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.

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.

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.

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.

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

PubMed Central

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

2009-01-01

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

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.

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

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.

Implementing priority setting frameworks: Insights from leading researchers.

PubMed

Angell, Blake; Pares, Jennie; Mooney, Gavin

2016-12-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2015-01-01

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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…

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

[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.

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

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.

Prison health service directors' views on research priorities and organizational issues in conducting research in prison: outcomes of a national deliberative roundtable.

PubMed

Simpson, Paul Leslie; Guthrie, Jill; Butler, Tony

2017-06-12

Purpose Given that prisoners have significant health needs across most areas, the paucity of prisoner health research, and the difficulties involved in the conduct of research in this setting, there is a need to develop research priorities that align with key stakeholder groups. One such group are those responsible for health service provision in prisons - prison health service directors. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach Prison health service directors in each Australian state and territory were invited to participate in a national (deliberative) roundtable where the consensus building nominal group technique was utilized. This involved the identification of research priorities and organizational issues in conducting research with prisoners, and ranking research priorities. A thematic analysis was conducted on organizational issues. Findings In total, 13 participants attended the roundtable. Participants identified 28 research priorities and 12 organizational issues. Top ranked research priorities were mental health, cognitive and intellectual disability, post-release health maintenance, ageing prisoners, chronic health conditions and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health. Themes identified from the organizational issues included prisoner access to research participation, health and research literacy of custodial staff, and institutional protectionism in response to research that may discover negative information about the custodial setting. Research limitations/implications These findings should inform future efforts to improve research infrastructures to undertake research to improve the health of people in Australian prisons, and help to align researchers' efforts with those of a key organizational stakeholder. Originality/value This is the first paper to determine the research priorities and organizational issues in conducting research in prisons of prison health service directors.

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

PubMed

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

2011-10-21

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

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 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

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

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.

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

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.

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

PubMed

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

2017-08-23

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

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.

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...

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.

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.

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

PubMed

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

2014-12-14

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

Setting priorities for space research: Opportunities and imperatives

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

1992-01-01

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

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

PubMed

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

2017-11-01

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

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.

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).

The Development of a Veterans Health Administration Emergency Management Research Agenda

PubMed Central

Dobalian, Aram; Claver, Maria; Riopelle, Deborah; Wyte-Lake, Tamar; Canelo, Ismelda

2017-01-01

Introduction: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the largest integrated healthcare delivery system in the United States, is charged with ensuring timely access to high-quality care for veterans during disasters, and supporting national, state, local, and tribal emergency management and homeland security efforts. In 2008, the VHA Office of Public Health (OPH) sponsored the first VHA Emergency Management Research Agenda-setting conference to develop research priorities that address the needs of veterans and to position VHA as a national leader in emergency management by having VHA serve as a “laboratory” for the development of evidence-based emergency management practices. Methods: We focused on four steps: #1: Appraising the emergency management research portfolio of VHA-based researchers; #2: Obtaining systematic information on VHA’s role in emergency management and the healthcare needs of veterans during disasters; #3: Based upon gaps between the current research portfolio and the existing evidence base, identifying strategic priorities using a research agenda-setting conference; and #4: Laying the groundwork to foster the conduct of emergency management research within VHA. Results: Identified research priorities included how to prevent and treat behavioral health problems related to a disaster, the efficacy of training programs, crisis communication strategies, workforce resilience, and evacuating veterans from health care facilities. Conclusion: VHA is uniquely situated to answer research questions that cannot be readily addressed in other settings. VHA should partner with other governmental and private entities to build on existing work and establish shared research priorities. PMID:28439447

Research priorities in health communication and participation: international survey of consumers and other stakeholders

PubMed Central

Bragge, Peter; Lowe, Dianne; Nunn, Jack S; O’Sullivan, Molly; Horvat, Lidia; Tong, Allison; Kay, Debra; Ghersi, Davina; McDonald, Steve; Poole, Naomi; Bourke, Noni; Lannin, Natasha; Vadasz, Danny; Oliver, Sandy; Carey, Karen; Hill, Sophie J

2018-01-01

Objective To identify research priorities of consumers and other stakeholders to inform Cochrane Reviews in ‘health communication and participation’ (including such concepts as patient experience, shared decision-making and health literacy). Setting International. Participants We included anyone with an interest in health communication and participation. Up to 151 participants (18–80 years; 117 female) across 12 countries took part, including 48 consumers (patients, carers, consumer representatives) and 75 professionals (health professionals, policymakers, researchers) (plus 25 people who identified as both). Design Survey. Methods We invited people to submit their research ideas via an online survey open for 4 weeks. Using inductive thematic analysis, we generated priority research topics, then classified these into broader themes. Results Participants submitted 200 research ideas, which we grouped into 21 priority topics. Key research priorities included: insufficient consumer involvement in research (19 responses), ‘official’ health information is contradictory and hard to understand (18 responses), communication/coordination breakdowns in health services (15 responses), health information provision a low priority for health professionals (15 responses), insufficient eliciting of patient preferences (14 responses), health services poorly understand/implement patient-centred care (14 responses), lack of holistic care impacting healthcare quality and safety (13 responses) and inadequate consumer involvement in service design (11 responses). These priorities encompassed acute and community health settings, with implications for policy and research. Priority populations of interest included people from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, carers, and people with low educational attainment, or mental illness. Most frequently suggested interventions focused on training and cultural change activities for health services and health professionals. Conclusions Consumers and other stakeholders want research addressing structural and cultural challenges in health services (eg, lack of holistic, patient-centred, culturally safe care) and building health professionals’ communication skills. Solutions should be devised in partnership with consumers, and focus on the needs of vulnerable groups. PMID:29739780

How Are New Vaccines Prioritized in Low-Income Countries? A Case Study of Human Papilloma Virus Vaccine and Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine in Uganda

PubMed Central

Wallace, Lauren; Kapirir, Lydia

2017-01-01

Background: To date, research on priority-setting for new vaccines has not adequately explored the influence of the global, national and sub-national levels of decision-making or contextual issues such as political pressure and stakeholder influence and power. Using Kapiriri and Martin’s conceptual framework, this paper evaluates priority setting for new vaccines in Uganda at national and sub-national levels, and considers how global priorities can influence country priorities. This study focuses on 2 specific vaccines, the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine and the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV). Methods: This was a qualitative study that involved reviewing relevant Ugandan policy documents and media reports, as well as 54 key informant interviews at the global level and national and sub-national levels in Uganda. Kapiriri and Martin’s conceptual framework was used to evaluate the prioritization process. Results: Priority setting for PCV and HPV was conducted by the Ministry of Health (MoH), which is considered to be a legitimate institution. While respondents described the priority setting process for PCV process as transparent, participatory, and guided by explicit relevant criteria and evidence, the prioritization of HPV was thought to have been less transparent and less participatory. Respondents reported that neither process was based on an explicit priority setting framework nor did it involve adequate representation from the districts (program implementers) or publicity. The priority setting process for both PCV and HPV was negatively affected by the larger political and economic context, which contributed to weak institutional capacity as well as power imbalances between development assistance partners and the MoH. Conclusion: Priority setting in Uganda would be improved by strengthening institutional capacity and leadership and ensuring a transparent and participatory processes in which key stakeholders such as program implementers (the districts) and beneficiaries (the public) are involved. Kapiriri and Martin’s framework has the potential to guide priority setting evaluation efforts, however, evaluation should be built into the priority setting process a priori such that information on priority setting is gathered throughout the implementation cycle. PMID:29172378

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/

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.

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.

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.

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.

An international eDelphi study identifying the research and education priorities in wound management and tissue repair.

PubMed

Cowman, Seamus; Gethin, Georgina; Clarke, Eric; Moore, Zena; Craig, Gerardine; Jordan-O'Brien, Julie; McLain, Niamh; Strapp, Helen

2012-02-01

To incorporate an international and multidisciplinary consensus in the determination of the research and education priorities for wound healing and tissue repair. A compelling reason for the study is the lack of an agreed list of priorities for wound care research and education. Furthermore, there is a growth in the prevalence of chronic wounds, a growth in wound care products and marketing, and an increase in clinician attendance at conferences and education programmes. The study used a survey method. A four-round eDelphi technique was used to collect responses from an international population of health professionals across 24 countries. Responses were obtained from 360 professionals representing many health care settings. The top education priorities related to the standardisation of all foundation education programmes in wound care, the inclusion of wound care in all professional undergraduate and postgraduate education programmes, selecting dressings and the prevention of pressure ulcers. The top research priorities related to the dressing selection, pressure ulcer prevention and wound infection. conclusion: Professionals from different backgrounds and countries who are engaged in wound management share a common set of priorities for research and education. Most notably, the priorities identified relate to long-established clinical challenges in wound care and underpin the principles of good patient care practices. The priorities are closely allied to an ageing population and identify many challenges ahead for practitioners engaged in wound management services. The provision of wound care is a major investment of health service resources and remains a clinical challenge today. Research is essential to building evidence-based practice and fundamental to development of quality in standards of practice; education is central to achieving competence to deliver effective care. The determination of research and education priorities is therefore an absolute requirement in developing services. © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

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.

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

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

What should autism research focus upon? Community views and priorities from the United Kingdom

PubMed Central

Dinsmore, Adam; Charman, Tony

2014-01-01

The rise in the measured prevalence of autism has been accompanied by much new research and research investment internationally. This study sought to establish whether the pattern of current UK autism research funding maps on to the concerns of the autism community. Interviews and focus groups were conducted with autistic adults, family members, practitioners and researchers to identify their priorities for research. We also captured the views of a large number of stakeholders via an online survey. There was a clear disparity between the United Kingdom’s pattern of funding for autism research and the priorities articulated by the majority of participants. There was general consensus that future priorities for autism research should lie in those areas that make a difference to people’s day-to-day lives. There needs to be greater involvement of the autism community both in priority setting and in research more broadly to ensure that resources reach where they are most needed and can make the most impact. PMID:24789871

Setting Priorities for NIOSH Research

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Gallagher, Richard E.

1975-01-01

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

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.

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.

Setting research priorities for maternal, newborn, child health and nutrition in India by engaging experts from 256 indigenous institutions contributing over 4000 research ideas: a CHNRI exercise by ICMR and INCLEN.

