation-wide environmental data collection and analysis remains a substantially unmet challenge. We review progress in producing national environmental reports and accounts, identify challenges and opportunities, and analyse the potential role of research in addressing these. Australia's low and concentrated population density and the short history since European settlement contribute to the lack of environmental data. There are additional factors: highly diverse data requirements and standards, disagreement on information priorities, poorly measurable management objectives, lack of coordination, over-reliance on researchers and businesses for data collection, lack of business engagement, and short-term, project-based activities. New opportunities have arisen to overcome some of these challenges: enhanced monitoring networks, standardisation, data management and modelling, greater commitment to share and integrate data, community monitoring, increasing acceptance of environmental and sustainability indicators, and progress in environmental accounting practices. Successes in generating climate, water and greenhouse gas information appear to be attributable to an unambiguous data requirement, considerable investment, and legislative instruments that enhance data sharing and create a clearly defined role for operational agencies. Based on the analysis presented, we suggest six priorities for research: (1) common definitions and standards for information that address management objectives, (2) ecological measures that are scalable from local to national level, (3) promotion of long-term data collection and reporting by researchers, (4) efficient satellite and sensor network technologies and data analysis methods, (5) environmental modelling approaches that can reconcile multiple data

  11. Precision in Setting Cancer Prevention Priorities: Synthesis of Data, Literature, and Expert Opinion.

    PubMed

    Girschik, Jennifer; Miller, Laura Jean; Addiscott, Tony; Daube, Mike; Katris, Paul; Ransom, David; Slevin, Terry; Threlfall, Tim; Weeramanthri, Tarun Stephen

    2017-01-01

    Cancer will continue to be a leading cause of ill health and death unless we can capitalize on the potential for 30-40% of these cancers to be prevented. In this light, cancer prevention represents an enormous opportunity for public health, potentially saving much of the pain, anguish, and cost associated with treating cancer. However, there is a challenge for governments, and the wider community, in prioritizing cancer prevention activities, especially given increasing financial constraints. This paper describes a method for identifying cancer prevention priorities. This method synthesizes detailed cancer statistics, expert opinion, and the published literature for the priority setting process. The process contains four steps: assessing the impact of cancer types; identifying cancers with the greatest impact; considering opportunities for prevention; and combining information on impact and preventability. The strength of our approach is that it is straightforward, transparent and reproducible for other settings. Applying this method in Western Australia produced a priority list of seven adult cancers which were identified as having not only the biggest impact on the community but also the best opportunities for prevention. Work conducted in an additional project phase went on to present data on these priority cancers to a public consultation and develop an agenda for action in cancer prevention.

  12. Precision in Setting Cancer Prevention Priorities: Synthesis of Data, Literature, and Expert Opinion

    PubMed Central

    Girschik, Jennifer; Miller, Laura Jean; Addiscott, Tony; Daube, Mike; Katris, Paul; Ransom, David; Slevin, Terry; Threlfall, Tim; Weeramanthri, Tarun Stephen

    2017-01-01

    Cancer will continue to be a leading cause of ill health and death unless we can capitalize on the potential for 30–40% of these cancers to be prevented. In this light, cancer prevention represents an enormous opportunity for public health, potentially saving much of the pain, anguish, and cost associated with treating cancer. However, there is a challenge for governments, and the wider community, in prioritizing cancer prevention activities, especially given increasing financial constraints. This paper describes a method for identifying cancer prevention priorities. This method synthesizes detailed cancer statistics, expert opinion, and the published literature for the priority setting process. The process contains four steps: assessing the impact of cancer types; identifying cancers with the greatest impact; considering opportunities for prevention; and combining information on impact and preventability. The strength of our approach is that it is straightforward, transparent and reproducible for other settings. Applying this method in Western Australia produced a priority list of seven adult cancers which were identified as having not only the biggest impact on the community but also the best opportunities for prevention. Work conducted in an additional project phase went on to present data on these priority cancers to a public consultation and develop an agenda for action in cancer prevention. PMID:28634579

  13. Identifying acne treatment uncertainties via a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership

    PubMed Central

    Layton, Alison; Eady, E Anne; Peat, Maggie; Whitehouse, Heather; Levell, Nick; Ridd, Matthew; Cowdell, Fiona; Patel, Mahenda; Andrews, Stephen; Oxnard, Christine; Fenton, Mark; Firkins, Lester

    2015-01-01

    Objectives The Acne Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) was set up to identify and rank treatment uncertainties by bringing together people with acne, and professionals providing care within and beyond the National Health Service (NHS). Setting The UK with international participation. Participants Teenagers and adults with acne, parents, partners, nurses, clinicians, pharmacists, private practitioners. Methods Treatment uncertainties were collected via separate online harvesting surveys, embedded within the PSP website, for patients and professionals. A wide variety of approaches were used to promote the surveys to stakeholder groups with a particular emphasis on teenagers and young adults. Survey submissions were collated using keywords and verified as uncertainties by appraising existing evidence. The 30 most popular themes were ranked via weighted scores from an online vote. At a priority setting workshop, patients and professionals discussed the 18 highest-scoring questions from the vote, and reached consensus on the top 10. Results In the harvesting survey, 2310 people, including 652 professionals and 1456 patients (58% aged 24 y or younger), made submissions containing at least one research question. After checking for relevance and rephrasing, a total of 6255 questions were collated into themes. Valid votes ranking the 30 most common themes were obtained from 2807 participants. The top 10 uncertainties prioritised at the workshop were largely focused on management strategies, optimum use of common prescription medications and the role of non-drug based interventions. More female than male patients took part in the harvesting surveys and vote. A wider range of uncertainties were provided by patients compared to professionals. Conclusions Engaging teenagers and young adults in priority setting is achievable using a variety of promotional methods. The top 10 uncertainties reveal an extensive knowledge gap about widely used interventions and the relative merits

  14. Setting Priorities for Gerontological Social Work Research: A National Delphi Study

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Burnette, Denise; Morrow-Howell, Nancy; Chen, Li-Mei

    2003-01-01

    Purpose: An increasingly important task for all disciplines involved in aging research is to identify and prioritize areas for investigation. This article reports the results of a national Delphi study on setting research priorities for gerontological social work. Design and Methods: Delphi methodology, a structured process for eliciting and…

  15. Priority setting in guideline development: article 2 in Integrating and coordinating efforts in COPD guideline development. An official ATS/ERS workshop report.

    PubMed

    Atkins, David; Perez-Padilla, Rogelio; Macnee, William; Buist, A Sonia; Cruz, Alvaro A

    2012-12-01

    Professional societies, like many other organizations around the world, have recognized the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that health care recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. Priority setting is an essential component of developing clinical practice guidelines informed by the best available research evidence. It ensures that resources and attention are devoted to those areas in which clinical recommendations will provide the greatest benefit to patients, clinicians, and policy makers. This is the second of a series of 14 articles that methodologists and researchers from around the world prepared to advise guideline developers in respiratory and other diseases. This review focuses on priority setting, addressing five key questions. In this review, we addressed the following questions. (1) At which steps of guideline development should priorities be considered? (2) How do we create an initial list of potential topics within the guideline? (3) What criteria should be used to establish priorities? (4) What parties should be involved and what processes should be used to set priorities? (5)What are the potential challenges of setting priorities? We updated an existing review on priority setting, and searched PubMed and other databases of methodological studies for existing systematic reviews and relevant methodological research. We did not conduct systematic reviews ourselves. Our conclusions are based on available evidence, our own experience working with guideline developers, and workshop discussions. Existing literature on priority setting largely applies to identifying priorities for which guidelines to develop rather than setting priorities for recommendations within a guideline. Nonetheless, there is substantial consensus about the general factors that should be considered in setting priorities. These include the burdens and costs of illness, potential impact of a recommendation, identified deficits or weak points

  16. Palliative care, public health and justice: setting priorities in resource poor countries.

    PubMed

    Blinderman, Craig

    2009-12-01

    Many countries have not considered palliative care a public health problem. With limited resources, disease-oriented therapies and prevention measures take priority. In this paper, I intend to describe the moral framework for considering palliative care as a public health priority in resource-poor countries. A distributive theory of justice for health care should consider integrative palliative care as morally required as it contributes to improving normal functioning and preserving opportunities for the individual. For patients requiring terminal care, we are guided less by principles of justice and more by the duty to relieve suffering and society's commitment to protecting the professional's obligation to uphold principles of beneficence, compassion and non-abandonment. A fair deliberation process is necessary to allow these strong moral commitments to serve as reasons when setting priorities in resource poor countries.

  17. Involving healthcare professionals and family carers in setting research priorities for end-of-life care.

    PubMed

    Diffin, Janet; Spence, Michael; Spencer, Rebecca; Mellor, Peter; Grande, Gunn

    2017-02-02

    It is important to ensure regional variances are considered when setting future end-of-life research priorities, given the differing demographics and service provision. This project sought to identify end-of-life research priorities within Greater Manchester (United Kingdom). Following an initial scoping exercise, six topics within the 10 national priorities outlined by The Palliative and end-of-life care Priority Setting Partnership were selected for exploration. A workshop involving 32 healthcare professionals and a consultation process with 26 family carers was conducted. Healthcare professionals and carers selected and discussed the topics important to them. The topics selected most frequently by both healthcare professionals and carers were 'Access to 24 hour care', 'Planning end-of-life care in advance' and 'Staff and carer education'. Healthcare professionals also developed research questions for their topics of choice which were refined to incorporate carers' views. These questions are an important starting point for future end-of-life research within Greater Manchester.

  18. Increased fairness in priority setting processes within the health sector: the case of Kapiri-Mposhi District, Zambia

    PubMed Central

    2014-01-01

    Background The challenge of priority setting (PS) in health care within contexts of severe resource limitations has continued to receive attention. Accountability for Reasonableness (AFR) has emerged as a useful framework to guide the implementation of PS processes. In 2006, the AFR approach to enhance legitimate and fair PS was introduced by researchers and decision makers within the health sector in the EU funded research project entitled ‘Response to Accountable priority setting for Trust in health systems’ (REACT). The project aimed to strengthen fairness and accountability in the PS processes of health systems at district level in Zambia, Tanzania and Kenya. This paper focuses on local perceptions and practices of fair PS (baseline study) as well as at the evolution of such perceptions and practices in PS following an AFR based intervention (evaluation study), carried out at district level in Kapiri-Mposhi District in Zambia. Methods Data was collected using in depth interviews (IDIs), focus group discussions (FGDs) and review of documents from national to district level. The study population for this paper consisted of health related stakeholders employed in the district administration, in non-governmental organizations (NGO) and in health facilities. Results During the baseline study, concepts of legitimacy and fairness in PS processes were found to be grounded in local values of equity and impartiality. Government and other organizational strategies strongly supported devolution of PS and decision making procedures. However, important gaps were identified in terms of experiences of stakeholder involvement and fairness in PS processes in practice. The evaluation study revealed that a transformation of the views and methods regarding fairness in PS processes was ongoing in the study district, which was partly attributed to the AFR based intervention. Conclusions The study findings suggest that increased attention was given to fairness in PS processes at

  19. Increased fairness in priority setting processes within the health sector: the case of Kapiri-Mposhi District, Zambia.

    PubMed

    Zulu, Joseph M; Michelo, Charles; Msoni, Carol; Hurtig, Anna-Karin; Byskov, Jens; Blystad, Astrid

    2014-02-18

    The challenge of priority setting (PS) in health care within contexts of severe resource limitations has continued to receive attention. Accountability for Reasonableness (AFR) has emerged as a useful framework to guide the implementation of PS processes. In 2006, the AFR approach to enhance legitimate and fair PS was introduced by researchers and decision makers within the health sector in the EU funded research project entitled 'Response to Accountable priority setting for Trust in health systems' (REACT). The project aimed to strengthen fairness and accountability in the PS processes of health systems at district level in Zambia, Tanzania and Kenya. This paper focuses on local perceptions and practices of fair PS (baseline study) as well as at the evolution of such perceptions and practices in PS following an AFR based intervention (evaluation study), carried out at district level in Kapiri-Mposhi District in Zambia. Data was collected using in depth interviews (IDIs), focus group discussions (FGDs) and review of documents from national to district level. The study population for this paper consisted of health related stakeholders employed in the district administration, in non-governmental organizations (NGO) and in health facilities. During the baseline study, concepts of legitimacy and fairness in PS processes were found to be grounded in local values of equity and impartiality. Government and other organizational strategies strongly supported devolution of PS and decision making procedures. However, important gaps were identified in terms of experiences of stakeholder involvement and fairness in PS processes in practice. The evaluation study revealed that a transformation of the views and methods regarding fairness in PS processes was ongoing in the study district, which was partly attributed to the AFR based intervention. The study findings suggest that increased attention was given to fairness in PS processes at district level. The changes were linked to a

  20. The implications of fundamental cause theory for priority setting.

    PubMed

    Goldberg, Daniel S

    2014-10-01

    Application of fundamental cause theory to Powers and Faden's model of social justice highlights the ethical superiority of upstream public health interventions. In this article, I assess the ramifications of fundamental cause theory specifically in context of public health priority setting. Ethically optimal public health policy simultaneously maximizes overall population health and compresses health inequalities. The fundamental cause theory is an important framework in helping to identify which categories of public health interventions are most likely to advance these twin goals.

  1. Comparison of national health research priority-setting methods and characteristics in Latin America and the Caribbean, 2002-2012.

    PubMed

    Reveiz, Ludovic; Elias, Vanessa; Terry, Robert F; Alger, Jackeline; Becerra-Posada, Francisco

    2013-07-01

    To compare health research priority-setting methods and characteristics among countries in Latin America and the Caribbean during 2002 - 2012. This was a systematic review that identified national health research policies and priority agendas through a search of ministry and government databases related to health care institutions. PubMed, LILACS, the Health Research Web, and others were searched for the period from January 2002 - February 2012. The study excluded research organized by governmental institutions and specific national strategies on particular disease areas. Priority-setting methods were compared to the "nine common themes for good practice in health research priorities." National health research priorities were compared to those of the World Health Organization's Millennium Development Goals (MDG). Of the 18 Latin American countries assessed, 13 had documents that established national health research priorities; plus the Caribbean Health Research Council had a research agenda for its 19 constituents. These 14 total reports varied widely in terms of objectives, content, dissemination, and implementation; most provided a list of strategic areas, suggestions, and/or sub-priorities for each country; however, few proposed specific research topics and questions. Future reports could be improved by including more details on the comprehensive approach employed to identify priorities, on the information gathering process, and on practices to be undertaken after priorities are set. There is a need for improving the quality of the methodologies utilized and coordinating Regional efforts as countries strive to meet the MDG.

  2. Setting and meeting priorities in Indigenous health research in Australia and its application in the Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal health.

    PubMed

    Monk, Johanna M; Rowley, Kevin G; Anderson, Ian Ps

    2009-11-20

    Priority setting is about making decisions. Key issues faced during priority setting processes include identifying who makes these decisions, who sets the criteria, and who benefits. The paper reviews the literature and history around priority setting in research, particularly in Aboriginal health research. We explore these issues through a case study of the Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal Health (CRCAH)'s experience in setting and meeting priorities.Historically, researchers have made decisions about what research gets done. Pressures of growing competition for research funds and an increased public interest in research have led to demands that appropriate consultation with stakeholders is conducted and that research is of benefit to the wider society. Within Australian Aboriginal communities, these demands extend to Aboriginal control of research to ensure that Aboriginal priorities are met.In response to these demands, research priorities are usually agreed in consultation with stakeholders at an institutional level and researchers are asked to develop relevant proposals at a project level. The CRCAH's experience in funding rounds was that scientific merit was given more weight than stakeholders' priorities and did not necessarily result in research that met these priorities. After reviewing these processes in 2004, the CRCAH identified a new facilitated development approach. In this revised approach, the setting of institutional priorities is integrated with the development of projects in a way that ensures the research reflects stakeholder priorities.This process puts emphasis on identifying projects that reflect priorities prior to developing the quality of the research, rather than assessing the relevance to priorities and quality concurrently. Part of the CRCAH approach is the employment of Program Managers who ensure that stakeholder priorities are met in the development of research projects. This has enabled researchers and stakeholders to come

  3. Setting global research priorities for developmental disabilities, including intellectual disabilities and autism

    PubMed Central

    Tomlinson, Mark; Yasamy, M. Taghi; Emerson, Eric; Officer, Alana; Richler, Diane; Saxena, Shekhar

    2015-01-01

    Objectives The prevalence of intellectual disabilities (ID) has been estimated at 10.4/1000 worldwide with higher rates among children and adolescents in lower income countries. The objective of this paper is to address research priorities for development disabilities, notably intellectual disabilities and autism, at the global level and to propose the more rational use of scarce funds in addressing this under-investigated area. Methods An expert group was identified and invited to systematically list and score research questions. They applied the priority setting methodology of the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) to generate research questions and to evaluate them using a set of five criteria: answerability, feasibility, applicability and impact, support within the context and equity. Findings The results of this process clearly indicated that the important priorities for future research related to the need for effective and efficient approaches to early intervention, empowerment of families supporting a person with developmental disability and to address preventable causes of poor health in people with ID and autism. Conclusions For the public health and other systems to become more effective in delivering appropriate support to persons with developmental disabilities, greater (and more targeted) investment in research is required to produce evidence of what works consistent with international human rights standards. PMID:24397279

  4. Stakeholder views on criteria and processes for priority setting in Norway: a qualitative study.

    PubMed

    Aidem, Jeremy M

    2017-06-01

    Since 2013, Norway has engaged in political processes to revise criteria for priority setting. These processes have yielded key efficiency and equity criteria, but excluded potentially relevant social values. This study describes the views of 27 stakeholders in Norway's health system regarding a wider set of priority-setting criteria and procedural characteristics. Between January and February 2016, semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with a purposive sample of policymakers, hospital administrators, practitioners, university students and seniors. Improving health among low-socioeconomic-status groups was considered an important policy objective: some favored giving more priority to diseases affecting socioeconomically disadvantaged groups, and some believed inequalities in health could be more effectively addressed outside the health sector. Age was not widely accepted as an independent criterion, but deemed relevant as an indicator of capacity to benefit, cost-effectiveness and health loss. Cost-effectiveness, severity and health-loss measures were judged relevant to policymaking, but cost-effectiveness and health loss were considered less influential to clinical decision-making. Public engagement was seen as essential yet complicated by media and stakeholder pressures. This study highlights how views on the relevance and implementation of criteria can vary significantly according to the health system level being evaluated. Further, the findings suggest that giving priority to socioeconomically disadvantaged groups and reducing inequalities in health may be relevant preferences not captured in recent policy proposals. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

  5. Institutional considerations in priority setting: transactions cost perspective on PBMA.

    PubMed

    Jan, S

    2000-10-01

    Programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) is increasingly being used as a method of priority setting in the health care sector. Despite this, PBMA has, on occasions, been subject to problems in its application which can be seen as being 'institutional' in nature. This paper examines the extent to which the institutional setting of PBMA affects the way in which it can be conducted. In particular, a transactions costs perspective is taken to analyse the extent to which variation in such costs can alter the incentives of the individual participants. A number of recommendations for improving the sustainability of such projects is then provided. Following this, the implications which this 'institutional' approach has for the evaluation of PBMA are set out.

  6. Disease management index of potential years of life lost as a tool for setting priorities in national disease control using OECD health data.

    PubMed

    Jang, Sung-In; Nam, Jung-Mo; Choi, Jongwon; Park, Eun-Cheol

    2014-03-01

    Limited healthcare resources make it necessary to maximize efficiency in disease management at the country level by priority-setting according to disease burden. To make the best priority settings, it is necessary to measure health status and have standards for its judgment, as well as consider disease management trends among nations. We used 17 International Classification of Diseases (ICD) categories of potential years of life lost (YPLL) from Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) health data for 2012, 37 disease diagnoses YPLL from OECD health data for 2009 across 22 countries and disability-adjusted life years (DALY) from the World Health Organization (WHO). We set a range of 1-1 for each YPLL per disease in a nation (position value for relative comparison, PARC). Changes over 5 years were also accounted for in this disease management index (disease management index, DMI). In terms of ICD categories, the DMI indicated specific areas for priority setting for different countries with regard to managing disease treatment and diagnosis. Our study suggests that DMI is a realistic index that reflects trend changes over the past 5 years to the present state, and PARC is an easy index for identifying relative status. Moreover, unlike existing indices, DMI and PARC make it easy to conduct multiple comparisons among countries and diseases. DMI and PARC are therefore useful tools for policy implications and for future studies incorporating them and other existing indexes. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

  7. Priority in Process Algebras

    NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

    Cleaveland, Rance; Luettgen, Gerald; Natarajan, V.

    1999-01-01

    This paper surveys the semantic ramifications of extending traditional process algebras with notions of priority that allow for some transitions to be given precedence over others. These enriched formalisms allow one to model system features such as interrupts, prioritized choice, or real-time behavior. Approaches to priority in process algebras can be classified according to whether the induced notion of preemption on transitions is global or local and whether priorities are static or dynamic. Early work in the area concentrated on global pre-emption and static priorities and led to formalisms for modeling interrupts and aspects of real-time, such as maximal progress, in centralized computing environments. More recent research has investigated localized notions of pre-emption in which the distribution of systems is taken into account, as well as dynamic priority approaches, i.e., those where priority values may change as systems evolve. The latter allows one to model behavioral phenomena such as scheduling algorithms and also enables the efficient encoding of real-time semantics. Technically, this paper studies the different models of priorities by presenting extensions of Milner's Calculus of Communicating Systems (CCS) with static and dynamic priority as well as with notions of global and local pre- emption. In each case the operational semantics of CCS is modified appropriately, behavioral theories based on strong and weak bisimulation are given, and related approaches for different process-algebraic settings are discussed.

  8. Setting health research priorities using the CHNRI method: IV. Key conceptual advances.

    PubMed

    Rudan, Igor

    2016-06-01

    Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) started as an initiative of the Global Forum for Health Research in Geneva, Switzerland. Its aim was to develop a method that could assist priority setting in health research investments. The first version of the CHNRI method was published in 2007-2008. The aim of this paper was to summarize the history of the development of the CHNRI method and its key conceptual advances. The guiding principle of the CHNRI method is to expose the potential of many competing health research ideas to reduce disease burden and inequities that exist in the population in a feasible and cost-effective way. The CHNRI method introduced three key conceptual advances that led to its increased popularity in comparison to other priority-setting methods and processes. First, it proposed a systematic approach to listing a large number of possible research ideas, using the "4D" framework (description, delivery, development and discovery research) and a well-defined "depth" of proposed research ideas (research instruments, avenues, options and questions). Second, it proposed a systematic approach for discriminating between many proposed research ideas based on a well-defined context and criteria. The five "standard" components of the context are the population of interest, the disease burden of interest, geographic limits, time scale and the preferred style of investing with respect to risk. The five "standard" criteria proposed for prioritization between research ideas are answerability, effectiveness, deliverability, maximum potential for disease burden reduction and the effect on equity. However, both the context and the criteria can be flexibly changed to meet the specific needs of each priority-setting exercise. Third, it facilitated consensus development through measuring collective optimism on each component of each research idea among a larger group of experts using a simple scoring system. This enabled the use of the knowledge of

  9. The trials methodological research agenda: results from a priority setting exercise.

    PubMed

    Tudur Smith, Catrin; Hickey, Helen; Clarke, Mike; Blazeby, Jane; Williamson, Paula

    2014-01-23

    Research into the methods used in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of clinical trials is essential to ensure that effective methods are available and that clinical decisions made using results from trials are based on the best available evidence, which is reliable and robust. An on-line Delphi survey of 48 UK Clinical Research Collaboration registered Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) was undertaken. During round one, CTU Directors were asked to identify important topics that require methodological research. During round two, their opinion about the level of importance of each topic was recorded, and during round three, they were asked to review the group's average opinion and revise their previous opinion if appropriate. Direct reminders were sent to maximise the number of responses at each round. Results are summarised using descriptive methods. Forty one (85%) CTU Directors responded to at least one round of the Delphi process: 25 (52%) responded in round one, 32 (67%) responded in round two, 24 (50%) responded in round three. There were only 12 (25%) who responded to all three rounds and 18 (38%) who responded to both rounds two and three. Consensus was achieved amongst CTU Directors that the top three priorities for trials methodological research were 'Research into methods to boost recruitment in trials' (considered the highest priority), 'Methods to minimise attrition' and 'Choosing appropriate outcomes to measure'. Fifty other topics were included in the list of priorities and consensus was reached that two topics, 'Radiotherapy study designs' and 'Low carbon trials', were not priorities. This priority setting exercise has identified the research topics felt to be most important to the key stakeholder group of Directors of UKCRC registered CTUs. The use of robust methodology to identify these priorities will help ensure that this work informs the trials methodological research agenda, with a focus on topics that will have most impact and relevance.

  10. Priority-setting in public health research funding organisations: an exploratory qualitative study among five high-profile funders.

    PubMed

    Cartier, Yuri; Creatore, Maria I; Hoffman, Steven J; Potvin, Louise

    2018-06-22

    Priority-driven funding streams for population and public health are an important part of the health research landscape and contribute to orienting future scholarship in the field. While research priorities are often made public through targeted calls for research, less is known about how research funding organisations arrive at said priorities. Our objective was to explore how public health research funding organisations develop priorities for strategic extramural research funding programmes. Content analysis of published academic and grey literature and key informant interviews for five public and private funders of public health research in the United Kingdom, Australia, the United States and France were performed. We found important distinctions in how funding organisations processed potential research priorities through four non-sequential phases, namely idea generation, idea analysis, idea socialisation and idea selection. Funders generally involved the public health research community and public health decision-makers in idea generation and socialisation, but other groups of stakeholders (e.g. the public, advocacy organisations) were not as frequently included. Priority-setting for strategic funding programmes in public health research involves consultation mainly with researchers in the early phase of the process. There is an opportunity for greater breadth of participation and more transparency in priority-setting mechanisms for strategic funding programmes in population and public health research.

  11. Setting global research priorities for developmental disabilities, including intellectual disabilities and autism.

    PubMed

    Tomlinson, M; Yasamy, M T; Emerson, E; Officer, A; Richler, D; Saxena, S

    2014-12-01

    The prevalence of intellectual disabilities (ID) has been estimated at 10.4/1000 worldwide with higher rates among children and adolescents in lower income countries. The objective of this paper is to address research priorities for development disabilities, notably ID and autism, at the global level and to propose the more rational use of scarce funds in addressing this under-investigated area. An expert group was identified and invited to systematically list and score research questions. They applied the priority setting methodology of the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) to generate research questions and to evaluate them using a set of five criteria: answerability, feasibility, applicability and impact, support within the context and equity. The results of this process clearly indicated that the important priorities for future research related to the need for effective and efficient approaches to early intervention, empowerment of families supporting a person with developmental disability and to address preventable causes of poor health in people with ID and autism. For the public health and other systems to become more effective in delivering appropriate support to persons with developmental disabilities, greater (and more targeted) investment in research is required to produce evidence of what works consistent with international human rights standards. © 2014 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

  12. Consensus and contention in the priority setting process: examining the health sector in Uganda.

    PubMed

    Colenbrander, Sarah; Birungi, Charles; Mbonye, Anthony K

    2015-06-01

    Health priority setting is a critical and contentious issue in low-income countries because of the high burden of disease relative to the limited resource envelope. Many sophisticated quantitative tools and policy frameworks have been developed to promote transparent priority setting processes and allocative efficiency. However, low-income countries frequently lack effective governance systems or implementation capacity, so high-level priorities are not determined through evidence-based decision-making processes. This study uses qualitative research methods to explore how key actors' priorities differ in low-income countries, using Uganda as a case study. Human resources for health, disease prevention and family planning emerge as the common priorities among actors in the health sector (although the last of these is particularly emphasized by international agencies) because of their contribution to the long-term sustainability of health-care provision. Financing health-care services is the most disputed issue. Participants from the Ugandan Ministry of Health preferentially sought to increase net health expenditure and government ownership of the health sector, while non-state actors prioritized improving the efficiency of resource use. Ultimately it is apparent that the power to influence national health outcomes lies with only a handful of decision-makers within key institutions in the health sector, such as the Ministries of Health, the largest bilateral donors and the multilateral development agencies. These power relations reinforce the need for ongoing research into the paradigms and strategic interests of these actors. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine © The Author 2014; all rights reserved.

  13. Integrating habitat status, human population pressure, and protection status into biodiversity conservation priority setting

    USGS Publications Warehouse

    Shi, Hua; Singh, Ashbindu; Kant, S.; Zhu, Zhiliang; Waller, E.

    2005-01-01

    Priority setting is an essential component of biodiversity conservation. Existing methods to identify priority areas for conservation have focused almost entirely on biological factors. We suggest a new relative ranking method for identifying priority conservation areas that integrates both biological and social aspects. It is based on the following criteria: the habitat's status, human population pressure, human efforts to protect habitat, and number of endemic plant and vertebrate species. We used this method to rank 25 hotspots, 17 megadiverse countries, and the hotspots within each megadiverse country. We used consistent, comprehensive, georeferenced, and multiband data sets and analytical remote sensing and geographic information system tools to quantify habitat status, human population pressure, and protection status. The ranking suggests that the Philippines, Atlantic Forest, Mediterranean Basin, Caribbean Islands, Caucasus, and Indo-Burma are the hottest hotspots and that China, the Philippines, and India are the hottest megadiverse countries. The great variation in terms of habitat, protected areas, and population pressure among the hotspots, the megadiverse countries, and the hotspots within the same country suggests the need for hotspot- and country-specific conservation policies.

  14. Setting priorities for EU healthcare workforce IT skills competence improvement.

    PubMed

    Li, Sisi; Bamidis, Panagiotis D; Konstantinidis, Stathis Th; Traver, Vicente; Car, Josip; Zary, Nabil

    2017-04-01

    A major challenge for healthcare quality improvement is the lack of IT skills and knowledge of healthcare workforce, as well as their ambivalent attitudes toward IT. This article identifies and prioritizes actions needed to improve the IT skills of healthcare workforce across the EU. A total of 46 experts, representing different fields of expertise in healthcare and geolocations, systematically listed and scored actions that would improve IT skills among healthcare workforce. The Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative methodology was used for research priority-setting. The participants evaluated the actions using the following criteria: feasibility, effectiveness, deliverability, and maximum impact on IT skills improvement. The leading priority actions were related to appropriate training, integrating eHealth in curricula, involving healthcare workforce in the eHealth solution development, improving awareness of eHealth, and learning arrangement. As the different professionals' needs are prioritized, healthcare workforce should be actively and continuously included in the development of eHealth solutions.

  15. Hypertension management research priorities from patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers: A report from the Hypertension Canada Priority Setting Partnership Group.

    PubMed

    Khan, Nadia; Bacon, Simon L; Khan, Samia; Perlmutter, Sara; Gerlinsky, Carline; Dermer, Mark; Johnson, Lonni; Alves, Finderson; McLean, Donna; Laupacis, Andreas; Pui, Mandy; Berg, Angelique; Flowitt, Felicia

    2017-11-01

    Patient- and stakeholder-oriented research is vital to improving the relevance of research. The authors aimed to identify the 10 most important research priorities of patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers (family physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, and dietitians) for hypertension management. Using the James Lind Alliance approach, a national web-based survey asked patients, caregivers, and care providers to submit their unanswered questions on hypertension management. Questions already answered from randomized controlled trial evidence were removed. A priority setting process of patient, caregiver, and healthcare providers then ranked the final top 10 research priorities in an in-person meeting. There were 386 respondents who submitted 598 questions after exclusions. Of the respondents, 78% were patients or caregivers, 29% lived in rural areas, 78% were aged 50 to 80 years, and 75% were women. The 598 questions were distilled to 42 unique questions and from this list, the top 10 research questions prioritized included determining the combinations of healthy lifestyle modifications to reduce the need for antihypertensive medications, stress management interventions, evaluating treatment strategies based on out-of-office blood pressure compared with conventional (office) blood pressure, education tools and technologies to improve patient motivation and health behavior change, management strategies for ethnic groups, evaluating natural and alternative treatments, and the optimal role of different healthcare providers and caregivers in supporting patients with hypertension. These priorities can be used to guide clinicians, researchers, and funding bodies on areas that are a high priority for hypertension management research for patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers. This also highlights priority areas for improved knowledge translation and delivering patient-centered care. ©2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

  16. Achievement, attributions, self-efficacy, and goal setting by accounting undergraduates.

    PubMed

    Cheng, Pi-Yueh; Chiou, Wen-Bin

    2010-02-01

    Correlations were examined between two measures of accounting self-efficacy achievement goal setting, attributions, and scores on the Accounting Practice Achievement Test, obtained 1 yr. apart for 124 freshmen in junior college. Analysis indicated favorable attribution contributed to a higher mean score on accounting self-efficacy. Students with higher perceived self-efficacy performed better on the proficiency tests. Those with higher self-efficacy also set higher goals for subsequent achievement tests. Moreover, students who set higher achievement goals performed better. Goal setting mediated the relation of initial self-efficacy with subsequent test performance. However, the amount of variance accounted for by self-efficacy was small. An effective method for enhancing performance on an accounting achievement test might be to increase beneficial attributions, self-efficacy in accounting, and to encourage setting reasonable achievement goals.

  17. The evolution of PBMA: towards a macro-level priority setting framework for health regions.

    PubMed

    Mitton, Craig R; Donaldson, Cam; Waldner, Howard; Eagle, Chris

    2003-11-01

    To date, relatively little work on priority setting has been carried out at a macro-level across major portfolios within integrated health care organizations. This paper describes a macro marginal analysis (MMA) process for setting priorities and allocating resources in health authorities, based on work carried out in a major urban health region in Alberta, Canada. MMA centers around an expert working group of managers and clinicians who are charged with identifying areas for resource re-allocation on an ongoing basis. Trade-offs between services are based on locally defined criteria and are informed by multiple inputs such as evidence from the literature and local expert opinion. The approach is put forth as a significant improvement on historical resource allocation patterns.

  18. The trials methodological research agenda: results from a priority setting exercise

    PubMed Central

    2014-01-01

    Background Research into the methods used in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of clinical trials is essential to ensure that effective methods are available and that clinical decisions made using results from trials are based on the best available evidence, which is reliable and robust. Methods An on-line Delphi survey of 48 UK Clinical Research Collaboration registered Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) was undertaken. During round one, CTU Directors were asked to identify important topics that require methodological research. During round two, their opinion about the level of importance of each topic was recorded, and during round three, they were asked to review the group’s average opinion and revise their previous opinion if appropriate. Direct reminders were sent to maximise the number of responses at each round. Results are summarised using descriptive methods. Results Forty one (85%) CTU Directors responded to at least one round of the Delphi process: 25 (52%) responded in round one, 32 (67%) responded in round two, 24 (50%) responded in round three. There were only 12 (25%) who responded to all three rounds and 18 (38%) who responded to both rounds two and three. Consensus was achieved amongst CTU Directors that the top three priorities for trials methodological research were ‘Research into methods to boost recruitment in trials’ (considered the highest priority), ‘Methods to minimise attrition’ and ‘Choosing appropriate outcomes to measure’. Fifty other topics were included in the list of priorities and consensus was reached that two topics, ‘Radiotherapy study designs’ and ‘Low carbon trials’, were not priorities. Conclusions This priority setting exercise has identified the research topics felt to be most important to the key stakeholder group of Directors of UKCRC registered CTUs. The use of robust methodology to identify these priorities will help ensure that this work informs the trials methodological research agenda, with

  19. What are the dietary treatment research priorities for inflammatory bowel disease? A short report based on a priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance.

    PubMed

    Lomer, M C; Hart, A L; Verjee, A; Daly, A; Solomon, J; Mclaughlin, J

    2017-12-01

    Treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) involves a multidisciplinary approach comprising medical management and sometimes surgery. Although diet is central to IBD management, the optimal diet for patients with IBD is uncertain. A UK collaborative partnership within the James Lind Alliance was set up between patients, clinicians and other stakeholders to develop research priorities in IBD. The aim of this short report is to provide a comprehensive summary of the research priority findings relating to diet in the treatment of IBD. The James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership process was used to develop research priorities in IBD. In brief, patients, clinicians and other stakeholders were invited to provide up to five treatment uncertainties in IBD. These uncertainties were collated, revised and ranked, leading to a final top 10 research questions in IBD. A total of 1671 uncertainties from 531 participants were collected and refined to exclude duplicates leaving 1253 uncertainties. Of these, 348 were categorised as diet-related and grouped according to topic. There were 206 uncertainties related to how diet can be used to treat IBD or alleviate symptoms. Seventy-two percent of diet-related questions came from patients. One broadly diet-related and two diet-specific treatment uncertainties were included in the top 10 research priorities for IBD. Dietary treatment options in the management of IBD are important research priorities. Almost three-quarters of diet related questions came from patients, who were particularly interested in how diet can impact disease activity and symptom control. © 2017 The British Dietetic Association Ltd.

  20. Combining evidence and values in priority setting: testing the balance sheet method in a low-income country.

    PubMed

    Makundi, Emmanuel; Kapiriri, Lydia; Norheim, Ole Frithjof

    2007-09-24

    Procedures for priority setting need to incorporate both scientific evidence and public values. The aim of this study was to test out a model for priority setting which incorporates both scientific evidence and public values, and to explore use of evidence by a selection of stakeholders and to study reasons for the relative ranking of health care interventions in a setting of extreme resource scarcity. Systematic search for and assessment of relevant evidence for priority setting in a low-income country. Development of a balance sheet according to Eddy's explicit method. Eight group interviews (n-85), using a modified nominal group technique for eliciting individual and group rankings of a given set of health interventions. The study procedure made it possible to compare the groups' ranking before and after all the evidence was provided to participants. A rank deviation is significant if the rank order of the same intervention differed by two or more points on the ordinal scale. A comparison between the initial rank and the final rank (before deliberation) showed a rank deviation of 67%. The difference between the initial rank and the final rank after discussion and voting gave a rank deviation of 78%. Evidence-based and deliberative decision-making does change priorities significantly in an experimental setting. Our use of the balance sheet method was meant as a demonstration project, but could if properly developed be feasible for health planners, experts and health workers, although more work is needed before it can be used for laypersons.

  1. Research priorities for shoulder surgery: results of the 2015 James Lind Alliance patient and clinician priority setting partnership.

    PubMed

    Rangan, Amar; Upadhaya, Sheela; Regan, Sandra; Toye, Francine; Rees, Jonathan L

    2016-04-11

    To run a UK based James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership for 'Surgery for Common Shoulder Problems'. This was a nationally funded and conducted process. It was organised from a musculoskeletal research centre and Biomedical Research Unit in Oxford. UK shoulder patients, carers and clinicians, involved in treating patients with shoulder pain and shoulder problems that might require surgery. These were national electronic and paper surveys capturing treatment uncertainties that are important to shoulder patients, carers and clinicians. The outcomes relevant to this study were the survey results and rankings. The process took 18 months to complete, with 371 participants contributing 404 in scope questions. The James Lind process then produced a final 10 research priorities and uncertainties that relate to the scope of 'Surgery for Common Shoulder Problems'. The final top 10 UK research priorities have been produced and are now being disseminated to partner organisations and funders to guide funding of shoulder research for the next 5-10 years on topics that are important to patients, their carers and clinicians. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

  2. The same-location cost is unrelated to attentional settings: an object-updating account.

    PubMed

    Carmel, Tomer; Lamy, Dominique

    2014-08-01

    What mechanisms allow us to ignore salient yet irrelevant visual information has been a matter of intense debate. According to the contingent-capture hypothesis, such information is filtered out, whereas according to the salience-based account, it captures attention automatically. Several recent studies have reported a same-location cost that appears to fit neither of these accounts. These showed that responses may actually be slower when the target appears at the location just occupied by an irrelevant singleton distractor. Here, we investigated the mechanisms underlying this same-location cost. Our findings show that the same-location cost is unrelated to automatic attentional capture or strategic setting of attentional priorities, and therefore invalidate the feature-based inhibition and fast attentional disengagement accounts of this effect. In addition, we show that the cost is wiped out when the cue and target are not perceived as parts of the same object. We interpret these findings as indicating that the same-location cost has been previously misinterpreted by both bottom-up and top-down theories of attentional capture. We propose that it is better understood as a consequence of object updating, namely, as the cost of updating the information stored about an object when this object changes across time.

  3. Stakeholders’ participation in planning and priority setting in the context of a decentralised health care system: the case of prevention of mother to child transmission of HIV programme in Tanzania

    PubMed Central

    2013-01-01

    Background In Tanzania, decentralisation processes and reforms in the health sector aimed at improving planning and accountability in the sector. As a result, districts were given authority to undertake local planning and set priorities as well as allocate resources fairly to promote the health of a population with varied needs. Nevertheless, priority setting in the health care service has remained a challenge. The study assessed the priority setting processes in the planning of the prevention of mother to child transmission of HIV (PMTCT) programme at the district level in Tanzania. Methods This qualitative study was conducted in Mbarali district, south-western Tanzania. The study applied in-depth interviews and focus group discussions in the data collection. Informants included members of the Council Health Management Team, regional PMTCT managers and health facility providers. Results Two plans were reported where PMTCT activities could be accommodated; the Comprehensive Council Health Plan and the Regional PMTCT Plan that was donor funded. As donors had their own globally defined priorities, it proved difficult for district and regional managers to accommodate locally defined PMTCT priorities in these plans. As a result few of these were funded. Guidelines and main priority areas of the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (MoHSW) also impacted on the ability of the districts and regions to act, undermining the effectiveness of the decentralisation policy in the health sector. Conclusion The challenges in the priority setting processes revealed within the PMTCT initiative indicate substantial weaknesses in implementing the Tanzania decentralisation policy. There is an urgent need to revive the strategies and aims of the decentralisation policy at all levels of the health care system with a view to improving health service delivery. PMID:23849730

  4. Setting Priorities for NIOSH Research

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Gallagher, Richard E.

    1975-01-01

    The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is attempting to develop total programs of occupational safety and health protection. It has established research criteria and a priority system for evaluating the order of investigating suspect substances or agents based upon the expected gain of the health benefit. (Author/MW)

  5. Using Multiattribute Utility Theory as a Priority-Setting Tool in Human Services Planning.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Camasso, Michael J.; Dick, Janet

    1993-01-01

    The feasibility of applying multiattribute utility theory to the needs assessment and priority-setting activities of human services planning councils was studied in Essex County (New Jersey). Decision-making and information filtering processes are explored in the context of community planning. (SLD)

  6. Following Suit: Using Conversation Cards for Priority Setting in Pediatric Weight Management.

    PubMed

    Kebbe, Maryam; Byrne, Jillian L S; Damanhoury, Samah; Ball, Geoff D C

    To describe families' selections of Conversation Cards (CCs), a priority-setting tool in pediatric weight management, and examine CC-related differences based on families' anthropometric and sociodemographic characteristics. A retrospective medical record review was conducted of 2- to 17-year-olds with obesity and their families who enrolled in a pediatric weight management clinic between January, 2012 and September, 2016. Medical records of 146 children were included. On average, families selected 10 ± 6 CCs (range, 3-32 CCs); only 50% of families (n = 73) indicated perceived readiness to make healthy changes. Adolescents (vs children) revealed less healthy eating behaviors (P = .001) and physical activity habits (P = .002). Goal setting was perceived to be a motivator across several sociodemographic characteristics (all P < .05). The CCs were useful in describing families' priorities. The diversity of issues identified by families highlighted the importance of multidisciplinary expertise in pediatric weight management. Copyright © 2017 Society for Nutrition Education and Behavior. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

  7. Priority setting of ICU resources in an influenza pandemic: a qualitative study of the Canadian public's perspectives.

    PubMed

    Silva, Diego S; Gibson, Jennifer L; Robertson, Ann; Bensimon, Cécile M; Sahni, Sachin; Maunula, Laena; Smith, Maxwell J

    2012-03-26

    Pandemic influenza may exacerbate existing scarcity of life-saving medical resources. As a result, decision-makers may be faced with making tough choices about who will receive care and who will have to wait or go without. Although previous studies have explored ethical issues in priority setting from the perspective of clinicians and policymakers, there has been little investigation into how the public views priority setting during a pandemic influenza, in particular related to intensive care resources. To bridge this gap, we conducted three public town hall meetings across Canada to explore Canadian's perspectives on this ethical challenge. Town hall discussions group discussions were digitally recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis. Six interrelated themes emerged from the town hall discussions related to: ethical and empirical starting points for deliberation; criteria for setting priorities; pre-crisis planning; in-crisis decision-making; the need for public deliberation and input; and participants' deliberative struggle with the ethical issues. Our findings underscore the importance of public consultation in pandemic planning for sustaining public trust in a public health emergency. Participants appreciated the empirical and ethical uncertainty of decision-making in an influenza pandemic and demonstrated nuanced ethical reasoning about priority setting of intensive care resources in an influenza pandemic. Policymakers may benefit from a better understanding the public's empirical and ethical 'starting points' in developing effective pandemic plans.

  8. Priority setting of ICU resources in an influenza pandemic: a qualitative study of the Canadian public's perspectives

    PubMed Central

    2012-01-01

    Background Pandemic influenza may exacerbate existing scarcity of life-saving medical resources. As a result, decision-makers may be faced with making tough choices about who will receive care and who will have to wait or go without. Although previous studies have explored ethical issues in priority setting from the perspective of clinicians and policymakers, there has been little investigation into how the public views priority setting during a pandemic influenza, in particular related to intensive care resources. Methods To bridge this gap, we conducted three public town hall meetings across Canada to explore Canadian's perspectives on this ethical challenge. Town hall discussions group discussions were digitally recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis. Results Six interrelated themes emerged from the town hall discussions related to: ethical and empirical starting points for deliberation; criteria for setting priorities; pre-crisis planning; in-crisis decision-making; the need for public deliberation and input; and participants' deliberative struggle with the ethical issues. Conclusions Our findings underscore the importance of public consultation in pandemic planning for sustaining public trust in a public health emergency. Participants appreciated the empirical and ethical uncertainty of decision-making in an influenza pandemic and demonstrated nuanced ethical reasoning about priority setting of intensive care resources in an influenza pandemic. Policymakers may benefit from a better understanding the public's empirical and ethical 'starting points' in developing effective pandemic plans. PMID:22449119

  9. Priority setting for health in the context of devolution in Kenya: implications for health equity and community-based primary care

    PubMed Central

    McCollum, Rosalind; Theobald, Sally; Otiso, Lilian; Martineau, Tim; Karuga, Robinson; Barasa, Edwine; Molyneux, Sassy; Taegtmeyer, Miriam

    2018-01-01

    Abstract Devolution changes the locus of power within a country from central to sub-national levels. In 2013, Kenya devolved health and other services from central government to 47 new sub-national governments (known as counties). This transition seeks to strengthen democracy and accountability, increase community participation, improve efficiency and reduce inequities. With changing responsibilities and power following devolution reforms, comes the need for priority-setting at the new county level. Priority-setting arises as a consequence of the needs and demand for healthcare resources exceeding the resources available, resulting in the need for some means of choosing between competing demands. We sought to explore the impact of devolution on priority-setting for health equity and community health services. We conducted key informant and in-depth interviews with health policymakers, health providers and politicians from 10 counties (n = 269 individuals) and 14 focus group discussions with community members based in 2 counties (n = 146 individuals). Qualitative data were analysed using the framework approach. We found Kenya’s devolution reforms were driven by the need to demonstrate responsiveness to county contexts, with positive ramifications for health equity in previously neglected counties. The rapidity of the process, however, combined with limited technical capacity and guidance has meant that decision-making and prioritization have been captured and distorted for political and power interests. Less visible community health services that focus on health promotion, disease prevention and referral have been neglected within the prioritization process in favour of more tangible curative health services. The rapid transition in power carries a degree of risk of not meeting stated objectives. As Kenya moves forward, decision-makers need to address the community health gap and lay down institutional structures, processes and norms which promote health

  10. Managing in-hospital quality improvement: An importance-performance analysis to set priorities for ST-elevation myocardial infarction care.

    PubMed

    Aeyels, Daan; Seys, Deborah; Sinnaeve, Peter R; Claeys, Marc J; Gevaert, Sofie; Schoors, Danny; Sermeus, Walter; Panella, Massimiliano; Bruyneel, Luk; Vanhaecht, Kris

    2018-02-01

    A focus on specific priorities increases the success rate of quality improvement efforts for broad and complex-care processes. Importance-performance analysis presents a possible approach to set priorities around which to design and implement effective quality improvement initiatives. Persistent variation in hospital performance makes ST-elevation myocardial infarction care relevant to consider for importance-performance analysis. The purpose of this study was to identify quality improvement priorities in ST-elevation myocardial infarction care. Importance and performance levels of ST-elevation myocardial infarction key interventions were combined in an importance-performance analysis. Content validity indexes on 23 ST-elevation myocardial infarction key interventions of a multidisciplinary RAND Delphi Survey defined importance levels. Structured review of 300 patient records in 15 acute hospitals determined performance levels. The significance of between-hospital variation was determined by a Kruskal-Wallis test. A performance heat-map allowed for hospital-specific priority setting. Seven key interventions were each rated as an overall improvement priority. Priority key interventions related to risk assessment, timely reperfusion by percutaneous coronary intervention and secondary prevention. Between-hospital performance varied significantly for the majority of key interventions. The type and number of priorities varied strongly across hospitals. Guideline adherence in ST-elevation myocardial infarction care is low and improvement priorities vary between hospitals. Importance-performance analysis helps clinicians and management in demarcation of the nature, number and order of improvement priorities. By offering a tailored improvement focus, this methodology makes improvement efforts more specific and achievable.

  11. Global health trials methodological research agenda: results from a priority setting exercise.

    PubMed

    Rosala-Hallas, Anna; Bhangu, Aneel; Blazeby, Jane; Bowman, Louise; Clarke, Mike; Lang, Trudie; Nasser, Mona; Siegfried, Nandi; Soares-Weiser, Karla; Sydes, Matt R; Wang, Duolao; Zhang, Junhua; Williamson, Paula R

    2018-02-05

    Methodological research into the design, conduct, analysis and reporting of trials is essential to optimise the process. UK specialists in the field have established a set of top priorities in aid of this research. These priorities, however, may not be reflected in the needs of similar research in low- to middle-income countries (LMICs) with different healthcare provision, resources and research infrastructure. The aim of the study was to identify the top priorities for methodological research in LMICs to inform further research and ultimately to improve clinical trials in these regions. An online, two-round survey was conducted from December 2016 to April 2017 amongst researchers and methodologists working on trials in LMICs. The first round required participants to suggest between three and six topics which they felt were priorities for trial methodological research in LMICs. The second round invited participants to grade the importance of a compulsory list of topics suggested by four or more individuals, and an optional list of the remaining topics. Rounds 1 and 2 were completed by 412 and 314 participants, respectively. A wide spread of years of experience, discipline, current country of residence, origin of trials training and area of involvement in trials was reported. The topics deemed most important for methodological research were: choosing appropriate outcomes to measure and training of research staff. By presenting these top priorities we have the foundations of a global health trials methodological research agenda which we hope will foster future research in specific areas in order to increase and improve trials in LMICs.

