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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 the ability to use evidence and ensure due process at the same time. The use of evidence can ensure that health outcomes for Indigenous peoples can be maximised – hence, increase the potential for ‘closing the gap’ between Indigenous and other Australians. PMID:24906391

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

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.

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-making among their multiple chronic illnesses and respective treatments. Researchers need to develop and test interventions that support day-to-day priority setting and decision-making and improve health outcomes for individuals with multimorbidity. PMID:25468131

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.

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.

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.

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.

Prioritized Contact Transport Stream

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

Hunt, Walter Lee, Jr. (Inventor)

2015-01-01

A detection process, contact recognition process, classification process, and identification process are applied to raw sensor data to produce an identified contact record set containing one or more identified contact records. A prioritization process is applied to the identified contact record set to assign a contact priority to each contact record in the identified contact record set. Data are removed from the contact records in the identified contact record set based on the contact priorities assigned to those contact records. A first contact stream is produced from the resulting contact records. The first contact stream is streamed in a contact transport stream. The contact transport stream may include and stream additional contact streams. The contact transport stream may be varied dynamically over time based on parameters such as available bandwidth, contact priority, presence/absence of contacts, system state, and configuration parameters.

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 improve priority setting practices. This should however, be accompanied by measures to empower stakeholders to contribute to decision making. Strengthening soft leadership skills of hospital managers could also contribute to managing the power dynamics among actors in hospital priority setting processes.

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 provides arguments for the continued application and further assessment of the potential of AFR in supporting priority-setting and other decision-making processes in health systems to achieve better agreed and more sustainable health improvements linked to a mutual democratic learning with potential wider implications.

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 be responding to an actual demand. This provides arguments for the continued application and further assessment of the potential of AFR in supporting priority-setting and other decision-making processes in health systems to achieve better agreed and more sustainable health improvements linked to a mutual democratic learning with potential wider implications. PMID:25142148

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.

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.

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 identifying the patient engagement literature for review, bias in article selection due to the identified scope, missed information due to a more limited use of exhaustive search strategies (e.g., in-depth hand searching), and the heterogeneity of reported study findings. The four public and patient engagement priority setting processes identified were successful in setting priorities that are inclusive and objectively based, specific to the priorities of stakeholders engaged in the process. The processes were robust, strategic and aimed to promote equity in patient voices. Key limitations identified a lack of evaluation data on the success and extent in which patients were engaged. Issues pertaining to feasibility of stakeholder engagement, coordination, communication and limited resources were also considered.

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 complementary schools of thought. PMID:26673332

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 by Kerman University of Medical Sciences.

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.

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 turn, favor the implementation of the agenda. PMID:25117661

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 between local and international researchers, and with key government stakeholders, can leverage existing skills and knowledge to generate a critical mass of individuals and institutions. These would help to meet the priority-setting needs of African countries and contribute to sustainable universal health coverage. PMID:29035166

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.

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 need to develop and test interventions that support day-to-day priority setting and decision-making and improve health outcomes for individuals with multimorbidity. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

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.

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

12 CFR 1806.203 - Selection Process, actual award amounts.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-01-01

... Community Financing Activities, ranked in the order set forth in the applicable NOFA. (3) Third Priority. If... amounts based on the process described in this section. (c) Priority of Awards. The Fund will rank Applicants in each category of Qualified Activity according to the priorities described in this paragraph (c...

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 and more detailed analysis of health system elements, and socio-cultural context is imperative in fostering sustainability. Additionally, the study stresses the need to deal with power asymmetries among various actors in priority-setting contexts. PMID:22072991

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 Inclusion Method/CHoosing All Together (US). Limitations The critical study limitations include challenges in comprehensively identifying the patient engagement literature for review, bias in article selection due to the identified scope, missed information due to a more limited use of exhaustive search strategies (e.g., in-depth hand searching), and the heterogeneity of reported study findings. Conclusion The four public and patient engagement priority setting processes identified were successful in setting priorities that are inclusive and objectively based, specific to the priorities of stakeholders engaged in the process. The processes were robust, strategic and aimed to promote equity in patient voices. Key limitations identified a lack of evaluation data on the success and extent in which patients were engaged. Issues pertaining to feasibility of stakeholder engagement, coordination, communication and limited resources were also considered. PMID:29499043

[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.

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 grappling with in prioritizing noncommunicable diseases in the context of a double disease burden with limited resources. Strengthening local capacity for priority setting would help to support the development of sustainable and implementable noncommunicable disease-related priorities. Global support (i.e. aid) to low income countries for noncommunicable diseases must also catch up to align with NCDs as a global health priority.

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 desirable attributes from the different approaches and piece together an approach that would be feasible and acceptable within their context. An approach that builds on the decision-makers' understanding of their contexts and their input to its development would foster local ownership and has a greater potential for sustainability.

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.

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

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

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?

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

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.

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 satisfy the conditions of fairness. To improve, the hospital should: (i) engage frontline practitioners, (ii) publicize the reasons for decisions both within the hospital and to the general public, and (iii) develop formal mechanisms for challenging the reasoning. In addition, capacity strengthening is required for senior managers who must accept responsibility for ensuring that the above three conditions are met. PMID:17026761

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

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

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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, implementation of decisions), and proceduralist (stakeholder engagement and empowerment, transparency, use of evidence, revisions, enforcement, and incorporating community values) conditions. PMID:27679522

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, implementation of decisions), and proceduralist (stakeholder engagement and empowerment, transparency, use of evidence, revisions, enforcement, and incorporating community values) conditions. © The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

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 of all the parameters at the national and sub-national levels implies that the framework has potential usefulness at those levels, as is. The parameters that were disputed at the global level necessitate further discussion when using the framework at that level. The next step is to use the validated framework in evaluating actual priority setting at the different levels.

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…

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

13 CFR 313.8 - Competitive process.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-01-01

... implementation grant shall be reviewed by EDA in accord with a competitive process as set forth in the applicable FFO, to ensure that EDA awards funds to the most merit-worthy projects. (b) Priority for grants to small- and medium-sized Communities. EDA shall give priority to an application submitted under this part...

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.

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-relevance: medical evidence and economic criteria were thought to be relevant, but lobbying was thought to be irrelevant. Publicity: all cases lacked clear and effective mechanisms for publicity. REVISIONS: formal mechanisms, following the planning hierarchy, were considered less effective, informal political mechanisms were considered more effective. Canada and Norway had patients' relations officers to deal with patients' dissensions; however, revisions were more difficult in Uganda. Enforcement: leadership for ensuring decision-making fairness was not apparent. The different levels of priority setting in the three countries fulfilled varying conditions of accountability for reasonableness, none satisfied all the four conditions. To improve, decision makers at the three levels in all three cases should engage frontline practitioners, develop more effectively publicized reasons, and develop formal mechanisms for challenging and revising decisions.

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.

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.

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 identify research priorities that included stakeholders that have typically not contributed to setting the research agenda. The top 10 and other topics identified provide a resource for researchers and agencies that fund research PMID:25631309

Balancing efficiency, equity and feasibility of HIV treatment in South Africa – development of programmatic guidance

PubMed Central

2013-01-01

South Africa, the country with the largest HIV epidemic worldwide, has been scaling up treatment since 2003 and is rapidly expanding its eligibility criteria. The HIV treatment programme has achieved significant results, and had 1.8 million people on treatment per 2011. Despite these achievements, it is now facing major concerns regarding (i) efficiency: alternative treatment policies may save more lives for the same budget; (ii) equity: there are large inequalities in who receives treatment; (iii) feasibility: still only 52% of the eligible population receives treatment. Hence, decisions on the design of the present HIV treatment programme in South Africa can be considered suboptimal. We argue there are two fundamental reasons to this. First, while there is a rapidly growing evidence-base to guide priority setting decisions on HIV treatment, its included studies typically consider only one criterion at a time and thus fail to capture the broad range of values that stakeholders have. Second, priority setting on HIV treatment is a highly political process but it seems no adequate participatory processes are in place to incorporate stakeholders’ views and evidences of all sorts. We propose an alternative approach that provides a better evidence base and outlines a fair policy process to improve priority setting in HIV treatment. The approach integrates two increasingly important frameworks on health care priority setting: accountability for reasonableness (A4R) to foster procedural fairness, and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to construct an evidence-base on the feasibility, efficiency, and equity of programme options including trade-offs. The approach provides programmatic guidance on the choice of treatment strategies at various decisions levels based on a sound conceptual framework, and holds large potential to improve HIV priority setting in South Africa. PMID:24107435

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 increasingly used to identify priorities and inform sector-wide planning, whereby health service statistics were used to rank the burden of disease. However, many respondents remarked that health system challenges are not captured by such statistics. In all countries funding for health was reported to fall short of requirements and a need for further priority setting to match actual resource availability was identified. Pooled health sector funds have been established to some extent, but development partners′ lack of flexibility in the allocation of funds according to country-generated priorities was identified as a major constraint. Conclusions Although we found consensus on health priorities across all levels in the study countries, current funding falls short of addressing these identified areas. The nature of external funding, as well as programme-specific investment, was found to distort priority setting. There are signs that existing interventions have had limited effects beyond meeting the needs of disease-specific programmes. A need for more comprehensive health system strengthening (HSS) was identified, which requires a strong vision as to what the term means, coupled with a clear strategy and commitment from national and international decision makers in order to achieve stated goals. Prospective studies and action research, accompanied by pilot programmes, are recommended as deliberate strategies for HSS. PMID:23231820

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 priorities and inform sector-wide planning, whereby health service statistics were used to rank the burden of disease. However, many respondents remarked that health system challenges are not captured by such statistics.In all countries funding for health was reported to fall short of requirements and a need for further priority setting to match actual resource availability was identified. Pooled health sector funds have been established to some extent, but development partners' lack of flexibility in the allocation of funds according to country-generated priorities was identified as a major constraint. Although we found consensus on health priorities across all levels in the study countries, current funding falls short of addressing these identified areas. The nature of external funding, as well as programme-specific investment, was found to distort priority setting. There are signs that existing interventions have had limited effects beyond meeting the needs of disease-specific programmes. A need for more comprehensive health system strengthening (HSS) was identified, which requires a strong vision as to what the term means, coupled with a clear strategy and commitment from national and international decision makers in order to achieve stated goals. Prospective studies and action research, accompanied by pilot programmes, are recommended as deliberate strategies for HSS.

Olly Olly Oxen Free (or Ally Ally in Free): Playing Hide and Seek in Allocating Resources for Child and Youth Health.

PubMed

Hiltz, Mary-Ann; Mitton, Craig; Smith, Neale; Dowling, Laura; Campbell, Matthew; Magee, J Fergall; Gibson, Jennifer L; Gujar, Shashi Ashok; Levy, Adrian

2015-01-01

There are powerful arguments for increased investment in child and youth health. But the extent to which these benefits can be realized is shaped by health institutions' priority setting processes. We asked, "What are the unique features of a pediatric care setting that should influence choice and implementation of a formal priority setting and resource allocation process?" Based on multiple sources of data, we created a "made-for-child-health" lens containing three foci reflective of the distinct features of pediatric care settings: the diversity of child and youth populations, the challenges in measuring outcomes and the complexity of patient and public engagement.

76 FR 14362 - Policies To Promote Rural Radio Service and To Streamline Allotment and Assignment Procedures

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-03-16

... set forth in the First R&O, the Priority is premised on the unique ability of Tribes and Tribal... services the Tribal Priority generally operates as a dispositive preference in the application process... Tribal Priority operates as a dispositive preference in the AM commercial and FM NCE application contexts...

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.

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

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.

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.

Decision-making process of patients with gynecological cancer regarding their cancer treatment choices using the analytic hierarchy process.

PubMed

Kitamura, Yuko

2010-12-01

In order to support patients' decision-making regarding cancer treatments, it is important to clarify which criteria that cancer patients use to set priorities in their treatment choices. Using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), a mathematical decision-making method, this article investigates the criteria and the priorities of patients with gynecological cancer. In the AHP, multiple and hierarchical criteria in the decision-making process were organized by a repeated pairwise judgment of the participants so as to serialize the alternatives along with the rational order of the priorities. For the alternatives "to receive treatment" and "to not receive treatment," the following five criteria were set: "anxiety about relapse and metastasis", "distress about side-effects", "advice of family", "advice of medical staff", and "economic burden". The participants determined a pairwise priority scale, as well as a priority scale between the alternatives for every criterion. The logical consistency of their answers was checked by a consistency index (CI). The participants were 31 patients with ovarian or endometrial cancer who were being followed up after undergoing surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. Of the participants who answered the questionnaire, 17 satisfied the logical consistency. Of the five criteria for the treatment choices, "anxiety about relapse and metastasis" and "advice of medical staff" were found to be the important factors for treatment choice; however, the weight attached to the priority criteria differed much among the patients. The AHP made it possible to support patients' decision-making in order to clarify their priority criteria and to quantitatively present their decision-making process. © 2010 The Author. Journal compilation © 2010 Japan Academy of Nursing Science.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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/

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.

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.

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 Ltd. All rights reserved.

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.

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

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. However, the full implementation of Accountability for Reasonableness would require a proper capacity-building plan, involving all relevant stakeholders, particularly members of the community since public accountability is the ultimate aim, and it is the community that will live with the consequences of priority-setting decisions.

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.

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

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.

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 priority interventions for child survival. PMID:27225791

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…

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 typically not contributed to setting the research agenda. The top 10 and other topics identified provide a resource for researchers and agencies that fund research. 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.

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 likely that the results are broadly applicable to other healthcare contexts. The implementation of this research agenda in British Columbia will depend upon the ability of the researchers and decision-makers to develop particular projects that fit within the constraints of existing funding opportunities. The process of engagement itself had benefits in terms of connecting decision-makers with their peers and sparking increased interest in the use and refinement of priority setting frameworks. PMID:19754969

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 priorities (95%CI: +12% to +58%, p < 0.01). Professionals’ intention to use the selected quality indicators was similar in intervention and control sites. Patient involvement increased the costs of the prioritization process by 17%, and required 10% more time to reach consensus on common priorities. Conclusions Patient involvement can change priorities driving healthcare improvement at the population level. Future research should test the generalizability of these findings to other contexts, and assess its impact on patient care. Trial registration The Netherlands National Trial Register #NTR2496. PMID:24555508

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.

Identifying and Prioritizing Gaps in Neuroendocrine Tumor Research: A Modified Delphi Process With Patients and Health Care Providers to Set the Research Action Plan for the Newly Formed Commonwealth Neuroendocrine Tumor Collaboration

PubMed Central

Chan, David; Lawrence, Ben; Pavlakis, Nick; Kennecke, Hagen F.; Jackson, Christopher; Law, Calvin; Singh, Simron

2017-01-01

Purpose Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are a diverse group of malignancies that pose challenges common to all rare tumors. The Commonwealth Neuroendocrine Tumor Collaboration (CommNETS) was established in 2015 to enhance outcomes for patients with NETs in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. A modified Delphi process was undertaken involving patients, clinicians, and researchers to identify gaps in NETs research to produce a comprehensive and defensible research action plan. Methods A three-round modified Delphi process was undertaken with larger representation than usual for medical consensus processes. Patient/advocate and health care provider/researcher expert panels undertook Round 1, which canvassed 17 research priorities and 42 potential topics; in Round 2, these priorities were ranked. Round 3 comprised a face-to-face meeting to generate final consensus rankings and formulate the research action plan. Results The Delphi groups consisted of 203 participants in Round 1 (64% health care providers/researchers, 36% patient/advocates; 52% Canadian, 32% Australian, and 17% New Zealander), of whom 132 participated in Round 2. The top eight priorities were biomarker development; peptide receptor radionuclide therapy optimization; trials of new agents in advanced NETs; functional imaging; sequencing therapies for metastatic NETs, including development of validated surrogate end points for studies; pathologic classification; early diagnosis; interventional therapeutics; and curative surgery. Two major areas were ranked significantly higher by patients/advocates: early diagnosis and curative surgery. Six CommNETS working parties were established. Conclusion This modified Delphi process resulted in a well-founded set of research priorities for the newly formed CommNETS collaboration by involving a large, diverse group of stakeholders. This approach to setting a research agenda for a new collaborative group should be adopted to ensure that research plans reflect unmet needs and priorities in the field. PMID:28831446

Identifying and Prioritizing Gaps in Neuroendocrine Tumor Research: A Modified Delphi Process With Patients and Health Care Providers to Set the Research Action Plan for the Newly Formed Commonwealth Neuroendocrine Tumor Collaboration.

PubMed

Segelov, Eva; Chan, David; Lawrence, Ben; Pavlakis, Nick; Kennecke, Hagen F; Jackson, Christopher; Law, Calvin; Singh, Simron

2017-08-01

Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are a diverse group of malignancies that pose challenges common to all rare tumors. The Commonwealth Neuroendocrine Tumor Collaboration (CommNETS) was established in 2015 to enhance outcomes for patients with NETs in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. A modified Delphi process was undertaken involving patients, clinicians, and researchers to identify gaps in NETs research to produce a comprehensive and defensible research action plan. A three-round modified Delphi process was undertaken with larger representation than usual for medical consensus processes. Patient/advocate and health care provider/researcher expert panels undertook Round 1, which canvassed 17 research priorities and 42 potential topics; in Round 2, these priorities were ranked. Round 3 comprised a face-to-face meeting to generate final consensus rankings and formulate the research action plan. The Delphi groups consisted of 203 participants in Round 1 (64% health care providers/researchers, 36% patient/advocates; 52% Canadian, 32% Australian, and 17% New Zealander), of whom 132 participated in Round 2. The top eight priorities were biomarker development; peptide receptor radionuclide therapy optimization; trials of new agents in advanced NETs; functional imaging; sequencing therapies for metastatic NETs, including development of validated surrogate end points for studies; pathologic classification; early diagnosis; interventional therapeutics; and curative surgery. Two major areas were ranked significantly higher by patients/advocates: early diagnosis and curative surgery. Six CommNETS working parties were established. This modified Delphi process resulted in a well-founded set of research priorities for the newly formed CommNETS collaboration by involving a large, diverse group of stakeholders. This approach to setting a research agenda for a new collaborative group should be adopted to ensure that research plans reflect unmet needs and priorities in the field.

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.

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 widespread, long-lived taxa. PMID:21969858

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...

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.

78 FR 43205 - Proposed Substances To Be Evaluated for Set 27 Toxicological Profiles

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-07-19

.... The Set 27 nomination process includes consideration of all substances on ATSDR's Priority List of... No. ATSDR-2013-0002] Proposed Substances To Be Evaluated for Set 27 Toxicological Profiles AGENCY...). ACTION: Request for comments on the proposed substances to be evaluated for Set 27 toxicological profiles...

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 development in order to sustain and improve impact.

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 capacity development in order to sustain and improve impact. PMID:28721199

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.

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

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 conceptual framework 'accountability for reasonableness'. Although many hospital CEOs felt that their priority setting was fair, ample room for improvement was noted, especially for the enforcement condition. PMID:15663792

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.

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

Evaluation and Selection of Best Priority Sequencing Rule in Job Shop Scheduling using Hybrid MCDM Technique

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Kiran Kumar, Kalla; Nagaraju, Dega; Gayathri, S.; Narayanan, S.

2017-05-01

Priority Sequencing Rules provide the guidance for the order in which the jobs are to be processed at a workstation. The application of different priority rules in job shop scheduling gives different order of scheduling. More experimentation needs to be conducted before a final choice is made to know the best priority sequencing rule. Hence, a comprehensive method of selecting the right choice is essential in managerial decision making perspective. This paper considers seven different priority sequencing rules in job shop scheduling. For evaluation and selection of the best priority sequencing rule, a set of eight criteria are considered. The aim of this work is to demonstrate the methodology of evaluating and selecting the best priority sequencing rule by using hybrid multi criteria decision making technique (MCDM), i.e., analytical hierarchy process (AHP) with technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS). The criteria weights are calculated by using AHP whereas the relative closeness values of all priority sequencing rules are computed based on TOPSIS with the help of data acquired from the shop floor of a manufacturing firm. Finally, from the findings of this work, the priority sequencing rules are ranked from most important to least important. The comprehensive methodology presented in this paper is very much essential for the management of a workstation to choose the best priority sequencing rule among the available alternatives for processing the jobs with maximum benefit.

Fire Use Planning

Treesearch

Tom Leuschen; Dale Wade; Paula Seamon

2001-01-01

The success of a fire use program is in large part dependent on a solid foundation set in clear and concise planning. The planning process results in specific goals and measurable objectives for fire application, provides a means of setting priorities, and establishes a mechanism for evaluating and refining the process to meet the desired future condition. It is an...

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 General System of Health Insurance.

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.

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…

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.

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)

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 stakeholder representation can be augmented using a combination of methods and a process of linkage and exchange. This process can inform decisions about prioritization of research areas. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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 indicators was similar in intervention and control sites. Patient involvement increased the costs of the prioritization process by 17%, and required 10% more time to reach consensus on common priorities. Patient involvement can change priorities driving healthcare improvement at the population level. Future research should test the generalizability of these findings to other contexts, and assess its impact on patient care. The Netherlands National Trial Register #NTR2496.

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.

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 contributes to knowledge on how cost-effectiveness data is used in actual decision-making, to ensure that the decisions are offered on equal terms and that patients receive medical care according their needs in order achieve maximum benefit. PMID:25396208

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.

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.

Prioritizing Surgical Care on National Health Agendas: A Qualitative Case Study of Papua New Guinea, Uganda, and Sierra Leone

PubMed Central

Dare, Anna J.; Lee, Katherine C.; Bleicher, Josh; Elobu, Alex E.; Kamara, Thaim B.; Liko, Osborne; Luboga, Samuel; Danlop, Akule; Kune, Gabriel; Hagander, Lars; Leather, Andrew J. M.; Yamey, Gavin

2016-01-01

Background Little is known about the social and political factors that influence priority setting for different health services in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), yet these factors are integral to understanding how national health agendas are established. We investigated factors that facilitate or prevent surgical care from being prioritized in LMICs. Methods and Findings We undertook country case studies in Papua New Guinea, Uganda, and Sierra Leone, using a qualitative process-tracing method. We conducted 74 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders involved in health agenda setting and surgical care in these countries. Interviews were triangulated with published academic literature, country reports, national health plans, and policies. Data were analyzed using a conceptual framework based on four components (actor power, ideas, political contexts, issue characteristics) to assess national factors influencing priority for surgery. Political priority for surgical care in the three countries varies. Priority was highest in Papua New Guinea, where surgical care is firmly embedded within national health plans and receives significant domestic and international resources, and much lower in Uganda and Sierra Leone. Factors influencing whether surgical care was prioritized were the degree of sustained and effective domestic advocacy by the local surgical community, the national political and economic environment in which health policy setting occurs, and the influence of international actors, particularly donors, on national agenda setting. The results from Papua New Guinea show that a strong surgical community can generate priority from the ground up, even where other factors are unfavorable. Conclusions National health agenda setting is a complex social and political process. To embed surgical care within national health policy, sustained advocacy efforts, effective framing of the problem and solutions, and country-specific data are required. Political, technical, and financial support from regional and international partners is also important. PMID:27186645

How do external donors influence national health policy processes? Experiences of domestic policy actors in Cambodia and Pakistan.

PubMed

Khan, Mishal S; Meghani, Ankita; Liverani, Marco; Roychowdhury, Imara; Parkhurst, Justin

2018-03-01

Although concerns have historically been raised about the influence of external donors on health policy process in recipient countries, remarkably few studies have investigated perspectives and experiences of domestic policymakers and advisers. This study examines donor influence at different stages of the health policy process (priority setting, policy formulation, policy implementation and monitoring and evaluation) in two aid-dependent LMICs, Cambodia and Pakistan. It identifies mechanisms through which asymmetries in influence between donors and domestic policy actors emerge. We conducted 24 key informant interviews-14 in Pakistan and 10 in Cambodia-with high-level decision-makers who inform or authorize health priority setting, allocate resources and/or are responsible for policy implementation, identifying three routes of influence: financial resources, technical expertise and indirect financial and political incentives. We used both inductive and deductive approaches to analyse the data. Our findings indicate that different routes of influence emerged depending on the stage of the policy process. Control of financial resources was the most commonly identified route by which donors influenced priority setting and policy implementation. Greater (perceived) technical expertise played an important role in donor influence at the policy formulation stage. Donors' power in influencing decisions, particularly during the final (monitoring and evaluation) stage of the policy process, was mediated by their ability to control indirect financial and political incentives as well as direct control of financial resources. This study thus helps unpack the nuances of donor influence over health policymaking in these settings, and can potentially indicate areas that require attention to increase the ownership of domestic actors of their countries' health policy processes. © The Author(s) 2017. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

How do external donors influence national health policy processes? Experiences of domestic policy actors in Cambodia and Pakistan

PubMed Central

Khan, Mishal S; Liverani, Marco; Roychowdhury, Imara; Parkhurst, Justin

2018-01-01

Abstract Although concerns have historically been raised about the influence of external donors on health policy process in recipient countries, remarkably few studies have investigated perspectives and experiences of domestic policymakers and advisers. This study examines donor influence at different stages of the health policy process (priority setting, policy formulation, policy implementation and monitoring and evaluation) in two aid-dependent LMICs, Cambodia and Pakistan. It identifies mechanisms through which asymmetries in influence between donors and domestic policy actors emerge. We conducted 24 key informant interviews—14 in Pakistan and 10 in Cambodia—with high-level decision-makers who inform or authorize health priority setting, allocate resources and/or are responsible for policy implementation, identifying three routes of influence: financial resources, technical expertise and indirect financial and political incentives. We used both inductive and deductive approaches to analyse the data. Our findings indicate that different routes of influence emerged depending on the stage of the policy process. Control of financial resources was the most commonly identified route by which donors influenced priority setting and policy implementation. Greater (perceived) technical expertise played an important role in donor influence at the policy formulation stage. Donors’ power in influencing decisions, particularly during the final (monitoring and evaluation) stage of the policy process, was mediated by their ability to control indirect financial and political incentives as well as direct control of financial resources. This study thus helps unpack the nuances of donor influence over health policymaking in these settings, and can potentially indicate areas that require attention to increase the ownership of domestic actors of their countries’ health policy processes. PMID:29237026

Taxing soft drinks in the Pacific: implementation lessons for improving health.

PubMed

Thow, Anne Marie; Quested, Christine; Juventin, Lisa; Kun, Russ; Khan, A Nisha; Swinburn, Boyd

2011-03-01

A tax on soft drinks is often proposed as a health promotion strategy for reducing their consumption and improving health outcomes. However, little is known about the processes and politics of implementing such taxes. We analysed four different soft drink taxes in Pacific countries and documented the lessons learnt regarding the process of policy agenda-setting and implementation. While local social and political context is critically important in determining policy uptake, these case studies suggest strategies for health promotion practitioners that can help to improve policy uptake and implementation. The case studies reveal interaction between the Ministries of Health, Finance and Revenue at every stage of the policy making process. In regard to agenda-setting, relevance to government fiscal priorities was important in gaining support for soft drink taxes. The active involvement of health policy makers was also important in initiating the policies, and the use of existing taxation mechanisms enabled successful policy implementation. While the earmarking of taxes for health has been widely recommended, the revenue may be redirected as government priorities change. Health promotion practitioners must strategically plan for agenda-setting, development and implementation of intersectoral health-promoting policies by engaging with stakeholders in finance at an early stage to identify priorities and synergies, developing cross-sectoral advocacy coalitions, and basing proposals on existing legislative mechanisms where possible.

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.

Ensuring relevance for Cochrane reviews: evaluating processes and methods for prioritizing topics for Cochrane reviews.