PubMed

Arora, Narendra K; Mohapatra, Archisman; Gopalan, Hema S; Wazny, Kerri; Thavaraj, Vasantha; Rasaily, Reeta; Das, Manoj K; Maheshwari, Meenu; Bahl, Rajiv; Qazi, Shamim A; Black, Robert E; Rudan, Igor

2017-06-01

Health research in low- and middle- income countries (LMICs) is often driven by donor priorities rather than by the needs of the countries where the research takes place. This lack of alignment of donor's priorities with local research need may be one of the reasons why countries fail to achieve set goals for population health and nutrition. India has a high burden of morbidity and mortality in women, children and infants. In order to look forward toward the Sustainable Development Goals, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and the INCLEN Trust International (INCLEN) employed the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative's (CHNRI) research priority setting method for maternal, neonatal, child health and nutrition with the timeline of 2016-2025. The exercise was the largest to-date use of the CHNRI methodology, both in terms of participants and ideas generated and also expanded on the methodology. CHNRI is a crowdsourcing-based exercise that involves using the collective intelligence of a group of stakeholders, usually researchers, to generate and score research options against a set of criteria. This paper reports on a large umbrella CHNRI that was divided into four theme-specific CHNRIs (maternal, newborn, child health and nutrition). A National Steering Group oversaw the exercise and four theme-specific Research Sub-Committees technically supported finalizing the scoring criteria and refinement of research ideas for the respective thematic areas. The exercise engaged participants from 256 institutions across India - 4003 research ideas were generated from 498 experts which were consolidated into 373 research options (maternal health: 122; newborn health: 56; child health: 101; nutrition: 94); 893 experts scored these against five criteria (answerability, relevance, equity, innovation and out-of-box thinking, investment on research). Relative weights to the criteria were assigned by 79 members from the Larger Reference Group. Given India's diversity, priorities were identified at national and three regional levels: (i) the Empowered Action Group (EAG) and North-Eastern States; (ii) States and Union territories in Northern India (including West Bengal); and (iii) States and Union territories in Southern and Western parts of India. The exercise leveraged the inherent flexibility of the CHNRI method in multiple ways. It expanded on the CHNRI methodology enabling analyses for identification of research priorities at national and regional levels. However, prioritization of research options are only valuable if they are put to use, and we hope that donors will take advantage of this prioritized list of research options.

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

PubMed

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

2013-08-01

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

Applying a global justice lens to health systems research ethics: an initial exploration.

PubMed

Pratt, Bridget; Hyder, Adnan A

2015-03-01

Recent scholarship has considered what, if anything, rich people owe to poor people to achieve justice in global health and the implications of this for international research. Yet this work has primarily focused on international clinical research. Health systems research is increasingly being performed in low and middle income countries and is essential to reducing global health disparities. This paper provides an initial description of the ethical issues related to priority setting, capacity-building, and the provision of post-study benefits that arise during the conduct of such research. It presents a selection of issues discussed in the health systems research literature and argues that they constitute ethical concerns based on their being inconsistent with a particular theory of global justice (the health capability paradigm). Issues identified include the fact that priority setting for health systems research at the global level is often not driven by national priorities and that capacity-building efforts frequently utilize one-size-fits-all approaches.

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 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.

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.

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

PubMed Central

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

2018-01-01

Background 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. Methods 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. Findings 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. Conclusions 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). PMID:29497507

How Are New Vaccines Prioritized in Low-Income Countries? A Case Study of Human Papilloma Virus Vaccine and Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine in Uganda.

PubMed

Wallace, Lauren; Kapirir, Lydia

2017-04-08

To date, research on priority-setting for new vaccines has not adequately explored the influence of the global, national and sub-national levels of decision-making or contextual issues such as political pressure and stakeholder influence and power. Using Kapiriri and Martin's conceptual framework, this paper evaluates priority setting for new vaccines in Uganda at national and sub-national levels, and considers how global priorities can influence country priorities. This study focuses on 2 specific vaccines, the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine and the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV). This was a qualitative study that involved reviewing relevant Ugandan policy documents and media reports, as well as 54 key informant interviews at the global level and national and sub-national levels in Uganda. Kapiriri and Martin's conceptual framework was used to evaluate the prioritization process. Priority setting for PCV and HPV was conducted by the Ministry of Health (MoH), which is considered to be a legitimate institution. While respondents described the priority setting process for PCV process as transparent, participatory, and guided by explicit relevant criteria and evidence, the prioritization of HPV was thought to have been less transparent and less participatory. Respondents reported that neither process was based on an explicit priority setting framework nor did it involve adequate representation from the districts (program implementers) or publicity. The priority setting process for both PCV and HPV was negatively affected by the larger political and economic context, which contributed to weak institutional capacity as well as power imbalances between development assistance partners and the MoH. Priority setting in Uganda would be improved by strengthening institutional capacity and leadership and ensuring a transparent and participatory processes in which key stakeholders such as program implementers (the districts) and beneficiaries (the public) are involved. Kapiriri and Martin's framework has the potential to guide priority setting evaluation efforts, however, evaluation should be built into the priority setting process a priori such that information on priority setting is gathered throughout the implementation cycle. © 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.

Opinions of sports clinical practice chiropractors, with sports specialty training and those without, about chiropractic research priorities in sports health care: a centering resonance analysis

PubMed Central

Lee, Alexander D; Szabo, Kaitlyn; McDowell, Kirstie; Granger, Sydney

2016-01-01

Introduction: A Canadian sports chiropractic research agenda has yet to be defined. The Delphi method can be utilized to achieve this purpose; however, the sample of experts who participate can influence the results. To better inform sample selection for future research agenda development, we set out to determine if differences in opinions about research priorities exist between chiropractors who have their sports specialty designation and those who do not. Methods: Fifteen sports clinical practice chiropractors who have their sports fellowship designation and fifteen without, were interviewed with a set of standardized questions about sports chiropractic research priorities. A centering resonance analysis and cluster analysis were conducted on the interview responses. Results: The two practitioner groups differed in their opinions about the type of research that they would like to see conducted, the research that would impact their clinical practice the most, and where they believed research was lacking. However, both groups were similar in their opinions about research collaborations. Conclusion: Sports clinical practice chiropractors, with their sports specialty designation and those without, differed in their opinions about sports chiropractic research priorities; however, they had similar opinions about research collaborations. These results suggest that it may be important to sample from both practitioner groups in future studies aimed at developing research agendas for chiropractic research in sport. PMID:28065995

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.

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.

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.

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.

Identifying research priorities for patient safety in mental health: an international expert Delphi study

PubMed Central

Murray, Kevin; Thibaut, Bethan; Ramtale, Sonny Christian; Adam, Sheila; Darzi, Ara; Archer, Stephanie

2018-01-01

Objective Physical healthcare has dominated the patient safety field; research in mental healthcare is not as extensive but findings from physical healthcare cannot be applied to mental healthcare because it delivers specialised care that faces unique challenges. Therefore, a clearer focus and recognition of patient safety in mental health as a distinct research area is still needed. The study aim is to identify future research priorities in the field of patient safety in mental health. Design Semistructured interviews were conducted with the experts to ascertain their views on research priorities in patient safety in mental health. A three-round online Delphi study was used to ascertain consensus on 117 research priority statements. Setting and participants Academic and service user experts from the USA, UK, Switzerland, Netherlands, Ireland, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore were included. Main outcome measures Agreement in research priorities on a five-point scale. Results Seventy-nine statements achieved consensus (>70%). Three out of the top six research priorities were patient driven; experts agreed that understanding the patient perspective on safety planning, on self-harm and on medication was important. Conclusions This is the first international Delphi study to identify research priorities in safety in the mental field as determined by expert academic and service user perspectives. A reasonable consensus was obtained from international perspectives on future research priorities in patient safety in mental health; however, the patient perspective on their mental healthcare is a priority. The research agenda for patient safety in mental health identified here should be informed by patient safety science more broadly and used to further establish this area as a priority in its own right. The safety of mental health patients must have parity with that of physical health patients to achieve this. PMID:29502096

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.

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.

Setting Global Research Priorities for Developmental Disabilities, Including Intellectual Disabilities and Autism

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

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

2014-01-01

Objectives: The prevalence of intellectual disabilities (ID) has been estimated at 10.4/1000 worldwide with higher rates among children and adolescents in lower income countries. The objective of this paper is to address research priorities for development disabilities, notably ID and autism, at the global level and to propose the more rational…

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.

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

Research priorities in Maternal, Newborn, & Child Health & Nutrition for India: An Indian Council of Medical Research-INCLEN Initiative.

PubMed

Arora, Narendra K; Swaminathan, Soumya; Mohapatra, Archisman; Gopalan, Hema S; Katoch, Vishwa M; Bhan, Maharaj K; Rasaily, Reeta; Shekhar, Chander; Thavaraj, Vasantha; Roy, Malabika; Das, Manoja K; Wazny, Kerri; Kumar, Rakesh; Khera, Ajay; Bhatla, Neerja; Jain, Vanita; Laxmaiah, Avula; Nair, M K C; Paul, Vinod K; Ramachandran, Prema; Ramji, Siddharth; Vaidya, Umesh; Verma, I C; Shah, Dheeraj; Bahl, Rajiv; Qazi, Shamim; Rudan, Igor; Black, Robert E

2017-05-01

In India, research prioritization in Maternal, Newborn, and Child Health and Nutrition (MNCHN) themes has traditionally involved only a handful of experts mostly from major cities. The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR)-INCLEN collaboration undertook a nationwide exercise engaging faculty from 256 institutions to identify top research priorities in the MNCHN themes for 2016-2025. The Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative method of priority setting was adapted. The context of the exercise was defined by a National Steering Group (NSG) and guided by four Thematic Research Subcommittees. Research ideas were pooled from 498 experts located in different parts of India, iteratively consolidated into research options, scored by 893 experts against five pre-defined criteria (answerability, relevance, equity, investment and innovation) and weighed by a larger reference group. Ranked lists of priorities were generated for each of the four themes at national and three subnational (regional) levels [Empowered Action Group & North-Eastern States, Southern and Western States, & Northern States (including West Bengal)]. Research priorities differed between regions and from overall national priorities. Delivery domain of research which included implementation research constituted about 70 per cent of the top ten research options under all four themes. The results were endorsed in the NSG meeting. There was unanimity that the research priorities should be considered by different governmental and non-governmental agencies for investment with prioritization on implementation research and issues cutting across themes.

Research priorities in Maternal, Newborn, & Child Health & Nutrition for India: An Indian Council of Medical Research-INCLEN Initiative

PubMed Central

Arora, Narendra K.; Swaminathan, Soumya; Mohapatra, Archisman; Gopalan, Hema S.; Katoch, Vishwa M.; Bhan, Maharaj K.; Rasaily, Reeta; Shekhar, Chander; Thavaraj, Vasantha; Roy, Malabika; Das, Manoja K.; Wazny, Kerri; Kumar, Rakesh; Khera, Ajay; Bhatla, Neerja; Jain, Vanita; Laxmaiah, Avula; Nair, M.K.C.; Paul, Vinod K.; Ramachandran, Prema; Ramji, Siddharth; Vaidya, Umesh; Verma, I.C.; Shah, Dheeraj; Bahl, Rajiv; Qazi, Shamim; Rudan, Igor; Black, Robert E.