  12. Research Priorities for the Intersection of Alcohol and HIV/AIDS in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Priority Setting Exercise.

    PubMed

    Gordon, Sara; Rotheram-Borus, Mary Jane; Skeen, Sarah; Perry, Charles; Bryant, Kendall; Tomlinson, Mark

    2017-11-01

    The harmful use of alcohol is a component cause for more than 200 diseases. The association between alcohol consumption, risk taking behavior and a range of infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS is well established. The prevalence of HIV/AIDS as well as harmful alcohol use in low and middle income countries is high. Alcohol has been identified as a modifiable risk factor in the prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS. The objective of this paper is to define research priorities for the interaction of alcohol and HIV/AIDS in low and middle income countries. The Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) priority setting methodology was applied in order to assess research priorities of the interaction of alcohol and HIV/AIDS. A group of 171 global and local experts in the field of alcohol and or HIV/AIDS related research were identified and invited to generate research questions. This resulted in 205 research questions which have been categorized and refined by senior researchers into 48 research questions to be evaluated using five criteria: answerability, effectiveness, feasibility, applicability and impact, as well as equity. A total of 59 experts participated independently in the voluntary scoring exercise (a 34% response rate). There was substantial consensus among experts on priorities for research on alcohol and HIV. These tended to break down into two categories, those focusing on better understanding the nexus between alcohol and HIV and those directed towards informing practical interventions to reduce the impact of alcohol use on HIV treatment outcomes, which replicates what Bryant (Subst Use Misuse 41:1465-1507, 2006) and Parry et al. (Addiction 108:1-2, 2012) found. Responses from experts were stratified by location in order to determine any differences between groups. On average experts in the LMIC gave higher scores than the HIC experts. Recent research has shown the causal link between alcohol consumption and the incidence of HIV

  13. 40 CFR 35.2015 - State priority system and project priority list.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ... achieve optimum water quality management consistent with the goals and requirements of the Act. All..., needs and priorities set forth in areawide water quality management plans, and any other factors... priority to projects in priority water quality areas. The priority system may also include the...

  14. An assessment of priority setting process and its implication on availability of emergency obstetric care services in Malindi District, Kenya.

    PubMed

    Nyandieka, Lilian Nyamusi; Kombe, Yeri; Ng'ang'a, Zipporah; Byskov, Jens; Njeru, Mercy Karimi

    2015-01-01

    In spite of the critical role of Emergency Obstetric Care in treating complications arising from pregnancy and childbirth, very few facilities are equipped in Kenya to offer this service. In Malindi, availability of EmOC services does not meet the UN recommended levels of at least one comprehensive and four basic EmOC facilities per 500,000 populations. This study was conducted to assess priority setting process and its implication on availability, access and use of EmOC services at the district level. A qualitative study was conducted both at health facility and community levels. Triangulation of data sources and methods was employed, where document reviews, in-depth interviews and focus group discussions were conducted with health personnel, facility committee members, stakeholders who offer and/ or support maternal health services and programmes; and the community members as end users. Data was thematically analysed. Limitations in the extent to which priorities in regard to maternal health services can be set at the district level were observed. The priority setting process was greatly restricted by guidelines and limited resources from the national level. Relevant stakeholders including community members are not involved in the priority setting process, thereby denying them the opportunity to contribute in the process. The findings illuminate that consideration of all local plans in national planning and budgeting as well as the involvement of all relevant stakeholders in the priority setting exercise is essential in order to achieve a consensus on the provision of emergency obstetric care services among other health service priorities.

  15. Priorities for research in miscarriage: a priority setting partnership between people affected by miscarriage and professionals following the James Lind Alliance methodology.

    PubMed

    Prior, Matthew; Bagness, Carmel; Brewin, Jane; Coomarasamy, Arri; Easthope, Lucy; Hepworth-Jones, Barbara; Hinshaw, Kim; O'Toole, Emily; Orford, Julie; Regan, Lesley; Raine-Fenning, Nick; Shakespeare, Judy; Small, Rachel; Thornton, Jim; Metcalf, Leanne

    2017-08-23

    To identify and prioritise important research questions for miscarriage. A priority setting partnership using prospective surveys and consensus meetings following methods advocated by the James Lind Alliance. UK. Women and those affected by miscarriage working alongside healthcare professionals. In the initial survey, 1093 participants (932 women who have experienced miscarriage, 8 partners, 17 family members, friends or colleagues, 104 healthcare professionals and eight charitable organisations) submitted 3279 questions. A review of existing literature identified a further 64. Non-questions were removed, and the remaining questions were categorised and summarised into 58 questions. In an interim electronic survey, 2122 respondents chose their top 10 priorities from the 58 summary questions. The 25 highest ranked in the survey were prioritised at a final face-to-face workshop. In summary, the top 10 priorities were ranked as follows: research into preventative treatment, emotional aspects in general, investigation, relevance of pre-existing medical conditions, emotional support as a treatment, importance of lifestyle factors, importance of genetic and chromosomal causes, preconception tests, investigation after different numbers of miscarriage and male causal factors. These results should be the focus of future miscarriage research. Presently, studies are being conducted to address the top priority; however, many other priorities, especially psychological and emotional support, are less well researched areas. We hope our results will encourage both researchers and funders to focus on these priorities. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

  16. Factors explaining priority setting at community mental health centres: a quantitative analysis of referral assessments.

    PubMed

    Grepperud, Sverre; Holman, Per Arne; Wangen, Knut Reidar

    2014-12-14

    Clinicians at Norwegian community mental health centres assess referrals from general practitioners and classify them into three priority groups (high priority, low priority, and refusal) according to need where need is defined by three prioritization criteria (severity, effect, and cost-effectiveness). In this study, we seek to operationalize the three criteria and analyze to what extent they have an effect on clinical-level priority setting after controlling for clinician characteristics and organisational factors. Twenty anonymous referrals were rated by 42 admission team members employed at 14 community mental health centres in the South-East Health Region of Norway. Intra-class correlation coefficients were calculated and logistic regressions were performed. Variation in clinicians' assessments of the three criteria was highest for effect and cost-effectiveness. An ordered logistic regression model showed that all three criteria for prioritization, three clinician characteristics (education, being a manager or not, and "guideline awareness"), and the centres themselves (fixed effects), explained priority decisions. The relative importance of the explanatory factors, however, depended on the priority decision studied. For the classification of all admitted patients into high- and low-priority groups, all clinician characteristics became insignificant. For the classification of patients, into those admitted and non-admitted, one criterion (effect) and "being a manager or not" became insignificant, while profession ("being a psychiatrist") became significant. Our findings suggest that variation in priority decisions can be reduced by: (i) reducing the disagreement in clinicians' assessments of cost-effectiveness and effect, and (ii) restricting priority decisions to clinicians with a similar background (education, being a manager or not, and "guideline awareness").

  17. 75 FR 77642 - Priority Setting for the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA...

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2010-12-13

    ... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Priority Setting for the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA) Pediatric Quality Measures Program--Notice of Correction On pages 75469 and 75470, Volume 75, Number 232, Federal Register...

  18. Setting Priorities for Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research and Identifying Evidence Gaps.

    PubMed

    Le, Jimmy T; Hutfless, Susan; Li, Tianjing; Bressler, Neil M; Heyward, James; Bittner, Ava K; Glassman, Adam; Dickersin, Kay

    2017-01-01

    Prioritizing comparative effectiveness research may contribute to obtaining answers that clinicians perceive they need and may minimize research that could be considered wasteful. Our objective was to identify evidence gaps and set priorities for new systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials for managing diabetic retinopathy (DR), including diabetic macular edema (DME). Cross-sectional study. Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network (DRCR.net) investigators. We provided recommendations from the American Academy of Ophthalmology's 2012 Preferred Practice Patterns for Diabetic Retinopathy as 91 answerable clinical research questions about intervention effectiveness to 410 DRCR.net investigators to rate each question's importance from 0 (not important) to 10 (very important) using a 2-round Delphi survey and to suggest additional questions. We considered questions as high priority if at least 75% of respondents to both rounds assigned an importance rating of 5 or more in round 2. We also extracted outcome measures relevant to DR and asked respondents to identify those that must be measured in all studies. We mapped Cochrane reviews published up to March 2016 to high-priority clinical research questions. Ranking of importance of each clinical question. Thirty-two individuals completed rounds 1 and 2 and suggested 15 questions. Among the final list of 106 clinical research questions, 22 questions met our definition of high priority: 9 of 22 concerned the effectiveness of anti-VEGF therapy, and 13 of 22 focused on how often patients should be followed up (re-examination) and treatment effectiveness in patients with specific characteristics (e.g., DME). Outcomes that 75% or more of respondents marked as "must be measured in all studies" included visual acuity and visual loss, death of participants, and intraocular pressure. Only 1 prioritized question was associated with conclusive evidence from a Cochrane systematic review. A limited response rate among

  19. Setting priorities for space research: Opportunities and imperatives

    NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

    1992-01-01

    Discussed here is the first phase of a study by a task group convened by the Space Studies Board to ascertain whether it should attempt to develop a methodology for recommending priorities among the various initiatives in space research (that is, scientific activities concerned with phenomena in space or utilizing observations from space). It is argued that such priority statements by the space research community are both necessary and desirable and would contribute to the formulation and implementation of public policy. The establishment of priorities to enhance effective management of the nation's scientific research program in space is advocated. It is argued that scientific objectives and purposes should determine how and under what circumstances research should be done.

  20. Health care priority setting in Norway a multicriteria decision analysis

    PubMed Central

    2012-01-01

    Background Priority setting in population health is increasingly based on explicitly formulated values. The Patients Rights Act of the Norwegian tax-based health service guaranties all citizens health care in case of a severe illness, a proven health benefit, and proportionality between need and treatment. This study compares the values of the country's health policy makers with these three official principles. Methods In total 34 policy makers participated in a discrete choice experiment, weighting the relative value of six policy criteria. We used multi-variate logistic regression with selection as dependent valuable to derive odds ratios for each criterion. Next, we constructed a composite league table - based on the sum score for the probability of selection - to rank potential interventions in five major disease areas. Results The group considered cost effectiveness, large individual benefits and severity of disease as the most important criteria in decision making. Priority interventions are those related to cardiovascular diseases and respiratory diseases. Less attractive interventions rank those related to mental health. Conclusions Norwegian policy makers' values are in agreement with principles formulated in national health laws. Multi-criteria decision approaches may provide a tool to support explicit allocation decisions. PMID:22335815

  1. Health care priority setting in Norway a multicriteria decision analysis.

    PubMed

    Defechereux, Thierry; Paolucci, Francesco; Mirelman, Andrew; Youngkong, Sitaporn; Botten, Grete; Hagen, Terje P; Niessen, Louis W

    2012-02-15

    Priority setting in population health is increasingly based on explicitly formulated values. The Patients Rights Act of the Norwegian tax-based health service guaranties all citizens health care in case of a severe illness, a proven health benefit, and proportionality between need and treatment. This study compares the values of the country's health policy makers with these three official principles. In total 34 policy makers participated in a discrete choice experiment, weighting the relative value of six policy criteria. We used multi-variate logistic regression with selection as dependent valuable to derive odds ratios for each criterion. Next, we constructed a composite league table - based on the sum score for the probability of selection - to rank potential interventions in five major disease areas. The group considered cost effectiveness, large individual benefits and severity of disease as the most important criteria in decision making. Priority interventions are those related to cardiovascular diseases and respiratory diseases. Less attractive interventions rank those related to mental health. Norwegian policy makers' values are in agreement with principles formulated in national health laws. Multi-criteria decision approaches may provide a tool to support explicit allocation decisions.

  2. Factory approach can streamline patient accounting.

    PubMed

    Rands, J; Muench, M

    1991-08-01

    Although they may seem fundamentally different, similarities exist between operations of factories and healthcare organizations' business offices. As a result, a patient accounting approach based on manufacturing firms' management techniques may help smooth healthcare business processes. Receivables performance management incorporates the Japanese techniques of "just-in-time" and total quality management to reduce unbilled accounts and information backlog and accelerate payment. A preliminary diagnostic assessment of a patient accounting process helps identify bottlenecks and set priorities for work flow.

  3. Using the Nine Common Themes of Good Practice checklist as a tool for evaluating the research priority setting process of a provincial research and program evaluation program.

    PubMed

    Mador, Rebecca L; Kornas, Kathy; Simard, Anne; Haroun, Vinita

    2016-03-23

    Given the context-specific nature of health research prioritization and the obligation to effectively allocate resources to initiatives that will achieve the greatest impact, evaluation of priority setting processes can refine and strengthen such exercises and their outcomes. However, guidance is needed on evaluation tools that can be applied to research priority setting. This paper describes the adaption and application of a conceptual framework to evaluate a research priority setting exercise operating within the public health sector in Ontario, Canada. The Nine Common Themes of Good Practice checklist, described by Viergever et al. (Health Res Policy Syst 8:36, 2010) was used as the conceptual framework to evaluate the research priority setting process developed for the Locally Driven Collaborative Projects (LDCP) program in Ontario, Canada. Multiple data sources were used to inform the evaluation, including a review of selected priority setting approaches, surveys with priority setting participants, document review, and consultation with the program advisory committee. The evaluation assisted in identifying improvements to six elements of the LDCP priority setting process. The modifications were aimed at improving inclusiveness, information gathering practices, planning for project implementation, and evaluation. In addition, the findings identified that the timing of priority setting activities and level of control over the process were key factors that influenced the ability to effectively implement changes. The findings demonstrate the novel adaptation and application of the 'Nine Common Themes of Good Practice checklist' as a tool for evaluating a research priority setting exercise. The tool can guide the development of evaluation questions and enables the assessment of key constructs related to the design and delivery of a research priority setting process.

  4. The No-Destination Ship of Priority-Setting in Healthcare: A Call for More Democracy

    PubMed Central

    Seixas, Brayan V.

    2018-01-01

    In dealing with scarcity of resources within healthcare systems, decision-makers inevitably have to make choices about which services to fund. Setting priorities represents a challenging task that requires systematic, explicit and transparent methodologies with focus on economic efficiency. In addition, the engagement of the general public in the process of decision-making has been regarded as one of the most important aspects of the management of publicly-funded health systems in liberal democracies. In the current essay, we aim to discuss the problematics of public engagement in the process of resource allocation and priority-setting within the context of publiclyfunded health systems. Our central argument is that although there may be a conflict between democratic mechanisms of citizen participation and economic efficiency, in the extra-welfarist sense, expected for/from the system, the solution for this tension does not seem to rely on more or novel authoritative technocratic approaches, but rather on the deepening and betterment of democratic participation. PMID:29626402

  5. Concurrence control for transactions with priorities

    NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

    Marzullo, Keith

    1989-01-01

    Priority inversion occurs when a process is delayed by the actions of another process with less priority. With atomic transactions, the concurrency control mechanism can cause delays, and without taking priorities into account can be a source of priority inversion. Three traditional concurrency control algorithms are extended so that they are free from unbounded priority inversion.

  6. Concurrency control for transactions with priorities

    NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

    Marzullo, Keith

    1989-01-01

    Priority inversion occurs when a process is delayed by the actions of another process with less priority. With atomic transations, the concurrency control mechanism can cause delays, and without taking priorities into account can be a source of priority inversion. In this paper, three traditional concurrency control algorithms are extended so that they are free from unbounded priority inversion.

  7. Introduction: priority setting, equitable access and public involvement in health care.

    PubMed

    Weale, Albert; Kieslich, Katharina; Littlejohns, Peter; Tugendhaft, Aviva; Tumilty, Emma; Weerasuriya, Krisantha; Whitty, Jennifer A

    2016-08-15

    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to introduce the special issue on improving equitable access to health care through increased public and patient involvement (PPI) in prioritization decisions by discussing the conceptualization, scope and rationales of PPI in priority setting that inform the special issue. Design/methodology/approach - The paper employs a mixed-methods approach in that it provides a literature review and a conceptual discussion of the common themes emerging in the field of PPI and health priority setting. Findings - The special issue focuses on public participation that is collective in character, in the sense that the participation relates to a social, not personal, decision and is relevant to whole groups of people and not single individuals. It is aimed at influencing a decision on public policy or legal rules. The rationales for public participation can be found in democratic theory, especially as they relate to the social and political values of legitimacy and representation. Originality/value - The paper builds on previous definitions of public participation by underlining its collective character. In doing so, it develops the work by Parry, Moyser and Day by arguing that, in light of the empirical evidence presented in this issue, public participatory activities such as protests and demonstrations should no longer be labelled unconventional, but should instead be labelled as "contestatory participation". This is to better reflect a situation in which these modes of participation have become more conventional in many parts of the world.

  8. Pharmaceutical priority setting and the use of health economic evaluations: a systematic literature review.

    PubMed

    Erntoft, Sandra

    2011-06-01

    To investigate which factors and criteria are used in priority setting of pharmaceuticals, in what contexts health economic evaluations are used, and barriers to the use of health economic evaluations at micro, meso, and macro health-care levels. The search for empirical articles was based on the MeSH index (Medical Substance Heading), including the search terms "economic evaluation," "cost-effectiveness analysis," "cost-utility analysis," "cost-benefit analysis," "pharmacoeconomic," AND "drug cost(s)," AND "eligibility determination," AND "decision-making," AND "rationing," AND formulary. The following databases were searched: PubMed, EconLit, Cochrane, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. More than 3100 studies were identified, 31 of which were included in this review. The use of health economic evaluations at all three health-care levels was investigated in three countries (United States [US], United Kingdom [UK], and Sweden). Postal and telephone survey methods dominated (n = 17) followed by interviews (n = 13), document analysis (n = 10), and observations of group deliberations (n = 9). The cost-effectiveness criterion was most important at the macro level. A number of contextual uses of health economic evaluations were identified, including importantly the legitimizing of decisions, structuring the priority-setting process, and requesting additional budgets to finance expensive pharmaceuticals. Factors that seem to support the increased use of health economic evaluations are well-developed frameworks for evaluations, the presence of health economic skills, and an explicit priority-setting process. Differences in how economic evaluations are used at macro, meso, and micro levels are attributed to differences in the preconditions at each level. Copyright © 2011 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

  9. Priority setting in general practice: health priorities of older patients differ from treatment priorities of their physicians.

    PubMed

    Voigt, Isabel; Wrede, Jennifer; Diederichs-Egidi, Heike; Dierks, Marie-Luise; Junius-Walker, Ulrike

    2010-12-01

    To ascertain health priorities of older patients and treatment priorities of their general practitioners (GP) on the basis of a geriatric assessment and to determine the agreement between these priorities. The study included a sample of 9 general practitioners in Hannover, Germany, and a stratified sample of 35 patients (2-5 patients per practice, 18 female, average age 77.7 years). Patients were given a geriatric assessment using the Standardized Assessment for Elderly Patients in Primary Care (STEP) to gain an overview of their health and everyday problems. On the basis of these results, patients and their physicians independently rated the importance of each problem disclosed by the assessment. Whereas patients assessed the importance for their everyday lives, physicians assessed the importance for patients' medical care and patients' everyday lives. Each patient had a mean ± standard deviation of 18 ± 9.2 health problems. Thirty five patients disclosed a total of 634 problems; 537 (85%) were rated by patients and physicians. Of these 537 problems, 332 (62%) were rated by patients and 334 (62%) by physicians as important for patients' everyday lives. In addition, 294 (55%) were rated by physicians as important for patients' medical care. Although these proportions of important problems were similar between patients and physicians, there was little overlap in the specific problems that each group considered important. The chance-corrected agreement (Cohen κ) between patients and physicians on the importance of problems for patients' lives was low (κ=0.23). Likewise, patients and physicians disagreed on the problems that physicians considered important for patients' medical care (κ=0.18, P<0.001 for each). The low agreement on health and treatment priorities between patients and physicians necessitates better communication between the two parties to strengthen mutual understanding.

  10. Setting research priorities to reduce global mortality from preterm birth and low birth weight by 2015.

    PubMed

    Bahl, Rajiv; Martines, Jose; Bhandari, Nita; Biloglav, Zrinka; Edmond, Karen; Iyengar, Sharad; Kramer, Michael; Lawn, Joy E; Manandhar, D S; Mori, Rintaro; Rasmussen, Kathleen M; Sachdev, H P S; Singhal, Nalini; Tomlinson, Mark; Victora, Cesar; Williams, Anthony F; Chan, Kit Yee; Rudan, Igor

    2012-06-01

    This paper aims to identify health research priorities that could improve the rate of progress in reducing global neonatal mortality from preterm birth and low birth weight (PB/LBW), as set out in the UN's Millennium Development Goal 4. We applied the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) methodology for setting priorities in health research investments. In the process coordinated by the World Health Organization in 2007-2008, 21 researchers with interest in child, maternal and newborn health suggested 82 research ideas that spanned across the broad spectrum of epidemiological research, health policy and systems research, improvement of existing interventions and development of new interventions. The 82 research questions were then assessed for answerability, effectiveness, deliverability, maximum potential for mortality reduction and the effect on equity using the CHNRI method. The top 10 identified research priorities were dominated by health systems and policy research questions (eg, identification of LBW infants born at home within 24-48 hours of birth for additional care; approaches to improve quality of care of LBW infants in health facilities; identification of barriers to optimal home care practices including care seeking; and approaches to increase the use of antenatal corticosteriods in preterm labor and to improve access to hospital care for LBW infants). These were followed by priorities for improvement of the existing interventions (eg, early initiation of breastfeeding, including feeding mode and techniques for those unable to suckle directly from the breast; improved cord care, such as chlorhexidine application; and alternative methods to Kangaroo Mother Care (KMC) to keep LBW infants warm in community settings). The highest-ranked epidemiological question suggested improving criteria for identifying LBW infants who need to be cared for in a hospital. Among the new interventions, the greatest support was shown for the development of

  11. Cost-effective priorities for global mammal conservation.

    PubMed

    Carwardine, Josie; Wilson, Kerrie A; Ceballos, Gerardo; Ehrlich, Paul R; Naidoo, Robin; Iwamura, Takuya; Hajkowicz, Stefan A; Possingham, Hugh P

    2008-08-12

    Global biodiversity priority setting underpins the strategic allocation of conservation funds. In identifying the first comprehensive set of global priority areas for mammals, Ceballos et al. [Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR, Soberón J, Salazar I, Fay JP (2005) Science 309:603-607] found much potential for conflict between conservation and agricultural human activity. This is not surprising because, like other global priority-setting approaches, they set priorities without socioeconomic objectives. Here we present a priority-setting framework that seeks to minimize the conflicts and opportunity costs of meeting conservation goals. We use it to derive a new set of priority areas for investment in mammal conservation based on (i) agricultural opportunity cost and biodiversity importance, (ii) current levels of international funding, and (iii) degree of threat. Our approach achieves the same biodiversity outcomes as Ceballos et al.'s while reducing the opportunity costs and conflicts with agricultural human activity by up to 50%. We uncover shortfalls in the allocation of conservation funds in many threatened priority areas, highlighting a global conservation challenge.

  12. Priority-setting, rationing and cost-effectiveness in the German health care system.

    PubMed

    Oduncu, Fuat S

    2013-08-01

    Germany has just started a public debate on priority-setting, rationing and cost-effectiveness due to the cost explosion within the German health care system. To date, the costs for German health care run at 11,6% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP, 278,3 billion €) that represents a significant increase from the 5,9 % levels present in 1970. In response, the German Parliament has enacted several major and minor legal reforms over the last three decades for the sake of cost containment and maintaining stability of the health care system. The Statutory Health Insurance--SHI (Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung--GKV) is based on the fundamental principle of solidarity and provides an ethical and legal framework for implementing equity, comprehensiveness and setting the principles and rules for financing and providing health care services and benefits. Within the SHI system, several major actors can be identified: the Federal Ministry of Health, the 16 state ministries of health, the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA), the physicians (with their associations) and the hospitals (with their organizations) on the provider side, and the sickness funds with their associations on the purchasers' side. This article reviews the structure and complexities of the German health care system with its major players and participants. The focus will be put on relevant ethical, legal and economic aspects for prioritization, rationalization, rationing and cost-effectiveness of medical benefits and services. In conclusion, this article pleads for open discussion on the challenging subject of priority-setting instead of accepting the implicit and non-transparent rationing of medical services that currently occurs at many different levels within the health care system, as it stands today.

  13. Setting research priorities for patients on or nearing dialysis.

    PubMed

    Manns, Braden; Hemmelgarn, Brenda; Lillie, Erin; Dip, Sally Crowe P G; Cyr, Annette; Gladish, Michael; Large, Claire; Silverman, Howard; Toth, Brenda; Wolfs, Wim; Laupacis, Andreas

    2014-10-07

    With increasing emphasis among health care providers and funders on patient-centered care, it follows that patients and their caregivers should be included when priorities for research are being established. This study sought to identify the most important unanswered questions about the management of kidney failure from the perspective of adult patients on or nearing dialysis, their caregivers, and the health care professionals who care for these patients. Research uncertainties were identified through a national Canadian survey of adult patients on or nearing dialysis, their caregivers, and health care professionals. Uncertainties were refined by a steering committee that included patients, caregivers, researchers, and clinicians to assemble a short-list of the top 30 uncertainties. Thirty-four people (11 patients; five caregivers; eight physicians; six nurses; and one social worker, pharmacist, physiotherapist, and dietitian each) from across Canada subsequently participated in a workshop to determine the top 10 research questions. In total, 1570 usable research uncertainties were received from 317 respondents to the survey. Among these, 259 unique uncertainties were identified; after ranking, these were reduced to a short-list of 30 uncertainties. During the in-person workshop, the top 10 research uncertainties were identified, which included questions about enhanced communication among patients and providers, dialysis modality options, itching, access to kidney transplantation, heart health, dietary restrictions, depression, and vascular access. These can be used alongside the results of other research priority-setting exercises to guide researchers in designing future studies and inform health care funders. Copyright © 2014 by the American Society of Nephrology.

  14. Setting health research priorities using the CHNRI method: IV. Key conceptual advances

    PubMed Central

    Rudan, Igor

    2016-01-01

    Introduction Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) started as an initiative of the Global Forum for Health Research in Geneva, Switzerland. Its aim was to develop a method that could assist priority setting in health research investments. The first version of the CHNRI method was published in 2007–2008. The aim of this paper was to summarize the history of the development of the CHNRI method and its key conceptual advances. Methods The guiding principle of the CHNRI method is to expose the potential of many competing health research ideas to reduce disease burden and inequities that exist in the population in a feasible and cost–effective way. Results The CHNRI method introduced three key conceptual advances that led to its increased popularity in comparison to other priority–setting methods and processes. First, it proposed a systematic approach to listing a large number of possible research ideas, using the “4D” framework (description, delivery, development and discovery research) and a well–defined “depth” of proposed research ideas (research instruments, avenues, options and questions). Second, it proposed a systematic approach for discriminating between many proposed research ideas based on a well–defined context and criteria. The five “standard” components of the context are the population of interest, the disease burden of interest, geographic limits, time scale and the preferred style of investing with respect to risk. The five “standard” criteria proposed for prioritization between research ideas are answerability, effectiveness, deliverability, maximum potential for disease burden reduction and the effect on equity. However, both the context and the criteria can be flexibly changed to meet the specific needs of each priority–setting exercise. Third, it facilitated consensus development through measuring collective optimism on each component of each research idea among a larger group of experts using a simple

  15. Identifying primary care patient safety research priorities in the UK: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership

    PubMed Central

    Stocks, Susan Jill; Alam, Rahul; Taylor, Sian; Rolfe, Carly; Glover, Steven William; Whitcombe, Joanne; Campbell, Stephen M

    2018-01-01

    Objectives To identify the top 10 unanswered research questions for primary care patient safety research. Design A modified nominal group technique. Setting UK. Participants Anyone with experience of primary care including: patients, carers and healthcare professionals. 341 patients and 86 healthcare professionals submitted questions. Main outcomes A top 10, and top 30, future research questions for primary care patient safety. Results 443 research questions were submitted by 341 patients and 86 healthcare professionals, through a national survey. After checking for relevance and rephrasing, a total of 173 questions were collated into themes. The themes were largely focused on communication, team and system working, interfaces across primary and secondary care, medication, self-management support and technology. The questions were then prioritised through a national survey, the top 30 questions were taken forward to the final prioritisation workshop. The top 10 research questions focused on the most vulnerable in society, holistic whole-person care, safer communication and coordination between care providers, work intensity, continuity of care, suicide risk, complex care at home and confidentiality. Conclusions This study was the first national prioritisation exercise to identify patient and healthcare professional priorities for primary care patient safety research. The research priorities identified a range of important gaps in the existing evidence to inform everyday practice to address primary care patient safety. PMID:29490970

  16. What Are the Top 10 Research Questions in the Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease? A Priority Setting Partnership with the James Lind Alliance.

    PubMed

    Hart, Ailsa L; Lomer, Miranda; Verjee, Azmina; Kemp, Karen; Faiz, Omar; Daly, Ann; Solomon, Julie; McLaughlin, John

    2017-02-01

    Many uncertainties remain regarding optimal therapies and strategies for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. Setting research priorities addressing therapies requires a partnership between health care professionals, patients and organisations supporting patients. We aimed to use the structure of the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership, which has been used in other disease areas, to identify and prioritise unanswered questions about treatments for inflammatory bowel disease. The James Lind Priority Setting Partnership uses methods agreed and adopted in other disease areas to work with patients and clinicians: to identify uncertainties about treatments; to agree by consensus a prioritised list of uncertainties for research; then to translate these uncertainties into research questions which are amenable to hypothesis testing; and finally to take results to research commissioning bodies to be considered for funding. A total of 1636 uncertainties were collected in the initial survey from 531 respondents, which included 22% health care professionals and 78% patients and carers. Using the rigorously applied processes of the priority setting partnership, this list was distilled down to the top 10 research priorities for inflammatory bowel disease. The top priorities were: identifying treatment strategies to optimise efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness; and stratifying patients with regard to their disease course and treatment response. Diet and symptom control [pain, incontinence and fatigue] were also topics which were prioritised. A partnership involving multidisciplinary clinicians, patients and organisations supporting patients has identified the top 10 research priorities in the treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease. © European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation 2016.

  17. Public purchasing and private priorities for healthcare in New Zealand.

    PubMed

    Howden-Chapman, P; Ashton, T

    2000-11-01

    The 1993 Health and Disability Services Act heralded a range of structural reforms in the New Zealand health care system. Despite these reforms considerable resources being spent on convincing consumers of their merits, have failed to gain widespread public approval. This paper examines two key issues that have arisen during the reform process. These are the difficulties associated with trying to set priorities in ways which are effective and politically acceptable, and the relationship between the public and private sectors. Unacknowledged conflicts of interest have helped to undermine the priority setting process. The discussion suggests that it may be increasingly difficult for any government in future to determine the allocation of resources without taking private sector interests and rising public concern into account. It remains to be seen which of these factors is more powerful.

  18. Participatory health system priority setting: Evidence from a budget experiment.

    PubMed

    Costa-Font, Joan; Forns, Joan Rovira; Sato, Azusa

    2015-12-01

    Budget experiments can provide additional guidance to health system reform requiring the identification of a subset of programs and services that accrue the highest social value to 'communities'. Such experiments simulate a realistic budget resource allocation assessment among competitive programs, and position citizens as decision makers responsible for making 'collective sacrifices'. This paper explores the use of a participatory budget experiment (with 88 participants clustered in social groups) to model public health care reform, drawing from a set of realistic scenarios for potential health care users. We measure preferences by employing a contingent ranking alongside a budget allocation exercise (termed 'willingness to assign') before and after program cost information is revealed. Evidence suggests that the budget experiment method tested is cognitively feasible and incentive compatible. The main downside is the existence of ex-ante "cost estimation" bias. Additionally, we find that participants appeared to underestimate the net social gain of redistributive programs. Relative social value estimates can serve as a guide to aid priority setting at a health system level. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

  19. Individual responsibility as ground for priority setting in shared decision-making.

    PubMed

    Sandman, Lars; Gustavsson, Erik; Munthe, Christian

    2016-10-01

    Given healthcare resource constraints, voices are being raised to hold patients responsible for their health choices. In parallel, there is a growing trend towards shared decision-making, aiming to empower patients and give them more control over healthcare decisions. More power and control over decisions is usually taken to mean more responsibility for them. The trend of shared decision-making would therefore seem to strengthen the case for invoking individual responsibility in the healthcare priority setting. To analyse whether the implementation of shared decision-making would strengthen the argument for invoking individual responsibility in the healthcare priority setting using normative analysis. Shared decision-making does not constitute an independent argument in favour of employing individual responsibility since these notions rest on different underlying values. However, if a health system employs shared decision-making, individual responsibility may be used to limit resource implications of accommodating patient preferences outside professional standards and goals. If a healthcare system employs individual responsibility, high level dynamic shared decision-making implying a joint deliberation resulting in a decision where both parties are willing to revise initial standpoints may disarm common objections to the applicability of individual responsibility by virtue of making patients more likely to exercise adequate control of their own actions. However, if communication strategies applied in the shared decision-making are misaligned to the patient's initial capacities, arguments against individual responsibility might, on the other hand, gain strength. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

  20. Setting Priorities for Space Research: Opportunities and Imperatives

    NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

    Dutton, John A.; Abelson, Philip H.; Beckwith, Steven V. W.; Bishop, William P.; Byerly, Radford, Jr.; Crowe, Lawson; Dews, Peter; Garriott, Owen K.; Lunine, Jonathan; Macauley, Molly K.

    1992-01-01

    This report represents the first phase of a study by a task group convened by the Space Studies Board to ascertain whether it should attempt to develop a methodology for recommending priorities among the various initiatives in space research (that is, scientific activities concerned with phenomena in space or utilizing observations from space). The report argues that such priority statements by the space research community are both necessary and desirable and would contribute to the formulation and implementation of public policy. The report advocates the establishment of priorities to enhance effective management of the nation's scientific research program in space. It argues that scientific objectives and purposes should determine how and under what circumstances scientific research should be done. The report does not take a position on the controversy between advocates of manned space exploration and those who favor the exclusive use of unmanned space vehicles. Nor does the report address questions about the value or appropriateness of Space Station Freedom or proposals to establish a permanent manned Moon base or to undertake a manned mission to Mars. These issues lie beyond the charge to the task group.

  1. Standard setting: the crucial issues. A case study of accounting & auditing.

    PubMed

    Nowakowski, J R

    1982-01-01

    A study of standard-setting efforts in accounting and auditing is reported. The study reveals four major areas of concern in a professional standard-setting effort: (1) issues related to the rationale for setting standards, (2) issues related to the standard-setting board and its support structure, (3) issues related to the content of standards and rules for generating them, and (4) issues that deal with how standards are put to use. Principles derived from the study of accounting and auditing are provided to illuminate and assess standard-setting efforts in evaluation.

  2. Hospitals as complex adaptive systems: A case study of factors influencing priority setting practices at the hospital level in Kenya.

    PubMed

    Barasa, Edwine W; Molyneux, Sassy; English, Mike; Cleary, Susan

    2017-02-01

    There is a dearth of literature on priority setting and resource allocation (PSRA) practices in hospitals, particularly in low and middle income countries (LMICs). Using a case study approach, we examined PSRA practices in 2 public hospitals in coastal Kenya. We collected data through a combination of in-depth interviews of national level policy makers, hospital managers, and frontline practitioners in the case study hospitals (n = 72), review of documents such as hospital plans and budgets, minutes of meetings and accounting records, and non-participant observations of PSRA practices in case study hospitals over a period of 7 months. In this paper, we apply complex adaptive system (CAS) theory to examine the factors that influence PSRA practices. We found that PSRA practices in the case hospitals were influenced by, 1) inadequate financing level and poorly designed financing arrangements, 2) limited hospital autonomy and decision space, and 3) inadequate management and leadership capacity in the hospital. The case study hospitals exhibited properties of complex adaptive systems (CASs) that exist in a dynamic state with multiple interacting agents. Weaknesses in system 'hardware' (resource scarcity) and 'software' (including PSRA guidelines that reduced hospitals decision space, and poor leadership skills) led to the emergence of undesired properties. The capacity of hospitals to set priorities should be improved across these interacting aspects of the hospital organizational system. Interventions should however recognize that hospitals are CAS. Rather than rectifying isolated aspects of the system, they should endeavor to create conditions for productive emergence. Copyright © 2016 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

  3. Setting priorities for research on pollution reduction functions of agricultural buffers.

    PubMed

    Dosskey, Michael G

    2002-11-01

    The success of buffer installation initiatives and programs to reduce nonpoint source pollution of streams on agricultural lands will depend the ability of local planners to locate and design buffers for specific circumstances with substantial and predictable results. Current predictive capabilities are inadequate, and major sources of uncertainty remain. An assessment of these uncertainties cautions that there is greater risk of overestimating buffer impact than underestimating it. Priorities for future research are proposed that will lead more quickly to major advances in predictive capabilities. Highest priority is given for work on the surface runoff filtration function, which is almost universally important to the amount of pollution reduction expected from buffer installation and for which there remain major sources of uncertainty for predicting level of impact. Foremost uncertainties surround the extent and consequences of runoff flow concentration and pollutant accumulation. Other buffer functions, including filtration of groundwater nitrate and stabilization of channel erosion sources of sediments, may be important in some regions. However, uncertainty surrounds our ability to identify and quantify the extent of site conditions where buffer installation can substantially reduce stream pollution in these ways. Deficiencies in predictive models reflect gaps in experimental information as well as technology to account for spatial heterogeneity of pollutant sources, pathways, and buffer capabilities across watersheds. Since completion of a comprehensive watershed-scale buffer model is probably far off, immediate needs call for simpler techniques to gage the probable impacts of buffer installation at local scales.

  4. Implementing accountability for reasonableness--the case of pharmaceutical reimbursement in Sweden.

    PubMed

    Jansson, Sandra

    2007-04-01

    This paper aims to describe the priority-setting procedure for new original pharmaceuticals practiced by the Swedish Pharmaceutical Benefits Board (LFN), to analyse the outcome of the procedure in terms of decisions and the relative importance of ethical principles, and to examine the reactions of stakeholders. All the 'principally important' decisions made by the LFN during its first 33 months of operation were analysed. The study is theoretically anchored in the theory of fair and legitimate priority-setting procedures by Daniels and Sabin, and is based on public documents, media articles, and semi-structured interviews. Only nine cases resulted in a rejection of a subsidy by the LFN and 15 in a limited or conditional subsidy. Total rejections rather than limitations gave rise to actions by stakeholders. Primarily, the principle of cost-effectiveness was used when limiting/conditioning or totally rejecting a subsidy. This study suggests that implementing a priority-setting process that fulfils the conditions of accountability for reasonableness can result in a priority-setting process which is generally perceived as fair and legitimate by the major stakeholders and may increase social learning in terms of accepting the necessity of priority setting in health care. The principle of cost-effectiveness increased in importance when the demand for openness and transparency increased.

  5. Use of cost-effectiveness data in priority setting decisions: experiences from the national guidelines for heart diseases in Sweden

    PubMed Central

    Eckard, Nathalie; Janzon, Magnus; Levin, Lars-Åke

    2014-01-01

    Background: The inclusion of cost-effectiveness data, as a basis for priority setting rankings, is a distinguishing feature in the formulation of the Swedish national guidelines. Guidelines are generated with the direct intent to influence health policy and support decisions about the efficient allocation of scarce healthcare resources. Certain medical conditions may be given higher priority rankings i.e. given more resources than others, depending on how serious the medical condition is. This study investigated how a decision-making group, the Priority Setting Group (PSG), used cost-effectiveness data in ranking priority setting decisions in the national guidelines for heart diseases. Methods: A qualitative case study methodology was used to explore the use of such data in ranking priority setting healthcare decisions. The study addressed availability of cost-effectiveness data, evidence understanding, interpretation difficulties, and the reliance on evidence. We were also interested in the explicit use of data in ranking decisions, especially in situations where economic arguments impacted the reasoning behind the decisions. Results: This study showed that cost-effectiveness data was an important and integrated part of the decision-making process. Involvement of a health economist and reliance on the data facilitated the use of cost-effectiveness data. Economic arguments were used both as a fine-tuning instrument and a counterweight for dichotomization. Cost-effectiveness data were used when the overall evidence base was weak and the decision-makers had trouble making decisions due to lack of clinical evidence and in times of uncertainty. Cost-effectiveness data were also used for decisions on the introduction of new expensive medical technologies. Conclusion: Cost-effectiveness data matters in decision-making processes and the results of this study could be applicable to other jurisdictions where health economics is implemented in decision-making. This study

  6. CRIMALDDI: a co-ordinated, rational, and integrated effort to set logical priorities in anti-malarial drug discovery initiatives

    PubMed Central

    2010-01-01

    Despite increasing efforts and support for anti-malarial drug R&D, globally anti-malarial drug discovery and development remains largely uncoordinated and fragmented. The current window of opportunity for large scale funding of R&D into malaria is likely to narrow in the coming decade due to a contraction in available resources caused by the current economic difficulties and new priorities (e.g. climate change). It is, therefore, essential that stakeholders are given well-articulated action plans and priorities to guide judgments on where resources can be best targeted. The CRIMALDDI Consortium (a European Union funded initiative) has been set up to develop, through a process of stakeholder and expert consultations, such priorities and recommendations to address them. It is hoped that the recommendations will help to guide the priorities of the European anti-malarial research as well as the wider global discovery agenda in the coming decade. PMID:20626844

  7. 15 CFR 700.11 - Priority ratings.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... DO-A1 or DX-A1 priority rating. A contract for a radar set will contain a DO-A7 or DX-A7 priority... 15 Commerce and Foreign Trade 2 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Priority ratings. 700.11 Section 700... DEFENSE PRIORITIES AND ALLOCATIONS SYSTEM Industrial Priorities § 700.11 Priority ratings. (a) Levels of...

  8. Setting health priorities in a community: a case example.

    PubMed

    Sousa, Fábio Alexandre Melo do Rego; Goulart, Maria José Garcia; Braga, Antonieta Manuela Dos Santos; Medeiros, Clara Maria Oliveira; Rego, Débora Cristina Martins; Vieira, Flávio Garcia; Pereira, Helder José Alves da Rocha; Tavares, Helena Margarida Correia Vicente; Loura, Marta Maria Puim

    2017-03-02

    To describe the methodology used in the process of setting health priorities for community intervention in a community of older adults. Based on the results of a health diagnosis related to active aging, a prioritization process was conceived to select the priority intervention problem. The process comprised four successive phases of problem analysis and classification: (1) grouping by level of similarity, (2) classification according to epidemiological criteria, (3) ordering by experts, and (4) application of the Hanlon method. These stages combined, in an integrated manner, the views of health team professionals, community nursing and gerontology experts, and the actual community. The first stage grouped the identified problems by level of similarity, comprising a body of 19 issues for analysis. In the second stage these problems were classified by the health team members by epidemiological criteria (size, vulnerability, and transcendence). The nine most relevant problems resulting from the second stage of the process were submitted to expert analysis and the five most pertinent problems were selected. The last step identified the priority issue for intervention in this specific community with the participation of formal and informal community leaders: Low Social Interaction in Community Participation. The prioritization process is a key step in health planning, enabling the identification of priority problems to intervene in a given community at a given time. There are no default formulas for selecting priority issues. It is up to each community intervention team to define its own process with different methods/techniques that allow the identification of and intervention in needs classified as priority by the community. Descrever a metodologia utilizada no processo de estabelecimento de prioridades em saúde para intervenção comunitária, numa comunidade idosa. Partindo dos resultados de um diagnóstico de saúde no âmbito da promoção do envelhecimento

  9. Using Economic Evidence to Set Healthcare Priorities in Low-Income and Lower-Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review of Methodological Frameworks.

    PubMed

    Wiseman, Virginia; Mitton, Craig; Doyle-Waters, Mary M; Drake, Tom; Conteh, Lesong; Newall, Anthony T; Onwujekwe, Obinna; Jan, Stephen

    2016-02-01

    Policy makers in low-income and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) are increasingly looking to develop 'evidence-based' frameworks for identifying priority health interventions. This paper synthesises and appraises the literature on methodological frameworks--which incorporate economic evaluation evidence--for the purpose of setting healthcare priorities in LMICs. A systematic search of Embase, MEDLINE, Econlit and PubMed identified 3968 articles with a further 21 articles identified through manual searching. A total of 36 papers were eligible for inclusion. These covered a wide range of health interventions with only two studies including health systems strengthening interventions related to financing, governance and human resources. A little under half of the studies (39%) included multiple criteria for priority setting, most commonly equity, feasibility and disease severity. Most studies (91%) specified a measure of 'efficiency' defined as cost per disability-adjusted life year averted. Ranking of health interventions using multi-criteria decision analysis and generalised cost-effectiveness were the most common frameworks for identifying priority health interventions. Approximately a third of studies discussed the affordability of priority interventions. Only one study identified priority areas for the release or redeployment of resources. The paper concludes by highlighting the need for local capacity to conduct evaluations (including economic analysis) and empowerment of local decision-makers to act on this evidence. © 2016 The Authors. Health Economics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

  10. Using Economic Evidence to Set Healthcare Priorities in Low‐Income and Lower‐Middle‐Income Countries: A Systematic Review of Methodological Frameworks

    PubMed Central

    Mitton, Craig; Doyle‐Waters, Mary M.; Drake, Tom; Conteh, Lesong; Newall, Anthony T.; Onwujekwe, Obinna; Jan, Stephen

    2016-01-01

    Abstract Policy makers in low‐income and lower‐middle‐income countries (LMICs) are increasingly looking to develop ‘evidence‐based’ frameworks for identifying priority health interventions. This paper synthesises and appraises the literature on methodological frameworks – which incorporate economic evaluation evidence – for the purpose of setting healthcare priorities in LMICs. A systematic search of Embase, MEDLINE, Econlit and PubMed identified 3968 articles with a further 21 articles identified through manual searching. A total of 36 papers were eligible for inclusion. These covered a wide range of health interventions with only two studies including health systems strengthening interventions related to financing, governance and human resources. A little under half of the studies (39%) included multiple criteria for priority setting, most commonly equity, feasibility and disease severity. Most studies (91%) specified a measure of ‘efficiency’ defined as cost per disability‐adjusted life year averted. Ranking of health interventions using multi‐criteria decision analysis and generalised cost‐effectiveness were the most common frameworks for identifying priority health interventions. Approximately a third of studies discussed the affordability of priority interventions. Only one study identified priority areas for the release or redeployment of resources. The paper concludes by highlighting the need for local capacity to conduct evaluations (including economic analysis) and empowerment of local decision‐makers to act on this evidence. PMID:26804361

  11. National Priority Setting of Clinical Practice Guidelines Development for Chronic Disease Management.

    PubMed

    Jo, Heui-Sug; Kim, Dong Ik; Oh, Moo-Kyung

    2015-12-01

    By November 2013, a total of 125 clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been developed in Korea. However, despite the high burden of diseases and the clinical importance of CPGs, most chronic diseases do not have available CPGs. Merely 83 CPGs are related to chronic diseases, and only 40 guidelines had been developed in the last 5 yr. Considering the rate of the production of new evidence in medicine and the worsening burden from chronic diseases, the need for developing CPGs for more chronic diseases is becoming increasingly pressing. Since 2011, the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences and the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have been jointly developing CPGs for chronic diseases. However, priorities have to be set and resources need to be allocated within the constraint of a limited funding. This study identifies the chronic diseases that should be prioritized for the development of CPGs in Korea. Through an objective assessment by using the analytic hierarchy process and a subjective assessment with a survey of expert opinion, high priorities were placed on ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular diseases, Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, osteoarthritis, neck pain, chronic kidney disease, and cirrhosis of the liver.

  12. Priority setting in public and private health care. A guide through the ideological jungle.

    PubMed

    Williams, A

    1988-06-01

    Priority setting means deciding who is to get what at whose expense. In the context of health care, the 'what' is that statement refers to different sorts of health care, and the 'who' to different sorts of people. The 'whose expense' is not so straightforward. It appears to refer to 'who will pay the bill', and in a public health care system this might seem to be the government, though behind the government stands the taxpayer, and that means all of us. Even in a private health care system it is rarely the patient who meets the bill directly, for some or all of it will be met by an insurer, and the costs of any particular treatment episode will be spread over many premium-payers. But in the context of an economic, rather than a financial, analysis the phrase 'at whose expense' has to be interpreted in a different way, based on the notion of opportunity cost, rather than on the notion of expenditure. When so reinterpreted, it means 'who is to go without' health care in order that other shall have it. Giving priority to one group of people means taking it away from another group, though for obvious reasons politicians tend not to dwell on this implication, leaving us to infer, from what is not said, who the 'low priority' groups are. In any honest and open discussion of these issues, however, that implication must be faced squarely, and we must not shrink from identifying who (implicitly) the 'low priority' people are, in any particular system of health care.

  13. The No-Destination Ship of Priority-Setting in Healthcare: A Call for More Democracy.

    PubMed

    Seixas, Brayan V

    2017-10-11

    In dealing with scarcity of resources within healthcare systems, decision-makers inevitably have to make choices about which services to fund. Setting priorities represents a challenging task that requires systematic, explicit and transparent methodologies with focus on economic efficiency. In addition, the engagement of the general public in the process of decision-making has been regarded as one of the most important aspects of the management of publicly-funded health systems in liberal democracies. In the current essay, we aim to discuss the problematics of public engagement in the process of resource allocation and priority-setting within the context of publiclyfunded health systems. Our central argument is that although there may be a conflict between democratic mechanisms of citizen participation and economic efficiency, in the extra-welfarist sense, expected for/from the system, the solution for this tension does not seem to rely on more or novel authoritative technocratic approaches, but rather on the deepening and betterment of democratic participation. © 2018 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

  14. 37 CFR 1.451 - The priority claim and priority document in an international application.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ... set forth in § 1.19(b)(1). (c) If a certified copy of the priority document is not submitted together... 37 Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights 1 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false The priority claim and priority document in an international application. 1.451 Section 1.451 Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights...