PubMed

Nasser, Mona; Welch, Vivian; Tugwell, Peter; Ueffing, Erin; Doyle, Jodie; Waters, Elizabeth

2013-05-01

The purpose of this study was to assess the presence and effectiveness of existing systems of prioritization for Cochrane review topics and to explore methods of improving those systems. We surveyed groups of Cochrane review authors and recorded any evidence of their use of priority-setting processes or policies. To evaluate the effectiveness of the policies we encountered, we assessed them using two frameworks from the literature: "Accountability for Reasonableness" (1) and Sibbald's 2009 framework (2) for successful priority setting. We then held two workshops with the subject groups to discuss our findings and their implications. Of the 66 groups surveyed, 29 had a system in place to inform the selection or prioritization of topics for Cochrane reviews. Fifteen groups used a more comprehensive structured approach that eventually resulted in a list of ranked priority titles for authoring, updating, or disseminating Cochrane reviews. Most groups involved researchers, practitioners, and patients in their prioritization processes. Groups within The Cochrane Collaboration currently use a range of different priority-setting systems, some of which are more detailed than others. These differences often reflect the nature of The Cochrane Collaboration itself: given the topic breadth, history, and variety of international contexts present in the organization, a single unified system would not always be appropriate. All Cochrane entities, however, should have or develop strategic plans to improve the inclusiveness and transparency of their own prioritization processes, increase the number of finished prioritized reviews, and make more effective use of feedback from end users to increase the likelihood of producing reviews that have positive effects on health outcomes. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

State Standard-Setting Processes in Brief. State Academic Standards: Standard-Setting Processes

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Thomsen, Jennifer

2014-01-01

Concerns about academic standards, whether created by states from scratch or adopted by states under the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) banner, have drawn widespread media attention and are at the top of many state policymakers' priority lists. Recently, a number of legislatures have required additional steps, such as waiting periods for…

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)

Reinterpreting Responsiveness for Health Systems Research in Low and Middle-Income Countries.

PubMed

Pratt, Bridget; Hyder, Adnan A

2015-07-01

The ethical concept of responsiveness has largely been interpreted in the context of international clinical research. In light of the increasing conduct of externally funded health systems research (HSR) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), this article examines how responsiveness might be understood for such research and how it can be applied. It contends that four features (amongst others) set HSR in LMICs apart from international clinical research: a focus on systems; being context-driven; being policy-driven; and being closely linked to development objectives. These features support reinterpreting responsiveness for HSR in LMICs as responsiveness to systems needs, where health system performance assessments can be relied upon to identify systems needs, and/or responsiveness to systems priorities, which entails aligning research with HSR priorities set through country-owned processes involving national and sub-national policymakers from host countries. Both concepts may be difficult to achieve in practice. Country ownership is not an established fact for many countries and alignment to their priorities may be meaningless without it. It is argued that more work is, therefore, needed to identify strategies for how the responsiveness requirement can be ethically fulfilled for HSR in LMICs under non-ideal conditions such as where host countries have not set HSR priorities via country-owned processes. Embeddedness is proposed as one approach that could be the focus of further development. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Patterns of public participation.

PubMed

Slutsky, Jean; Tumilty, Emma; Max, Catherine; Lu, Lanting; Tantivess, Sripen; Hauegen, Renata Curi; Whitty, Jennifer A; Weale, Albert; Pearson, Steven D; Tugendhaft, Aviva; Wang, Hufeng; Staniszewska, Sophie; Weerasuriya, Krisantha; Ahn, Jeonghoon; Cubillos, Leonardo

2016-08-15

Purpose - The paper summarizes data from 12 countries, chosen to exhibit wide variation, on the role and place of public participation in the setting of priorities. The purpose of this paper is to exhibit cross-national patterns in respect of public participation, linking those differences to institutional features of the countries concerned. Design/methodology/approach - The approach is an example of case-orientated qualitative assessment of participation practices. It derives its data from the presentation of country case studies by experts on each system. The country cases are located within the historical development of democracy in each country. Findings - Patterns of participation are widely variable. Participation that is effective through routinized institutional processes appears to be inversely related to contestatory participation that uses political mobilization to challenge the legitimacy of the priority setting process. No system has resolved the conceptual ambiguities that are implicit in the idea of public participation. Originality/value - The paper draws on a unique collection of country case studies in participatory practice in prioritization, supplementing existing published sources. In showing that contestatory participation plays an important role in a sub-set of these countries it makes an important contribution to the field because it broadens the debate about public participation in priority setting beyond the use of minipublics and the observation of public representatives on decision-making bodies.

Information technology and hospice palliative care: social, cultural, ethical and technical implications in a rural setting.

PubMed

Kuziemsky, Craig; Jewers, Heather; Appleby, Brenda; Foshay, Neil; Maccaull, Wendy; Miller, Keith; Macdonald, Madonna

2012-01-01

There is a need to better understand the specific settings in which health information technology (HIT) is used and implemented. Factors that will determine the successful implementation of HIT are context-specific and often reside not at the technical level but rather at the process and people level. This paper provides the results of a needs assessment for HIT to support hospice palliative care (HPC) delivery in rural settings. Roundtable discussions using the nominal group technique were done to identify priority issues regarding HIT usage to support rural HPC delivery. Qualitative content analysis was then used to identify sociotechnical themes from the roundtable data. Twenty priority issues were identified at the roundtable session. Content analysis grouped the priority issues into one central theme and five supporting themes to form a sociotechnical framework for patient-centered care in rural settings. There are several sociotechnical themes and associated issues that need to be considered prior to implementing HIT in rural HPC settings. Proactive evaluation of these issues can enhance HIT implementation and also help to make ethical aspects of HIT design more explicit.

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.

Public participation in decision-making on the coverage of new antivirals for hepatitis C.

PubMed

Kieslich, Katharina; Ahn, Jeonghoon; Badano, Gabriele; Chalkidou, Kalipso; Cubillos, Leonardo; Hauegen, Renata Curi; Henshall, Chris; Krubiner, Carleigh B; Littlejohns, Peter; Lu, Lanting; Pearson, Steven D; Rid, Annette; Whitty, Jennifer A; Wilson, James

2016-08-15

Purpose - New hepatitis C medicines such as sofosbuvir underline the need to balance considerations of innovation, clinical evidence, budget impact and equity in health priority-setting. The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of public participation in addressing these considerations. Design/methodology/approach - The paper employs a comparative case study approach. It explores the experience of four countries - Brazil, England, South Korea and the USA - in making coverage decisions about the antiviral sofosbuvir and involving the public and patients in these decision-making processes. Findings - Issues emerging from public participation ac tivities include the role of the universal right to health in Brazil, the balance between innovation and budget impact in England, the effect of unethical medical practices on public perception in South Korea and the legitimacy of priority-setting processes in the USA. Providing policymakers are receptive to these issues, public participation activities may be re-conceptualized as processes that illuminate policy problems relevant to a particular context, thereby promoting an agenda-setting role for the public. Originality/value - The paper offers an empirical analysis of public involvement in the case of sofosbuvir, where the relevant considerations that bear on priority-setting decisions have been particularly stark. The perspectives that emerge suggest that public participation contributes to raising attention to issues that need to be addressed by policymakers. Public participation activities can thus contribute to setting policy agendas, even if that is not their explicit purpose. However, the actualization of this contribution is contingent on the receptiveness of policymakers.

Key factors that influence government policies and decision making about healthcare priorities: Lessons for the field of eating disorders.

PubMed

Whiteford, Harvey; Weissman, Ruth Striegel

2017-03-01

Worldwide, the demand for healthcare exceeds what individuals and governments are able to afford. Priority setting is therefore inevitable, and mental health services have often been given low priority in the decision-making process. Drawing on established economic criteria, and specifically the work of Philip Musgrove, key factors which influence government decision-making about health priorities are reviewed. These factors include the size of the health burden, the availability of cost-effective interventions to reduce the burden, whether private markets can provide the necessary treatment efficiently, whether there are "catastrophic costs" incurred in accessing treatment, whether negative externalities arise from not providing care, and if the "rule of rescue" applies. Beyond setting priorities for resource allocation, governments also become involved where there is a need for regulation to maintain quality in the delivery of healthcare. By providing field-specific examples for each factor, we illustrate how advocates in the eating disorder field may use evidence to inform government policy about resource allocation and regulation in support of individuals with an eating disorder. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

[Hydrotherapy equipment].

PubMed

Tsibikov, V B; Ragozin, S I; Mikheeva, L V

1985-01-01

A flow-chart is developed demonstrating the relation between medical and prophylactic institutions within the organizational structure of the rehabilitation system and main types of rehabilitation procedures. In order to ascertain the priority in equipping rehabilitation services with adequate hardware the special priority criterion is introduced. The highest priority is assigned to balneotherapeutic and fangotherapeutic services. Based on the operation-by-operation analysis of clinical processes related to service and performance of balneologic procedures the preliminary set of clinical devices designed for baths, basins and showers in hospitals and rehabilitation departments is defined in a generalized form.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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,…

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…

Climate Action Planning Process | Climate Neutral Research Campuses | NREL

Science.gov Websites

Action Planning Process Climate Action Planning Process For research campuses, NREL has developed a five-step process to develop and implement climate action plans: Determine baseline energy consumption Analyze technology options Prepare a plan and set priorities Implement the climate action plan Measure and

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 equity for all Kenyans. PMID:29846599

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.

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 Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee process for the listing of pharmaceuticals for government funding, demonstrate the value added by the HsW model notably in its greater likelihood of contributing to allocative efficiency. PMID:16566841

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.

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.

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.

When "Becoming a 50% School" is Success Enough: A Principal-Agent Analysis of Subject Leaders' Target Setting

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Davies, Peter; Coates, Gwen; Hammersley-Fletcher, Linda; Mangan, Jean

2005-01-01

Using the perspective of principal-agent theory, we suggest that the target setting process imposed by the government has shifted teachers' focus away from their personal educational priorities. Our evidence suggests that schools with a higher proportion of students with high academic achievement differ in their practice of target setting from…

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 those specific priorities were selected.

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).

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.

A systematic review of nursing research priorities on health system and services in the Americas.

PubMed

Garcia, Alessandra Bassalobre; Cassiani, Silvia Helena De Bortoli; Reveiz, Ludovic

2015-03-01

To systematically review literature on priorities in nursing research on health systems and services in the Region of the Americas as a step toward developing a nursing research agenda that will advance the Regional Strategy for Universal Access to Health and Universal Health Coverage. This was a systematic review of the literature available from the following databases: Web of Science, PubMed, LILACS, and Google. Documents considered were published in 2008-2014; in English, Spanish, or Portuguese; and addressed the topic in the Region of the Americas. The documents selected had their priority-setting process evaluated according to the "nine common themes for good practice in health research priorities." A content analysis collected all study questions and topics, and sorted them by category and subcategory. Of 185 full-text articles/documents that were assessed for eligibility, 23 were selected: 12 were from peer-reviewed journals; 6 from nursing publications; 4 from Ministries of Health; and 1 from an international organization. Journal publications had stronger methodological rigor; the majority did not present a clear implementation or evaluation plan. After compiling the 444 documents' study questions and topics, the content analysis resulted in a document with 5 categories and 16 subcategories regarding nursing research priorities on health systems and services. Research priority-setting is a highly important process for health services improvement and resources optimization, but implementation and evaluation plans are rarely included. The resulting document will serve as basis for the development of a new nursing research agenda focused on health systems and services, and shaped to advance universal health coverage and universal access to health.

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.

Regional scale prioritisation for key ecosystem services, renewable energy production and urban development.

PubMed

Casalegno, Stefano; Bennie, Jonathan J; Inger, Richard; Gaston, Kevin J

2014-01-01

Although the importance of addressing ecosystem service benefits in regional land use planning and decision-making is evident, substantial practical challenges remain. In particular, methods to identify priority areas for the provision of key ecosystem services and other environmental services (benefits from the environment not directly linked to the function of ecosystems) need to be developed. Priority areas are locations which provide disproportionally high benefits from one or more service. Here we map a set of ecosystem and environmental services and delineate priority areas according to different scenarios. Each scenario is produced by a set of weightings allocated to different services and corresponds to different landscape management strategies which decision makers could undertake. Using the county of Cornwall, U.K., as a case study, we processed gridded maps of key ecosystem services and environmental services, including renewable energy production and urban development. We explored their spatial distribution patterns and their spatial covariance and spatial stationarity within the region. Finally we applied a complementarity-based priority ranking algorithm (zonation) using different weighting schemes. Our conclusions are that (i) there are two main patterns of service distribution in this region, clustered services (including agriculture, carbon stocks, urban development and plant production) and dispersed services (including cultural services, energy production and floods mitigation); (ii) more than half of the services are spatially correlated and there is high non-stationarity in the spatial covariance between services; and (iii) it is important to consider both ecosystem services and other environmental services in identifying priority areas. Different weighting schemes provoke drastic changes in the delineation of priority areas and therefore decision making processes need to carefully consider the relative values attributed to different services.

Regional Scale Prioritisation for Key Ecosystem Services, Renewable Energy Production and Urban Development

PubMed Central

Casalegno, Stefano; Bennie, Jonathan J.; Inger, Richard; Gaston, Kevin J.

2014-01-01

Although the importance of addressing ecosystem service benefits in regional land use planning and decision-making is evident, substantial practical challenges remain. In particular, methods to identify priority areas for the provision of key ecosystem services and other environmental services (benefits from the environment not directly linked to the function of ecosystems) need to be developed. Priority areas are locations which provide disproportionally high benefits from one or more service. Here we map a set of ecosystem and environmental services and delineate priority areas according to different scenarios. Each scenario is produced by a set of weightings allocated to different services and corresponds to different landscape management strategies which decision makers could undertake. Using the county of Cornwall, U.K., as a case study, we processed gridded maps of key ecosystem services and environmental services, including renewable energy production and urban development. We explored their spatial distribution patterns and their spatial covariance and spatial stationarity within the region. Finally we applied a complementarity-based priority ranking algorithm (zonation) using different weighting schemes. Our conclusions are that (i) there are two main patterns of service distribution in this region, clustered services (including agriculture, carbon stocks, urban development and plant production) and dispersed services (including cultural services, energy production and floods mitigation); (ii) more than half of the services are spatially correlated and there is high non-stationarity in the spatial covariance between services; and (iii) it is important to consider both ecosystem services and other environmental services in identifying priority areas. Different weighting schemes provoke drastic changes in the delineation of priority areas and therefore decision making processes need to carefully consider the relative values attributed to different services. PMID:25250775

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

Accelerating Research Impact in a Learning Health Care System

PubMed Central

Elwy, A. Rani; Sales, Anne E.; Atkins, David

2017-01-01

Background: Since 1998, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) has supported more rapid implementation of research into clinical practice. Objectives: With the passage of the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act of 2014 (Choice Act), QUERI further evolved to support VHA’s transformation into a Learning Health Care System by aligning science with clinical priority goals based on a strategic planning process and alignment of funding priorities with updated VHA priority goals in response to the Choice Act. Design: QUERI updated its strategic goals in response to independent assessments mandated by the Choice Act that recommended VHA reduce variation in care by providing a clear path to implement best practices. Specifically, QUERI updated its application process to ensure its centers (Programs) focus on cross-cutting VHA priorities and specify roadmaps for implementation of research-informed practices across different settings. QUERI also increased funding for scientific evaluations of the Choice Act and other policies in response to Commission on Care recommendations. Results: QUERI’s national network of Programs deploys effective practices using implementation strategies across different settings. QUERI Choice Act evaluations informed the law’s further implementation, setting the stage for additional rigorous national evaluations of other VHA programs and policies including community provider networks. Conclusions: Grounded in implementation science and evidence-based policy, QUERI serves as an example of how to operationalize core components of a Learning Health Care System, notably through rigorous evaluation and scientific testing of implementation strategies to ultimately reduce variation in quality and improve overall population health. PMID:27997456

Chartered Society of Physiotherapy's identification of national research priorities for physiotherapy using a modified Delphi technique.

PubMed

Rankin, Gabrielle; Rushton, Alison; Olver, Pat; Moore, Ann

2012-09-01

To define research priorities to strategically inform the evidence base for physiotherapy practice. A modified Delphi method using SurveyMonkey software identified priorities for physiotherapy research through national consensus. An iterative process of three rounds provided feedback. Round 1 requested five priorities using pre-defined prioritisation criteria. Content analysis identified research themes and topics. Round 2 requested rating of the importance of the research topics using a 1-5 Likert scale. Round 3 requested a further process of rating. Quantitative and qualitative data informed decision-making. Level of consensus was established as mean rating ≥ 3.5, coefficient of variation ≤ 30%, and ≥ 55% agreement. Consensus across participants was evaluated using Kendall's W. Four expert panels (n=40-61) encompassing a range of stakeholders and reflecting four core areas of physiotherapy practice were established by steering groups (n=204 participants overall). Response rates of 53-78% across three rounds were good. The identification of 24/185 topics for musculoskeletal, 43/174 for neurology, 30/120 for cardiorespiratory and medical rehabilitation, and 30/113 for mental and physical health and wellbeing as priorities demonstrated discrimination of the process. Consensus between participants was good for most topics. Measurement validity of the research topics was good. The involvement of multiple stakeholders as participants ensured the current context of the intended use of the priorities. From a process of national consensus involving key stakeholders, including service users, physiotherapy research topics have been identified and prioritised. Setting priorities provides a vision of how research can contribute to the developing research base in physiotherapy to maximise focus. Copyright © 2012 Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Three Case Studies in Making Fair Choices on the Path to Universal Health Coverage.

PubMed

Voorhoeve, Alex; Edejer, Tessa T T; Kapiriri, Lydia; Norheim, Ole F; Snowden, James; Basenya, Olivier; Bayarsaikhan, Dorjsuren; Chentaf, Ikram; Eyal, Nir; Folsom, Amanda; Tun Hussein, Rozita Halina; Morales, Cristian; Ostmann, Florian; Ottersen, Trygve; Prakongsai, Phusit; Saenz, Carla; Saleh, Karima; Sommanustweechai, Angkana; Wikler, Daniel; Zakariah, Afisah

2016-12-01

The goal of achieving Universal Health Coverage (UHC) can generally be realized only in stages. Moreover, resource, capacity, and political constraints mean governments often face difficult trade-offs on the path to UHC. In a 2014 report, Making fair choices on the path to UHC , the WHO Consultative Group on Equity and Universal Health Coverage articulated principles for making such trade-offs in an equitable manner. We present three case studies which illustrate how these principles can guide practical decision-making. These case studies show how progressive realization of the right to health can be effectively guided by priority-setting principles, including generating the greatest total health gain, priority for those who are worse off in a number of dimensions (including health, access to health services, and social and economic status), and financial risk protection. They also demonstrate the value of a fair and accountable process of priority setting.

Three Case Studies in Making Fair Choices on the Path to Universal Health Coverage

PubMed Central

Edejer, Tessa T.T.; Kapiriri, Lydia; Norheim, Ole F.; Snowden, James; Basenya, Olivier; Bayarsaikhan, Dorjsuren; Chentaf, Ikram; Eyal, Nir; Folsom, Amanda; Tun Hussein, Rozita Halina; Morales, Cristian; Ostmann, Florian; Ottersen, Trygve; Prakongsai, Phusit; Saenz, Carla; Saleh, Karima; Sommanustweechai, Angkana; Wikler, Daniel; Zakariah, Afisah

2016-01-01

Abstract The goal of achieving Universal Health Coverage (UHC) can generally be realized only in stages. Moreover, resource, capacity, and political constraints mean governments often face difficult trade-offs on the path to UHC. In a 2014 report, Making fair choices on the path to UHC, the WHO Consultative Group on Equity and Universal Health Coverage articulated principles for making such trade-offs in an equitable manner. We present three case studies which illustrate how these principles can guide practical decision-making. These case studies show how progressive realization of the right to health can be effectively guided by priority-setting principles, including generating the greatest total health gain, priority for those who are worse off in a number of dimensions (including health, access to health services, and social and economic status), and financial risk protection. They also demonstrate the value of a fair and accountable process of priority setting. PMID:28559673

A Timeline for Reroofing Success.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Koontz, Jim

1998-01-01

Explains why timing is critical in reroofing educational facilities and saving costs. Provides an example of the planning process in the areas of priority setting, creating construction documents, bidding, and construction. Reroofing tips are highlighted. (GR)

Managing healthcare budgets in times of austerity: the role of program budgeting and marginal analysis.

PubMed

Mitton, Craig; Dionne, Francois; Donaldson, Cam

2014-04-01

Given limited resources, priority setting or choice making will remain a reality at all levels of publicly funded healthcare across countries for many years to come. The pressures may well be even more acute as the impact of the economic crisis of 2008 continues to play out but, even as economies begin to turn around, resources within healthcare will be limited, thus some form of rationing will be required. Over the last few decades, research on healthcare priority setting has focused on methods of implementation as well as on the development of approaches related to fairness and legitimacy and on more technical aspects of decision making including the use of multi-criteria decision analysis. Recently, research has led to better understanding of evaluating priority setting activity including defining 'success' and articulating key elements for high performance. This body of research, however, often goes untapped by those charged with making challenging decisions and as such, in line with prevailing public sector incentives, decisions are often reliant on historical allocation patterns and/or political negotiation. These archaic and ineffective approaches not only lead to poor decisions in terms of value for money but further do not reflect basic ethical conditions that can lead to fairness in the decision-making process. The purpose of this paper is to outline a comprehensive approach to priority setting and resource allocation that has been used in different contexts across countries. This will provide decision makers with a single point of access for a basic understanding of relevant tools when faced with having to make difficult decisions about what healthcare services to fund and what not to fund. The paper also addresses several key issues related to priority setting including how health technology assessments can be used, how performance can be improved at a practical level, and what ongoing resource management practice should look like. In terms of future research, one of the most important areas of priority setting that needs further attention is how best to engage public members.

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.

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 decision makers using or considering a formal priority setting approach to manage scarce healthcare resources. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Ethical Challenges in the Provision of Dialysis in Resource-Constrained Environments.

PubMed

Luyckx, Valerie A; Miljeteig, Ingrid; Ejigu, Addisu M; Moosa, M Rafique

2017-05-01

The number of patients requiring dialysis by 2030 is projected to double worldwide, with the largest increase expected in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Dialysis is seldom considered a high priority by health care funders, consequently, few LMICs develop policies regarding dialysis allocation. Dialysis facilities may exist, but access remains highly inequitable in LMICs. High out-of-pocket payments make dialysis unsustainable and plunge many families into poverty. Patients, families, and clinicians suffer significant emotional and moral distress from daily life-and-death decisions imposed by dialysis. The health system's obligation to provide financial risk protection is an important component of global and national strategies to achieve universal health coverage. An ethical imperative therefore exists to develop transparent dialysis priority-setting guidelines to facilitate public understanding and acceptance of the realistic limits within the health system, and facilitate fair allocation of scarce resources. In this article, we present ethical challenges faced by patients, families, clinicians, and policy makers where dialysis is not universally accessible and discuss the potential ethical consequences of various dialysis allocation strategies. Finally, we suggest an ethical framework for use in policy development for priority setting of dialysis care. The accountability for reasonableness framework is proposed as a procedurally fair decision-making, priority-setting process. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

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 methodology is generalizable but its application to another country would require the criteria as relevant to that country.

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. Conclusion Community participation in priority setting in developing countries, characterized by weak democratic institutions and low public awareness, requires effective mobilization of both communities and health systems. In addition, this study confirms that community participation is an important element in strengthening health systems. PMID:24280341

Student Costing: An Essential Tool in Site-based Budgeting and Teacher Empowerment.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Sanders, K. Penney; Thiemann, Francis C.

1990-01-01

Although the process of participative, school-based budgeting might seem tedious and time-consuming, it can truly empower teachers and administrators. One cannot set instructional and budgetary priorities without knowing costs. A costing formula to help facilitate the budgeting process is presented. Includes 18 references. (MLH)

Engaging Patients and Clinicians in Establishing Research Priorities for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.

PubMed

Rees, Sandra E; Chadha, Rati; Donovan, Lois E; Guitard, Adrienne L T; Koppula, Sudha; Laupacis, Andreas; Simpson, Sara; Johnson, Jeffrey A

2017-04-01

We involved patients and clinicians in Alberta, Canada, to establish research priorities in gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), using an approach based on a model proposed by the James Lind Alliance (JLA). We adapted the 4-step JLA process to engage women with GDM and clinicians to identify uncertainties about the management of GDM. Uncertainties were identified through a survey and a review of the clinical practice guidelines (CPG). Uncertainties were short-listed by a steering committee, followed by a 1-day facilitated workshop using a nominal group format and involving a similar number of patients and clinicians, who identified the top 10 research priorities. Across the various survey formats, 75 individuals submitted 389 uncertainties, the majority (44; 59%) coming from patients. We removed 9 questions as being out of scope or unclear, and 41 were identified on a review of CPG, resulting in a total of 421 uncertainties. After the priority setting process, the final top 10 research priorities included questions about a simpler, more accurate and convenient screening test; risk factors for GDM; improving postpartum diabetes screening; the impact of GDM on the future health of the children; lifestyle challenges and mental health issues; safety, effectiveness and/or impact of diet and/or medication treatments; appropriate timing for delivery; and how care is provided, organized or communicated. These top 10 research priorities were informed through a comprehensive and transparent process involving women who have experienced GDM as well as clinicians, and they may be regarded as research priorities for GDM. Copyright © 2016 Canadian Diabetes Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Federal budget process: An overview

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Frizzell, Virgil A., Jr.

Much geophysical research funding originates from the federal government, and many who obtain federal funding consider the executive branch to be its source. In fact, the federal budget results from a complex ballet between the executive and legislative branches. Because it is both little understood and essential to our work, this report will review the fundamentals of the three-year budgetary process.The Constitution assigns the power of the purse to the Congress. Before the 1920s, executive branch agencies and departments submitted their own separate budgets to Congress, and deliberate planning and priority setting was minimal. In 1921 Congress empowered the president to submit an executive branch budget reflecting his priorities for the next fiscal year. Following this protocol, former President Reagan submitted his budget for Fiscal Year 1990 in January, and President Bush outlined his FY'90 priorities in February.

The Plan's the Thing.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Raley, Nancy

1986-01-01

Planning is the process of setting direction, priorities, and guidelines. A CASE survey of public relations professionals is described that notes the use of staff retreats and brainstorming sessions, among other techniques and strategies, that help professionals plan. (MLW)

Virtual care policy recommendations for patient-centred primary care: findings of a consensus policy dialogue using a nominal group technique.

PubMed

Shaw, James; Jamieson, Trevor; Agarwal, Payal; Griffin, Bailey; Wong, Ivy; Bhatia, R Sacha

2017-01-01

Background The development of new virtual care technologies (including telehealth and telemedicine) is growing rapidly, leading to a number of challenges related to health policy and planning for health systems around the world. Methods We brought together a diverse group of health system stakeholders, including patient representatives, to engage in policy dialogue to set health system priorities for the application of virtual care in the primary care sector in the Province of Ontario, Canada. We applied a nominal group technique (NGT) process to determine key priorities, and synthesized these priorities with group discussion to develop recommendations for virtual care policy. Methods included a structured priority ranking process, open-ended note-taking, and thematic analysis to identify priorities. Results Recommendations were summarized under the following themes: (a) identify clear health system leadership to embed virtual care strategies into all aspects of primary and community care; (b) make patients the focal point of health system decision-making; (c) leverage incentives to achieve meaningful health system improvements; and (d) building virtual care into streamlined workflows. Two key implications of our policy dialogue are especially relevant for an international audience. First, shifting the dialogue away from technology toward more meaningful patient engagement will enable policy planning for applications of technology that better meet patients' needs. Second, a strong conceptual framework on guiding the meaningful use of technology in health care settings is essential for intelligent planning of virtual care policy. Conclusions Policy planning for virtual care needs to shift toward a stronger focus on patient engagement to understand patients' needs.