2017-01-01

In India, research prioritization in Maternal, Newborn, and Child Health and Nutrition (MNCHN) themes has traditionally involved only a handful of experts mostly from major cities. The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR)-INCLEN collaboration undertook a nationwide exercise engaging faculty from 256 institutions to identify top research priorities in the MNCHN themes for 2016-2025. The Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative method of priority setting was adapted. The context of the exercise was defined by a National Steering Group (NSG) and guided by four Thematic Research Subcommittees. Research ideas were pooled from 498 experts located in different parts of India, iteratively consolidated into research options, scored by 893 experts against five pre-defined criteria (answerability, relevance, equity, investment and innovation) and weighed by a larger reference group. Ranked lists of priorities were generated for each of the four themes at national and three subnational (regional) levels [Empowered Action Group & North-Eastern States, Southern and Western States, & Northern States (including West Bengal)]. Research priorities differed between regions and from overall national priorities. Delivery domain of research which included implementation research constituted about 70 per cent of the top ten research options under all four themes. The results were endorsed in the NSG meeting. There was unanimity that the research priorities should be considered by different governmental and non-governmental agencies for investment with prioritization on implementation research and issues cutting across themes. PMID:28948951

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.

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

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

2017-08-04

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. 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. 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. © 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.

Setting research priorities for maternal, newborn, child health and nutrition in India by engaging experts from 256 indigenous institutions contributing over 4000 research ideas: a CHNRI exercise by ICMR and INCLEN

PubMed Central

Arora, Narendra K; Mohapatra, Archisman; Gopalan, Hema S; Wazny, Kerri; Thavaraj, Vasantha; Rasaily, Reeta; Das, Manoj K; Maheshwari, Meenu; Bahl, Rajiv; Qazi, Shamim A; Black, Robert E; Rudan, Igor

2017-01-01

Background Health research in low– and middle– income countries (LMICs) is often driven by donor priorities rather than by the needs of the countries where the research takes place. This lack of alignment of donor’s priorities with local research need may be one of the reasons why countries fail to achieve set goals for population health and nutrition. India has a high burden of morbidity and mortality in women, children and infants. In order to look forward toward the Sustainable Development Goals, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and the INCLEN Trust International (INCLEN) employed the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative’s (CHNRI) research priority setting method for maternal, neonatal, child health and nutrition with the timeline of 2016–2025. The exercise was the largest to–date use of the CHNRI methodology, both in terms of participants and ideas generated and also expanded on the methodology. Methods CHNRI is a crowdsourcing–based exercise that involves using the collective intelligence of a group of stakeholders, usually researchers, to generate and score research options against a set of criteria. This paper reports on a large umbrella CHNRI that was divided into four theme–specific CHNRIs (maternal, newborn, child health and nutrition). A National Steering Group oversaw the exercise and four theme–specific Research Sub–Committees technically supported finalizing the scoring criteria and refinement of research ideas for the respective thematic areas. The exercise engaged participants from 256 institutions across India – 4003 research ideas were generated from 498 experts which were consolidated into 373 research options (maternal health: 122; newborn health: 56; child health: 101; nutrition: 94); 893 experts scored these against five criteria (answerability, relevance, equity, innovation and out–of–box thinking, investment on research). Relative weights to the criteria were assigned by 79 members from the Larger Reference Group. Given India’s diversity, priorities were identified at national and three regional levels: (i) the Empowered Action Group (EAG) and North–Eastern States; (ii) States and Union territories in Northern India (including West Bengal); and (iii) States and Union territories in Southern and Western parts of India. Conclusions The exercise leveraged the inherent flexibility of the CHNRI method in multiple ways. It expanded on the CHNRI methodology enabling analyses for identification of research priorities at national and regional levels. However, prioritization of research options are only valuable if they are put to use, and we hope that donors will take advantage of this prioritized list of research options. PMID:28686749

The Emergency Care of Patients With Cancer: Setting the Research Agenda.

PubMed

Brown, Jeremy; Grudzen, Corita; Kyriacou, Demetrios N; Obermeyer, Ziad; Quest, Tammie; Rivera, Donna; Stone, Susan; Wright, Jason; Shelburne, Nonniekaye

2016-12-01

To identify research priorities and appropriate resources and to establish the infrastructure required to address the emergency care of patients with cancer, the National Institutes of Health's National Cancer Institute and the Office of Emergency Care Research sponsored a one-day workshop, "Cancer and Emergency Medicine: Setting the Research Agenda," in March 2015 in Bethesda, MD. Participants included leading researchers and clinicians in the fields of oncology, emergency medicine, and palliative care, and representatives from the National Institutes of Health. Attendees were charged with identifying research opportunities and priorities to advance the understanding of the emergency care of cancer patients. Recommendations were made in 4 areas: the collection of epidemiologic data, care of the patient with febrile neutropenia, acute events such as dyspnea, and palliative care in the emergency department setting. Copyright © 2016 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

A strategy to improve priority setting in developing countries.

PubMed

Kapiriri, Lydia; Martin, Douglas K

2007-09-01

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

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.

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

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?

Implications of prioritizing HIV cure: new momentum to overcome old challenges in HIV.

PubMed

Tucker, Joseph D; Gilbertson, Adam; Lo, Ying-Ru; Vitória, Marco

2016-03-03

Curing HIV is a new strategic priority for several major AIDS organizations. In step with this new priority, HIV cure research and related programs are advancing in low, middle, and high-income country settings. This HIV cure momentum may influence existing HIV programs and research priorities. Despite the early stage of ongoing HIV cure efforts, these changes have directly influenced HIV research funding priorities, pilot programs, and HIV messaging. The building momentum to cure HIV infection may synergize with strategic priorities to better identify adults and infants with very early HIV infection. Although HIV cure represents a new goal, many existing programs and research techniques can be repurposed towards an HIV cure. HIV messages focused on engaging communities towards an HIV cure need to be careful to promote ARV adherence and retention within the HIV continuum of care. An increased emphasis within the AIDS field on finding an HIV cure has several important implications. Strengthening connections between HIV cure research and other areas of HIV research may help to catalyze research and facilitate implementation in the future.

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2018-01-01

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

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.

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.

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

The top 10 research priorities in cystic fibrosis developed by a partnership between people with CF and healthcare providers

PubMed Central

Rowbotham, Nicola J; Smith, Sherie; Leighton, Paul A; Rayner, Oli C; Gathercole, Katie; Elliott, Zoe C; Nash, Edward F; Daniels, Tracey; Duff, Alistair J A; Collins, Sarah; Chandran, Suja; Peaple, Ursula; Brownlee, Keith

2018-01-01

There remain many treatment uncertainties in cystic fibrosis (CF). With limited resources, research should focus on questions which are most important to the CF community. We conducted a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership in CF. Research questions were elicited and then prioritised in successive surveys. A workshop agreed the final top 10. Online methods avoided cross infection and widened participation. The elicitation survey had 482 respondents (1080 questions) and prioritisation survey 677 respondents. Participants were drawn equally from the patient and clinical communities globally. We have achieved a consensus on 10 research priorities which will be attractive to funders. PMID:28778919

National Institutes of Health Research Plan on Rehabilitation.

PubMed

2017-04-01

One in five Americans experiences disability that affects their daily function because of impairments in mobility, cognitive function, sensory impairment, or communication impairment. The need for rehabilitation strategies to optimize function and reduce disability is a clear priority for research to address this public health challenge. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) recently published a Research Plan on Rehabilitation that provides a set of priorities to guide the field over the next 5 years. The plan was developed with input from multiple Institutes and Centers within the NIH, the National Advisory Board for Medical Rehabilitation Research, and the public. This article provides an overview of the need for this research plan, an outline of its development, and a listing of six priority areas for research. The NIH is committed to working with all stakeholder communities engaged in rehabilitation research to track progress made on these priorities and to work to advance the science of medical rehabilitation. Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

The development of a national nutrition and mental health research agenda with comparison of priorities among diverse stakeholders.

PubMed

Davison, Karen M; D'Andreamatteo, Carla; Mitchell, Scott; Vanderkooy, Pat

2017-03-01

To develop a national nutrition and mental health research agenda based on the engagement of diverse stakeholders and to assess research priorities by stakeholder groups. A staged, integrated and participatory initiative was implemented to structure a national nutrition and mental health research agenda that included: (i) national stakeholder consultations to prioritize research questions; (ii) a workshop involving national representatives from research, policy and practice to further define priorities; (iii) triangulation of data to formulate the agenda; and (iv) test hypotheses about stakeholder influences on decision making. Canada. Diverse stakeholders including researchers, academics, administrators, service providers, policy makers, practitioners, non-profit, industry and funding agency representatives, front-line workers, individuals with lived experience of a mental health condition and those who provide care for them. This first-of-its-kind research priority-setting initiative showed points of agreement among diverse stakeholders (n 899) on research priorities aimed at service provision; however, respondents with lived experience of a mental health condition (themselves or a family member) placed emphasis on prevention and mental health promotion-based research. The final integrated agenda identified four research priorities, including programmes and services, service provider roles, the determinants of health and knowledge translation and exchange. These research priorities aim to identify effective models of care, enhance collaboration, inform policy makers and foster knowledge dissemination. Since a predictor of research uptake is the involvement of relevant stakeholders, a sustained and deliberate effort must continue to engage collaboration that will lead to the optimization of nutrition and mental health-related outcomes.

How Schools Can Promote Healthy Development for Newly Arrived Immigrant and Refugee Adolescents: Research Priorities.

PubMed

McNeely, Clea A; Morland, Lyn; Doty, S Benjamin; Meschke, Laurie L; Awad, Summer; Husain, Altaf; Nashwan, Ayat

2017-02-01

The US education system must find creative and effective ways to foster the healthy development of the approximately 2 million newly arrived immigrant and refugee adolescents, many of whom contend with language barriers, limited prior education, trauma, and discrimination. We identify research priorities for promoting the school success of these youth. The study used the 4-phase priority-setting method of the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative. In the final stage, 132 researchers, service providers, educators, and policymakers based in the United States were asked to rate the importance of 36 research options. The highest priority research options (range 1 to 5) were: evaluating newcomer programs (mean = 4.44, SD = 0.55), identifying how family and community stressors affect newly arrived immigrant and refugee adolescents' functioning in school (mean = 4.40, SD = 0.56), identifying teachers' major stressors in working with this population (mean = 4.36, SD = 0.72), and identifying how to engage immigrant and refugee families in their children's education (mean = 4.35, SD = 0.62). These research priorities emphasize the generation of practical knowledge that could translate to immediate, tangible benefits for schools. Funders, schools, and researchers can use these research priorities to guide research for the highest benefit of schools and the newly arrived immigrant and refugee adolescents they serve. © 2017, American School Health Association.

Priorities and needs for research on urban interventions targeting vector-borne diseases: rapid review of scoping and systematic reviews.