  15. Patients' self-interested preferences: empirical evidence from a priority setting experiment.

    PubMed

    Alvarez, Begoña; Rodríguez-Míguez, Eva

    2011-04-01

    This paper explores whether patients act according to self-interest in priority setting experiments. The analysis is based on a ranking experiment, conducted in Galicia (Spain), to elicit preferences regarding the prioritization of patients on a waiting list for an elective surgical intervention (prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia). Participants were patients awaiting a similar intervention and members of the general populations. All of them were asked to rank hypothetical patients on a waiting list. A rank-ordered logit was then applied to their responses in order to obtain a prioritization scoring system. Using these estimations, we first test for differences in preferences between patients and general population. Second, we implement a procedure based on the similarity between respondents (true patients) and the hypothetical scenarios they evaluate (hypothetical patients) to analyze whether patients provide self-interested rankings. Our results show that patient preferences differ significantly from general population preferences. The findings also indicate that, when patients rank the hypothetical scenarios on the waiting list, they consider not only the explicit attributes but also the similarity of each scenario to their own. In particular, they assign a higher priority to scenarios that more closely match their own states. We also find that such a preference structure increases their likelihood of reporting "irrational" answers. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

  16. Setting healthcare priorities: a description and evaluation of the budgeting and planning process in county hospitals in Kenya

    PubMed Central

    Cleary, Susan; Molyneux, Sassy; English, Mike

    2017-01-01

    Abstract This paper describes and evaluates the budgeting and planning processes in public hospitals in Kenya. We used a qualitative case study approach to examine these processes in two hospitals in Kenya. We collected data by in-depth interviews of national level policy makers, hospital managers, and frontline practitioners in the case study hospitals (n = 72), a review of documents, and non-participant observations within the hospitals over a 7 month period. We applied an evaluative framework that considers both consequentialist and proceduralist conditions as important to the quality of priority-setting processes. The budgeting and planning process in the case study hospitals was characterized by lack of alignment, inadequate role clarity and the use of informal priority-setting criteria. With regard to consequentialist conditions, the hospitals incorporated economic criteria by considering the affordability of alternatives, but rarely considered the equity of allocative decisions. In the first hospital, stakeholders were aware of - and somewhat satisfied with - the budgeting and planning process, while in the second hospital they were not. Decision making in both hospitals did not result in reallocation of resources. With regard to proceduralist conditions, the budgeting and planning process in the first hospital was more inclusive and transparent, with the stakeholders more empowered compared to the second hospital. In both hospitals, decisions were not based on evidence, implementation of decisions was poor and the community was not included. There were no mechanisms for appeals or to ensure that the proceduralist conditions were met in both hospitals. Public hospitals in Kenya could improve their budgeting and planning processes by harmonizing these processes, improving role clarity, using explicit priority-setting criteria, and by incorporating both consequentialist (efficiency, equity, stakeholder satisfaction and understanding, shifted priorities

  17. The badness of death and priorities in health.

    PubMed

    Solberg, Carl Tollef; Gamlund, Espen

    2016-04-14

    The state of the world is one with scarce medical resources where longevity is not equally distributed. Given such facts, setting priorities in health entails making difficult yet unavoidable decisions about which lives to save. The business of saving lives works on the assumption that longevity is valuable and that an early death is worse than a late death. There is a vast literature on health priorities and badness of death, separately. Surprisingly, there has been little cross-fertilisation between the academic fields of priority setting and badness of death. Our aim is to connect philosophical discussions on the badness of death to contemporary debates in health priorities. Two questions regarding death are especially relevant to health priorities. The first question is why death is bad. Death is clearly bad for others, such as family, friends and society. Many philosophers also argue that death can be bad for those who die. This distinction is important for health priorities, because it concerns our fundamental reasons for saving lives. The second question is, 'When is the worst time to die?' A premature death is commonly considered worse than a late death. Thus, the number of good life years lost seems to matter to the badness of death. Concerning young individuals, some think the death of infants is worse than the death of adolescents, while others have contrary intuitions. Our claim is that to prioritise between age groups, we must consider the question of when it is worst to die. Deprivationism provides a more plausible approach to health priorities than Epicureanism. If Deprivationism is accepted, we will have a firmer basis for claiming that individuals, in addition to having a health loss caused by morbidity, will have a loss of good life years due to mortality. Additionally, Deprivationism highlights the importance of age and values for health priorities. Regarding age, both variants of Deprivationism imply that stillbirths are included in the Global

  18. An approach for setting evidence-based and stakeholder-informed research priorities in low- and middle-income countries.

    PubMed

    Rehfuess, Eva A; Durão, Solange; Kyamanywa, Patrick; Meerpohl, Joerg J; Young, Taryn; Rohwer, Anke

    2016-04-01

    To derive evidence-based and stakeholder-informed research priorities for implementation in African settings, the international research consortium Collaboration for Evidence-Based Healthcare and Public Health in Africa (CEBHA+) developed and applied a pragmatic approach. First, an online survey and face-to-face consultation between CEBHA+ partners and policy-makers generated priority research areas. Second, evidence maps for these priority research areas identified gaps and related priority research questions. Finally, study protocols were developed for inclusion within a grant proposal. Policy and practice representatives were involved throughout the process. Tuberculosis, diabetes, hypertension and road traffic injuries were selected as priority research areas. Evidence maps covered screening and models of care for diabetes and hypertension, population-level prevention of diabetes and hypertension and their risk factors, and prevention and management of road traffic injuries. Analysis of these maps yielded three priority research questions on hypertension and diabetes and one on road traffic injuries. The four resulting study protocols employ a broad range of primary and secondary research methods; a fifth promotes an integrated methodological approach across all research activities. The CEBHA+ approach, in particular evidence mapping, helped to formulate research questions and study protocols that would be owned by African partners, fill gaps in the evidence base, address policy and practice needs and be feasible given the existing research infrastructure and expertise. The consortium believes that the continuous involvement of decision-makers throughout the research process is an important means of ensuring that studies are relevant to the African context and that findings are rapidly implemented.

  19. Evidence-informed capacity building for setting health priorities in low- and middle-income countries: A framework and recommendations for further research.

    PubMed

    Li, Ryan; Ruiz, Francis; Culyer, Anthony J; Chalkidou, Kalipso; Hofman, Karen J

    2017-01-01

    Priority-setting in health is risky and challenging, particularly in resource-constrained settings. It is not simply a narrow technical exercise, and involves the mobilisation of a wide range of capacities among stakeholders - not only the technical capacity to "do" research in economic evaluations. Using the Individuals, Nodes, Networks and Environment (INNE) framework, we identify those stakeholders, whose capacity needs will vary along the evidence-to-policy continuum. Policymakers and healthcare managers require the capacity to commission and use relevant evidence (including evidence of clinical and cost-effectiveness, and of social values); academics need to understand and respond to decision-makers' needs to produce relevant research. The health system at all levels will need institutional capacity building to incentivise routine generation and use of evidence. Knowledge brokers, including priority-setting agencies (such as England's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and Health Interventions and Technology Assessment Program, Thailand) and the media can play an important role in facilitating engagement and knowledge transfer between the various actors. Especially at the outset but at every step, it is critical that patients and the public understand that trade-offs are inherent in priority-setting, and careful efforts should be made to engage them, and to hear their views throughout the process. There is thus no single approach to capacity building; rather a spectrum of activities that recognises the roles and skills of all stakeholders. A range of methods, including formal and informal training, networking and engagement, and support through collaboration on projects, should be flexibly employed (and tailored to specific needs of each country) to support institutionalisation of evidence-informed priority-setting. Finally, capacity building should be a two-way process; those who build capacity should also attend to their own capacity

  20. Evidence-informed capacity building for setting health priorities in low- and middle-income countries: A framework and recommendations for further research

    PubMed Central

    Li, Ryan; Ruiz, Francis; Culyer, Anthony J; Chalkidou, Kalipso; Hofman, Karen J

    2017-01-01

    Priority-setting in health is risky and challenging, particularly in resource-constrained settings. It is not simply a narrow technical exercise, and involves the mobilisation of a wide range of capacities among stakeholders – not only the technical capacity to “do” research in economic evaluations. Using the Individuals, Nodes, Networks and Environment (INNE) framework, we identify those stakeholders, whose capacity needs will vary along the evidence-to-policy continuum. Policymakers and healthcare managers require the capacity to commission and use relevant evidence (including evidence of clinical and cost-effectiveness, and of social values); academics need to understand and respond to decision-makers’ needs to produce relevant research. The health system at all levels will need institutional capacity building to incentivise routine generation and use of evidence. Knowledge brokers, including priority-setting agencies (such as England’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and Health Interventions and Technology Assessment Program, Thailand) and the media can play an important role in facilitating engagement and knowledge transfer between the various actors. Especially at the outset but at every step, it is critical that patients and the public understand that trade-offs are inherent in priority-setting, and careful efforts should be made to engage them, and to hear their views throughout the process. There is thus no single approach to capacity building; rather a spectrum of activities that recognises the roles and skills of all stakeholders. A range of methods, including formal and informal training, networking and engagement, and support through collaboration on projects, should be flexibly employed (and tailored to specific needs of each country) to support institutionalisation of evidence-informed priority-setting. Finally, capacity building should be a two-way process; those who build capacity should also attend to their own

  1. 49 CFR 554.7 - Investigation priorities.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... Investigation priorities. (a) Compliance investigation priorities are reviewed annually and are set according to... 49 Transportation 6 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Investigation priorities. 554.7 Section 554.7 Transportation Other Regulations Relating to Transportation (Continued) NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY...

  2. Developing risk-based priorities for reducing air pollution in urban settings in Ukraine.

    PubMed

    Brody, Michael; Caldwell, Jane; Golub, Alexander

    2007-02-01

    Ukraine, when part of the former Soviet Union, was responsible for about 25% of its overall industrial production. This aging industrial infrastructure continues to emit enormous volumes of air and water pollution and wastes. The National Report on the State of Environment in Ukraine 1999 (Ukraine Ministry of Environmental Protection [MEP], 2000) shows significant air pollution. There are numerous emissions that have been associated with developmental effects, chronic long-term health effects, and cancer. Ukraine also has been identified as a major source of transboundary air pollution for the eastern Mediterranean region. Ukraine's Environment Ministry is not currently able to strategically target high-priority emissions and lacks the resources to address all these problems. For these reasons, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency set up a partnership with Ukraine's Ministry of Environmental Protection to strengthen its capacity to set environmental priorities through the use of comparative environmental risk assessment and economic analysis--the Capacity Building Project. The project is also addressing improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of the use of its National Environmental Protection Fund. The project consists of a series of workshops with Ukrainian MEP officials in comparative risk assessment of air pollutant emissions in several heavily industrialized oblasts; cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis; and environmental finance. Pilot risk assessment analyses have been completed. At the end of the Capacity Building Project it is expected that the use of the National Environmental Protection fund and the regional level oblast environmental protection funds will begin to target and identify the highest health and environmental risk emissions.

  3. Setting health research priorities using the CHNRI method: VII. A review of the first 50 applications of the CHNRI method.

    PubMed

    Rudan, Igor; Yoshida, Sachiyo; Chan, Kit Yee; Sridhar, Devi; Wazny, Kerri; Nair, Harish; Sheikh, Aziz; Tomlinson, Mark; Lawn, Joy E; Bhutta, Zulfiqar A; Bahl, Rajiv; Chopra, Mickey; Campbell, Harry; El Arifeen, Shams; Black, Robert E; Cousens, Simon

    2017-06-01

    Several recent reviews of the methods used to set research priorities have identified the CHNRI method (acronym derived from the "Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative") as an approach that clearly became popular and widely used over the past decade. In this paper we review the first 50 examples of application of the CHNRI method, published between 2007 and 2016, and summarize the most important messages that emerged from those experiences. We conducted a literature review to identify the first 50 examples of application of the CHNRI method in chronological order. We searched Google Scholar, PubMed and so-called grey literature. Initially, between 2007 and 2011, the CHNRI method was mainly used for setting research priorities to address global child health issues, although the first cases of application outside this field (eg, mental health, disabilities and zoonoses) were also recorded. Since 2012 the CHNRI method was used more widely, expanding into the topics such as adolescent health, dementia, national health policy and education. The majority of the exercises were focused on issues that were only relevant to low- and middle-income countries, and national-level applications are on the rise. The first CHNRI-based articles adhered to the five recommended priority-setting criteria, but by 2016 more than two-thirds of all conducted exercises departed from recommendations, modifying the CHNRI method to suit each particular exercise. This was done not only by changing the number of criteria used, but also by introducing some entirely new criteria (eg, "low cost", "sustainability", "acceptability", "feasibility", "relevance" and others). The popularity of the CHNRI method in setting health research priorities can be attributed to several key conceptual advances that have addressed common concerns. The method is systematic in nature, offering an acceptable framework for handling many research questions. It is also transparent and replicable, because it

  4. Players' perceptions of accountability factors in secondary school sports settings.

    PubMed

    Hastie, P A

    1993-06-01

    The purpose of this study was to gauge the extent to which students believed that the accountability strategies employed by their coaches had significant effects on their involvement in sports training sessions. Questionnaire data from 235 secondary school athletes were analyzed using linear structural relations to test a model of accountability hypothesized as operating in these coaching settings. The accountability strategy of active instruction was found to be a variable that significantly affected the students' valuing of their coaches as well as their task involvement. However, the rewards/consequences variable was not found to be a predictor of valuing or task involvement, suggesting that these athletes seemed more task oriented than reliant on external sanctions. The results of this study can only be generalized to team sport settings. Detailed examination needs to be made of the processes through which accountability factors operate for other contexts, including individual sports and competitive levels. Further research could also be undertaken into gender differences, especially in relation to the gender of coaches.

  5. Setting healthcare priorities: a description and evaluation of the budgeting and planning process in county hospitals in Kenya.

    PubMed

    Barasa, Edwine W; Cleary, Susan; Molyneux, Sassy; English, Mike

    2017-04-01

    This paper describes and evaluates the budgeting and planning processes in public hospitals in Kenya. We used a qualitative case study approach to examine these processes in two hospitals in Kenya. We collected data by in-depth interviews of national level policy makers, hospital managers, and frontline practitioners in the case study hospitals (n = 72), a review of documents, and non-participant observations within the hospitals over a 7 month period. We applied an evaluative framework that considers both consequentialist and proceduralist conditions as important to the quality of priority-setting processes. The budgeting and planning process in the case study hospitals was characterized by lack of alignment, inadequate role clarity and the use of informal priority-setting criteria. With regard to consequentialist conditions, the hospitals incorporated economic criteria by considering the affordability of alternatives, but rarely considered the equity of allocative decisions. In the first hospital, stakeholders were aware of - and somewhat satisfied with - the budgeting and planning process, while in the second hospital they were not. Decision making in both hospitals did not result in reallocation of resources. With regard to proceduralist conditions, the budgeting and planning process in the first hospital was more inclusive and transparent, with the stakeholders more empowered compared to the second hospital. In both hospitals, decisions were not based on evidence, implementation of decisions was poor and the community was not included. There were no mechanisms for appeals or to ensure that the proceduralist conditions were met in both hospitals. Public hospitals in Kenya could improve their budgeting and planning processes by harmonizing these processes, improving role clarity, using explicit priority-setting criteria, and by incorporating both consequentialist (efficiency, equity, stakeholder satisfaction and understanding, shifted priorities

  6. Setting and changing feature priorities in visual short-term memory.

    PubMed

    Kalogeropoulou, Zampeta; Jagadeesh, Akshay V; Ohl, Sven; Rolfs, Martin

    2017-04-01

    Many everyday tasks require prioritizing some visual features over competing ones, both during the selection from the rich sensory input and while maintaining information in visual short-term memory (VSTM). Here, we show that observers can change priorities in VSTM when, initially, they attended to a different feature. Observers reported from memory the orientation of one of two spatially interspersed groups of black and white gratings. Using colored pre-cues (presented before stimulus onset) and retro-cues (presented after stimulus offset) predicting the to-be-reported group, we manipulated observers' feature priorities independently during stimulus encoding and maintenance, respectively. Valid pre-cues reliably increased observers' performance (reduced guessing, increased report precision) as compared to neutral ones; invalid pre-cues had the opposite effect. Valid retro-cues also consistently improved performance (by reducing random guesses), even if the unexpected group suddenly became relevant (invalid-valid condition). Thus, feature-based attention can reshape priorities in VSTM protecting information that would otherwise be forgotten.

  7. Habitat evaluation of wild Amur tiger (Panthera tigris altaica) and conservation priority setting in north-eastern China.

    PubMed

    Xiaofeng, Luan; Yi, Qu; Diqiang, Li; Shirong, Liu; Xiulei, Wang; Bo, Wu; Chunquan, Zhu

    2011-01-01

    The Amur Tiger (Panthera tigris altaica) is one of the world's most endangered species. Recently, habitat fragmentation, food scarcity and human hunting have drastically reduced the population size and distribution areas of Amur tigers in the wild, leaving them on the verge of extinction. Presently, they are only found in the north-eastern part of China. In this study, we developed a reference framework using methods and technologies of analytic hierarchy process (AHP), remote sensing (RS), geographic information system (GIS), GAP analysis and Natural Break (Jenks) classification to evaluate the habitat and to set the conservation priorities for Amur tigers in eastern areas of Heilongjiang and Jilin Provinces of northeast China. We proposed a Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) incorporating 7 factors covering natural conditions and human disturbance. Based on the HSI values, the suitability was classified into five levels from the most to not suitable. Finally, according to results of GAP analysis, we identified six conservation priorities and designed a conservation landscape incorporating four new nature reserves, enlarging two existing ones, and creating four linkages for Amur tigers in northeast China. The case study showed that the core habitats (the most suitable and highly suitable habitats) identified for Amur tigers covered 35,547 km(2), accounting for approximately 26.71% of the total study area (1,33,093 km(2)). However, existing nature reserves protected only (7124 km(2) or) 20.04% of the identified core habitats. Thus, enlargement of current reserves is necessary and urgent for the tiger's conservation and restoration. Moreover, the establishment of wildlife corridors linking core habitats will provide an efficient reserve network for tiger conservation to maintain the evolutionary potential of Amur tigers facing environmental changes. Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

  8. Use of demand for and spatial flow of ecosystem services to identify priority areas.

    PubMed

    Verhagen, Willem; Kukkala, Aija S; Moilanen, Atte; van Teeffelen, Astrid J A; Verburg, Peter H

    2017-08-01

    Policies and research increasingly focus on the protection of ecosystem services (ESs) through priority-area conservation. Priority areas for ESs should be identified based on ES capacity and ES demand and account for the connections between areas of ES capacity and demand (flow) resulting in areas of unique demand-supply connections (flow zones). We tested ways to account for ES demand and flow zones to identify priority areas in the European Union. We mapped the capacity and demand of a global (carbon sequestration), a regional (flood regulation), and 3 local ESs (air quality, pollination, and urban leisure). We used Zonation software to identify priority areas for ESs based on 6 tests: with and without accounting for ES demand and 4 tests that accounted for the effect of ES flow zone. There was only 37.1% overlap between the 25% of priority areas that encompassed the most ESs with and without accounting for ES demand. The level of ESs maintained in the priority areas increased from 23.2% to 57.9% after accounting for ES demand, especially for ESs with a small flow zone. Accounting for flow zone had a small effect on the location of priority areas and level of ESs maintained but resulted in fewer flow zones without ES maintained relative to ignoring flow zones. Accounting for demand and flow zones enhanced representation and distribution of ESs with local to regional flow zones without large trade-offs relative to the global ES. We found that ignoring ES demand led to the identification of priority areas in remote regions where benefits from ES capacity to society were small. Incorporating ESs in conservation planning should therefore always account for ES demand to identify an effective priority network for ESs. © 2016 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology.

  9. Setting numerical population objectives for priority landbird species

    Treesearch

    Kenneth V. Rosenberg; Peter J. Blancher

    2005-01-01

    Following the example of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, deriving numerical population estimates and conservation targets for priority landbird species is considered a desirable, if not necessary, element of the Partners in Flight planning process. Methodology for deriving such estimates remains in its infancy, however, and the use of numerical population...

  10. Research priority setting for integrated early child development and violence prevention (ECD+) in low and middle income countries: An expert opinion exercise.

    PubMed

    Tomlinson, Mark; Jordans, Mark; MacMillan, Harriet; Betancourt, Theresa; Hunt, Xanthe; Mikton, Christopher

    2017-10-01

    Child development in low and middle income countries (LMIC) is compromised by multiple risk factors. Reducing children's exposure to harmful events is essential for early childhood development (ECD). In particular, preventing violence against children - a highly prevalent risk factor that negatively affects optimal child development - should be an intervention priority. We used the Child Health and Nutrition Initiative (CHNRI) method for the setting of research priorities in integrated Early Childhood Development and violence prevention programs (ECD+). An expert group was identified and invited to systematically list and score research questions. A total of 186 stakeholders were asked to contribute five research questions each, and contributions were received from 81 respondents. These were subsequently evaluated using a set of five criteria: answerability; effectiveness; feasibility and/or affordability; applicability and impact; and equity. Of the 400 questions generated, a composite group of 50 were scored by 55 respondents. The highest scoring research questions related to the training of Community Health Workers (CHW's) to deliver ECD+ interventions effectively and whether ECD+ interventions could be integrated within existing delivery platforms such as HIV, nutrition or mental health platforms. The priority research questions can direct new research initiatives, mainly in focusing on the effectiveness of an ECD+ approach, as well as on service delivery questions. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic exercise of its kind in the field of ECD+. The findings from this research priority setting exercise can help guide donors and other development actors towards funding priorities for important future research related to ECD and violence prevention. Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

  11. Guidance on priority setting in health care (GPS-Health): the inclusion of equity criteria not captured by cost-effectiveness analysis.

    PubMed

    Norheim, Ole F; Baltussen, Rob; Johri, Mira; Chisholm, Dan; Nord, Erik; Brock, DanW; Carlsson, Per; Cookson, Richard; Daniels, Norman; Danis, Marion; Fleurbaey, Marc; Johansson, Kjell A; Kapiriri, Lydia; Littlejohns, Peter; Mbeeli, Thomas; Rao, Krishna D; Edejer, Tessa Tan-Torres; Wikler, Dan

    2014-01-01

    This Guidance for Priority Setting in Health Care (GPS-Health), initiated by the World Health Organization, offers a comprehensive map of equity criteria that are relevant to health care priority setting and should be considered in addition to cost-effectiveness analysis. The guidance, in the form of a checklist, is especially targeted at decision makers who set priorities at national and sub-national levels, and those who interpret findings from cost-effectiveness analysis. It is also targeted at researchers conducting cost-effectiveness analysis to improve reporting of their results in the light of these other criteria. THE GUIDANCE WAS DEVELOP THROUGH A SERIES OF EXPERT CONSULTATION MEETINGS AND INVOLVED THREE STEPS: i) methods and normative concepts were identified through a systematic review; ii) the review findings were critically assessed in the expert consultation meetings which resulted in a draft checklist of normative criteria; iii) the checklist was validated though an extensive hearing process with input from a range of relevant stakeholders. The GPS-Health incorporates criteria related to the disease an intervention targets (severity of disease, capacity to benefit, and past health loss); characteristics of social groups an intervention targets (socioeconomic status, area of living, gender; race, ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation); and non-health consequences of an intervention (financial protection, economic productivity, and care for others).

  12. Effective stakeholder participation in setting research priorities using a Global Evidence Mapping approach.

    PubMed

    Clavisi, Ornella; Bragge, Peter; Tavender, Emma; Turner, Tari; Gruen, Russell L

    2013-05-01

    We present a multistep process for identifying priority research areas in rehabilitation and long-term care of traumatic brain-injured (TBI) patients. In particular, we aimed to (1) identify which stakeholders should be involved; (2) identify what methods are appropriate; (3) examine different criteria for the generation of research priority areas; and (4) test the feasibility of linkage and exchange among researchers, decision makers, and other potential users of the research. Potential research questions were identified and developed using an initial scoping meeting and preliminary literature search, followed by a facilitated mapping workshop and an online survey. Identified research questions were then prioritized against specific criteria (clinical importance, novelty, and controversy). Existing evidence was then mapped to the high-priority questions using usual processes for search, screening, and selection. A broad range of stakeholders were then brought together at a forum to identify priority research themes for future research investment. Using clinical and research leaders, smaller targeted planning workshops prioritized specific research projects for each of the identified themes. Twenty-six specific questions about TBI rehabilitation were generated, 14 of which were high priority. No one method identified all high-priority questions. Methods that relied solely on the views of clinicians and researchers identified fewer high-priority questions compared with methods that used broader stakeholder engagement. Evidence maps of these high-priority questions yielded a number of evidence gaps. Priority questions and evidence maps were then used to inform a research forum, which identified 12 priority themes for future research. Our research demonstrates the value of a multistep and multimethod process involving many different types of stakeholders for prioritizing research to improve the rehabilitation outcomes of people who have suffered TBI. Enhancing

  13. Global Conservation Priorities for Marine Turtles

    PubMed Central

    Wallace, Bryan P.; DiMatteo, Andrew D.; Bolten, Alan B.; Chaloupka, Milani Y.; Hutchinson, Brian J.; Abreu-Grobois, F. Alberto; Mortimer, Jeanne A.; Seminoff, Jeffrey A.; Amorocho, Diego; Bjorndal, Karen A.; Bourjea, Jérôme; Bowen, Brian W.; Briseño Dueñas, Raquel; Casale, Paolo; Choudhury, B. C.; Costa, Alice; Dutton, Peter H.; Fallabrino, Alejandro; Finkbeiner, Elena M.; Girard, Alexandre; Girondot, Marc; Hamann, Mark; Hurley, Brendan J.; López-Mendilaharsu, Milagros; Marcovaldi, Maria Angela; Musick, John A.; Nel, Ronel; Pilcher, Nicolas J.; Troëng, Sebastian; Witherington, Blair; Mast, Roderic B.

    2011-01-01

    Where conservation resources are limited and conservation targets are diverse, robust yet flexible priority-setting frameworks are vital. Priority-setting is especially important for geographically widespread species with distinct populations subject to multiple threats that operate on different spatial and temporal scales. Marine turtles are widely distributed and exhibit intra-specific variations in population sizes and trends, as well as reproduction and morphology. However, current global extinction risk assessment frameworks do not assess conservation status of spatially and biologically distinct marine turtle Regional Management Units (RMUs), and thus do not capture variations in population trends, impacts of threats, or necessary conservation actions across individual populations. To address this issue, we developed a new assessment framework that allowed us to evaluate, compare and organize marine turtle RMUs according to status and threats criteria. Because conservation priorities can vary widely (i.e. from avoiding imminent extinction to maintaining long-term monitoring efforts) we developed a “conservation priorities portfolio” system using categories of paired risk and threats scores for all RMUs (n = 58). We performed these assessments and rankings globally, by species, by ocean basin, and by recognized geopolitical bodies to identify patterns in risk, threats, and data gaps at different scales. This process resulted in characterization of risk and threats to all marine turtle RMUs, including identification of the world's 11 most endangered marine turtle RMUs based on highest risk and threats scores. This system also highlighted important gaps in available information that is crucial for accurate conservation assessments. Overall, this priority-setting framework can provide guidance for research and conservation priorities at multiple relevant scales, and should serve as a model for conservation status assessments and priority-setting for

  14. Setting priorities for research in medical nutrition education: an international approach.

    PubMed

    Ball, Lauren; Barnes, Katelyn; Laur, Celia; Crowley, Jennifer; Ray, Sumantra

    2016-12-14

    To identify the research priorities for medical nutrition education worldwide. A 5-step stakeholder engagement process based on methodological guidelines for identifying research priorities in health. 277 individuals were identified as representatives for 30 different stakeholder organisations across 86 countries. The stakeholder organisations represented the views of medical educators, medical students, doctors, patients and researchers in medical education. Each stakeholder representative was asked to provide up to three research questions that should be deemed as a priority for medical nutrition education. Research questions were critically appraised for answerability, sustainability, effectiveness, potential for translation and potential to impact on disease burden. A blinded scoring system was used to rank the appraised questions, with higher scores indicating higher priority (range of scores possible 36-108). 37 submissions were received, of which 25 were unique research questions. Submitted questions received a range of scores from 62 to 106 points. The highest scoring questions focused on (1) increasing the confidence of medical students and doctors in providing nutrition care to patients, (2) clarifying the essential nutrition skills doctors should acquire, (3) understanding the effectiveness of doctors at influencing dietary behaviours and (4) improving medical students' attitudes towards the importance of nutrition. These research questions can be used to ensure future projects in medical nutrition education directly align with the needs and preferences of research stakeholders. Funders should consider these priorities in their commissioning of research. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.

  15. The role of outputs and outcomes in purchaser accountability: reflecting on New Zealand experiences.

    PubMed

    Cumming, J; Scott, C D

    1998-10-01

    Recent reforms in a number of countries' health systems have led to the separation of funder, purchaser and provider roles and the strengthening of funders' and purchasers' positions relative to providers. One of the aims of such reforms is to improve accountability. This paper reports on experiences in New Zealand where, in addition to improving the accountability of providers, purchaser accountability has also been a key policy issue. Attempts have been made in New Zealand to develop a funder-purchaser accountability framework based on a mix of outcomes, outputs and inputs. This paper discusses the roles that each might play in contracts and accountability relationships between funders and purchasers. The paper concludes that holding purchasers accountable for outcomes is likely to prove difficult and controversial, because of problems of attribution and because New Zealand funders in recent years have played an important role in determining the priority outputs and inputs which must be purchased. The paper suggests that accountability is more appropriate at the output and process level, in addition to holding purchasers accountable for the ways in which they make decisions and undertake contracting roles. Holding purchasers accountable for purchasing outputs and processes, however, requires greater commitment on the part of the funder to setting priorities more clearly; specifying the range and level of outputs to be purchased and the terms of access to those services; and funding services to this level. The international attention currently being paid to the development of practice guidelines and priority criteria also suggests that holding purchasers accountable for a form of inputs may become an increasingly common practice in future. From 1 July 1998, New Zealand will introduce a priority criteria system for determining access to elective surgery; accountability is thus becoming focused on inputs in the form of patient characteristics. This approach will

  16. Identifying trial recruitment uncertainties using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership - the PRioRiTy (Prioritising Recruitment in Randomised Trials) study.

    PubMed

    Healy, Patricia; Galvin, Sandra; Williamson, Paula R; Treweek, Shaun; Whiting, Caroline; Maeso, Beccy; Bray, Christopher; Brocklehurst, Peter; Moloney, Mary Clarke; Douiri, Abdel; Gamble, Carrol; Gardner, Heidi R; Mitchell, Derick; Stewart, Derek; Jordan, Joan; O'Donnell, Martin; Clarke, Mike; Pavitt, Sue H; Guegan, Eleanor Woodford; Blatch-Jones, Amanda; Smith, Valerie; Reay, Hannah; Devane, Declan

    2018-03-01

    Despite the problem of inadequate recruitment to randomised trials, there is little evidence to guide researchers on decisions about how people are effectively recruited to take part in trials. The PRioRiTy study aimed to identify and prioritise important unanswered trial recruitment questions for research. The PRioRiTy study - Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) included members of the public approached to take part in a randomised trial or who have represented participants on randomised trial steering committees, health professionals and research staff with experience of recruiting to randomised trials, people who have designed, conducted, analysed or reported on randomised trials and people with experience of randomised trials methodology. This partnership was aided by the James Lind Alliance and involved eight stages: (i) identifying a unique, relevant prioritisation area within trial methodology; (ii) establishing a steering group (iii) identifying and engaging with partners and stakeholders; (iv) formulating an initial list of uncertainties; (v) collating the uncertainties into research questions; (vi) confirming that the questions for research are a current recruitment challenge; (vii) shortlisting questions and (viii) final prioritisation through a face-to-face workshop. A total of 790 survey respondents yielded 1693 open-text answers to 6 questions, from which 1880 potential questions for research were identified. After merging duplicates, the number of questions was reduced to 496. Questions were combined further, and those that were submitted by fewer than 15 people and/or fewer than 6 of the 7 stakeholder groups were excluded from the next round of prioritisation resulting in 31 unique questions for research. All 31 questions were confirmed as being unanswered after checking relevant, up-to-date research evidence. The 10 highest priority questions were ranked at a face-to-face workshop. The number 1 ranked question was "How can randomised trials become

  17. Implementing accountability for reasonableness framework at district level in Tanzania: a realist evaluation.

    PubMed

    Maluka, Stephen; Kamuzora, Peter; Sansebastián, Miguel; Byskov, Jens; Ndawi, Benedict; Olsen, Øystein E; Hurtig, Anna-Karin

    2011-02-10

    Despite the growing importance of the Accountability for Reasonableness (A4R) framework in priority setting worldwide, there is still an inadequate understanding of the processes and mechanisms underlying its influence on legitimacy and fairness, as conceived and reflected in service management processes and outcomes. As a result, the ability to draw scientifically sound lessons for the application of the framework to services and interventions is limited. This paper evaluates the experiences of implementing the A4R approach in Mbarali District, Tanzania, in order to find out how the innovation was shaped, enabled, and constrained by the interaction between contexts, mechanisms and outcomes. This study draws on the principles of realist evaluation -- a largely qualitative approach, chiefly concerned with testing and refining programme theories by exploring the complex interactions of contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes. Mixed methods were used in data collection, including individual interviews, non-participant observation, and document reviews. A thematic framework approach was adopted for the data analysis. The study found that while the A4R approach to priority setting was helpful in strengthening transparency, accountability, stakeholder engagement, and fairness, the efforts at integrating it into the current district health system were challenging. Participatory structures under the decentralisation framework, central government's call for partnership in district-level planning and priority setting, perceived needs of stakeholders, as well as active engagement between researchers and decision makers all facilitated the adoption and implementation of the innovation. In contrast, however, limited local autonomy, low level of public awareness, unreliable and untimely funding, inadequate accountability mechanisms, and limited local resources were the major contextual factors that hampered the full implementation. This study documents an important first step in the

  18. A Mathematical Analysis of Air Traffic Priority Rules

    NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

    Nakawicz, Anthony J.; Munoz, Cesar A.; Maddalon, Jeffrey M.

    2012-01-01

    This paper analyzes priority rules, such as those in Part 91.113 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. Such rules determine which of two aircraft should maneuver in a given conflict scenario. While the rules in 91.113 are well accepted, other concepts of operation for NextGen, such as self separation, may allow for different priority rules. A mathematical framework is presented that can be used to analyze a general set of priority rules and enables proofs of important properties. Specific properties considered in this paper include safety, effectiveness, and stability. A set of rules is said to be safe if it ensures that it is never the case that both aircraft have priority. They are effective if exactly one aircraft has priority in every situation. Finally, a set of rules is called stable if it produces compatible results even under small changes to input data.

  19. Positioning of Emotional Intelligence Skills within the Overall Skillset of Practice-Based Accountants: Employer and Graduate Requirements

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Coady, Peggy; Byrne, Seán; Casey, John

    2018-01-01

    This paper presents evidence of employer and graduate attitudes on the skill set requirements for professional accountants, and whether university accounting programs develop these skills, and in particular emotional intelligence (EI) skills. We use priority indices and strategic mapping to evaluate the positioning of 31 skills. This analysis…

  20. Diseases of livestock in the Pacific Islands region: setting priorities for food animal biosecurity.

    PubMed

    Brioudes, Aurélie; Warner, Jeffrey; Hedlefs, Robert; Gummow, Bruce

    2015-03-01

    Most Pacific Island countries and territories (PICTs) have developing economies and face a critical shortage of veterinarians with limited financial resources allocated to their animal disease surveillance programmes. Thus, animal health authorities have to set priorities for better focusing their scarce resources. The main objective of this study was to identify animal diseases perceived to be of importance by decision makers within selected PICTs, at the regional and national levels, to ensure better targeting of animal health resources. A second objective was to investigate whether the targeted surveillance programmes resulting from this rationalized approach would also benefit the local communities engaged in livestock production. A multi-criteria prioritization process was developed, involving local experts, to score and rank 132 animal diseases based on their priority at the regional and national levels for four PICTs: Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu, which form part of a regional Food Animal Biosecurity Network. In parallel interviews with farmers and field animal health and production workers were conducted to assess their perception of animal diseases. The list of the top-twenty ranked diseases for the Pacific Islands region shows a mix of endemic zoonotic diseases (such as leptospirosis ranked first; brucellosis third; tuberculosis sixth; and endoparasites and ectoparasites, respectively eleventh and thirteenth) with exotic diseases (such as HPAI ranked second, FMD fifth, and rabies ninth). There were different disease ranking lists for each of the four targeted PICTs, confirming different strategies of disease prevention and control may be required for each country, rather than a regional approach. Interviewed animal health and production workers were unfamiliar with most of the prioritized diseases and a majority acknowledged that they would not be able to recognize clinical signs if outbreaks were to occur in their area

  1. Creating a Research Agenda and Setting Research Priorities for Clinical Nurse Specialists.

    PubMed

    Foster, Jan; Bautista, Cynthia; Ellstrom, Kathleen; Kalowes, Peggy; Manning, Jennifer; Pasek, Tracy Ann

    The purpose of this article is to describe the evolution and results of the process for establishing a research agenda and identification of research priorities for clinical nurse specialists, approved by the National Association of Clinical Nurse Specialists (NACNS) membership and sanctioned by the NACNS Board of Directors. Development of the research agenda and identification of the priorities were an iterative process and involved a review of the literature; input from multiple stakeholders, including individuals with expertise in conducting research serving as task force members, and NACNS members; and feedback from national board members. A research agenda, which is to provide an enduring research platform, was established and research priorities, which are to be applied in the immediate future, were identified as a result of this process. Development of a research agenda and identification of research priorities are a key method of fulfilling the mission and goals of NACNS. The process and outcomes are described in this article.

  2. 40 CFR 300.317 - National response priorities.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ... from additional discharges. (e) The priorities set forth in this section are broad in nature, and... 40 Protection of Environment 27 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false National response priorities. 300.317... PLAN Operational Response Phases for Oil Removal § 300.317 National response priorities. (a) Safety of...

  3. Understanding what matters: An exploratory study to investigate the views of the general public for priority setting criteria in health care.

    PubMed

    Ratcliffe, Julie; Lancsar, Emily; Walker, Ruth; Gu, Yuanyuan

    2017-06-01

    Health care policy makers internationally are increasingly expressing commitment to consultation with, and incorporation of, the views of the general public into the formulation of health policy and the process of setting health care priorities. In practice, however, there are relatively few opportunities for the general public to be involved in health care decision-making. In making resource allocation decisions, funders, tasked with managing scarce health care resources, are often faced with difficult decisions in balancing efficiency with equity considerations. A mixed methods (qualitative and quantitative) approach incorporating focus group discussions and a ranking exercise was utilised to develop a comprehensive list of potential criteria for setting priorities in health care formulated from the perspective of members of the general public in Australia. A strong level of congruence was found in terms of the rankings of the key criteria with the size of the health gain, clinical effectiveness, and the ability to provide quality of life improvements identified consistently as the three most important criteria for prioritising the funding of an intervention. Findings from this study will be incorporated into a novel DCE framework to explore how decision makers and members of the general public prioritize and trade off different types of health gain and to quantify the weights attached to specific efficiency and equity criteria in the priority setting process. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

  4. Incorporating the effects of socioeconomic uncertainty into priority setting for conservation investment.

    PubMed

    McBride, Marissa F; Wilson, Kerrie A; Bode, Michael; Possingham, Hugh P

    2007-12-01

    Uncertainty in the implementation and outcomes of conservation actions that is not accounted for leaves conservation plans vulnerable to potential changes in future conditions. We used a decision-theoretic approach to investigate the effects of two types of investment uncertainty on the optimal allocation of global conservation resources for land acquisition in the Mediterranean Basin. We considered uncertainty about (1) whether investment will continue and (2) whether the acquired biodiversity assets are secure, which we termed transaction uncertainty and performance uncertainty, respectively. We also developed and tested the robustness of different rules of thumb for guiding the allocation of conservation resources when these sources of uncertainty exist. In the presence of uncertainty in future investment ability (transaction uncertainty), the optimal strategy was opportunistic, meaning the investment priority should be to act where uncertainty is highest while investment remains possible. When there was a probability that investments would fail (performance uncertainty), the optimal solution became a complex trade-off between the immediate biodiversity benefits of acting in a region and the perceived longevity of the investment. In general, regions were prioritized for investment when they had the greatest performance certainty, even if an alternative region was highly threatened or had higher biodiversity value. The improved performance of rules of thumb when accounting for uncertainty highlights the importance of explicitly incorporating sources of investment uncertainty and evaluating potential conservation investments in the context of their likely long-term success.

  5. 29 CFR 4044.14 - Priority category 4 benefits.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ... priority category 4 with respect to a participant is not limited by the aggregate benefits limitations set... 29 Labor 9 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false Priority category 4 benefits. 4044.14 Section 4044.14 Labor... Priority category 4 benefits. The benefits assigned to priority category 4 with respect to each participant...

  6. The health systems' priority setting criteria for selecting health technologies: A systematic review of the current evidence

    PubMed Central

    Mobinizadeh, Mohammadreza; Raeissi, Pouran; Nasiripour, Amir Ashkan; Olyaeemanesh, Alireza; Tabibi, Seyed Jamaleddin

    2016-01-01

    Background: In the recent years, using health technologies to diagnose and treat diseases has had a considerable and accelerated growth. The proper use of these technologies may considerably help in the diagnosis and treatment of different diseases. On the other hand, unlimited and unrestricted entry of these technologies may result in induced demand by service providers. The aim of this study was to determine the appropriate criteria used in health technologies priority-setting models in the world. Methods: Using MESH and free text, we sought and retrieved the relevant articles from the most appropriate medical databases (the Cochrane Library, PubMed and Scopus) through three separate search strategies up to March 2015. The inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) Studies with specific criteria; 2) Articles written in English; 3) Those articles conducted in compliance with priority setting of health technologies. Data were analyzed qualitatively using a thematic synthesis technique. Results: After screening the retrieved papers via PRISMA framework, from the 7,012 papers, 40 studies were included in the final phase. Criteria for selecting health technologies (in pre assessment and in the assessment phase) were categorized into six main themes: 1) Health outcomes; 2) Disease and target population; 3) Technology alternatives; 4) Economic aspects; 5) Evidence; 6) and other factors. "Health effects/benefits" had the maximum frequency in health outcomes (8 studies); "disease severity" had the maximum frequency in disease and target population (12 studies); "the number of alternatives" had the maximum frequency in alternatives (2 studies); "cost-effectiveness" had the maximum frequency in economic aspects (15 studies); "quality of evidence" had the maximum frequency in evidence (4 studies); and "issues concerning the health system" had the maximum frequency in other factors (10 studies). Conclusion: The results revealed an increase in the number of studies on health

  7. The health systems' priority setting criteria for selecting health technologies: A systematic review of the current evidence.

    PubMed

    Mobinizadeh, Mohammadreza; Raeissi, Pouran; Nasiripour, Amir Ashkan; Olyaeemanesh, Alireza; Tabibi, Seyed Jamaleddin

    2016-01-01

    In the recent years, using health technologies to diagnose and treat diseases has had a considerable and accelerated growth. The proper use of these technologies may considerably help in the diagnosis and treatment of different diseases. On the other hand, unlimited and unrestricted entry of these technologies may result in induced demand by service providers. The aim of this study was to determine the appropriate criteria used in health technologies priority-setting models in the world. Using MESH and free text, we sought and retrieved the relevant articles from the most appropriate medical databases (the Cochrane Library, PubMed and Scopus) through three separate search strategies up to March 2015. The inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) Studies with specific criteria; 2) Articles written in English; 3) Those articles conducted in compliance with priority setting of health technologies. Data were analyzed qualitatively using a thematic synthesis technique. After screening the retrieved papers via PRISMA framework, from the 7,012 papers, 40 studies were included in the final phase. Criteria for selecting health technologies (in pre assessment and in the assessment phase) were categorized into six main themes: 1) Health outcomes; 2) Disease and target population; 3) Technology alternatives; 4) Economic aspects; 5) Evidence; 6) and other factors. "Health effects/benefits" had the maximum frequency in health outcomes (8 studies); "disease severity" had the maximum frequency in disease and target population (12 studies); "the number of alternatives" had the maximum frequency in alternatives (2 studies); "cost-effectiveness" had the maximum frequency in economic aspects (15 studies); "quality of evidence" had the maximum frequency in evidence (4 studies); and "issues concerning the health system" had the maximum frequency in other factors (10 studies). The results revealed an increase in the number of studies on health technologies priority setting around the world

  8. 40 CFR 146.9 - Criteria for establishing permitting priorities.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ....9 Criteria for establishing permitting priorities. In determining priorities for setting times for... priorities. 146.9 Section 146.9 Protection of Environment ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (CONTINUED) WATER... (a), (c), (g) or § 144.22(f), the Director shall base these priorities upon consideration of the...

  9. Generalized cost-effectiveness analysis for national-level priority-setting in the health sector

    PubMed Central

    Hutubessy, Raymond; Chisholm, Dan; Edejer, Tessa Tan-Torres

    2003-01-01

    Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is potentially an important aid to public health decision-making but, with some notable exceptions, its use and impact at the level of individual countries is limited. A number of potential reasons may account for this, among them technical shortcomings associated with the generation of current economic evidence, political expediency, social preferences and systemic barriers to implementation. As a form of sectoral CEA, Generalized CEA sets out to overcome a number of these barriers to the appropriate use of cost-effectiveness information at the regional and country level. Its application via WHO-CHOICE provides a new economic evidence base, as well as underlying methodological developments, concerning the cost-effectiveness of a range of health interventions for leading causes of, and risk factors for, disease. The estimated sub-regional costs and effects of different interventions provided by WHO-CHOICE can readily be tailored to the specific context of individual countries, for example by adjustment to the quantity and unit prices of intervention inputs (costs) or the coverage, efficacy and adherence rates of interventions (effectiveness). The potential usefulness of this information for health policy and planning is in assessing if current intervention strategies represent an efficient use of scarce resources, and which of the potential additional interventions that are not yet implemented, or not implemented fully, should be given priority on the grounds of cost-effectiveness. Health policy-makers and programme managers can use results from WHO-CHOICE as a valuable input into the planning and prioritization of services at national level, as well as a starting point for additional analyses of the trade-off between the efficiency of interventions in producing health and their impact on other key outcomes such as reducing inequalities and improving the health of the poor. PMID:14687420

  10. Generalized cost-effectiveness analysis for national-level priority-setting in the health sector.

    PubMed

    Hutubessy, Raymond; Chisholm, Dan; Edejer, Tessa Tan-Torres

    2003-12-19

    Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is potentially an important aid to public health decision-making but, with some notable exceptions, its use and impact at the level of individual countries is limited. A number of potential reasons may account for this, among them technical shortcomings associated with the generation of current economic evidence, political expediency, social preferences and systemic barriers to implementation. As a form of sectoral CEA, Generalized CEA sets out to overcome a number of these barriers to the appropriate use of cost-effectiveness information at the regional and country level. Its application via WHO-CHOICE provides a new economic evidence base, as well as underlying methodological developments, concerning the cost-effectiveness of a range of health interventions for leading causes of, and risk factors for, disease.The estimated sub-regional costs and effects of different interventions provided by WHO-CHOICE can readily be tailored to the specific context of individual countries, for example by adjustment to the quantity and unit prices of intervention inputs (costs) or the coverage, efficacy and adherence rates of interventions (effectiveness). The potential usefulness of this information for health policy and planning is in assessing if current intervention strategies represent an efficient use of scarce resources, and which of the potential additional interventions that are not yet implemented, or not implemented fully, should be given priority on the grounds of cost-effectiveness.Health policy-makers and programme managers can use results from WHO-CHOICE as a valuable input into the planning and prioritization of services at national level, as well as a starting point for additional analyses of the trade-off between the efficiency of interventions in producing health and their impact on other key outcomes such as reducing inequalities and improving the health of the poor.

  11. Allocating limited resources in a time of fiscal constraints: a priority setting case study from Dalhousie University Faculty of Medicine.

    PubMed

    Mitton, Craig; Levy, Adrian; Gorsky, Diane; MacNeil, Christina; Dionne, Francois; Marrie, Tom

    2013-07-01

    Facing a projected $1.4M deficit on a $35M operating budget for fiscal year 2011/2012, members of the Dalhousie University Faculty of Medicine developed and implemented an explicit, transparent, criteria-based priority setting process for resource reallocation. A task group that included representatives from across the Faculty of Medicine used a program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) framework, which provided an alternative to the typical public-sector approaches to addressing a budget deficit of across-the-board spending cuts and political negotiation. Key steps to the PBMA process included training staff members and department heads on priority setting and resource reallocation, establishing process guidelines to meet immediate and longer-term fiscal needs, developing a reporting structure and forming key working groups, creating assessment criteria to guide resource reallocation decisions, assessing disinvestment proposals from all departments, and providing proposal implementation recommendations to the dean. All departments were required to submit proposals for consideration. The task group approved 27 service reduction proposals and 28 efficiency gains proposals, totaling approximately $2.7M in savings across two years. During this process, the task group faced a number of challenges, including a tight timeline for development and implementation (January to April 2011), a culture that historically supported decentralized planning, at times competing interests (e.g., research versus teaching objectives), and reductions in overall health care and postsecondary education government funding. Overall, faculty and staff preferred the PBMA approach to previous practices. Other institutions should use this example to set priorities in times of fiscal constraints.

  12. Priority setting in the Austrian healthcare system: results from a discrete choice experiment and implications for mental health.

    PubMed

    Mentzakis, Emmanouil; Paolucci, Francesco; Rubicko, Georg

    2014-06-01

    The impact of mental conditions is expected to be among the highest ranked causes of illness in high income countries by 2020. With changing health needs, policy makers have to make choices in an environment with increasingly constrained resources and competing demands. Discrete choice experiments have been identified as a useful approach to inform and support decision-making in health care systems and, in particular, its rationing. Policymakers, researchers and health practitioners from Austria participated in an experiment designed to elicit preferences for efficiency and equity in a generic priority setting framework. Using aggregate criteria an empirical measure of the efficiency/equity trade-off is calculated and a selection of health care interventions, including mental health, are ranked in composite league tables (CLTs). With the exception of severity of the condition, all equity parameters decrease attractiveness of an intervention, whereas the opposite holds for all three efficiency criteria. The efficiency/equity ratio (i.e. decision-makers' preference for efficiency over equity) is 3.5 and 5 for interventions targeted at younger and middle age populations, respectively, while for older populations this ratio is negative implying a rejection of all equity criteria. Irrespective of such differences interventions targeting mental health rank highly on all CLTs. Based on system-wide generic decision making criteria, mental health is shown to be a top priority for Austria. Preference-based approaches might offer complementary information to policymakers in priority setting decisions and a useful tool to support rationale rather than ad hoc decision-making.