Multicriteria decision analysis for including health interventions in the universal health coverage benefit package in Thailand.

PubMed

Youngkong, Sitaporn; Baltussen, Rob; Tantivess, Sripen; Mohara, Adun; Teerawattananon, Yot

2012-01-01

Considering rising health expenditure on the one hand and increasing public expectations on the other hand, there is a need for explicit health care rationing to secure public acceptance of coverage decisions of health interventions. The National Health Security Office, the institute managing the Universal Coverage Scheme in Thailand, recently called for more rational, transparent, and fair decisions on the public reimbursement of health interventions. This article describes the application of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to guide the coverage decisions on including health interventions in the Universal Coverage Scheme health benefit package in the period 2009-2010. We described the MCDA priority-setting process through participatory observation and evaluated the rational, transparency, and fairness of the priority-setting process against the accountability for reasonableness framework. The MCDA was applied in four steps: 1) 17 interventions were nominated for assessment; 2) nine interventions were selected for further quantitative assessment on the basis of the following criteria: size of population affected by disease, severity of disease, effectiveness of health intervention, variation in practice, economic impact on household expenditure, and equity and social implications; 3) these interventions were then assessed in terms of cost-effectiveness and budget impact; and 4) decision makers qualitatively appraised, deliberated, and reached consensus on which interventions should be adopted in the package. This project was carried out in a real-world context and has considerably contributed to the rational, transparent, and fair priority-setting process through the application of MCDA. Although the present project has applied MCDA in the Thai context, MCDA is adaptable to other settings. Copyright © 2012 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Citizens’ juries in planning research priorities: process, engagement and outcome

PubMed Central

Gooberman‐Hill, Rachael; Horwood, Jeremy; Calnan, Michael

2008-01-01

Abstract Background  Involving members of the public in setting priorities for health research in becoming increasingly common practice. One method used in public involvement exercises is the citizens' jury. Objective  This article examines some challenges and benefits of citizens' juries, including issues relating to process, public engagement and outcome. Design  In Bristol, UK, a citizens' jury was held with the aim of identifying local priorities for research into health and social care. This jury is used as an example through which key issues in public involvement and jury processes are explored. Setting and Participants  The Bristol Citizens' Jury comprised 20 members of the public (`jurors'), an oversight panel and a steering group. The jurors met at 11 consecutive sessions during 2006 over a period of 16 weeks, which culminated in a written report. All the sessions were audio‐recorded, five sessions were observed and video‐recorded, and 16 jurors completed written feedback forms at the end of the jury process. Findings and conclusion  In this article we discuss degree and timing of public involvement in the process of health research; the role of context; representation of communities; processes of deliberation and knowledge production; and how constraints of time and cost may affect public involvement. It was clear that jurors who took part in the Bristol Citizens' Jury were engaged and committed. This engagement may be related to jurors' belief in their ability to shape future research alongside concern about the relevance of the issues under discussion. Opposing emotions of tension and harmony are a crucial part of the deliberation process. PMID:18816323

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 going some way to inform and embed an evidence-based culture of inquiry. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

The importance of assessing priorities of reproductive health concerns among adolescent and young adult patients with cancer.

PubMed

Murphy, Devin; Klosky, James L; Reed, Damon R; Termuhlen, Amanda M; Shannon, Susan V; Quinn, Gwendolyn P

2015-08-01

Visions for the future are a normal developmental process for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with and without cancer, and these visions often include expectations of sexual and romantic relationships. AYA cancer survivors indicate reproductive health is an issue of great importance and more attention is needed in the health care setting throughout the cancer experience, beginning at diagnosis. Various practice guidelines are predominately focused on fertility; are intended to influence survivorship care plans; and do not encompass the broad scope of reproductive health that includes romantic partnering, friendships, body image, sexuality, sexual identity, fertility, contraception, and more. Although interventions to reduce reproductive health-related sequelae from treatment are best approached as an evolving process, practitioners are not certain of the priorities of these various reproductive health content areas. Strategies incongruent with the reproductive health priorities of AYAs will likely thwart adequate follow-up care and foster feelings of isolation from the treatment team. Research is needed to identify these priorities and ensure discussions of diverse content areas. This review explored various domains of reproductive health and emphasized how understanding the priorities of the AYA cancer cohort will guide future models of care. © 2015 American Cancer Society.

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.

Resource-constrained scheduling with hard due windows and rejection penalties

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Garcia, Christopher

2016-09-01

This work studies a scheduling problem where each job must be either accepted and scheduled to complete within its specified due window, or rejected altogether. Each job has a certain processing time and contributes a certain profit if accepted or penalty cost if rejected. There is a set of renewable resources, and no resource limit can be exceeded at any time. Each job requires a certain amount of each resource when processed, and the objective is to maximize total profit. A mixed-integer programming formulation and three approximation algorithms are presented: a priority rule heuristic, an algorithm based on the metaheuristic for randomized priority search and an evolutionary algorithm. Computational experiments comparing these four solution methods were performed on a set of generated benchmark problems covering a wide range of problem characteristics. The evolutionary algorithm outperformed the other methods in most cases, often significantly, and never significantly underperformed any method.

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.

DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

Roger Lew; Ronald L. Boring; Thomas A. Ulrich

Operators of critical processes, such as nuclear power production, must contend with highly complex systems, procedures, and regulations. Developing human-machine interfaces (HMIs) that better support operators is a high priority for ensuring the safe and reliable operation of critical processes. Human factors engineering (HFE) provides a rich and mature set of tools for evaluating the performance of HMIs, but the set of tools for developing and designing HMIs is still in its infancy. Here we propose that Microsoft Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) is well suited for many roles in the research and development of HMIs for process control.

Can streamlined multi-criteria decision analysis be used to implement shared decision making for colorectal cancer screening?

PubMed Central

Dolan, James G.; Boohaker, Emily; Allison, Jeroan; Imperiale, Thomas F.

2013-01-01

Background Current US colorectal cancer screening guidelines that call for shared decision making regarding the choice among several recommended screening options are difficult to implement. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is an established methodology well suited for supporting shared decision making. Our study goal was to determine if a streamlined form of MCDA using rank order based judgments can accurately assess patients’ colorectal cancer screening priorities. Methods We converted priorities for four decision criteria and three sub-criteria regarding colorectal cancer screening obtained from 484 average risk patients using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in a prior study into rank order-based priorities using rank order centroids. We compared the two sets of priorities using Spearman rank correlation and non-parametric Bland-Altman limits of agreement analysis. We assessed the differential impact of using the rank order-based versus the AHP-based priorities on the results of a full MCDA comparing three currently recommended colorectal cancer screening strategies. Generalizability of the results was assessed using Monte Carlo simulation. Results Correlations between the two sets of priorities for the seven criteria ranged from 0.55 to 0.92. The proportions of absolute differences between rank order-based and AHP-based priorities that were more than ± 0.15 ranged from 1% to 16%. Differences in the full MCDA results were minimal and the relative rankings of the three screening options were identical more than 88% of the time. The Monte Carlo simulation results were similar. Conclusion Rank order-based MCDA could be a simple, practical way to guide individual decisions and assess population decision priorities regarding colorectal cancer screening strategies. Additional research is warranted to further explore the use of these methods for promoting shared decision making. PMID:24300851

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.

Don't Discount Societal Value in Cost-Effectiveness Comment on "Priority Setting for Universal Health Coverage: We Need Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes, Not Just More Evidence on Cost-Effectiveness".

PubMed

Hall, William

2017-01-14

As healthcare resources become increasingly scarce due to growing demand and stagnating budgets, the need for effective priority setting and resource allocation will become ever more critical to providing sustainable care to patients. While societal values should certainly play a part in guiding these processes, the methodology used to capture these values need not necessarily be limited to multi-criterion decision analysis (MCDA)-based processes including 'evidence-informed deliberative processes.' However, if decision-makers intend to not only incorporates the values of the public they serve into decisions but have the decisions enacted as well, consideration should be given to more direct involvement of stakeholders. Based on the examples provided by Baltussen et al, MCDA-based processes like 'evidence-informed deliberative processes' could be one way of achieving this laudable goal. © 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.

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

76 FR 58398 - Revised Guidance on Marketed Unapproved Drugs; Compliance Policy Guide Sec. 440.100; Marketed New...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-09-21

... enforcement action at any time, without prior notice and without regard to the enforcement priorities set... the enforcement priorities set forth in CPG 440.100 for unapproved new drugs marketed prior to September 19, 2011. The revision to CPG 440.100 excludes from the enforcement priorities set forth in the...

Using a Delphi process to define priorities for prison health research in Canada

PubMed Central

Kouyoumdjian, Fiona G; Schuler, Andrée; McIsaac, Kathryn E; Pivnick, Lucie; Matheson, Flora I; Brown, Glenn; Kiefer, Lori; Silva, Diego; Hwang, Stephen W

2016-01-01

Objectives A large number of Canadians spend time in correctional facilities each year, and they are likely to have poor health compared to the general population. Relatively little health research has been conducted in Canada with a focus on people who experience detention or incarceration. We aimed to conduct a Delphi process with key stakeholders to define priorities for research in prison health in Canada for the next 10 years. Setting We conducted a Delphi process using an online survey with two rounds in 2014 and 2015. Participants We invited key stakeholders in prison health research in Canada to participate, which we defined as persons who had published research on prison health in Canada since 1994 and persons in the investigators’ professional networks. We invited 143 persons to participate in the first round and 59 participated. We invited 137 persons to participate in the second round and 67 participated. Primary and secondary outcome measures Participants suggested topics in the first round, and these topics were collated by investigators. We measured the level of agreement among participants that each collated topic was a priority for prison health research in Canada for the next 10 years, and defined priorities based on the level of agreement. Results In the first round, participants suggested 71 topics. In the second round, consensus was achieved that a large number of suggested topics were research priorities. Top priorities were diversion and alternatives to incarceration, social and community re-integration, creating healthy environments in prisons, healthcare in custody, continuity of healthcare, substance use disorders and the health of Aboriginal persons in custody. Conclusions Generated in an inclusive and systematic process, these findings should inform future research efforts to improve the health and healthcare of people who experience detention and incarceration in Canada. PMID:26769790

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 effort to introduce the ethical framework A4R into district planning processes. This study supports the idea that a greater involvement and accountability among local actors through the A4R process may increase the legitimacy and fairness of priority-setting decisions. Support from researchers in providing a broader and more detailed analysis of health system elements, and the socio-cultural context, could lead to better prediction of the effects of the innovation and pinpoint stakeholders' concerns, thereby illuminating areas that require special attention to promote sustainability.

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.

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 framework to examine the potential of AFR to support sustainable improvements to health systems performance.This paper reports on the project design and progress and argues that there is a high need for research into legitimate and fair priority setting to improve the knowledge base for achieving sustainable improvements in health outcomes.

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 clearly defines the context and priority-setting criteria. It is democratic, as it relies on "crowd-sourcing". It is inclusive, fostering "ownership" of the results by ensuring that various groups invest in the process. It is very flexible and adjustable to many different contexts and needs. Finally, it is simple and relatively inexpensive to conduct, which we believe is one of the main reasons for its uptake by many groups globally, particularly those in low- and middle-income countries.

Community and facility-level engagement in planning and budgeting for the government health sector--a district perspective from Kenya.

PubMed

O'Meara, Wendy Prudhomme; Tsofa, Benjamin; Molyneux, Sassy; Goodman, Catherine; McKenzie, F Ellis

2011-03-01

Health systems reform processes have increasingly recognized the essential contribution of communities to the success of health programs and development activities in general. Here we examine the experience from Kilifi district in Kenya of implementing annual health sector planning guidelines that included community participation in problem identification, priority setting, and planning. We describe challenges in the implementation of national planning guidelines, how these were met, and how they influenced final plans and budgets. The broad-based community engagement envisaged in the guidelines did not take place due to the delay in roll out of the Ministry of Health-trained community health workers. Instead, community engagement was conducted through facility management committees, though in a minority of facilities, even such committees were not involved. Some overlap was found in the priorities highlighted by facility staff, committee members and national indicators, but there were also many additional issues raised by committee members and not by other groups. The engagement of the community through committees influenced target and priority setting, but the emphasis on national health indicators left many local priorities unaddressed by the final work plans. Moreover, it appears that the final impact on budgets allocated at district and facility level was limited. The experience in Kilifi highlights the feasibility of engaging the community in the health planning process, and the challenges of ensuring that this engagement feeds into consolidated plans and future implementation. Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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.

Context-specific attentional sampling: Intentional control as a pre-requisite for contextual control.

PubMed

Brosowsky, Nicholaus P; Crump, Matthew J C

2016-08-01

Recent work suggests that environmental cues associated with previous attentional control settings can rapidly and involuntarily adjust attentional priorities. The current study tests predictions from adaptive-learning and memory-based theories of contextual control about the role of intentions for setting attentional priorities. To extend the empirical boundaries of contextual control phenomena, and to determine whether theoretical principles of contextual control are generalizable we used a novel bi-dimensional stimulus sampling task. Subjects viewed briefly presented arrays of letters and colors presented above or below fixation, and identified specific stimuli according to a dimensional (letter or color) and positional cue. Location was predictive of the cued dimension, but not the position or identity. In contrast to previous findings, contextual control failed to develop through automatic, adaptive-learning processes. Instead, previous experience with intentionally changing attentional sampling priorities between different contexts was required for contextual control to develop. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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.

Do different stakeholder groups share mental health research priorities? A four-arm Delphi study.

PubMed

Owens, Christabel; Ley, Ann; Aitken, Peter

2008-12-01

Despite considerable investment in research priority setting within diverse fields of healthcare, little is known about the extent to which different stakeholder groups share research priorities. Conflicting priorities may jeopardize stakeholder engagement in research. To identify the research priorities of different stakeholder groups within mental health care and examine the extent and nature of agreement between them. Using a Delphi technique, we conducted parallel consultation processes within four different stakeholder groups. Each group process consisted of three rounds. The study was carried out within a mental health and learning disabilities trust in southern England. Participants were recruited from the following groups: mental health service users (34), informal carers (26), mental health practitioners (35) and service managers (23). There were striking differences between the four groups in respect of their ability and willingness to make priority decisions. These differences notwithstanding, there was considerable overlap in respect of their research interests. All groups identified and attached high importance to issues relating to the promotion of independence, self-esteem and recovery. The quality of in-patient care, the place of psychological therapies and the relationship between physical and mental health also emerged across the board. The confluence of four different stakeholder groups around a number of clear themes is highly encouraging, providing a framework within which to construct a research agenda and suggesting that mental health research can be built on solid partnerships.

75 FR 74053 - Availability of Final Toxicological Profiles

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-11-30

... priority hazardous substances comprising the twenty-first set prepared by ATSDR. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION... final toxicological profiles of priority hazardous substances comprising the twenty-first set prepared... that are most commonly found at facilities on the CERCLA National Priorities List (NPL). Among these...

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.

Multi-criteria decision analysis of breast cancer control in low- and middle- income countries: development of a rating tool for policy makers.

PubMed

Venhorst, Kristie; Zelle, Sten G; Tromp, Noor; Lauer, Jeremy A

2014-01-01

The objective of this study was to develop a rating tool for policy makers to prioritize breast cancer interventions in low- and middle- income countries (LMICs), based on a simple multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) approach. The definition and identification of criteria play a key role in MCDA, and our rating tool could be used as part of a broader priority setting exercise in a local setting. This tool may contribute to a more transparent priority-setting process and fairer decision-making in future breast cancer policy development. First, an expert panel (n = 5) discussed key considerations for tool development. A literature review followed to inventory all relevant criteria and construct an initial set of criteria. A Delphi study was then performed and questionnaires used to discuss a final list of criteria with clear definitions and potential scoring scales. For this Delphi study, multiple breast cancer policy and priority-setting experts from different LMICs were selected and invited by the World Health Organization. Fifteen international experts participated in all three Delphi rounds to assess and evaluate each criterion. This study resulted in a preliminary rating tool for assessing breast cancer interventions in LMICs. The tool consists of 10 carefully crafted criteria (effectiveness, quality of the evidence, magnitude of individual health impact, acceptability, cost-effectiveness, technical complexity, affordability, safety, geographical coverage, and accessibility), with clear definitions and potential scoring scales. This study describes the development of a rating tool to assess breast cancer interventions in LMICs. Our tool can offer supporting knowledge for the use or development of rating tools as part of a broader (MCDA based) priority setting exercise in local settings. Further steps for improving the tool are proposed and should lead to its useful adoption in LMICs.

Designing and evaluating an interprofessional shared decision-making and goal-setting decision aid for patients with diabetes in clinical care--systematic decision aid development and study protocol.

PubMed

Yu, Catherine H; Stacey, Dawn; Sale, Joanna; Hall, Susan; Kaplan, David M; Ivers, Noah; Rezmovitz, Jeremy; Leung, Fok-Han; Shah, Baiju R; Straus, Sharon E

2014-01-22

Care of patients with diabetes often occurs in the context of other chronic illness. Competing disease priorities and competing patient-physician priorities present challenges in the provision of care for the complex patient. Guideline implementation interventions to date do not acknowledge these intricacies of clinical practice. As a result, patients and providers are left overwhelmed and paralyzed by the sheer volume of recommendations and tasks. An individualized approach to the patient with diabetes and multiple comorbid conditions using shared decision-making (SDM) and goal setting has been advocated as a patient-centred approach that may facilitate prioritization of treatment options. Furthermore, incorporating interprofessional integration into practice may overcome barriers to implementation. However, these strategies have not been taken up extensively in clinical practice. To systematically develop and test an interprofessional SDM and goal-setting toolkit for patients with diabetes and other chronic diseases, following the Knowledge to Action framework. 1. Feasibility study: Individual interviews with primary care physicians, nurses, dietitians, pharmacists, and patients with diabetes will be conducted, exploring their experiences with shared decision-making and priority-setting, including facilitators and barriers, the relevance of a decision aid and toolkit for priority-setting, and how best to integrate it into practice.2. Toolkit development: Based on this data, an evidence-based multi-component SDM toolkit will be developed. The toolkit will be reviewed by content experts (primary care, endocrinology, geriatricians, nurses, dietitians, pharmacists, patients) for accuracy and comprehensiveness.3. Heuristic evaluation: A human factors engineer will review the toolkit and identify, list and categorize usability issues by severity.4. Usability testing: This will be done using cognitive task analysis.5. Iterative refinement: Throughout the development process, the toolkit will be refined through several iterative cycles of feedback and redesign. Interprofessional shared decision-making regarding priority-setting with the use of a decision aid toolkit may help prioritize care of individuals with multiple comorbid conditions. Adhering to principles of user-centered design, we will develop and refine a toolkit to assess the feasibility of this approach.

Designing and evaluating an interprofessional shared decision-making and goal-setting decision aid for patients with diabetes in clinical care - systematic decision aid development and study protocol

PubMed Central

2014-01-01

Background Care of patients with diabetes often occurs in the context of other chronic illness. Competing disease priorities and competing patient-physician priorities present challenges in the provision of care for the complex patient. Guideline implementation interventions to date do not acknowledge these intricacies of clinical practice. As a result, patients and providers are left overwhelmed and paralyzed by the sheer volume of recommendations and tasks. An individualized approach to the patient with diabetes and multiple comorbid conditions using shared decision-making (SDM) and goal setting has been advocated as a patient-centred approach that may facilitate prioritization of treatment options. Furthermore, incorporating interprofessional integration into practice may overcome barriers to implementation. However, these strategies have not been taken up extensively in clinical practice. Objectives To systematically develop and test an interprofessional SDM and goal-setting toolkit for patients with diabetes and other chronic diseases, following the Knowledge to Action framework. Methods 1. Feasibility study: Individual interviews with primary care physicians, nurses, dietitians, pharmacists, and patients with diabetes will be conducted, exploring their experiences with shared decision-making and priority-setting, including facilitators and barriers, the relevance of a decision aid and toolkit for priority-setting, and how best to integrate it into practice. 2. Toolkit development: Based on this data, an evidence-based multi-component SDM toolkit will be developed. The toolkit will be reviewed by content experts (primary care, endocrinology, geriatricians, nurses, dietitians, pharmacists, patients) for accuracy and comprehensiveness. 3. Heuristic evaluation: A human factors engineer will review the toolkit and identify, list and categorize usability issues by severity. 4. Usability testing: This will be done using cognitive task analysis. 5. Iterative refinement: Throughout the development process, the toolkit will be refined through several iterative cycles of feedback and redesign. Discussion Interprofessional shared decision-making regarding priority-setting with the use of a decision aid toolkit may help prioritize care of individuals with multiple comorbid conditions. Adhering to principles of user-centered design, we will develop and refine a toolkit to assess the feasibility of this approach. PMID:24450385

Economics of Obesity — Learning from the Past to Contribute to a Better Future

PubMed Central

Ananthapavan, Jaithri; Sacks, Gary; Moodie, Marj; Carter, Rob

2014-01-01

The discipline of economics plays a varied role in informing the understanding of the problem of obesity and the impact of different interventions aimed at addressing it. This paper discusses the causes of the obesity epidemic from an economics perspective, and outlines various justifications for government intervention in this area. The paper then focuses on the potential contribution of health economics in supporting resource allocation decision making for obesity prevention/treatment. Although economic evaluations of single interventions provide useful information, evaluations undertaken as part of a priority setting exercise provide the greatest scope for influencing decision making. A review of several priority setting examples in obesity prevention/treatment indicates that policy (as compared with program-based) interventions, targeted at prevention (as compared with treatment) and focused “upstream” on the food environment, are likely to be the most cost-effective options for change. However, in order to further support decision makers, several methodological advances are required. These include the incorporation of intervention costs/benefits outside the health sector, the addressing of equity impacts, and the increased engagement of decision makers in the priority setting process. PMID:24736685

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.

Preserving the tree of life.

PubMed

Mace, Georgina M; Gittleman, John L; Purvis, Andy

2003-06-13

Phylogenies provide new ways to measure biodiversity, to assess conservation priorities, and to quantify the evolutionary history in any set of species. Methodological problems and a lack of knowledge about most species have so far hampered their use. In the future, as techniques improve and more data become accessible, we will have an expanded set of conservation options, including ways to prioritize outcomes from evolutionary and ecological processes.

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 district level. The changes were linked to a number of simultaneous factors among them the concepts introduced by the present project with its emphasis on fairness and enhanced participation. A responsive leadership that was increasingly accountable to its operational staff and communities emerged as one of the key elements in driving the processes forward. PMID:24548767

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 number of simultaneous factors among them the concepts introduced by the present project with its emphasis on fairness and enhanced participation. A responsive leadership that was increasingly accountable to its operational staff and communities emerged as one of the key elements in driving the processes forward.

From reactive to proactive: developing a valid clinical ethics needs assessment survey to support ethics program strategic planning (part 1 of 2).

PubMed

Frolic, Andrea; Jennings, Barb; Seidlitz, Wendy; Andreychuk, Sandy; Djuric-Paulin, Angela; Flaherty, Barb; Peace, Donna

2013-03-01

As ethics committees and programs become integrated into the "usual business" of healthcare organizations, they are likely to face the predicament of responding to greater demands for service and higher expectations, without an influx of additional resources. This situation demands that ethics committees and programs allocate their scarce resources (including their time, skills and funds) strategically, rather than lurching from one ad hoc request to another; finding ways to maximize the effectiveness, efficiency, impact and quality of ethics services is essential in today's competitive environment. How can Hospital Ethics Committees (HECs) begin the process of strategic priority-setting to ensure they are delivering services where and how they are most needed? This paper describes the creation of the Clinical Ethics Needs Assessment Survey (CENAS) as a tool to understand interprofessional staff perceptions of the organization's ethical climate, challenging ethical issues and educational priorities. The CENAS was designed to support informed resource allocation and advocacy by HECs. By sharing our process of developing and validating this ethics needs assessment survey we hope to enable strategic priority-setting in other resource-strapped ethics programs, and to empower HECs to shift their focus to more proactive, quality-focused initiatives.

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

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.

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.

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...

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...

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-cost-effective interventions. The amended model was successfully constructed using limited data sources. The generalizability of the data used is the main limitation of the model. More complex formulas are required to deal with such potential confounding variables; however, the results act as starting point for development of a more robust model.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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

The James Lind Alliance (JLA) brings patients, carers and clinicians together in Priority Setting Partnerships (PSPs) to identify and prioritise shared uncertainties about the effects of treatment. The JLA emerged from the evidence-informed healthcare movement to address a concern that the research being carried out on treatment effectiveness is not that of most importance to patients and health professionals. In the JLA PSPs, 'hard' evidence-informed ideals meet 'soft' participatory practices. This article explores the challenges of putting co-production methods into practice by reflecting on the methods used by the JLA Pressure Ulcer PSP (JLAPUP). The JLA principles are transparency, inclusivity and avoiding waste in research. This means paying the same close critical attention to how PSPs are designed and run, as is desired in the health research which the JLA seeks to influence. JLAPUP showed that it was possible to work in partnership in a field where patients are often elderly, immobile, unrepresented and particularly unwell, many of whom are living with more than one long term condition. However, for those unfamiliar with it, 'uncertainty' was a difficult term to get to grips with. Also, it was harder for some people than others to take part and to have their voices heard and understood. In keeping with other PSPs, JLAPUP found that the nature and quality of research into pressure ulcer prevention and treatment did not reflect the priorities of those who took part. ᅟ. Studies identifying a mismatch between the priorities of academics and clinicians and those of people with direct experience of a health condition pose a challenge to the assumption that professional researchers can represent the interests of patients and the public in setting priorities for health research. The James Lind Alliance (JLA) brings patients, carers and clinicians together in Priority Setting Partnerships (PSPs) to identify and prioritise shared uncertainties about the effects of 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 contingent on the decision making processes of commissioners and funders.

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.

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.

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.

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 transplant process, including access to transplantation, living donation, organ preservation, post-transplant care and management of the failing transplant. This list of priorities will provide an invaluable resource for researchers and funders to direct future activity. PMID:27776143

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 transplantation, living donation, organ preservation, post-transplant care and management of the failing transplant. This list of priorities will provide an invaluable resource for researchers and funders to direct future activity.

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...

76 FR 18555 - Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-04-04

... leadership over the strategic planning process and the development of CMS strategic goals, metrics, and plans. Direct the development of financial and health care trend analysis and management insight report to inform senior CMS leadership strategic decision making. Set priorities for CSP direction, budget...

REMOVING ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS OF REGULATORY INTEREST WITH MEMBRANE PROCESSES: USEPA'S SCREENING STUDIES

EPA Science Inventory

The 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act require the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to establish a list of unregulated microbiological and chemical contaminants to aid in priority-setting for the Agency's drinking water program. This list, known as the Cont...

Differences between Parkinson's and Huntington's diseases and their role for prioritization of stem cell-based treatments.