PubMed

Bermudez-Tamayo, Clara; Mukamana, Olive; Carabali, Mabel; Osorio, Lyda; Fournet, Florence; Dabiré, Kounbobr Roch; Turchi Marteli, Celina; Contreras, Adolfo; Ridde, Valéry

2016-12-01

This paper highlights the critical importance of evidence on vector-borne diseases (VBD) prevention and control interventions in urban settings when assessing current and future needs, with a view to setting policy priorities that promote inclusive and equitable urban health services. Research should produce knowledge about policies and interventions that are intended to control and prevent VBDs at the population level and to reduce inequities. Such interventions include policy, program, and resource distribution approaches that address the social determinants of health and exert influence at organizational and system levels.

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 and Emergency Care: Defining Clinical Research Priorities.

PubMed

Hansoti, Bhakti; Aluisio, Adam R; Barry, Meagan A; Davey, Kevin; Lentz, Brian A; Modi, Payal; Newberry, Jennifer A; Patel, Melissa H; Smith, Tricia A; Vinograd, Alexandra M; Levine, Adam C

2017-06-01

Despite recent strides in the development of global emergency medicine (EM), the field continues to lag in applying a scientific approach to identifying critical knowledge gaps and advancing evidence-based solutions to clinical and public health problems seen in emergency departments (EDs) worldwide. Here, progress on the global EM research agenda created at the 2013 Academic Emergency Medicine Global Health and Emergency Care Consensus Conference is evaluated and critical areas for future development in emergency care research internationally are identified. A retrospective review of all studies compiled in the Global Emergency Medicine Literature Review (GEMLR) database from 2013 through 2015 was conducted. Articles were categorized and analyzed using descriptive quantitative measures and structured data matrices. The Global Emergency Medicine Think Tank Clinical Research Working Group at the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine 2016 Annual Meeting then further conceptualized and defined global EM research priorities utilizing consensus-based decision making. Research trends in global EM research published between 2013 and 2015 show a predominance of observational studies relative to interventional or descriptive studies, with the majority of research conducted in the inpatient setting in comparison to the ED or prehospital setting. Studies on communicable diseases and injury were the most prevalent, with a relative dearth of research on chronic noncommunicable diseases. The Global Emergency Medicine Think Tank Clinical Research Working Group identified conceptual frameworks to define high-impact research priorities, including the traditional approach of using global burden of disease to define priorities and the impact of EM on individual clinical care and public health opportunities. EM research is also described through a population lens approach, including gender, pediatrics, and migrant and refugee health. Despite recent strides in global EM research and a proliferation of scholarly output in the field, further work is required to advocate for and inform research priorities in global EM. The priorities outlined in this paper aim to guide future research in the field, with the goal of advancing the development of EM worldwide. © 2017 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

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

PubMed

Mortimer, Duncan; Peacock, Stuart

2012-10-01

The creation of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) under the Affordable Care Act has set comparative effectiveness research (CER) at centre stage of US health care reform. Comparative cost analysis has remained marginalised and it now appears unlikely that the PCORI will require comparative cost data to be collected as an essential component of CER. In this paper, we review the literature to identify ethical and distributional objectives that might motivate calls to set priorities without regard to comparative cost. We then present argument and evidence to consider whether there is any plausible set of objectives and constraints against which priorities can be set without reference to comparative cost. We conclude that - to set aside comparative cost even after accounting for ethical and distributional constraints - would be truly to act as if money is no object. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

PubMed

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

2015-05-07

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

Research priorities in mental health occupational therapy: A study of clinician perspectives.

PubMed

Hitch, Danielle; Lhuede, Kate

2015-10-01

The evidence to support mental health occupational therapy has proliferated in the early years of this century, but this growth has tended to be organic rather than targeted. Previous efforts to identify research priorities in this area of practice are either out dated, or encompass discrete areas of practice. The aim of this study was to identify priority areas for research in mental health occupational therapy from clinician's perspectives. A Policy Delphi method was used to enable occupational therapists to define and differentiate their perspectives on research priorities. Forty-two occupational therapists took part in the first two rounds of this method, with 69% (n = 29) going on to complete the third and final round of data collection. A Likert scale was used to rate the importance of each priority, and descriptive quantitative analysis undertaken to identify those most consistently identified as being highly important. Four research priorities were identified as being highly important in this study: (i) working in an occupationally focussed way; (ii) consumer experience of therapy groups; (iii) identifying factors which increase consumer engagement in occupation; and (iv) engaging patients on the inpatient unit in meaningful and positive occupation. Two of the priority areas are already the subject of substantial evidence bases, but there has been far less research into consumer experiences of groups and occupational engagement in acute settings. Collaboration between research teams and greater consumer inclusion are recommended for the future. This study provides an updated indication of research priorities for mental health occupational therapy in Australia. © 2015 Occupational Therapy Australia.

Exploring stakeholders' views of medical education research priorities: a national survey.

PubMed

Dennis, Ashley A; Cleland, Jennifer A; Johnston, Peter; Ker, Jean S; Lough, Murray; Rees, Charlotte E

2014-11-01

Setting research priorities is important when exploring complex issues with limited resources. Only two countries (Canada and New Zealand) have previously conducted priority-setting exercises for medical education research (MER). This study aimed to identify the views of multiple stakeholders on MER priorities in Scotland. This study utilised a two-stage design to explore the views of stakeholders across the medical education continuum using online questionnaires. In Stage 1, key informants outlined their top three MER priorities and justified their choices. In Stage 2, participants rated 21 topics generated in Stage 1 according to importance and identified or justified their top priorities. A combination of qualitative (i.e. framework analysis) and quantitative (e.g. exploratory factor analysis) data analyses were employed. Views were gathered from over 1300 stakeholders. A total of 21 subthemes (or priority areas) identified in Stage 1 were explored further in Stage 2. The 21 items loaded onto five factors: the culture of learning together in the workplace; enhancing and valuing the role of educators; curriculum integration and innovation; bridging the gap between assessment and feedback, and building a resilient workforce. Within Stage 2, the top priority subthemes were: balancing conflicts between service and training; providing useful feedback; promoting resiliency and well-being; creating an effective workplace learning culture; selecting and recruiting doctors to reflect need, and ensuring that curricula prepare trainees for practice. Participant characteristics were related to the perceived importance of the factors. Finally, five themes explaining why participants prioritised items were identified: patient safety; quality of care; investing for the future; policy and political agendas, and evidence-based education. This study indicates that, across the spectrum of stakeholders and geography, certain MER priorities are consistently identified. These priority areas are in harmony with a range of current drivers in UK medical education. They provide a platform of evidence on which to base decisions about MER programmes in Scotland and beyond. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Patient-centered priorities for improving medication management and adherence.

PubMed

McMullen, Carmit K; Safford, Monika M; Bosworth, Hayden B; Phansalkar, Shobha; Leong, Amye; Fagan, Maureen B; Trontell, Anne; Rumptz, Maureen; Vandermeer, Meredith L; Brinkman, William B; Burkholder, Rebecca; Frank, Lori; Hommel, Kevin; Mathews, Robin; Hornbrook, Mark C; Seid, Michael; Fordis, Michael; Lambert, Bruce; McElwee, Newell; Singh, Jasvinder A

2015-01-01

The Centers for Education and Research on Therapeutics convened a workshop to examine the scientific evidence on medication adherence interventions from the patient-centered perspective and to explore the potential of patient-centered medication management to improve chronic disease treatment. Patients, providers, researchers, and other stakeholders (N = 28) identified and prioritized ideas for future research and practice. We analyzed stakeholder voting on priorities and reviewed themes in workshop discussions. Ten priority areas emerged. Three areas were highly rated by all stakeholder groups: creating tools and systems to facilitate and evaluate patient-centered medication management plans; developing training on patient-centered prescribing for providers; and increasing patients' knowledge about medication management. However, priorities differed across stakeholder groups. Notably, patients prioritized using peer support to improve medication management while researchers did not. Engaging multiple stakeholders in setting a patient-centered research agenda and broadening the scope of adherence interventions to include other aspects of medication management resulted in priorities outside the traditional scope of adherence research. Workshop participants recognized the potential benefits of patient-centered medication management but also identified many challenges to implementation that require additional research and innovation. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Research priorities for child and adolescent physical activity and sedentary behaviours: an international perspective using a twin-panel Delphi procedure

PubMed Central

2013-01-01

Background The quantity and quality of studies in child and adolescent physical activity and sedentary behaviour have rapidly increased, but research directions are often pursued in a reactive and uncoordinated manner. Aim To arrive at an international consensus on research priorities in the area of child and adolescent physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Methods Two independent panels, each consisting of 12 experts, undertook three rounds of a Delphi methodology. The Delphi methodology required experts to anonymously answer questions put forward by the researchers with feedback provided between each round. Results The primary outcome of the study was a ranked set of 29 research priorities that aimed to be applicable for the next 10 years. The top three ranked priorities were: developing effective and sustainable interventions to increase children’s physical activity long-term; policy and/or environmental change and their influence on children’s physical activity and sedentary behaviour; and prospective, longitudinal studies of the independent effects of physical activity and sedentary behaviour on health. Conclusions These research priorities can help to guide decisions on future research directions. PMID:24228891

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.

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.

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

Developing a national dental education research strategy: priorities, barriers and enablers

PubMed Central

Barton, Karen L; Dennis, Ashley A; Rees, Charlotte E

2017-01-01

Objectives This study aimed to identify national dental education research (DER) priorities for the next 3–5 years and to identify barriers and enablers to DER. Setting Scotland. Participants In this two-stage online questionnaire study, we collected data with multiple dental professions (eg, dentistry, dental nursing and dental hygiene) and stakeholder groups (eg, learners, clinicians, educators, managers, researchers and academics). Eighty-five participants completed the Stage 1 qualitative questionnaire and 649 participants the Stage 2 quantitative questionnaire. Results Eight themes were identified at Stage 1. Of the 24 DER priorities identified, the top three were: role of assessments in identifying competence; undergraduate curriculum prepares for practice and promoting teamwork. Following exploratory factor analysis, the 24 items loaded onto four factors: teamwork and professionalism, measuring and enhancing performance, dental workforce issues and curriculum integration and innovation. Barriers and enablers existed at multiple levels: individual, interpersonal, institutional structures and cultures and technology. Conclusions This priority setting exercise provides a necessary first step to developing a national DER strategy capturing multiple perspectives. Promoting DER requires improved resourcing alongside efforts to overcome peer stigma and lack of valuing and motivation. PMID:28360237

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.