  13. Research priorities by professional background - A detailed analysis of the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

    PubMed

    Arulkumaran, Nishkantha; Reay, Hannah; Brett, Stephen J

    2016-05-01

    The Intensive Care Foundation, in partnership with the James Lind Alliance, has supported a national project to identify and prioritise unanswered questions about adult intensive care that are important to people who have been critically ill, their families, and the health professionals who care for them. We conducted a secondary analysis to explore differences in priorities determined by different respondent groups in order to identify different groups' perceptions of gaps in knowledge. There were two surveys conducted as part of the original project. Survey 1 comprised a single open question to identify important research topics; survey 2 aimed to prioritise these topics using a 10-point Likert scale. In survey 1, despite clear differences in suggestions amongst the respondent groups, themes of comfort/communication and post-ICU rehabilitation were the within the top 2 suggestions across all groups. Patients and relatives suggested research topics to which they could easily relate, whereas there was a greater breadth of suggestions from clinicians. In survey 2, the number of research priorities that received a mode score of 10 varied from 1 to 36. Patients scored 36 out of the 37 topics with a mode score of 10. All other groups scored topics with more discrimination, with the number of topics with a mode score of 10 ranging from 1 to 20. Differences in the proportions of the representative groups are therefore unlikely to have translated to an impartial conclusion. Clinicians, patients, and family members have jointly identified the research priorities for UK ICM practice.

  14. 14 CFR 250.3 - Boarding priority rules.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... 14 Aeronautics and Space 4 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Boarding priority rules. 250.3 Section 250...) ECONOMIC REGULATIONS OVERSALES § 250.3 Boarding priority rules. (a) Every carrier shall establish priority... rules and criteria shall reflect the obligations of the carrier set forth in §§ 250.2a and 250.2b to...

  15. 42 CFR 56.107 - Priorities for grants.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... of this part will be made in accordance with priorities set forth in paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(6... 42 Public Health 1 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Priorities for grants. 56.107 Section 56.107 Public... SERVICES General Provisions § 56.107 Priorities for grants. (a) Grants under sections 319(c) (1)(A), 319(d...

  16. Water Accounting Priorities in the American West

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Hanak, E.

    2017-12-01

    In regions facing water scarcity, understanding the water balance sheet—how much there is, who has claims to it, and what is actually being "spent"—is key to effectively managing supplies to meet a wide range of societal goals. This is a common challenge across the American West, a region needing to balance the water demands of large irrigated agricultural sectors, growing urban populations, and declining aquatic ecosystems—in a context of increasingly variable, and in some cases diminishing, water supplies. Many local urban water utilities, and some irrigation water suppliers, have developed sophisticated data systems for tracking water availability and use within their systems. But there are still major gaps in essential metrics at the scale of watersheds and river basins. On the supply side, key issues include understanding groundwater availability and surface-groundwater interactions. On the demand side, the biggest challenges relate to understanding groundwater use and return flows—the water that is returned to rivers or aquifers and is available for reuse. In addition, most states lack consistent accounting and data standards for sharing water availability, claims, and use information—and transparent systems for reporting information to users in ways that facilitates oversight and flexible tools such as water trading. Drawing on a detailed study of water accounting in 12 western states and 2 countries with similar water challenges (Escriva Bou et al. 2016, Accounting for Water in Dry Regions: A Comparative Review, Public Policy Institute of California), this talk provides insights on best practices that can help fill critical water accounting gaps.

  17. 15 CFR 2301.4 - Types of projects and broadcast priorities.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... Broadcast Priorities are set forth in order of priority for funding. (1) Priority 1—Provision of Public... priorities. 2301.4 Section 2301.4 Commerce and Foreign Trade Regulations Relating to Telecommunications and... TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES PROGRAM Application Requirements § 2301.4 Types of projects and broadcast priorities...

  18. 48 CFR 808.603 - Purchase priorities.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... 48 Federal Acquisition Regulations System 5 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Purchase priorities. 808... Industries, Inc. (FPI) 808.603 Purchase priorities. Contracting officers may purchase supplies and services... small businesses, in accordance with procedures set forth in subpart 819.70, without seeking a waiver...

  19. Public views on principles for health care priority setting: findings of a European cross-country study using Q methodology.

    PubMed

    van Exel, Job; Baker, Rachel; Mason, Helen; Donaldson, Cam; Brouwer, Werner

    2015-02-01

    Resources available to the health care sector are finite and typically insufficient to fulfil all the demands for health care in the population. Decisions must be made about which treatments to provide. Relatively little is known about the views of the general public regarding the principles that should guide such decisions. We present the findings of a Q methodology study designed to elicit the shared views in the general public across ten countries regarding the appropriate principles for prioritising health care resources. In 2010, 294 respondents rank ordered a set of cards and the results of these were subject to by-person factor analysis to identify common patterns in sorting. Five distinct viewpoints were identified, (I) "Egalitarianism, entitlement and equality of access"; (II) "Severity and the magnitude of health gains"; (III) "Fair innings, young people and maximising health benefits"; (IV) "The intrinsic value of life and healthy living"; (V) "Quality of life is more important than simply staying alive". Given the plurality of views on the principles for health care priority setting, no single equity principle can be used to underpin health care priority setting. Hence, the process of decision making becomes more important, in which, arguably, these multiple perspectives in society should be somehow reflected. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

  20. Final priority; National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research--Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers. Final priority.

    PubMed

    2014-06-05

    The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services announces a priority for the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program administered by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR). Specifically, we announce a priority for a Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center (RERC) on Technologies to Enhance Independence in Daily Living for Adults with Cognitive Impairments. The Assistant Secretary may use this priority for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2014 and later years. We take this action to focus research attention on an area of national need. We intend the priority to contribute to improved outcomes related to independence in daily activities in the home, community, or workplace setting for adults with cognitive impairments.

  1. Proceduralism and its role in economic evaluation and priority setting in health.

    PubMed

    Jan, Stephen

    2014-05-01

    This paper provides a critical overview of Gavin Mooney's proceduralist approach to economic evaluation and priority setting in health. Proceduralism is the notion that the social value attached to alternative courses of action should be determined not only by outcomes, but also processes. Mooney's brand of proceduralism was unique and couched within a broader critique of 'neo-liberal' economics. It operated on a number of levels. At the micro level of the individual program, he pioneered the notion that 'process utility' could be valued and measured within economic evaluation. At a macro level, he developed a framework in which the social objective of equity was defined by procedural justice in which communitarian values were used as the basis for judging how resources should be allocated across the health system. Finally, he applied the notion of procedural justice to further our understanding of the political economy of resource allocation; highlighting how fairness in decision making processes can overcome the sometimes intractable zero-sum resource allocation problem. In summary, his contributions to this field have set the stage for innovative programs of research to help in developing health policies and programs that are both in alignment with community values and implementable. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

  2. 44 CFR 209.7 - Priorities for project selection.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... appropriate means may identify buyout and elevation projects. (b) States will set priorities in their State... 44 Emergency Management and Assistance 1 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Priorities for project... ASSISTANCE § 209.7 Priorities for project selection. (a) It is the State's responsibility to identify and...

  3. Setting priorities for knowledge translation of Cochrane reviews for health equity: Evidence for Equity.

    PubMed

    Tugwell, Peter; Petkovic, Jennifer; Welch, Vivian; Vincent, Jennifer; Bhutta, Zulfiqar A; Churchill, Rachel; deSavigny, Don; Mbuagbaw, Lawrence; Pantoja, Tomas

    2017-12-02

    A focus on equity in health can be seen in many global development goals and reports, research and international declarations. With the development of a relevant framework and methods, the Campbell and Cochrane Equity Methods Group has encouraged the application of an 'equity lens' to systematic reviews, and many organizations publish reviews intended to address health equity. The purpose of the Evidence for Equity (E4E) project was to conduct a priority-setting exercise and apply an equity lens by developing a knowledge translation product comprising summaries of systematic reviews from the Cochrane Library. E4E translates evidence from systematic reviews into 'friendly front end' summaries for policy makers. The following topic areas with high burdens of disease globally, were selected for the pilot: diabetes/obesity, HIV/AIDS, malaria, nutrition, and mental health/depression. For each topic area, a "stakeholder panel" was assembled that included policymakers and researchers. A systematic search of Cochrane reviews was conducted for each area to identify equity-relevant interventions with a meaningful impact. Panel chairs developed a rating sheet which was used by all panels to rank the importance of these interventions by: 1) Ease of Implementation; 2) Health System Requirements; 3)Universality/Generalizability/Share of Burden; and 4) Impact on Inequities/Effect on equity. The ratings of panel members were averaged for each intervention and criterion, and interventions were ordered according to the average overall ratings. Stakeholder panels identified the top 10 interventions from their respective topic areas. The evidence on these interventions is being summarized with an equity focus and the results posted online, at http://methods.cochrane.org/equity/e4e-series . This method provides an explicit approach to setting priorities by systematic review groups and funders for providing decision makers with evidence for the most important equity

  4. Setting Priorities for Monitoring and Managing Non-native Plants: Toward a Practical Approach.

    PubMed

    Koch, Christiane; Jeschke, Jonathan M; Overbeck, Gerhard E; Kollmann, Johannes

    2016-09-01

    Land managers face the challenge to set priorities in monitoring and managing non-native plant species, as resources are limited and not all non-natives become invasive. Existing frameworks that have been proposed to rank non-native species require extensive information on their distribution, abundance, and impact. This information is difficult to obtain and often not available for many species and regions. National watch or priority lists are helpful, but it is questionable whether they provide sufficient information for environmental management on a regional scale. We therefore propose a decision tree that ranks species based on more simple albeit robust information, but still provides reliable management recommendations. To test the decision tree, we collected and evaluated distribution data from non-native plants in highland grasslands of Southern Brazil. We compared the results with a national list from the Brazilian Invasive Species Database for the state to discuss advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches on a regional scale. Out of 38 non-native species found, only four were also present on the national list. If management would solely rely on this list, many species that were identified as spreading based on the decision tree would go unnoticed. With the suggested scheme, it is possible to assign species to active management, to monitoring, or further evaluation. While national lists are certainly important, management on a regional scale should employ additional tools that adequately consider the actual risk of non-natives to become invasive.

  5. Identifying research priorities in anaesthesia and perioperative care: final report of the joint National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia/James Lind Alliance Research Priority Setting Partnership

    PubMed Central

    Boney, Oliver; Bell, Madeline; Bell, Natalie; Conquest, Ann; Cumbers, Marion; Drake, Sharon; Galsworthy, Mike; Gath, Jacqui; Grocott, Michael P W; Harris, Emma; Howell, Simon; Ingold, Anthony; Nathanson, Michael H; Pinkney, Thomas; Metcalf, Leanne

    2015-01-01

    Objective To identify research priorities for Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine. Design Prospective surveys and consensus meetings guided by an independent adviser. Setting UK. Participants 45 stakeholder organisations (25 professional, 20 patient/carer) affiliated as James Lind Alliance partners. Outcomes First ‘ideas-gathering’ survey: Free text research ideas and suggestions. Second ‘prioritisation’ survey: Shortlist of ‘summary’ research questions (derived from the first survey) ranked by respondents in order of priority. Final ‘top ten’: Agreed by consensus at a final prioritisation workshop. Results First survey: 1420 suggestions received from 623 respondents (49% patients/public) were refined into a shortlist of 92 ‘summary’ questions. Second survey: 1718 respondents each nominated up to 10 questions as research priorities. Top ten: The 25 highest-ranked questions advanced to the final workshop, where 23 stakeholders (13 professional, 10 patient/carer) agreed the 10 most important questions: ▸ What can we do to stop patients developing chronic pain after surgery? ▸ How can patient care around the time of emergency surgery be improved? ▸ What long-term harm may result from anaesthesia, particularly following repeated anaesthetics? ▸ What outcomes should we use to measure the ‘success’ of anaesthesia and perioperative care? ▸ How can we improve recovery from surgery for elderly patients? ▸ For which patients does regional anaesthesia give better outcomes than general anaesthesia? ▸ What are the effects of anaesthesia on the developing brain? ▸ Do enhanced recovery programmes improve short and long-term outcomes? ▸ How can preoperative exercise or fitness training, including physiotherapy, improve outcomes after surgery? ▸ How can we improve communication between the teams looking after patients throughout their surgical journey? Conclusions Almost 2000 stakeholders contributed their views

  6. Who Shall Not Be Treated: Public Attitudes on Setting Health Care Priorities by Person-Based Criteria in 28 Nations.

    PubMed

    Rogge, Jana; Kittel, Bernhard

    2016-01-01

    The principle of distributing health care according to medical need is being challenged by increasing costs. As a result, many countries have initiated a debate on the introduction of explicit priority regulations based on medical, economic and person-based criteria, or have already established such regulations. Previous research on individual attitudes towards setting health care priorities based on medical and economic criteria has revealed consistent results, whereas studies on the use of person-based criteria have generated controversial findings. This paper examines citizens' attitudes towards three person-based priority criteria, patients' smoking habits, age and being the parent of a young child. Using data from the ISSP Health Module (2011) in 28 countries, logistic regression analysis demonstrates that self-interest as well as socio-demographic predictors significantly influence respondents' attitudes towards the use of person-based criteria for health care prioritization. This study contributes to resolving the controversial findings on person-based criteria by using a larger country sample and by controlling for country-level differences with fixed effects models.

  7. Setting research priorities in tobacco control: a stakeholder engagement project.

    PubMed

    Lindson, Nicola; Richards-Doran, Dan; Heath, Laura; Hartmann-Boyce, Jamie

    2017-12-01

    The Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group (TAG) conducts systematic reviews of the evidence for tobacco cessation and prevention interventions. In 2016 TAG conducted a priority-setting, stakeholder engagement project to identify where further research is needed in the areas of tobacco control and smoking cessation. The project comprised two surveys and a workshop. A range of stakeholders participated, including members of the public (smokers and ex-smokers), clinicians, researchers, research funders, health-care commissioners and public health organizations. The first survey phase identified unanswered research questions in the field of tobacco control. The second phase asked participants to rank these, with overall rankings calculated by combining scores across participants. The workshop allowed attendees to discuss prioritization of topics and questions in more depth. Workshop discussions were transcribed and analysed thematically, and a final voting activity at the close of the workshop allowed participants to choose topics to prioritize and to de-prioritize. A total of 304 stakeholders (researchers, health professionals, smokers and ex-smokers, guideline developers, research funders and policymakers, representing 28 countries) identified 183 unanswered research questions. These were categorized into 15 research categories. A total of 175 participants prioritized categories and questions in the second survey phase, with 'electronic cigarettes'; 'addressing inequalities'; and 'mental health and other substance abuse' prioritized as the top three categories. Forty-three stakeholders attended the workshop and discussed reasons for and against category prioritization. Prioritized research categories largely mirrored those in the survey stage, although 'treatment delivery' also emerged as a key category. Five cross-cutting themes emerged: efficacy; relative efficacy; cost effectiveness; addressing inequalities; and different types of evidence. There are many unanswered

  8. Toward a VA Women's Health Research Agenda: setting evidence-based priorities to improve the health and health care of women veterans.

    PubMed

    Yano, Elizabeth M; Bastian, Lori A; Frayne, Susan M; Howell, Alexandra L; Lipson, Linda R; McGlynn, Geraldine; Schnurr, Paula P; Seaver, Margaret R; Spungen, Ann M; Fihn, Stephan D

    2006-03-01

    The expansion of women in the military is reshaping the veteran population, with women now constituting the fastest growing segment of eligible VA health care users. In recognition of the changing demographics and special health care needs of women, the VA Office of Research & Development recently sponsored the first national VA Women's Health Research Agenda-setting conference to map research priorities to the needs of women veterans and position VA as a national leader in Women's Health Research. This paper summarizes the process and outcomes of this effort, outlining VA's research priorities for biomedical, clinical, rehabilitation, and health services research.

  9. Toward a VA Women's Health Research Agenda: Setting Evidence-based Priorities to Improve the Health and Health Care of Women Veterans

    PubMed Central

    Yano, Elizabeth M; Bastian, Lori A; Frayne, Susan M; Howell, Alexandra L; Lipson, Linda R; McGlynn, Geraldine; Schnurr, Paula P; Seaver, Margaret R; Spungen, Ann M; Fihn, Stephan D

    2006-01-01

    The expansion of women in the military is reshaping the veteran population, with women now constituting the fastest growing segment of eligible VA health care users. In recognition of the changing demographics and special health care needs of women, the VA Office of Research & Development recently sponsored the first national VA Women's Health Research Agenda-setting conference to map research priorities to the needs of women veterans and position VA as a national leader in Women's Health Research. This paper summarizes the process and outcomes of this effort, outlining VA's research priorities for biomedical, clinical, rehabilitation, and health services research. PMID:16637953

  10. How countries cope with competing demands and expectations: perspectives of different stakeholders on priority setting and resource allocation for health in the era of HIV and AIDS.

    PubMed

    Jenniskens, Françoise; Tiendrebeogo, Georges; Coolen, Anne; Blok, Lucie; Kouanda, Seni; Sataru, Fuseini; Ralisimalala, Andriamampianina; Mwapasa, Victor; Kiyombo, Mbela; Plummer, David

    2012-12-11

    Health systems have experienced unprecedented stress in recent years, and as yet no consensus has emerged as to how to deal with the multiple burden of disease in the context of HIV and AIDS and other competing health priorities. Priority setting is essential, yet this is a complex, multifaceted process. Drawing on a study conducted in five African countries, this paper explores different stakeholders' perceptions of health priorities, how priorities are defined in practice, the process of resource allocation for HIV and Health and how different stakeholders perceive this. A sub-analysis was conducted of selected data from a wider qualitative study that explored the interactions between health systems and HIV and AIDS responses in five sub-Saharan countries (Burkina Faso, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, Madagascar and Malawi). Key background documents were analysed and semi-structured interviews (n = 258) and focus group discussions (n = 45) were held with representatives of communities, health personnel, decision makers, civil society representatives and development partners at both national and district level. Health priorities were expressed either in terms of specific health problems and diseases or gaps in service delivery requiring a strengthening of the overall health system. In all five countries study respondents (with the exception of community members in Ghana) identified malaria and HIV as the two top health priorities. Community representatives were more likely to report concerns about accessibility of services and quality of care. National level respondents often referred to wider systemic challenges in relation to achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Indeed, actual priority setting was heavily influenced by international agendas (e.g. MDGs) and by the ways in which development partners were supporting national strategic planning processes. At the same time, multi-stakeholder processes were increasingly used to identify

  11. Priority-setting in New Zealand: translating principles into practice.

    PubMed

    Ashton, T; Cumming, J; Devlin, N

    2000-07-01

    In May 1998 the New Zealand Health Funding Authority released a discussion paper which proposed a principles-based approach to setting purchasing priorities that incorporates the economic methods of programme budgeting and marginal analysis, and cost-utility analysis. The principles upon which the process was to be based are effectiveness, cost, equity of health outcomes, Maori health and acceptability. This essay describes and critiques issues associated with translating the principles into practice, most particularly the proposed methods for evaluating the effectiveness and measuring the cost of services. It is argued that the proposals make an important contribution towards the development of a method for prioritizing services which challenges our thinking about those services and their goals, and which is systematic, explicit, and transparent. The shift towards 'thinking at the margin' and systematically reviewing the value for money of competing claims on resources is likely to improve the quality of decision-making compared with the status quo. This does not imply that prioritization can, or should, be undertaken by means of any simple formula. Any prioritization process should always be guided by informed judgement. The approach is more appropriate for some services than for others. Key methodological issues that need further consideration include the choice of instrument for measuring health gains, the identification of marginal services, how to combine qualitative and quantitative information, and how to ensure consistency across different levels of decision-making.

  12. Setting Research Priorities for Patients on or Nearing Dialysis

    PubMed Central

    Hemmelgarn, Brenda; Lillie, Erin; Dip, Sally Crowe P.G.; Cyr, Annette; Gladish, Michael; Large, Claire; Silverman, Howard; Toth, Brenda; Wolfs, Wim; Laupacis, Andreas

    2014-01-01

    With increasing emphasis among health care providers and funders on patient-centered care, it follows that patients and their caregivers should be included when priorities for research are being established. This study sought to identify the most important unanswered questions about the management of kidney failure from the perspective of adult patients on or nearing dialysis, their caregivers, and the health care professionals who care for these patients. Research uncertainties were identified through a national Canadian survey of adult patients on or nearing dialysis, their caregivers, and health care professionals. Uncertainties were refined by a steering committee that included patients, caregivers, researchers, and clinicians to assemble a short-list of the top 30 uncertainties. Thirty-four people (11 patients; five caregivers; eight physicians; six nurses; and one social worker, pharmacist, physiotherapist, and dietitian each) from across Canada subsequently participated in a workshop to determine the top 10 research questions. In total, 1570 usable research uncertainties were received from 317 respondents to the survey. Among these, 259 unique uncertainties were identified; after ranking, these were reduced to a short-list of 30 uncertainties. During the in-person workshop, the top 10 research uncertainties were identified, which included questions about enhanced communication among patients and providers, dialysis modality options, itching, access to kidney transplantation, heart health, dietary restrictions, depression, and vascular access. These can be used alongside the results of other research priority–setting exercises to guide researchers in designing future studies and inform health care funders. PMID:24832095

  13. 46 CFR 295.12 - Priority for awarding agreements.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... to all vessels within a priority set forth herein, MARAD shall award to each eligible applicant in... 46 Shipping 8 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Priority for awarding agreements. 295.12 Section 295.12... OPERATORS MARITIME SECURITY PROGRAM (MSP) Establishment of MSP Fleet and Eligibility § 295.12 Priority for...

  14. Patients', clinicians' and the research communities' priorities for treatment research: there is an important mismatch.

    PubMed

    Crowe, Sally; Fenton, Mark; Hall, Matthew; Cowan, Katherine; Chalmers, Iain

    2015-01-01

    There is some evidence that there is a mismatch between what patients and health professionals want to see researched and the research that is actually done. The James Lind Alliance (JLA) research Priority Setting Partnerships (PSPs) were created to address this mismatch. Between 2007 and 2014, JLA partnerships of patients, carers and health professionals agreed on important treatment research questions (priorities) in a range of health conditions, such as Type 1 diabetes, eczema and stroke. We were interested in how much these JLA PSP priorities were similar to treatments undergoing evaluation and research over the same time span. We identified the treatments described in all the JLA PSP research priority lists and compared these to the treatments described in a group of research studies (randomly selected) registered publically. The priorities identified by JLA PSPs emphasised the importance of non-drug treatment research, compared to the research actually being done over the same time period, which mostly involved evaluations of drugs. These findings suggest that the research community should make greater efforts to address issues of importance to users of research, such as patients and healthcare professionals. Background Comparisons of treatment research priorities identified by patients and clinicians with research actually being done by researchers are very rare. One of the best known of these comparisons (Tallon et al. Relation between agendas of the research community and the research consumer 355:2037-40, 2000) revealed important mismatches in priorities in the assessment of treatments for osteoarthritis of the knee: researchers preferenced drug trials, patients and clinicians prioritised non-drug treatments. These findings were an important stimulus in creating the James Lind Alliance (JLA). The JLA supports research Priority Setting Partnerships (PSPs) of patients, carers and clinicians, who are actively involved in all aspects of the process, to

  15. Mapping of Florida's Coastal and Marine Resources: Setting Priorities Workshop

    USGS Publications Warehouse

    Robbins, Lisa; Wolfe, Steven; Raabe, Ellen

    2008-01-01

    The importance of mapping habitats and bioregions as a means to improve resource management has become increasingly clear. Large areas of the waters surrounding Florida are unmapped or incompletely mapped, possibly hindering proper management and good decisionmaking. Mapping of these ecosystems is among the top priorities identified by the Florida Oceans and Coastal Council in their Annual Science Research Plan. However, lack of prioritization among the coastal and marine areas and lack of coordination of agency efforts impede efficient, cost-effective mapping. A workshop on Mapping of Florida's Coastal and Marine Resources was sponsored by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), and Southeastern Regional Partnership for Planning and Sustainability (SERPPAS). The workshop was held at the USGS Florida Integrated Science Center (FISC) in St. Petersburg, FL, on February 7-8, 2007. The workshop was designed to provide State, Federal, university, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) the opportunity to discuss their existing data coverage and create a prioritization of areas for new mapping data in Florida. Specific goals of the workshop were multifold, including to: * provide information to agencies on state-of-the-art technology for collecting data; * inform participants of the ongoing mapping programs in waters off Florida; * present the mapping needs and priorities of the State and Federal agencies and entities operating in Florida; * work with State of Florida agencies to establish an overall priority for areas needing mapping; * initiate discussion of a unified classification of habitat and bioregions; * discuss and examine the need to standardize terminology and data collection/storage so that data, in particular habitat data, can be shared; 9 identify opportunities for partnering and leveraging mapping efforts among agencies and entities; * identify impediments and organizational gaps that hinder collection

  16. Future Research Priorities for Morbidity Control of Lymphedema.

    PubMed

    Narahari, S R; Aggithaya, Madhur Guruprasad; Moffatt, Christine; Ryan, T J; Keeley, Vaughan; Vijaya, B; Rajendran, P; Karalam, S B; Rajagopala, S; Kumar, N K; Bose, K S; Sushma, K V

    2017-01-01

    Innovation in the treatment of lower extremity lymphedema has received low priority from the governments and pharmaceutical industry. Advancing lymphedema is irreversible and initiates fibrosis in the dermis, reactive changes in the epidermis and subcutis. Most medical treatments offered for lymphedema are either too demanding with a less than satisfactory response or patients have low concordance due to complex schedules. A priority setting partnership (PSP) was established to decide on the future priorities in lymphedema research. A table of abstracts following a literature search was published in workshop website. Stake holders were requested to upload their priorities. Their questions were listed, randomized, and sent to lymphologists for ranking. High ranked ten research priorities, obtained through median score, were presented in final prioritization work shop attended by invited stake holders. A free medical camp was organized during workshop to understand patients' priorities. One hundred research priorities were selected from priorities uploaded to website. Ten priorities were short listed through a peer review process involving 12 lymphologists, for final discussion. They were related to simplification of integrative treatment for lymphedema, cellular changes in lymphedema and mechanisms of its reversal, eliminating bacterial entry lesions to reduce cellulitis episodes, exploring evidence for therapies in traditional medicine, improving patient concordance to compression therapy, epidemiology of lymphatic filariasis (LF), and economic benefit of integrative treatments of lymphedema. A robust research priority setting process, organized as described in James Lind Alliance guidebook, identified seven priority areas to achieve effective morbidity control of lymphedema including LF. All stake holders including Department of Health Research, Government of India, participated in the PSP.

  17. 37 CFR 1.55 - Claim for foreign priority.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ... accompanied by the processing fee set forth in § 1.17(i), but the patent will not include the priority claim... 37 Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights 1 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false Claim for foreign priority. 1... Application § 1.55 Claim for foreign priority. (a) An applicant in a nonprovisional application may claim the...

  18. The Sight Loss and Vision Priority Setting Partnership (SLV-PSP): overview and results of the research prioritisation survey process.

    PubMed

    Rowe, Fiona; Wormald, Richard; Cable, Richard; Acton, Michele; Bonstein, Karen; Bowen, Michael; Bronze, Carol; Bunce, Catey; Conroy, Dolores; Cowan, Katherine; Evans, Kathy; Fenton, Mark; Giles, Heather; Gordon, Iris; Halfhide, Louise; Harper, Robert; Lightstone, Anita; Votruba, Marcela; Waterman, Heather; Zekite, Antra

    2014-07-23

    The Sight Loss and Vision Priority Setting Partnership aimed to identify research priorities relating to sight loss and vision through consultation with patients, carers and clinicians. These priorities can be used to inform funding bodies' decisions and enhance the case for additional research funding. Prospective survey with support from the James Lind Alliance. UK-wide National Health Service (NHS) and non-NHS. Patients, carers and eye health professionals. Academic researchers were excluded solely from the prioritisation process. The survey was disseminated by patient groups, professional bodies, at conferences and through the media, and was available for completion online, by phone, by post and by alternative formats (Braille and audio). People were asked to submit the questions about prevention, diagnosis and treatment of sight loss and eye conditions that they most wanted to see answered by research. Returned survey questions were reviewed by a data assessment group. Priorities were established across eye disease categories at final workshops. 2220 people responded generating 4461 submissions. Sixty-five per cent of respondents had sight loss and/or an eye condition. Following initial data analysis, 686 submissions remained which were circulated for interim prioritisation (excluding cataract and ocular cancer questions) to 446 patients/carers and 218 professionals. The remaining 346 questions were discussed at final prioritisation workshops to reach agreement of top questions per category. The exercise engaged a diverse community of stakeholders generating a wide range of conditions and research questions. Top priority questions were established across 12 eye disease categories. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

  19. 12 CFR 360.3 - Priorities.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... taxes, other than Federal income taxes, except to the extent subordinated pursuant to applicable law... Corporation as subrogee or transferee, and all other claims which have accrued and become unconditionally... was operated under the laws of a state that provided a priority for holders of withdrawable accounts...

  20. 12 CFR 360.3 - Priorities.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... taxes, other than Federal income taxes, except to the extent subordinated pursuant to applicable law... Corporation as subrogee or transferee, and all other claims which have accrued and become unconditionally... was operated under the laws of a state that provided a priority for holders of withdrawable accounts...

  1. 12 CFR 360.3 - Priorities.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... taxes, other than Federal income taxes, except to the extent subordinated pursuant to applicable law... Corporation as subrogee or transferee, and all other claims which have accrued and become unconditionally... was operated under the laws of a state that provided a priority for holders of withdrawable accounts...

  2. How countries cope with competing demands and expectations: perspectives of different stakeholders on priority setting and resource allocation for health in the era of HIV and AIDS

    PubMed Central

    2012-01-01

    Background Health systems have experienced unprecedented stress in recent years, and as yet no consensus has emerged as to how to deal with the multiple burden of disease in the context of HIV and AIDS and other competing health priorities. Priority setting is essential, yet this is a complex, multifaceted process. Drawing on a study conducted in five African countries, this paper explores different stakeholders′ perceptions of health priorities, how priorities are defined in practice, the process of resource allocation for HIV and Health and how different stakeholders perceive this. Methods A sub-analysis was conducted of selected data from a wider qualitative study that explored the interactions between health systems and HIV and AIDS responses in five sub-Saharan countries (Burkina Faso, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, Madagascar and Malawi). Key background documents were analysed and semi-structured interviews (n = 258) and focus group discussions (n = 45) were held with representatives of communities, health personnel, decision makers, civil society representatives and development partners at both national and district level. Results Health priorities were expressed either in terms of specific health problems and diseases or gaps in service delivery requiring a strengthening of the overall health system. In all five countries study respondents (with the exception of community members in Ghana) identified malaria and HIV as the two top health priorities. Community representatives were more likely to report concerns about accessibility of services and quality of care. National level respondents often referred to wider systemic challenges in relation to achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Indeed, actual priority setting was heavily influenced by international agendas (e.g. MDGs) and by the ways in which development partners were supporting national strategic planning processes. At the same time, multi-stakeholder processes were

  3. 29 CFR 1990.131 - Priority lists for regulating potential occupational carcinogens.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ... POTENTIAL OCCUPATIONAL CARCINOGENS Priority Setting § 1990.131 Priority lists for regulating potential occupational carcinogens. The Secretary shall establish two priority lists for regulating potential... 29 Labor 9 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false Priority lists for regulating potential occupational...

  4. Future Research Priorities for Morbidity Control of Lymphedema

    PubMed Central

    Narahari, S R; Aggithaya, Madhur Guruprasad; Moffatt, Christine; Ryan, T J; Keeley, Vaughan; Vijaya, B; Rajendran, P; Karalam, S B; Rajagopala, S; Kumar, N K; Bose, K S; Sushma, K V

    2017-01-01

    Background: Innovation in the treatment of lower extremity lymphedema has received low priority from the governments and pharmaceutical industry. Advancing lymphedema is irreversible and initiates fibrosis in the dermis, reactive changes in the epidermis and subcutis. Most medical treatments offered for lymphedema are either too demanding with a less than satisfactory response or patients have low concordance due to complex schedules. A priority setting partnership (PSP) was established to decide on the future priorities in lymphedema research. Methods: A table of abstracts following a literature search was published in workshop website. Stake holders were requested to upload their priorities. Their questions were listed, randomized, and sent to lymphologists for ranking. High ranked ten research priorities, obtained through median score, were presented in final prioritization work shop attended by invited stake holders. A free medical camp was organized during workshop to understand patients’ priorities. Results: One hundred research priorities were selected from priorities uploaded to website. Ten priorities were short listed through a peer review process involving 12 lymphologists, for final discussion. They were related to simplification of integrative treatment for lymphedema, cellular changes in lymphedema and mechanisms of its reversal, eliminating bacterial entry lesions to reduce cellulitis episodes, exploring evidence for therapies in traditional medicine, improving patient concordance to compression therapy, epidemiology of lymphatic filariasis (LF), and economic benefit of integrative treatments of lymphedema. Conclusion: A robust research priority setting process, organized as described in James Lind Alliance guidebook, identified seven priority areas to achieve effective morbidity control of lymphedema including LF. All stake holders including Department of Health Research, Government of India, participated in the PSP. PMID:28216723

  5. Priority setting and the ethics of resource allocation within VA healthcare facilities: results of a survey.

    PubMed

    Foglia, Mary Beth; Pearlman, Robert A; Bottrell, Melissa M; Altemose, Jane A; Fox, Ellen

    2008-01-01

    Setting priorities and the subsequent allocation of resources is a major ethical issue facing healthcare facilities, including the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the largest integrated healthcare delivery network in the United States. Yet despite the importance of priority setting and its impact on those who receive and those who provide care, we know relatively little about how clinicians and managers view allocation processes within their facilities. The purpose of this secondary analysis of survey data was to characterize staff members' perceptions regarding the fairness of healthcare ethics practices related to resource allocation in Veterans Administration (VA) facilities. The specific aim of the study was to compare the responses of clinicians, clinician managers, and non-clinician managers with respect to these survey items. We utilized a paper and web-based survey and a cross-sectional design of VHA clinicians and managers. Our sample consisted of a purposive stratified sample of 109 managers and a stratified random sample of 269 clinicians employed 20 or more hours per week in one of four VA medical centers. The four medical centers were participating as field sites selected to test the logistics of administering and reporting results of the Integrated Ethics Staff Survey, an assessment tool aimed at characterizing a broad range of ethical practices within a healthcare organization. In general, clinicians were more critical than clinician managers or non-clinician managers of the institutions' allocation processes and of the impact of resource decisions on patient care. Clinicians commonly reported that they did not (a) understand their facility's decision-making processes, (b) receive explanations from management regarding the reasons behind important allocation decisions, or (b) perceive that they were influential in allocation decisions. In addition, clinicians and managers both perceived that education related to the ethics of resource

  6. Budget- and priority-setting criteria at state health agencies in times of austerity: a mixed-methods study.

    PubMed

    Leider, Jonathon P; Resnick, Beth; Kass, Nancy; Sellers, Katie; Young, Jessica; Bernet, Patrick; Jarris, Paul

    2014-06-01

    We examined critical budget and priority criteria for state health agencies to identify likely decision-making factors, pressures, and opportunities in times of austerity. We have presented findings from a 2-stage, mixed-methods study with state public health leaders regarding public health budget- and priority-setting processes. In stage 1, we conducted hour-long interviews in 2011 with 45 health agency executive and division or bureau leaders from 6 states. Stage 2 was an online survey of 207 executive and division or bureau leaders from all state health agencies (66% response rate). Respondents identified 5 key criteria: whether a program was viewed as "mission critical," the seriousness of the consequences of not funding the program, financing considerations, external directives and mandates, and the magnitude of the problem the program addressed. We have presented empirical findings on criteria used in state health agency budgetary decision-making. These criteria suggested a focus and interest on core public health and the largest public health problems with the most serious ramifications.

  7. Budget- and Priority-Setting Criteria at State Health Agencies in Times of Austerity: A Mixed-Methods Study

    PubMed Central

    Resnick, Beth; Kass, Nancy; Sellers, Katie; Young, Jessica; Bernet, Patrick; Jarris, Paul

    2014-01-01

    Objectives. We examined critical budget and priority criteria for state health agencies to identify likely decision-making factors, pressures, and opportunities in times of austerity. Methods. We have presented findings from a 2-stage, mixed-methods study with state public health leaders regarding public health budget- and priority-setting processes. In stage 1, we conducted hour-long interviews in 2011 with 45 health agency executive and division or bureau leaders from 6 states. Stage 2 was an online survey of 207 executive and division or bureau leaders from all state health agencies (66% response rate). Results. Respondents identified 5 key criteria: whether a program was viewed as “mission critical,” the seriousness of the consequences of not funding the program, financing considerations, external directives and mandates, and the magnitude of the problem the program addressed. Conclusions. We have presented empirical findings on criteria used in state health agency budgetary decision-making. These criteria suggested a focus and interest on core public health and the largest public health problems with the most serious ramifications. PMID:24825212

  8. 12 CFR 269b.220 - Priority; acceleration of proceedings.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... the setting aside of an election or the conduct of a new election shall be given priority. (b) The... 12 Banks and Banking 3 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Priority; acceleration of proceedings. 269b.220... RESERVE SYSTEM CHARGES OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Preliminary Investigation § 269b.220 Priority...

  9. PERSPECTIVES: Accountability for Mental Health: The Australian Experience.

    PubMed

    Rosenberg, Sebastian; Salvador-Carulla, Luis

    2017-03-01

    or are not value for money. New approaches are needed which ensure that chosen accountability indicators reflect national health and social priorities. Such priorities must be meaningful to a range of stakeholders and the community about the state of mental health. They must drive an agenda of continuous improvement relevant to those most affected by mental disorders. These approaches should be operable in emerging international contexts. Australia must further develop its approach to health accountability in relation to mental health. A limited set of new preferred national mental health indicators should be agreed. These should be tested, both domestically and internationally, for their capacity to inform and drive quality improvement processes in mental health. Existing systems of accountability are not fit for purpose, incapable of firing necessary quality improvement processes. Supported by adequate resources, realistic targets and a culture of openness, new accountability could drive real quality improvement processes for mental health, facilitate jurisdictional comparisons in Australia, and contribute to new efforts to benchmark mental health internationally.

  10. Setting health research priorities using the CHNRI method: VII. A review of the first 50 applications of the CHNRI method

    PubMed Central

    Rudan, Igor; Yoshida, Sachiyo; Chan, Kit Yee; Sridhar, Devi; Wazny, Kerri; Nair, Harish; Sheikh, Aziz; Tomlinson, Mark; Lawn, Joy E; Bhutta, Zulfiqar A; Bahl, Rajiv; Chopra, Mickey; Campbell, Harry; El Arifeen, Shams; Black, Robert E; Cousens, Simon

    2017-01-01

    Background Several recent reviews of the methods used to set research priorities have identified the CHNRI method (acronym derived from the “Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative”) as an approach that clearly became popular and widely used over the past decade. In this paper we review the first 50 examples of application of the CHNRI method, published between 2007 and 2016, and summarize the most important messages that emerged from those experiences. Methods We conducted a literature review to identify the first 50 examples of application of the CHNRI method in chronological order. We searched Google Scholar, PubMed and so–called grey literature. Results Initially, between 2007 and 2011, the CHNRI method was mainly used for setting research priorities to address global child health issues, although the first cases of application outside this field (eg, mental health, disabilities and zoonoses) were also recorded. Since 2012 the CHNRI method was used more widely, expanding into the topics such as adolescent health, dementia, national health policy and education. The majority of the exercises were focused on issues that were only relevant to low– and middle–income countries, and national–level applications are on the rise. The first CHNRI–based articles adhered to the five recommended priority–setting criteria, but by 2016 more than two–thirds of all conducted exercises departed from recommendations, modifying the CHNRI method to suit each particular exercise. This was done not only by changing the number of criteria used, but also by introducing some entirely new criteria (eg, “low cost”, “sustainability”, “acceptability”, “feasibility”, “relevance” and others). Conclusions The popularity of the CHNRI method in setting health research priorities can be attributed to several key conceptual advances that have addressed common concerns. The method is systematic in nature, offering an acceptable framework for handling many

  11. 29 CFR 1990.131 - Priority lists for regulating potential occupational carcinogens.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-07-01

    ... carcinogens. 1990.131 Section 1990.131 Labor Regulations Relating to Labor (Continued) OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND... POTENTIAL OCCUPATIONAL CARCINOGENS Priority Setting § 1990.131 Priority lists for regulating potential occupational carcinogens. The Secretary shall establish two priority lists for regulating potential...

  12. 29 CFR 1990.131 - Priority lists for regulating potential occupational carcinogens.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-07-01

    ... carcinogens. 1990.131 Section 1990.131 Labor Regulations Relating to Labor (Continued) OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND... POTENTIAL OCCUPATIONAL CARCINOGENS Priority Setting § 1990.131 Priority lists for regulating potential occupational carcinogens. The Secretary shall establish two priority lists for regulating potential...

  13. 29 CFR 1990.131 - Priority lists for regulating potential occupational carcinogens.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-07-01

    ... carcinogens. 1990.131 Section 1990.131 Labor Regulations Relating to Labor (Continued) OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND... POTENTIAL OCCUPATIONAL CARCINOGENS Priority Setting § 1990.131 Priority lists for regulating potential occupational carcinogens. The Secretary shall establish two priority lists for regulating potential...

  14. 29 CFR 1990.131 - Priority lists for regulating potential occupational carcinogens.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-07-01

    ... carcinogens. 1990.131 Section 1990.131 Labor Regulations Relating to Labor (Continued) OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND... POTENTIAL OCCUPATIONAL CARCINOGENS Priority Setting § 1990.131 Priority lists for regulating potential occupational carcinogens. The Secretary shall establish two priority lists for regulating potential...

  15. Cost accounting models used for price-setting of health services: an international review.

    PubMed

    Raulinajtys-Grzybek, Monika

    2014-12-01

    The aim of the article was to present and compare cost accounting models which are used in the area of healthcare for pricing purposes in different countries. Cost information generated by hospitals is further used by regulatory bodies for setting or updating prices of public health services. The article presents a set of examples from different countries of the European Union, Australia and the United States and concentrates on DRG-based payment systems as they primarily use cost information for pricing. Differences between countries concern the methodology used, as well as the data collection process and the scope of the regulations on cost accounting. The article indicates that the accuracy of the calculation is only one of the factors that determine the choice of the cost accounting methodology. Important aspects are also the selection of the reference hospitals, precise and detailed regulations and the existence of complex healthcare information systems in hospitals. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

  16. Research priorities in occupational safety and health: a review.

    PubMed

    Iavicoli, Sergio; Rondinone, Bruna; Marinaccio, Alessandro; Fingerhut, Marilyn

    2006-01-01

    Changes in the world of work in the last few decades have markedly affected questions regarding occupational safety and health (OSH). Jobs in our economy continue to shift from manufacturing to services. Longer hours, shift work, reduced job security, temporary work are realities in the modern workplace, new chemicals, materials, processes are developed at an ever accelerating pace. The workforce is also changing. It will become older and more racially diverse and women are increasing. These changes present new challenges to protect worker safety and health and it was been indispensable to redefine priorities, by consulting all those involved in OSH. The present study therefore made a critical comparative analysis of the main published projects to identify research priorities in the OSH field, comparing methods, approaches and results. Comparison of the priority areas established in each of these studies is inherently difficult due to differences in socio-cultural backgrounds, in the methods employed to identify priority topics, and the many factors involved. However, it is clear that the Delphi technique is widely used as a reliable method, in that it covers a broad range of qualified witnesses, from a variety of backgrounds--such as trade union representatives and researchers--providing different viewpoints. It also takes account of the intrinsic features of OSH which--compared to other disciplines--involves multidisciplinary factors calling into play a range of scientific settings, such as toxicologists, molecular biologists, epidemiologists, occupational hygienists and occupational physicians. This analysis showed how important it is to reach consensus among all those operating in the OSH sector, in order to establish standard methods that can be applied in different contexts, and give results that can be validly compared.

  17. Priority setting in a Canadian surgical department: a case study using program budgeting and marginal analysis

    PubMed Central

    Mitton, Craig; Donaldson, Cam; Shellian, Barb; Pagenkopf, Cort

    2003-01-01

    Introduction A key mandate of Canadian regional health authorities is to set priorities and allocate resources within a limited funding envelope. The objective in this study was to determine how resources within a surgical program in a Canadian rural hospital might be reallocated to better meet the needs of the local community. Methods Early in 2001, at the Canmore General Hospital, Canmore, Alta., an expert-panel working group, consisting of a community health service leader, operating-room nurse clinician, acute care head nurse and a general surgeon, assisted by a research assistant and 2 health economists carried out a program budgeting and marginal analysis project to assess multiple data inputs into the decision-making process and to develop recommendations for service expansion and resource release. They considered the cost and benefits of altering the mix of resources used, based on Headwaters Health Authority activity and financial data, and local expert opinion. Results The primary recommendation was to implement an additional surgery day per week (38 days of major surgery and 12 days of minor surgery over a 50-week year). However, the total dollars to fund such an expansion could not be released from within the Canmore budget, and additional dollars were not forthcoming from the health region. A secondary objective of implementing an additional minor surgery day every 3 weeks was pursued and the required resources were obtained. Conclusions Due to resource constraints in health care, efforts by both clinicians and administrators should be made to better spend available resources. The marginal analysis process used in this study served as a useful framework for priority setting, which is generalizable to other surgical and nonsurgical programs in Canada. PMID:12585790

  18. Priority setting in health care: on the relation between reasonable choices on the micro-level and the macro-level.

    PubMed

    Baerøe, Kristine

    2008-01-01

    There has been much discussion about how to obtain legitimacy at macro-level priority setting in health care by use of fair procedures, but how should we consider priority setting by individual clinicians or health workers at the micro-level? Despite the fact that just health care totally hinges upon their decisions, surprisingly little attention seems being paid to the legitimacy of these decisions. This paper addresses the following question: what are the conditions that have to be met in order to ensure that individual claims on health care are well aligned with an overall concept of just health care? Drawing upon a distinction between individual and aggregated needs, I argue that even though we assume the legitimacy of macro-level guidelines, this legitimacy is not directly transferable to decisions at micro-level simply by adherence to the guidelines' recommendation. Further, I argue that individual claims are subject to the formal principle of equality and the demands of vertical and horizontal equity in a way that gives context- and patient-related equity concerns precedence over equity concerns captured at the macro-level. I conclude that if we aim to achieve just health care, we need to develop a complementary framework for legitimising individual judgment of patients' claims on health care resources. Moreover, I suggest the basic structure of such a framework.

  19. Prevention and self-management interventions are top priorities for osteoarthritis systematic reviews.

    PubMed

    Jaramillo, Alejandra; Welch, Vivian A; Ueffing, Erin; Gruen, Russell L; Bragge, Peter; Lyddiatt, Anne; Tugwell, Peter

    2013-05-01

    To identify high-priority research questions for osteoarthritis systematic reviews with consideration of health equity and the social determinants of health (SDH). We consulted with experts and conducted a literature search to identify a priority-setting method that could be adapted to address the health equity and SDH. We selected the Global Evidence Mapping priority-setting method, and through consultations and consensus, we adapted the method to meet our objectives. This involves developing an evidence map of the existing systematic reviews on osteoarthritis; conducting one face-to-face workshop with patients and another one with clinicians, researchers, and patients; and conducting an online survey of patients to rank the top 10 research questions. We piloted the adapted method with the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group to set research priorities for osteoarthritis. Our focus was on systematic reviews: we identified 34 high-priority research questions for osteoarthritis systematic reviews. Prevention and self-management interventions, mainly diet and exercise, are top priorities for osteoarthritis systematic reviews. Evaluation against our predefined objectives showed that this method did prioritize SDH (50% of the research questions considered SDH). There were marked gaps: no high-priority topics were identified for access to care until patients had advanced disease-lifestyle changes once the disease was diagnosed. This method was felt feasible if conducted annually. We confirmed the utility of an adapted priority-setting method that is feasible and considers SDH. Further testing of this method is needed to assess whether considerations of health equity are prioritized and involve disadvantaged groups of the population. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

  20. Tongues on the EDGE: language preservation priorities based on threat and lexical distinctiveness

    PubMed Central

    Davies, T. Jonathan

    2017-01-01

    Languages are being lost at rates exceeding the global loss of biodiversity. With the extinction of a language we lose irreplaceable dimensions of culture and the insight it provides on human history and the evolution of linguistic diversity. When setting conservation goals, biologists give higher priority to species likely to go extinct. Recent methods now integrate information on species evolutionary relationships to prioritize the conservation of those with a few close relatives. Advances in the construction of language trees allow us to use these methods to develop language preservation priorities that minimize loss of linguistic diversity. The evolutionarily distinct and globally endangered (EDGE) metric, used in conservation biology, accounts for a species’ originality (evolutionary distinctiveness—ED) and its likelihood of extinction (global endangerment—GE). Here, we use a similar framework to inform priorities for language preservation by generating rankings for 350 Austronesian languages. Kavalan, Tanibili, Waropen and Sengseng obtained the highest EDGE scores, while Xârâcùù (Canala), Nengone and Palauan are among the most linguistically distinct, but are not currently threatened. We further provide a way of dealing with incomplete trees, a common issue for both species and language trees. PMID:29308253

  1. On-going collaborative priority-setting for research activity: a method of capacity building to reduce the research-practice translational gap.

    PubMed

    Cooke, Jo; Ariss, Steven; Smith, Christine; Read, Jennifer

    2015-05-07

    International policy suggests that collaborative priority setting (CPS) between researchers and end users of research should shape the research agenda, and can increase capacity to address the research-practice translational gap. There is limited research evidence to guide how this should be done to meet the needs of dynamic healthcare systems. One-off priority setting events and time-lag between decision and action prove problematic. This study illustrates the use of CPS in a UK research collaboration called Collaboration and Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC). Data were collected from a north of England CLAHRC through semi-structured interviews with 28 interviewees and a workshop of key stakeholders (n = 21) including academics, NHS clinicians, and managers. Documentary analysis of internal reports and CLAHRC annual reports for the first two and half years was also undertaken. These data were thematically coded. Methods of CPS linked to the developmental phase of the CLAHRC. Early methods included pre-existing historical partnerships with on-going dialogue. Later, new platforms for on-going discussions were formed. Consensus techniques with staged project development were also used. All methods demonstrated actual or potential change in practice and services. Impact was enabled through the flexibility of research and implementation work streams; 'matched' funding arrangements to support alignment of priorities in partner organisations; the size of the collaboration offering a resource to meet project needs; and the length of the programme providing stability and long term relationships. Difficulties included tensions between being responsive to priorities and the possibility of 'drift' within project work, between academics and practice, and between service providers and commissioners in the health services. Providing protected 'matched' time proved difficult for some NHS managers, which put increasing work pressure on them. CPS is more time

  2. The conservation and management of tunas and their relatives: setting life history research priorities.

    PubMed

    Juan-Jordá, Maria José; Mosqueira, Iago; Freire, Juan; Dulvy, Nicholas K

    2013-01-01

    Scombrids (tunas, bonitos, Spanish mackerels and mackerels) support important fisheries in tropical, subtropical and temperate waters around the world, being one of the most economically- and socially-important marine species globally. Their sustainable exploitation, management and conservation depend on accurate life history information for the development of quantitative fisheries stock assessments, and in the fishery data-poor situations for the identification of vulnerable species. Here, we assemble life history traits (maximum size, growth, longevity, maturity, fecundity, spawning duration and spawning interval) for the 51 species of scombrids globally. We identify major biological gaps in knowledge and prioritize life history research needs in scombrids based on their biological gaps in knowledge, the importance of their fisheries and their current conservation status according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List. We find that the growth and reproductive biology of tunas and mackerel species have been more extensively studied than for Spanish mackerels and bonitos, although there are notable exceptions in all groups. We also reveal that reproductive biology of species, particular fecundity, is the least studied biological aspect in scombrids. We identify two priority groups, including 32 species of scombrids, and several populations of principal market tunas, for which life history research should be prioritized following the species-specific life history gaps identified in this study in the coming decades. By highlighting the important gaps in biological knowledge and providing a priority setting for life history research in scombrid species this study provides guidance for management and conservation and serves as a guide for biologists and resource managers interested in the biology, ecology, and management of scombrid species.