PubMed

Hug, K; Hermerén, G

2013-06-01

The problems of allocation of scarce resources and priority setting in health care have so far not been much studied in the context of stem cell-based therapeutic applications. If and when competitive cost effective stem cell-based therapies are available, the problem of priority setting - to whom should stem cellbased therapies be offered and on what grounds - is discussed in this article using the examples of Parkinson's Disease (PD) and Huntington's Disease (HD). The aim of this paper is to examine the presently known differences between PD and HD and analyze the role of these differences for setting priorities of stem cell-based therapeutic applications to treat these diseases. To achieve this aim, we (1) present the theoretical framework used in the analysis; (2) compare PD and HD in terms of health related and non-health related consequences of these diseases for patients, their relatives and third parties; (3) analyze the ethical relevance of observed differences for priority setting given different values and variables; (4) compare PD and HD in terms of social justice related consequences of stem cell-based therapies; and (5) analyze the ethical relevance of these differences for priority setting given different values and variables. We argue that the steps of analysis applied in this paper could be helpful when setting priorities among treatments of other diseases with similar differences as those between PD and HD.

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 allocation was insufficient and that their facilities could increase their effectiveness in identifying and resolving ethical problems related to resource allocation. How well a healthcare facility ensures fairness in the way it allocates its resources across programs and services depends on multiple factors, including awareness by decision makers that setting priorities and allocating resources is a moral enterprise (moral awareness), the availability of a consistent process that includes important stakeholder groups (procedural justice), and concurrence by stakeholders that decisions represent outcomes that fairly balance competing interests and have a positive net effect on the quality of care (distributive justice). In this study, clinicians and managers alike identified the need for improvement in healthcare ethics practices related to resource allocation.

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.

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...

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

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.

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.

The contention within health economics: a micro-economic foundation using a macro-economic analysis.

PubMed

Yaxley, I L

1998-03-01

Health economists claim to use market economics combined with the micro-economic concepts of opportunity cost and the margin to advise on priority setting. However, they are advising on setting priorities through a macro-economic analysis using the costs of the supplier, thus prioritising the producer and not the consumer as the dynamic of economic activity. For health economists any contention within priority setting is due to lack of data not their confusion over fundamental concepts.

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.

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." This project developed a list of relevant, specific, and important research priorities for pediatric prehospital care. Some similarities exist between this project and prior research agendas but this list represents a current, more specific research agenda and reflects the opinions of working EMS providers, researchers, and leaders. emergency medical technician; research; emergency medical services; priorities.

Where Are We Going? Planning Assumptions for Community Colleges.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Maas, Rao, Taylor and Associates, Riverside, CA.

Designed to provide community college planners with a series of reference assumptions to consider in the planning process, this document sets forth assumptions related to finance (i.e., operational funds, capital funds, alternate funding sources, and campus financial operations); California state priorities; occupational trends; population (i.e.,…

REMOVAL OF ORGANIC CCL CONTAMINANTS FROM DRINKING WATERS BY GAC, AIR STRIPPING, AND MEMBRANE PROCESSES

EPA Science Inventory

The 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SWDA) require the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to establish a list of unregulated microbiological and chemical contaminants to aid in priority-setting for the Agency's drinking water program. This list, known as t...

Strategic Planning, 2000-2005.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Tennessee State Board of Regents, Nashville.

This report presents cycle four of the strategic planning process at the State University and Community College System of Tennessee. The cycle extends for five fiscal years from 2000 to 2005, and is meant to: (1) provide a blueprint of the systems vision; (2) provide guidelines to facilitate setting system policy and priorities; (3) provide…

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

Centralized drug review processes: are they fair?

PubMed

Mitton, Craig R; McMahon, Meghan; Morgan, Steve; Gibson, Jennifer

2006-07-01

Numerous countries have implemented centralized drug review processes to assist in making drug coverage decisions. In addition to examining the final recommendations of these bodies, it is also important to ensure fairness in decision making. Accountability for reasonableness is an ethics-based framework for examining the fairness of priority setting processes. The objective of this study was to assess the fairness of four internationally established centralized drug review processes using accountability for reasonableness. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with stakeholders in Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the UK (n=16). Participants were asked to evaluate their country's centralized drug review process against the four conditions of accountability for reasonableness. Each centralized drug review process satisfied at least one of the four ethical conditions, but none satisfied all four conditions. All participants viewed transparency as critical to both the legitimacy and fairness of centralized drug review processes. Additional strides need to be made in each of the four countries under study to improve the fairness of their centralized drug review processes. Ideally, a fair priority setting process should foster constructive stakeholder engagement and enhance the legitimacy of decisions made in assessing pharmaceutical products for funding. As policy makers are under increasing scrutiny in allocating limited resources, fair process should be seen as a critical component of such activity. This study represents the first attempt to conduct an international comparison of the fairness of centralized drug review agencies in the eyes of participating stakeholders.

Cost-effective conservation of amphibian ecology and evolution

PubMed Central

Campos, Felipe S.; Lourenço-de-Moraes, Ricardo; Llorente, Gustavo A.; Solé, Mirco

2017-01-01

Habitat loss is the most important threat to species survival, and the efficient selection of priority areas is fundamental for good systematic conservation planning. Using amphibians as a conservation target, we designed an innovative assessment strategy, showing that prioritization models focused on functional, phylogenetic, and taxonomic diversity can include cost-effectiveness–based assessments of land values. We report new key conservation sites within the Brazilian Atlantic Forest hot spot, revealing a congruence of ecological and evolutionary patterns. We suggest payment for ecosystem services through environmental set-asides on private land, establishing potential trade-offs for ecological and evolutionary processes. Our findings introduce additional effective area-based conservation parameters that set new priorities for biodiversity assessment in the Atlantic Forest, validating the usefulness of a novel approach to cost-effectiveness–based assessments of conservation value for other species-rich regions. PMID:28691084

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...

45 CFR 1620.7 - Reporting.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-10-01

... priorities; mechanisms which will be utilized to ensure effective client participation in priority-setting... Regulations Relating to Public Welfare (Continued) LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION PRIORITIES IN USE OF RESOURCES... information on all emergency cases or matters undertaken that were not within the recipient's priorities, and...

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.

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...

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...

10 CFR 600.111 - Pre-award policies.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-01-01

... and Priority Setting. DOE will, whenever practical, notify the public of its intended funding priorities for discretionary grant programs, unless funding priorities are established by Federal statute. ...

Surgical process improvement tools: defining quality gaps and priority areas in gastrointestinal cancer surgery.

PubMed

Wei, A C; Devitt, K S; Wiebe, M; Bathe, O F; McLeod, R S; Urbach, D R

2014-04-01

Surgery is a cornerstone of cancer treatment, but significant differences in the quality of surgery have been reported. Surgical process improvement tools (spits) modify the processes of care as a means to quality improvement (qi). We were interested in developing spits in the area of gastrointestinal (gi) cancer surgery. We report the recommendations of an expert panel held to define quality gaps and establish priority areas that would benefit from spits. The present study used the knowledge-to-action cycle was as a framework. Canadian experts in qi and in gi cancer surgery were assembled in a nominal group workshop. Participants evaluated the merits of spits, described gaps in current knowledge, and identified and ranked processes of care that would benefit from qi. A qualitative analysis of the workshop deliberations using modified grounded theory methods identified major themes. The expert panel consisted of 22 participants. Experts confirmed that spits were an important strategy for qi. The top-rated spits included clinical pathways, electronic information technology, and patient safety tools. The preferred settings for use of spits included preoperative and intraoperative settings and multidisciplinary contexts. Outcomes of interest were cancer-related outcomes, process, and the technical quality of surgery measures. Surgical process improvement tools were confirmed as an important strategy. Expert panel recommendations will be used to guide future research efforts for spits in gi cancer surgery.

Surgical process improvement tools: defining quality gaps and priority areas in gastrointestinal cancer surgery

PubMed Central

Wei, A.C.; Devitt, K.S.; Wiebe, M.; Bathe, O.F.; McLeod, R.S.; Urbach, D.R.

2014-01-01

Background Surgery is a cornerstone of cancer treatment, but significant differences in the quality of surgery have been reported. Surgical process improvement tools (spits) modify the processes of care as a means to quality improvement (qi). We were interested in developing spits in the area of gastrointestinal (gi) cancer surgery. We report the recommendations of an expert panel held to define quality gaps and establish priority areas that would benefit from spits. Methods The present study used the knowledge-to-action cycle was as a framework. Canadian experts in qi and in gi cancer surgery were assembled in a nominal group workshop. Participants evaluated the merits of spits, described gaps in current knowledge, and identified and ranked processes of care that would benefit from qi. A qualitative analysis of the workshop deliberations using modified grounded theory methods identified major themes. Results The expert panel consisted of 22 participants. Experts confirmed that spits were an important strategy for qi. The top-rated spits included clinical pathways, electronic information technology, and patient safety tools. The preferred settings for use of spits included preoperative and intraoperative settings and multidisciplinary contexts. Outcomes of interest were cancer-related outcomes, process, and the technical quality of surgery measures. Conclusions Surgical process improvement tools were confirmed as an important strategy. Expert panel recommendations will be used to guide future research efforts for spits in gi cancer surgery. PMID:24764704

38 CFR 49.11 - Pre-award policies.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

...) Public notice and priority setting. Federal awarding agencies shall notify the public of its intended funding priorities for discretionary grant programs, unless funding priorities are established by Federal...

29 CFR 95.11 - Pre-award policies.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

... policies. Public Notice and Priority Setting. Federal awarding agencies shall notify the public of its intended funding priorities for discretionary grant programs, unless funding priorities are established by...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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.

The Use of Nominal Group Technique to Determine Additional Support Needs for a Group of Victorian TAFE Managers and Senior Educators

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Bailey, Anthony

2013-01-01

The nominal group technique (NGT) is a structured process to gather information from a group. The technique was first described in 1975 and has since become a widely-used standard to facilitate working groups. The NGT is effective for generating large numbers of creative new ideas and for group priority setting. This paper describes the process of…

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

40 CFR 30.11 - Pre-award policies.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

... and priority setting. EPA shall notify the public of its intended funding priorities for discretionary grant programs, unless funding priorities are established by Federal statute. (c) By submitting an...

2 CFR 215.11 - Pre-award policies.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-01-01

... Government. (b) Public Notice and Priority Setting. Federal awarding agencies shall notify the public of its intended funding priorities for discretionary grant programs, unless funding priorities are established by...

A new intuitionistic fuzzy rule-based decision-making system for an operating system process scheduler.

PubMed

Butt, Muhammad Arif; Akram, Muhammad

2016-01-01

We present a new intuitionistic fuzzy rule-based decision-making system based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets for a process scheduler of a batch operating system. Our proposed intuitionistic fuzzy scheduling algorithm, inputs the nice value and burst time of all available processes in the ready queue, intuitionistically fuzzify the input values, triggers appropriate rules of our intuitionistic fuzzy inference engine and finally calculates the dynamic priority (dp) of all the processes in the ready queue. Once the dp of every process is calculated the ready queue is sorted in decreasing order of dp of every process. The process with maximum dp value is sent to the central processing unit for execution. Finally, we show complete working of our algorithm on two different data sets and give comparisons with some standard non-preemptive process schedulers.

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.

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 a focus on topics that will have most impact and relevance. PMID:24456928

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].

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...

Strategic emphases for tropical diseases research: a TDR perspective.

PubMed

Remme, Jan H F; Blas, Erik; Chitsulo, Lester; Desjeux, Philippe M P; Engers, Howard D; Kanyok, Thomas P; Kengeya Kayondo, Jane F; Kioy, Deborah W; Kumaraswami, Vasanthapuram; Lazdins, Janis K; Nunn, Paul P; Oduola, Ayoade; Ridley, Robert G; Toure, Yeya T; Zicker, Fabio; Morel, Carlos M

2002-10-01

Setting priorities for health research is a difficult task, especially for the neglected diseases of the poor. A new approach to priority setting for tropical diseases research has been adopted by the UNDP/World Bank/WHO Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (known as the TDR). Priorities are defined on the basis of a comprehensive analysis of research needs and research opportunities for each of the ten major tropical diseases in the TDR portfolio. The resulting strategic emphases matrix reflects the priorities for tropical diseases research from the perspective of the TDR. Its purpose is not to impose global research priorities, but we believe the results could be useful to other organizations.

Community Priorities for Healthy Eating in Older Adults.

PubMed

Jiang, Qianzhi; Cohen, Nancy L; Marra, Melissa Ventura; Woolf, Kathleen; Gilbride, Judith; Francis, Sarah L

2017-01-01

Community planners such as policymakers and health care and nutrition service providers can create an "age-friendly" environment to support healthy eating in older residents by addressing the highest priorities that enable older adults to improve their dietary intake through different food-related community settings. To identify and prioritize these factors that facilitate behavioral change (enablers) and behavioral settings important for older adult nutrition based on the social ecological model, nutrition and aging professionals (n = 30) from two rural (West Virginia, Iowa) and two urban (Massachusetts, New York) city/county regions (communities) participated in an online or live focus group discussion and completed an analytic hierarchy process survey online. Overall, the most important perceived enablers were accessibility and cost, followed by transportation and social support, but their relative importance varied by community. Participants from all communities considered congregate meal sites and food banks among the most important behavioral settings. Participants from most communities considered food stores to be important and also highlighted other settings unique to the area, such as senior housing, neighborhood, and farmers' markets. By targeting interventions to address the most notable enablers and behavioral settings specific to their community, planning groups can enhance their older residents' ability to achieve optimal nutritional health.

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 many experts in the field, "visualising" their collective opinion and presenting the list of many research ideas with their ranks, based on an intuitive score that ranges between 0 and 100. Two recent reviews showed that the CHNRI method, an approach essentially based on "crowdsourcing", has become the dominant approach to setting health research priorities in the global biomedical literature over the past decade. With more than 50 published examples of implementation to date, it is now widely used in many international organisations for collective decision-making on health research priorities. The applications have been helpful in promoting better balance between investments in fundamental research, translation research and implementation research.

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 new simple and effective interventions for providing thermal care to LBW infants, if KMC is not acceptable to the mother. The context for this exercise was set within the MDG4, requiring an urgent and rapid progress in mortality reduction from low birth weight, rather than identifying long-term strategic solutions of the greatest potential. In a short-term context, the health policy and systems research to improve access and coverage by the existing interventions, coupled with further research to improve effectiveness, deliverability and acceptance of existing interventions, and epidemiological research to address the key gaps in knowledge, were all highlighted as research priorities.

Vision and Voyages: Lessons Learned from the Planetary Decadal Survey

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Squyres, S. W.

2015-12-01

The most recent planetary decadal survey, entitled Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022, provided a detailed set of priorities for solar system exploration. Those priorities drew on broad input from the U.S. and international planetary science community. Using white papers, town hall meetings, and open meetings of the decadal committees, community views were solicited and a consensus began to emerge. The final report summarized that consensus. Like many past decadal reports, the centerpiece of Vision and Voyages was a set of priorities for future space flight projects. Two things distinguished this report from some previous decadals. First, conservative and independent cost estimates were obtained for all of the projects that were considered. These independent cost estimates, rather than estimates generated by project advocates, were used to judge each project's expected science return per dollar. Second, rather than simply accepting NASA's ten-year projection of expected funding for planetary exploration, decision rules were provided to guide program adjustments if actual funding did not follow projections. To date, NASA has closely followed decadal recommendations. In particular, the two highest priority "flagship" missions, a Mars rover to collect samples for return to Earth and a mission to investigate a possible ocean on Europa, are both underway. The talk will describe the planetary decadal process in detail, and provide a more comprehensive assessment of NASA's response to it.

75 FR 70752 - Reliability Monitoring, Enforcement and Compliance Issues; Announcement of Panelists for...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-11-18

... the Regional Entities set priorities of what to audit, and are they doing a good job setting priorities? Do audits focus too much on documentation? Would alternative auditing methods also demonstrate...

Quality Assurance in the Political Context: In the Midst of Different Expectations and Conflicting Goals

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Beerkens, Maarja

2015-01-01

Higher education quality assurance systems develop within a complex political environment where national level goals and priorities interact with European and global developments. Furthermore, quality assurance is influenced by broader processes in the public sector that set expectations with respect to accountability, legitimacy and regulatory…

Assessing Subjective Preferences for Future Fire Research

Treesearch

James B. Davis

1987-01-01

Methods are described for making comparative valuations of future fire (or any other) research efforts when the benefits that result from some of the efforts cannot be described in dollars. The process helps research managers and scientists set priorities by using the values and beliefs of skilled fire specialists. The objective is to insure coherent decisions...

School Board Decision Making Practices

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Beard, Nicole R.

2017-01-01

The purpose of this study was to examine the way in which school boards use data when making decisions, specifically their orientations, perceptions, concerns and priorities around data. This study sought to understand how school boards use data when setting or tracking progress toward goals and aimed following the process of board use of data to…

A modeling analysis program for the JPL table mountain Io sodium cloud

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

Smyth, W. H.; Goldberg, B. A.

1985-01-01

Progress and achievements in the first year are discussed in three main areas: (1) review and assessment of the massive JPL Table Mountain Io sodium cloud data set, (2) formulation and execution of a plan to perform further processing of this data set, and (3) initiation of modeling activities. The complete 1976-79 and 1981 data sets are reviewed. Particular emphasis is placed on the superior 1981 Region B/C images which provide a rich base of information for studying the structure and escape of gases from Io as well as possible east-west and magnetic longitudinal asymmetries in the plasma torus. A data processing plan is developed and is undertaken by the Multimission Image Processing Laboratory of JPL for the purpose of providing a more refined and complete data set for our modeling studies in the second year. Modeling priorities are formulated and initial progress in achieving these goals is reported.

Report from the OMERACT Hand Osteoarthritis Special Interest Group: advances and future research priorities.

PubMed

Kloppenburg, Margreet; Bøyesen, Pernille; Smeets, Wilma; Haugen, Ida K; Haugen, Ida; Liu, Rani; Visser, Willemien; van der Heijde, Désirée M

2014-04-01

Osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the most common musculoskeletal disorders, frequently affecting the hands. In the last decade there has been increased awareness concerning this disorder because of its clinical burden. Unfortunately, only limited treatments for symptom alleviation are available, and no effective treatment for disease modification exists. The lack of treatment is due not only to a lack of understanding of the disease process, but also to poor outcome measures to assess the condition. The OMERACT Hand OA Special Interest Group (SIG) has started to develop a core set of outcome measures for hand OA clinical trials, observational studies, and clinical record keeping. At OMERACT 11, results from a Delphi exercise were presented, and a preliminary set of core domains was discussed. The group attempted to adopt the new OMERACT Filter 2.0 in the process, and literature overviews of conventional radiographs, ultrasonography, and magnetic resonance imaging as outcome measures in hand OA were presented. Discussions that followed highlighted further suggestions for core domains, the heterogeneity of hand OA, and future research priorities.

Skating to where the puck is going to be: a plan for clinical trials and translation research in mood disorders.

PubMed

Frank, Ellen; Rush, A John; Blehar, Mary; Essock, Susan; Hargreaves, William; Hogan, Michael; Jarrett, Robin; Johnson, Robert L; Katon, Wayne J; Lavori, Phillip; McNulty, James P; Niederehe, George; Ryan, Neal; Stuart, Gail; Thomas, Stephen B; Tollefson, Gary D; Vitiello, Benedetto

2002-09-15

As part of the National Institute of Mental Health Strategic Plan for Mood Disorders Research effort, the Clinical Trials and Translation Workgroup was asked to define priorities for clinical trials in mood disorders and for research on how best to translate the results of such research to clinical practice settings. Through two face-to-face meetings and a series of conference calls, we established priorities based on the literature to date and what was known about research currently in progress in this area. We defined five areas of priority that cut across developmental stages, while noting that research on adult mood disorders was at a more advanced stage in each of these areas than research on child or geriatric disorders. The five areas of priority are: 1) maximizing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of initial (acute) treatments for mood disorders already known to be efficacious in selected populations and settings when they are applied across all populations and care settings; 2) learning what further treatments or services are most likely to reduce symptoms and improve functioning when the first treatment is delivered well, but the mood disorder does not remit or show adequate improvement; 3) learning what treatments or services are most cost-effective in preventing recurrence or relapse and maintaining optimal functioning after a patient's mood disorder has remitted or responded maximally to treatment; 4) developing and validating clinical, psychosocial, biological, or other markers that predict: a) which treatments are most effective, b) course of illness, c) risk of adverse events/tolerability and acceptability for individual patients or well-defined subgroups of patients; 5) developing clinical trial designs and methods that result in lower research costs and greater generalizability earlier in the treatment development and testing process. A rationale for the importance of each of these priorities is provided.

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 used to inform the prioritisation and funding of future mesothelioma research. Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.. All rights reserved.

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.

The role of goal-focused leadership in enabling the expression of conscientiousness.

PubMed

Colbert, Amy E; Witt, L A

2009-05-01

The authors tested the hypothesis that goal-focused leadership enables conscientious workers to perform effectively by helping them to accurately understand organizational goal priorities. Data collected from 162 workers in a private sector document processing organization supported the hypotheses that goal-focused leadership moderates the relationship between conscientiousness and job performance and that person-organization goal congruence mediates this moderated relationship. Specifically, conscientiousness was more strongly positively related to performance among workers who perceived that their supervisors effectively set goals and defined roles, responsibilities, and priorities than among workers who did not perceive this type of goal-focused leadership. (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved.

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

Does Funding for Arctic Research Align with Research Priorities and Policy Needs? Trends in the USA, Canada and Europe

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Murray, M. S.; Ibarguchi, G.; Rajdev, V.

2015-12-01

Over the past twenty years, increasing awareness and understanding of changes in the Arctic system, the stated desires of Arctic Peoples to be engaged in the research process, and a growing international interest in the region's resources have informed various stakeholders to undertake many Arctic science planning activities. Some examples of science planning include priority-setting for research, knowledge translation, stakeholder engagement, improved coordination, and international collaboration. The International Study of Arctic Change recently initiated an analysis of the extent to which alignment exists among stated science priorities, recognized societal needs, and funding patterns of the major North American and European agencies. In this paper, we present a decade of data on international funding patterns and data on two decades of science planning. We discuss whether funding patterns reflect the priority research questions and identified needs for information that are articulated in a myriad of Arctic research planning documents. The alignment in many areas remains poor, bringing into question the purpose of large-scale science planning if it does not lead to funding of those priorities identified by Arctic stakeholder communities (scientists, Arctic Peoples, planners, policy makers, the private sector, and others).

Simulation of Regionally Ecological Land Based on a Cellular Automation Model: A Case Study of Beijing, China

PubMed Central

Xie, Hualin; Kung, Chih-Chun; Zhang, Yanting; Li, Xiubin

2012-01-01

Ecological land is like the “liver” of a city and is very useful to public health. Ecological land change is a spatially dynamic non-linear process under the interaction between natural and anthropogenic factors at different scales. In this study, by setting up natural development scenario, object orientation scenario and ecosystem priority scenario, a Cellular Automation (CA) model has been established to simulate the evolution pattern of ecological land in Beijing in the year 2020. Under the natural development scenario, most of ecological land will be replaced by construction land and crop land. But under the scenarios of object orientation and ecosystem priority, the ecological land area will increase, especially under the scenario of ecosystem priority. When considering the factors such as total area of ecological land, loss of key ecological land and spatial patterns of land use, the scenarios from priority to inferiority are ecosystem priority, object orientation and natural development, so future land management policies in Beijing should be focused on conversion of cropland to forest, wetland protection and prohibition of exploitation of natural protection zones, water source areas and forest parks to maintain the safety of the regional ecosystem. PMID:23066410

Simulation of regionally ecological land based on a cellular automation model: a case study of Beijing, China.

PubMed

Xie, Hualin; Kung, Chih-Chun; Zhang, Yanting; Li, Xiubin

2012-08-01

Ecological land is like the "liver" of a city and is very useful to public health. Ecological land change is a spatially dynamic non-linear process under the interaction between natural and anthropogenic factors at different scales. In this study, by setting up natural development scenario, object orientation scenario and ecosystem priority scenario, a Cellular Automation (CA) model has been established to simulate the evolution pattern of ecological land in Beijing in the year 2020. Under the natural development scenario, most of ecological land will be replaced by construction land and crop land. But under the scenarios of object orientation and ecosystem priority, the ecological land area will increase, especially under the scenario of ecosystem priority. When considering the factors such as total area of ecological land, loss of key ecological land and spatial patterns of land use, the scenarios from priority to inferiority are ecosystem priority, object orientation and natural development, so future land management policies in Beijing should be focused on conversion of cropland to forest, wetland protection and prohibition of exploitation of natural protection zones, water source areas and forest parks to maintain the safety of the regional ecosystem.

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...

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...

Sequential decision tree using the analytic hierarchy process for decision support in rectal cancer.

PubMed

Suner, Aslı; Çelikoğlu, Can Cengiz; Dicle, Oğuz; Sökmen, Selman

2012-09-01

The aim of the study is to determine the most appropriate method for construction of a sequential decision tree in the management of rectal cancer, using various patient-specific criteria and treatments such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. An analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was used to determine the priorities of variables. Relevant criteria used in two decision steps and their relative priorities were established by a panel of five general surgeons. Data were collected via a web-based application and analyzed using the "Expert Choice" software specifically developed for the AHP. Consistency ratios in the AHP method were calculated for each set of judgments, and the priorities of sub-criteria were determined. A sequential decision tree was constructed for the best treatment decision process, using priorities determined by the AHP method. Consistency ratios in the AHP method were calculated for each decision step, and the judgments were considered consistent. The tumor-related criterion "presence of perforation" (0.331) and the patient-surgeon-related criterion "surgeon's experience" (0.630) had the highest priority in the first decision step. In the second decision step, the tumor-related criterion "the stage of the disease" (0.230) and the patient-surgeon-related criterion "surgeon's experience" (0.281) were the paramount criteria. The results showed some variation in the ranking of criteria between the decision steps. In the second decision step, for instance, the tumor-related criterion "presence of perforation" was just the fifth. The consistency of decision support systems largely depends on the quality of the underlying decision tree. When several choices and variables have to be considered in a decision, it is very important to determine priorities. The AHP method seems to be effective for this purpose. The decision algorithm developed by this method is more realistic and will improve the quality of the decision tree. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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.

Risky choice with heuristics: reply to Birnbaum (2008), Johnson, Schulte-Mecklenbeck, and Willemsen (2008), and Rieger and Wang (2008).

PubMed

Brandstätter, Eduard; Gigerenzer, Gerd; Hertwig, Ralph

2008-01-01

E. Brandstätter, G. Gigerenzer, and R. Hertwig (2006) showed that the priority heuristic matches or outperforms modifications of expected utility theory in predicting choice in 4 diverse problem sets. M. H. Birnbaum (2008) argued that sets exist in which the opposite is true. The authors agree--but stress that all choice strategies have regions of good and bad performance. The accuracy of various strategies systematically depends on choice difficulty, which the authors consider a triggering variable underlying strategy selection. Agreeing with E. J. Johnson, M. Schulte-Mecklenbeck, and M. C. Willemsen (2008) that process (not "as-if") models need to be formulated, the authors show how quantitative predictions can be derived and test them. Finally, they demonstrate that many of Birnbaum's and M. O. Rieger and M. Wang's (2008) case studies championing their preferred models involved biased tests in which the priority heuristic predicted data, whereas the parameterized models were fitted to the same data. The authors propose an adaptive toolbox approach of risky choice, according to which people first seek a no-conflict solution before resorting to conflict-resolving strategies such as the priority heuristic. (c) 2008 APA, all rights reserved

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.

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.

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.

Modeling Personalized Email Prioritization: Classification-based and Regression-based Approaches

DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

Yoo S.; Yang, Y.; Carbonell, J.