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

PubMed

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

2004-09-08

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

Publishing priorities of biomedical research funders

PubMed Central

Collins, Ellen

2013-01-01

Objectives To understand the publishing priorities, especially in relation to open access, of 10 UK biomedical research funders. Design Semistructured interviews. Setting 10 UK biomedical research funders. Participants 12 employees with responsibility for research management at 10 UK biomedical research funders; a purposive sample to represent a range of backgrounds and organisation types. Conclusions Publicly funded and large biomedical research funders are committed to open access publishing and are pleased with recent developments which have stimulated growth in this area. Smaller charitable funders are supportive of the aims of open access, but are concerned about the practical implications for their budgets and their funded researchers. Across the board, biomedical research funders are turning their attention to other priorities for sharing research outputs, including data, protocols and negative results. Further work is required to understand how smaller funders, including charitable funders, can support open access. PMID:24154520

Global land cover mapping and characterization: present situation and future research priorities

USGS Publications Warehouse

Giri, Chandra

2005-01-01

The availability and accessibility of global land cover data sets plays an important role in many global change studies. The importance of such science‐based information is also reflected in a number of international, regional, and national projects and programs. Recent developments in earth observing satellite technology, information technology, computer hardware and software, and infrastructure development have helped developed better quality land cover data sets. As a result, such data sets are increasingly becoming available, the user‐base is ever widening, application areas have been expanding, and the potential of many other applications are enormous. Yet, we are far from producing high quality global land cover data sets. This paper examines the progress in the development of digital global land cover data, their availability, and current applications. Problems and opportunities are also explained. The overview sets the stage for identifying future research priorities needed for operational land cover assessment and monitoring.

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.

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

PubMed Central

Rudan, Igor

2016-01-01

Introduction Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) started as an initiative of the Global Forum for Health Research in Geneva, Switzerland. Its aim was to develop a method that could assist priority setting in health research investments. The first version of the CHNRI method was published in 2007–2008. The aim of this paper was to summarize the history of the development of the CHNRI method and its key conceptual advances. Methods The guiding principle of the CHNRI method is to expose the potential of many competing health research ideas to reduce disease burden and inequities that exist in the population in a feasible and cost–effective way. Results The CHNRI method introduced three key conceptual advances that led to its increased popularity in comparison to other priority–setting methods and processes. First, it proposed a systematic approach to listing a large number of possible research ideas, using the “4D” framework (description, delivery, development and discovery research) and a well–defined “depth” of proposed research ideas (research instruments, avenues, options and questions). Second, it proposed a systematic approach for discriminating between many proposed research ideas based on a well–defined context and criteria. The five “standard” components of the context are the population of interest, the disease burden of interest, geographic limits, time scale and the preferred style of investing with respect to risk. The five “standard” criteria proposed for prioritization between research ideas are answerability, effectiveness, deliverability, maximum potential for disease burden reduction and the effect on equity. However, both the context and the criteria can be flexibly changed to meet the specific needs of each priority–setting exercise. Third, it facilitated consensus development through measuring collective optimism on each component of each research idea among a larger group of experts using a simple 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. Conclusions 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. PMID:27418959

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).

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

Research Priorities in Spasmodic Dysphonia

PubMed Central

Ludlow, Christy L.; Adler, Charles H.; Berke, Gerald S.; Bielamowicz, Steven A.; Blitzer, Andrew; Bressman, Susan B.; Hallett, Mark; Jinnah, H. A.; Juergens, Uwe; Martin, Sandra B.; Perlmutter, Joel S.; Sapienza, Christine; Singleton, Andrew; Tanner, Caroline M.; Woodson, Gayle E.

2009-01-01

OBJECTIVE To identify research priorities for increasing understanding of the pathogenesis, diagnosis and improved treatment of spasmodic dysphonia. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING A multidisciplinary working group was formed including both scientists and clinicians from multiple disciplines, otolaryngology, neurology, speech pathology, genetics and neuroscience, to review currently available information on spasmodic dysphonia and to identify research priorities. RESULTS Operational definitions for spasmodic dysphonia at different levels of certainty were recommended for diagnosis and recommendations made for a multi-center multidisciplinary validation study. CONCLUSIONS The highest priority is to characterize the disorder and identify risk factors that may contribute to its onset. Future research should compare and contrast spasmodic dysphonia with other forms of focal dystonia. Development of animal models is recommended to explore hypotheses related to pathogenesis. Improved understanding of the pathophysiology of SD should provide the basis for developing new treatment options and exploratory clinical trials. SIGNIFICANCE This document should foster future research to improve the care of patients with this chronic debilitating voice and speech disorder by otolaryngology, neurology, and speech pathology. PMID:18922334

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

Top 10 research priorities in head and neck cancer: Results of an Alberta priority setting partnership of patients, caregivers, family members, and clinicians.

PubMed

Lechelt, Leah A; Rieger, Jana M; Cowan, Katherine; Debenham, Brock J; Krewski, Bernie; Nayar, Suresh; Regunathan, Akhila; Seikaly, Hadi; Singh, Ameeta E; Laupacis, Andreas

2018-03-01

The epidemiology, etiology, and management of head and neck cancer are evolving. Understanding the perspectives and priorities of nonresearchers regarding treatment uncertainties is important to inform future research. Using the James Lind Alliance approach, patients, caregivers, and clinicians responded to a survey regarding their unanswered questions about treating and managing head and neck cancer. Distinct uncertainties were extracted from responses and sorted into themes. Uncertainties already answered in the literature were removed. Those remaining were ranked by patients and clinicians to develop a short list of priorities, which were discussed at a workshop and reduced to the top 10. One hundred sixty-one respondents posed 818 uncertainties, culminating in 77 for interim ranking and 27 for discussion at a workshop. Participants reached consensus on the top 10, which included questions on prevention, screening, treatment, and quality of life. Nonresearchers can effectively collaborate to establish priorities for future research in head and neck cancer. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Setting priorities for EU healthcare workforce IT skills competence improvement.

PubMed

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

2017-04-01

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

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

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

Fundamental Problems of Lunar Research, Technical Solutions, and Priority Lunar Regions for Research

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Ivanov, M. A.; Basilevsky, A. T.; Bricheva, S. S.; Guseva, E. N.; Demidov, N. E.; Zakharova, M.; Krasil'nikov, S. S.

2017-11-01

In this article, we discuss four fundamental scientific problems of lunar research: (1) lunar chronology, (2) the internal structure of the Moon, (3) the lunar polar regions, and (4) lunar volcanism. After formulating the scientific problems and their components, we proceed to outlining a list of technical solutions and priority lunar regions for research. Solving the listed problems requires investigations on the lunar surface using lunar rovers, which can deliver a set of analytical equipment to places where geological conditions are known from a detailed analysis of orbital information. The most critical research methods, which can answer some of the key questions, are analysis of local geological conditions from panoramic photographs, determination of the chemical, isotopic, and mineral composition of the soil, and deep seismic sounding. A preliminary list is given of lunar regions with high scientific priority.

The Evolution of School Nursing Data Indicators in Massachusetts: Recommendations for a National Data Set

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Gapinski, Mary Ann; Sheetz, Anne H.

2014-01-01

The National Association of School Nurses' research priorities include the recommendation that data reliability, quality, and availability be addressed to advance research in child and school health. However, identifying a national school nursing data set has remained a challenge for school nurses, school nursing leaders, school nurse professional…

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2015-01-01

Objective To identify research priorities for Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine. Design Prospective surveys and consensus meetings guided by an independent adviser. Setting UK. Participants 45 stakeholder organisations (25 professional, 20 patient/carer) affiliated as James Lind Alliance partners. Outcomes First ‘ideas-gathering’ survey: Free text research ideas and suggestions. Second ‘prioritisation’ survey: Shortlist of ‘summary’ research questions (derived from the first survey) ranked by respondents in order of priority. Final ‘top ten’: Agreed by consensus at a final prioritisation workshop. Results First survey: 1420 suggestions received from 623 respondents (49% patients/public) were refined into a shortlist of 92 ‘summary’ questions. Second survey: 1718 respondents each nominated up to 10 questions as research priorities. Top ten: The 25 highest-ranked questions advanced to the final workshop, where 23 stakeholders (13 professional, 10 patient/carer) agreed the 10 most important questions: ▸ What can we do to stop patients developing chronic pain after surgery? ▸ How can patient care around the time of emergency surgery be improved? ▸ What long-term harm may result from anaesthesia, particularly following repeated anaesthetics? ▸ What outcomes should we use to measure the ‘success’ of anaesthesia and perioperative care? ▸ How can we improve recovery from surgery for elderly patients? ▸ For which patients does regional anaesthesia give better outcomes than general anaesthesia? ▸ What are the effects of anaesthesia on the developing brain? ▸ Do enhanced recovery programmes improve short and long-term outcomes? ▸ How can preoperative exercise or fitness training, including physiotherapy, improve outcomes after surgery? ▸ How can we improve communication between the teams looking after patients throughout their surgical journey? Conclusions Almost 2000 stakeholders contributed their views regarding anaesthetic and perioperative research priorities. This is the largest example of patient and public involvement in shaping anaesthetic and perioperative research to date. PMID:26674506

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

PubMed

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

2017-01-01

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

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/.

Ocean research plan reviewed

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Zielinski, Sarah

A draft plan setting out priorities for U.S. ocean research generally was lauded for its clear and well-articulated view in a recent report from a committee of the U.S. National Research Council (NRC) of the US. National Academies. However, the committee advised that the plan would benefit from a bold vision for the future of ocean science research, additional details, and a reorganization to include cross-cutting research.The draft "Charting the Course for Ocean Science in the United States: Research Priorities for the Next Decade" was made available for public comment in September 2006 by the U.S. National Science and Technology Council's Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology.

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.

Research priorities in health communication and participation: international survey of consumers and other stakeholders.

PubMed

Synnot, Anneliese; Bragge, Peter; Lowe, Dianne; Nunn, Jack S; O'Sullivan, Molly; Horvat, Lidia; Tong, Allison; Kay, Debra; Ghersi, Davina; McDonald, Steve; Poole, Naomi; Bourke, Noni; Lannin, Natasha; Vadasz, Danny; Oliver, Sandy; Carey, Karen; Hill, Sophie J

2018-05-08

To identify research priorities of consumers and other stakeholders to inform Cochrane Reviews in 'health communication and participation' (including such concepts as patient experience, shared decision-making and health literacy). International. We included anyone with an interest in health communication and participation. Up to 151 participants (18-80 years; 117 female) across 12 countries took part, including 48 consumers (patients, carers, consumer representatives) and 75 professionals (health professionals, policymakers, researchers) (plus 25 people who identified as both). Survey. We invited people to submit their research ideas via an online survey open for 4 weeks. Using inductive thematic analysis, we generated priority research topics, then classified these into broader themes. Participants submitted 200 research ideas, which we grouped into 21 priority topics. Key research priorities included: insufficient consumer involvement in research (19 responses), 'official' health information is contradictory and hard to understand (18 responses), communication/coordination breakdowns in health services (15 responses), health information provision a low priority for health professionals (15 responses), insufficient eliciting of patient preferences (14 responses), health services poorly understand/implement patient-centred care (14 responses), lack of holistic care impacting healthcare quality and safety (13 responses) and inadequate consumer involvement in service design (11 responses). These priorities encompassed acute and community health settings, with implications for policy and research. Priority populations of interest included people from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, carers, and people with low educational attainment, or mental illness. Most frequently suggested interventions focused on training and cultural change activities for health services and health professionals. Consumers and other stakeholders want research addressing structural and cultural challenges in health services (eg, lack of holistic, patient-centred, culturally safe care) and building health professionals' communication skills. Solutions should be devised in partnership with consumers, and focus on the needs of vulnerable groups. © 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 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.