  3. The Conservation and Management of Tunas and Their Relatives: Setting Life History Research Priorities

    PubMed Central

    Juan-Jordá, Maria José; Mosqueira, Iago; Freire, Juan; Dulvy, Nicholas K.

    2013-01-01

    Scombrids (tunas, bonitos, Spanish mackerels and mackerels) support important fisheries in tropical, subtropical and temperate waters around the world, being one of the most economically- and socially-important marine species globally. Their sustainable exploitation, management and conservation depend on accurate life history information for the development of quantitative fisheries stock assessments, and in the fishery data-poor situations for the identification of vulnerable species. Here, we assemble life history traits (maximum size, growth, longevity, maturity, fecundity, spawning duration and spawning interval) for the 51 species of scombrids globally. We identify major biological gaps in knowledge and prioritize life history research needs in scombrids based on their biological gaps in knowledge, the importance of their fisheries and their current conservation status according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List. We find that the growth and reproductive biology of tunas and mackerel species have been more extensively studied than for Spanish mackerels and bonitos, although there are notable exceptions in all groups. We also reveal that reproductive biology of species, particular fecundity, is the least studied biological aspect in scombrids. We identify two priority groups, including 32 species of scombrids, and several populations of principal market tunas, for which life history research should be prioritized following the species-specific life history gaps identified in this study in the coming decades. By highlighting the important gaps in biological knowledge and providing a priority setting for life history research in scombrid species this study provides guidance for management and conservation and serves as a guide for biologists and resource managers interested in the biology, ecology, and management of scombrid species. PMID:23950930

  4. Integrating economic costs and biological traits into global conservation priorities for carnivores.

    PubMed

    Loyola, Rafael Dias; Oliveira-Santos, Luiz Gustavo Rodrigues; Almeida-Neto, Mário; Nogueira, Denise Martins; Kubota, Umberto; Diniz-Filho, José Alexandre Felizola; Lewinsohn, Thomas Michael

    2009-08-27

    Prioritization schemes usually highlight species-rich areas, where many species are at imminent risk of extinction. To be ecologically relevant these schemes should also include species biological traits into area-setting methods. Furthermore, in a world of limited funds for conservation, conservation action is constrained by land acquisition costs. Hence, including economic costs into conservation priorities can substantially improve their conservation cost-effectiveness. We examined four global conservation scenarios for carnivores based on the joint mapping of economic costs and species biological traits. These scenarios identify the most cost-effective priority sets of ecoregions, indicating best investment opportunities for safeguarding every carnivore species, and also establish priority sets that can maximize species representation in areas harboring highly vulnerable species. We compared these results with a scenario that minimizes the total number of ecoregions required for conserving all species, irrespective of other factors. We found that cost-effective conservation investments should focus on 41 ecoregions highlighted in the scenario that consider simultaneously both ecoregion vulnerability and economic costs of land acquisition. Ecoregions included in priority sets under these criteria should yield best returns of investments since they harbor species with high extinction risk and have lower mean land cost. Our study highlights ecoregions of particular importance for the conservation of the world's carnivores defining global conservation priorities in analyses that encompass socioeconomic and life-history factors. We consider the identification of a comprehensive priority-set of areas as a first step towards an in-situ biodiversity maintenance strategy.

  5. Gore's Controversial Priorities for Higher Education.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Gose, Ben

    2000-01-01

    Evaluates presidential candidate Al Gore's priorities for higher education, noting criticism by some educators of his emphasis on benefits for the middle class and the large number of specific proposals he has offered, including the College Opportunity Tax Cut, 21st Century Teachers' Corps, 401(j) Educational Savings Accounts, the National Tuition…

  6. [Management accounting in hospital setting].

    PubMed

    Brzović, Z; Richter, D; Simunić, S; Bozić, R; Hadjina, N; Piacun, D; Harcet, B

    1998-12-01

    The periodic income and expenditure accounts produced at the hospital and departmental level enable successful short term management, but, in the long run do not help remove tensions between health care demand and limited resources, nor do they enable optimal medical planning within the limited financial resources. We are trying to estabilish disease category costs based on case mixing according to diagnostic categories (diagnosis related groups, DRG, or health care resource groups, HRG) and calculation of hospital standard product costs, e.g., radiology cost, preoperative nursing cost etc. The average DRG cost is composed of standard product costs plus any costs specific to a diagnostic category. As an example, current costing procedure for hip artheroplasty in the University Hospital Center Zagreb is compared to the management accounting approach based on British Health Care Resource experience. The knowledge of disease category costs based on management accounting requirements facilitates the implementation of medical programs within the given financial resources and devolves managerial responsibility closer to the clinical level where medical decisions take place.

  7. Social welfare and the Affordable Care Act: is it ever optimal to set aside comparative cost?

    PubMed

    Mortimer, Duncan; Peacock, Stuart

    2012-10-01

    The creation of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) under the Affordable Care Act has set comparative effectiveness research (CER) at centre stage of US health care reform. Comparative cost analysis has remained marginalised and it now appears unlikely that the PCORI will require comparative cost data to be collected as an essential component of CER. In this paper, we review the literature to identify ethical and distributional objectives that might motivate calls to set priorities without regard to comparative cost. We then present argument and evidence to consider whether there is any plausible set of objectives and constraints against which priorities can be set without reference to comparative cost. We conclude that - to set aside comparative cost even after accounting for ethical and distributional constraints - would be truly to act as if money is no object. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

  8. How Do Development Assistance Partners Conceptualise and Prioritise Evidence in Priority Setting (PS) for Health Programmes Relevant to Low Income Countries? A Qualitative Study

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Kapiriri, Lydia; Sinding, Christina; Arnold, Emmy

    2017-01-01

    There is limited literature on how donors conceptualise and prioritise evidence in healthcare priority setting (PS) affecting low income countries (LICs). We interviewed 35 donors and reviewed their websites to describe how they conceptualise, prioritise and perceive the role evidence plays in their organisation's healthcare prioritisation…

  9. Utilization Bound of Non-preemptive Fixed Priority Schedulers

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Park, Moonju; Chae, Jinseok

    It is known that the schedulability of a non-preemptive task set with fixed priority can be determined in pseudo-polynomial time. However, since Rate Monotonic scheduling is not optimal for non-preemptive scheduling, the applicability of existing polynomial time tests that provide sufficient schedulability conditions, such as Liu and Layland's bound, is limited. This letter proposes a new sufficient condition for non-preemptive fixed priority scheduling that can be used for any fixed priority assignment scheme. It is also shown that the proposed schedulability test has a tighter utilization bound than existing test methods.

  10. Integrating Economic Costs and Biological Traits into Global Conservation Priorities for Carnivores

    PubMed Central

    Loyola, Rafael Dias; Oliveira-Santos, Luiz Gustavo Rodrigues; Almeida-Neto, Mário; Nogueira, Denise Martins; Kubota, Umberto; Diniz-Filho, José Alexandre Felizola; Lewinsohn, Thomas Michael

    2009-01-01

    Background Prioritization schemes usually highlight species-rich areas, where many species are at imminent risk of extinction. To be ecologically relevant these schemes should also include species biological traits into area-setting methods. Furthermore, in a world of limited funds for conservation, conservation action is constrained by land acquisition costs. Hence, including economic costs into conservation priorities can substantially improve their conservation cost-effectiveness. Methodology/Principal Findings We examined four global conservation scenarios for carnivores based on the joint mapping of economic costs and species biological traits. These scenarios identify the most cost-effective priority sets of ecoregions, indicating best investment opportunities for safeguarding every carnivore species, and also establish priority sets that can maximize species representation in areas harboring highly vulnerable species. We compared these results with a scenario that minimizes the total number of ecoregions required for conserving all species, irrespective of other factors. We found that cost-effective conservation investments should focus on 41 ecoregions highlighted in the scenario that consider simultaneously both ecoregion vulnerability and economic costs of land acquisition. Ecoregions included in priority sets under these criteria should yield best returns of investments since they harbor species with high extinction risk and have lower mean land cost. Conclusions/Significance Our study highlights ecoregions of particular importance for the conservation of the world's carnivores defining global conservation priorities in analyses that encompass socioeconomic and life-history factors. We consider the identification of a comprehensive priority-set of areas as a first step towards an in-situ biodiversity maintenance strategy. PMID:19710911

  11. Top 10 research priorities in head and neck cancer: Results of an Alberta priority setting partnership of patients, caregivers, family members, and clinicians.

    PubMed

    Lechelt, Leah A; Rieger, Jana M; Cowan, Katherine; Debenham, Brock J; Krewski, Bernie; Nayar, Suresh; Regunathan, Akhila; Seikaly, Hadi; Singh, Ameeta E; Laupacis, Andreas

    2018-03-01

    The epidemiology, etiology, and management of head and neck cancer are evolving. Understanding the perspectives and priorities of nonresearchers regarding treatment uncertainties is important to inform future research. Using the James Lind Alliance approach, patients, caregivers, and clinicians responded to a survey regarding their unanswered questions about treating and managing head and neck cancer. Distinct uncertainties were extracted from responses and sorted into themes. Uncertainties already answered in the literature were removed. Those remaining were ranked by patients and clinicians to develop a short list of priorities, which were discussed at a workshop and reduced to the top 10. One hundred sixty-one respondents posed 818 uncertainties, culminating in 77 for interim ranking and 27 for discussion at a workshop. Participants reached consensus on the top 10, which included questions on prevention, screening, treatment, and quality of life. Nonresearchers can effectively collaborate to establish priorities for future research in head and neck cancer. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

  12. Setting priorities for surveillance, prevention, and control of zoonoses in Bogotá, Colombia.

    PubMed

    Cediel, Natalia; Villamil, Luis Carlos; Romero, Jaime; Renteria, Libardo; De Meneghi, Daniele

    2013-05-01

    To establish priorities for zoonoses surveillance, prevention, and control in Bogotá, Colombia. A Delphi panel of experts in veterinary and human medicine was conducted using a validated prioritization method to assess the importance of 32 selected zoonoses. This exercise was complemented by a questionnaire survey, using the knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) methodology, administered in 19 districts of Bogotá from September 2009 to April 2010 to an at-risk population (workers at veterinary clinics; pet shops; butcher shops; and traditional food markets that sell poultry, meat, cheese, and eggs). A risk indicator based on level of knowledge about zoonoses was constructed using categorical principal component and logistic regression analyses. Twelve experts participated in the Delphi panel. The diseases scored as highest priority were: influenza A(H1N1), salmonellosis, Escherichia coli infection, leptospirosis, and rabies. The diseases scored as lowest priority were: ancylostomiasis, scabies, ringworm, and trichinellosis. A total of 535 questionnaires were collected and analyzed. Respondents claimed to have had scabies (21%), fungi (8%), brucellosis (8%), and pulicosis (8%). Workers with the most limited knowledge on zoonoses and therefore the highest health risk were those who 1) did not have a professional education, 2) had limited or no zoonoses prevention training, and 3) worked in Usme, Bosa, or Ciudad Bolívar districts. According to the experts, influenza A(H1N1) was the most important zoonoses. Rabies, leptospirosis, brucellosis, and toxoplasmosis were identified as priority diseases by both the experts and the exposed workers. This is the first prioritization exercise focused on zoonoses surveillance, prevention, and control in Colombia. These results could be used to guide decision-making for resource allocation in public health.

  13. Setting priorities in health research using the model proposed by the World Health Organization: development of a quantitative methodology using tuberculosis in South Africa as a worked example.

    PubMed

    Hacking, Damian; Cleary, Susan

    2016-02-09

    Setting priorities is important in health research given the limited resources available for research. Various guidelines exist to assist in the priority setting process; however, priority setting still faces significant challenges such as the clear ranking of identified priorities. The World Health Organization (WHO) proposed a Disability Adjusted Life Year (DALY)-based model to rank priorities by research area (basic, health systems and biomedical) by dividing the DALYs into 'unavertable with existing interventions', 'avertable with improved efficiency' and 'avertable with existing but non-cost-effective interventions', respectively. However, the model has conceptual flaws and no clear methodology for its construction. Therefore, the aim of this paper was to amend the model to address these flaws, and develop a clear methodology by using tuberculosis in South Africa as a worked example. An amended model was constructed to represent total DALYs as the product of DALYs per person and absolute burden of disease. These figures were calculated for all countries from WHO datasets. The lowest figures achieved by any country were assumed to represent 'unavertable with existing interventions' if extrapolated to South Africa. The ratio of 'cost per patient treated' (adjusted for purchasing power and outcome weighted) between South Africa and the best country was used to calculate the 'avertable with improved efficiency section'. Finally, 'avertable with existing but non-cost-effective interventions' was calculated using Disease Control Priorities Project efficacy data, and the ratio between the best intervention and South Africa's current intervention, irrespective of cost. The amended model shows that South Africa has a tuberculosis burden of 1,009,837.3 DALYs; 0.009% of DALYs are unavertable with existing interventions and 96.3% of DALYs could be averted with improvements in efficiency. Of the remaining DALYs, a further 56.9% could be averted with existing but non

  14. Setting priorities for a research agenda to combat drug-resistant tuberculosis in children.

    PubMed

    Velayutham, B; Nair, D; Ramalingam, S; Perez-Velez, C M; Becerra, M C; Swaminathan, S

    2015-12-21

    Numerous knowledge gaps hamper the prevention and treatment of childhood drug-resistant tuberculosis (TB). Identifying research priorities is vital to inform and develop strategies to address this neglected problem. To systematically identify and rank research priorities in childhood drug-resistant TB. Adapting the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) methodology, we compiled 53 research questions in four research areas, then classified the questions into three research types. We invited experts in childhood drug-resistant TB to score these questions through an online survey. A total of 81 respondents participated in the survey. The top-ranked research question was to identify the best combination of existing diagnostic tools for early diagnosis. Highly ranked treatment-related questions centred on the reasons for and interventions to improve treatment outcomes, adverse effects of drugs and optimal treatment duration. The prevalence of drug-resistant TB was the highest-ranked question in the epidemiology area. The development type questions that ranked highest focused on interventions for optimal diagnosis, treatment and modalities for treatment delivery. This is the first effort to identify and rank research priorities for childhood drug-resistant TB. The result is a resource to guide research to improve prevention and treatment of drug-resistant TB in children.

  15. Identifying primary care patient safety research priorities in the UK: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

    PubMed

    Morris, Rebecca Lauren; Stocks, Susan Jill; Alam, Rahul; Taylor, Sian; Rolfe, Carly; Glover, Steven William; Whitcombe, Joanne; Campbell, Stephen M

    2018-02-28

    To identify the top 10 unanswered research questions for primary care patient safety research. A modified nominal group technique. UK. Anyone with experience of primary care including: patients, carers and healthcare professionals. 341 patients and 86 healthcare professionals submitted questions. A top 10, and top 30, future research questions for primary care patient safety. 443 research questions were submitted by 341 patients and 86 healthcare professionals, through a national survey. After checking for relevance and rephrasing, a total of 173 questions were collated into themes. The themes were largely focused on communication, team and system working, interfaces across primary and secondary care, medication, self-management support and technology. The questions were then prioritised through a national survey, the top 30 questions were taken forward to the final prioritisation workshop. The top 10 research questions focused on the most vulnerable in society, holistic whole-person care, safer communication and coordination between care providers, work intensity, continuity of care, suicide risk, complex care at home and confidentiality. This study was the first national prioritisation exercise to identify patient and healthcare professional priorities for primary care patient safety research. The research priorities identified a range of important gaps in the existing evidence to inform everyday practice to address primary care patient safety. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

  16. Enrollees Choose Priorities for Medicare

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Danis, Marion; Biddle, Andrea K.; Goold, Susan Dorr

    2004-01-01

    Purpose: The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility and results of ascertaining Medicare enrollees' priorities for insured medical benefits. Design and Methods: Structured group exercises were conducted with Medicare enrollees from clinical and community settings in central North Carolina. By participating in a decision exercise,…

  17. A decision support tool for setting population objectives for priority landbirds in the Central Hardwoods and West Gulf Coastal Plain/Quachitas Bird Conservation Regions

    Treesearch

    D. Todd Jones-Farrand; John M. Tirpak; Frank R. Thompson; Daniel J. Twedt; Charles K. Baxter; Jane A. Fitzgerald; William B. Uihlein

    2009-01-01

    Setting and achieving population objectives for priority landbirds must be informed by, 1) the quantity, quality, and spatial confi guration of available habitat, 2) an explicit linkage between habitat condition and population response, and 3) expected future habitat conditions. Based on this philosophy, the Central Hardwoods and Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Ventures...

  18. 40 CFR 35.1620-5 - State work programs and lake priority lists.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ... lakes according to trophic condition (§ 35.1630) and to set priorities for implementing clean lakes... 40 Protection of Environment 1 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false State work programs and lake priority... Publicly Owned Freshwater Lakes § 35.1620-5 State work programs and lake priority lists. (a)(1) A State...

  19. Establishing Priorities for Oncology Nursing Research: Nurse and Patient Collaboration.

    PubMed

    Cox, Anna; Arber, Anne; Gallagher, Ann; MacKenzie, Mairead; Ream, Emma

    2017-03-01

    To obtain consensus on priorities for oncology nursing research in the United Kingdom.
. A three-round online Delphi survey.
. Oncology nurses were invited via the United Kingdom Oncology Nursing Society (UKONS) database. Patient participation was invited through patient organizations.
. 50 oncology nurses and 18 patients.
. Eligible and consenting individuals reported five priorities for oncology nursing research (round 1), rated their level of agreement with them (round 2), and restated and revised their responses in light of the group's responses (round 3). Consensus was defined as 80% agreement.
. Research priorities for oncology nursing as reported by oncology nurses and patients. 
. Consensus was reached on 50 of 107 research priorities. These priorities reflected the entire cancer pathway, from diagnosis to palliative care. Highest agreement was reached within and across groups on the need for research relating to prevention, screening, early diagnosis, and psychological care across the cancer trajectory. Little consensus was reached regarding symptoms and side effects. Some evident divergence existed. Oncology nurses and patients do not necessarily prioritize the same research areas. Prevention, screening, and early diagnosis are of the highest priority for future research among oncology nurses and patients. 
. Patients usually play little part in priority setting for research. This study provided the opportunity for meaningful patient and nurse involvement in setting a research agenda for oncology nursing that is relevant and beneficial to oncology nurses and patients.

  20. Development of research priorities in paediatric pain and palliative care

    PubMed Central

    Liossi, Christina; Anderson, Anna-Karenia; Howard, Richard F

    2016-01-01

    Priority setting for healthcare research is as important as conducting the research itself because rigorous and systematic processes of priority setting can make an important contribution to the quality of research. This project aimed to prioritise clinical therapeutic uncertainties in paediatric pain and palliative care in order to encourage and inform the future research agenda and raise the profile of paediatric pain and palliative care in the United Kingdom. Clinical therapeutic uncertainties were identified and transformed into patient, intervention, comparison and outcome (PICO) format and prioritised using a modified Nominal Group Technique. Members of the Clinical Studies Group in Pain and Palliative Care within National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Research Network (CRN)-Children took part in the prioritisation exercise. There were 11 clinically active professionals spanning across a wide range of paediatric disciplines and one parent representative. The top three research priorities related to establishing the safety and efficacy of (1) gabapentin in the management of chronic pain with neuropathic characteristics, (2) intravenous non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the management of post-operative pain in pre-schoolers and (3) different opioid formulations in the management of acute pain in children while at home. Questions about the long-term effect of psychological interventions in the management of chronic pain and various pharmacological interventions to improve pain and symptom management in palliative care were among the ‘top 10’ priorities. The results of prioritisation were included in the UK Database of Uncertainties about the Effects of Treatments (DUETS) database. Increased awareness of priorities and priority-setting processes should encourage clinicians and other stakeholders to engage in such exercises in the future. PMID:28386399

  1. 75 FR 146 - Public Comment on Candidate National Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Priorities for Fiscal...

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2010-01-04

    ... Assurance, is collecting external comment on a set of candidate enforcement and compliance priorities for FY... National Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Priorities for Fiscal Years 2011-2013 AGENCY: Environmental... national priorities to be addressed for fiscal years 2011-2013. EPA selects these priority areas every...

  2. The Priority Heuristic: Making Choices without Trade-Offs

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Brandstatter, Eduard; Gigerenzer, Gerd; Hertwig, Ralph

    2006-01-01

    Bernoulli's framework of expected utility serves as a model for various psychological processes, including motivation, moral sense, attitudes, and decision making. To account for evidence at variance with expected utility, the authors generalize the framework of fast and frugal heuristics from inferences to preferences. The priority heuristic…

  3. Priority arbitration mechanism

    DOEpatents

    Garmire, Derrick L [Kingston, NY; Herring, Jay R [Poughkeepsie, NY; Stunkel, Craig B [Bethel, CT

    2007-03-06

    A method is provided for selecting a data source for transmission on one of several logical (virtual) lanes embodied in a single physical connection. Lanes are assigned to either a high priority class or to a low priority class. One of six conditions is employed to determine when re-arbitration of lane priorities is desired. When this occurs a next source for transmission is selected based on a the specification of the maximum number of high priority packets that can be sent after a lower priority transmission has been interrupted. Alternatively, a next source for transmission is selected based on a the specification of the maximum number of high priority packets that can be sent while a lower priority packet is waiting. If initialized correctly, the arbiter keeps all of the packets of a high priority packet contiguous, while allowing lower priority packets to be interrupted by the higher priority packets, but not to the point of starvation of the lower priority packets.

  4. Use of programme budgeting and marginal analysis to set priorities for local NHS dental services: learning from the north east of England.

    PubMed

    Holmes, R D; Steele, J G; Exley, C; Vernazza, C R; Donaldson, C

    2018-05-03

    Priority setting is necessary where competing demands exceed the finite resources available. The aim of the study was to develop and test a prioritization framework based upon programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) as a tool to assist National Health Service (NHS) commissioners in their management of resources for local NHS dental services. Twenty-seven stakeholders (5 dentists, 8 commissioners and 14 patients) participated in a case-study based in a former NHS commissioning organization in the north of England. Stakeholders modified local decision-making criteria and applied them to a number of different scenarios. The majority of financial resources for NHS dental services in the commissioning organization studied were allocated to primary care dental practitioners' contracts in perpetuity, potentially constraining commissioners' abilities to shift resources. Compiling the programme budget was successful, but organizational flux and difficulties engaging local NHS commissioners significantly impacted upon the marginal analysis phase. NHS dental practitioners' contracts resemble budget-silos which do not facilitate local resource reallocation. 'Context-specific' factors significantly challenged the successful implementation and impact of PBMA. A local PBMA champion embedded within commissioning organizations should be considered. Participants found visual depiction of the cost-value ratio helpful during their initial priority setting deliberations.

  5. Setting Global Research Priorities for Developmental Disabilities, Including Intellectual Disabilities and Autism

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Tomlinson, M.; Yasamy, M. T.; Emerson, E.; Officer, A.; Richler, D.; Saxena, S.

    2014-01-01

    Objectives: The prevalence of intellectual disabilities (ID) has been estimated at 10.4/1000 worldwide with higher rates among children and adolescents in lower income countries. The objective of this paper is to address research priorities for development disabilities, notably ID and autism, at the global level and to propose the more rational…

  6. Comparing the sustainability impacts of solar thermal and natural gas combined cycle for electricity production in Mexico: Accounting for decision makers' priorities

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Rodríguez-Serrano, Irene; Caldés, Natalia; Oltra, Christian; Sala, Roser

    2017-06-01

    The aim of this paper is to conduct a comprehensive sustainability assessment of the electricity generation with two alternative electricity generation technologies by estimating its economic, environmental and social impacts through the "Framework for Integrated Sustainability Assessment" (FISA). Based on a Multiregional Input Output (MRIO) model linked to a social risk database (Social Hotspot Database), the framework accounts for up to fifteen impacts across the three sustainability pillars along the supply chain of the electricity production from Solar Thermal Electricity (STE) and Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) technologies in Mexico. Except for value creation, results show larger negative impacts for NGCC, particularly in the environmental pillar. Next, these impacts are transformed into "Aggregated Sustainability Endpoints" (ASE points) as a way to support the decision making in selecting the best sustainable project. ASE points obtained are later compared to the resulting points weighted by the reported priorities of Mexican decision makers in the energy sector obtained from a questionnaire survey. The comparison shows that NGCC achieves a 1.94 times worse negative score than STE, but after incorporating decision makerś priorities, the ratio increases to 2.06 due to the relevance given to environmental impacts such as photochemical oxidants formation and climate change potential, as well as social risks like human rights risks.

  7. Setting priorities in the health care sector - the case of oral anticoagulants in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation in Denmark.

    PubMed

    Poulsen, Peter Bo; Johnsen, Søren Paaske; Hansen, Morten Lock; Brandes, Axel; Husted, Steen; Harboe, Louise; Dybro, Lars

    2017-01-01

    Resources devoted to health care are limited, therefore setting priorities is required. It differs between countries whether decision-making concerning health care technologies focus on broad economic perspectives or whether focus is narrow on single budgets ("silo mentality"). The cost perspective as one part of the full health economic analysis is important for decision-making. With the case of oral anticoagulants in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), the aim is to discuss the implication of the use of different cost perspectives for decision-making and priority setting. In a cost analysis, the annual average total costs of five oral anticoagulants (warfarin and non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants [NOACs; dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban]) used in daily clinical practice in Denmark for the prevention of stroke in NVAF patients are analyzed. This is done in pairwise comparisons between warfarin and each NOAC based on five potential cost perspectives, from a "drug cost only" perspective up to a "societal" perspective. All comparisons of warfarin and NOACs show that the cost perspective based on all relevant costs, ie, total costs perspective, is essential for the choice of therapy. Focusing on the reimbursement costs of the drugs only, warfarin is the least costly option. However, with the aim of therapy to prevent strokes and limit bleedings, including the economic impact of this, all NOACs, except rivaroxaban, result in slightly lower health care costs compared with warfarin. The same picture was found applying the societal perspective. Many broad cost-effectiveness analyses of NOACs exist. However, in countries with budget focus in decision-making this information does not apply. The present study's case of oral anticoagulants has shown that decision-making should be based on health care or societal cost perspectives for optimal use of limited resources. Otherwise, the risk is that suboptimal decisions will be likely.

  8. Can Wide Consultation Help with Setting Priorities for Large-Scale Biodiversity Monitoring Programs?

    PubMed Central

    Boivin, Frédéric; Simard, Anouk; Peres-Neto, Pedro

    2014-01-01

    Climate and other global change phenomena affecting biodiversity require monitoring to track ecosystem changes and guide policy and management actions. Designing a biodiversity monitoring program is a difficult task that requires making decisions that often lack consensus due to budgetary constrains. As monitoring programs require long-term investment, they also require strong and continuing support from all interested parties. As such, stakeholder consultation is key to identify priorities and make sound design decisions that have as much support as possible. Here, we present the results of a consultation conducted to serve as an aid for designing a large-scale biodiversity monitoring program for the province of Québec (Canada). The consultation took the form of a survey with 13 discrete choices involving tradeoffs in respect to design priorities and 10 demographic questions (e.g., age, profession). The survey was sent to thousands of individuals having expected interests and knowledge about biodiversity and was completed by 621 participants. Overall, consensuses were few and it appeared difficult to create a design fulfilling the priorities of the majority. Most participants wanted 1) a monitoring design covering the entire territory and focusing on natural habitats; 2) a focus on species related to ecosystem services, on threatened and on invasive species. The only demographic characteristic that was related to the type of prioritization was the declared level of knowledge in biodiversity (null to high), but even then the influence was quite small. PMID:25525798

  9. Can wide consultation help with setting priorities for large-scale biodiversity monitoring programs?

    PubMed

    Boivin, Frédéric; Simard, Anouk; Peres-Neto, Pedro

    2014-01-01

    Climate and other global change phenomena affecting biodiversity require monitoring to track ecosystem changes and guide policy and management actions. Designing a biodiversity monitoring program is a difficult task that requires making decisions that often lack consensus due to budgetary constrains. As monitoring programs require long-term investment, they also require strong and continuing support from all interested parties. As such, stakeholder consultation is key to identify priorities and make sound design decisions that have as much support as possible. Here, we present the results of a consultation conducted to serve as an aid for designing a large-scale biodiversity monitoring program for the province of Québec (Canada). The consultation took the form of a survey with 13 discrete choices involving tradeoffs in respect to design priorities and 10 demographic questions (e.g., age, profession). The survey was sent to thousands of individuals having expected interests and knowledge about biodiversity and was completed by 621 participants. Overall, consensuses were few and it appeared difficult to create a design fulfilling the priorities of the majority. Most participants wanted 1) a monitoring design covering the entire territory and focusing on natural habitats; 2) a focus on species related to ecosystem services, on threatened and on invasive species. The only demographic characteristic that was related to the type of prioritization was the declared level of knowledge in biodiversity (null to high), but even then the influence was quite small.

  10. Establishing health systems financing research priorities in developing countries using a participatory methodology.

    PubMed

    Ranson, Kent; Law, Tyler J; Bennett, Sara

    2010-06-01

    Donor funding for health systems financing (HSF) research is inadequate and often poorly aligned with national priorities. This study aimed to generate consensus about a core set of research issues that urgently require attention in order to facilitate policy development. There were three key inputs into the priority setting process: key-informant interviews with health policy makers, researchers, community and civil society representatives across twenty-four low- and middle-income countries in four regions; an overview of relevant reviews to identify research completed to date; and inputs from 12 key informants (largely researchers) at a consultative workshop. Nineteen priority research questions emerged from key-informant interviews. The overview of reviews was instructive in showing which health financing topics have had comparatively little written about them, despite being identified as important by key informants. The questions ranked as most important at the consultative workshop were: It is hoped that this work on HSF research priorities will complement calls for increased health systems research and evaluation by providing specific suggestions as to where new and existing research resources can best be invested. The list of high priority HSF research questions is being communicated to research funders and researchers in order to seek to influence global patterns of HSF research funding and activity. A "bottom up" approach to setting global research priorities such as that employed here should ensure that priorities are more sensitive to user needs. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

  11. Bus accident analysis of routes with/without bus priority.

    PubMed

    Goh, Kelvin Chun Keong; Currie, Graham; Sarvi, Majid; Logan, David

    2014-04-01

    This paper summarises findings on road safety performance and bus-involved accidents in Melbourne along roads where bus priority measures had been applied. Results from an empirical analysis of the accident types revealed significant reduction in the proportion of accidents involving buses hitting stationary objects and vehicles, which suggests the effect of bus priority in addressing manoeuvrability issues for buses. A mixed-effects negative binomial (MENB) regression and back-propagation neural network (BPNN) modelling of bus accidents considering wider influences on accident rates at a route section level also revealed significant safety benefits when bus priority is provided. Sensitivity analyses done on the BPNN model showed general agreement in the predicted accident frequency between both models. The slightly better performance recorded by the MENB model results suggests merits in adopting a mixed effects modelling approach for accident count prediction in practice given its capability to account for unobserved location and time-specific factors. A major implication of this research is that bus priority in Melbourne's context acts to improve road safety and should be a major consideration for road management agencies when implementing bus priority and road schemes. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

  12. Using referrals and priority-setting rules to risk adjust budgets: the case of regional psychiatric centers.

    PubMed

    Holman, Per Arne; Grepperud, Sverre; Tanum, Lars

    2011-03-01

    An important objective of many health care systems is to ensure equal access to health care services. One way of achieving this is by having universal coverage (low or absent out-of-pockets payments) combined with tax-financed transfers (block grants) to providers with a catchment area responsibility. However, a precondition for equal access in such systems is that providers have similar capacities -- meaning that budgets must be perfectly adjusted for variations in treatment costs not being under the control of providers (risk adjustment). This study presents a method that can be applied to adjust global budgets for variation in health risks. The method is flexible in the sense that it takes into account the possibility that variation in needs may depend on the degree of rationing in supplying health care services. The information being available from referrals is used to risk-adjust budgets. An expert panel ranks each individual on the basis of need. The ranking is performed according to priority-setting criteria for health care services. In addition, the panel suggests an adequate treatment profile (treatment category and treatment intensity) for each referral reviewed. By coupling the treatment profiles with cost information, risk-adjusted budgets are derived. Only individuals found to have a sufficiently high ranking (degree of need) will impact the derived risk-adjusted formula. The method is applied to four Regional Psychiatric Centers (RPC) supplying (i) outpatient services, (ii) day-patient care, and (iii) inpatient treatment for adults. The budget reallocations needed (positive and negative) to achieve an equal capacity across providers range between 10% and 42% of the current budgets. Our method can identify variations across providers when it comes to actual capacity and suggests budget reallocations that make the capacities to be equal across providers. In the case of the Regional Psychiatric Centers (RPCs) considered in this analysis, significant

  13. Research Priorities in Spasmodic Dysphonia

    PubMed Central

    Ludlow, Christy L.; Adler, Charles H.; Berke, Gerald S.; Bielamowicz, Steven A.; Blitzer, Andrew; Bressman, Susan B.; Hallett, Mark; Jinnah, H. A.; Juergens, Uwe; Martin, Sandra B.; Perlmutter, Joel S.; Sapienza, Christine; Singleton, Andrew; Tanner, Caroline M.; Woodson, Gayle E.

    2009-01-01

    OBJECTIVE To identify research priorities for increasing understanding of the pathogenesis, diagnosis and improved treatment of spasmodic dysphonia. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING A multidisciplinary working group was formed including both scientists and clinicians from multiple disciplines, otolaryngology, neurology, speech pathology, genetics and neuroscience, to review currently available information on spasmodic dysphonia and to identify research priorities. RESULTS Operational definitions for spasmodic dysphonia at different levels of certainty were recommended for diagnosis and recommendations made for a multi-center multidisciplinary validation study. CONCLUSIONS The highest priority is to characterize the disorder and identify risk factors that may contribute to its onset. Future research should compare and contrast spasmodic dysphonia with other forms of focal dystonia. Development of animal models is recommended to explore hypotheses related to pathogenesis. Improved understanding of the pathophysiology of SD should provide the basis for developing new treatment options and exploratory clinical trials. SIGNIFICANCE This document should foster future research to improve the care of patients with this chronic debilitating voice and speech disorder by otolaryngology, neurology, and speech pathology. PMID:18922334

  14. Approaches, tools and methods used for setting priorities in health research in the 21st century

    PubMed Central

    Yoshida, Sachiyo

    2016-01-01

    Background Health research is difficult to prioritize, because the number of possible competing ideas for research is large, the outcome of research is inherently uncertain, and the impact of research is difficult to predict and measure. A systematic and transparent process to assist policy makers and research funding agencies in making investment decisions is a permanent need. Methods To obtain a better understanding of the landscape of approaches, tools and methods used to prioritize health research, I conducted a methodical review using the PubMed database for the period 2001–2014. Results A total of 165 relevant studies were identified, in which health research prioritization was conducted. They most frequently used the CHNRI method (26%), followed by the Delphi method (24%), James Lind Alliance method (8%), the Combined Approach Matrix (CAM) method (2%) and the Essential National Health Research method (<1%). About 3% of studies reported no clear process and provided very little information on how priorities were set. A further 19% used a combination of expert panel interview and focus group discussion (“consultation process”) but provided few details, while a further 2% used approaches that were clearly described, but not established as a replicable method. Online surveys that were not accompanied by face–to–face meetings were used in 8% of studies, while 9% used a combination of literature review and questionnaire to scrutinise the research options for prioritization among the participating experts. Conclusion The number of priority setting exercises in health research published in PubMed–indexed journals is increasing, especially since 2010. These exercises are being conducted at a variety of levels, ranging from the global level to the level of an individual hospital. With the development of new tools and methods which have a well–defined structure – such as the CHNRI method, James Lind Alliance Method and Combined Approach Matrix – it is

  15. Approaches, tools and methods used for setting priorities in health research in the 21(st) century.

    PubMed

    Yoshida, Sachiyo

    2016-06-01

    Health research is difficult to prioritize, because the number of possible competing ideas for research is large, the outcome of research is inherently uncertain, and the impact of research is difficult to predict and measure. A systematic and transparent process to assist policy makers and research funding agencies in making investment decisions is a permanent need. To obtain a better understanding of the landscape of approaches, tools and methods used to prioritize health research, I conducted a methodical review using the PubMed database for the period 2001-2014. A total of 165 relevant studies were identified, in which health research prioritization was conducted. They most frequently used the CHNRI method (26%), followed by the Delphi method (24%), James Lind Alliance method (8%), the Combined Approach Matrix (CAM) method (2%) and the Essential National Health Research method (<1%). About 3% of studies reported no clear process and provided very little information on how priorities were set. A further 19% used a combination of expert panel interview and focus group discussion ("consultation process") but provided few details, while a further 2% used approaches that were clearly described, but not established as a replicable method. Online surveys that were not accompanied by face-to-face meetings were used in 8% of studies, while 9% used a combination of literature review and questionnaire to scrutinise the research options for prioritization among the participating experts. The number of priority setting exercises in health research published in PubMed-indexed journals is increasing, especially since 2010. These exercises are being conducted at a variety of levels, ranging from the global level to the level of an individual hospital. With the development of new tools and methods which have a well-defined structure - such as the CHNRI method, James Lind Alliance Method and Combined Approach Matrix - it is likely that the Delphi method and non

  16. Setting Quality Improvement Priorities for Women Receiving Systemic Therapy for Early-Stage Breast Cancer by Using Population-Level Administrative Data.

    PubMed

    Enright, Katherine A; Taback, Nathan; Powis, Melanie Lynn; Gonzalez, Alejandro; Yun, Lingsong; Sutradhar, Rinku; Trudeau, Maureen E; Booth, Christopher M; Krzyzanowska, Monika K

    2017-10-01

    Purpose Routine evaluation of quality measures (QMs) can drive improvement in cancer systems by highlighting gaps in care. Targeting quality improvement at QMs that demonstrate substantial variation has the potential to make the largest impact at the population level. We developed an approach that uses both variation in performance and number of patients affected by the QM to set priorities for improving the quality of systemic therapy for women with early-stage breast cancer (EBC). Patients and Methods Patients with EBC diagnosed from 2006 to 2010 in Ontario, Canada, were identified in the Ontario Cancer Registry and linked deterministically to multiple health care databases. Individual QMs within a panel of 15 QMs previously developed to assess the quality of systemic therapy across four domains (access, treatment delivery, toxicity, and safety) were ranked on interinstitutional variation in performance (using interquartile range) and the number of patients who were affected; then the two rankings were averaged for a summative priority ranking. Results We identified 28,427 patients with EBC who were treated at 84 institutions. The use of computerized physician electronic order entry for chemotherapy, emergency room visits or hospitalizations during chemotherapy, and timely receipt of chemotherapy were identified as the QMs that had the largest potential to improve quality of care at a system level within this cohort. Conclusion A simple ranking system based on interinstitutional variation in performance and patient volume can be used to identify high-priority areas for quality improvement from a population perspective. This approach is generalizable to other health care systems that use QMs to drive improvement.

  17. Research priorities for the influence of gender on diagnostic imaging choices in the emergency department setting.

    PubMed

    Ashurst, John V; Cherney, Alan R; Evans, Elizabeth M; Kennedy Hall, Michael; Hess, Erik P; Kline, Jeffrey A; Mitchell, Alice M; Mills, Angela M; Weigner, Michael B; Moore, Christopher L

    2014-12-01

    Diagnostic imaging is a cornerstone of patient evaluation in the acute care setting, but little effort has been devoted to understanding the appropriate influence of sex and gender on imaging choices. This article provides background on this issue and a description of the working group and consensus findings reached during the diagnostic imaging breakout session at the 2014 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference "Gender-specific Research in Emergency Care: Investigate, Understand, and Translate How Gender Affects Patient Outcomes." Our goal was to determine research priorities for how sex and gender may (or should) affect imaging choices in the acute care setting. Prior to the conference, the working group identified five areas for discussion regarding the research agenda in sex- and gender-based imaging using literature review and expert consensus. The nominal group technique was used to identify areas for discussion for common presenting complaints to the emergency department where ionizing radiation is often used for diagnosis: suspected pulmonary embolism, suspected kidney stone, lower abdominal pain with a concern for appendicitis, and chest pain concerning for coronary artery disease. The role of sex- and gender-based shared decision-making in diagnostic imaging decisions is also raised. © 2014 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

  18. Setting Priorities for Regional Conservation Planning in the Mediterranean Sea

    PubMed Central

    Micheli, Fiorenza; Levin, Noam; Giakoumi, Sylvaine; Katsanevakis, Stelios; Abdulla, Ameer; Coll, Marta; Fraschetti, Simonetta; Kark, Salit; Koutsoubas, Drosos; Mackelworth, Peter; Maiorano, Luigi; Possingham, Hugh P.

    2013-01-01

    Spatial prioritization in conservation is required to direct limited resources to where actions are most urgently needed and most likely to produce effective conservation outcomes. In an effort to advance the protection of a highly threatened hotspot of marine biodiversity, the Mediterranean Sea, multiple spatial conservation plans have been developed in recent years. Here, we review and integrate these different plans with the goal of identifying priority conservation areas that represent the current consensus among the different initiatives. A review of six existing and twelve proposed conservation initiatives highlights gaps in conservation and management planning, particularly within the southern and eastern regions of the Mediterranean and for offshore and deep sea habitats. The eighteen initiatives vary substantially in their extent (covering 0.1–58.5% of the Mediterranean Sea) and in the location of additional proposed conservation and management areas. Differences in the criteria, approaches and data used explain such variation. Despite the diversity among proposals, our analyses identified ten areas, encompassing 10% of the Mediterranean Sea, that are consistently identified among the existing proposals, with an additional 10% selected by at least five proposals. These areas represent top priorities for immediate conservation action. Despite the plethora of initiatives, major challenges face Mediterranean biodiversity and conservation. These include the need for spatial prioritization within a comprehensive framework for regional conservation planning, the acquisition of additional information from data-poor areas, species or habitats, and addressing the challenges of establishing transboundary governance and collaboration in socially, culturally and politically complex conditions. Collective prioritised action, not new conservation plans, is needed for the north, western, and high seas of the Mediterranean, while developing initial information

  19. 2015 Pediatric Research Priorities in Prehospital Care.

    PubMed

    Browne, Lorin R; Shah, Manish I; Studnek, Jonathan R; Farrell, Brittany M; Mattrisch, Linda M; Reynolds, Stacy; Ostermayer, Daniel G; Brousseau, David C; Lerner, E Brooke

    2016-01-01

    Pediatric prehospital research has been limited, but work in this area is starting to increase particularly with the growth of pediatric-specific research endeavors. Given the increased interest in pediatric prehospital research, there is a need to identify specific research priorities that incorporate the perspective of prehospital providers and other emergency medical services (EMS) stakeholders. To develop a list of specific research priorities that is relevant, specific, and important to the practice of pediatric prehospital care. Three independent committees of EMS providers and researchers were recruited. Each committee developed a list of research topics. These topics were collated and used to initiate a modified Delphi process for developing consensus on a list of research priorities. Participants were the committee members. Topics approved by 80% were retained as research priorities. Topics that were rejected by more than 50% were eliminated. The remaining topics were modified and included on subsequent surveys. Each survey allowed respondents to add additional topics. The surveys were continued until all topics were either successfully retained or rejected and no new topics were suggested. Fifty topics were identified by the three independent committees. These topics were included on the initial electronic survey. There were 5 subsequent surveys. At the completion of the final survey a total of 29 research priorities were identified. These research priorities covered the following study areas: airway management, asthma, cardiac arrest, pain, patient-family interaction, resource utilization, seizure, sepsis, spinal immobilization, toxicology, trauma, training and competency, and vascular access. The research priorities were very specific. For example, under airway the priorities were: "identify the optimal device for effectively managing the airway in the prehospital setting" and "identify the optimal airway management device for specific disease processes

  20. Engaging patients in health research: identifying research priorities through community town halls.

    PubMed

    Etchegary, Holly; Bishop, Lisa; Street, Catherine; Aubrey-Bassler, Kris; Humphries, Dale; Vat, Lidewij Eva; Barrett, Brendan

    2017-03-11

    The vision of Canada's Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research is that patients be actively engaged as partners in health research. Support units have been created across Canada to build capacity in patient-oriented research and facilitate its conduct. This study aimed to explore patients' health research priorities in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador (NL). Eight town halls were held with members of the general public in rural and urban settings across the province. Sessions were a hybrid information-consultation event, with key questions about health research priorities and outcomes guiding the discussion. Sixty eight members of the public attended town hall sessions. A broad range of health experiences in the healthcare system were recounted. Key priorities for the public included access and availability of providers and services, disease prevention and health promotion, and follow-up support and community care. In discussing their health research priorities, participants spontaneously raised a broad range of suggestions for improving the healthcare system in our jurisdiction. Public research priorities and suggestions for improving the provision of healthcare provide valuable information to guide Support Units' planning and priority-setting processes. A range of research areas were raised as priorities for patients that are likely comparable to other healthcare systems. These create a number of health research questions that would be in line with public priorities. Findings also provide lessons learned for others and add to the evidence base on patient engagement methods.

  1. Diarrhoeal diseases and the global health agenda: measuring and changing priority.

    PubMed

    Bump, Jesse B; Reich, Michael R; Johnson, Anne M

    2013-12-01

    We investigate priority setting and the global health agenda by analysing the control of diarrhoeal diseases (CDD). CDD was one of the 'twin engines' of the 1980s' child survival movement, but now has a low priority on the global health agenda, even though diarrhoeal diseases still claim around 1.5 million children annually. In this article, we develop a framework and four indicators of priority to measure CDD's overall prominence on the global health agenda over the last three decades: trends in treatment coverage, changes in perceived priority, changes in financial support and institutional involvement and bibliographic trends. We find that CDD's priority is now one-sixth to one-third of its level in 1985. We then use political analysis to suggest strategies for reframing CDD as an issue and promoting its priority on the global health agenda.

  2. Priority and Negotiation Based Dynamic Spectrum Allocation Scheme for Multiple Radio Access Network Operators

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Kim, Hoon; Hyon, Taein; Lee, Yeonwoo

    Most of previous works have presented the dynamic spectrum allocation (DSA) gain achieved by utilizing the time or regional variations in traffic demand between multi-network operators (NOs). In this paper, we introduce the functionalities required for the entities related with the spectrum sharing and allocation and propose a spectrum allocation algorithm while considering the long-term priority between NOs, the priority between multiple class services, and the urgent bandwidth request. To take into account the priorities among the NOs and the priorities of multiple class services, a spectrum sharing metric (SSM) is proposed, while a negotiation procedure is proposed to treat the urgent bandwidth request.

  3. Communication and Decision Making in Cancer Care: Setting Research Priorities for Decision Support/Patients’ Decision Aids

    PubMed Central

    Barnato, Amber E.; Llewellyn-Thomas, Hilary A.; Peters, Ellen M.; Siminoff, Laura; Collins, E. Dale; Barry, Michael J.

    2013-01-01

    The following is a summary report from a special symposium, entitled “Translating Research into Practice: Setting a Research Agenda for Clinical Decision Tools in Cancer Prevention, Early Detection, and Treatment”, that was held on October 23, 2005 in San Francisco at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making (SMDM). The symposium was designed to answer the question: “What are the top two research priorities in the field of patients’ cancer-related decision aids?” After introductory remarks by Dr. Barry, each of four panelists–Drs. Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas, Ellen Peters, Laura Siminoff, and Dale Collins–addressed the question and provided their rationale during prepared remarks. The moderator, Dr. Michael Barry, then facilitated a discussion between the panelists, with input from the audience, to further explore and add to the various proposed research questions. Finally, Dr. Amber Barnato conducted a simple vote count (see Table 1) to prioritize the panelists’ and the audience’s recommendations. PMID:17873249

  4. Involving citizens in priority setting for public health research: Implementation in infection research.

    PubMed

    Rawson, Timothy M; Castro-Sánchez, Enrique; Charani, Esmita; Husson, Fran; Moore, Luke S P; Holmes, Alison H; Ahmad, Raheelah

    2018-02-01

    Public sources fund the majority of UK infection research, but citizens currently have no formal role in resource allocation. To explore the feasibility and willingness of citizens to engage in strategic decision making, we developed and tested a practical tool to capture public priorities for research. A scenario including six infection themes for funding was developed to assess citizen priorities for research funding. This was tested over two days at a university public festival. Votes were cast anonymously along with rationale for selection. The scenario was then implemented during a three-hour focus group exploring views on engagement in strategic decisions and in-depth evaluation of the tool. 188/491(38%) prioritized funding research into drug-resistant infections followed by emerging infections(18%). Results were similar between both days. Focus groups contained a total of 20 citizens with an equal gender split, range of ethnicities and ages ranging from 18 to >70 years. The tool was perceived as clear with participants able to make informed comparisons. Rationale for funding choices provided by voters and focus group participants are grouped into three major themes: (i) Information processing; (ii) Knowledge of the problem; (iii) Responsibility; and a unique theme within the focus groups (iv) The potential role of citizens in decision making. Divergent perceptions of relevance and confidence of "non-experts" as decision makers were expressed. Voting scenarios can be used to collect, en-masse, citizens' choices and rationale for research priorities. Ensuring adequate levels of citizen information and confidence is important to allow deployment in other formats. © 2017 The Authors Health Expectations Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

  5. Consulting patients in setting priorities in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (M.E.) research: findings from a national on-line survey.