2011-10-24

Email overload, even after spam filtering, presents a serious productivity challenge for busy professionals and executives. One solution is automated prioritization of incoming emails to ensure the most important are read and processed quickly, while others are processed later as/if time permits in declining priority levels. This paper presents a study of machine learning approaches to email prioritization into discrete levels, comparing ordinal regression versus classier cascades. Given the ordinal nature of discrete email priority levels, SVM ordinal regression would be expected to perform well, but surprisingly a cascade of SVM classifiers significantly outperforms ordinal regression for email prioritization. Inmore » contrast, SVM regression performs well -- better than classifiers -- on selected UCI data sets. This unexpected performance inversion is analyzed and results are presented, providing core functionality for email prioritization systems.« less

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...

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...

49 CFR 19.11 - Pre-award policies.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-10-01

... benefit or use of the Federal Government. (b) Public notice and priority setting. Federal awarding agencies shall notify the public of its intended funding priorities for discretionary grant programs, unless funding priorities are established by Federal statute. ...

22 CFR 518.11 - Pre-award policies.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

... benefit or use of the Federal Government. (b) Public Notice and Priority Setting. Federal awarding agencies shall notify the public of its intended funding priorities for discretionary grant programs, unless funding priorities are established by Federal statute. ...

Best Practices in Using Video Technology to Promote Second Language Acquisition

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

McNulty, Anastassia; Lazarevic, Bojan

2012-01-01

Inclusion of technology in the process of second language acquisition has always been a priority for both teachers and theoreticians. This paper reviews the current trends in using video-based language instruction in K-12 educational settings. Although it has been demonstrated for many years that the use of video as an instructional medium…

78 FR 77540 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-12-23

... settlement, adjust, retain priority for, or otherwise correctly process an order, Quote/Order, message, or... Directors of NASDAQ OMX an analysis of the total value of eligible claims. FINRA has provided the required analysis. The provision further requires that Nasdaq will file with the Commission a rule proposal setting...

Using plant functional traits to restore Hawaiian rainforest

Treesearch

Rebecca Ostertag; Laura Warman; Susan Cordell; Peter M. Vitousek

2015-01-01

Ecosystem restoration efforts are carried out by a variety of individuals and organizations with an equally varied set of goals, priorities, resources and time-scales. Once restoration of a degraded landscape or community is recognized as necessary, choosing which species to include in a restoration programme can be a difficult and value-laden process (Fry, Power &...

Computerized Aid Improves Safety Decision Process for Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Glass, Nancy; Eden, Karen B.; Bloom, Tina; Perrin, Nancy

2010-01-01

A computerized safety decision aid was developed and tested with Spanish or English-speaking abused women in shelters or domestic violence (DV) support groups (n = 90). The decision aid provides feedback about risk for lethal violence, options for safety, assistance with setting priorities for safety, and a safety plan personalized to the user.…

[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.

Participatory methods for research prioritization in primary care: an analysis of the World Café approach in Ireland and the USA.

PubMed

MacFarlane, Anne; Galvin, Rose; O'Sullivan, Madeleine; McInerney, Chris; Meagher, Eoghan; Burke, Daniel; LeMaster, Joseph W

2017-06-01

There are increasing imperatives for patients and members of the public to engage as partners in identifying health research priorities. The use of participatory methods to engage stakeholders in health care in research prioritization is not commonly reported. This article analyses the use of World Cafés as a participatory method for research prioritization with marginalized communities in Ireland and the USA. The principles of purposeful and snowball sampling were followed in both settings and a diverse range of community and health care stakeholders participated (n = 63 Ireland and n = 55 USA). The principles for a classic World Café were employed but there were novel features in each setting as well. Stewart et al.'s (Patients' and clinicians' research priorities. Health Expect 2011; 14: 439-48, conceptual framework for patient engagement was adapted and used to comparatively analyse the strengths and weaknesses of the World Cafés, focusing on agenda setting, engagement with research processes, interactional features and outputs. Design principles for World Cafés were found to align with high-quality patient engagement for research prioritization in both settings. They served to facilitate meaningful collaboration among stakeholder groups in research prioritization (research agenda setting) and explored research priorities (engagement with research). The café ambience, emphasis on hospitality and self-facilitation created an environment for dialogues within and across participating groups (interactional features). There was a commitment to follow-up actions with reference to possible subsequent research (outputs). The World Café is a valuable, participatory, flexible method that can be used with community and health care stakeholders for research prioritization with marginalized communities. © The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press.

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 podiatrists and six managers. Participants had been qualified for a mean of 20.7 years with a mean of 16.8 years of wound care experience. One hundred and thirty-nine uncertainties were submitted electronically and a further 20 were identified on the day of the workshop following lively, interactive group discussions. Twenty-five uncertainties from the total of 159 generated made it to the final prioritised list. These included six of the 20 new uncertainties. The uncertainties varied in focus, but could be broadly categorised into three themes: service delivery and organisation, patient centred care and treatment options. Specialist nurses were more likely to vote for service delivery and organisation topics, podiatrists for patient centred topics, district nurses for treatment options and operational leads for a broad range. This collaborative priority setting project is the first to engage front-line clinicians in prioritising research and implementation topics in wound care. We have shown that it is feasible to conduct topic prioritisation in a short time frame. This project has demonstrated that with careful planning and rigor, important questions that are raised in the course of clinicians' daily decision making can be translated into meaningful research and implementation initiatives that could make a difference to service delivery and patient care.

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, 10 district nurses, seven podiatrists and six managers. Participants had been qualified for a mean of 20.7 years with a mean of 16.8 years of wound care experience. One hundred and thirty-nine uncertainties were submitted electronically and a further 20 were identified on the day of the workshop following lively, interactive group discussions. Twenty-five uncertainties from the total of 159 generated made it to the final prioritised list. These included six of the 20 new uncertainties. The uncertainties varied in focus, but could be broadly categorised into three themes: service delivery and organisation, patient centred care and treatment options. Specialist nurses were more likely to vote for service delivery and organisation topics, podiatrists for patient centred topics, district nurses for treatment options and operational leads for a broad range. Conclusions This collaborative priority setting project is the first to engage front-line clinicians in prioritising research and implementation topics in wound care. We have shown that it is feasible to conduct topic prioritisation in a short time frame. This project has demonstrated that with careful planning and rigor, important questions that are raised in the course of clinicians’ daily decision making can be translated into meaningful research and implementation initiatives that could make a difference to service delivery and patient care. PMID:29206884

A review of the Generic Design Assessment (GDA) Public Dialogue Pilot (2015) for new nuclear build in the UK: lessons for engagement theory and practice.

PubMed

Whitton, John; Parry, Ioan; Grundy, Colette; Lillycrop, Annabelle; Ross, David

2016-06-01

We have discussed previously that a community-based, asset-based approach is required to achieve any sense of how social sustainability can be defined in a community setting within the context of energy developments. Our approach aims to initiate a lasting change within 'energy' communities through building social capital; focusing on community assets not deficits to define their social priorities. Through deliberation, we develop an understanding of social sustainability so that a community is well placed to enter discussions with government and industry regarding large energy developments that will directly affect them. We review the 2015 Generic Design Assessment (GDA) Public Dialogue Pilot process for potential new nuclear reactors in the UK. We examine the aims of the dialogue, giving particular attention to a comparison between the national sampling of citizens for the GDA and the local community-based, deliberative approach we have proposed previously. We find an ongoing tension between 'national' engagement processes (such as the GDA Public Dialogue Pilot process) and the specific requirements of those energy communities that live adjacent or close to energy infrastructure, manifested here by a conflict between the requirements of the convenor and those of participants regarding priority issues for discussion. We also reveal a paradox; despite participant preference for a remote, internet-based engagement process, they agreed that face to face contact is a priority to encourage trust building between participants and the convenor of the process-a desired outcome of the process. The GDA Public Dialogue Pilot process has demonstrated that stakeholders are willing to engage with and be more directly involved in local energy-related decisions that affect them directly, provided there is opportunity to discuss locally-relevant and site-specific issues in addition to those of a broader nature. There exists a disparity and conflict between 'national' engagement processes and the 'local' priorities of those energy communities that are adjacent or close to energy infrastructure. In this process and others, we have seen an imbalance between the requirements of the convenor and those of participants regarding priority issues for discussion. This continues to be a persistent challenge for those convening stakeholder engagement events where the scope and context is not primarily site-specific. However, it is encouraging that convenors and participants alike continue to be willing to work towards resolving this.

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 improving patient safety (five priorities). This study established expert, consensus-based research priorities for patient safety in emergency medicine. This framework could be used by researchers and health-care funders and represents an essential guiding step towards enhancing quality of care and patient safety in the ED.

Creating political priority for micronutrient deficiencies: a qualitative case study from Senegal

PubMed Central

Balarajan, Yarlini

2014-01-01

Objectives To examine what factors influence the agenda-setting process and level of political priority afforded to micronutrient deficiencies (MNDs). Design Qualitative case study employing process tracing, informed by primary data collected from semistructured interviews with policymakers. Setting Dakar, Senegal. Results Several facilitating and impeding factors affecting the level of political prioritisation for MNDs were identified. Facilitating factors included multiple stakeholders using aligned framing to collectively advocate for MNDs; availability of indicators to quantify issue severity and raise awareness; and transnational advocacy activities around micronutrients. Impeding factors included lack of awareness among policymakers and civil society about MNDs; issue complexity, with the need for coordinated multisectoral response to deliver a complex package of solutions; lack of resources trapping the issue in a ‘low-priority’ cycle; lack of a policy champion to advocate for the issue and the challenge of demonstrating the effectiveness of interventions to support advocacy efforts. Conclusions This study gives insight into the political prioritisation process for MNDs from the perspective of key stakeholders working at the national level in Senegal. In doing so, the study offers some explanation as to why the issue of MNDs has struggled to gain political attention and make it onto the national policy agenda. Moving forward, greater awareness of the factors affecting agenda setting for MNDs may help to devise political strategies to champion this development issue in countries with high burdens of micronutrient deficiencies. PMID:25107435

A case of standardization? Implementing health promotion guidelines in Denmark.

PubMed

Rod, Morten Hulvej; Høybye, Mette Terp

2016-09-01

Guidelines are increasingly used in an effort to standardize and systematize health practices at the local level and to promote evidence-based practice. The implementation of guidelines frequently faces problems, however, and standardization processes may in general have other outcomes than the ones envisioned by the makers of standards. In 2012, the Danish National Health Authorities introduced a set of health promotion guidelines that were meant to guide the decision making and priority setting of Denmark's 98 local governments. The guidelines provided recommendations for health promotion policies and interventions and were structured according to risk factors such as alcohol, smoking and physical activity. This article examines the process of implementation of the new Danish health promotion guidelines. The article is based on qualitative interviews and participant observation, focusing on the professional practices of health promotion officers in four local governments as well as the field of Danish health promotion more generally. The analysis highlights practices and episodes related to the implementation of the guidelines and takes inspiration from Timmermans and Epstein's sociology of standards and standardization. It remains an open question whether or not the guidelines lead to more standardized policies and interventions, but we suggest that the guidelines promote a risk factor-oriented approach as the dominant frame for knowledge, reasoning, decision making and priority setting in health promotion. We describe this process as a case of epistemic standardization. © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

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.

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

Building on IUCN regional red lists to produce lists of species of conservation priority: a model with Irish bees.

PubMed

Fitzpatrick, Una; Murray, Tomás E; Paxton, Robert J; Brown, Mark J F

2007-10-01

A World Conservation Union (IUCN) regional red list is an objective assessment of regional extinction risk and is not the same as a list of conservation priority species. Recent research reveals the widespread, but incorrect, assumption that IUCN Red List categories represent a hierarchical list of priorities for conservation action. We developed a simple eight-step priority-setting process and applied it to the conservation of bees in Ireland. Our model is based on the national red list but also considers the global significance of the national population; the conservation status at global, continental, and regional levels; key biological, economic, and societal factors; and is compatible with existing conservation agreements and legislation. Throughout Ireland, almost one-third of the bee fauna is threatened (30 of 100 species), but our methodology resulted in a reduced list of only 17 priority species. We did not use the priority species list to broadly categorize species to the conservation action required; instead, we indicated the individual action required for all threatened, near-threatened, and data-deficient species on the national red list based on the IUCN's conservation-actions template file. Priority species lists will strongly influence prioritization of conservation actions at national levels, but action should not be exclusive to listed species. In addition, all species on this list will not necessarily require immediate action. Our method is transparent, reproducible, and readily applicable to other taxa and regions.

77 FR 28467 - Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-05-14

... online wherever practicable. Sec. 3. Setting Priorities. In implementing and improving their... regulatory priorities, to promote public participation in retrospective review, to modernize our regulatory..., agencies shall give priority, consistent with law, to those initiatives that will produce significant...

29 CFR 1990.133 - Publication.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

...) IDENTIFICATION, CLASSIFICATION, AND REGULATION OF POTENTIAL OCCUPATIONAL CARCINOGENS Priority Setting § 1990.133...) The Secretary shall publish the Priority Lists in the Federal Register at least every six months and... notice requesting information concerning the classification and establishment of priorities for...

A computational model of the human visual cortex

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Albus, James S.

2008-04-01

The brain is first and foremost a control system that is capable of building an internal representation of the external world, and using this representation to make decisions, set goals and priorities, formulate plans, and control behavior with intent to achieve its goals. The computational model proposed here assumes that this internal representation resides in arrays of cortical columns. More specifically, it models each cortical hypercolumn together with its underlying thalamic nuclei as a Fundamental Computational Unit (FCU) consisting of a frame-like data structure (containing attributes and pointers) plus the computational processes and mechanisms required to maintain it. In sensory-processing areas of the brain, FCUs enable segmentation, grouping, and classification. Pointers stored in FCU frames link pixels and signals to objects and events in situations and episodes that are overlaid with meaning and emotional values. In behavior-generating areas of the brain, FCUs make decisions, set goals and priorities, generate plans, and control behavior. Pointers are used to define rules, grammars, procedures, plans, and behaviors. It is suggested that it may be possible to reverse engineer the human brain at the FCU level of fidelity using nextgeneration massively parallel computer hardware and software. Key Words: computational modeling, human cortex, brain modeling, reverse engineering the brain, image processing, perception, segmentation, knowledge representation

Scheduling revisited workstations in integrated-circuit fabrication

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

Kline, Paul J.

1992-01-01

The cost of building new semiconductor wafer fabrication factories has grown rapidly, and a state-of-the-art fab may cost 250 million dollars or more. Obtaining an acceptable return on this investment requires high productivity from the fabrication facilities. This paper describes the Photo Dispatcher system which was developed to make machine-loading recommendations on a set of key fab machines. Dispatching policies that generally perform well in job shops (e.g., Shortest Remaining Processing Time) perform poorly for workstations such as photolithography which are visited several times by the same lot of silicon wafers. The Photo Dispatcher evaluates the history of workloads throughout the fab and identifies bottleneck areas. The scheduler then assigns priorities to lots depending on where they are headed after photolithography. These priorities are designed to avoid starving bottleneck workstations and to give preference to lots that are headed to areas where they can be processed with minimal waiting. Other factors considered by the scheduler to establish priorities are the nearness of a lot to the end of its process flow and the time that the lot has already been waiting in queue. Simulations that model the equipment and products in one of Texas Instrument's wafer fabs show the Photo Dispatcher can produce a 10 percent improvement in the time required to fabricate integrated circuits.

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT FOR DECISION MAKING IN LATIN AMERICA: GOOD PRACTICE PRINCIPLES.

PubMed

Pichon-Riviere, Andrés; Soto, Natalie C; Augustovski, Federico Ariel; García Martí, Sebastián; Sampietro-Colom, Laura

2018-06-11

The aim of this study was to identify good practice principles for health technology assessment (HTA) that are the most relevant and of highest priority for application in Latin America and to identify potential barriers to their implementation in the region. HTA good practice principles proposed at the international level were identified and then explored during a deliberative process in a forum of assessors, funders, and product manufacturers. Forty-two representatives from ten Latin American countries participated. Good practice principles proposed at the international level were considered valid and potentially relevant to Latin America. Five principles were identified as priority and with the greatest potential to be strengthened at this time: transparency in the production of HTA, involvement of relevant stakeholders in the HTA process, mechanisms to appeal decisions, clear priority-setting processes in HTA, and a clear link between HTA and decision making. The main challenge identified was to find a balance between the application of these principles and the available resources in a way that would not detract from the production of reports and adaptation to the needs of decision makers. The main recommendation was to progress gradually in strengthening HTA and its link to decision making by developing appropriate processes for each country, without trying to impose, in the short-term, standards taken from examples at the international level without adequate adaptation of these to local contexts.

Patient needs and research priorities in the enteral nutrition market - a quantitative prioritization analysis.

PubMed

Weenen, T C; Jentink, A; Pronker, E S; Commandeur, H R; Claassen, E; Boirie, Y; Singer, P

2014-10-01

A quantitative systematic identification and prioritization of unmet needs and research opportunities in relation to enteral nutrition was conducted by means of a tailor-made health research prioritization process. The research objectives were reached by conducting qualitative interviews followed by quantitative questionnaires targeting enteral nutrition key opinion leaders (KOLs). (1) Define disease areas that deserve more research attention; (2) Rank importance of product characteristics of tube feeding (TF) and oral nutritional supplements (ONS); (3) Assess involvement of KOLs in enteral nutrition R&D process. KOLs ranked three product characteristics and three disease areas that deserve additional research attention. From these, overall priority scores were calculated by multiplying ranks for both product characteristics and disease areas. 17 qualitative interviews were conducted and 77 questionnaires (response rate 35%) were completed and returned. (1) Disease areas in ONS and TF with highest priorities are: ONS: general malnutrition & geriatrics, TF: intensive care. (2) TF product characteristics with highest priorities are: composition and clinical evidence from a KOL perspective; tolerance and ease of use from a patient perspective. ONS product characteristics with highest priorities are: composition, clinical evidence and taste from a KOL perspective; taste from a patient perspective. We find a high discrepancy between product characteristic prioritization from a KOL and patient perspective. (3) Although 62% of all KOLs give advice to enteral nutrition companies on patient needs, they under-influence the setting of research priorities by enteral nutrition companies. This study provides a systematic approach to achieve research prioritization in enteral nutrition. In addition to providing new directions for enteral nutrition research and development, this study highlights the relevance of involving KOLs in the identification of research priorities as they have the ability to provide a balanced view of the unmet patient needs. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. All rights reserved.

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

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.

A Composite Network Approach for Assessing Multi-Species Connectivity: An Application to Road Defragmentation Prioritisation

PubMed Central

Saura, Santiago; Rondinini, Carlo

2016-01-01

One of the biggest challenges in large-scale conservation is quantifying connectivity at broad geographic scales and for a large set of species. Because connectivity analyses can be computationally intensive, and the planning process quite complex when multiple taxa are involved, assessing connectivity at large spatial extents for many species turns to be often intractable. Such limitation results in that conducted assessments are often partial by focusing on a few key species only, or are generic by considering a range of dispersal distances and a fixed set of areas to connect that are not directly linked to the actual spatial distribution or mobility of particular species. By using a graph theory framework, here we propose an approach to reduce computational effort and effectively consider large assemblages of species in obtaining multi-species connectivity priorities. We demonstrate the potential of the approach by identifying defragmentation priorities in the Italian road network focusing on medium and large terrestrial mammals. We show that by combining probabilistic species graphs prior to conducting the network analysis (i) it is possible to analyse connectivity once for all species simultaneously, obtaining conservation or restoration priorities that apply for the entire species assemblage; and that (ii) those priorities are well aligned with the ones that would be obtained by aggregating the results of separate connectivity analysis for each of the individual species. This approach offers great opportunities to extend connectivity assessments to large assemblages of species and broad geographic scales. PMID:27768718

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...

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...

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...

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.

Manufacturing in America: Crisis and Opportunity

DTIC Science & Technology

1993-04-01

Management November-December 1991: 39-45. 13 Chubb, John E. and Eric A. Hanushek . Setting National Priorities: Policy for the Nineties. Ed. Henry J. Aaron...A. Hanushek . Setting National Priorities: Policy for the Nineties. Ed. Henry J. Aaron. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution,1990. 16 ’Training

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...

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…

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.

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.

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

Priority interventions to improve maternal and child diets in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.

PubMed

Masters, William A; Rosettie, Katherine; Kranz, Sarah; Pedersen, Sarah H; Webb, Patrick; Danaei, Goodarz; Mozaffarian, Dariush

2018-04-01

Nutrition-sensitive interventions to improve overall diet quality are increasingly needed to improve maternal and child health. This study demonstrates feasibility of a structured process to leverage local expertise in formulating programmes tailored for current circumstances in South Asia and Africa. We assembled 41 stakeholders in 2 regional workshops and followed a prespecified protocol to elicit programme designs listing the human and other resources required, the intervention's mechanism for impact on diets, target foods and nutrients, target populations, and contact information for partners needed to implement the desired programme. Via this protocol, participants described 48 distinct interventions, which we then compared against international recommendations and global goals. Local stakeholders' priorities focused on postharvest food systems to improve access to nutrient-dense products (75% of the 48 programmes) and on production of animal sourced foods (58%), as well as education and social marketing (23%) and direct transfers to meet food needs (12.5%). Each programme included an average of 3.2 distinct elements aligned with those recommended by United Nations system agencies in the Framework for Action produced by the Second International Conference on Nutrition in 2014 and the Compendium of Actions for Nutrition developed for the Renewed Efforts Against Child Hunger initiative in 2016. Our results demonstrate that a participatory process can help local experts identify their own priorities for future investments, as a first step in a novel process of rigorous, transparent, and independent priority setting to improve diets among those at greatest risk of undernutrition. © 2017 The Authors. Maternal and Child Nutrition published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Priority interventions to improve maternal and child diets in Sub‐Saharan Africa and South Asia

PubMed Central

Masters, William A.; Rosettie, Katherine; Kranz, Sarah; Pedersen, Sarah H.; Webb, Patrick; Danaei, Goodarz; Adekugbe, Olayinka; Adhikar, Ramesh Kant; Amatya, Archana; Atomsa, Gudina Egata; Badham, Jane; Bhattacharjee, Lalita; Bhattarai, Manav; Baye, Kaleab; Beyero, Mesfin; Brahmbhatt, Viral; Chandrasekhar, S.; Chandyo, Ram Krishna; Christensen, Cheryl; Covic, Namukolo; Dalton, Babukiika; Desai, Sonalde; Dufour, Charlotte; Fracassi, Patrizia; Getahun, Zewditu; Gulati, Seema; Haidar, Jemal; Hailu, Tesfaye; Kapil, Umesh; Kazi‐Hutchins, Nabeeha; Kebede, Aweke; Kinabo, Joyce; Kussaga, Jamal Bakari; Levin, Carol; Mavrotas, George; Mehta, Ranju; Mohan, Sailesh; Mwanja, Wilson Waiswa; Oguntona, Babatunde; Oladipo, Abiodun; Oniang'o, Ruth; Paarlberg, Robert; Pandey Rana, Pooja; Prabhakaran, D.; Prakash, V.; Puri, Seema; Roy, S. K.; Sharma, Rekha; Shivakoti, Sabnam; Sibanda, Simbarashe; Sodjinou, Roger; Thorne‐Lyman, Andrew; Tom, Carol; Trilok‐Kumar, Geeta; Vosti, Steven; Wamani, Henry; Wendelin, Akwilina

2017-01-01

Abstract Nutrition‐sensitive interventions to improve overall diet quality are increasingly needed to improve maternal and child health. This study demonstrates feasibility of a structured process to leverage local expertise in formulating programmes tailored for current circumstances in South Asia and Africa. We assembled 41 stakeholders in 2 regional workshops and followed a prespecified protocol to elicit programme designs listing the human and other resources required, the intervention's mechanism for impact on diets, target foods and nutrients, target populations, and contact information for partners needed to implement the desired programme. Via this protocol, participants described 48 distinct interventions, which we then compared against international recommendations and global goals. Local stakeholders' priorities focused on postharvest food systems to improve access to nutrient‐dense products (75% of the 48 programmes) and on production of animal sourced foods (58%), as well as education and social marketing (23%) and direct transfers to meet food needs (12.5%). Each programme included an average of 3.2 distinct elements aligned with those recommended by United Nations system agencies in the Framework for Action produced by the Second International Conference on Nutrition in 2014 and the Compendium of Actions for Nutrition developed for the Renewed Efforts Against Child Hunger initiative in 2016. Our results demonstrate that a participatory process can help local experts identify their own priorities for future investments, as a first step in a novel process of rigorous, transparent, and independent priority setting to improve diets among those at greatest risk of undernutrition. PMID:28971572

Assessing and Improving Performance: A Longitudinal Evaluation of Priority Setting and Resource Allocation in a Canadian Health Region

PubMed Central

Hall, William; Smith, Neale; Mitton, Craig; Urquhart, Bonnie; Bryan, Stirling

2018-01-01

Background: In order to meet the challenges presented by increasing demand and scarcity of resources, healthcare organizations are faced with difficult decisions related to resource allocation. Tools to facilitate evaluation and improvement of these processes could enable greater transparency and more optimal distribution of resources. Methods: The Resource Allocation Performance Assessment Tool (RAPAT) was implemented in a healthcare organization in British Columbia, Canada. Recommendations for improvement were delivered, and a follow up evaluation exercise was conducted to assess the trajectory of the organization’s priority setting and resource allocation (PSRA) process 2 years post the original evaluation. Results: Implementation of RAPAT in the pilot organization identified strengths and weaknesses of the organization’s PSRA process at the time of the original evaluation. Strengths included the use of criteria and evidence, an ability to reallocate resources, and the involvement of frontline staff in the process. Weaknesses included training, communication, and lack of program budgeting. Although the follow up revealed a regression from a more formal PSRA process, a legacy of explicit resource allocation was reported to be providing ongoing benefit for the organization. Conclusion: While past studies have taken a cross-sectional approach, this paper introduces the first longitudinal evaluation of PSRA in a healthcare organization. By including the strengths, weaknesses, and evolution of one organization’s journey, the authors’ intend that this paper will assist other healthcare leaders in meeting the challenges of allocating scarce resources. PMID:29626400

Grid Computing in K-12 Schools. Soapbox Digest. Volume 3, Number 2, Fall 2004

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

AEL, 2004

2004-01-01

Grid computing allows large groups of computers (either in a lab, or remote and connected only by the Internet) to extend extra processing power to each individual computer to work on components of a complex request. Grid middleware, recognizing priorities set by systems administrators, allows the grid to identify and use this power without…

The Use of Nominal Group Technique: Case Study in Vietnam

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Dang, Vi Hoang

2015-01-01

The Nominal Group Technique (NGT) is a structured process to gather information from a group. The technique was first described in early 1970s and has since become a widely-used standard to facilitate working groups. The NGT is effective for generating large numbers of creative new ideas and for group priority setting. This article reports on a…

Implementing Writing Support Circles with Adult Learners in a Nonformal Education Setting: Priority, Practice, and Process

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Plakhotnik, Maria S.; Rocco, Tonette S.

2012-01-01

Most students come to their graduate programs with academic writing skills insufficient to excel in their studies. A lack of academic writing skills among graduate students has been a problem in a college of education at a large southeastern public research university where the project described in this article was implemented. To address this…

The Budget and Priority Setting Process--Los Angeles Community College District.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Koltai, Leslie

The nine-college Los Angeles Community College District, which has an enrollment of 135,000 and a payroll of 11,000 and which receives 80% of its operating budget from local property taxes, faced post-Proposition 13 cutbacks of 52% of its non-restricted operating revenue. Three types of alternative budgets based on state funding possibilities were…

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...

The unethical focus on access: a study of medical ethics and the waiting-time guarantee.