Research priorities of the Canadian chiropractic profession: a consensus study using a modified Delphi technique.

PubMed

French, Simon D; Beliveau, Peter J H; Bruno, Paul; Passmore, Steven R; Hayden, Jill A; Srbely, John; Kawchuk, Greg N

2017-01-01

Research funds are limited and a healthcare profession that supports research activity should establish research priority areas. The study objective was to identify research priority areas for the Canadian chiropractic profession, and for stakeholders in the chiropractic profession to rank these in order of importance. We conducted a modified Delphi consensus study between August 2015 and May 2017 to determine the views of Canadian chiropractic organisations (e.g. Canadian Chiropractic Association; provincial associations) and stakeholder groups (e.g. chiropractic educational institutions; researchers). Participants completed three online Delphi survey rounds. In Round 1, participants suggested research areas within four broad research themes: 1) Basic science; 2) Clinical; 3) Health services; and 4) Population health. In Round 2, researchers created sub-themes by categorising the areas suggested in Round 1, and participants judged the importance of the research sub-themes. We defined consensus as at least 70% of participants agreeing that a research area was "essential" or "very important". In Round 3, results from Round 2 were presented to the participants to re-evaluate the importance of sub-themes. Finally, participants completed an online pairwise ranking activity to determine the rank order of the list of important research sub-themes. Fifty-seven participants, of 85 people invited, completed Round 1 (response rate 67%). Fifty-six participants completed Round 2, 55 completed Round 3, and 53 completed the ranking activity. After three Delphi rounds and the pairwise ranking activity was completed, the ranked list of research sub-themes considered important were: 1) Integration of chiropractic care into multidisciplinary settings; 2) Costs and cost-effectiveness of chiropractic care; 3) Effect of chiropractic care on reducing medical services; 4) Effects of chiropractic care; 5) Safety/side effects of chiropractic care; 6) Chiropractic care for older adults; 7) Neurophysiological mechanisms and effects of spinal manipulative therapy; 8) General mechanisms and effects of spinal manipulative therapy. This project identified research priority areas for the Canadian chiropractic profession. The top three priority areas were all in the area of health services research: 1) Integration of chiropractic care into multidisciplinary settings; 2) Costs and cost-effectiveness of chiropractic care; 3) Effect of chiropractic care on reducing medical services.

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.

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

Prioritizing research for integrated implementation of early childhood development and maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health and nutrition platforms.

PubMed

Sharma, Renee; Gaffey, Michelle F; Alderman, Harold; Bassani, Diego G; Bogard, Kimber; Darmstadt, Gary L; Das, Jai K; de Graft-Johnson, Joseph E; Hamadani, Jena D; Horton, Susan; Huicho, Luis; Hussein, Julia; Lye, Stephen; Pérez-Escamilla, Rafael; Proulx, Kerrie; Marfo, Kofi; Mathews-Hanna, Vanessa; Mclean, Mireille S; Rahman, Atif; Silver, Karlee L; Singla, Daisy R; Webb, Patrick; Bhutta, Zulfiqar A

2017-06-01

Existing health and nutrition services present potential platforms for scaling up delivery of early childhood development (ECD) interventions within sensitive windows across the life course, especially in the first 1000 days from conception to age 2 years. However, there is insufficient knowledge on how to optimize implementation for such strategies in an integrated manner. In light of this knowledge gap, we aimed to systematically identify a set of integrated implementation research priorities for health, nutrition and early child development within the 2015 to 2030 timeframe of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). We applied the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative method, and consulted a diverse group of global health experts to develop and score 57 research questions against five criteria: answerability, effectiveness, deliverability, impact, and effect on equity. These questions were ranked using a research priority score, and the average expert agreement score was calculated for each question. The research priority scores ranged from 61.01 to 93.52, with a median of 82.87. The average expert agreement scores ranged from 0.50 to 0.90, with a median of 0.75. The top-ranked research question were: i) "How can interventions and packages to reduce neonatal mortality be expanded to include ECD and stimulation interventions?"; ii) "How does the integration of ECD and MNCAH&N interventions affect human resource requirements and capacity development in resource-poor settings?"; and iii) "How can integrated interventions be tailored to vulnerable refugee and migrant populations to protect against poor ECD and MNCAH&N outcomes?". Most highly-ranked research priorities varied across the life course and highlighted key aspects of scaling up coverage of integrated interventions in resource-limited settings, including: workforce and capacity development, cost-effectiveness and strategies to reduce financial barriers, and quality assessment of programs. Investing in ECD is critical to achieving several of the SDGs, including SDG 2 on ending all forms of malnutrition, SDG 3 on ensuring health and well-being for all, and SDG 4 on ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education and promotion of life-long learning opportunities for all. The generated research agenda is expected to drive action and investment on priority approaches to integrating ECD interventions within existing health and nutrition services.

Prioritizing research for integrated implementation of early childhood development and maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health and nutrition platforms

PubMed Central

Sharma, Renee; Gaffey, Michelle F; Alderman, Harold; Bassani, Diego G; Bogard, Kimber; Darmstadt, Gary L; Das, Jai K; de Graft–Johnson, Joseph E; Hamadani, Jena D; Horton, Susan; Huicho, Luis; Hussein, Julia; Lye, Stephen; Pérez–Escamilla, Rafael; Proulx, Kerrie; Marfo, Kofi; Mathews–Hanna, Vanessa; Mclean, Mireille S; Rahman, Atif; Silver, Karlee L; Singla, Daisy R; Webb, Patrick; Bhutta, Zulfiqar A

2017-01-01

Background Existing health and nutrition services present potential platforms for scaling up delivery of early childhood development (ECD) interventions within sensitive windows across the life course, especially in the first 1000 days from conception to age 2 years. However, there is insufficient knowledge on how to optimize implementation for such strategies in an integrated manner. In light of this knowledge gap, we aimed to systematically identify a set of integrated implementation research priorities for health, nutrition and early child development within the 2015 to 2030 timeframe of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Methods We applied the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative method, and consulted a diverse group of global health experts to develop and score 57 research questions against five criteria: answerability, effectiveness, deliverability, impact, and effect on equity. These questions were ranked using a research priority score, and the average expert agreement score was calculated for each question. Findings The research priority scores ranged from 61.01 to 93.52, with a median of 82.87. The average expert agreement scores ranged from 0.50 to 0.90, with a median of 0.75. The top–ranked research question were: i) “How can interventions and packages to reduce neonatal mortality be expanded to include ECD and stimulation interventions?”; ii) “How does the integration of ECD and MNCAH&N interventions affect human resource requirements and capacity development in resource–poor settings?”; and iii) “How can integrated interventions be tailored to vulnerable refugee and migrant populations to protect against poor ECD and MNCAH&N outcomes?”. Most highly–ranked research priorities varied across the life course and highlighted key aspects of scaling up coverage of integrated interventions in resource–limited settings, including: workforce and capacity development, cost–effectiveness and strategies to reduce financial barriers, and quality assessment of programs. Conclusions Investing in ECD is critical to achieving several of the SDGs, including SDG 2 on ending all forms of malnutrition, SDG 3 on ensuring health and well–being for all, and SDG 4 on ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education and promotion of life–long learning opportunities for all. The generated research agenda is expected to drive action and investment on priority approaches to integrating ECD interventions within existing health and nutrition services. PMID:28685048

Assessing the impact of defining a global priority research agenda to address HIV-associated tuberculosis.

PubMed

Odone, Anna; Matteelli, Alberto; Chiesa, Valentina; Cella, Paola; Ferrari, Antonio; Pezzetti, Federica; Signorelli, Carlo; Getahun, Haileyesus

2016-11-01

In 2010, the WHO issued 77 priority research questions (PRQs) to address HIV-associated TB. Objective of the this study was to assess the impact of defining the research agenda in stimulating and directing research around priority research questions. We used number and type of scientific publications as a proxy to quantitatively assess the impact of research agenda setting. We conducted 77 single systematic reviews - one for every PRQ - building 77 different search strategies using PRQs' keywords. Multivariate logistic regression models were applied to assess the quantity and quality of research produced over time and accounting for selected covariates. In 2009-2015, PRQs were addressed by 1631 publications (median: 11 studies published per PRQ, range 1-96). The most published area was 'Intensified TB case finding' (median: 23 studies/PRQ, range: 2-74). The majority (62.1%, n = 1013) were published as original studies, and more than half (58%, n = 585) were conducted in the African region. Original studies' publication increased over the study period (P trend = <0.001). They focused more on the 'Intensified TB case finding' (OR = 2.17, 95% CI: 1.56-2.93) and 'Drug-resistant TB and HIV infection' (OR = 2.12, 95% CI: 1.47-3.06) areas than non-original studies. Original studies were published in journals of lower impact factor and received a smaller number of citations than non-original studies (OR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.42-0.69). The generation of evidence to address PRQs has increased over time particularly in selected fields. Setting a priority research agenda for HIV-associated TB might have positively influenced the direction and the conduct of research and contributed to the global response to such a major threat to health. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

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.

The top 10 research priorities in cystic fibrosis developed by a partnership between people with CF and healthcare providers.

PubMed

Rowbotham, Nicola J; Smith, Sherie; Leighton, Paul A; Rayner, Oli C; Gathercole, Katie; Elliott, Zoe C; Nash, Edward F; Daniels, Tracey; Duff, Alistair J A; Collins, Sarah; Chandran, Suja; Peaple, Ursula; Hurley, Matthew N; Brownlee, Keith; Smyth, Alan R

2018-04-01

There remain many treatment uncertainties in cystic fibrosis (CF). With limited resources, research should focus on questions which are most important to the CF community. We conducted a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership in CF. Research questions were elicited and then prioritised in successive surveys. A workshop agreed the final top 10. Online methods avoided cross infection and widened participation. The elicitation survey had 482 respondents (1080 questions) and prioritisation survey 677 respondents. Participants were drawn equally from the patient and clinical communities globally. We have achieved a consensus on 10 research priorities which will be attractive to funders. © 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 for Space Research: Opportunities and Imperatives

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

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

1992-01-01

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

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.

Education policy implications from the Expert Panel on Electronic Media and Youth Violence.