    PubMed

    Childs, Nicola; Robinson, Lisa; Chowdhury, Sonya; Ogden, Clare; Newton, Julia L

    2015-01-01

    Myalgic encephalitis (M.E.) is a common condition, the cause of which is not known and there are no treatments available. In this study the national patient support group Action for M.E. sought the opinions of their members via an online survey as to what they felt should be future priorities for M.E. Respondents were asked what they considered first, second and third research priorities to be from a list of 13 pre-defined options. Individuals were invited to provide additional free text comments about Action for M.E.'s research priorities in general. Of the 1144 respondents: 822 had M.E.; 94 were a supporting a member of Action for M.E. ; 66 were carers for someone with M.E.; 26 were professionals with an interest in M.E.; 136 had a family member or colleague with M.E. Individuals selected more than one category as applicable. The top five research priorities identified were: disease processes to achieve a better understanding of the causes of M.E.; more effective treatments; faster and more accurate diagnosis; clinical course of M.E.; outcomes and natural history; and severely affected patients. Least popular priorities were: sleep; economic research towards identifying the cost of ME; and psychological aspects. Much of the free text comments emphasised the importance of funding biomedical research into disease processes to achieve a better understanding of the causes of M.E. Three themes were identified in relation to this topic: accurate diagnosis and awareness; risk factors and causes; drug development and curative therapies. In conclusion; individuals affected by M.E. have clear views regarding priorities for research investment. These have informed Action for M.E.'s ongoing research strategy and ultimately will inform national and international research priorities.

  6. Environmental contaminants in food. Volume II-part a: working papers. I. Priority setting of toxic substances for guiding monitoring programs. II. Five case studies of environmental food contamination

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Not Available

    This volume contains working papers written for Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) to assist in preparation of the report Environmental Contaminants in Food. The contents include: (1) Priority setting of toxic substances for guiding monitoring programs; and (2) Five case studies of environmental food contamination.

  7. Decision Making and Priority Setting: The Evolving Path Towards Universal Health Coverage.

    PubMed

    Paolucci, Francesco; Redekop, Ken; Fouda, Ayman; Fiorentini, Gianluca

    2017-12-01

    Health technology assessment (HTA) is widely viewed as an essential component in good universal health coverage (UHC) decision-making in any country. Various HTA tools and metrics have been developed and refined over the years, including systematic literature reviews (Cochrane), economic modelling, and cost-effectiveness ratios and acceptability curves. However, while the cost-effectiveness ratio is faithfully reported in most full economic evaluations, it is viewed by many as an insufficient basis for reimbursement decisions. Emotional debates about the reimbursement of cancer drugs, orphan drugs, and end-of-life treatments have revealed fundamental disagreements about what should and should not be considered in reimbursement decisions. Part of this disagreement seems related to the equity-efficiency tradeoff, which reflects fundamental differences in priorities. All in all, it is clear that countries aiming to improve UHC policies will have to go beyond the capacity building needed to utilize the available HTA toolbox. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) offers a more comprehensive tool for reimbursement decisions where different weights of different factors/attributes can give policymakers important insights to consider. Sooner or later, every country will have to develop their own way to carefully combine the results of those tools with their own priorities. In the end, all policymaking is based on a mix of facts and values.

  8. Setting priorities for comparative effectiveness research on management of primary angle closure: a survey of Asia-Pacific clinicians.

    PubMed

    Yu, Tsung; Li, Tianjing; Lee, Kinbo J; Friedman, David S; Dickersin, Kay; Puhan, Milo A

    2015-01-01

    To set priorities for new systematic reviews (SRs) and randomized clinical trials on the management of primary angle closure (PAC) using clinical practice guidelines and a survey of Asia-Pacific clinicians. We restated the American Academy of Ophthalmology's Preferred Practice Patterns recommendations for management of PAC into answerable clinical questions. We asked participants at the Asia-Pacific Joint Glaucoma Congress 2010 in Taipei to rate the importance of having an answer to each question for providing effective patient care, using a Likert-type scale and scoring from 0 (not important at all) to 10 (highly important). We identified relevant SRs and mapped the evidence to clinical questions to identify evidence gaps. We generated 42 clinical questions. One hundred seventy-five individuals agreed to participate in the survey, 132 responded (75.4% response rate) and 96 completed the questionnaire (54.9% usable response rate). Questions rated important include laser iridotomy for the prevention of angle closure in primary angle-closure suspects, further therapies in eyes with plateau iris syndrome after laser iridotomy, and evaluation of the fellow eye in acute angle-closure patients for improving prognosis. Up-to-date and conclusive SR evidence was not available for any of the 42 clinical questions. We identified high priority clinical questions on the management of PAC, none of which had reliable SR evidence available. New SRs and randomized clinical trials can be initiated to address these evidence gaps.

  9. 36 CFR 230.39 - State priority plan-financial assistance.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ... with Federal financial accounting standards. If an existing cost-share program is used, a copy of the... 36 Parks, Forests, and Public Property 2 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false State priority plan-financial...—financial assistance. (a) Cost-share financial assistance includes a wide range of activities and practices...

  10. Setting priorities for non-regulatory animal health in Ireland: results from an expert Policy Delphi study and a farmer priority identification survey.

    PubMed

    More, Simon J; McKenzie, Ken; O'Flaherty, Joe; Doherty, Michael L; Cromie, Andrew R; Magan, Mike J

    2010-07-01

    Agriculture is a very important contributor to the Irish economy. In Ireland, national animal health services have been a government, rather than an industry, responsibility. In 2009, Animal Health Ireland (AHI) was established to provide a partnership approach to national leadership of non-regulatory animal health issues (those not subject to national and/or EU regulation). The objectives of this study were to elicit opinion from experts and farmers about non-regulatory animal health issues facing Irish livestock industries, including prioritisation of animal health issues and identification of opportunities to maximise the effective use of AHI resources. The study was conducted with experts using Policy Delphi methodology over three rounds, and with farmers using a priority identification survey. Non-regulatory bovine diseases/conditions were prioritised by both experts and farmers based on impact and international competitiveness. For each high-priority disease/condition, experts were asked to provide an assessment based on cost, impact, international perception, impediment to international market access and current resource usage effectiveness. Further information was also sought from experts about resource allocation preferences, methods to improve education and coordination, and innovative measures to improve prevention and management. There was close agreement between responses from experts and dairy farmers: each gave highest priority to 3 diseases with a biosecurity risk (subsequently termed 'biosecure diseases') (bovine viral diarrhoea [BVD], infectious bovine rhinotracheitis [IBR], paratuberculosis) and 4 diseases/conditions generally without a biosecurity risk ('non-biosecure diseases/conditions') (fertility, udder health/milk quality, lameness, calf health). Beef farmers also prioritised parasitic conditions and weanling pneumonia. The adverse impact of biosecure diseases is currently considered relatively minor by experts, but would increase

  11. Introducing New Priority Setting and Resource Allocation Processes in a Canadian Healthcare Organization: A Case Study Analysis Informed by Multiple Streams Theory

    PubMed Central

    Smith, Neale; Mitton, Craig; Dowling, Laura; Hiltz, Mary-Ann; Campbell, Matthew; Gujar, Shashi Ashok

    2016-01-01

    Background: In this article, we analyze one case instance of how proposals for change to the priority setting and resource allocation (PSRA) processes at a Canadian healthcare institution reached the decision agenda of the organization’s senior leadership. We adopt key concepts from an established policy studies framework – Kingdon’s multiple streams theory – to inform our analysis. Methods: Twenty-six individual interviews were conducted at the IWK Health Centre in Halifax, NS, Canada. Participants were asked to reflect upon the reasons leading up to the implementation of a formal priority setting process – Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA) – in the 2012/2013 fiscal year. Responses were analyzed qualitatively using Kingdon’s model as a template. Results: The introduction of PBMA can be understood as the opening of a policy window. A problem stream – defined as lack of broad engagement and information sharing across service lines in past practice – converged with a known policy solution, PBMA, which addressed the identified problems and was perceived as easy to use and with an evidence-base from past applications across Canada and elsewhere. Conditions in the political realm allowed for this intervention to proceed, but also constrained its potential outcomes. Conclusion: Understanding in a theoretically-informed way how change occurs in healthcare management practices can provide useful lessons to researchers and decision-makers whose aim is to help health systems achieve the most effective use of available financial resources PMID:26673646

  12. Introducing New Priority Setting and Resource Allocation Processes in a Canadian Healthcare Organization: A Case Study Analysis Informed by Multiple Streams Theory.

    PubMed

    Smith, Neale; Mitton, Craig; Dowling, Laura; Hiltz, Mary-Ann; Campbell, Matthew; Gujar, Shashi Ashok

    2015-09-24

    In this article, we analyze one case instance of how proposals for change to the priority setting and resource allocation (PSRA) processes at a Canadian healthcare institution reached the decision agenda of the organization's senior leadership. We adopt key concepts from an established policy studies framework - Kingdon's multiple streams theory - to inform our analysis. Twenty-six individual interviews were conducted at the IWK Health Centre in Halifax, NS, Canada. Participants were asked to reflect upon the reasons leading up to the implementation of a formal priority setting process - Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA) - in the 2012/2013 fiscal year. Responses were analyzed qualitatively using Kingdon's model as a template. The introduction of PBMA can be understood as the opening of a policy window. A problem stream - defined as lack of broad engagement and information sharing across service lines in past practice - converged with a known policy solution, PBMA, which addressed the identified problems and was perceived as easy to use and with an evidence-base from past applications across Canada and elsewhere. Conditions in the political realm allowed for this intervention to proceed, but also constrained its potential outcomes. Understanding in a theoretically-informed way how change occurs in healthcare management practices can provide useful lessons to researchers and decision-makers whose aim is to help health systems achieve the most effective use of available financial resources. © 2016 by Kerman University of Medical Sciences.

  13. Best Practices and Processes for Choosing Research Priorities

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Briscoe, M. G.

    2015-12-01

    Individuals, teams, departments, organizations, funding agencies, committees, and others all need to select desirable research priorities from many possible alternatives. One cannot do everything, one cannot afford everything, so what to select? Essays and reports since Weinberg (1963) have suggested criteria for choosing science topics. Popper et al (2000) reviewed and summarized all that had gone before in the subject of setting priorities; their main conclusions were that the underlying principles were the promotion of excellence and relevance. Sea Change (2015) from the NRC/OSB focused on four criteria. From most important to least important, they were transformative science, societal impacts, readiness, and partnership potential; these four criteria embodied the essence of the suggestions from Weinberg on, framed with the pragmatism of ORPISS (2007). Getting to the final set of priorities from many candidates involves a sequence of formal or informal processes, only the last of which is the application of the selected, weighted criteria. As developed by professional prioritization experts, the best-practice steps and processes are: Collection of input candidates from the community. Clustering and parsing/rephrasing of the input to eliminate redundancy and repetition and develop statements at a useful level of specificity. (NOTE:there is no counting of input to see how many times a particular topic was mentioned. The goal is diversity in the input, not a popularity contest.) Development of the selection criteria, and weighting the chosen criteria. Application of the selection criteria to the clustered/adjusted candidates. Finally, two more best practices: Do continuing sanity checks, to avoid losing sight of the goals of the effort. Resist the temptation to just sit around a table and talk about it to arrive at the priorities, which depends too much on who the specific members of the prioritization team are, and provides no transparency or explanation of why

  14. Fair Processes for Priority Setting: Putting Theory into Practice Comment on "Expanded HTA: Enhancing Fairness and Legitimacy".

    PubMed

    Jansen, Maarten P; Helderman, Jan-Kees; Boer, Bert; Baltussen, Rob

    2016-07-03

    Embedding health technology assessment (HTA) in a fair process has great potential to capture societal values relevant to public reimbursement decisions on health technologies. However, the development of such processes for priority setting has largely been theoretical. In this paper, we provide further practical lead ways on how these processes can be implemented. We first present the misconception about the relation between facts and values that is since long misleading the conduct of HTA and underlies the current assessment-appraisal split. We then argue that HTA should instead be explicitly organized as an ongoing evidence-informed deliberative process, that facilitates learning among stakeholders. This has important consequences for whose values to consider, how to deal with vested interests, how to consider all values in the decision-making process, and how to communicate decisions. This is in stark contrast to how HTA processes are implemented now. It is time to set the stage for HTA as learning. © 2017 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

  15. Delays in Prior Living Kidney Donors Receiving Priority on the Transplant Waiting List

    PubMed Central

    Klassen, David K.; Kucheryavaya, Anna Y.; Stewart, Darren E.

    2016-01-01

    Background and objectives Prior living donors (PLDs) receive very high priority on the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) kidney waiting list. Program delays in adding PLDs to the waiting list, setting their status to active, and submitting requests for PLD priority can affect timely access to transplantation. Design, setting, participants, & measurements We used the OPTN and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data to examine timing of (1) listing relative to start of dialysis, (2) activation on the waiting list, and (3) requests for PLD priority relative to listing date. There were 210 PLDs (221 registrations) added to the OPTN kidney waiting list between January 1, 2010 and July 31, 2015. Results As of September 4, 2015, 167 of the 210 PLDs received deceased donor transplants, six received living donor transplants, two died, five were too sick to transplant, and 29 were still waiting. Median waiting time to deceased donor transplant for PLDs was 98 days. Only 40.7% of 221 PLD registrations (n=90) were listed before they began dialysis; 68.3% were in inactive status for <90 days, 17.6% were in inactive status for 90–365 days, 8.6% were in inactive status for 1–2 years, and 5.4% were in inactive status for >2 years. Median time of PLDs waiting in active status before receiving PLD priority was 2 days (range =0–1450); 67.4% of PLDs received PLD priority within 7 days after activation, but 15.4% waited 8–30 days, 8.1% waited 1–3 months, 4.1% waited 3–12 months, and 5.0% waited >1 year in active status for PLD priority. After receiving priority, most were transplanted quickly. Median time in active status with PLD priority before deceased donor transplant was 23 days. Conclusions Fewer than one half of listed PLDs were listed before starting dialysis. Most listed PLDs are immediately set to active status and receive PLD priority quickly, but a substantial number spends time in active status without PLD priority or a large

  16. A set of constitutive relationships accounting for residual NAPL in the unsaturated zone.

    PubMed

    Wipfler, E L; van der Zee, S E

    2001-07-01

    Although laboratory experiments show that non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) is retained in the unsaturated zone, no existing multiphase flow model has been developed to account for residual NAPL after NAPL drainage in the unsaturated zone. We developed a static constitutive set of saturation-capillary pressure relationships for water, NAPL and air that accounts for both this residual NAPL and entrapped NAPL. The set of constitutive relationships is formulated similarly to the set of scaled relationships that is frequently applied in continuum models. The new set consists of three fluid-phase systems: a three-phase system and a two-phase system, that both comply with the original constitutive model, and a newly introduced residual NAPL system. The new system can be added relatively easily to the original two- and three-phase systems. Entrapment is included in the model. The constitutive relationships of the non-drainable residual NAPL system are based on qualitative fluid behavior derived from a pore scale model. The pore scale model reveals that the amount of residual NAPL depends on the spreading coefficient and the water saturation. Furthermore, residual NAPL is history-dependent. At the continuum scale, a critical NAPL pressure head defines the transition from free, mobile NAPL to residual NAPL. Although the Pc-S relationships for water and total liquid are not independent in case of residual NAPL, two two-phase Pc-S relations can represent a three-phase residual system of Pc-S relations. A newly introduced parameter, referred to as the residual oil pressure head, reflects the mutual dependency of water and oil. Example calculations show consistent behavior of the constitutive model. Entrapment and retention in the unsaturated zone cooperate to retain NAPL. Moreover, the results of our constitutive model are in agreement with experimental observations.

  17. Potential High Priority Subaerial Environments for Mars Sample Return

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    iMOST Team; Bishop, J. L.; Horgan, B.; Benning, L. G.; Carrier, B. L.; Hausrath, E. M.; Altieri, F.; Amelin, Y.; Ammannito, E.; Anand, M.; Beaty, D. W.; Borg, L. E.; Boucher, D.; Brucato, J. R.; Busemann, H.; Campbell, K. A.; Czaja, A. D.; Debaille, V.; Des Marais, D. J.; Dixon, M.; Ehlmann, B. L.; Farmer, J. D.; Fernandez-Remolar, D. C.; Fogarty, J.; Glavin, D. P.; Goreva, Y. S.; Grady, M. M.; Hallis, L. J.; Harrington, A. D.; Herd, C. D. K.; Humayun, M.; Kleine, T.; Kleinhenz, J.; Mangold, N.; Mackelprang, R.; Mayhew, L. E.; McCubbin, F. M.; Mccoy, J. T.; McLennan, S. M.; McSween, H. Y.; Moser, D. E.; Moynier, F.; Mustard, J. F.; Niles, P. B.; Ori, G. G.; Raulin, F.; Rettberg, P.; Rucker, M. A.; Schmitz, N.; Sefton-Nash, E.; Sephton, M. A.; Shaheen, R.; Shuster, D. L.; Siljestrom, S.; Smith, C. L.; Spry, J. A.; Steele, A.; Swindle, T. D.; ten Kate, I. L.; Tosca, N. J.; Usui, T.; Van Kranendonk, M. J.; Wadhwa, M.; Weiss, B. P.; Werner, S. C.; Westall, F.; Wheeler, R. M.; Zipfel, J.; Zorzano, M. P.

    2018-04-01

    The highest priority subaerial environments for Mars Sample Return include subaerial weathering (paleosols, periglacial/glacial, and rock coatings/rinds), wetlands (mineral precipitates, redox environments, and salt ponds), or cold spring settings.

  18. Exploring stakeholders' views of medical education research priorities: a national survey.

    PubMed

    Dennis, Ashley A; Cleland, Jennifer A; Johnston, Peter; Ker, Jean S; Lough, Murray; Rees, Charlotte E

    2014-11-01

    Setting research priorities is important when exploring complex issues with limited resources. Only two countries (Canada and New Zealand) have previously conducted priority-setting exercises for medical education research (MER). This study aimed to identify the views of multiple stakeholders on MER priorities in Scotland. This study utilised a two-stage design to explore the views of stakeholders across the medical education continuum using online questionnaires. In Stage 1, key informants outlined their top three MER priorities and justified their choices. In Stage 2, participants rated 21 topics generated in Stage 1 according to importance and identified or justified their top priorities. A combination of qualitative (i.e. framework analysis) and quantitative (e.g. exploratory factor analysis) data analyses were employed. Views were gathered from over 1300 stakeholders. A total of 21 subthemes (or priority areas) identified in Stage 1 were explored further in Stage 2. The 21 items loaded onto five factors: the culture of learning together in the workplace; enhancing and valuing the role of educators; curriculum integration and innovation; bridging the gap between assessment and feedback, and building a resilient workforce. Within Stage 2, the top priority subthemes were: balancing conflicts between service and training; providing useful feedback; promoting resiliency and well-being; creating an effective workplace learning culture; selecting and recruiting doctors to reflect need, and ensuring that curricula prepare trainees for practice. Participant characteristics were related to the perceived importance of the factors. Finally, five themes explaining why participants prioritised items were identified: patient safety; quality of care; investing for the future; policy and political agendas, and evidence-based education. This study indicates that, across the spectrum of stakeholders and geography, certain MER priorities are consistently identified. These

  19. Comparing two sampling methods to engage hard-to-reach communities in research priority setting.

    PubMed

    Valerio, Melissa A; Rodriguez, Natalia; Winkler, Paula; Lopez, Jaime; Dennison, Meagen; Liang, Yuanyuan; Turner, Barbara J

    2016-10-28

    Effective community-partnered and patient-centered outcomes research needs to address community priorities. However, optimal sampling methods to engage stakeholders from hard-to-reach, vulnerable communities to generate research priorities have not been identified. In two similar rural, largely Hispanic communities, a community advisory board guided recruitment of stakeholders affected by chronic pain using a different method in each community: 1) snowball sampling, a chain- referral method or 2) purposive sampling to recruit diverse stakeholders. In both communities, three groups of stakeholders attended a series of three facilitated meetings to orient, brainstorm, and prioritize ideas (9 meetings/community). Using mixed methods analysis, we compared stakeholder recruitment and retention as well as priorities from both communities' stakeholders on mean ratings of their ideas based on importance and feasibility for implementation in their community. Of 65 eligible stakeholders in one community recruited by snowball sampling, 55 (85 %) consented, 52 (95 %) attended the first meeting, and 36 (65 %) attended all 3 meetings. In the second community, the purposive sampling method was supplemented by convenience sampling to increase recruitment. Of 69 stakeholders recruited by this combined strategy, 62 (90 %) consented, 36 (58 %) attended the first meeting, and 26 (42 %) attended all 3 meetings. Snowball sampling recruited more Hispanics and disabled persons (all P < 0.05). Despite differing recruitment strategies, stakeholders from the two communities identified largely similar ideas for research, focusing on non-pharmacologic interventions for management of chronic pain. Ratings on importance and feasibility for community implementation differed only on the importance of massage services (P = 0.045) which was higher for the purposive/convenience sampling group and for city improvements/transportation services (P = 0.004) which was higher for the

  20. Priority to End of Life Treatments? Views of the Public in the Netherlands.

    PubMed

    Wouters, Sofie; van Exel, Job; Baker, Rachel; B F Brouwer, Werner

    2017-01-01

    Recent debates in the Netherlands on health care priority setting have focused on the relative value of gains generated by life-extending medicines for people with a terminal illness, mostly new cancer drugs. These treatments are generally expensive, provide relatively small health gains, and therefore usually do not meet common cost per QALY thresholds. Nevertheless, these drugs may be provided under the assumption that there is public support for making a special case for treatments for people with a terminal illness. This study investigated the views of the public in the Netherlands on a range of equity and efficiency considerations relevant to priority setting and examines whether there is public support for making such a special case. Using Q methodology, three viewpoints on important principles for priority setting were identified. Data were collected through ranking exercises conducted by 46 members of the general public in the Netherlands, including 11 respondents with personal experience with cancer. Viewpoint 1 emphasized that people have equal rights to healthcare and opposed priority setting on any ground. Viewpoint 2 emphasized that the care for terminal patients should at all times respect the patients' quality of life, which sometimes means refraining from invasive treatments. Viewpoint 3 had a strong focus on effective and efficient care and had no moral objection against priority setting under certain circumstances. Overall, we found little public support for the assumption that health gains in terminally ill patients are more valuable than those in other patients. This implies that the assumption that society is prepared to pay more for health gains in people who have only a short period of lifetime left does not correspond with societal preferences in the Netherlands. Copyright © 2017 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

  1. Setting research priorities in tobacco control: a stakeholder engagement project

    PubMed Central

    Lindson, Nicola; Richards‐Doran, Dan; Heath, Laura

    2017-01-01

    Abstract Background and Aims The Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group (TAG) conducts systematic reviews of the evidence for tobacco cessation and prevention interventions. In 2016 TAG conducted a priority‐setting, stakeholder engagement project to identify where further research is needed in the areas of tobacco control and smoking cessation. Design The project comprised two surveys and a workshop. A range of stakeholders participated, including members of the public (smokers and ex‐smokers), clinicians, researchers, research funders, health‐care commissioners and public health organizations. The first survey phase identified unanswered research questions in the field of tobacco control. The second phase asked participants to rank these, with overall rankings calculated by combining scores across participants. The workshop allowed attendees to discuss prioritization of topics and questions in more depth. Workshop discussions were transcribed and analysed thematically, and a final voting activity at the close of the workshop allowed participants to choose topics to prioritize and to de‐prioritize. Findings A total of 304 stakeholders (researchers, health professionals, smokers and ex‐smokers, guideline developers, research funders and policymakers, representing 28 countries) identified 183 unanswered research questions. These were categorized into 15 research categories. A total of 175 participants prioritized categories and questions in the second survey phase, with ‘electronic cigarettes’; ‘addressing inequalities’; and ‘mental health and other substance abuse’ prioritized as the top three categories. Forty‐three stakeholders attended the workshop and discussed reasons for and against category prioritization. Prioritized research categories largely mirrored those in the survey stage, although ‘treatment delivery’ also emerged as a key category. Five cross‐cutting themes emerged: efficacy; relative efficacy; cost effectiveness; addressing

  2. Top 10 research priorities relating to stroke nursing: a rigorous approach to establish a national nurse-led research agenda.

    PubMed

    Rowat, Anne; Pollock, Alex; St George, Bridget; Cowey, Eileen; Booth, Joanne; Lawrence, Maggie

    2016-11-01

    To determine the top 10 research priorities specific to stroke nursing. It is important that stroke nurses build their research capability and capacity. This project built on a previous James Lind Alliance prioritization project, which established the shared stroke research priorities of stroke survivors, carers and health professionals. Research priority setting project using James Lind Alliance methods; a survey for interim prioritization and a consensus meeting for final priority setting. Between September - November 2014, stroke nurses were invited to select their top 10 priorities from a previously established list of 226 unique unanswered questions. These data were used to generate a list of shared research priorities (interim priority setting stage). A purposefully selected group of stroke nurses attended a final consensus meeting (April 2015) to determine the top 10 research priorities. During the interim prioritization stage, 97 stroke nurses identified 28 shared priority treatment uncertainties. At the final consensus meeting, 27 stroke nurses reached agreement on the top 10 stroke nursing research priorities. Five of the top 10 questions relate to stroke-specific impairments and five relate to rehabilitation and long-term consequences of stroke. The research agenda for stroke nursing has now been clearly defined, facilitating nurses to undertake research, which is of importance to stroke survivors and carers and central to supporting optimal recovery and quality of life after stroke. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

  3. Health Resources Priority and Allocations System (HRPAS). Interim final rule.

    PubMed

    2015-07-17

    This interim final rule establishes standards and procedures by which the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) may require that certain contracts or orders that promote the national defense be given priority over other contracts or orders. This rule also sets new standards and procedures by which HHS may allocate materials, services, and facilities to promote the national defense. This rule will implement HHS's administration of priorities and allocations actions, and establish the Health Resources Priorities and Allocation System (HRPAS). The HRPAS will cover health resources pursuant to the authority under Section 101(c) of the Defense Production Act as delegated to HHS by Executive Order 13603. Priorities authorities (and other authorities delegated to the Secretary in E.O. 13603, but not covered by this regulation) may be re-delegated by the Secretary. The Secretary retains the authority for allocations.

  4. Cost accounting methodologies in price setting of acute inpatient services in Hungary.

    PubMed

    Gaal, Peter; Stefka, Nóra; Nagy, Júlia

    2006-08-01

    On the basis of documentary analysis and interviews with decision makers, this paper discusses the cost accounting methodologies used for price setting of inpatient services in the Hungarian health care system focusing on sector of acute inpatient care, which is financed through the Hungarian adaptation of Diagnosis Related Groups since 1993. Hungary has a quite sophisticated DRG system, which had a deep impact on the efficiency of the acute inpatient care sector. Nevertheless, the system requires continuous maintenance, where the cooperation of hospitals, as well as the minimisation of political influence are critical success factors.

  5. Research Priorities for Endometriosis.

    PubMed

    Rogers, Peter A W; Adamson, G David; Al-Jefout, Moamar; Becker, Christian M; D'Hooghe, Thomas M; Dunselman, Gerard A J; Fazleabas, Asgerally; Giudice, Linda C; Horne, Andrew W; Hull, M Louise; Hummelshoj, Lone; Missmer, Stacey A; Montgomery, Grant W; Stratton, Pamela; Taylor, Robert N; Rombauts, Luk; Saunders, Philippa T; Vincent, Katy; Zondervan, Krina T

    2017-02-01

    The 3rd International Consensus Workshop on Research Priorities in Endometriosis was held in São Paulo on May 4, 2014, following the 12th World Congress on Endometriosis. The workshop was attended by 60 participants from 19 countries and was divided into 5 main sessions covering pathogenesis/pathophysiology, symptoms, diagnosis/classification/prognosis, disease/symptom management, and research policy. This research priorities consensus statement builds on earlier efforts to develop research directions for endometriosis. Of the 56 research recommendations from the 2011 meeting in Montpellier, a total of 41 remained unchanged, 13 were updated, and 2 were deemed to be completed. Fifty-three new research recommendations were made at the 2014 meeting in Sao Paulo, which in addition to the 13 updated recommendations resulted in a total of 66 new recommendations for research. The research recommendations published herein, as well as those from the 2 previous papers from international consensus workshops, are an attempt to promote high-quality research in endometriosis by identifying and agreeing on key issues that require investigation. New areas included in the 2014 recommendations include infertility, patient stratification, and research in emerging nations, in addition to an increased focus on translational research. A revised and updated set of research priorities that builds on this document will be developed at the 13th World Congress on Endometriosis to be held on May 17-20, 2017, in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

  6. Research Priorities for Endometriosis

    PubMed Central

    Rogers, Peter A. W.; Adamson, G. David; Al-Jefout, Moamar; Becker, Christian M.; D’Hooghe, Thomas M.; Dunselman, Gerard A. J.; Fazleabas, Asgerally; Giudice, Linda C.; Horne, Andrew W.; Hull, M. Louise; Hummelshoj, Lone; Missmer, Stacey A.; Montgomery, Grant W.; Stratton, Pamela; Taylor, Robert N.; Rombauts, Luk; Saunders, Philippa T.; Vincent, Katy; Zondervan, Krina T.; Adamson, G. David

    2016-01-01

    The 3rd International Consensus Workshop on Research Priorities in Endometriosis was held in São Paulo on May 4, 2014, following the 12th World Congress on Endometriosis. The workshop was attended by 60 participants from 19 countries and was divided into 5 main sessions covering pathogenesis/pathophysiology, symptoms, diagnosis/classification/prognosis, disease/symptom management, and research policy. This research priorities consensus statement builds on earlier efforts to develop research directions for endometriosis. Of the 56 research recommendations from the 2011 meeting in Montpellier, a total of 41 remained unchanged, 13 were updated, and 2 were deemed to be completed. Fifty-three new research recommendations were made at the 2014 meeting in Sao Paulo, which in addition to the 13 updated recommendations resulted in a total of 66 new recommendations for research. The research recommendations published herein, as well as those from the 2 previous papers from international consensus workshops, are an attempt to promote high-quality research in endometriosis by identifying and agreeing on key issues that require investigation. New areas included in the 2014 recommendations include infertility, patient stratification, and research in emerging nations, in addition to an increased focus on translational research. A revised and updated set of research priorities that builds on this document will be developed at the 13th World Congress on Endometriosis to be held on May 17–20, 2017, in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. PMID:27368878

  7. Research priorities about stoma-related quality of life from the perspective of people with a stoma: A pilot survey.

    PubMed

    Hubbard, Gill; Taylor, Claire; Beeken, Becca; Campbell, Anna; Gracey, Jackie; Grimmett, Chloe; Fisher, Abi; Ozakinci, Gozde; Slater, Sarah; Gorely, Trish

    2017-12-01

    There is a recognized need to include patients in setting research priorities. Research priorities identified by people with a stoma are rarely elicited. To improve the quality of life of people with a stoma through use of evidence-based practice based on research priorities set by patients. Online pilot survey publicized in 2016 via United Kingdom stoma charities. People ranked nine stoma-related quality of life topics in order of research priority. People 16 years of age and over who currently have or have had a stoma for treatment for any medical condition. Distributions of the priority scores for each of the nine research topics were examined. Group differences were explored using either the Mann-Whitney U-test or the Kruskal-Wallis test depending on the number of groups. In total, 225 people completed the survey. The most important research priority was pouch leak problems and stoma bag/appliance problems followed by hernia risk. There were statistically significant differences in ranking research priorities between males and females, age, underlying disease that led to a stoma, stoma type and length of time with a stoma. People with a stoma are willing to engage in and set research priorities. The results should contribute towards future research about setting the research agenda for the study of stoma-related concerns that impact quality of life. © 2017 The Authors Health Expectations Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

  8. Accountability for Community-Based Programs for the Seriously Ill.

    PubMed

    Teno, Joan M; Montgomery, Russ; Valuck, Tom; Corrigan, Janet; Meier, Diane E; Kelley, Amy; Curtis, J Randall; Engelberg, Ruth

    2018-03-01

    Innovation is needed to improve care of the seriously ill, and there are important opportunities as we transition from a volume- to value-based payment system. Not all seriously ill are dying; some recover, while others are persistently functionally impaired. While we innovate in service delivery and payment models for the seriously ill, it is important that we concurrently develop accountability that ensures a focus on high-quality care rather than narrowly focusing on cost containment. The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation convened a meeting of 45 experts to arrive at guiding principles for measurement, create a starter measurement set, specify a proposed definition of the denominator and its refinement, and identify research priorities for future implementation of the accountability system. A series of articles written by experts provided the basis for debate and guidance in formulating a path forward to develop an accountability system for community-based programs for the seriously ill, outlined in this article. As we innovate in existing population-based payment programs such as Medicare Advantage and develop new alternative payment models, it is important and urgent that we develop the foundation for accountability along with actionable measures so that the healthcare system ensures high-quality person- and family-centered care for persons who are seriously ill.

  9. Accountability for Community-Based Programs for the Seriously Ill

    PubMed Central

    Montgomery, Russ; Valuck, Tom; Corrigan, Janet; Meier, Diane E.; Kelley, Amy; Curtis, J. Randall; Engelberg, Ruth

    2018-01-01

    Abstract Innovation is needed to improve care of the seriously ill, and there are important opportunities as we transition from a volume- to value-based payment system. Not all seriously ill are dying; some recover, while others are persistently functionally impaired. While we innovate in service delivery and payment models for the seriously ill, it is important that we concurrently develop accountability that ensures a focus on high-quality care rather than narrowly focusing on cost containment. The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation convened a meeting of 45 experts to arrive at guiding principles for measurement, create a starter measurement set, specify a proposed definition of the denominator and its refinement, and identify research priorities for future implementation of the accountability system. A series of articles written by experts provided the basis for debate and guidance in formulating a path forward to develop an accountability system for community-based programs for the seriously ill, outlined in this article. As we innovate in existing population-based payment programs such as Medicare Advantage and develop new alternative payment models, it is important and urgent that we develop the foundation for accountability along with actionable measures so that the healthcare system ensures high-quality person- and family-centered care for persons who are seriously ill. PMID:29195052

  10. Reproductive isolation, evolutionary distinctiveness and setting conservation priorities: The case of European lake whitefish and the endangered North Sea houting (Coregonus spp.)

    PubMed Central

    2008-01-01

    Background Adaptive radiation within fishes of the Coregonus lavaretus complex has created numerous morphs, posing significant challenges for taxonomy and conservation priorities. The highly endangered North Sea houting (C. oxyrhynchus; abbreviated NSH) has been considered a separate species from European lake whitefish (C. lavaretus; abbreviated ELW) due to morphological divergence and adaptation to oceanic salinities. However, its evolutionary and taxonomic status is controversial. We analysed microsatellite DNA polymorphism in nine populations from the Jutland Peninsula and the Baltic Sea, representing NSH (three populations, two of which are reintroduced) and ELW (six populations). The objectives were to: 1) analyse postglacial recolonization of whitefish in the region; 2) assess the evolutionary distinctiveness of NSH, and 3) apply several approaches for defining conservation units towards setting conservation priorities for NSH. Results Bayesian cluster analyses of genetic differentiation identified four major groups, corresponding to NSH and three groups of ELW (Western Jutland, Central Jutland, Baltic Sea). Estimates of historical migration rates indicated recolonization in a north-eastern direction, suggesting that all except the Baltic Sea population predominantly represent postglacial recolonization via the ancient Elbe River. Contemporary gene flow has not occurred between NSH and ELW, with a divergence time within the last 4,000 years suggested from coalescence methods. NSH showed interbreeding with ELW when brought into contact by stocking. Thus, reproductive isolation of NSH was not absolute, although possible interbreeding beyond the F1 level could not be resolved. Conclusion Fishes of the C. lavaretus complex in the Jutland Peninsula originate from the same recolonization event. NSH has evolved recently and its species status may be questioned due to incomplete reproductive isolation from ELW, but it was shown to merit consideration as an

  11. Setting high-impact clinical research priorities for the Society for Vascular Surgery.

    PubMed

    Kraiss, Larry W; Conte, Michael S; Geary, Randolph L; Kibbe, Melina; Ozaki, C Keith

    2013-02-01

    With the overall goal of enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of vascular care, the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) recently completed a process by which it identified its top clinical research priorities to address critical gaps in knowledge guiding practitioners in prevention and treatment of vascular disease. After a survey of the SVS membership, a panel of SVS committee members and opinion leaders considered 53 distinct research questions through a structured process that resulted in identification of nine clinical issues that were felt to merit immediate attention by vascular investigators and external funding agencies. These are, in order of priority: (1) define optimal management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis, (2) compare the effectiveness of medical vs invasive treatment (open or endovascular) of vasculogenic claudication, (3) compare effectiveness of open vs endovascular infrainguinal revascularization as initial treatment of critical limb ischemia, (4) develop and compare the effectiveness of clinical strategies to reduce cardiovascular and other perioperative complications (eg, wound) after vascular intervention, (5) compare the effectiveness of strategies to enhance arteriovenous fistula maturation and durability, (6) develop best practices for management of chronic venous ulcer, (7) define optimal adjunctive medical therapy to enhance the success of lower extremity revascularization, (8) identify and evaluate medical therapy to prevent abdominal aortic aneurysm growth, and (9) evaluate ultrasound vs computed tomographic angiography surveillance after endovascular aneurysm repair. Copyright © 2013 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

  12. Setting priorities for teaching and learning: an innovative needs assessment for a new family medicine program in Lao PDR.

    PubMed

    Kanashiro, Jeanie; Hollaar, Gwen; Wright, Bruce; Nammavongmixay, Khamphong; Roff, Sue

    2007-03-01

    Lao People's Democratic Republic (Lao PDR) is a small, tropical, landlocked country in southeast Asia. It is one of the least developed countries in the region, and its socioeconomic indicators are among the lowest 25% in the world. The World Health Organization has long called for increased equity in primary health care access around the world. To meet this need in Lao PDR, the Family Medicine Specialist Program was developed, a Lao-generated postgraduate training program designed to produce community-oriented primary care practitioners to serve the rural, remote areas of Lao PDR, where 80% of the population lives. An innovative method of needs assessment was required to determine the health care priorities to be met by this new program. Through the use of a modified Delphi technique, local key leaders in medical education, clinical specialists, and teachers were consulted to develop prioritized objectives for the hospital-based curriculum of the program. By setting priorities for teaching and learning in the unique and needy circumstances of Lao PDR, a novel approach to curriculum planning in a low-income country was explored and ultimately formed the foundation of the new curriculum. This process served to direct the allocation of scarce resources during implementation of this groundbreaking program. More importantly, this model of needs assessment could potentially be used to customize medical curricula in other low-income countries facing challenges similar to those in Lao PDR.

  13. Resources, attitudes and culture: an understanding of the factors that influence the functioning of accountability mechanisms in primary health care settings.

    PubMed

    Cleary, Susan M; Molyneux, Sassy; Gilson, Lucy

    2013-08-16

    managers and providers from responding to patient and population priorities. Findings suggest that it is important to limit the potential negative impacts on responsiveness of new bureaucratic accountability mechanisms, and identify how these or other interventions might leverage the shifts in organizational culture necessary to encourage innovation and patient-centered care.

  14. Identifying priorities for quality improvement at an emergency Department in Ghana.

    PubMed

    DeWulf, Annelies; Otchi, Elom H; Soghoian, Sari

    2017-08-30

    Healthcare quality improvement (QI) is a global priority, and understanding the perspectives of frontline healthcare workers can help guide sustainable and meaningful change. We report a qualitative investigation of emergency department (ED) staff priorities for QI at a tertiary care hospital in Ghana. The aims of the study were to educate staff about the World Health Organization's (WHO) definition of quality in healthcare, and to identify an initial focus for building a departmental QI program. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with ED staff using open-ended questions to probe their understanding and valuation of the six dimensions of quality defined by the WHO. Participants were then asked to rank the dimensions in order of importance for QI. Qualitative responses were thematically analyzed, and ordinal rank-order was determined for quantitative data regarding QI priorities. Twenty (20) members of staff of different cadres participated, including ED physicians, nurses, orderlies, a security officer, and an accountant. A majority of participants (61%) ranked access to emergency healthcare as high priority for QI. Two recurrent themes - financial accessibility and hospital bed availability - accounted for the majority of discussions, each linked to all the dimensions of healthcare quality. ED staff related all of the WHO quality dimensions to their work, and prioritized access to emergency care as the most important area for improvement. Participants expressed a high degree of motivation to improve healthcare quality, and the study helped with the development of a departmental QI program focused on the broad topic of access to ED services.

  15. Use of survey data to define regional and local priorities for management on national wildlife refuges

    Treesearch

    John R. Sauer; Jennifer Casey; Harold Laskowski; Jan D. Taylor; Jane Fallon

    2005-01-01

    National Wildlife Refuges must manage habitats to support a variety of species that often have conflicting needs. To make reasonable management decisions, managers must know what species are priorities for their refuges and the relative importance of the species. Unfortunately, species priorities are often set regionally, but refuges must develop local priorities that...

  16. Assessing the impact of defining a global priority research agenda to address HIV-associated tuberculosis.

    PubMed

    Odone, Anna; Matteelli, Alberto; Chiesa, Valentina; Cella, Paola; Ferrari, Antonio; Pezzetti, Federica; Signorelli, Carlo; Getahun, Haileyesus

    2016-11-01

    In 2010, the WHO issued 77 priority research questions (PRQs) to address HIV-associated TB. Objective of the this study was to assess the impact of defining the research agenda in stimulating and directing research around priority research questions. We used number and type of scientific publications as a proxy to quantitatively assess the impact of research agenda setting. We conducted 77 single systematic reviews - one for every PRQ - building 77 different search strategies using PRQs' keywords. Multivariate logistic regression models were applied to assess the quantity and quality of research produced over time and accounting for selected covariates. In 2009-2015, PRQs were addressed by 1631 publications (median: 11 studies published per PRQ, range 1-96). The most published area was 'Intensified TB case finding' (median: 23 studies/PRQ, range: 2-74). The majority (62.1%, n = 1013) were published as original studies, and more than half (58%, n = 585) were conducted in the African region. Original studies' publication increased over the study period (P trend = <0.001). They focused more on the 'Intensified TB case finding' (OR = 2.17, 95% CI: 1.56-2.93) and 'Drug-resistant TB and HIV infection' (OR = 2.12, 95% CI: 1.47-3.06) areas than non-original studies. Original studies were published in journals of lower impact factor and received a smaller number of citations than non-original studies (OR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.42-0.69). The generation of evidence to address PRQs has increased over time particularly in selected fields. Setting a priority research agenda for HIV-associated TB might have positively influenced the direction and the conduct of research and contributed to the global response to such a major threat to health. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

  17. Identifying research priorities in anaesthesia and perioperative care: final report of the joint National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia/James Lind Alliance Research Priority Setting Partnership.

    PubMed

    Boney, Oliver; Bell, Madeline; Bell, Natalie; Conquest, Ann; Cumbers, Marion; Drake, Sharon; Galsworthy, Mike; Gath, Jacqui; Grocott, Michael P W; Harris, Emma; Howell, Simon; Ingold, Anthony; Nathanson, Michael H; Pinkney, Thomas; Metcalf, Leanne

    2015-12-16

    To identify research priorities for Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine. Prospective surveys and consensus meetings guided by an independent adviser. UK. 45 stakeholder organisations (25 professional, 20 patient/carer) affiliated as James Lind Alliance partners. First 'ideas-gathering' survey: Free text research ideas and suggestions. Second 'prioritisation' survey: Shortlist of 'summary' research questions (derived from the first survey) ranked by respondents in order of priority. Final 'top ten': Agreed by consensus at a final prioritisation workshop. First survey: 1420 suggestions received from 623 respondents (49% patients/public) were refined into a shortlist of 92 'summary' questions. Second survey: 1718 respondents each nominated up to 10 questions as research priorities. Top ten: The 25 highest-ranked questions advanced to the final workshop, where 23 stakeholders (13 professional, 10 patient/carer) agreed the 10 most important questions: ▸ What can we do to stop patients developing chronic pain after surgery? ▸ How can patient care around the time of emergency surgery be improved? ▸ What long-term harm may result from anaesthesia, particularly following repeated anaesthetics?▸ What outcomes should we use to measure the 'success' of anaesthesia and perioperative care? ▸ How can we improve recovery from surgery for elderly patients? ▸ For which patients does regional anaesthesia give better outcomes than general anaesthesia? ▸ What are the effects of anaesthesia on the developing brain? ▸ Do enhanced recovery programmes improve short and long-term outcomes? ▸ How can preoperative exercise or fitness training, including physiotherapy, improve outcomes after surgery? ▸ How can we improve communication between the teams looking after patients throughout their surgical journey? Almost 2000 stakeholders contributed their views regarding anaesthetic and perioperative research priorities. This is the largest example of patient and public

  18. NASA's Office of Space Science and Applications: Process, priorities, and goals

    NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

    1992-01-01

    Summarized here are the activities of a one-day workshop convened to assess the effectiveness and priority setting mechanisms used by NASA's Office of Space Science and Applications in carrying out its diverse scientific programs. Among the topics discussed were strategic planning, decision making, and goal setting.

  19. An empirical Bayes safety evaluation of tram/streetcar signal and lane priority measures in Melbourne.

    PubMed

    Naznin, Farhana; Currie, Graham; Sarvi, Majid; Logan, David

    2016-01-01

    Streetcars/tram systems are growing worldwide, and many are given priority to increase speed and reliability performance in mixed traffic conditions. Research related to the road safety impact of tram priority is limited. This study explores the road safety impacts of tram priority measures including lane and intersection/signal priority measures. A before-after crash study was conducted using the empirical Bayes (EB) method to provide more accurate crash impact estimates by accounting for wider crash trends and regression to the mean effects. Before-after crash data for 29 intersections with tram signal priority and 23 arterials with tram lane priority in Melbourne, Australia, were analyzed to evaluate the road safety impact of tram priority. The EB before-after analysis results indicated a statistically significant adjusted crash reduction rate of 16.4% after implementation of tram priority measures. Signal priority measures were found to reduce crashes by 13.9% and lane priority by 19.4%. A disaggregate level simple before-after analysis indicated reductions in total and serious crashes as well as vehicle-, pedestrian-, and motorcycle-involved crashes. In addition, reductions in on-path crashes, pedestrian-involved crashes, and collisions among vehicles moving in the same and opposite directions and all other specific crash types were found after tram priority implementation. Results suggest that streetcar/tram priority measures result in safety benefits for all road users, including vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists. Policy implications and areas for future research are discussed.

  20. Global Climate Change Adaptation Priorities for Biodiversity and Food Security

    PubMed Central

    Hannah, Lee; Ikegami, Makihiko; Hole, David G.; Seo, Changwan; Butchart, Stuart H. M.; Peterson, A. Townsend; Roehrdanz, Patrick R.

    2013-01-01

    International policy is placing increasing emphasis on adaptation to climate change, including the allocation of new funds to assist adaptation efforts. Climate change adaptation funding may be most effective where it meets integrated goals, but global geographic priorities based on multiple development and ecological criteria are not well characterized. Here we show that human and natural adaptation needs related to maintaining agricultural productivity and ecosystem integrity intersect in ten major areas globally, providing a coherent set of international priorities for adaptation funding. An additional seven regional areas are identified as worthy of additional study. The priority areas are locations where changes in crop suitability affecting impoverished farmers intersect with changes in ranges of restricted-range species. Agreement among multiple climate models and emissions scenarios suggests that these priorities are robust. Adaptation funding directed to these areas could simultaneously address multiple international policy goals, including poverty reduction, protecting agricultural production and safeguarding ecosystem services. PMID:23991125

  1. Global climate change adaptation priorities for biodiversity and food security.

    PubMed

    Hannah, Lee; Ikegami, Makihiko; Hole, David G; Seo, Changwan; Butchart, Stuart H M; Peterson, A Townsend; Roehrdanz, Patrick R

    2013-01-01

    International policy is placing increasing emphasis on adaptation to climate change, including the allocation of new funds to assist adaptation efforts. Climate change adaptation funding may be most effective where it meets integrated goals, but global geographic priorities based on multiple development and ecological criteria are not well characterized. Here we show that human and natural adaptation needs related to maintaining agricultural productivity and ecosystem integrity intersect in ten major areas globally, providing a coherent set of international priorities for adaptation funding. An additional seven regional areas are identified as worthy of additional study. The priority areas are locations where changes in crop suitability affecting impoverished farmers intersect with changes in ranges of restricted-range species. Agreement among multiple climate models and emissions scenarios suggests that these priorities are robust. Adaptation funding directed to these areas could simultaneously address multiple international policy goals, including poverty reduction, protecting agricultural production and safeguarding ecosystem services.

  2. Global health prioritiespriorities of the wealthy?

    PubMed Central

    Ollila, Eeva

    2005-01-01

    Health has gained importance on the global agenda. It has become recognized in forums where it was once not addressed. In this article three issues are considered: global health policy actors, global health priorities and the means of addressing the identified health priorities. I argue that the arenas for global health policy-making have shifted from the public spheres towards arenas that include the transnational for-profit sector. Global health policy has become increasingly fragmented and verticalized. Infectious diseases have gained ground as global health priorities, while non-communicable diseases and the broader issues of health systems development have been neglected. Approaches to tackling the health problems are increasingly influenced by trade and industrial interests with the emphasis on technological solutions. PMID:15847685

  3. Eliciting preferences for priority setting in genetic testing: a pilot study comparing best-worst scaling and discrete-choice experiments.

    PubMed

    Severin, Franziska; Schmidtke, Jörg; Mühlbacher, Axel; Rogowski, Wolf H

    2013-11-01

    Given the increasing number of genetic tests available, decisions have to be made on how to allocate limited health-care resources to them. Different criteria have been proposed to guide priority setting. However, their relative importance is unclear. Discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) and best-worst scaling experiments (BWSs) are methods used to identify and weight various criteria that influence orders of priority. This study tests whether these preference eliciting techniques can be used for prioritising genetic tests and compares the empirical findings resulting from these two approaches. Pilot DCE and BWS questionnaires were developed for the same criteria: prevalence, severity, clinical utility, alternatives to genetic testing available, infrastructure for testing and care established, and urgency of care. Interview-style experiments were carried out among different genetics professionals (mainly clinical geneticists, researchers and biologists). A total of 31 respondents completed the DCE and 26 completed the BWS experiment. Weights for the levels of the six attributes were estimated by conditional logit models. Although the results derived from the DCE and BWS experiments differed in detail, we found similar valuation patterns in the DCE and BWS experiments. The respondents attached greatest value to tests with high clinical utility (defined by the availability of treatments that reduce mortality and morbidity) and to testing for highly prevalent conditions. The findings from this study exemplify how decision makers can use quantitative preference eliciting methods to measure aggregated preferences in order to prioritise alternative clinical interventions. Further research is necessary to confirm the survey results.