PubMed

Karlberg, H I; Brinkmo, B-M

2009-03-01

All civilized societies favour ethical principles of equity. In healthcare, these principles generally focus on needs for medical care. Methods for establishing priorities among such needs are instrumental in this process. In this study, we analysed whether rules on access to healthcare, waiting-time guarantees, conflict with ethical principles of distributive justice. We interviewed directors, managers and other decision-makers of various healthcare providers of hospitals, primary care organizations and purchasing offices. We also conducted focus group interviews with professionals from a number of distinct medical areas. Our informants and their co-workers were reasonably familiar with the ethical platforms for priority-setting established by the Swedish parliament, giving the sickest patients complete priority. However, to satisfy the waiting-time guarantees, the informants often had to make priority decisions contrary to the ethical principles by favouring access before needs to keep waiting times within certain limits. The common opinion was that the waiting-time guarantee leads to crowding-out effects, overruling the ethical principles based on needs. For more than a decade, the interpretation in Sweden of the equitable principle based on medical needs has been distorted through political decisions, leading to healthcare providers giving priority to access rather than needs for care.

An agenda for change in referral--consensus from general practice.

PubMed Central

McColl, E; Newton, J; Hutchinson, A

1994-01-01

BACKGROUND. Wide variations in rates of referral from primary to secondary care have been a matter of concern for many years. Effective strategies for optimizing referral depend on doctors being able to understand what the influences on their referral behaviour are, as well as having the ability to identify priority areas for action and to develop strategies for pushing through effective measures. AIM. This study set out to ascertain general practitioners' priorities for change with respect to the referral process, and to set an agenda for change to be tackled by general practitioners, providers, policy makers and educationalists. METHOD. Through the use of the Delphi technique and focused interviews, general practitioners throughout Northumberland contributed to the consensus view. RESULTS. The main themes to emerge related to hospital waiting lists, open access, flow of information between secondary and primary care and general practitioners' knowledge and training. Ideas for implementing change included the production of directories of hospital services and the development of guidelines for the use of the term 'urgent' in referral letters. CONCLUSION. All of the proposed changes are manageable and share the burden between general practice and other professionals with an interest in the referral process. PMID:8185989

Research, Development and Demonstration (RD&D) Needs for Light Water Reactor (LWR) Technologies A Report to the Reactor Technology Subcommittee of the Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee (NEAC) Office of Nuclear Energy U.S. Department of Energy

DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

McCarthy, Kathryn A.; Adams, Bradley J.

The LWR RD&D Working Group developed a detailed list of RD&D suggestions and recommendations, which are provided in Appendix D. The Working Group then undertook a systematic ranking process, described in Appendix E. The results of the ranking process are not meant to be a strict set of priorities, but rather should provide insight into how the items generally ranked within the Working Group. Future discussions and investigation into these items could provide information that would support a change in these priorities or in their emphasis. The results of this prioritization are provided below. Note that in general, many RD&Dmore » ideas are applicable to both new Advanced Light Water Reactor (ALWR) plants and currently operating plants.« less

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

Research and its governance in health research institutions in sub-Saharan African countries: results of a questionnaire-based survey.

PubMed

Kebede, Derege; Zielinski, Chris; Mbondji, Peter Ebongue; Sanou, Issa; Kouvividila, Wenceslas; Lusamba-Dikassa, Paul-Samson

2014-05-01

Objective: To describe governance and stewardship of research in health research institutions in the World Health Organization (WHO) African Region. Design: A structured questionnaire was used to solicit information on governance and stewardship from health research institutions. Setting: Forty-two Member States of the WHO African Region. Participants: Key informants from the respondent health research institutions in the respondent sub-Saharan African countries. Main outcome measures: Institutions' participation in setting the national health research agenda. Institutional research priorities, scientific reviews and governance structure. Results: During the previous 12 months, the heads of 49% of respondent health research institutions participated in the setting or coordination of national research priorities. The most frequently cited priorities for contributing to or performing research were improving health programmes, producing new knowledge, influencing health policies and conducting operational research. For 78% of respondent institutions, scientific review was required for research funded directly by the institution, and for 73% of respondent institutions, scientific review was required for research not funded by the institution. However, most respondent institutions did not have written policies or guidelines, either for the scientific review of proposals (70%) or regarding conflict of interest on scientific review committees (80%). Conclusions: Some health research institutions demonstrate good practice in terms of the establishment of structures and processes for governance and stewardship, many others do not. There is a need for the strengthening of the stewardship capacity of research institutions in the Region. © The Royal Society of Medicine.

Research and its governance in health research institutions in sub-Saharan African countries: results of a questionnaire-based survey

PubMed Central

Zielinski, Chris; Mbondji, Peter Ebongue; Sanou, Issa; Kouvividila, Wenceslas; Lusamba-Dikassa, Paul-Samson

2014-01-01

Summary Objective: To describe governance and stewardship of research in health research institutions in the World Health Organization (WHO) African Region. Design: A structured questionnaire was used to solicit information on governance and stewardship from health research institutions. Setting: Forty-two Member States of the WHO African Region. Participants: Key informants from the respondent health research institutions in the respondent sub-Saharan African countries. Main outcome measures: Institutions’ participation in setting the national health research agenda. Institutional research priorities, scientific reviews and governance structure. Results: During the previous 12 months, the heads of 49% of respondent health research institutions participated in the setting or coordination of national research priorities. The most frequently cited priorities for contributing to or performing research were improving health programmes, producing new knowledge, influencing health policies and conducting operational research. For 78% of respondent institutions, scientific review was required for research funded directly by the institution, and for 73% of respondent institutions, scientific review was required for research not funded by the institution. However, most respondent institutions did not have written policies or guidelines, either for the scientific review of proposals (70%) or regarding conflict of interest on scientific review committees (80%). Conclusions: Some health research institutions demonstrate good practice in terms of the establishment of structures and processes for governance and stewardship, many others do not. There is a need for the strengthening of the stewardship capacity of research institutions in the Region. PMID:24914129

Completeness of tuberculosis reporting forms for disease control in individuals with HIV/AIDS in priority cities of Bahia state.

PubMed

Lírio, Monique; dos Santos, Normeide Pedreira; Passos, Louran Andrade Reis; Kritski, Afrânio; Galvão-Castro, Bernardo; Grassi, Maria Fernanda Rios

2015-04-01

The control of HIV / Tuberculosis (TB) co -infection remains a challenge for public health. Notification is mandatory for both diseases and the National Case Registry Database (Sinan) is responsible for the collection and processing of individual forms of reporting and monitoring. The adequate fulfillment of these fields chips (completeness) is essential to follow the dynamics of the disease and set priorities for intervention. The aim of this study was to evaluate the completeness of the notification forms of tuberculosis in the priority municipalities of Bahia (Camaçari , Feira de Santana , Ilhéus , Itabuna, Jequié, Lauro de Freitas , Porto Seguro , Teixeira de Freitas , Paulo Afonso, Barreiras and Salvador) to control the disease in individuals with HIV/AIDS using tabulations obtained from the Sinan in the period from 2001 to 2010. The results showed that despite the completeness of the field HIV be above 50 %, more than half the cases were met as "undone" or "being processed" in all municipalities assessed in the period. The low completeness of reporting forms may compromise the quality of surveillance of TB cases. The results suggest the need for greater availability of HIV testing in these individuals.

SU-E-T-551: Monitor Unit Optimization in Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Stage I Lung Cancer

DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

Huang, B-T; Lu, J-Y

2015-06-15

Purpose: The study aims to reduce the monitor units (MUs) in the stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) treatment for lung cancer by adjusting the optimizing parameters. Methods: Fourteen patients suffered from stage I Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) were enrolled. Three groups of parameters were adjusted to investigate their effects on MU numbers and organs at risk (OARs) sparing: (1) the upper objective of planning target volume (UOPTV); (2) strength setting in the MU constraining objective; (3) max MU setting in the MU constraining objective. Results: We found that the parameters in the optimizer influenced the MU numbers in amore » priority, strength and max MU dependent manner. MU numbers showed a decreasing trend with the UOPTV increasing. MU numbers with low, medium and high priority for the UOPTV were 428±54, 312±48 and 258±31 MU/Gy, respectively. High priority for UOPTV also spared the heart, cord and lung while maintaining comparable PTV coverage than the low and medium priority group. It was observed that MU numbers tended to decrease with the strength increasing and max MU setting decreasing. With maximum strength, the MU numbers reached its minimum while maintaining comparable or improved dose to the normal tissues. It was also found that the MU numbers continued to decline at 85% and 75% max MU setting but no longer to decrease at 50% and 25%. Combined with high priority for UOPTV and MU constraining objectives, the MU numbers can be decreased as low as 223±26 MU/Gy. Conclusion:: The priority of UOPTV, MU constraining objective in the optimizer impact on the MU numbers in SBRT treatment for lung cancer. Giving high priority to the UOPTV, setting the strength to maximum value and the max MU to 50% in the MU objective achieves the lowest MU numbers while maintaining comparable or improved OAR sparing.« less

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...

36 CFR 230.4 - State program administration.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

... and set priorities for achieving the goals and objectives identified for the State for each year. (2... planting, maintenance, and improvement, and other high priority practices within the State that will result... appropriate Service Representative; (9) Guidelines for establishing annual priorities for the approval of...

45 CFR 1620.1 - Purpose.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-10-01

... Regulations Relating to Public Welfare (Continued) LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION PRIORITIES IN USE OF RESOURCES § 1620.1 Purpose. This part is designed to provide guidance to recipients for setting priorities and to ensure that a recipient's governing body adopts written priorities for the types of cases and matters...

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.

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 survey and workshop.

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.

A framework for multi-stakeholder decision-making and ...

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

We propose a decision-making framework to compute compromise solutions that balance conflicting priorities of multiple stakeholders on multiple objectives. In our setting, we shape the stakeholder dis-satisfaction distribution by solving a conditional-value-at-risk (CVaR) minimization problem. The CVaR problem is parameterized by a probability level that shapes the tail of the dissatisfaction distribution. The proposed approach allows us to compute a family of compromise solutions and generalizes multi-stakeholder settings previously proposed in the literature that minimize average and worst-case dissatisfactions. We use the concept of the CVaR norm to give a geometric interpretation to this problem +and use the properties of this norm to prove that the CVaR minimization problem yields Pareto optimal solutions for any choice of the probability level. We discuss a broad range of potential applications of the framework that involve complex decision-making processes. We demonstrate the developments using a biowaste facility location case study in which we seek to balance stakeholder priorities on transportation, safety, water quality, and capital costs. This manuscript describes the methodology of a new decision-making framework that computes compromise solutions that balance conflicting priorities of multiple stakeholders on multiple objectives as needed for SHC Decision Science and Support Tools project. A biowaste facility location is employed as the case study

A movement, a spirit, a lifestyle change.

PubMed

Eberlee, J

1994-04-01

The Philippines' Department of Health (DOH) has found that young children face the most risk of pneumonia and other respiratory infections. Those from areas not served by physicians face the greatest risk. During the 1980s, DOH set up a 5-year pilot project in 8 rural areas in the southern Philippines to see whether midwives could diagnose and treat acute respiratory infections (ARIs). The midwives used a simple diagnostic method (WHO/ARI algorithm) based on two ARI signs: a respiratory rate of at least 50 breaths/minute and an indrawn chest. An indrawn chest indicated a need to refer a child to the hospital. The midwives did well at diagnosing and treating ARIs. DOH has since introduced the algorithm nationwide. This research addressed an important problem and was well planned and implemented. IDRC and the Council on Health Research for Development in Geneva sponsors the Essential National Health Research (ENHR) initiative in the Philippines. The ENHR strategy aims to better people's health by establishing priorities among different health problems. After priority setting, a participatory process involving communities, researchers, and policy and decision makers determines the relevant research questions. ENHR should result in better, more effective, and more equitable health care and reduce the burden of illness. The first ENHR agenda includes the following research priorities: impact of indigenous beliefs and practices on health; baseline epidemiologic studies on mental health problems; infectious diseases (especially tuberculosis); evaluation of implementation of national health programs; and development of strategies to encourage rational use of drugs in hospitals. It took more than 2 years to agree on these priorities--a complicated and democratic process. The next step is to obtain funding for these projects. The ENHR project wants to attempt advocacy work--creating demand for research and preparing policy makers for the data. Its goal is to be a catalyst in the revolution of health research.

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.

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/AIDS including a better understanding of the pathways through which alcohol use affects ARV adherence (and other medications to treat opportunistic infections) and CD4 counts. The results of this process clearly indicated that the important priorities for future research related to the development and assessment of interventions focusing on addressing alcohol and HIV/AIDS, addressing and exploring the impact of HIV risk and comorbid alcohol use, as well as exploring the risk and protective factors in the field of alcohol and HIV/AIDS. The findings from this priority setting exercise could guide international research agenda and make research funding more effective in addressing the research on intersection of alcohol and HIV/AIDS.

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…

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

What is the problem and why is this important? Mini-strokes are similar to full strokes, but symptoms last less than 24 h. Many people (up to 70%) have long-term problems after a mini-stroke, such as anxiety; depression; problems with brain functioning (like memory loss); and fatigue (feeling tired). However, the current healthcare pathway only focuses on preventing another stroke and care for other long-term problems is not routinely given. Without proper treatment, people with long-term problems after a mini-stroke could have worse quality of life and may find it difficult to return to work and their social activities. What is the aim of the research? We wanted to understand the research priorities of patients, health care professionals and key stakeholders relating to the long-term impact of mini-stroke. How did we address the problem? We invited patients, clinicians, researchers and other stakeholders to attend a meeting. At the meeting people discussed the issues relating to the long-term impact of mini-stroke and came to an agreement on their research priorities. There were three stages: (1) people wrote down their individual research suggestions; (2) in smaller groups people came to an agreement on what their top research questions were; and (3) the whole group agreed final research priorities. What did we find? Eleven people attended who were representatives for patients, GPs, stroke consultants, stroke nurses, psychologists, the Stroke Association (charity) and stroke researchers, The group agreed on eleven research questions which they felt were the most important to improve health and well-being for people who have had a mini-stroke.The eleven 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; 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; and education/training for health care professionals. Conclusions Eleven different research priorities were established through stakeholder-centred consensus. These research questions could usefully inform the research agenda and policy decisions for TIA and minor stroke. Inclusion of stakeholders in setting research priorities is important to increase the relevance of research and reduce research waste.

34 CFR 74.11 - Pre-award policies.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

... services for the direct benefit or use of the Federal Government. (b) Public notice and priority setting. The Secretary notifies the public of intended funding priorities for discretionary grant programs, unless funding priorities are established by Federal statute. (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 3474; OMB...

45 CFR 1620.5 - Annual review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-10-01

... Welfare Regulations Relating to Public Welfare (Continued) LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION PRIORITIES IN USE OF RESOURCES § 1620.5 Annual review. (a) Priorities shall be set periodically and shall be reviewed by the... number of emergency cases outside of its priorities. (b) The following factors should be among those...

75 FR 34249 - Centers for Independent Living Program-Training and Technical Assistance

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-06-16

... rural settings. To meet this priority, applicants must demonstrate all of the following in their... and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education. ACTION: Notice of final priority. SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services announces a priority under the Centers...

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

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.

Protecting Biodiversity when Money Matters: Maximizing Return on Investment

PubMed Central

Underwood, Emma C.; Shaw, M. Rebecca; Wilson, Kerrie A.; Kareiva, Peter; Klausmeyer, Kirk R.; McBride, Marissa F.; Bode, Michael; Morrison, Scott A.; Hoekstra, Jonathan M.; Possingham, Hugh P.

2008-01-01

Background Conventional wisdom identifies biodiversity hotspots as priorities for conservation investment because they capture dense concentrations of species. However, density of species does not necessarily imply conservation ‘efficiency’. Here we explicitly consider conservation efficiency in terms of species protected per dollar invested. Methodology/Principal Findings We apply a dynamic return on investment approach to a global biome and compare it with three alternate priority setting approaches and a random allocation of funding. After twenty years of acquiring habitat, the return on investment approach protects between 32% and 69% more species compared to the other priority setting approaches. To correct for potential inefficiencies of protecting the same species multiple times we account for the complementarity of species, protecting up to three times more distinct vertebrate species than alternate approaches. Conclusions/Significance Incorporating costs in a return on investment framework expands priorities to include areas not traditionally highlighted as priorities based on conventional irreplaceability and vulnerability approaches. PMID:18231601

Realizing Universal Health Coverage in East Africa: the relevance of human rights.

PubMed

Yamin, Alicia Ely; Maleche, Allan

2017-08-03

Applying a robust human rights framework would change thinking and decision-making in efforts to achieve Universal Health Coverage (UHC), and advance efforts to promote women's, children's, and adolescents' health in East Africa, which is a priority under the Sustainable Development Agenda. Nevertheless, there is a gap between global rhetoric of human rights and ongoing health reform efforts. This debate article seeks to fill part of that gap by setting out principles of human rights-based approaches (HRBAs), and then applying those principles to questions that countries undertaking efforts toward UHC and promoting women's, children's and adolescents' health, will need to face, focusing in particular on ensuring enabling legal and policy frameworks, establishing fair financing; priority-setting processes, and meaningful oversight and accountability mechanisms. In a region where democratic institutions are notoriously weak, we argue that the explicit application of a meaningful human rights framework could enhance equity, participation and accountability, and in turn the democratic legitimacy of health reform initiatives being undertaken in the region.

The legacy of the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI).

PubMed

Black, Robert E

2016-06-01

Under the Global Forum for Health Research, the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) began its operations in 1999 and became a Swiss foundation in 2006. The vision of CHNRI was to improve child health and nutrition of all children in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) through research that informs health policy and practice. Specific objectives included expanding global knowledge on childhood disease burden and cost-effectiveness of interventions, promoting priority setting in research, ensuring inclusion of institutions and scientists in LMIC in setting priorities, promoting capacity development in LMIC and stimulating donors and countries to increase resources for research. CHNRI created a knowledge network, funded research through multiple rounds of a global competitive process and published research papers and policy briefs. A signature effort was to develop a systematic methodology for prioritizing health and nutrition research investments. The "CHNRI method" has been extensively applied to global health problems and is now the most commonly used method for prioritizing health research questions.

Eliciting health care priorities in developing countries: experimental evidence from Guatemala.

PubMed

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

2016-02-01

Although some methods for eliciting preferences to assist participatory priority setting in health care in developed countries are available, the same is not true for poor communities in developing countries whose preferences are neglected in health policy making. Existing methods grounded on self-interested, monetary valuations that may be inappropriate for developing country settings where community care is provided through 'social allocation' mechanisms. This paper proposes and examines an alternative methodology for eliciting preferences for health care programmes specifically catered for rural and less literate populations but which is still applicable in urban communities. Specifically, the method simulates a realistic collective budget allocation experiment, to be implemented in both rural and urban communities in Guatemala. We report evidence revealing that participatory budget-like experiments are incentive compatible mechanisms suitable for revealing collective preferences, while simultaneously having the advantage of involving communities in health care reform processes. © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

Shopping for health: purchasing health services through contracts.

PubMed

Howden-Chapman, P; Ashton, T

1994-01-01

The 1993 New Zealand health service reforms were based on the purported efficiencies of the purchaser/provider split. Purchasers are required to contract for services that will maintain, improve and restore the health of the populations they serve. The purchasing role, which requires the development of contracting skills as well as the setting of strategic directions and priorities, is new and as yet poorly developed. This paper describes the role of purchasing agents in setting priorities, the different approaches that are being taken to contracting for services and some of the problems that have arisen in the first year of contracting. It explores the trade-off that is evident between the potential for improving efficiency through contestable contracting and the need to minimise transaction costs associated with the contracting process. The purchasers' accountability to the public and the Minister is analysed in the broader political context of the purchasers' role in shaping a public health service and improving the health of the population.

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 engagement, and provided a concrete plan to operationalize a strategy for improving public involvement in this, and other, wait time initiatives.

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) with special attention to public engagement, and provided a concrete plan to operationalize a strategy for improving public involvement in this, and other, wait time initiatives. PMID:18021393

38 CFR 61.44 - Awarding special needs grants.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

...) Applicants will first be grouped in categories according to the funding priorities set forth in the NOFA, if... highest-ranked applications for which funding is available, within highest priority funding category if... order, as determined under § 61.43 of this part. If funding priorities have been established and funds...

38 CFR 61.32 - Ranking non-capital grant recipients for per diem.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

... Availability will be reviewed and grouped in categories according to the funding priorities set forth in the... available, within highest priority funding category if applicable, will be conditionally selected for eligibility to receive per diem payments in accordance with their ranked order. If funding priorities have...

38 CFR 61.54 - Awarding technical assistance grants.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

...) Applicants will first be grouped in categories according to the funding priorities set forth in the NOFA, if... highest-ranked applications for which funding is available, within highest priority funding category if... ranked order, as determined under § 61.53 of this part. If funding priorities have been established and...

38 CFR 61.14 - Selecting applications for capital grants.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

... capital grants. (a) Applicants will first be grouped in categories according to the funding priorities set... applicable. The highest-ranked applications for which funding is available, within highest priority funding... ranked order, as determined under § 61.13 of this part. If funding priorities have been established and...

Systematic reviews addressing identified health policy priorities in Eastern Mediterranean countries: a situational analysis.

PubMed

El-Jardali, Fadi; Akl, Elie A; Karroum, Lama Bou; Kdouh, Ola; Akik, Chaza; Fadlallah, Racha; Hammoud, Rawan

2014-08-20

Systematic reviews can offer policymakers and stakeholders concise, transparent, and relevant evidence pertaining to pressing policy priorities to help inform the decision-making process. The production and the use of systematic reviews are specifically limited in the Eastern Mediterranean region. The extent to which published systematic reviews address policy priorities in the region is still unknown. This situational analysis exercise aims at assessing the extent to which published systematic reviews address policy priorities identified by policymakers and stakeholders in Eastern Mediterranean region countries. It also provides an overview about the state of systematic review production in the region and identifies knowledge gaps. We conducted a systematic search of the Health System Evidence database to identify published systematic reviews on policy-relevant priorities pertaining to the following themes: human resources for health, health financing, the role of the non-state sector, and access to medicine. Priorities were identified from two priority-setting exercises conducted in the region. We described the distribution of these systematic reviews across themes, sub-themes, authors' affiliations, and countries where included primary studies were conducted. Out of the 1,045 systematic reviews identified in Health System Evidence on selected themes, a total of 200 systematic reviews (19.1%) addressed the priorities from the Eastern Mediterranean region. The theme with the largest number of systematic reviews included was human resources for health (115) followed by health financing (33), access to medicine (27), and role of the non-state sector (25). Authors based in the region produced only three systematic reviews addressing regional priorities (1.5%). Furthermore, no systematic review focused on the Eastern Mediterranean region. Primary studies from the region had limited contribution to systematic reviews; 17 systematic reviews (8.5%) included primary studies conducted in the region. There are still gaps in the production of systematic reviews addressing policymakers' and stakeholders' priorities in the Eastern Mediterranean region. Efforts should be directed towards better aligning systematic review production with policy needs and priorities. Study findings can inform the agendas of researchers, research institutions, and international funding agencies of priority areas where systematic reviews are required.

Systematic reviews addressing identified health policy priorities in Eastern Mediterranean countries: a situational analysis

PubMed Central

2014-01-01

Background Systematic reviews can offer policymakers and stakeholders concise, transparent, and relevant evidence pertaining to pressing policy priorities to help inform the decision-making process. The production and the use of systematic reviews are specifically limited in the Eastern Mediterranean region. The extent to which published systematic reviews address policy priorities in the region is still unknown. This situational analysis exercise aims at assessing the extent to which published systematic reviews address policy priorities identified by policymakers and stakeholders in Eastern Mediterranean region countries. It also provides an overview about the state of systematic review production in the region and identifies knowledge gaps. Methods We conducted a systematic search of the Health System Evidence database to identify published systematic reviews on policy-relevant priorities pertaining to the following themes: human resources for health, health financing, the role of the non-state sector, and access to medicine. Priorities were identified from two priority-setting exercises conducted in the region. We described the distribution of these systematic reviews across themes, sub-themes, authors’ affiliations, and countries where included primary studies were conducted. Results Out of the 1,045 systematic reviews identified in Health System Evidence on selected themes, a total of 200 systematic reviews (19.1%) addressed the priorities from the Eastern Mediterranean region. The theme with the largest number of systematic reviews included was human resources for health (115) followed by health financing (33), access to medicine (27), and role of the non-state sector (25). Authors based in the region produced only three systematic reviews addressing regional priorities (1.5%). Furthermore, no systematic review focused on the Eastern Mediterranean region. Primary studies from the region had limited contribution to systematic reviews; 17 systematic reviews (8.5%) included primary studies conducted in the region. Conclusions There are still gaps in the production of systematic reviews addressing policymakers’ and stakeholders’ priorities in the Eastern Mediterranean region. Efforts should be directed towards better aligning systematic review production with policy needs and priorities. Study findings can inform the agendas of researchers, research institutions, and international funding agencies of priority areas where systematic reviews are required. PMID:25139256

The Beauty of the Acronym!: "Good Management Begins with Good People"

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Vicars, Dennis

2010-01-01

Acronyms are not only short and catchy, but they may also help one to quickly hone in on what's important and to set priorities. In a field that seems to bask in process, over-analysis, and repeated discussion, the acronym "cuts to the chase" and keeps everyone on the same page. The last Management Maxim column ("Exchange," March/April 2010)…

A Needs Assessment to Identify the Reality of Two Rural School Cases in South Africa: Potential for ICT4D or Not?

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Pade-Khene, C.

2012-01-01

Understanding the potential or need for ICT support in education within developing countries, requires an in-depth needs assessment to comprehend, elaborate and set the desired priorities of rural schools. A Needs Assessment was conducted as part of an on-going comprehensive evaluation process of an ICT for development project, the Siyakhula…

Goals for Business Operations and Family Life. The Retailer's Tool Kit and Instructor's Guide. North Central Regional Extension Publications #285 and #288.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Gessaman, Paul H.

This packet contains student materials and an instructor's guide for use in a series of workshops on the "GOALS Process" for persons in retail businesses. The materials provide a framework for individual or family use in self-assessment and a means of identifying business and family life goals, setting priorities, and developing management…

Using Task Clarification, Goal Setting, and Feedback to Decrease Table Busing Times in a Franchise Pizza Restaurant

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Amigo, Seth; Smith, Andrew; Ludwig, Timothy

2008-01-01

The current study investigated the effects of task-clarification, and manager verbal and graphic feedback on employee busing times at a pizza restaurant. Using an ABC design, task-clarification was provided in a memo, which described the process, priority, and goal time of busing. The busing time decreased slightly, from an average of 315 seconds…

Chronic condition self-management surveillance: what is and what should be measured?

PubMed

Ruiz, Sarah; Brady, Teresa J; Glasgow, Russell E; Birkel, Richard; Spafford, Michelle

2014-06-19

The rapid growth in chronic disease prevalence, in particular the prevalence of multiple chronic conditions, poses a significant and increasing burden on the health of Americans. Maximizing the use of proven self-management (SM) strategies is a core goal of the US Department of Health and Human Services. Yet, there is no systematic way to assess how much SM or self-management support (SMS) is occurring in the United States. The purpose of this project was to identify appropriate concepts or measures to incorporate into national SM and SMS surveillance. A multistep process was used to identify candidate concepts, assess existing measures, and select high-priority concepts for further development. A stakeholder survey, an environmental scan, subject matter expert feedback, and a stakeholder priority-setting exercise were all used to select the high-priority concepts for development. The stakeholder survey gathered feedback on 32 candidate concepts; 9 concepts were endorsed by more than 66% of respondents. The environmental scan indicated few existing measures that adequately reflected the candidate concepts, and those that were identified were generally specific to a defined condition and not gathered on a population basis. On the basis of the priority setting exercises and environmental scan, we selected 1 concept from each of 5 levels of behavioral influence for immediate development as an SM or SMS indicator. The absence of any available measures to assess SM or SMS across the population highlights the need to develop chronic condition SM surveillance that uses national surveys and other data sources to measure national progress in SM and SMS.