PubMed

Worthen, Maria R

2007-12-01

The research from the Expert Panel on Electronic Media and Youth Violence makes a compelling case for why educators and education policymakers should care about the effects of media on youth behavior, and the growing phenomenon of Internet bullying and harassment. The ability of the U.S. education system to respond is limited not only by competing instructional priorities but also by the governance structure of the education system itself. The federal role is limited to a proportionally small amount of funding for states and schools, to raising public awareness, and to providing research and data. States can set priorities, make requirements, and direct funding. Districts and schools ultimately have the most control over prevention program selection and setting social and behavioral norms. Key implications of the panel's research for educators and education policymakers include: Internet bullying is correlated with school behavior problems; Internet bullying behavior may peak in middle school; Internet bullying shares common predictors with verbal and, to some extent, physical bullying; Media literacy programs may mitigate the negative effects of electronic media on youth. Specific recommendations based on these conclusions are discussed, and research priorities for the prevention and education fields are identified.

Responsible research and innovation: A manifesto for empirical ethics?

PubMed Central

Williams, Clare

2015-01-01

In 2013 the Nuffield Council on Bioethics launched their report Novel Neurotechnologies: Intervening in the Brain. The report, which adopts the European Commission’s notion of Responsible Research and Innovation, puts forward a set of priorities to guide ethical research into, and the development of, new therapeutic neurotechnologies. In this paper, we critically engage with these priorities. We argue that the Nuffield Council’s priorities, and the Responsible Research and Innovation initiative as a whole, are laudable and should guide research and innovation in all areas of healthcare. However, we argue that operationalising Responsible Research and Innovation requires an in-depth understanding of the research and clinical contexts. Providing such an understanding is an important task for empirical ethics. Drawing on examples from sociology, science and technology studies, and related disciplines, we propose four avenues of social science research which can provide such an understanding. We suggest that these avenues can provide a manifesto for empirical ethics. PMID:26089743

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)

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.

Assessing the extent to which current clinical research is consistent with patient priorities: a scoping review using a case study in patients on or nearing dialysis.

PubMed

Jun, Min; Manns, Braden; Laupacis, Andreas; Manns, Liam; Rehal, Bhavdeep; Crowe, Sally; Hemmelgarn, Brenda R

2015-01-01

There is growing acknowledgement that engaging patients to identify their research priorities is important. Using a case study of patients on or nearing dialysis, we sought to assess the extent to which recently completed and ongoing clinical research was consistent with priorities identified by patients, caregivers, and clinicians. Over a 4-year sampling frame (January 2010 to December 2013), we systematically searched the medical literature (top 5 nephrology and top 10 general medicine journals accessed through MEDLINE via Ovid), international randomized controlled trial (RCT) registries, and national government and kidney research funding organizations (Canada, U.S., Australia, and U.K.) for published clinical studies, registered RCTs, and funded clinical studies, respectively. Published clinical studies, registered RCTs, and funded clinical studies were categorized as to whether or not they were consistent with the top 10 research priorities identified by patients, their caregivers, and clinicians in a recent comprehensive research priority setting exercise. The search yielded 4293 published articles, 688 RCTs, and 70 funded studies, of which 1116 articles, 315 RCTs, and 70 funded studies were eligible for inclusion. Overall 194 published studies (17.4 %), 71 RCTs (22.5 %), and 15 funded studies (21.4 %) included topics consistent with the top 10 research priorities identified by patients. Four of the top 10 research priorities, including strategies to improve the management of itching, increase access to kidney transplantation, assess the psychosocial impact of kidney failure, and determine the effects of dietary restriction received virtually no attention. The top 10 priorities we used to categorize included studies were identified by Canadian patients, caregivers, and clinicians. The top research priorities may vary across different countries. The proportion of published studies that are consistent with the top 10 priorities could be different in nephrology journals with lower impact factors. Studies related to kidney transplantation and the psychosocial impact of kidney failure may have been published in journals not included in our search strategy. The majority of recently completed or ongoing clinical studies in patients on or nearing dialysis do not address the top research priorities of patients, raising concerns that current clinical research may not be meeting the needs of the ultimate consumer, in this case, patients on or nearing dialysis. Greater involvement of patients in research is required to bridge the gap between research and patients' needs.

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.

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

PubMed

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

2018-03-01

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

Setting priorities for a research agenda to combat drug-resistant tuberculosis in children.

PubMed

Velayutham, B; Nair, D; Ramalingam, S; Perez-Velez, C M; Becerra, M C; Swaminathan, S

2015-12-21

Numerous knowledge gaps hamper the prevention and treatment of childhood drug-resistant tuberculosis (TB). Identifying research priorities is vital to inform and develop strategies to address this neglected problem. To systematically identify and rank research priorities in childhood drug-resistant TB. Adapting the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) methodology, we compiled 53 research questions in four research areas, then classified the questions into three research types. We invited experts in childhood drug-resistant TB to score these questions through an online survey. A total of 81 respondents participated in the survey. The top-ranked research question was to identify the best combination of existing diagnostic tools for early diagnosis. Highly ranked treatment-related questions centred on the reasons for and interventions to improve treatment outcomes, adverse effects of drugs and optimal treatment duration. The prevalence of drug-resistant TB was the highest-ranked question in the epidemiology area. The development type questions that ranked highest focused on interventions for optimal diagnosis, treatment and modalities for treatment delivery. This is the first effort to identify and rank research priorities for childhood drug-resistant TB. The result is a resource to guide research to improve prevention and treatment of drug-resistant TB in children.

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.

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

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)

Research priorities of international sporting federations and the IOC research centres

PubMed Central

Talpey, Scott; Bradshaw, Ashley; Soligard, Torbjorn; Engebretsen, Lars

2016-01-01

Background/aim To be fully effective, the prevention of injury in sport and promotion of athlete's health needs to be both targeted and underpinned by scientific evidence. This study aimed to identify the research priorities of International Sporting Federation (ISFs) compared to the current research focus of the International Olympic Committee Research Centres (IOC-RCs). Methods Online survey of ISF Medical Chairpersons (n=22, 69% response) and IOC-RC Directors (n=7, 78% response). Open-ended responses relating to injury/illness priorities and specific athlete targets were thematically coded. Ratings were given of the need for different research types according to the Translating Research into Injury Prevention Practice (TRIPP) Framework stages. Results are presented as the frequency of ISFs and IOC-RCs separately. Results Both ISFs and IOC-RFs prioritised research into concussion (27%, 72%, respectively), competitive overuse (23%, 43%) and youth (41%, 43%). The ISFs also ranked catastrophic injuries (14%), environmental factors (18%), elite athletes (18%) and Paralympic athletes (14%) as important. The IOC-RCs gave higher priority to preventing respiratory illness (43%), long-term health consequences of injury (43%) and recreational athletes (43%). There was a trend towards ISFs valuing TRIPP stage 5/6 research more highly and for the IOC-RCs to value TRIPP stage 1/2 research. Conclusions There are clear opportunities to better link the priorities and actions of the ISFs and IOC-RCs, to ensure more effective practice-policy-research partnerships for the benefit of all athletes. Setting a mutually-agreed research agenda will require further active engagement between researchers and broader ISF representatives. PMID:27900197

A practitioner-driven research agenda for syndromic surveillance

DOE PAGES

Hopkins, Richard S.; Gunn, Julia; Berezowski, John; ...

2017-05-02

The objective here is to obtain feedback and seek future directions for an ISDS initiative to establish and update research questions in Informatics, Analytics,Communications, and Systems Research with the greatest perceived impact for improving surveillance practice.Introduction Over the past fifteen years, syndromic surveillance (SyS) has evolved from a set of ad hoc methods used mostly in post-disaster settings, then expanded with broad support and development because of bioterrorism concerns, and subsequently evolved to a mature technology that runs continuously to detect and monitor a wide range of health issues. Continued enhancements needed to meet the challenges of novel health threatsmore » with increasingly complex information sources will require technical advances focused on day-to-day public health needs.Since its formation in 2005, the International Society for Disease Surveillance (ISDS) has sought to clarify and coordinate global priorities in surveillance research. As part of a practitioner-driven initiative to identify current research priorities in SyS, ISDS polled its members about capabilities needed by SyS practitioners that could be improved as a result of research efforts. A taskforce of the ISDS Research Committee, consisting of national and global subject matter experts (SMEs) in SyS and ISDS professional staff, carried out the project. This panel will discuss the results and the preferred means to determine and communicate priorities in the future.« less

A practitioner-driven research agenda for syndromic surveillance

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

Hopkins, Richard S.; Gunn, Julia; Berezowski, John

The objective here is to obtain feedback and seek future directions for an ISDS initiative to establish and update research questions in Informatics, Analytics,Communications, and Systems Research with the greatest perceived impact for improving surveillance practice.Introduction Over the past fifteen years, syndromic surveillance (SyS) has evolved from a set of ad hoc methods used mostly in post-disaster settings, then expanded with broad support and development because of bioterrorism concerns, and subsequently evolved to a mature technology that runs continuously to detect and monitor a wide range of health issues. Continued enhancements needed to meet the challenges of novel health threatsmore » with increasingly complex information sources will require technical advances focused on day-to-day public health needs.Since its formation in 2005, the International Society for Disease Surveillance (ISDS) has sought to clarify and coordinate global priorities in surveillance research. As part of a practitioner-driven initiative to identify current research priorities in SyS, ISDS polled its members about capabilities needed by SyS practitioners that could be improved as a result of research efforts. A taskforce of the ISDS Research Committee, consisting of national and global subject matter experts (SMEs) in SyS and ISDS professional staff, carried out the project. This panel will discuss the results and the preferred means to determine and communicate priorities in the future.« less

Alzheimer's Disease-Related Dementias Summit 2016: National research priorities.

PubMed

Corriveau, Roderick A; Koroshetz, Walter J; Gladman, Jordan T; Jeon, Sophia; Babcock, Debra; Bennett, David A; Carmichael, S Thomas; Dickinson, Susan L-J; Dickson, Dennis W; Emr, Marian; Fillit, Howard; Greenberg, Steven M; Hutton, Michael L; Knopman, David S; Manly, Jennifer J; Marder, Karen S; Moy, Claudia S; Phelps, Creighton H; Scott, Paul A; Seeley, William W; Sieber, Beth-Anne; Silverberg, Nina B; Sutherland, Margaret L; Taylor, Angela; Torborg, Christine L; Waddy, Salina P; Gubitz, Amelie K; Holtzman, David M

2017-12-05

Goal 1 of the National Plan to Address Alzheimer's Disease is to prevent and effectively treat Alzheimer disease and Alzheimer disease-related dementias by 2025. To help inform the research agenda toward achieving this goal, the NIH hosts periodic summits that set and refine relevant research priorities for the subsequent 5 to 10 years. This proceedings article summarizes the 2016 Alzheimer's Disease-Related Dementias Summit, including discussion of scientific progress, challenges, and opportunities in major areas of dementia research, including mixed-etiology dementias, Lewy body dementia, frontotemporal degeneration, vascular contributions to cognitive impairment and dementia, dementia disparities, and dementia nomenclature. © 2017 American Academy of Neurology.