  4. Improving accountability in vaccine decision-making.

    PubMed

    Timmis, James Kenneth; Black, Steven; Rappuoli, Rino

    2017-11-01

    Healthcare decisions, in particular those affecting entire populations, should be evidence-based and taken by decision-makers sharing broad alignment with affected stakeholders. However, criteria, priorities and procedures for decision-making are sometimes non-transparent, frequently vary considerably across equivalent decision-bodies, do not always consider the broader benefits of new health-measures, and therefore do not necessarily adequately represent the relevant stakeholder-spectrum. Areas covered: To address these issues in the context of the evaluation of new vaccines, we have proposed a first baseline set of core evaluation criteria, primarily selected by members of the vaccine research community, and suggested their implementation in vaccine evaluation procedures. In this communication, we review the consequences and utility of stakeholder-centered core considerations to increase transparency in and accountability of decision-making procedures, in general, and of the benefits gained by their inclusion in Multi-Criteria-Decision-Analysis tools, exemplified by SMART Vaccines, specifically. Expert commentary: To increase effectiveness and comparability of health decision outcomes, decision procedures should be properly standardized across equivalent (national) decision bodies. To this end, including stakeholder-centered criteria in decision procedures would significantly increase their transparency and accountability, support international capacity building to improve health, and reduce societal costs and inequity resulting from suboptimal health decision-making.

  5. Use of survey data to define regional and local priorities for management on National Wildlife Refuges

    USGS Publications Warehouse

    Sauer, J.R.; Casey, J.; Laskowski, H.; Taylor, J.D.; Fallon, J.; Ralph, C. John; Rich, Terrell D.

    2005-01-01

    National Wildlife Refuges must manage habitats to support a variety of species that often have conflicting needs. To make reasonable management decisions, managers must know what species are priorities for their refuges and the relative importance of the species. Unfortunately, species priorities are often set regionally, but refuges must develop local priorities that reconcile regional priorities with constraints imposed by refuge location and local management options. Some species cannot be managed on certain refuges, and the relative benefit of management to regional populations of species can vary greatly among refuges. We describe a process of 'stepping down' regional priorities to local priorities for bird species of management interest. We define three primary scales of management interest: regional (at which overall priority species are set); 'Sepik Blocks' (30 min blocks of latitude and longitude, which provide a landscape level context for a refuge); and the refuge. Regional surveys, such as the North American Breeding Bird Survey, provide information that can be summarized at regional and Sepik Block scales, permitting regional priorities to be focused to landscapes near refuges. However, refuges manage habitats, and managers need information about how the habitat management is likely to collectively influence the priority species. The value of the refuge for a species is also influenced by the availability of habitats within refuges and the relative amounts of those habitats at each scale. We use remotely-sensed data to assess proportions of habitats at the three geographic scales. These data provide many possible approaches for developing local priorities for management. Once these are defined, managers can use the priorities, in conjunction with predictions of the consequences of management for each species, to assess the overall benefit of alternative management actions for the priority species.

  6. Setting research priorities for maternal, newborn, child health and nutrition in India by engaging experts from 256 indigenous institutions contributing over 4000 research ideas: a CHNRI exercise by ICMR and INCLEN.

    PubMed

    Arora, Narendra K; Mohapatra, Archisman; Gopalan, Hema S; Wazny, Kerri; Thavaraj, Vasantha; Rasaily, Reeta; Das, Manoj K; Maheshwari, Meenu; Bahl, Rajiv; Qazi, Shamim A; Black, Robert E; Rudan, Igor

    2017-06-01

    Health research in low- and middle- income countries (LMICs) is often driven by donor priorities rather than by the needs of the countries where the research takes place. This lack of alignment of donor's priorities with local research need may be one of the reasons why countries fail to achieve set goals for population health and nutrition. India has a high burden of morbidity and mortality in women, children and infants. In order to look forward toward the Sustainable Development Goals, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and the INCLEN Trust International (INCLEN) employed the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative's (CHNRI) research priority setting method for maternal, neonatal, child health and nutrition with the timeline of 2016-2025. The exercise was the largest to-date use of the CHNRI methodology, both in terms of participants and ideas generated and also expanded on the methodology. CHNRI is a crowdsourcing-based exercise that involves using the collective intelligence of a group of stakeholders, usually researchers, to generate and score research options against a set of criteria. This paper reports on a large umbrella CHNRI that was divided into four theme-specific CHNRIs (maternal, newborn, child health and nutrition). A National Steering Group oversaw the exercise and four theme-specific Research Sub-Committees technically supported finalizing the scoring criteria and refinement of research ideas for the respective thematic areas. The exercise engaged participants from 256 institutions across India - 4003 research ideas were generated from 498 experts which were consolidated into 373 research options (maternal health: 122; newborn health: 56; child health: 101; nutrition: 94); 893 experts scored these against five criteria (answerability, relevance, equity, innovation and out-of-box thinking, investment on research). Relative weights to the criteria were assigned by 79 members from the Larger Reference Group. Given India's diversity

  7. Publishing priorities of biomedical research funders

    PubMed Central

    Collins, Ellen

    2013-01-01

    Objectives To understand the publishing priorities, especially in relation to open access, of 10 UK biomedical research funders. Design Semistructured interviews. Setting 10 UK biomedical research funders. Participants 12 employees with responsibility for research management at 10 UK biomedical research funders; a purposive sample to represent a range of backgrounds and organisation types. Conclusions Publicly funded and large biomedical research funders are committed to open access publishing and are pleased with recent developments which have stimulated growth in this area. Smaller charitable funders are supportive of the aims of open access, but are concerned about the practical implications for their budgets and their funded researchers. Across the board, biomedical research funders are turning their attention to other priorities for sharing research outputs, including data, protocols and negative results. Further work is required to understand how smaller funders, including charitable funders, can support open access. PMID:24154520

  8. Top 40 priorities for science to inform conservation and management policy in the United States

    USGS Publications Warehouse

    Fleishman, Erica; Blockstein, David E.; Hall, John A.; Mascia, Michael B.; Rudd, Murray A.; Scott, J. Michael; Sutherland, William J.; Bartuska, Ann M.; Brown, A. Gordon; Christen, Catherine A.; Clement, Joel P.; DellaSala, Dominick; Duke, Clifford D.; Fiske, Shirley J.; Gosnell, Hannah; Haney, J. Christopher; Hutchins, Michael; Klein, Mary L.; Marqusee, Jeffrey; Noon, Barry R.; Nordgren, John R.; Orbuch, Paul M.; Powell, Jimmie; Quarles, Steven P.; Saterson, Kathryn A.; Stein, Bruce A.; Webster, Michael S.; Vedder, Amy

    2011-01-01

    To maximize the utility of research to decisionmaking, especially given limited financial resources, scientists must set priorities for their efforts. We present a list of the top 40 high-priority, multidisciplinary research questions directed toward informing some of the most important current and future decisions about management of species, communities, and ecological processes in the United States. The questions were generated by an open, inclusive process that included personal interviews with decisionmakers, broad solicitation of research needs from scientists and policymakers, and an intensive workshop that included scientifically oriented individuals responsible for managing and developing policy related to natural resources. The process differed from previous efforts to set priorities for conservation research in its focus on the engagement of decisionmakers in addition to researchers. The research priorities emphasized the importance of addressing societal context and exploration of trade-offs among alternative policies and actions, as well as more traditional questions related to ecological processes and functions.

  9. Identifying research priorities with nurses at a tertiary children's hospital in the United Kingdom.

    PubMed

    Williams, A; Sell, D; Oulton, K; Wilson, N; Wray, J; Gibson, F

    2017-03-01

    The objective of this study was to undertake a research priority setting exercise with the aim of maximizing efficiency and impact in research activity undertaken by nurses at one children's tertiary healthcare institution by ensuring the clinical staff directly shaped a coherent, transparent and consensus driven nurse-led research agenda. In Round 1, the research topics of 147 nurses were elicited using a modified nominal group technique as the consensus method. The number of participants in the 24 separate discussions ranged from 3 to 21, generating lists of between 6 and 23 topics. In Round 2, nurses from the clinical areas ranked topics of importance resulting in a set of four to five priorities. In Round 3, the divisional heads of nursing consulted with staff in all of their clinical areas to each finalize their five divisional priorities. The Nursing Research Working Group discussed and refined the divisions' priorities and voted on the final list to agree the top five research priorities for the organization. A total of 269 research topics were initially generated. Following three rounds of ranking and prioritizing, five priorities were agreed at Divisional level, and from these, the five top organizational priorities were selected. These were (i) understanding and improving all aspects of the patient journey through the hospital system; (ii) play; (iii) staff wellbeing, patient care and productivity; (iv) team work - linking to a more efficient service; and (v) supporting parents/parent pathway. Divisional priorities have been disseminated widely to clinical teams to inform a patient-specific nurse-led research agenda. Organizational priorities agreed upon have been disseminated through management structures and processes to ensure engagement at all levels. A subgroup of the Nursing Research Working Group has been delegated to take this work forward so that the agreed priorities continue to contribute towards shaping nurse-led research activity, thereby

  10. Acceptable health and priority weighting: Discussing a reference-level approach using sufficientarian reasoning.

    PubMed

    Wouters, S; van Exel, N J A; Rohde, K I M; Vromen, J J; Brouwer, W B F

    2017-05-01

    Health care systems are challenged in allocating scarce health care resources, which are typically insufficient to fulfil all health care wants and needs. One criterion for priority setting may be the 'acceptable health' approach, which suggests that society may want to assign higher priority to health benefits in people with "unacceptable" than in people with "acceptable" health. A level of acceptable health then serves as a reference point for priority setting. Empirical research has indicated that people may be able and willing to define health states as "unacceptable" or "acceptable", but little attention has been given to the normative implications of evaluating health benefits in relation to a reference level of acceptable health. The current paper aims to address this gap by relating insights from the distributive justice literature, i.e. the sufficientarian literature, to the acceptable health approach, as we argue that these approaches are related. We specifically focus on the implications of an 'acceptability' approach for priority weighting of health benefits, derived from sufficientarian reasoning and debates, and assess the moral implications of such weighting. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

  11. Setting health research priorities using the CHNRI method: VI. Quantitative properties of human collective opinion.

    PubMed

    Yoshida, Sachiyo; Rudan, Igor; Cousens, Simon

    2016-06-01

    Crowdsourcing has become an increasingly important tool to address many problems - from government elections in democracies, stock market prices, to modern online tools such as TripAdvisor or Internet Movie Database (IMDB). The CHNRI method (the acronym for the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative) for setting health research priorities has crowdsourcing as the major component, which it uses to generate, assess and prioritize between many competing health research ideas. We conducted a series of analyses using data from a group of 91 scorers to explore the quantitative properties of their collective opinion. We were interested in the stability of their collective opinion as the sample size increases from 15 to 90. From a pool of 91 scorers who took part in a previous CHNRI exercise, we used sampling with replacement to generate multiple random samples of different size. First, for each sample generated, we identified the top 20 ranked research ideas, among 205 that were proposed and scored, and calculated the concordance with the ranking generated by the 91 original scorers. Second, we used rank correlation coefficients to compare the ranks assigned to all 205 proposed research ideas when samples of different size are used. We also analysed the original pool of 91 scorers to to look for evidence of scoring variations based on scorers' characteristics. The sample sizes investigated ranged from 15 to 90. The concordance for the top 20 scored research ideas increased with sample sizes up to about 55 experts. At this point, the median level of concordance stabilized at 15/20 top ranked questions (75%), with the interquartile range also generally stable (14-16). There was little further increase in overlap when the sample size increased from 55 to 90. When analysing the ranking of all 205 ideas, the rank correlation coefficient increased as the sample size increased, with a median correlation of 0.95 reached at the sample size of 45 experts (median of the rank

  12. Patient-centered priorities for improving medication management and adherence.

    PubMed

    McMullen, Carmit K; Safford, Monika M; Bosworth, Hayden B; Phansalkar, Shobha; Leong, Amye; Fagan, Maureen B; Trontell, Anne; Rumptz, Maureen; Vandermeer, Meredith L; Brinkman, William B; Burkholder, Rebecca; Frank, Lori; Hommel, Kevin; Mathews, Robin; Hornbrook, Mark C; Seid, Michael; Fordis, Michael; Lambert, Bruce; McElwee, Newell; Singh, Jasvinder A

    2015-01-01

    The Centers for Education and Research on Therapeutics convened a workshop to examine the scientific evidence on medication adherence interventions from the patient-centered perspective and to explore the potential of patient-centered medication management to improve chronic disease treatment. Patients, providers, researchers, and other stakeholders (N = 28) identified and prioritized ideas for future research and practice. We analyzed stakeholder voting on priorities and reviewed themes in workshop discussions. Ten priority areas emerged. Three areas were highly rated by all stakeholder groups: creating tools and systems to facilitate and evaluate patient-centered medication management plans; developing training on patient-centered prescribing for providers; and increasing patients' knowledge about medication management. However, priorities differed across stakeholder groups. Notably, patients prioritized using peer support to improve medication management while researchers did not. Engaging multiple stakeholders in setting a patient-centered research agenda and broadening the scope of adherence interventions to include other aspects of medication management resulted in priorities outside the traditional scope of adherence research. Workshop participants recognized the potential benefits of patient-centered medication management but also identified many challenges to implementation that require additional research and innovation. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

  13. National VET Research Priorities: 2010 and beyond. Discussion Paper

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER), 2009

    2009-01-01

    National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER) is undertaking a consultation process to determine the next set of National Research Priorities which will guide research activities in the post-compulsory education and training arena, particularly in relation to vocational education and training. This discussion paper, and the…

  14. Global Health and Emergency Care: Defining Clinical Research Priorities.

    PubMed

    Hansoti, Bhakti; Aluisio, Adam R; Barry, Meagan A; Davey, Kevin; Lentz, Brian A; Modi, Payal; Newberry, Jennifer A; Patel, Melissa H; Smith, Tricia A; Vinograd, Alexandra M; Levine, Adam C

    2017-06-01

    Despite recent strides in the development of global emergency medicine (EM), the field continues to lag in applying a scientific approach to identifying critical knowledge gaps and advancing evidence-based solutions to clinical and public health problems seen in emergency departments (EDs) worldwide. Here, progress on the global EM research agenda created at the 2013 Academic Emergency Medicine Global Health and Emergency Care Consensus Conference is evaluated and critical areas for future development in emergency care research internationally are identified. A retrospective review of all studies compiled in the Global Emergency Medicine Literature Review (GEMLR) database from 2013 through 2015 was conducted. Articles were categorized and analyzed using descriptive quantitative measures and structured data matrices. The Global Emergency Medicine Think Tank Clinical Research Working Group at the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine 2016 Annual Meeting then further conceptualized and defined global EM research priorities utilizing consensus-based decision making. Research trends in global EM research published between 2013 and 2015 show a predominance of observational studies relative to interventional or descriptive studies, with the majority of research conducted in the inpatient setting in comparison to the ED or prehospital setting. Studies on communicable diseases and injury were the most prevalent, with a relative dearth of research on chronic noncommunicable diseases. The Global Emergency Medicine Think Tank Clinical Research Working Group identified conceptual frameworks to define high-impact research priorities, including the traditional approach of using global burden of disease to define priorities and the impact of EM on individual clinical care and public health opportunities. EM research is also described through a population lens approach, including gender, pediatrics, and migrant and refugee health. Despite recent strides in global EM research and

  15. Incorporating Target Priorities in the Sensor Tasking Reward Function

    NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

    Gehly, S.; Bennett, J.

    2016-09-01

    Orbital debris tracking poses many challenges, most fundamentally the need to track a large number of objects from a limited number of sensors. The use of information theoretic sensor allocation provides a means to efficiently collect data on the multitarget system. An additional need of the community is the ability to specify target priorities, driven both by user needs and environmental factors such as collision warnings. This research develops a method to incorporate target priorities in the sensor tasking reward function, allowing for several applications in different tasking modes such as catalog maintenance, calibration, and collision monitoring. A set of numerical studies is included to demonstrate the functionality of the method.

  16. Adapting Technological Interventions to Meet the Needs of Priority Populations.

    PubMed

    Linke, Sarah E; Larsen, Britta A; Marquez, Becky; Mendoza-Vasconez, Andrea; Marcus, Bess H

    2016-01-01

    Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) comprise the leading cause of mortality worldwide, accounting for 3 in 10 deaths. Individuals with certain risk factors, including tobacco use, obesity, low levels of physical activity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, racial/ethnic minority status and low socioeconomic status, experience higher rates of CVD and are, therefore, considered priority populations. Technological devices such as computers and smartphones are now routinely utilized in research studies aiming to prevent CVD and its risk factors, and they are also rampant in the public and private health sectors. Traditional health behavior interventions targeting these risk factors have been adapted for technology-based approaches. This review provides an overview of technology-based interventions conducted in these priority populations as well as the challenges and gaps to be addressed in future research. Researchers currently possess tremendous opportunities to engage in technology-based implementation and dissemination science to help spread evidence-based programs focusing on CVD risk factors in these and other priority populations. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

  17. Maternal and perinatal health research priorities beyond 2015: an international survey and prioritization exercise.

    PubMed

    Souza, Joao Paulo; Widmer, Mariana; Gülmezoglu, Ahmet Metin; Lawrie, Theresa Anne; Adejuyigbe, Ebunoluwa Aderonke; Carroli, Guillermo; Crowther, Caroline; Currie, Sheena M; Dowswell, Therese; Hofmeyr, Justus; Lavender, Tina; Lawn, Joy; Mader, Silke; Martinez, Francisco Eulógio; Mugerwa, Kidza; Qureshi, Zahida; Silvestre, Maria Asuncion; Soltani, Hora; Torloni, Maria Regina; Tsigas, Eleni Z; Vowles, Zoe; Ouedraogo, Léopold; Serruya, Suzanne; Al-Raiby, Jamela; Awin, Narimah; Obara, Hiromi; Mathai, Matthews; Bahl, Rajiv; Martines, José; Ganatra, Bela; Phillips, Sharon Jelena; Johnson, Brooke Ronald; Vogel, Joshua P; Oladapo, Olufemi T; Temmerman, Marleen

    2014-08-07

    Maternal mortality has declined by nearly half since 1990, but over a quarter million women still die every year of causes related to pregnancy and childbirth. Maternal-health related targets are falling short of the 2015 Millennium Development Goals and a post-2015 Development Agenda is emerging. In connection with this, setting global research priorities for the next decade is now required. We adapted the methods of the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) to identify and set global research priorities for maternal and perinatal health for the period 2015 to 2025. Priority research questions were received from various international stakeholders constituting a large reference group, and consolidated into a final list of research questions by a technical working group. Questions on this list were then scored by the reference working group according to five independent and equally weighted criteria. Normalized research priority scores (NRPS) were calculated, and research priority questions were ranked accordingly. A list of 190 priority research questions for improving maternal and perinatal health was scored by 140 stakeholders. Most priority research questions (89%) were concerned with the evaluation of implementation and delivery of existing interventions, with research subthemes frequently concerned with training and/or awareness interventions (11%), and access to interventions and/or services (14%). Twenty-one questions (11%) involved the discovery of new interventions or technologies. Key research priorities in maternal and perinatal health were identified. The resulting ranked list of research questions provides a valuable resource for health research investors, researchers and other stakeholders. We are hopeful that this exercise will inform the post-2015 Development Agenda and assist donors, research-policy decision makers and researchers to invest in research that will ultimately make the most significant difference in the lives of

  18. Priority service needs and receipt across the lifespan for individuals with autism spectrum disorder

    PubMed Central

    Lai, Jonathan K. Y.

    2017-01-01

    Abstract Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) have a range of health, community, and social support needs across the lifespan that create age‐specific challenges in navigating service sectors. In this study, we set out to identify the priority needs of individuals with ASD across the lifespan, and the factors that predict receiving priority services. Participants included 3,317 individuals with ASD from a Canada‐wide online caregiver survey, stratified into five age groups (preschool, elementary school age, adolescence, emerging adulthood, adulthood). Priority receipt was calculated as a ratio of current services that corresponded to individualized priority need. Age‐stratified Poisson regression analyses were used to identify the sociodemographic, clinical and systemic predictors of priority receipt. Results indicate that the distribution of priority need varied by age, except for social skills programming, which was a high across all groups. The number of high and moderate priority needs diversified with age. Overall, 30% of individuals had none of their priority needs met and priority receipt decreased with age. Systemic factors were most consistently related to priority receipt across the lifespan. Understanding patterns and correlates of priority needs and use that currently exist in different age groups can inform policies to improve service access. Autism Res 2017, 10: 1436–1447. © 2017 International Society for Autism Research, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. PMID:28383156

  19. Antecedents to agenda setting and framing in health news: an examination of priority, angle, source, and resource usage from a national survey of U.S. health reporters and editors.

    PubMed

    Wallington, Sherrie Flynt; Blake, Kelly; Taylor-Clark, Kalahn; Viswanath, K

    2010-01-01

    The influence of news media on audience cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors in the realm of politics, race relations, science, and health has been extensively documented.Agenda setting and framing studies show that news media influence how people develop schema and place priorities on issues, with media stories serving as a major source of issue frames. Although news media are an important intermediary in the translation of scientific knowledge to different publics, little has been documented about the production of health news and factors that may predict media agenda setting and framing in health journalism. We used data from a 2005 national survey of U.S. health reporters and editors to examine predictors of source, resource, story angle, and frame usage among reporters and editors by variables such as organizational structure, individual characteristics of respondents (such as education and years working as a journalist),and perceptions of occupational autonomy. Multivariable logistic regression models revealed several differences among U.S. health reports and editors in the likelihood of using a variety of news sources, resources, priorities, and angles in reporting. Media agenda setting and framing theories suggest that practitioners familiar with media processes can work with journalists to frame messages, thereby increasing the probability of accurate and effective reporting. Results from this study may help to inform interactions between public health and medical practitioners and the press [corrected].

  20. Updated Priorities Among Effective Clinical Preventive Services

    PubMed Central

    Maciosek, Michael V.; LaFrance, Amy B.; Dehmer, Steven P.; McGree, Dana A.; Flottemesch, Thomas J.; Xu, Zack; Solberg, Leif I.

    2017-01-01

    PURPOSE The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s provisions for first-dollar coverage of evidence-based preventive services have reduced an important barrier to receipt of preventive care. Safety-net providers, however, still serve a substantial uninsured population, and clinician and patient time remain limited in all primary care settings. As a consequence, decision makers continue to set priorities to help focus their efforts. This report updates estimates of relative health impact and cost-effectiveness for evidence-based preventive services. METHODS We assessed the potential impact of 28 evidence-based clinical preventive services in terms of their cost-effectiveness and clinically preventable burden, as measured by quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) saved. Each service received 1 to 5 points on each of the 2 measures—cost-effectiveness and clinically preventable burden—for a total score ranging from 2 to 10. New microsimulation models were used to provide updated estimates of 12 of these services. Priorities for improving delivery rates were established by comparing the ranking with what is known of current delivery rates nationally. RESULTS The 3 highest-ranking services, each with a total score of 10, are immunizing children, counseling to prevent tobacco initiation among youth, and tobacco-use screening and brief intervention to encourage cessation among adults. Greatest population health improvement could be obtained from increasing utilization of clinical preventive services that address tobacco use, obesity-related behaviors, and alcohol misuse, as well as colorectal cancer screening and influenza vaccinations. CONCLUSIONS This study identifies high-priority preventive services and should help decision makers select which services to emphasize in quality-improvement initiatives. PMID:28376457

  1. Disseminating evidence-based treatments for PTSD in organizational settings: A high priority focus area.

    PubMed

    Ruzek, Josef I; Rosen, Raymond C

    2009-11-01

    Dissemination of evidence-based treatments for PTSD has become an important focus of activity in the aftermath of recent terrorist attacks (e.g., London underground and U.S. 9/11 attacks), natural disasters (e.g., Indian Ocean tsunami and Hurricane Katrina), and wars (e.g., in Iraq and Afghanistan). This has become a high priority need for all mental health training and service delivery organizations. Researchers and educators have begun to examine clinician and client perceptions and preferences regarding PTSD treatment processes, and health care systems are organizing more comprehensive efforts at training and system change. As this evolution of services moves forward, effective dissemination should be a major focus of health policy research for the next decade or more. This review critically evaluates the PTSD-related research and emerging theory related to four major sets of variables that affect dissemination: (1) Practitioner factors, (2) Training methods, (3) The practice innovation(s) being disseminated; and (4) Organization or system factors. We evaluate findings from recent studies in light of emerging models of dissemination, and in the final section of the paper, we consider five broad topics with particular implications for dissemination of PTSD-specific treatments. They are: (1) The content of dissemination (i.e., which treatment protocols or intervention methods should be prioritized); (2) Strict adherence versus flexibility in the use of treatment manuals and the role of fidelity assessment; (3) The need for collaboration with user audiences; (4) The potential role of web-based technologies in increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of dissemination; and (5) Development of dissemination infrastructures within organizations.

  2. Health dynamics: implications for efficiency and equity in priority setting.

    PubMed

    Hauck, Katharina; Tsuchiya, Aki

    2011-01-01

    Health dynamics are intertemporal fluctuations in health status of an individual or a group of individuals. It has been found in empirical studies of health inequalities that health dynamics can differ systematically across subgroups, even if prevalence measured at one point in time is the same. We explore the relevance of the concept of health dynamics in the context of cost-effectiveness analysis. Although economic evaluation takes health dynamics into account where they matter in terms of efficiency, we find that it fails to take into account the equity dimensions of health dynamics. In addition, the political implications of health dynamics may influence resource allocation decisions, possibly in opposing directions. Copyright © 2011 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

  3. Developing a national dental education research strategy: priorities, barriers and enablers

    PubMed Central

    Barton, Karen L; Dennis, Ashley A; Rees, Charlotte E

    2017-01-01

    Objectives This study aimed to identify national dental education research (DER) priorities for the next 3–5 years and to identify barriers and enablers to DER. Setting Scotland. Participants In this two-stage online questionnaire study, we collected data with multiple dental professions (eg, dentistry, dental nursing and dental hygiene) and stakeholder groups (eg, learners, clinicians, educators, managers, researchers and academics). Eighty-five participants completed the Stage 1 qualitative questionnaire and 649 participants the Stage 2 quantitative questionnaire. Results Eight themes were identified at Stage 1. Of the 24 DER priorities identified, the top three were: role of assessments in identifying competence; undergraduate curriculum prepares for practice and promoting teamwork. Following exploratory factor analysis, the 24 items loaded onto four factors: teamwork and professionalism, measuring and enhancing performance, dental workforce issues and curriculum integration and innovation. Barriers and enablers existed at multiple levels: individual, interpersonal, institutional structures and cultures and technology. Conclusions This priority setting exercise provides a necessary first step to developing a national DER strategy capturing multiple perspectives. Promoting DER requires improved resourcing alongside efforts to overcome peer stigma and lack of valuing and motivation. PMID:28360237

  4. Perspectives of Patients, Caregivers and Researchers on Research Priorities in Donation and Transplantation in Canada: A Pilot Workshop.

    PubMed

    Allard, Julie; Durand, Céline; Anthony, Samantha J; Dumez, Vincent; Hartell, David; Hébert, Marie-Josée; West, Lori J; Wright, Linda; Fortin, Marie-Chantal

    2017-02-01

    It is vitally important to seek input from key stakeholders to increase the quality and relevance of health-related research and accelerate its adoption into practice. Patients and caregivers have rarely been involved in setting research priorities in the transplantation and donation field. The objectives of this explorative study are: (i) to discuss research priorities within the Canadian National Transplant Research Program during a priority-setting exercise with patients, caregivers, organ donors and researchers and (ii) to compare the identified priorities with research published in 2 prestigious transplantation journals. A pilot workshop attended by 10 patients and caregivers and 5 researchers was held in Montréal (Quebec, Canada) in August 2014 to identify research priorities. Priorities were identified using a thematic analysis of the workshop transcription conducted by multiple coders. These priorities were compared with the topics of research articles published in 2 major transplantation journals between 2012 and 2014. The themes of the 10 research priorities identified by study participants were related to different research domains: social, cultural, and environmental health factors (4); biomedical or clinical (4); and research about health systems and services (2). 26.7% of the research articles published were related to the identified priorities. Thirteen percent looked at ways to improve graft survival and 8.5% looked at the development of tolerance, 2 priorities identified by participants. Fewer than 5% examined the other 8 research priorities identified as important by workshop participants. This is the first study reporting patients' and researchers' priorities in the field of transplantation and donation in Canada. There is a discrepancy between topics that key stakeholders find important and research published in 2 major transplantation journals. The research priorities identified during our initial workshop will be validated through a national

  5. Perspectives of Patients, Caregivers and Researchers on Research Priorities in Donation and Transplantation in Canada: A Pilot Workshop

    PubMed Central

    Allard, Julie; Durand, Céline; Anthony, Samantha J.; Dumez, Vincent; Hartell, David; Hébert, Marie-Josée; West, Lori J.; Wright, Linda; Fortin, Marie-Chantal

    2017-01-01

    Background It is vitally important to seek input from key stakeholders to increase the quality and relevance of health-related research and accelerate its adoption into practice. Patients and caregivers have rarely been involved in setting research priorities in the transplantation and donation field. The objectives of this explorative study are: (i) to discuss research priorities within the Canadian National Transplant Research Program during a priority-setting exercise with patients, caregivers, organ donors and researchers and (ii) to compare the identified priorities with research published in 2 prestigious transplantation journals. Methods A pilot workshop attended by 10 patients and caregivers and 5 researchers was held in Montréal (Quebec, Canada) in August 2014 to identify research priorities. Priorities were identified using a thematic analysis of the workshop transcription conducted by multiple coders. These priorities were compared with the topics of research articles published in 2 major transplantation journals between 2012 and 2014. Results The themes of the 10 research priorities identified by study participants were related to different research domains: social, cultural, and environmental health factors (4); biomedical or clinical (4); and research about health systems and services (2). 26.7% of the research articles published were related to the identified priorities. Thirteen percent looked at ways to improve graft survival and 8.5% looked at the development of tolerance, 2 priorities identified by participants. Fewer than 5% examined the other 8 research priorities identified as important by workshop participants. Conclusions This is the first study reporting patients' and researchers' priorities in the field of transplantation and donation in Canada. There is a discrepancy between topics that key stakeholders find important and research published in 2 major transplantation journals. The research priorities identified during our initial

  6. [Priority pollutants ranking and screening of coke industry based on USEtox model].

    PubMed

    Hao, Tian; Du, Peng-Fei; Du, Bin; Zeng, Si-Yu

    2014-01-01

    Thesis aims at evaluating and setting priority to human toxicity and ecotoxicity of coking pollutants. A field research and sampling project are conducted in coke plant in Shanxi so as to complete the coke emission inventory. The USEtox model representing recommended practice in LCIA characterization is applied to the emission inventory to quantify the potential impacts on human toxicity and ecotoxicity of emerging pollutants. Priority pollutants, production procedures and effects of changing plant site on the toxicity are analyzed. As conclusions, benzo(a) pyrene, benzene, Zn and As are identified as the priority pollutants in human toxicity, while pyrene and anthracene in ecotoxicity. Coal charging is the dominant procedure for organic toxicity and priority pollutants include benzo (a) pyrene, benzene, naphthalene, etc. While coke drenching is the dominant procedure for metal toxicity and priority pollutants include Zn, As, Ti, Hg etc. Emission to rural environment can reduce the organic toxicity significantly compared to the emission to urban environment. However, the site changing has no effect on metal toxicity and might increase the risk of the metal pollution to rural water and soil.

  7. The Cultural Influence in Accounting Standard Setting: A Comparative Analysis of the United States, Canada, and England.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Bloom, Robert; And Others

    A study of the processes for establishing the principles and policies of measurement and disclosure in preparing financial reports examines differences in these processes in the United States, Canada, and England. Information was drawn from international accounting literature on standard setting. The differences and similarities in the…

  8. Setting research priorities for maternal, newborn, child health and nutrition in India by engaging experts from 256 indigenous institutions contributing over 4000 research ideas: a CHNRI exercise by ICMR and INCLEN

    PubMed Central

    Arora, Narendra K; Mohapatra, Archisman; Gopalan, Hema S; Wazny, Kerri; Thavaraj, Vasantha; Rasaily, Reeta; Das, Manoj K; Maheshwari, Meenu; Bahl, Rajiv; Qazi, Shamim A; Black, Robert E; Rudan, Igor

    2017-01-01

    Background Health research in low– and middle– income countries (LMICs) is often driven by donor priorities rather than by the needs of the countries where the research takes place. This lack of alignment of donor’s priorities with local research need may be one of the reasons why countries fail to achieve set goals for population health and nutrition. India has a high burden of morbidity and mortality in women, children and infants. In order to look forward toward the Sustainable Development Goals, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and the INCLEN Trust International (INCLEN) employed the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative’s (CHNRI) research priority setting method for maternal, neonatal, child health and nutrition with the timeline of 2016–2025. The exercise was the largest to–date use of the CHNRI methodology, both in terms of participants and ideas generated and also expanded on the methodology. Methods CHNRI is a crowdsourcing–based exercise that involves using the collective intelligence of a group of stakeholders, usually researchers, to generate and score research options against a set of criteria. This paper reports on a large umbrella CHNRI that was divided into four theme–specific CHNRIs (maternal, newborn, child health and nutrition). A National Steering Group oversaw the exercise and four theme–specific Research Sub–Committees technically supported finalizing the scoring criteria and refinement of research ideas for the respective thematic areas. The exercise engaged participants from 256 institutions across India – 4003 research ideas were generated from 498 experts which were consolidated into 373 research options (maternal health: 122; newborn health: 56; child health: 101; nutrition: 94); 893 experts scored these against five criteria (answerability, relevance, equity, innovation and out–of–box thinking, investment on research). Relative weights to the criteria were assigned by 79 members from the

  9. Public awareness, concerns, and priorities about anthropogenic impacts on marine environments.

    PubMed

    Gelcich, Stefan; Buckley, Paul; Pinnegar, John K; Chilvers, Jason; Lorenzoni, Irene; Terry, Geraldine; Guerrero, Matias; Castilla, Juan Carlos; Valdebenito, Abel; Duarte, Carlos M

    2014-10-21

    Numerous international bodies have advocated the development of strategies to achieve the sustainability of marine environments. Typically, such strategies are based on information from expert groups about causes of degradation and policy options to address them, but these strategies rarely take into account assessed information about public awareness, concerns, and priorities. Here we report the results of a pan-European survey of public perceptions about marine environmental impacts as a way to inform the formation of science and policy priorities. On the basis of 10,106 responses to an online survey from people in 10 European nations, spanning a diversity of socioeconomic and geographical areas, we examine the public's informedness and concern regarding marine impacts, trust in different information sources, and priorities for policy and funding. Results show that the level of concern regarding marine impacts is closely associated with the level of informedness and that pollution and overfishing are two areas prioritized by the public for policy development. The level of trust varies greatly among different information sources and is highest for academics and scholarly publications but lower for government or industry scientists. Results suggest that the public perceives the immediacy of marine anthropogenic impacts and is highly concerned about ocean pollution, overfishing, and ocean acidification. Eliciting public awareness, concerns, and priorities can enable scientists and funders to understand how the public relates to marine environments, frame impacts, and align managerial and policy priorities with public demand.

  10. Public awareness, concerns, and priorities about anthropogenic impacts on marine environments

    PubMed Central

    Gelcich, Stefan; Buckley, Paul; Pinnegar, John K.; Chilvers, Jason; Lorenzoni, Irene; Terry, Geraldine; Guerrero, Matias; Castilla, Juan Carlos; Valdebenito, Abel; Duarte, Carlos M.

    2014-01-01

    Numerous international bodies have advocated the development of strategies to achieve the sustainability of marine environments. Typically, such strategies are based on information from expert groups about causes of degradation and policy options to address them, but these strategies rarely take into account assessed information about public awareness, concerns, and priorities. Here we report the results of a pan-European survey of public perceptions about marine environmental impacts as a way to inform the formation of science and policy priorities. On the basis of 10,106 responses to an online survey from people in 10 European nations, spanning a diversity of socioeconomic and geographical areas, we examine the public’s informedness and concern regarding marine impacts, trust in different information sources, and priorities for policy and funding. Results show that the level of concern regarding marine impacts is closely associated with the level of informedness and that pollution and overfishing are two areas prioritized by the public for policy development. The level of trust varies greatly among different information sources and is highest for academics and scholarly publications but lower for government or industry scientists. Results suggest that the public perceives the immediacy of marine anthropogenic impacts and is highly concerned about ocean pollution, overfishing, and ocean acidification. Eliciting public awareness, concerns, and priorities can enable scientists and funders to understand how the public relates to marine environments, frame impacts, and align managerial and policy priorities with public demand. PMID:25288740

  11. A traffic priority language for collision-free navigation of autonomous mobile robots in dynamic environments.

    PubMed

    Bourbakis, N G

    1997-01-01

    This paper presents a generic traffic priority language, called KYKLOFORTA, used by autonomous robots for collision-free navigation in a dynamic unknown or known navigation space. In a previous work by X. Grossmman (1988), a set of traffic control rules was developed for the navigation of the robots on the lines of a two-dimensional (2-D) grid and a control center coordinated and synchronized their movements. In this work, the robots are considered autonomous: they are moving anywhere and in any direction inside the free space, and there is no need of a central control to coordinate and synchronize them. The requirements for each robot are i) visual perception, ii) range sensors, and iii) the ability of each robot to detect other moving objects in the same free navigation space, define the other objects perceived size, their velocity and their directions. Based on these assumptions, a traffic priority language is needed for each robot, making it able to decide during the navigation and avoid possible collision with other moving objects. The traffic priority language proposed here is based on a set of primitive traffic priority alphabet and rules which compose pattern of corridors for the application of the traffic priority rules.

  12. Establishing research priorities relating to the long-term impact of TIA and minor stroke through stakeholder-centred consensus.

    PubMed

    Turner, Grace M; Backman, Ruth; McMullan, Christel; Mathers, Jonathan; Marshall, Tom; Calvert, Melanie

    2018-01-01

    that care should be delivered (clinical setting and follow-up pathway); impact on family members; and education/training for health care professionals. Background Clinical management after transient ischaemic attack (TIA) and minor stroke focuses on stroke prevention. However, evidence demonstrates that many patients experience ongoing residual impairments. Residual impairments post-TIA and minor stroke may affect patients' quality of life and return to work or social activities. Research priorities of patients, health care professionals and key stakeholders relating to the long-term impact of TIA and minor stroke are unknown. Methods Our objective was to establish the top shared research priorities relating to the long-term impact of TIA and minor stroke through stakeholder-centred consensus. A one-day priority setting consensus meeting took place with representatives from different stakeholder groups in October 2016 (Birmingham, UK). Nominal group technique was used to establish research priorities. This involved three stages: (i) gathering research priorities from individual stakeholders; (ii) interim prioritisation in three subgroups; and (iii) final priority setting. Results The priority setting consensus meeting was attended by 11 stakeholders. The individual stakeholders identified 34 different research priorities. During the interim prioritisation exercise, the three subgroups generated 24 unique research priorities which were discussed as a whole group. Following the final consensus discussion, 11 shared research priorities were unanimously agreed.The 11 research questions encompass a range of categories, including: understanding the existing care patients receive (according to diagnosis and geographical location); exploring what optimal care post-TIA/minor stroke should comprise (identifying and treating impairments, information giving and support groups) and how that care should be delivered (clinical setting and follow-up pathway); impact on family members

  13. Depreciation Accounting in the Uniform Chart of Accounts.

    DTIC Science & Technology

    1982-12-01

    footage of building occupied. Reason( s ) for Compute full cost of Rate setting, cash accounting for patient care flow generation and fund- depreciation ing... Horngren , Charles T., Cost Accounting ; A Managerial Emphasis, Prentice-Hall Inc., 1972. 32. Sawyer, Lawrence B., The Practice of Modern Internal Auditing...Awd ubtlft) S . TYPE or RE PORT a PE*IoO CovIERWO Master’s Thesis; Depreciation Accounting in the Uniform Dembr18 Chart of Accounts .PSOiwON.EORlumm

  14. Priority Queues for Computer Simulations

    NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

    Steinman, Jeffrey S. (Inventor)

    1998-01-01

    The present invention is embodied in new priority queue data structures for event list management of computer simulations, and includes a new priority queue data structure and an improved event horizon applied to priority queue data structures. ne new priority queue data structure is a Qheap and is made out of linked lists for robust, fast, reliable, and stable event list management and uses a temporary unsorted list to store all items until one of the items is needed. Then the list is sorted, next, the highest priority item is removed, and then the rest of the list is inserted in the Qheap. Also, an event horizon is applied to binary tree and splay tree priority queue data structures to form the improved event horizon for event management.

  15. Priorities for Extension.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Hayward, J. A.

    Agricultural extension is one component in an array including research, training, education, marketing, international trade, etc. which develop together to bring about growth, and sustained growth determines the priorities for extension. These priorities depend inevitably on the stage of development of a country or region, and on the current…

  16. Research priorities in health communication and participation: international survey of consumers and other stakeholders

    PubMed Central

    Bragge, Peter; Lowe, Dianne; Nunn, Jack S; O’Sullivan, Molly; Horvat, Lidia; Tong, Allison; Kay, Debra; Ghersi, Davina; McDonald, Steve; Poole, Naomi; Bourke, Noni; Lannin, Natasha; Vadasz, Danny; Oliver, Sandy; Carey, Karen; Hill, Sophie J

    2018-01-01

    Objective To identify research priorities of consumers and other stakeholders to inform Cochrane Reviews in ‘health communication and participation’ (including such concepts as patient experience, shared decision-making and health literacy). Setting International. Participants We included anyone with an interest in health communication and participation. Up to 151 participants (18–80 years; 117 female) across 12 countries took part, including 48 consumers (patients, carers, consumer representatives) and 75 professionals (health professionals, policymakers, researchers) (plus 25 people who identified as both). Design Survey. Methods We invited people to submit their research ideas via an online survey open for 4 weeks. Using inductive thematic analysis, we generated priority research topics, then classified these into broader themes. Results Participants submitted 200 research ideas, which we grouped into 21 priority topics. Key research priorities included: insufficient consumer involvement in research (19 responses), ‘official’ health information is contradictory and hard to understand (18 responses), communication/coordination breakdowns in health services (15 responses), health information provision a low priority for health professionals (15 responses), insufficient eliciting of patient preferences (14 responses), health services poorly understand/implement patient-centred care (14 responses), lack of holistic care impacting healthcare quality and safety (13 responses) and inadequate consumer involvement in service design (11 responses). These priorities encompassed acute and community health settings, with implications for policy and research. Priority populations of interest included people from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, carers, and people with low educational attainment, or mental illness. Most frequently suggested interventions focused on training and cultural change activities for health services and health professionals

  17. Setting health research priorities using the CHNRI method: VI. Quantitative properties of human collective opinion

    PubMed Central

    Yoshida, Sachiyo; Rudan, Igor; Cousens, Simon

    2016-01-01

    Introduction Crowdsourcing has become an increasingly important tool to address many problems – from government elections in democracies, stock market prices, to modern online tools such as TripAdvisor or Internet Movie Database (IMDB). The CHNRI method (the acronym for the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative) for setting health research priorities has crowdsourcing as the major component, which it uses to generate, assess and prioritize between many competing health research ideas. Methods We conducted a series of analyses using data from a group of 91 scorers to explore the quantitative properties of their collective opinion. We were interested in the stability of their collective opinion as the sample size increases from 15 to 90. From a pool of 91 scorers who took part in a previous CHNRI exercise, we used sampling with replacement to generate multiple random samples of different size. First, for each sample generated, we identified the top 20 ranked research ideas, among 205 that were proposed and scored, and calculated the concordance with the ranking generated by the 91 original scorers. Second, we used rank correlation coefficients to compare the ranks assigned to all 205 proposed research ideas when samples of different size are used. We also analysed the original pool of 91 scorers to to look for evidence of scoring variations based on scorers' characteristics. Results The sample sizes investigated ranged from 15 to 90. The concordance for the top 20 scored research ideas increased with sample sizes up to about 55 experts. At this point, the median level of concordance stabilized at 15/20 top ranked questions (75%), with the interquartile range also generally stable (14–16). There was little further increase in overlap when the sample size increased from 55 to 90. When analysing the ranking of all 205 ideas, the rank correlation coefficient increased as the sample size increased, with a median correlation of 0.95 reached at the sample size

  18. Global research priorities for interpersonal violence prevention: a modified Delphi study.

    PubMed

    Mikton, Christopher R; Tanaka, Masako; Tomlinson, Mark; Streiner, David L; Tonmyr, Lil; Lee, Bandy X; Fisher, Jane; Hegadoren, Kathy; Pim, Joam Evans; Wang, Shr-Jie Sharlenna; MacMillan, Harriet L

    2017-01-01

    To establish global research priorities for interpersonal violence prevention using a systematic approach. Research priorities were identified in a three-round process involving two surveys. In round 1, 95 global experts in violence prevention proposed research questions to be ranked in round 2. Questions were collated and organized according to the four-step public health approach to violence prevention. In round 2, 280 international experts ranked the importance of research in the four steps, and the various substeps, of the public health approach. In round 3, 131 international experts ranked the importance of detailed research questions on the public health step awarded the highest priority in round 2. In round 2, "developing, implementing and evaluating interventions" was the step of the public health approach awarded the highest priority for four of the six types of violence considered (i.e. child maltreatment, intimate partner violence, armed violence and sexual violence) but not for youth violence or elder abuse. In contrast, "scaling up interventions and evaluating their cost-effectiveness" was ranked lowest for all types of violence. In round 3, research into "developing, implementing and evaluating interventions" that addressed parenting or laws to regulate the use of firearms was awarded the highest priority. The key limitations of the study were response and attrition rates among survey respondents. However, these rates were in line with similar priority-setting exercises. These findings suggest it is premature to scale up violence prevention interventions. Developing and evaluating smaller-scale interventions should be the funding priority.

  19. Consistency endangered by FASB-GASB (Financial Accounting Standards Board, Government Accounting Standards Board ) dispute.

    PubMed

    Garner, M; Grossman, W

    1991-02-01

    The Financial Accounting Foundation's (FAF's) November 1989 decision to uphold the 1984 jurisdictional arrangement between the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) leaves little doubt that the healthcare industry will now be subject to two sets of accounting standards. The FAF's decision created a distinction between the accounting practices of government-owned hospitals and non-hospital governmental entities and their adherence to standards set by FASB, GASB, and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A governmental healthcare organization should carefully determine which accounting rules it follows and remain attentive to further GASB developments.

  20. Establishing research priorities for patient safety in emergency medicine: a multidisciplinary consensus panel.

    PubMed

    Plint, Amy C; Stang, Antonia S; Calder, Lisa A

    2015-01-01

    Patient safety in the context of emergency medicine is a relatively new field of study. To date, no broad research agenda for patient safety in emergency medicine has been established. The objective of this study was to establish patient safety-related research priorities for emergency medicine. These priorities would provide a foundation for high-quality research, important direction to both researchers and health-care funders, and an essential step in improving health-care safety and patient outcomes in the high-risk emergency department (ED) setting. A four-phase consensus procedure with a multidisciplinary expert panel was organized to identify, assess, and agree on research priorities for patient safety in emergency medicine. The 19-member panel consisted of clinicians, administrators, and researchers from adult and pediatric emergency medicine, patient safety, pharmacy, and mental health; as well as representatives from patient safety organizations. In phase 1, we developed an initial list of potential research priorities by electronically surveying a purposeful and convenience sample of patient safety experts, ED clinicians, administrators, and researchers from across North America using contact lists from multiple organizations. We used simple content analysis to remove duplication and categorize the research priorities identified by survey respondents. Our expert panel reached consensus on a final list of research priorities through an in-person meeting (phase 3) and two rounds of a modified Delphi process (phases 2 and 4). After phases 1 and 2, 66 unique research priorities were identified for expert panel review. At the end of phase 4, consensus was reached for 15 research priorities. These priorities represent four themes: (1) methods to identify patient safety issues (five priorities), (2) understanding human and environmental factors related to patient safety (four priorities), (3) the patient perspective (one priority), and (4) interventions for

  1. High Priority Research Needs for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus

    PubMed Central

    Robinson, Karen A.; Saldanha, Ian J.; Wilson, Lisa M.; Nicholson, Wanda K.

    2012-01-01

    Abstract Objective Identification of unanswered research questions about the management of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is necessary to focus future research endeavors. We developed a process for elucidating the highest priority research questions on GDM. Methods Using a systematic review on GDM as a starting point, we developed an eight-step process: (1) identification of research gaps, (2) feedback from the review's authors, (3) translation of gaps into researchable questions using population, intervention, comparators, outcomes, setting (PICOS) framework, (4) local institutions' stakeholders' refinement of research questions, (5) national stakeholders' use of Delphi method to develop consensus on the importance of research questions, (6) prioritization of outcomes, (7) conceptual framework, and (8) evaluation. Results We identified 15 high priority research questions for GDM. The research questions focused on medication management of GDM (e.g., various oral agents vs. insulin), delivery management for women with GDM (e.g., induction vs. expectant management), and identification of risk factors for, prevention of, and screening for type 2 diabetes in women with prior GDM. Stakeholders rated the development of chronic diseases in offspring, cesarean delivery, and birth trauma as high priority outcomes to measure in future studies. Conclusions We developed an eight-step process using a multidisciplinary group of stakeholders to identify 15 research questions of high clinical importance. Researchers, policymakers, and funders can use this list to direct research efforts and resources to the highest priority areas to improve care for women with GDM. PMID:22747422

  2. Exploring Citizen Infrastructure and Environmental Priorities in Mumbai, India

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Sperling, Joshua; Romero-Lankao, Patricia; Beig, Gufran

    Many cities worldwide seek to understand local policy priorities among their general populations. This study explores how differences in local conditions and among citizens within and across Mumbai, India shape local infrastructure (e.g. energy, water, transport) and environmental (e.g. managing pollution, climate-related extreme weather events) policy priorities for change that may or may not be aligned with local government action or global environmental sustainability concerns such as low-carbon development. In this rapidly urbanizing city, multiple issues compete for prominence, ranging from improved management of pollution and extreme weather to energy and other infrastructure services. To inform a broader perspective ofmore » policy priorities for urban development and risk mitigation, a survey was conducted among over 1200 citizens. The survey explored the state of local conditions, the challenges citizens face, and the ways in which differences in local conditions (socio-institutional, infrastructure, and health-related) demonstrate inequities and influence how citizens perceive risks and rank priorities for the future design and implementation of local planning, policy, and community-based efforts. With growing discussion and tensions surrounding the new urban sustainable development goal, announced by the UN in late September 2015, and a new global urban agenda document to be agreed upon at 'Habitat III', issues on whether sustainable urbanization priorities should be set at the international, national or local level remain controversial. As such, this study aims to first understand determinants of and variations in local priorities across one city, with implications discussed for local-to-global urban sustainability. Findings from survey results indicate the determinants and variation in conditions such as age, assets, levels of participation in residential action groups, the health outcome of chronic asthma, and the infrastructure service of piped

  3. Accounting Students' Perspective of Work-Relevant Communication Skills: Evidence from a Philippine University

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Tenedero, Pia Patricia P.