Communicable Diseases Prioritized for Surveillance and Epidemiological Research: Results of a Standardized Prioritization Procedure in Germany, 2011

PubMed Central

Balabanova, Yanina; Gilsdorf, Andreas; Buda, Silke; Burger, Reinhard; Eckmanns, Tim; Gärtner, Barbara; Groß, Uwe; Haas, Walter; Hamouda, Osamah; Hübner, Johannes; Jänisch, Thomas; Kist, Manfred; Kramer, Michael H.; Ledig, Thomas; Mielke, Martin; Pulz, Matthias; Stark, Klaus; Suttorp, Norbert; Ulbrich, Uta; Wichmann, Ole; Krause, Gérard

2011-01-01

Introduction To establish strategic priorities for the German national public health institute (RKI) and guide the institute's mid-term strategic decisions, we prioritized infectious pathogens in accordance with their importance for national surveillance and epidemiological research. Methods We used the Delphi process with internal (RKI) and external experts and a metric-consensus approach to score pathogens according to ten three-tiered criteria. Additional experts were invited to weight each criterion, leading to the calculation of a median weight by which each score was multiplied. We ranked the pathogens according to the total weighted score and divided them into four priority groups. Results 127 pathogens were scored. Eighty-six experts participated in the weighting; “Case fatality rate” was rated as the most important criterion. Twenty-six pathogens were ranked in the highest priority group; among those were pathogens with internationally recognised importance (e.g., Human Immunodeficiency Virus, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Influenza virus, Hepatitis C virus, Neisseria meningitides), pathogens frequently causing large outbreaks (e.g., Campylobacter spp.), and nosocomial pathogens associated with antimicrobial resistance. Other pathogens in the highest priority group included Helicobacter pylori, Respiratory Syncytial Virus, Varicella zoster virus and Hantavirus. Discussion While several pathogens from the highest priority group already have a high profile in national and international health policy documents, high scores for other pathogens (e.g., Helicobacter pylori, Respiratory syncytial virus or Hantavirus) indicate a possible under-recognised importance within the current German public health framework. A process to strengthen respective surveillance systems and research has been started. The prioritization methodology has worked well; its modular structure makes it potentially useful for other settings. PMID:21991334

The World Starts With Me: using intervention mapping for the systematic adaptation and transfer of school-based sexuality education from Uganda to Indonesia.

PubMed

Leerlooijer, Joanne N; Ruiter, Robert A C; Reinders, Jo; Darwisyah, Wati; Kok, Gerjo; Bartholomew, L Kay

2011-06-01

Evidence-based health promotion programmes, including HIV/AIDS prevention and sexuality education programmes, are often transferred to other cultures, priority groups and implementation settings. Challenges in this process include the identification of retaining core elements that relate to the programme's effectiveness while making changes that enhances acceptance in the new context and for the new priority group. This paper describes the use of a systematic approach to programme adaptation using a case study as an example. Intervention Mapping, a protocol for the development of evidence-based behaviour change interventions, was used to adapt the comprehensive school-based sexuality education programme 'The World Starts With Me'. The programme was developed for a priority population in Uganda and adapted to a programme for Indonesian secondary school students. The approach helped to systematically address the complexity and challenges of programme adaptation and to find a balance between preservation of essential programme elements (i.e. logic models) that may be crucial to the programme's effectiveness, including key objectives and theoretical behaviour change methods, and the adaptation of the programme to be acceptable to the new priority group and the programme implementers.

The 50 Most Important Questions Relating to the Maintenance and Restoration of an Ecological Continuum in the European Alps

PubMed Central

Walzer, Chris; Kowalczyk, Christine; Alexander, Jake M.; Baur, Bruno; Bogliani, Giuseppe; Brun, Jean-Jacques; Füreder, Leopold; Guth, Marie-Odile; Haller, Ruedi; Holderegger, Rolf; Kohler, Yann; Kueffer, Christoph; Righetti, Antonio; Spaar, Reto; Sutherland, William J.; Ullrich-Schneider, Aurelia; Vanpeene-Bruhier, Sylvie N.; Scheurer, Thomas

2013-01-01

The European Alps harbour a unique and species-rich biodiversity, which is increasingly impacted by habitat fragmentation through land-use changes, urbanization and expanding transport infrastructure. In this study, we identified the 50 most important questions relating to the maintenance and restoration of an ecological continuum – the connectedness of ecological processes across many scales including trophic relationship and disturbance processes and hydro-ecological flows in the European Alps. We initiated and implemented a trans-national priority setting exercise, inviting 48 institutions including researchers, conservation practitioners, NGOs, policymakers and administrators from the Alpine region. The exercise was composed of an initial call for pertinent questions, a first online evaluation of the received questions and a final discussion and selection process during a joint workshop. The participating institutions generated 484 initial questions, which were condensed to the 50 most important questions by 16 workshop participants. We suggest new approaches in tackling the issue of an ecological continuum in the Alps by analysing and classifying the characteristics of the resulting questions in a non-prioritized form as well as in a visual conceptualisation of the inter-dependencies among these questions. This priority setting exercise will support research and funding institutions in channelling their capacities and resources towards questions that need to be urgently addressed in order to facilitate significant progress in biodiversity conservation in the European Alps. PMID:23341928

Priority issues for pressure injury research: An Australian consensus study.

PubMed

Haesler, Emily; Carville, Keryln; Haesler, Paul

2018-06-08

Pressure injuries are a significant health concern in all clinical settings. The current body of research on pressure injuries reported in the literature presents primarily low level evidence. The purpose of the current study was to identify and prioritize pressure injury research issues. The approach entailed evidence scoping and implementing a formal consensus process using a modified nominal group technique based on the Research and Development/University of California at Los Angeles appropriateness method. Sixteen Australian pressure injury experts participated in five consensus voting rounds in May to June 2015. From 60 initial research issues, the experts reached agreement that 26 issues are a priority for future pressure injury research. The highest priorities were strategies to assess skin and tissues, appropriate outcome measures for indicators of pressure injury healing and recurrence, heel pressure off-loading and shear reduction strategies, economic cost of pressure injuries and their management and effectiveness of skin moisturizers and barrier products. Developing a prioritized research agenda, informed by clinical and academic pressure injury experts, can assist in reducing the burden of pressure injuries by identifying topics of the highest need for further research. A web-based nominal group voting process was successful in engaging expert decision-making and has wide-reaching international appeal in facilitating cost-effective consensus methodologies. The priority list generated from this research is currently used in Australia to inform government investment in pressure injury research. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Method and apparatus for granting processors access to a resource

DOEpatents

Blumrich, Matthias A.; Salapura, Valentina

2010-03-16

An apparatus and method for granting one or more requesting entities access to a resource in a predetermined time interval. The apparatus includes a first circuit receiving one or more request signals, and implementing logic for assigning a priority to the one or more request signals, and, generating a set of first_request signals based on the priorities assigned. One or more priority select circuits for receiving the set of first_request signals and generating corresponding one or more fixed grant signals representing one or more highest priority request signals when asserted during the predetermined time interval. A second circuit device receives the one or more fixed grant signals generates one or more grant signals associated with one or more highest priority request signals assigned, the grant signals for enabling one or more respective requesting entities access to the resource in the predetermined time interval, wherein the priority assigned to the one or more request signals changes each successive predetermined time interval. In one embodiment, the assigned priority is based on a numerical pattern, the first circuit changing the numerical pattern with respect to the first_request signals generated at each successive predetermined time interval.

"Quitting like a Turk:" How political priority developed for tobacco control in Turkey.

PubMed

Hoe, Connie; Rodriguez, Daniela C; Üzümcüoğlu, Yeşim; Hyder, Adnan A

2016-09-01

In recent years, tobacco control emerged as a political priority in Turkey and today the country is widely regarded as one of the global leaders in tackling tobacco use. Although political priority is considered a facilitating factor to the success of addressing public health issues, there is a paucity of research to help us understand how it is developed in middle-income countries. The primary aim of this study is to understand the process and determinants of how tobacco control became a political priority in Turkey using the Multiple Streams Framework. A mixed-methods case study approach was used whereby data were gathered from three different sources: in-depth interviews (N = 19), document reviews (N = 216), and online self-administered surveys (N = 61). Qualitative data were collected for the purpose of understanding the processes and determinants that led to political prioritization of tobacco control and were analyzed using deductive and inductive coding. Quantitative data were collected to examine the actors and were analyzed using descriptive statistics and network nominations. Data were triangulated. Findings revealed that tobacco control achieved political priority in Turkey as a result of the development and convergence of multiple streams, including a fourth, separate global stream. Findings also shed light on the importance of Turkey's foreign policy in the transformation of the political stream. The country's desire for European Union accession and global visibility helped generate a political environment that was receptive to global norms for tobacco control. A diverse but cohesive network of actors joined forces with global allies to capitalize on this opportunity. Results suggest (1) the importance of global-agenda setting activities on political priority development, (2) the utility of aligning public health and foreign policy goals and (3) the need to build a strong global incentive structure to help entice governments to take action on public health issues. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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 amount of time in inactive status, which affects access to timely transplants. PMID:27591296

Prioritizing Possibilities for Child and Family Health: An Agenda to Address Adverse Childhood Experiences and Foster the Social and Emotional Roots of Well-being in Pediatrics.

PubMed

Bethell, Christina D; Solloway, Michele R; Guinosso, Stephanie; Hassink, Sandra; Srivastav, Aditi; Ford, David; Simpson, Lisa A

A convergence of theoretical and empirical evidence across many scientific disciplines reveals unprecedented possibilities to advance much needed improvements in child and family well-being by addressing adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), promoting resilience, and fostering nurturance and the social and emotional roots of healthy child development and lifelong health. In this article we synthesize recommendations from a structured, multiyear field-building and research, policy, and practice agenda setting process to address these issues in children's health services. Between Spring of 2013 and Winter of 2017, the field-building and agenda-setting process directly engaged more than 500 individuals and comprised 79 distinct agenda-setting and field-building activities and processes, including: 4 in-person meetings; 4 online crowdsourcing rounds across 10 stakeholder groups; literature and environmental scans, publications documenting ACEs, resilience, and protective factors among US children, and commissioning of this special issue of Academic Pediatrics; 8 in-person listening forums and 31 educational sessions with stakeholders; and a range of action research efforts with emerging community efforts. Modified Delphi processes and grounded theory methods were used and iterative and structured synthesis of input was conducted to discern themes, priorities, and recommendations. Participants discerned that sufficient scientific findings support the formation of an applied child health services research and policy agenda. Four overarching priorities for the agenda emerged: 1) translate the science of ACEs, resilience, and nurturing relationships into children's health services; 2) cultivate the conditions for cross-sector collaboration to incentivize action and address structural inequalities; 3) restore and reward for promoting safe and nurturing relationships and full engagement of individuals, families, and communities to heal trauma, promote resilience, and prevent ACEs; and 4) fuel "launch and learn" research, innovation, and implementation efforts. Four research areas arose as central to advancing these priorities in the short term. These are related to: 1) family-centered clinical protocols, 2) assessing effects on outcomes and costs, 3) capacity-building and accountability, and 4) role of provider self-care to quality of care. Finally, we identified 16 short-term actions to leverage existing policies, practices, and structures to advance agenda priorities and research priorities. Efforts to address the high prevalence and negative effects of ACEs on child health are needed, including widespread and concrete understanding and strategies to promote awareness, resilience, and safe, stable, nurturing relationships as foundational to healthy child development and sustainable well-being throughout life. A paradigm-shifting evolution in individual, organizational, and collective mindsets, policies, and practices is required. Shifts will emphasize the centrality of relationships and regulation of emotion and stress to brain development as well as overall health. They will elevate relationship-centered methods to engage individuals, families, and communities in self-care related to ACEs, stress, trauma, and building the resilience and nurturing relationships science has revealed to be at the root of well-being. Findings reflect a palpable hope for prevention, mitigation, and healing of individual, intergenerational, and community trauma associated with ACEs and provide a road map for doing so. Copyright © 2017 Academic Pediatric Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

37 CFR 41.202 - Suggesting an interference.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

... examiner sets will operate as a concession of priority for the subject matter of the claim. If the...(a), (4) Explain in detail why the applicant will prevail on priority, (5) If a claim has been added... this section. The claim the examiner proposes to have added must, apart from the question of priority...

42 CFR 494.110 - Condition: Quality assessment and performance improvement.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-10-01

... time. (c) Standard: Prioritizing improvement activities. The dialysis facility must set priorities for performance improvement, considering prevalence and severity of identified problems and giving priority to...

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-replicable consultation processes will gradually be replaced by these emerging tools, which offer more transparency and replicability. It is too early to say whether any single method can address the needs of most exercises conducted at different levels, or if better results may perhaps be achieved through combination of components of several methods.

Managing resources in NHS dentistry: using health economics to inform commissioning decisions.

PubMed

Holmes, Richard D; Steele, Jimmy; Exley, Catherine E; Donaldson, Cam

2011-05-31

The aim of this study is to develop, apply and evaluate an economics-based framework to assist commissioners in their management of finite resources for local dental services. In April 2006, Primary Care Trusts in England were charged with managing finite dental budgets for the first time, yet several independent reports have since criticised the variability in commissioning skills within these organisations. The study will explore the views of stakeholders (dentists, patients and commissioners) regarding priority setting and the criteria used for decision-making and resource allocation. Two inter-related case studies will explore the dental commissioning and resource allocation processes through the application of a pragmatic economics-based framework known as Programme Budgeting and Marginal Analysis. The study will adopt an action research approach. Qualitative methods including semi-structured interviews, focus groups, field notes and document analysis will record the views of participants and their involvement in the research process. The first case study will be based within a Primary Care Trust where mixed methods will record the views of dentists, patients and dental commissioners on issues, priorities and processes associated with managing local dental services. A Programme Budgeting and Marginal Analysis framework will be applied to determine the potential value of economic principles to the decision-making process. A further case study will be conducted in a secondary care dental teaching hospital using the same approach. Qualitative data will be analysed using thematic analysis and managed using a framework approach. The recent announcement by government regarding the proposed abolition of Primary Care Trusts may pose challenges for the research team regarding their engagement with the research study. However, whichever commissioning organisations are responsible for resource allocation for dental services in the future; resource scarcity is highly likely to remain an issue. Wider understanding of the complexities of priority setting and resource allocation at local levels are important considerations in the development of dental commissioning processes, national oral health policy and the future new dental contract which is expected to be implemented in April 2014.

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.

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

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 the goals of “relevance” and “excellence.” Research needs to be more sensitive to questions and concerns arising from humanitarian interventions, and practitioners need to take research findings into account in designing interventions. (Harv Rev Psychiatry 2012;20:25–36.) PMID:22335180

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

City and County Solar PV Training Program, Module 1: Goal Setting and Clarification

DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

McLaren, Joyce A.

This module will help attendees understand nuances between different types of renewable energy goals, the importance of terminology when setting and announcing goals, the value of formally clarifying priorities, and how priorities may impact procurement options. It is the first training in a series intended to help municipal staff procure solar PV for their land and buildings.

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…

Quality of Care Measures for the Management of Unhealthy Alcohol Use

PubMed Central

Hepner, Kimberly A.; Watkins, Katherine E.; Farmer, Carrie M.; Rubenstein, Lisa; Pedersen, Eric R.; Pincus, Harold Alan

2017-01-01

There is a paucity of quality measures to assess the care for the range of unhealthy alcohol use, ranging from risky drinking to alcohol use disorders. Using a two-phase expert panel review process, we sought to develop an expanded set of quality of care measures for unhealthy alcohol use, focusing on outpatient care delivered in both primary care and specialty care settings. This process generated 25 candidate measures. Eight measures address screening and assessment, 11 address aspects of treatment, and six address follow-up. These quality measures represent high priority targets for future development, including creating detailed technical specifications and pilot testing them to evaluate their utility in terms of feasibility, reliability, and validity. PMID:28340902

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 workshop will be validated through a national survey and workshop. PMID:28361111

Use of FMEA analysis to reduce risk of errors in prescribing and administering drugs in paediatric wards: a quality improvement report

PubMed Central

Lago, Paola; Bizzarri, Giancarlo; Scalzotto, Francesca; Parpaiola, Antonella; Amigoni, Angela; Putoto, Giovanni; Perilongo, Giorgio

2012-01-01

Objective Administering medication to hospitalised infants and children is a complex process at high risk of error. Failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) is a proactive tool used to analyse risks, identify failures before they happen and prioritise remedial measures. To examine the hazards associated with the process of drug delivery to children, we performed a proactive risk-assessment analysis. Design and setting Five multidisciplinary teams, representing different divisions of the paediatric department at Padua University Hospital, were trained to analyse the drug-delivery process, to identify possible causes of failures and their potential effects, to calculate a risk priority number (RPN) for each failure and plan changes in practices. Primary outcome To identify higher-priority potential failure modes as defined by RPNs and planning changes in clinical practice to reduce the risk of patients harm and improve safety in the process of medication use in children. Results In all, 37 higher-priority potential failure modes and 71 associated causes and effects were identified. The highest RPNs related (>48) mainly to errors in calculating drug doses and concentrations. Many of these failure modes were found in all the five units, suggesting the presence of common targets for improvement, particularly in enhancing the safety of prescription and preparation of endovenous drugs. The introductions of new activities in the revised process of administering drugs allowed reducing the high-risk failure modes of 60%. Conclusions FMEA is an effective proactive risk-assessment tool useful to aid multidisciplinary groups in understanding a process care and identifying errors that may occur, prioritising remedial interventions and possibly enhancing the safety of drug delivery in children. PMID:23253870

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.

Goals for Business Operations and Family Life. The Manufacturer's Tool Kit and Instructor's Guide. North Central Regional Extension Publications #286 and #288.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Gessaman, Paul H.

This packet contains student materials and an instructor's guide for use in a series of workshops on the "GOALS Process" for persons in manufacturing businesses (often family-owned). The materials provide a framework for individual or family use in self-assessment and a means of identifying business and family life goals, setting priorities, and…

Goals for Business Operations and Family Life. The Service Provider's Tool Kit and Instructor's Guide. North Central Regional Extension Publications #287 and #288.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Gessaman, Paul H.

This packet contains student materials and an instructor's guide for use in a series of workshops on the "GOALS Process" for persons in service-producing businesses (often family-owned). The materials provide a framework for individual or family use in self-assessment and a means of identifying business and family life goals, setting priorities,…

42 CFR 403.732 - Condition of participation: Quality assessment and performance improvement.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-10-01

... performance improvement program. (3) The RNHCI must set priorities for performance improvement, considering... assessment and performance improvement program addresses identified priorities in the RNHCI and are...

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 generate interest among key national stakeholders, governments, NGOs, and research institutes in these priorities, while encouraging research funders to support them. We will track research funding, relevant requests for proposals and trial registers to monitor if the priorities identified by this exercise are being addressed. PMID:26401272

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 stakeholders, governments, NGOs, and research institutes in these priorities, while encouraging research funders to support them. We will track research funding, relevant requests for proposals and trial registers to monitor if the priorities identified by this exercise are being addressed.

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").

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.

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.

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.

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/.

Resource allocation in road infrastructure using ANP priorities with ZOGP formulation-A case study

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Alias, Suriana; Adna, Norfarziah; Soid, Siti Khuzaimah; Kardri, Mahani

2013-09-01

Road Infrastructure (RI) project evaluation and selection is concern with the allocation of scarce organizational resources. In this paper, it is suggest an improved RI project selection methodology which reflects interdependencies among evaluation criteria and candidate projects. Fuzzy Delphi Method (FDM) is use to evoking expert group opinion and also to determine a degree of interdependences relationship between the alternative projects. In order to provide a systematic approach to set priorities among multi-criteria and trade-off among objectives, Analytic Network Process (ANP) is suggested to be applied prior to Zero-One Goal Programming (ZOGP) formulation. Specifically, this paper demonstrated how to combined FDM and ANP with ZOGP through a real-world RI empirical example on an ongoing decision-making project in Johor, Malaysia.

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.

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.

Intelligent Advanced Communications IP Telephony Feasibility for the US Navy - Phase 3

DTIC Science & Technology

2011-03-01

atlanta.example.com CSeq: 1 BYE Content-Length: 0 Figure 2- 4 SIP Message Details 2.6.8 Implementation of Selected Features Below we examine a set of...34.priority" where priority is one of the following values: 0 Routine (lowest priority) 2 Priority 4 Immediate 6 Flash 8 Flash...cm/dial?poolId= 0 &uri=5553002 HTTPC: <-- : 192.168.0.135:8080 /cm/dial?poolId= 0 &uri=5553002 HTTPC: Closed : 192.168.0.135:8080 4

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.

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 research questions. It is also transparent and replicable, because it clearly defines the context and priority–setting criteria. It is democratic, as it relies on “crowd–sourcing”. It is inclusive, fostering “ownership” of the results by ensuring that various groups invest in the process. It is very flexible and adjustable to many different contexts and needs. Finally, it is simple and relatively inexpensive to conduct, which we believe is one of the main reasons for its uptake by many groups globally, particularly those in low– and middle–income countries. PMID:28685049

Standards of care and quality indicators for multidisciplinary care models for psoriatic arthritis in Spain.

PubMed

Gratacós, Jordi; Luelmo, Jesús; Rodríguez, Jesús; Notario, Jaume; Marco, Teresa Navío; de la Cueva, Pablo; Busquets, Manel Pujol; Font, Mercè García; Joven, Beatriz; Rivera, Raquel; Vega, Jose Luis Alvarez; Álvarez, Antonio Javier Chaves; Parera, Ricardo Sánchez; Carrascosa, Jose Carlos Ruiz; Martínez, Fernando José Rodríguez; Sánchez, José Pardo; Olmos, Carlos Feced; Pujol, Conrad; Galindez, Eva; Barrio, Silvia Pérez; Arana, Ana Urruticoechea; Hergueta, Mercedes; Coto, Pablo; Queiro, Rubén

2018-06-01

To define and give priority to standards of care and quality indicators of multidisciplinary care for patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). A systematic literature review on PsA standards of care and quality indicators was performed. An expert panel of rheumatologists and dermatologists who provide multidisciplinary care was established. In a consensus meeting group, the experts discussed and developed the standards of care and quality indicators and graded their priority, agreement and also the feasibility (only for quality indicators) following qualitative methodology and a Delphi process. Afterwards, these results were discussed with 2 focus groups, 1 with patients, another with health managers. A descriptive analysis is presented. We obtained 25 standards of care (9 of structure, 9 of process, 7 of results) and 24 quality indicators (2 of structure, 5 of process, 17 of results). Standards of care include relevant aspects in the multidisciplinary care of PsA patients like an appropriate physical infrastructure and technical equipment, the access to nursing care, labs and imaging techniques, other health professionals and treatments, or the development of care plans. Regarding quality indicators, the definition of multidisciplinary care model objectives and referral criteria, the establishment of responsibilities and coordination among professionals and the active evaluation of patients and data collection were given a high priority. Patients considered all of them as important. This set of standards of care and quality indicators for the multidisciplinary care of patients with PsA should help improve quality of care in these patients.

47 CFR 211.6 - Submission and processing of restoration priority requests.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-10-01

... 47 Telecommunication 5 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Submission and processing of restoration priority requests. 211.6 Section 211.6 Telecommunication OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY AND NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL EMERGENCY RESTORATION PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES § 211.6...

47 CFR 211.6 - Submission and processing of restoration priority requests.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-10-01

... 47 Telecommunication 5 2014-10-01 2014-10-01 false Submission and processing of restoration priority requests. 211.6 Section 211.6 Telecommunication OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY AND NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL EMERGENCY RESTORATION PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES § 211.6...

47 CFR 211.6 - Submission and processing of restoration priority requests.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-10-01

... 47 Telecommunication 5 2011-10-01 2011-10-01 false Submission and processing of restoration priority requests. 211.6 Section 211.6 Telecommunication OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY AND NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL EMERGENCY RESTORATION PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES § 211.6...

47 CFR 211.6 - Submission and processing of restoration priority requests.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-10-01

... 47 Telecommunication 5 2013-10-01 2013-10-01 false Submission and processing of restoration priority requests. 211.6 Section 211.6 Telecommunication OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY AND NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL EMERGENCY RESTORATION PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES § 211.6...

47 CFR 211.6 - Submission and processing of restoration priority requests.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-10-01

... 47 Telecommunication 5 2012-10-01 2012-10-01 false Submission and processing of restoration priority requests. 211.6 Section 211.6 Telecommunication OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY AND NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL EMERGENCY RESTORATION PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES § 211.6...

Using exercises to identify Veterans Health Administration priorities for disaster response: findings from the New Madrid Earthquake training exercise.

PubMed

Gin, June L; Chan, Edward W; Brewster, Pete; Mitchell, Michael N; Ricci, Karen A; Afable, Melissa K; Dobalian, Aram

2013-01-01

Emergency managers are often charged with prioritizing the relative importance of key issues and tasks associated with disaster response. However, little work has been done to identify specific ways that the decision-making process can be improved. This exercise was conducted with 220 employees of the US Department of Veterans Affairs, who were asked to assign priority rankings to a list of possible options of the most important issues to address after a hypothetical disaster scenario impacting a Veterans Affairs Medical Center. We found that groups that were assigned to represent perspectives farther from the impacted site had less agreement in their identification of the top priorities than those assigned to the impacted facility. These findings suggest that greater geographic and administrative proximity to the impacted site may generate greater clarity and certainty about priority setting. Given the complex structure of many organizations, and the multiple levels of group decision making and coordination likely to be needed during disasters, research to better understand training needs with respect to decision making is essential to improve preparedness. Relatively simple modifications to exercises, as outlined here, could provide valuable information to better understand emergency management decision making across multiple organizational levels.

Drinking water and health research: a look to the future in the United States and globally.

PubMed

Sobsey, Mark D

2006-01-01

Drinking water supplies continue to be a major source of human disease and death globally because many of them remain unsafe and vulnerable. Greater efforts are needed to address the key issues and questions which influence the provision of safe drinking water. Efforts are needed to re-evaluate and set new and better priorities for drinking water research and practice. More stakeholders need to be included in the processes of identifying key issues and setting priorities for safe drinking water. The overall approach to drinking water research and the provision of safe drinking water needs to become more rational and scientific, and become more visionary and anticipatory of the ever-present and emerging risks to drinking water safety. Collectively, we need to do a better job of making safe water available, accessible and affordable for all. One such approach to safe water for all is household water treatment and safe storage, which is being promoted globally by the World Health Organization and many other stakeholders and partners to reduce the global burden of waterborne disease.