    2017-01-01

    To further probe the alignment (or misalignment) of university and industry priorities in terms of English language skills development of future accountants, this study extends the earlier investigation of employers' perception on the communication skills needed by entry-level accountants. Using conjoint analysis, this research examines the…

  4. Generating political priority for newborn survival in three low-income countries.

    PubMed

    Smith, Stephanie L; Shiffman, Jeremy; Kazembe, Abigail

    2014-01-01

    Deaths to babies in their first 28 days of life now account for more than 40% of global under-5 child mortality. High neonatal mortality poses a significant barrier to achieving the child survival Millennium Development Goal. Surmounting the problem requires national-level political commitment, yet only a few nation-states have prioritised this issue. We compare Bolivia, Malawi and Nepal, three low-income countries with high neonatal mortality, with a view to understanding why countries prioritise or neglect the issue. The three have had markedly different trajectories since 2000: attention grew steadily in Nepal, stagnated then grew in Malawi and grew then stagnated in Bolivia. The comparison suggests three implications for proponents seeking to advance attention to neglected health issues in low-income countries: the value of (1) advancing solutions with demonstrated efficacy in low-resource settings, (2) building on existing and emerging national priorities and (3) developing a strong network of domestic and international allies. Such actions help policy communities to weather political storms and take advantage of policy windows.

  5. 47 CFR 211.5 - Priorities.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-10-01

    ... 47 Telecommunication 5 2014-10-01 2014-10-01 false Priorities. 211.5 Section 211.5 Telecommunication OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY AND NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL EMERGENCY RESTORATION PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES § 211.5 Priorities. There are hereby established four...

  6. 47 CFR 211.5 - Priorities.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... 47 Telecommunication 5 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Priorities. 211.5 Section 211.5 Telecommunication OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY AND NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL EMERGENCY RESTORATION PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES § 211.5 Priorities. There are hereby established four...

  7. 47 CFR 211.5 - Priorities.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-10-01

    ... 47 Telecommunication 5 2013-10-01 2013-10-01 false Priorities. 211.5 Section 211.5 Telecommunication OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY AND NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL EMERGENCY RESTORATION PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES § 211.5 Priorities. There are hereby established four...

  8. 47 CFR 211.5 - Priorities.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-10-01

    ... 47 Telecommunication 5 2012-10-01 2012-10-01 false Priorities. 211.5 Section 211.5 Telecommunication OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY AND NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL EMERGENCY RESTORATION PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES § 211.5 Priorities. There are hereby established four...

  9. 47 CFR 211.5 - Priorities.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... 47 Telecommunication 5 2011-10-01 2011-10-01 false Priorities. 211.5 Section 211.5 Telecommunication OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY AND NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL EMERGENCY RESTORATION PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES § 211.5 Priorities. There are hereby established four...

  10. Final priority; Rehabilitation Services Administration--Assistive Technology Alternative Financing Program. Final priority.

    PubMed

    2014-08-14

    The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services announces a priority under the Assistive Technology Alternative Financing Program administered by the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA). The Assistant Secretary may use this priority for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2014 and later years. This priority is designed to ensure that the Department funds high-quality assistive technology (AT) alternative financing programs (AFPs) that meet rigorous standards in order to enable individuals with disabilities to access and acquire assistive technology devices and services necessary to achieve education, community living, and employment goals.

  11. 7 CFR 3431.14 - Priority.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

    2013-01-01

    ... Priority. Pursuant to NVMSA, the Secretary will give priority to agreements with veterinarians for the practice of food animal medicine in veterinarian shortage situations, as determined by the Secretary. The Secretary may establish additional criteria in the RFA for assigning priority levels to veterinarian...

  12. 7 CFR 3431.14 - Priority.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... Priority. Pursuant to NVMSA, the Secretary will give priority to agreements with veterinarians for the practice of food animal medicine in veterinarian shortage situations, as determined by the Secretary. The Secretary may establish additional criteria in the RFA for assigning priority levels to veterinarian...

  13. 7 CFR 3431.14 - Priority.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... Priority. Pursuant to NVMSA, the Secretary will give priority to agreements with veterinarians for the practice of food animal medicine in veterinarian shortage situations, as determined by the Secretary. The Secretary may establish additional criteria in the RFA for assigning priority levels to veterinarian...

  14. Principals and Teachers "Craft Coherence" among Accountability Policies

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Stosich, Elizabeth Leisy

    2018-01-01

    Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to examine how US school leaders and teachers make sense of multiple accountability policies, including the Common Core State Standards and teacher evaluation, and how this process relates to school priorities and classroom practice. Design/methodology/approach: This study uses a comparative case study…

  15. 25 CFR 286.8 - Priority criteria.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-04-01

    ... INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ECONOMIC ENTERPRISES INDIAN BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM § 286.8 Priority criteria. The following priority will be used in selecting economic enterprises for grant funding: (a) First priority. First priority will be given to economic enterprises located on a reservation...

  16. 25 CFR 286.8 - Priority criteria.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-04-01

    ... INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ECONOMIC ENTERPRISES INDIAN BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM § 286.8 Priority criteria. The following priority will be used in selecting economic enterprises for grant funding: (a) First priority. First priority will be given to economic enterprises located on a reservation...

  17. 77 FR 41391 - Final Priority; Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Vocational Rehabilitation and...

    Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

    2012-07-13

    ... Research and Training Center (RRTCs) on Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) and Developing Strategies to Meet... Projects and Centers Program administered by NIDRR. Specifically, this priority is for an RRTC on VR and... effective VR practices that take into account economic conditions, labor market trends, and employer needs...

  18. International Occupational Therapy Research Priorities.

    PubMed

    Mackenzie, Lynette; Coppola, Susan; Alvarez, Liliana; Cibule, Lolita; Maltsev, Sergey; Loh, Siew Yim; Mlambo, Tecla; Ikiugu, Moses N; Pihlar, Zdenka; Sriphetcharawut, Sarinya; Baptiste, Sue; Ledgerd, Richard

    2017-04-01

    Occupational therapy is a global profession represented by the World Federation of Occupational Therapists (WFOT). International research priorities are needed for strategic guidance on global occupational therapy practice. The objective of this study was to develop international research priorities to reflect global occupational therapy practice. A Delphi study using three rounds of electronic surveys, distributed to WFOT member organizations and WFOT accredited universities, was conducted. Data were analyzed after each round, and priorities were presented for rating and ranking in order of importance. Forty-six (53%) out of 87 WFOT member countries participated in the Delphi process. Eight research priorities were confirmed by the final electronic survey round. Differences were observed in rankings given by member organizations and university respondents. Despite attrition at Round 3, the final research priorities will help to focus research efforts in occupational therapy globally. Follow-up research is needed to determine how the research priorities are being adopted internationally.

  19. The role of doctors, patients and managers in priority setting decisions: lessons from the `Child B' case

    PubMed Central

    Ham, Chris

    2001-01-01

    The difficulties in treating patients with life threatening illnesses were highlighted by the case of Jaymee Bowen, a 10‐year‐old girl with leukaemia who was refused funding for a second bone marrow transplant in 1995. Jaymee's case was widely reported at the time and came to epitomize the dilemmas of rationing in the United Kingdom's National Health Service. In reality, the paediatricians who had cared for Jaymee based their decision on clinical rather than financial considerations, and the media reporting of the case failed to reflect the complexities of the issues involved. The case also demonstrated the difficulties of determining the best interests of children and of obtaining their consent to treatment. There were disagreements between Jaymee's father and the paediatricians who had treated her about how her best interests could be served and this led to a breakdown of trust and the search for further opinions. This highlighted the rise of consumerism in health care and the challenge to doctors and managers to justify their decisions and to give reasons for these decisions. The common theme in Jaymee's story is the need for greater openness in decisions on priority setting and stronger safeguards for patients. PMID:11281876

  20. State Strategies to Improve Low-Performing Schools: California's High Priority School Grants Program

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Timar, Thomas; Rodriguez, Gloria; Simon, Virginia Adams; Ferrario, Kim; Kim, Kris

    2006-01-01

    Central to California's school accountability system are programs to engage low-performing schools in improvement efforts. One of these is the High Priority Schools Program (HPSGP), created by Assembly Bill 961 (Chapter 747, "Statutes of 2001") to provide funds to the lowest performing schools in the state. To be eligible for funding,…

  1. Factoring economic costs into conservation planning may not improve agreement over priorities for protection.

    PubMed

    Armsworth, Paul R; Jackson, Heather B; Cho, Seong-Hoon; Clark, Melissa; Fargione, Joseph E; Iacona, Gwenllian D; Kim, Taeyoung; Larson, Eric R; Minney, Thomas; Sutton, Nathan A

    2017-12-21

    Conservation organizations must redouble efforts to protect habitat given continuing biodiversity declines. Prioritization of future areas for protection is hampered by disagreements over what the ecological targets of conservation should be. Here we test the claim that such disagreements will become less important as conservation moves away from prioritizing areas for protection based only on ecological considerations and accounts for varying costs of protection using return-on-investment (ROI) methods. We combine a simulation approach with a case study of forests in the eastern United States, paying particular attention to how covariation between ecological benefits and economic costs influences agreement levels. For many conservation goals, agreement over spatial priorities improves with ROI methods. However, we also show that a reliance on ROI-based prioritization can sometimes exacerbate disagreements over priorities. As such, accounting for costs in conservation planning does not enable society to sidestep careful consideration of the ecological goals of conservation.

  2. 42 CFR 51.24 - Program priorities.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

    2011-10-01

    ... 42 Public Health 1 2011-10-01 2011-10-01 false Program priorities. 51.24 Section 51.24 Public Health PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES GRANTS REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO... Priorities § 51.24 Program priorities. (a) Program priorities and policies shall be established annually by...

  3. Global research priorities for interpersonal violence prevention: a modified Delphi study

    PubMed Central

    Tanaka, Masako; Tomlinson, Mark; Streiner, David L; Tonmyr, Lil; Lee, Bandy X; Fisher, Jane; Hegadoren, Kathy; Pim, Joam Evans; Wang, Shr-Jie Sharlenna; MacMillan, Harriet L

    2017-01-01

    Abstract Objective To establish global research priorities for interpersonal violence prevention using a systematic approach. Methods Research priorities were identified in a three-round process involving two surveys. In round 1, 95 global experts in violence prevention proposed research questions to be ranked in round 2. Questions were collated and organized according to the four-step public health approach to violence prevention. In round 2, 280 international experts ranked the importance of research in the four steps, and the various substeps, of the public health approach. In round 3, 131 international experts ranked the importance of detailed research questions on the public health step awarded the highest priority in round 2. Findings In round 2, “developing, implementing and evaluating interventions” was the step of the public health approach awarded the highest priority for four of the six types of violence considered (i.e. child maltreatment, intimate partner violence, armed violence and sexual violence) but not for youth violence or elder abuse. In contrast, “scaling up interventions and evaluating their cost–effectiveness” was ranked lowest for all types of violence. In round 3, research into “developing, implementing and evaluating interventions” that addressed parenting or laws to regulate the use of firearms was awarded the highest priority. The key limitations of the study were response and attrition rates among survey respondents. However, these rates were in line with similar priority-setting exercises. Conclusion These findings suggest it is premature to scale up violence prevention interventions. Developing and evaluating smaller-scale interventions should be the funding priority. PMID:28053363

  4. Setting priorities for safe motherhood interventions in resource-scarce settings.

    PubMed

    Prata, Ndola; Sreenivas, Amita; Greig, Fiona; Walsh, Julia; Potts, Malcolm

    2010-01-01

    Guide policy-makers in prioritizing safe motherhood interventions. Three models (LOW, MED, HIGH) were constructed based on 34 sub-Saharan African countries to assess the relative cost-effectiveness of available safe motherhood interventions. Cost and effectiveness data were compiled and inserted into the WHO Mother Baby Package Costing Spreadsheet. For each model we assessed the percentage in maternal mortality reduction after implementing all interventions, and optimal combinations of interventions given restricted budgets of US$ 0.50, US$ 1.00, US$ 1.50 per capital maternal health expenditures respectively for LOW, MED, and HIGH models. The most cost-effective interventions were family planning and safe abortion (fpsa), antenatal care including misoprostol distribution for postpartum hemorrhage prevention at home deliveries (anc-miso), followed by sepsis treatment (sepsis) and facility-based postpartum hemorrhage management (pph). The combination of interventions that avert the greatest number of maternal deaths should be prioritized and expanded to cover the greatest number of women at risk. Those which save the most number of lives in each model are 'fpsa, anc-miso' and 'fpsa, sepsis, safe delivery' for LOW; 'fpsa, anc-miso' and 'fpsa, sepsis, safe delivery' for MED; and 'fpsa, anc-miso, sepsis, eclampsia treatment, safe delivery' for HIGH settings. Safe motherhood interventions save a significant number of newborn lives.

  5. 40 CFR 35.915 - State priority system and project priorty list.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-07-01

    ... State priority system and list must be designed to achieve optimum water quality management consistent... water quality management (WQM) plans. The State shall hold a public hearing before submission of the... also sets forth the administrative, management, and public participation procedures required to develop...

  6. Accounting for baryonic effects in cosmic shear tomography: Determining a minimal set of nuisance parameters using PCA

    DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

    Eifler, Tim; Krause, Elisabeth; Dodelson, Scott

    2014-05-28

    Systematic uncertainties that have been subdominant in past large-scale structure (LSS) surveys are likely to exceed statistical uncertainties of current and future LSS data sets, potentially limiting the extraction of cosmological information. Here we present a general framework (PCA marginalization) to consistently incorporate systematic effects into a likelihood analysis. This technique naturally accounts for degeneracies between nuisance parameters and can substantially reduce the dimension of the parameter space that needs to be sampled. As a practical application, we apply PCA marginalization to account for baryonic physics as an uncertainty in cosmic shear tomography. Specifically, we use CosmoLike to run simulatedmore » likelihood analyses on three independent sets of numerical simulations, each covering a wide range of baryonic scenarios differing in cooling, star formation, and feedback mechanisms. We simulate a Stage III (Dark Energy Survey) and Stage IV (Large Synoptic Survey Telescope/Euclid) survey and find a substantial bias in cosmological constraints if baryonic physics is not accounted for. We then show that PCA marginalization (employing at most 3 to 4 nuisance parameters) removes this bias. Our study demonstrates that it is possible to obtain robust, precise constraints on the dark energy equation of state even in the presence of large levels of systematic uncertainty in astrophysical processes. We conclude that the PCA marginalization technique is a powerful, general tool for addressing many of the challenges facing the precision cosmology program.« less

  7. Health Care Priorities: Opinions of One State's Citizens and Legislators.

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Jankel, Charlotte A.; And Others

    1994-01-01

    Reports a study that examined the attitudes of Georgia citizens and legislators toward funding for specific health care services and national health insurance. Legislators were less in favor of national health insurance than were citizens. Both groups set a high priority on providing a wide range of health care services to everyone. (SM)

  8. 34 CFR 75.105 - Annual priorities.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-07-01

    ... 34 Education 1 2014-07-01 2014-07-01 false Annual priorities. 75.105 Section 75.105 Education... priorities (Cross-reference: See 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)); (ii) The final annual priorities are chosen from a... Application Notice § 75.105 Annual priorities. (a) What programs are covered by this section? This section...

  9. Using economic analyses for local priority setting : the population cost-impact approach.

    PubMed

    Heller, Richard F; Gemmell, Islay; Wilson, Edward C F; Fordham, Richard; Smith, Richard D

    2006-01-01

    presented in terms of the benefits and costs to a particular population. The process for deciding between alternative interventions in a prioritisation exercise may differ according to the local context. We suggest that the valuation of the benefit is performed after the benefits have been quantified and that it takes into account local issues relevant to prioritisation. It would be an appropriate next step to experiment with, and formalise, this part of the population cost-impact analysis to provide a standardised approach for determining willingness to pay and provide a ranking of priorities. Our method adds a new dimension to economic analysis, the ability to identify costs and benefits of potential interventions to a defined population, which may be of considerable use for policy makers working at the local level.

  10. Research priorities in mental health occupational therapy: A study of clinician perspectives.

    PubMed

    Hitch, Danielle; Lhuede, Kate

    2015-10-01

    The evidence to support mental health occupational therapy has proliferated in the early years of this century, but this growth has tended to be organic rather than targeted. Previous efforts to identify research priorities in this area of practice are either out dated, or encompass discrete areas of practice. The aim of this study was to identify priority areas for research in mental health occupational therapy from clinician's perspectives. A Policy Delphi method was used to enable occupational therapists to define and differentiate their perspectives on research priorities. Forty-two occupational therapists took part in the first two rounds of this method, with 69% (n = 29) going on to complete the third and final round of data collection. A Likert scale was used to rate the importance of each priority, and descriptive quantitative analysis undertaken to identify those most consistently identified as being highly important. Four research priorities were identified as being highly important in this study: (i) working in an occupationally focussed way; (ii) consumer experience of therapy groups; (iii) identifying factors which increase consumer engagement in occupation; and (iv) engaging patients on the inpatient unit in meaningful and positive occupation. Two of the priority areas are already the subject of substantial evidence bases, but there has been far less research into consumer experiences of groups and occupational engagement in acute settings. Collaboration between research teams and greater consumer inclusion are recommended for the future. This study provides an updated indication of research priorities for mental health occupational therapy in Australia. © 2015 Occupational Therapy Australia.

  11. Setting the global health agenda: The influence of advocates and ideas on political priority for maternal and newborn survival.

    PubMed

    Smith, Stephanie L; Shiffman, Jeremy

    2016-10-01

    This study investigates a puzzle concerning global health priorities-why do comparable issues receive differential levels of attention and resources? It considers maternal and neonatal mortality, two high-burden issues that pertain to groups at risk at birth and whose lives could be saved with effective intrapartum care. Why did maternal survival gain status as a global health priority earlier and to a greater degree than newborn survival? Higher mortality and morbidity burdens among newborns and the cost-effectiveness of interventions would seem to predict that issue's earlier and higher prioritization. Yet maternal survival emerged as a priority two decades earlier and had attracted considerably more attention and resources by the close of the Millennium Development Goals era. This study uses replicative process-tracing case studies to examine the emergence and growth of political priority for these two issues, probing reasons for unexpected variance. The study finds that maternal survival's grounding as a social justice issue spurred growth of a strong and diverse advocacy network and aligned the issue with powerful international norms (e.g. expectations to advance women's rights and the Millennium Development Goals), drawing attention and resources to the issue over three decades. Newborn survival's disadvantage stems from its long status as an issue falling under the umbrellas of maternal and child survival but not fully adopted by these networks, and with limited appeal as a public health issue advanced by a small and technically focused network; network expansion and alignment with child survival norms have improved the issue's status in the past few years. Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

  12. 48 CFR 19.502-3 - Partial set-asides.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-10-01

    ... non-set-aside part of the acquisition shall have first priority with respect to negotiations for the... 48 Federal Acquisition Regulations System 1 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Partial set-asides. 19.502... SOCIOECONOMIC PROGRAMS SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAMS Set-Asides for Small Business 19.502-3 Partial set-asides. (a...

  13. Discovery, research, and development of new antibiotics: the WHO priority list of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and tuberculosis.

    PubMed

    Tacconelli, Evelina; Carrara, Elena; Savoldi, Alessia; Harbarth, Stephan; Mendelson, Marc; Monnet, Dominique L; Pulcini, Céline; Kahlmeter, Gunnar; Kluytmans, Jan; Carmeli, Yehuda; Ouellette, Marc; Outterson, Kevin; Patel, Jean; Cavaleri, Marco; Cox, Edward M; Houchens, Chris R; Grayson, M Lindsay; Hansen, Paul; Singh, Nalini; Theuretzbacher, Ursula; Magrini, Nicola

    2018-03-01

    The spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria poses a substantial threat to morbidity and mortality worldwide. Due to its large public health and societal implications, multidrug-resistant tuberculosis has been long regarded by WHO as a global priority for investment in new drugs. In 2016, WHO was requested by member states to create a priority list of other antibiotic-resistant bacteria to support research and development of effective drugs. We used a multicriteria decision analysis method to prioritise antibiotic-resistant bacteria; this method involved the identification of relevant criteria to assess priority against which each antibiotic-resistant bacterium was rated. The final priority ranking of the antibiotic-resistant bacteria was established after a preference-based survey was used to obtain expert weighting of criteria. We selected 20 bacterial species with 25 patterns of acquired resistance and ten criteria to assess priority: mortality, health-care burden, community burden, prevalence of resistance, 10-year trend of resistance, transmissibility, preventability in the community setting, preventability in the health-care setting, treatability, and pipeline. We stratified the priority list into three tiers (critical, high, and medium priority), using the 33rd percentile of the bacterium's total scores as the cutoff. Critical-priority bacteria included carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and carbapenem-resistant and third-generation cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. The highest ranked Gram-positive bacteria (high priority) were vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium and meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Of the bacteria typically responsible for community-acquired infections, clarithromycin-resistant Helicobacter pylori, and fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter spp, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and Salmonella typhi were included in the high-priority tier. Future development strategies should focus on

  14. Pediatric Emergency Research Canada (PERC): Patient/Family-Informed Research Priorities for Pediatric Emergency Medicine.

    PubMed

    Bialy, Liza; Plint, Amy C; Freedman, Stephen B; Johnson, David W; Curran, Janet A; Stang, Antonia S

    2018-06-06

    A growing body of literature supports patient and public involvement in the design, prioritization and dissemination of research and evidence based medicine. The objectives of this project were to engage patients and families in developing a prioritized list of research topics for Pediatric Emergency Medicine (PEM) and to compare results with prior research prioritization initiatives in the ED (emergency department) setting. We utilized a systematic process to combine administrative data on frequency of patient presentations to the ED with multiple stakeholder input including an initial stakeholder survey followed by a modified Delphi consensus methodology consisting of two web-based surveys and a face-to-face meeting. The prioritization process resulted in a ranked list of 15 research priorities. The top five priorities were mental health presentations, pain and sedation, practice tools, quality of care delivery and resource utilization. Mental health, pain and sedation, clinical prediction rules, respiratory illnesses /wheeze, patient safety/medication error and sepsis were identified as shared priorities with prior initiatives. Topics identified in our process that were not identified in prior work included resource utilization, ED communication, antibiotic stewardship and patient/family adherence with recommendations. This work identifies key priorities for research in PEM. Comparing our results with prior initiatives in the ED setting identified shared research priorities and opportunities for collaboration among PEM research networks. This work in particular makes an important contribution to the existing literature by including the patient/family perspective missing from prior work. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

  15. Binge Eating among Women Veterans in Primary Care: Comorbidities and Treatment Priorities.

    PubMed

    Rosenbaum, Diane L; Kimerling, Rachel; Pomernacki, Alyssa; Goldstein, Karen M; Yano, Elizabeth M; Sadler, Anne G; Carney, Diane; Bastian, Lori A; Bean-Mayberry, Bevanne A; Frayne, Susan M

    2016-01-01

    Little is known about the clinical profile and treatment priorities of women with binge eating disorder (BED), a diagnosis new to the fifth edition of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. We identified comorbidities and patients' treatment priorities, because these may inform implementation of clinical services. Data were collected from women veteran primary care patients. Analyses compared those who screened positive for BED (BED+), and those without any binge eating symptoms (BED-). Frequencies of comorbid medical and psychological disorders were high in the BED+ group. The BED+ group's self-identified most common treatment priorities were mood concerns (72.2%), weight loss (66.7%), and body image/food issues (50%). Among those with obesity, a greater proportion of the BED+ group indicated body image/food issues was their top treatment priority (12.9% vs. 2.8%; p < .01), suggesting that these patients may be more apt to seek treatment beyond weight management for their problematic eating patterns. Women primary care patients with BED demonstrate high medical and psychological complexity; their subjective treatment priorities often match objective needs. These findings may inform the development of targeted BED screening practices for women with obesity in primary care settings, and the eventual adoption of patient-centered BED treatment resources. Published by Elsevier Inc.

  16. Animal production food safety: priority pathogens for standard setting by the World Organisation for Animal Health.

    PubMed

    Knight-Jones, T J D; Mylrea, G E; Kahn, S

    2010-12-01

    In this short study, expert opinion and a literature review were used to identify the pathogens that should be prioritised by the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) for the development of future standards for animal production food safety. Prioritisation was based on a pathogen's impact on human health and amenability to control using on-farm measures. As the OIE mandate includes alleviation of global poverty, the study focused on developing countries and those with 'in-transition' economies. The regions considered were Eastern Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Africa and South America. Salmonella (from species other than poultry) and pathogenic Escherichia coli were considered to be top priorities. Brucella spp., Echinococcus granulosus and Staphylococcus aureus were also mentioned by experts. As Salmonella, and to a lesser extent pathogenic E. coli, can be controlled by on-farm measures, these pathogens should be considered for prioritisation in future standard setting. On-farm control measures for Brucella spp. will be addressed in 2010-2011 in a review of the OLE Terrestrial Animal/Health Code chapter on brucellosis. In Africa, E. granulosus, the causative agent of hydatidosis, was estimated to have the greatest impact of all pathogens that could potentially be transmitted by food (i.e. via contamination). It was also listed for the Middle East and thought to be of importance by both South American experts consulted. Taenia saginata was thought to be of importance in South America and Africa and by one expert in the Middle East.

  17. Research priorities for conservation and natural resource management in Oceania's small-island developing states.

    PubMed

    Weeks, R; Adams, V M

    2018-02-01

    For conservation science to effectively inform management, research must focus on creating the scientific knowledge required to solve conservation problems. We identified research questions that, if answered, would increase the effectiveness of conservation and natural resource management practice and policy in Oceania's small-island developing states. We asked conservation professionals from academia, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations across the region to propose such questions and then identify which were of high priority in an online survey. We compared the high-priority questions with research questions identified globally and for other regions. Of 270 questions proposed by respondents, 38 were considered high priority, including: What are the highest priority areas for conservation in the face of increasing resource demand and climate change? How should marine protected areas be networked to account for connectivity and climate change? What are the most effective fisheries management policies that contribute to sustainable coral reef fisheries? High-priority questions related to the particular challenges of undertaking conservation on small-island developing states and the need for a research agenda that is responsive to the sociocultural context of Oceania. Research priorities for Oceania relative to elsewhere were broadly similar but differed in specific issues relevant to particular conservation contexts. These differences emphasize the importance of involving local practitioners in the identification of research priorities. Priorities were reasonably well aligned among sectoral groups. Only a few questions were widely considered answered, which may indicate a smaller-than-expected knowledge-action gap. We believe these questions can be used to strengthen research collaborations between scientists and practitioners working to further conservation and natural resource management in this region. © 2017 The Authors. Conservation Biology

  18. Empowering districts to target priorities for improving child health service in Uganda using change management and rapid assessment methods.

    PubMed

    Odaga, John; Henriksson, Dorcus K; Nkolo, Charles; Tibeihaho, Hector; Musabe, Richard; Katusiime, Margaret; Sinabulya, Zaccheus; Mucunguzi, Stephen; Mbonye, Anthony K; Valadez, Joseph J

    2016-01-01

    Local health system managers in low- and middle-income countries have the responsibility to set health priorities and allocate resources accordingly. Although tools exist to aid this process, they are not widely applied for various reasons including non-availability, poor knowledge of the tools, and poor adaptability into the local context. In Uganda, delivery of basic services is devolved to the District Local Governments through the District Health Teams (DHTs). The Community and District Empowerment for Scale-up (CODES) project aims to provide a set of management tools that aid contextualised priority setting, fund allocation, and problem-solving in a systematic way to improve effective coverage and quality of child survival interventions. Although the various tools have previously been used at the national level, the project aims to combine them in an integral way for implementation at the district level. These tools include Lot Quality Assurance Sampling (LQAS) surveys to generate local evidence, Bottleneck analysis and Causal analysis as analytical tools, Continuous Quality Improvement, and Community Dialogues based on Citizen Report Cards and U reports. The tools enable identification of gaps, prioritisation of possible solutions, and allocation of resources accordingly. This paper presents some of the tools used by the project in five districts in Uganda during the proof-of-concept phase of the project. All five districts were trained and participated in LQAS surveys and readily adopted the tools for priority setting and resource allocation. All districts developed health operational work plans, which were based on the evidence and each of the districts implemented more than three of the priority activities which were included in their work plans. In the five districts, the CODES project demonstrated that DHTs can adopt and integrate these tools in the planning process by systematically identifying gaps and setting priority interventions for child survival.

  19. Empowering districts to target priorities for improving child health service in Uganda using change management and rapid assessment methods

    PubMed Central

    Odaga, John; Henriksson, Dorcus K.; Nkolo, Charles; Tibeihaho, Hector; Musabe, Richard; Katusiime, Margaret; Sinabulya, Zaccheus; Mucunguzi, Stephen; Mbonye, Anthony K.; Valadez, Joseph J.

    2016-01-01

    Background Local health system managers in low- and middle-income countries have the responsibility to set health priorities and allocate resources accordingly. Although tools exist to aid this process, they are not widely applied for various reasons including non-availability, poor knowledge of the tools, and poor adaptability into the local context. In Uganda, delivery of basic services is devolved to the District Local Governments through the District Health Teams (DHTs). The Community and District Empowerment for Scale-up (CODES) project aims to provide a set of management tools that aid contextualised priority setting, fund allocation, and problem-solving in a systematic way to improve effective coverage and quality of child survival interventions. Design Although the various tools have previously been used at the national level, the project aims to combine them in an integral way for implementation at the district level. These tools include Lot Quality Assurance Sampling (LQAS) surveys to generate local evidence, Bottleneck analysis and Causal analysis as analytical tools, Continuous Quality Improvement, and Community Dialogues based on Citizen Report Cards and U reports. The tools enable identification of gaps, prioritisation of possible solutions, and allocation of resources accordingly. This paper presents some of the tools used by the project in five districts in Uganda during the proof-of-concept phase of the project. Results All five districts were trained and participated in LQAS surveys and readily adopted the tools for priority setting and resource allocation. All districts developed health operational work plans, which were based on the evidence and each of the districts implemented more than three of the priority activities which were included in their work plans. Conclusions In the five districts, the CODES project demonstrated that DHTs can adopt and integrate these tools in the planning process by systematically identifying gaps and setting

  20. Research priorities for nursing and midwifery in Southern Ireland.

    PubMed

    McCarthy, G; Savage, E; Lehane, E

    2006-06-01

    To identify research priorities for nursing and midwifery in the Southern Health Board area in Ireland for the immediate and long term. Ten focus groups were conducted over a 2-month period with 70 nurses and midwives working in clinical, managerial and educational roles participating. Based on focus group findings and a literature review a multi-item Likert type questionnaire was constructed and administered to 520 nurses and midwives (response rate 95%n=494). Research priorities were identified as: (1) impact of staff shortages on retention of RNs/RM's (80%); (2) quality of life of chronically ill patients (76%); (3) stress and bullying in the workplace (76%); (4) assessment and management of pain (75%); (5) skill mix and staff burnout (73%); (6) cardio-pulmonary resuscitation decision making (72%); (7) coordination of care between hospital and primary care settings (69%); (8) medication errors (67%); and (9) promoting healthy lifestyles (64%). Respondents also indicated that these priorities warranted immediate attention. Implications for practice include the need for: (1) emphasis on quality pain control; (2) recognition and exploration of the ethical issues relating to resuscitation; and (3) management of the context within which clinical care is given.

  1. Conservation priorities of Iberoamerican pig breeds and their ancestors based on microsatellite information.

    PubMed

    Cortés, O; Martinez, A M; Cañon, J; Sevane, N; Gama, L T; Ginja, C; Landi, V; Zaragoza, P; Carolino, N; Vicente, A; Sponenberg, P; Delgado, J V

    2016-07-01

    Criollo pig breeds are descendants from pigs brought to the American continent starting with Columbus second trip in 1493. Pigs currently play a key role in social economy and community cultural identity in Latin America. The aim of this study was to establish conservation priorities among a comprehensive group of Criollo pig breeds based on a set of 24 microsatellite markers and using different criteria. Spain and Portugal pig breeds, wild boar populations of different European geographic origins and commercial pig breeds were included in the analysis as potential genetic influences in the development of Criollo pig breeds. Different methods, differing in the weight given to within- and between-breed genetic variability, were used in order to estimate the contribution of each breed to global genetic diversity. As expected, the partial contribution to total heterozygosity gave high priority to Criollo pig breeds, whereas Weitzman procedures prioritized Iberian Peninsula breeds. With the combined within- and between-breed approaches, different conservation priorities were achieved. The Core Set methodologies highly prioritized Criollo pig breeds (Cr. Boliviano, Cr. Pacifico, Cr. Cubano and Cr. Guadalupe). However, weighing the between- and within-breed components with FST and 1-FST, respectively, resulted in higher contributions of Iberian breeds. In spite of the different conservation priorities according to the methodology used, other factors in addition to genetic information also need to be considered in conservation programmes, such as the economic, cultural or historical value of the breeds involved.

  2. Conservation priorities of Iberoamerican pig breeds and their ancestors based on microsatellite information

    PubMed Central

    Cortés, O; Martinez, A M; Cañon, J; Sevane, N; Gama, L T; Ginja, C; Landi, V; Zaragoza, P; Carolino, N; Vicente, A; Sponenberg, P; Delgado, J V

    2016-01-01

    Criollo pig breeds are descendants from pigs brought to the American continent starting with Columbus second trip in 1493. Pigs currently play a key role in social economy and community cultural identity in Latin America. The aim of this study was to establish conservation priorities among a comprehensive group of Criollo pig breeds based on a set of 24 microsatellite markers and using different criteria. Spain and Portugal pig breeds, wild boar populations of different European geographic origins and commercial pig breeds were included in the analysis as potential genetic influences in the development of Criollo pig breeds. Different methods, differing in the weight given to within- and between-breed genetic variability, were used in order to estimate the contribution of each breed to global genetic diversity. As expected, the partial contribution to total heterozygosity gave high priority to Criollo pig breeds, whereas Weitzman procedures prioritized Iberian Peninsula breeds. With the combined within- and between-breed approaches, different conservation priorities were achieved. The Core Set methodologies highly prioritized Criollo pig breeds (Cr. Boliviano, Cr. Pacifico, Cr. Cubano and Cr. Guadalupe). However, weighing the between- and within-breed components with FST and 1-FST, respectively, resulted in higher contributions of Iberian breeds. In spite of the different conservation priorities according to the methodology used, other factors in addition to genetic information also need to be considered in conservation programmes, such as the economic, cultural or historical value of the breeds involved. PMID:27025169

  3. Priorities in healthcare: a perspective from Spain.

    PubMed

    Gaminde, I

    1999-12-01

    The aim of this paper is to describe the process of transformation over the past two decades in the Spanish healthcare system. The main emphasis is on priority setting and rationing at different levels. On the supply side, the policies have focused on limiting the scope of pharmaceutical benefits in the system, and establishing a guaranteed healthcare package. On the consumer side, the main measures reviewed are copayments. Finally, a discussion of the research that has been done on public opinion about rationing is presented.

  4. An international eDelphi study identifying the research and education priorities in wound management and tissue repair.

    PubMed

    Cowman, Seamus; Gethin, Georgina; Clarke, Eric; Moore, Zena; Craig, Gerardine; Jordan-O'Brien, Julie; McLain, Niamh; Strapp, Helen

    2012-02-01

    To incorporate an international and multidisciplinary consensus in the determination of the research and education priorities for wound healing and tissue repair. A compelling reason for the study is the lack of an agreed list of priorities for wound care research and education. Furthermore, there is a growth in the prevalence of chronic wounds, a growth in wound care products and marketing, and an increase in clinician attendance at conferences and education programmes. The study used a survey method. A four-round eDelphi technique was used to collect responses from an international population of health professionals across 24 countries. Responses were obtained from 360 professionals representing many health care settings. The top education priorities related to the standardisation of all foundation education programmes in wound care, the inclusion of wound care in all professional undergraduate and postgraduate education programmes, selecting dressings and the prevention of pressure ulcers. The top research priorities related to the dressing selection, pressure ulcer prevention and wound infection. conclusion: Professionals from different backgrounds and countries who are engaged in wound management share a common set of priorities for research and education. Most notably, the priorities identified relate to long-established clinical challenges in wound care and underpin the principles of good patient care practices. The priorities are closely allied to an ageing population and identify many challenges ahead for practitioners engaged in wound management services. The provision of wound care is a major investment of health service resources and remains a clinical challenge today. Research is essential to building evidence-based practice and fundamental to development of quality in standards of practice; education is central to achieving competence to deliver effective care. The determination of research and education priorities is therefore an absolute requirement

  5. Reconciling patient and provider priorities for improving the care of critically ill patients: A consensus method and qualitative analysis of decision making.

    PubMed

    McKenzie, Emily; Potestio, Melissa L; Boyd, Jamie M; Niven, Daniel J; Brundin-Mather, Rebecca; Bagshaw, Sean M; Stelfox, Henry T

    2017-12-01

    Providers have traditionally established priorities for quality improvement; however, patients and their family members have recently become involved in priority setting. Little is known about how to reconcile priorities of different stakeholder groups into a single prioritized list that is actionable for organizations. To describe the decision-making process for establishing consensus used by a diverse panel of stakeholders to reconcile two sets of quality improvement priorities (provider/decision maker priorities n=9; patient/family priorities n=19) into a single prioritized list. We employed a modified Delphi process with a diverse group of panellists to reconcile priorities for improving care of critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Proceedings were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using qualitative content analysis to explore the decision-making process for establishing consensus. Nine panellists including three providers, three decision makers and three family members of previously critically ill patients. Panellists rated and revised 28 priorities over three rounds of review and reached consensus on the "Top 5" priorities for quality improvement: transition of patient care from ICU to hospital ward; family presence and effective communication; delirium screening and management; early mobilization; and transition of patient care between ICU providers. Four themes were identified as important for establishing consensus: storytelling (sharing personal experiences), amalgamating priorities (negotiating priority scope), considering evaluation criteria and having a priority champion. Our study demonstrates the feasibility of incorporating families of patients into a multistakeholder prioritization exercise. The approach described can be used to guide consensus building and reconcile priorities of diverse stakeholder groups. © 2017 The Authors Health Expectations Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

  6. What Is Your Priority?

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Whitaker, Todd; Turner, Elizabeth

    2000-01-01

    A survey of 1,801 public- and private-school principals in Indiana revealed disparities among rankings of perceived job priorities and actual priorities. Only three items were rated comparably: school climate, curriculum expansion, and improved staff morale. Improving time management is an important factor. (MLH)

  7. Range-wide network of priority areas for greater sage-grouse - a design for conserving connected distributions or isolating individual zoos?

    USGS Publications Warehouse

    Crist, Michele R.; Knick, Steven T.; Hanser, Steven E.

    2015-09-08

    The network of areas delineated in 11 Western States for prioritizing management of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) represents a grand experiment in conservation biology and reserve design. We used centrality metrics from social network theory to gain insights into how this priority area network might function. The network was highly centralized. Twenty of 188 priority areas accounted for 80 percent of the total centrality scores. These priority areas, characterized by large size and a central location in the range-wide distribution, are strongholds for greater sage-grouse populations and also might function as sources. Mid-ranking priority areas may serve as stepping stones because of their location between large central and smaller peripheral priority areas. The current network design and conservation strategy has risks. The contribution of almost one-half (n = 93) of the priority areas combined for less than 1 percent of the cumulative centrality scores for the network. These priority areas individually are likely too small to support viable sage-grouse populations within their boundary. Without habitat corridors to connect small priority areas either to larger priority areas or as a clustered group within the network, their isolation could lead to loss of sage-grouse within these regions of the network. 

  8. Key priorities in the prevention and control of healthcare-associated infection: a survey of European and other international infection prevention experts.

    PubMed

    Dettenkofer, Markus; Humphreys, Hilary; Saenz, Henri; Carlet, Jean; Hanberger, Håkan; Ruef, Christian; Widmer, Andreas; Wolkewitz, Martin; Cookson, Barry

    2016-12-01

    Prevention and control of healthcare-associated infection (HCAI) are important within and beyond Europe. However, it is unclear which areas are considered important by HCAI prevention and control professionals. This study assesses the priorities in the prevention and control of HCAI as judged by experts in the field. A survey was conducted by the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases focussing on seven topics using SurveyMonkey ® . Through a newsletter distributed by email, about 5000 individuals were targeted throughout the world in February and March 2013. Participants were asked to rate the importance of particular topics from one (low importance) to ten (extraordinary importance), and there was no restriction on giving equal importance to more than one topic. A total of 589 experts from 86 countries participated including 462 from Europe (response rate: 11.8 %). Physicians accounted for 60 % of participants, and 57 % had ten or more years' experience in this area. Microbial epidemiology/resistance achieved the highest priority scoring with 8.9, followed by surveillance 8.2, and decolonisation/disinfection/antiseptics with 7.9. Under epidemiology/resistance, highly resistant Gram-negative bacilli scored highest (9.0-9.2). The provision of computerised healthcare information systems for the early detection of outbreaks was accorded the top priority under surveillance. The prevention of surgical site and central line infections ranked highest under the category of specific HCAI and HCAI in certain settings. Differences between regions are described. These findings reflect the concerns of experts in HCAI prevention and control. The results from this survey should inform national and international agencies on future action and research priorities.

  9. What should autism research focus upon? Community views and priorities from the United Kingdom

    PubMed Central

    Dinsmore, Adam; Charman, Tony

    2014-01-01

    The rise in the measured prevalence of autism has been accompanied by much new research and research investment internationally. This study sought to establish whether the pattern of current UK autism research funding maps on to the concerns of the autism community. Interviews and focus groups were conducted with autistic adults, family members, practitioners and researchers to identify their priorities for research. We also captured the views of a large number of stakeholders via an online survey. There was a clear disparity between the United Kingdom’s pattern of funding for autism research and the priorities articulated by the majority of participants. There was general consensus that future priorities for autism research should lie in those areas that make a difference to people’s day-to-day lives. There needs to be greater involvement of the autism community both in priority setting and in research more broadly to ensure that resources reach where they are most needed and can make the most impact. PMID:24789871

  10. An ontology-based nurse call management system (oNCS) with probabilistic priority assessment

    PubMed Central

    2011-01-01

    Background The current, place-oriented nurse call systems are very static. A patient can only make calls with a button which is fixed to a wall of a room. Moreover, the system does not take into account various factors specific to a situation. In the future, there will be an evolution to a mobile button for each patient so that they can walk around freely and still make calls. The system would become person-oriented and the available context information should be taken into account to assign the correct nurse to a call. The aim of this research is (1) the design of a software platform that supports the transition to mobile and wireless nurse call buttons in hospitals and residential care and (2) the design of a sophisticated nurse call algorithm. This algorithm dynamically adapts to the situation at hand by taking the profile information of staff members and patients into account. Additionally, the priority of a call probabilistically depends on the risk factors, assigned to a patient. Methods The ontology-based Nurse Call System (oNCS) was developed as an extension of a Context-Aware Service Platform. An ontology is used to manage the profile information. Rules implement the novel nurse call algorithm that takes all this information into account. Probabilistic reasoning algorithms are designed to determine the priority of a call based on the risk factors of the patient. Results The oNCS system is evaluated through a prototype implementation and simulations, based on a detailed dataset obtained from Ghent University Hospital. The arrival times of nurses at the location of a call, the workload distribution of calls amongst nurses and the assignment of priorities to calls are compared for the oNCS system and the current, place-oriented nurse call system. Additionally, the performance of the system is discussed. Conclusions The execution time of the nurse call algorithm is on average 50.333 ms. Moreover, the oNCS system significantly improves the assignment of nurses

  11. Developing a Framework and Priorities to Promote Mobility among Older Adults

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Anderson, Lynda A.; Slonim, Amy; Yen, Irene H.; Jones, Dina L.; Allen, Peg; Hunter, Rebecca H.; Goins, R. Turner; Leith, Katherine H.; Rosenberg, Dori; Satariano, William A.; McPhillips-Tangum, Carol

    2014-01-01

    Mobility, broadly defined as movement in all of its forms from ambulation to transportation, is critical to supporting optimal aging. This article describes two projects to develop a framework and a set of priority actions designed to promote mobility among community-dwelling older adults. Project 1 involved a concept-mapping process to solicit…

  12. Final priority; National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research--Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers. Final priority.

    PubMed

    2014-07-09

    The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services announces a priority under the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program administered by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR). Specifically, we announce a priority for a Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center (RERC) on Improving the Accessibility, Usability, and Performance of Technology for Individuals who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing. The Assistant Secretary may use this priority for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2014 and later years. We take this action to focus research attention on an area of national need. We intend the priority to contribute to improving the accessibility, usability, and performance of technology for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing.

  13. The Accounting Capstone Problem

    ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

    Elrod, Henry; Norris, J. T.

    2012-01-01

    Capstone courses in accounting programs bring students experiences integrating across the curriculum (University of Washington, 2005) and offer unique (Sanyal, 2003) and transformative experiences (Sill, Harward, & Cooper, 2009). Students take many accounting courses without preparing complete sets of financial statements. Accountants not only…

  14. Priority regions for research on dryland cereals and legumes

    PubMed Central

    Hyman, Glenn; Barona, Elizabeth; Biradar, Chandrashekhar; Guevara, Edward; Dixon, John; Beebe, Steve; Castano, Silvia Elena; Alabi, Tunrayo; Gumma, Murali Krishna; Sivasankar, Shoba; Rivera, Ovidio; Espinosa, Herlin; Cardona, Jorge

    2016-01-01

    Dryland cereals and legumes  are important crops in farming systems across the world.  Yet they are frequently neglected among the priorities for international agricultural research and development, often due to lack of information on their magnitude and extent. Given what we know about the global distribution of dryland cereals and legumes, what regions should be high priority for research and development to improve livelihoods and food security? This research evaluated the geographic dimensions of these crops and the farming systems where they are found worldwide. The study employed geographic information science and data to assess the key farming systems and regions for these crops. Dryland cereal and legume crops should be given high priority in 18 farming systems worldwide, where their cultivated area comprises more than 160 million ha. These regions include the dryer areas of South Asia, West and East Africa, the Middle East and North Africa, Central America and other parts of Asia. These regions are prone to drought and heat stress, have limiting soil constraints, make up half of the global population and account for 60 percent of the global poor and malnourished. The dryland cereal and legume crops and farming systems merit more research and development attention to improve productivity and address development problems. This project developed an open access dataset and information resource that provides the basis for future analysis of the geographic dimensions of dryland cereals and legumes. PMID:27303632

  15. 7 CFR 1778.7 - Project priority.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

    2010-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 12 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Project priority. 1778.7 Section 1778.7 Agriculture... (CONTINUED) EMERGENCY AND IMMINENT COMMUNITY WATER ASSISTANCE GRANTS § 1778.7 Project priority. Paragraph (d... to determine the proposed project's priority for available funds. (b) State Office review. All...

  16. 7 CFR 1778.7 - Project priority.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 12 2014-01-01 2013-01-01 true Project priority. 1778.7 Section 1778.7 Agriculture... (CONTINUED) EMERGENCY AND IMMINENT COMMUNITY WATER ASSISTANCE GRANTS § 1778.7 Project priority. Paragraph (d... to determine the proposed project's priority for available funds. (b) State Office review. All...

  17. 7 CFR 1778.7 - Project priority.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

    2012-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 12 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 false Project priority. 1778.7 Section 1778.7 Agriculture... (CONTINUED) EMERGENCY AND IMMINENT COMMUNITY WATER ASSISTANCE GRANTS § 1778.7 Project priority. Paragraph (d... to determine the proposed project's priority for available funds. (b) State Office review. All...

  18. Massage Therapy and Canadians’ Health Care Needs 2020: Proceedings of a National Research Priority Setting Summit

    PubMed Central

    Dryden, Trish; Sumpton, Bryn; Shipwright, Stacey; Kahn, Janet; Reece, Barbara (Findlay)

    2014-01-01

    Background The health care landscape in Canada is changing rapidly as forces, such as an aging population, increasingly complex health issues and treatments, and economic pressure to reduce health care costs, bear down on the system. A cohesive national research agenda for massage therapy (MT) is needed in order to ensure maximum benefit is derived from research on treatment, health care policy, and cost effectiveness. Setting A one-day invitational summit was held in Toronto, Ontario to build strategic alliances among Canadian and international researchers, policy makers, and other stakeholders to help shape a national research agenda for MT. Method Using a modified Delphi method, the summit organizers conducted two pre-summit surveys to ensure that time spent during the summit was relevant and productive. The summit was facilitated using the principles of Appreciative Inquiry which included a “4D” strategic planning approach (defining, discovery, dreaming, designing) and application of a SOAR framework (strengths, opportunities, aspirations, and results). Participants Twenty-six researchers, policymakers, and other stakeholders actively participated in the events. Results Priority topics that massage therapists believe are important to the Canadian public, other health care providers, and policy makers and massage therapists themselves were identified. A framework for a national massage therapy (MT) research agenda, a grand vision of the future for MT research, and a 12-month action plan were developed. Conclusion The summit provided an excellent opportunity for key stakeholders to come together and use their experience and knowledge of MT to develop a much-needed plan for moving the MT research and professionalization agenda forward. PMID:24592299

  19. Investigation of priorities in water quality management based on correlations and variations.

    PubMed

    Boyacıoğlu, Hülya; Gündogdu, Vildan; Boyacıoğlu, Hayal

    2013-04-15

    The development of water quality assessment strategies investigating spatial and temporal changes caused by natural and anthropogenic phenomena is an important tool in management practices. This paper used cluster analysis, water quality index method, sensitivity analysis and canonical correlation analysis to investigate priorities in pollution control activities. Data sets representing 22 surface water quality parameters were subject to analysis. Results revealed that organic pollution was serious threat for overall water quality in the region. Besides, oil and grease, lead and mercury were the critical variables violating the standard. In contrast to inorganic variables, organic and physical-inorganic chemical parameters were influenced by variations in physical conditions (discharge, temperature). This study showed that information produced based on the variations and correlations in water quality data sets can be helpful to investigate priorities in water management activities. Moreover statistical techniques and index methods are useful tools in data - information transformation process. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

  20. 7 CFR 632.12 - Funding priorities.

    Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

    2014-01-01

    ... 7 Agriculture 6 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Funding priorities. 632.12 Section 632.12 Agriculture... AGRICULTURE LONG TERM CONTRACTING RURAL ABANDONED MINE PROGRAM Qualifications § 632.12 Funding priorities. (a) All eligible applications within a State are to be assigned a funding priority and subpriority...