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 address everyday practicalities in the management of the complexities of PD. PMID:25500772

Dynamic autonomous routing technology for IP-based satellite ad hoc networks

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Wang, Xiaofei; Deng, Jing; Kostas, Theresa; Rajappan, Gowri

2014-06-01

IP-based routing for military LEO/MEO satellite ad hoc networks is very challenging due to network and traffic heterogeneity, network topology and traffic dynamics. In this paper, we describe a traffic priority-aware routing scheme for such networks, namely Dynamic Autonomous Routing Technology (DART) for satellite ad hoc networks. DART has a cross-layer design, and conducts routing and resource reservation concurrently for optimal performance in the fluid but predictable satellite ad hoc networks. DART ensures end-to-end data delivery with QoS assurances by only choosing routing paths that have sufficient resources, supporting different packet priority levels. In order to do so, DART incorporates several resource management and innovative routing mechanisms, which dynamically adapt to best fit the prevailing conditions. In particular, DART integrates a resource reservation mechanism to reserve network bandwidth resources; a proactive routing mechanism to set up non-overlapping spanning trees to segregate high priority traffic flows from lower priority flows so that the high priority flows do not face contention from low priority flows; a reactive routing mechanism to arbitrate resources between various traffic priorities when needed; a predictive routing mechanism to set up routes for scheduled missions and for anticipated topology changes for QoS assurance. We present simulation results showing the performance of DART. We have conducted these simulations using the Iridium constellation and trajectories as well as realistic military communications scenarios. The simulation results demonstrate DART's ability to discriminate between high-priority and low-priority traffic flows and ensure disparate QoS requirements of these traffic flows.

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...

Changing Habits of Practice

PubMed Central

Bowen, Judith L; Salerno, Stephen M; Chamberlain, John K; Eckstrom, Elizabeth; Chen, Helen L; Brandenburg, Suzanne

2005-01-01

Purpose The majority of health care, both for acute and chronic conditions, is delivered in the ambulatory setting. Despite repeated proposals for change, the majority of internal medicine residency training still occurs in the inpatient setting. Substantial changes in ambulatory education are needed to correct the current imbalance. To assist educators and policy makers in this process, this paper reviews the literature on ambulatory education and makes recommendations for change. Methods The authors searched the Medline, Psychlit, and ERIC databases from 2000 to 2004 for studies that focused specifically on curriculum, teaching, and evaluation of internal medicine residents in the ambulatory setting to update previous reviews. Studies had to contain primary data and were reviewed for methodological rigor and relevance. Results Fifty-five studies met criteria for review. Thirty-five of the studies focused on specific curricular areas and 11 on ambulatory teaching methods. Five involved evaluating performance and 4 focused on structural issues. No study evaluated the overall effectiveness of ambulatory training or investigated the effects of current resident continuity clinic microsystems on education. Conclusion This updated review continues to identify key deficiencies in ambulatory training curriculum and faculty skills. The authors make several recommendations: (1) Make training in the ambulatory setting a priority. (2) Address systems problems in practice environments. (3) Create learning experiences appropriate to the resident's level of development. (4) Teach and evaluate in the examination room. (5) Expand subspecialty-based training to the ambulatory setting. (6) Make faculty development a priority. (7) Create and fund multiinstitutional educational research consortia. PMID:16423112

Assessing and Improving Performance: A Longitudinal Evaluation of Priority Setting and Resource Allocation in a Canadian Health Region.

PubMed

Hall, William; Smith, Neale; Mitton, Craig; Urquhart, Bonnie; Bryan, Stirling

2017-08-22

In order to meet the challenges presented by increasing demand and scarcity of resources, healthcare organizations are faced with difficult decisions related to resource allocation. Tools to facilitate evaluation and improvement of these processes could enable greater transparency and more optimal distribution of resources. The Resource Allocation Performance Assessment Tool (RAPAT) was implemented in a healthcare organization in British Columbia, Canada. Recommendations for improvement were delivered, and a follow up evaluation exercise was conducted to assess the trajectory of the organization's priority setting and resource allocation (PSRA) process 2 years post the original evaluation. Implementation of RAPAT in the pilot organization identified strengths and weaknesses of the organization's PSRA process at the time of the original evaluation. Strengths included the use of criteria and evidence, an ability to reallocate resources, and the involvement of frontline staff in the process. Weaknesses included training, communication, and lack of program budgeting. Although the follow up revealed a regression from a more formal PSRA process, a legacy of explicit resource allocation was reported to be providing ongoing benefit for the organization. While past studies have taken a cross-sectional approach, this paper introduces the first longitudinal evaluation of PSRA in a healthcare organization. By including the strengths, weaknesses, and evolution of one organization's journey, the authors' intend that this paper will assist other healthcare leaders in meeting the challenges of allocating scarce resources. © 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.

Value Assessment Frameworks for HTA Agencies: The Organization of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes.

PubMed

Baltussen, Rob; Jansen, Maarten Paul Maria; Bijlmakers, Leon; Grutters, Janneke; Kluytmans, Anouck; Reuzel, Rob P; Tummers, Marcia; der Wilt, Gert Jan van

2017-02-01

Priority setting in health care has been long recognized as an intrinsically complex and value-laden process. Yet, health technology assessment agencies (HTAs) presently employ value assessment frameworks that are ill fitted to capture the range and diversity of stakeholder values and thereby risk compromising the legitimacy of their recommendations. We propose "evidence-informed deliberative processes" as an alternative framework with the aim to enhance this legitimacy. This framework integrates two increasingly popular and complementary frameworks for priority setting: multicriteria decision analysis and accountability for reasonableness. Evidence-informed deliberative processes are, on one hand, based on early, continued stakeholder deliberation to learn about the importance of relevant social values. On the other hand, they are based on rational decision-making through evidence-informed evaluation of the identified values. The framework has important implications for how HTA agencies should ideally organize their processes. First, HTA agencies should take the responsibility of organizing stakeholder involvement. Second, agencies are advised to integrate their assessment and appraisal phases, allowing for the timely collection of evidence on values that are considered relevant. Third, HTA agencies should subject their decision-making criteria to public scrutiny. Fourth, agencies are advised to use a checklist of potentially relevant criteria and to provide argumentation for how each criterion affected the recommendation. Fifth, HTA agencies must publish their argumentation and install options for appeal. The framework should not be considered a blueprint for HTA agencies but rather an aspirational goal-agencies can take incremental steps toward achieving this goal. Copyright © 2017 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Ovarian Cancer Survivors’ Experiences of Self-Advocacy: A Focus Group Study

PubMed Central

Hagan, Teresa L.; Donovan, Heidi S.

2014-01-01

Purpose/Objectives To explore ovarian cancer survivors’ experiences of self-advocacy in symptom management. Research Approach Descriptive, qualitative. Setting A public café in an urban setting. Participants 13 ovarian cancer survivors aged 26–69 years with a mean age of 51.31. Methodologic Approach Five focus groups were formed. Focus group discussions were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. The content was analyzed using the constant comparison method with axial coding. In-depth interviews with 5 of the 13 participants occurred via telephone one to five months after each focus group meeting to clarify and expand on identified themes. Preliminary findings were shared with all participants for validation. Findings Two major themes emerged from the data: (a) knowing who I am and keeping my psyche intact, and (b) knowing what I need and fighting for it. Exemplar quotations illustrate the diverse dimensions of self-advocacy. In addition, a working female-centric definition of self-advocacy was attained. Conclusions Women have varying experiences with cancer- and treatment-related symptoms, but share a common process for recognizing and meeting their needs. Self-advocacy was defined as a process of learning one’s needs and priorities as a cancer survivor and negotiating with healthcare teams, social supports, and other survivors to meet these needs. Interpretation This phenomenologic process identified key dimensions and a preliminary definition of self-advocacy that nurses can recognize and support when patients seek and receive care consistent with their own needs and preferences. Knowledge Translation Self-advocacy among female cancer survivors is a process of recognizing one’s needs and priorities and fighting for them within their cancer care and life. Practitioners can support female cancer survivors through the process of self-advocacy by providing them with skills and resources in making informed choices for themselves. PMID:23454476

Development of a prototype land use model for statewide transportation planning activities : summary.

DOT National Transportation Integrated Search

2011-01-01

Developing computer models of land use and : integrated transportation-land use are high : priorities for Florida transportation planners. : Land use information is fundamental to siting : roadways, signaling, setting maintenance : priorities, routin...

42 CFR 416.43 - Conditions for coverage-Quality assessment and performance improvement.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-10-01

... and changes in its patient care. (c) Standard: Program activities. (1) The ASC must set priorities for... by the ASC. (2) Addresses the ASC's priorities and that all improvements are evaluated for...

12 CFR 650.50 - Payment of claims.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-01-01

... other equities in accordance with the priorities for impairment set forth in section 8.4(e)(3) of the... claim of a lesser priority. If there are insufficient funds to pay all claims in a class in full...

Development of a matrix to evaluate the threat of biological agents used for bioterrorism.

PubMed

Tegnell, A; Van Loock, F; Baka, A; Wallyn, S; Hendriks, J; Werner, A; Gouvras, G

2006-10-01

Adequate public health preparedness for bioterrorism includes the elaboration of an agreed list of biological and chemical agents that might be used in an attack or as threats of deliberate release. In the absence of counterterrorism intelligence information, public health authorities can also base their preparedness on the agents for which the national health structures would be most vulnerable. This article aims to describe a logical method and the characteristics of the variables to be brought in a weighing process to reach a priority list for preparedness. The European Union, in the aftermath of the anthrax events of October 2001 in the United States, set up a task force of experts from multiple member states to elaborate and implement a health security programme. One of the first tasks of this task force was to come up with a list of priority threats. The model, presented here, allows Web-based updates for newly identified agents and for the changes occurring in preventive measures for agents already listed. The same model also allows the identification of priority protection action areas.

Cross-cultural differences in preference for recovery of mobility among spinal cord injury rehabilitation professionals.

PubMed

Ditunno, P L; Patrick, M; Stineman, M; Morganti, B; Townson, A F; Ditunno, J F

2006-09-01

Direct observation of a constrained consensus-building process in three culturally independent five-person panels of rehabilitation professionals from the US, Italy and Canada. To illustrate cultural differences in belief among rehabilitation professionals about the relative importance of alternative functional goals during spinal cord injury (SCI) rehabilitation. Spinal Cord Injury Units in Philadelphia-USA, Rome-Italy and Vancouver-Canada. Each of the three panels came to independent consensus about recovery priorities in SCI utilizing the features resource trade-off game. The procedure involves trading imagined levels of independence (resources) across different functional items (features) assuming different stages of recovery. Sphincter management was of primary importance to all three groups. The Italian and Canadian rehabilitation professionals, however, showed preference for walking over wheelchair mobility at lower stages of assumed recovery, whereas the US professionals set wheelchair independence at a higher priority than walking. These preliminary results suggest cross-cultural recovery priority differences among SCI rehabilitation professionals. These dissimilarities in preference may reflect disparities in values, cultural expectations and health care policies.

Setting quality and safety priorities in a target-rich environment: an academic medical center's challenge.

PubMed

Mort, Elizabeth A; Demehin, Akinluwa A; Marple, Keith B; McCullough, Kathryn Y; Meyer, Gregg S

2013-08-01

Hospitals are continually challenged to provide safer and higher-quality patient care despite resource constraints. With an ever-increasing range of quality and safety targets at the national, state, and local levels, prioritization is crucial in effective institutional quality goal setting and resource allocation.Organizational goal-setting theory is a performance improvement methodology with strong results across many industries. The authors describe a structured goal-setting process they have established at Massachusetts General Hospital for setting annual institutional quality and safety goals. Begun in 2008, this process has been conducted on an annual basis. Quality and safety data are gathered from many sources, both internal and external to the hospital. These data are collated and classified, and multiple approaches are used to identify the most pressing quality issues facing the institution. The conclusions are subject to stringent internal review, and then the top quality goals of the institution are chosen. Specific tactical initiatives and executive owners are assigned to each goal, and metrics are selected to track performance. A reporting tool based on these tactics and metrics is used to deliver progress updates to senior hospital leadership.The hospital has experienced excellent results and strong organizational buy-in using this effective, low-cost, and replicable goal-setting process. It has led to improvements in structural, process, and outcomes aspects of quality.

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

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.

7 CFR 1710.119 - Loan processing priorities.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-01-01

... and Basic Policies § 1710.119 Loan processing priorities. (a) Generally loans are processed in... in effect at the time the facilities were originally constructed; (3) To finance the capital needs of...

Advance Care Planning: Understanding Clinical Routines and Experiences of Interprofessional Team Members in Diverse Health Care Settings.

PubMed

Arnett, Kelly; Sudore, Rebecca L; Nowels, David; Feng, Cindy X; Levy, Cari R; Lum, Hillary D

2017-12-01

Interprofessional health care team members consider advance care planning (ACP) to be important, yet gaps remain in systematic clinical routines to support ACP. A clearer understanding of the interprofessional team members' perspectives on ACP clinical routines in diverse settings is needed. One hundred eighteen health care team members from community-based clinics, long-term care facilities, academic clinics, federally qualified health centers, and hospitals participated in a 35-question, cross-sectional online survey to assess clinical routines, workflow processes, and policies relating to ACP. Respondents were 53% physicians, 18% advanced practice nurses, 11% nurses, and 18% other interprofessional team members including administrators, chaplains, social workers, and others. Regarding clinical routines, respondents reported that several interprofessional team members play a role in facilitating ACP (ie, physician, social worker, nurse, others). Most (62%) settings did not have, or did not know of, policies related to ACP documentation. Only 14% of settings had a patient education program. Two-thirds of the respondents said that addressing ACP is a high priority and 85% felt that nonphysicians could have ACP conversations with appropriate training. The clinical resources needed to improve clinical routines included training for providers and staff, dedicated staff to facilitate ACP, and availability of patient/family educational materials. Although interprofessional health care team members consider ACP a priority and several team members may be involved, clinical settings lack systematic clinical routines to support ACP. Patient educational materials, interprofessional team training, and policies to support ACP clinical workflows that do not rely solely on physicians could improve ACP across diverse clinical settings.

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.

Analytical group decision making in natural resources: Methodology and application

USGS Publications Warehouse

Schmoldt, D.L.; Peterson, D.L.

2000-01-01

Group decision making is becoming increasingly important in natural resource management and associated scientific applications, because multiple values are treated coincidentally in time and space, multiple resource specialists are needed, and multiple stakeholders must be included in the decision process. Decades of social science research on decision making in groups have provided insights into the impediments to effective group processes and on techniques that can be applied in a group context. Nevertheless, little integration and few applications of these results have occurred in resource management decision processes, where formal groups are integral, either directly or indirectly. A group decision-making methodology is introduced as an effective approach for temporary, formal groups (e.g., workshops). It combines the following three components: (1) brainstorming to generate ideas; (2) the analytic hierarchy process to produce judgments, manage conflict, enable consensus, and plan for implementation; and (3) a discussion template (straw document). Resulting numerical assessments of alternative decision priorities can be analyzed statistically to indicate where group member agreement occurs and where priority values are significantly different. An application of this group process to fire research program development in a workshop setting indicates that the process helps focus group deliberations; mitigates groupthink, nondecision, and social loafing pitfalls; encourages individual interaction; identifies irrational judgments; and provides a large amount of useful quantitative information about group preferences. This approach can help facilitate scientific assessments and other decision-making processes in resource management.

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 develop shared treatment research priorities. We have compared the types of treatments (interventions) prioritised for evaluation by JLA PSPs with those being studied in samples of clinical trials being done over the same period. Objective We used treatment research priorities generated by JLA PSPs to assess whether, on average, treatments prioritised by patients and clinicians differ importantly from those being studied by researchers. Methods We identified treatments mentioned in prioritised research questions generated by the first 14 JLA PSPs. We compared these treatments with those assessed in random samples of commercial and non-commercial clinical trials recruiting in the UK over the same period, which we identified using WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Results We found marked differences between the proportions of different types of treatments proposed by patients, carers and clinicians and those currently being evaluated by researchers. In JLA PSPs, drugs accounted for only 18 % (23/126) of the treatments mentioned in priorities; in registered non-commercial trials, drugs accounted for 37 % (397/1069) of the treatments mentioned; and in registered commercial trials, drugs accounted for 86 % (689/798) of the treatments mentioned. Discussion Our findings confirm the mismatch first described by Tallon et al. 15 years ago. On average, drug trials are being preferenced by researchers, and non-drug treatments are preferred by patients, carers and clinicians. This general finding should be reflected in more specific assessments of the extent to which research is addressing priorities identified by the patient and clinician end users of research. It also suggests that the research culture is slow to change in regard to how important and relevant treatment research questions are identified and prioritised.

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.

Balancing equity and efficiency in the Dutch basic benefits package using the principle of proportional shortfall.

PubMed

van de Wetering, E J; Stolk, E A; van Exel, N J A; Brouwer, W B F

2013-02-01

Economic evaluations are increasingly used to inform decisions regarding the allocation of scarce health care resources. To systematically incorporate societal preferences into these evaluations, quality-adjusted life year gains could be weighted according to some equity principle, the most suitable of which is a matter of frequent debate. While many countries still struggle with equity concerns for priority setting in health care, the Netherlands has reached a broad consensus to use the concept of proportional shortfall. Our study evaluates the concept and its support in the Dutch health care context. We discuss arguments in the Netherlands for using proportional shortfall and difficulties in transitioning from principle to practice. In doing so, we address universal issues leading to a systematic consideration of equity concerns for priority setting in health care. The article thus has relevance to all countries struggling with the formalization of equity concerns for priority setting.

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.

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 likely that the Delphi method and non–replicable consultation processes will gradually be replaced by these emerging tools, which offer more transparency and replicability. It is too early to say whether any single method can address the needs of most exercises conducted at different levels, or if better results may perhaps be achieved through combination of components of several methods. PMID:26401271

Research priorities for adolescent health in low- and middle-income countries: A mixed-methods synthesis of two separate exercises.

PubMed

Nagata, Jason M; Hathi, Sejal; Ferguson, B Jane; Hindin, Michele J; Yoshida, Sachiyo; Ross, David A

2018-06-01

In order to clarify priorities and stimulate research in adolescent health in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), the World Health Organization (WHO) conducted two priority-setting exercises based on the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) methodology related to 1) adolescent sexual and reproductive health and 2) eight areas of adolescent health including communicable diseases prevention and management, injuries and violence, mental health, non-communicable diseases management, nutrition, physical activity, substance use, and health policy. Although the CHNRI methodology has been utilized in over 50 separate research priority setting exercises, none have qualitatively synthesized the ultimate findings across studies. The purpose of this study was to conduct a mixed-method synthesis of two research priority-setting exercises for adolescent health in LMICs based on the CHNRI methodology and to situate the priority questions within the current global health agenda. All of the 116 top-ranked questions presented in each exercise were analyzed by two independent reviewers. Word clouds were generated based on keywords from the top-ranked questions. Questions were coded and content analysis was conducted based on type of delivery platform, vulnerable populations, and the Survive, Thrive, and Transform framework from the United Nations Global Strategy for Women's, Children's, and Adolescents' Health, 2016-2030. Within the 53 top-ranked intervention-related questions that specified a delivery platform, the platforms specified were schools (n = 17), primary care (n = 12), community (n = 11), parenting (n = 6), virtual media (n = 5), and peers (n = 2). Twenty questions specifically focused on vulnerable adolescents, including those living with HIV, tuberculosis, mental illness, or neurodevelopmental disorders; victims of gender-based violence; refugees; young persons who inject drugs; sex workers; slum dwellers; out-of-school youth; and youth in armed conflict. A majority of the top-ranked questions (108/116) aligned with one or a combination of the Survive (n = 39), Thrive (n = 67), and Transform (n = 28) agendas. This study advances the CHNRI methodology by conducting the first mixed-methods synthesis of multiple research priority-setting exercises by analyzing keywords (using word clouds) and themes (using content analysis).

Patient disclosure of medical errors in paediatrics: A systematic literature review

PubMed Central

Koller, Donna; Rummens, Anneke; Le Pouesard, Morgane; Espin, Sherry; Friedman, Jeremy; Coffey, Maitreya; Kenneally, Noah

2016-01-01

Medical errors are common within paediatrics; however, little research has examined the process of disclosing medical errors in paediatric settings. The present systematic review of current research and policy initiatives examined evidence regarding the disclosure of medical errors involving paediatric patients. Peer-reviewed research from a range of scientific journals from the past 10 years is presented, and an overview of Canadian and international policies regarding disclosure in paediatric settings are provided. The purpose of the present review was to scope the existing literature and policy, and to synthesize findings into an integrated and accessible report. Future research priorities and policy implications are then identified. PMID:27429578

Philosophy of ATHEANA

DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

Bley, D.C.; Cooper, S.E.; Forester, J.A.

ATHEANA, a second-generation Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) method integrates advances in psychology with engineering, human factors, and Probabilistic Risk Analysis (PRA) disciplines to provide an HRA quantification process and PRA modeling interface that can accommodate and represent human performance in real nuclear power plant events. The method uses the characteristics of serious accidents identified through retrospective analysis of serious operational events to set priorities in a search process for significant human failure events, unsafe acts, and error-forcing context (unfavorable plant conditions combined with negative performance-shaping factors). ATHEANA has been tested in a demonstration project at an operating pressurized water reactor.

An advanced approach to traditional round robin CPU scheduling algorithm to prioritize processes with residual burst time nearest to the specified time quantum

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Swaraj Pati, Mythili N.; Korde, Pranav; Dey, Pallav

2017-11-01

The purpose of this paper is to introduce an optimised variant to the round robin scheduling algorithm. Every algorithm works in its own way and has its own merits and demerits. The proposed algorithm overcomes the shortfalls of the existing scheduling algorithms in terms of waiting time, turnaround time, throughput and number of context switches. The algorithm is pre-emptive and works based on the priority of the associated processes. The priority is decided on the basis of the remaining burst time of a particular process, that is; lower the burst time, higher the priority and higher the burst time, lower the priority. To complete the execution, a time quantum is initially specified. In case if the burst time of a particular process is less than 2X of the specified time quantum but more than 1X of the specified time quantum; the process is given high priority and is allowed to execute until it completes entirely and finishes. Such processes do not have to wait for their next burst cycle.

Developing a preservation policy and procedure statement for a health sciences library.

PubMed Central

Paulson, B A

1989-01-01

The preconditions for creating a preservation policy document in a health sciences library are an existing preservation policy for the institution of which it is a part and administrative support for preservation. The assumption underlying preservation activity, from the formulation of general guidelines to the detail of operating procedure, is that collection development and preservation are complementary functions. Documentation of operational procedures in some detail should be a part of the statement. Since preservation activity cuts across functional library structures, all management staff should be involved in the planning process and be made aware of their responsibilities. The creation of a preservation policy statement will highlight unaddressed issues, procedural inadequacies, and differences in staff perceptions of priorities, but a written statement provides a framework for setting priorities and making decisions. PMID:2758183

Making research matter: a civil society perspective on health research.

PubMed Central

Sanders, David; Labonte, Ronald; Baum, Fran; Chopra, Mickey

2004-01-01

Complex global public health challenges such as the rapidly widening health inequalities, and unprecedented emergencies such as the pandemic of human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) demand a reappraisal of existing priorities in health policies, expenditure and research. Research can assist in mounting an effective response, but will require increased emphasis on health determinants at both the national and global levels, as well as health systems research and broad-based and effective public health initiatives. Civil society organizations (CSOs) are already at the forefront of such research. We suggest that there are at least three ways in which the participation of CSOs in research can be increased: namely, influencing commissioning and priority-setting; becoming involved in the review process and in conducting research; and through formal partnerships between communities and universities that link CSOs with academic researchers. PMID:15643797

Making research matter: a civil society perspective on health research.

PubMed

Sanders, David; Labonte, Ronald; Baum, Fran; Chopra, Mickey

2004-10-01

Complex global public health challenges such as the rapidly widening health inequalities, and unprecedented emergencies such as the pandemic of human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) demand a reappraisal of existing priorities in health policies, expenditure and research. Research can assist in mounting an effective response, but will require increased emphasis on health determinants at both the national and global levels, as well as health systems research and broad-based and effective public health initiatives. Civil society organizations (CSOs) are already at the forefront of such research. We suggest that there are at least three ways in which the participation of CSOs in research can be increased: namely, influencing commissioning and priority-setting; becoming involved in the review process and in conducting research; and through formal partnerships between communities and universities that link CSOs with academic researchers.

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 antibiotics that are active against multidrug-resistant tuberculosis and Gram-negative bacteria. The global strategy should include antibiotic-resistant bacteria responsible for community-acquired infections such as Salmonella spp, Campylobacter spp, N gonorrhoeae, and H pylori. World Health Organization. Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The role of support staff in promoting the social inclusion of persons with an intellectual disability.

PubMed

McConkey, R; Collins, S

2010-08-01

Past studies have found that people supported in more individualised housing options tend to have levels of community participation and wider social networks than those in other accommodation options. Yet, the contribution of support staff in facilitating social inclusion has received relatively scant attention. In all 245 staff working in either supported living schemes, or shared residential and group homes, or in day centres completed a written questionnaire in which they rated in terms of priority to their job, 16 tasks that were supportive of social inclusion and a further 16 tasks that related to the care of the person they supported. In addition staff identified those tasks that they considered were not appropriate to their job. Across all three service settings, staff rated more care tasks as having higher priority than they did the social inclusion tasks. However, staff in supported living schemes rated more social inclusion tasks as having high priority than did staff in the other two service settings. Equally the staff who were most inclined to rate social inclusion tasks as not being applicable to their job were those working day centres; female rather than male staff, those in front-line staff rather than senior staff, and those in part-time or relief positions rather than full-time posts. However, within each service settings, there were wide variations in how staff rated the social inclusion tasks. Staff working in more individualised support arrangements tend to give greater priority to promoting social inclusion although this can vary widely both across and within staff teams. Nonetheless, staff gave greater priority to care tasks especially in congregated service settings. Service managers may need to give more emphasis to social inclusion tasks and provide the leadership, training and resources to facilitate support staff to re-assess their priorities.

Identifying and prioritising systematic review topics with public health stakeholders: A protocol for a modified Delphi study in Switzerland to inform future research agendas

PubMed Central

Mütsch, Margot; Kien, Christina; Gerhardus, Ansgar; Lhachimi, Stefan K

2017-01-01

Introduction The Cochrane Collaboration aims to produce relevant and top priority evidence that responds to existing evidence gaps. Hence, research priority setting (RPS) is important to identify which potential research gaps are deemed most important. Moreover, RPS supports future health research to conform both health and health evidence needs. However, studies that are prioritising systematic review topics in public health are surprisingly rare. Therefore, to inform the research agenda of Cochrane Public Health Europe (CPHE), we introduce the protocol of a priority setting study on systematic review topics in several European countries, which is conceptualised as pilot. Methods and analysis We will conduct a two-round modified Delphi study in Switzerland, incorporating an anonymous web-based questionnaire, to assess which topics should be prioritised for systematic reviews in public health. In the first Delphi round public health stakeholders will suggest relevant assessment criteria and potential priority topics. In the second Delphi round the participants indicate their (dis)agreement to the aggregated results of the first round and rate the potential review topics with the predetermined criteria on a four-point Likert scale. As we invite a wide variety of stakeholders we will compare the results between the different stakeholder groups. Ethics and dissemination We have received ethical approval from the ethical board of the University of Bremen, Germany (principal investigation is conducted at the University of Bremen) and a certificate of non-objection from the Canton of Zurich, Switzerland (fieldwork will be conducted in Switzerland). The results of this study will be further disseminated through peer reviewed publication and will support systematic review author groups (i.a. CPHE) to improve the relevance of the groups´ future review work. Finally, the proposed priority setting study can be used as a framework by other systematic review groups when conducting a priority setting study in a different context. PMID:28780546

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.

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 mothers and babies.

A Designers’ Guide to Reliable Distributed Systems: Design and Analysis Methods. An Example Design. Volume 1

DTIC Science & Technology

1988-08-01

exchanged between the cells, thus requiring existence of fast , high capacity, high availability communication channels. The same arguments indicate...mininet - loss of a cell - intermittent communications failure in the maxinet - partitioning of the maxinet or the mininet o Query decomposition. 3.3...take place. A new sequencer is selected by the timeout mechanism described above. This process Pj must set its priority to 0 in order to ensure fast