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.

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.

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

PubMed

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

2010-08-01

Priority-setting has become one of the biggest challenges faced by health decision-makers worldwide. Fairness is a key goal of priority-setting and Accountability for Reasonableness has emerged as a guiding framework for fair priority-setting. This paper describes the processes of setting health care priorities in Mbarali district, Tanzania, and evaluates the descriptions against Accountability for Reasonableness. Key informant interviews were conducted with district health managers, local government officials and other stakeholders using a semi-structured interview guide. Relevant documents were also gathered and group priority-setting in the district was observed. The results indicate that, while Tanzania has a decentralized public health care system, the reality of the district level priority-setting process was that it was not nearly as participatory as the official guidelines suggest it should have been. Priority-setting usually occurred in the context of budget cycles and the process was driven by historical allocation. Stakeholders' involvement in the process was minimal. Decisions (but not the reasoning behind them) were publicized through circulars and notice boards, but there were no formal mechanisms in place to ensure that this information reached the public. There were neither formal mechanisms for challenging decisions nor an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that decisions were made in a fair and equitable manner. Therefore, priority-setting in Mbarali district did not satisfy all four conditions of Accountability for Reasonableness; namely relevance, publicity, appeals and revision, and enforcement. This paper aims to make two important contributions to this problematic situation. First, it provides empirical analysis of priority-setting at the district level in the contexts of low-income countries. Second, it provides guidance to decision-makers on how to improve fairness, legitimacy, and sustainability of the priority-setting process. (c) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Research Priorities for Endometriosis.

PubMed

Rogers, Peter A W; Adamson, G David; Al-Jefout, Moamar; Becker, Christian M; D'Hooghe, Thomas M; Dunselman, Gerard A J; Fazleabas, Asgerally; Giudice, Linda C; Horne, Andrew W; Hull, M Louise; Hummelshoj, Lone; Missmer, Stacey A; Montgomery, Grant W; Stratton, Pamela; Taylor, Robert N; Rombauts, Luk; Saunders, Philippa T; Vincent, Katy; Zondervan, Krina T

2017-02-01

The 3rd International Consensus Workshop on Research Priorities in Endometriosis was held in São Paulo on May 4, 2014, following the 12th World Congress on Endometriosis. The workshop was attended by 60 participants from 19 countries and was divided into 5 main sessions covering pathogenesis/pathophysiology, symptoms, diagnosis/classification/prognosis, disease/symptom management, and research policy. This research priorities consensus statement builds on earlier efforts to develop research directions for endometriosis. Of the 56 research recommendations from the 2011 meeting in Montpellier, a total of 41 remained unchanged, 13 were updated, and 2 were deemed to be completed. Fifty-three new research recommendations were made at the 2014 meeting in Sao Paulo, which in addition to the 13 updated recommendations resulted in a total of 66 new recommendations for research. The research recommendations published herein, as well as those from the 2 previous papers from international consensus workshops, are an attempt to promote high-quality research in endometriosis by identifying and agreeing on key issues that require investigation. New areas included in the 2014 recommendations include infertility, patient stratification, and research in emerging nations, in addition to an increased focus on translational research. A revised and updated set of research priorities that builds on this document will be developed at the 13th World Congress on Endometriosis to be held on May 17-20, 2017, in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Research Priorities for Endometriosis

PubMed Central

Rogers, Peter A. W.; Adamson, G. David; Al-Jefout, Moamar; Becker, Christian M.; D’Hooghe, Thomas M.; Dunselman, Gerard A. J.; Fazleabas, Asgerally; Giudice, Linda C.; Horne, Andrew W.; Hull, M. Louise; Hummelshoj, Lone; Missmer, Stacey A.; Montgomery, Grant W.; Stratton, Pamela; Taylor, Robert N.; Rombauts, Luk; Saunders, Philippa T.; Vincent, Katy; Zondervan, Krina T.; Adamson, G. David

2016-01-01

The 3rd International Consensus Workshop on Research Priorities in Endometriosis was held in São Paulo on May 4, 2014, following the 12th World Congress on Endometriosis. The workshop was attended by 60 participants from 19 countries and was divided into 5 main sessions covering pathogenesis/pathophysiology, symptoms, diagnosis/classification/prognosis, disease/symptom management, and research policy. This research priorities consensus statement builds on earlier efforts to develop research directions for endometriosis. Of the 56 research recommendations from the 2011 meeting in Montpellier, a total of 41 remained unchanged, 13 were updated, and 2 were deemed to be completed. Fifty-three new research recommendations were made at the 2014 meeting in Sao Paulo, which in addition to the 13 updated recommendations resulted in a total of 66 new recommendations for research. The research recommendations published herein, as well as those from the 2 previous papers from international consensus workshops, are an attempt to promote high-quality research in endometriosis by identifying and agreeing on key issues that require investigation. New areas included in the 2014 recommendations include infertility, patient stratification, and research in emerging nations, in addition to an increased focus on translational research. A revised and updated set of research priorities that builds on this document will be developed at the 13th World Congress on Endometriosis to be held on May 17–20, 2017, in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. PMID:27368878

What Should Dental Services for People with Disabilities in Ireland Be Like? Agreed Priorities from a Focus Group of People with Learning Disabilities

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Mac Giolla Phadraig, Caoimhin; Dougall, Alison; Stapleton, Siobhan; McGeown, Danielle; Nunn, June; Guerin, Suzanne

2016-01-01

Background: In Ireland, people with learning disabilities have poor oral health. This is in part due to inappropriate oral health services. Recognising the value of inclusive approaches to research and healthcare planning, this study sought to include a group of people with learning disabilities in priority setting for oral health services in…

77 FR 35410 - Fogarty International Center 2013 Strategic Plan

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-06-13

... needs. The Fogarty International Center supports basic, clinical and applied research and training for U...) is updating its strategic plan. To anticipate and set priorities for global health research and research training, FIC requests input from scientists, the general public, and interested parties. The goal...

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

Setting research priorities for patients on or nearing dialysis.

PubMed

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

2014-10-07

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

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

Diabetes Management and Education in Older Adults: The Development of a National Consensus of Key Research Priorities.

PubMed

Sherifali, Diana; Meneilly, Graydon

2016-02-01

Diabetes in older adults is increasing in its prevalence and complexity. To date, little research has been done to inform current diabetes management, including education and support, in older adults in Canada. The objective of this interactive national workshop was to develop key research priorities for future research related to diabetes in older adults. Workshop participants comprised interprofessional healthcare providers, decision makers and policy makers from across Canada. Approximately 30 individuals attended an interactive 2-day meeting that included expert presentations and group consensus building using an electronic meeting system as well as nominal group techniques. The results of the 2-day meeting found more than 50 ideas that were summarized into 5 overall themes, with 14 subquestions, reflecting areas such as 1) identifying relevant outcomes for patients, providers and decision makers; 2) diabetes prevention; 3) the impact of diabetes on older adults and informal caregivers; 4) risk assessment tools and 5) effective models of care across a variety of healthcare settings. To date, this workshop is the first of its kind and follows suit with other international working groups and associations. The research priorities developed through consensus from this workshop set forward a research agenda for diabetes in older adults in Canada. Copyright © 2015 Canadian Diabetes Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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.

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

PubMed Central

Waithaka, Dennis; Tsofa, Benjamin; Barasa, Edwine

2018-01-01

Background: Decentralization of health systems has made sub-national/regional healthcare systems the backbone of healthcare delivery. These regions are tasked with the difficult responsibility of determining healthcare priorities and resource allocation amidst scarce resources. We aimed to review empirical literature that evaluated priority setting practice at the meso (sub-national) level of health systems. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, ScienceDirect and Google scholar databases and supplemented these with manual searching for relevant studies, based on the reference list of selected papers. We only included empirical studies that described and evaluated, or those that only evaluated priority setting practice at the meso-level. A total of 16 papers were identified from LMICs and HICs. We analyzed data from the selected papers by thematic review. Results: Few studies used systematic priority setting processes, and all but one were from HICs. Both formal and informal criteria are used in priority-setting, however, informal criteria appear to be more perverse in LMICs compared to HICs. The priority setting process at the meso-level is a top-down approach with minimal involvement of the community. Accountability for reasonableness was the most common evaluative framework as it was used in 12 of the 16 studies. Efficiency, reallocation of resources and options for service delivery redesign were the most common outcome measures used to evaluate priority setting. Limitations: Our study was limited by the fact that there are very few empirical studies that have evaluated priority setting at the meso-level and there is likelihood that we did not capture all the studies. Conclusions: Improving priority setting practices at the meso level is crucial to strengthening health systems. This can be achieved through incorporating and adapting systematic priority setting processes and frameworks to the context where used, and making considerations of both process and outcome measures during priority setting and resource allocation. PMID:29511741

Translational Educational Research

PubMed Central

Issenberg, S. Barry; Cohen, Elaine R.; Barsuk, Jeffrey H.; Wayne, Diane B.

2012-01-01

Medical education research contributes to translational science (TS) when its outcomes not only impact educational settings, but also downstream results, including better patient-care practices and improved patient outcomes. Simulation-based medical education (SBME) has demonstrated its role in achieving such distal results. Effective TS also encompasses implementation science, the science of health-care delivery. Educational, clinical, quality, and safety goals can only be achieved by thematic, sustained, and cumulative research programs, not isolated studies. Components of an SBME TS research program include motivated learners, curriculum grounded in evidence-based learning theory, educational resources, evaluation of downstream results, a productive research team, rigorous research methods, research resources, and health-care system acceptance and implementation. National research priorities are served from translational educational research. National funding priorities should endorse the contribution and value of translational education research. PMID:23138127

[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.

50 CFR 648.207 - Herring Research Set-Aside (RSA).

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-10-01

... research priorities and/or management needs, project design, participants other than the applicant, funding... Section 648.207 Wildlife and Fisheries FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES Management...

Communication and Decision Making in Cancer Care: Setting Research Priorities for Decision Support/Patients’ Decision Aids

PubMed Central

Barnato, Amber E.; Llewellyn-Thomas, Hilary A.; Peters, Ellen M.; Siminoff, Laura; Collins, E. Dale; Barry, Michael J.

2013-01-01

The following is a summary report from a special symposium, entitled “Translating Research into Practice: Setting a Research Agenda for Clinical Decision Tools in Cancer Prevention, Early Detection, and Treatment”, that was held on October 23, 2005 in San Francisco at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making (SMDM). The symposium was designed to answer the question: “What are the top two research priorities in the field of patients’ cancer-related decision aids?” After introductory remarks by Dr. Barry, each of four panelists–Drs. Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas, Ellen Peters, Laura Siminoff, and Dale Collins–addressed the question and provided their rationale during prepared remarks. The moderator, Dr. Michael Barry, then facilitated a discussion between the panelists, with input from the audience, to further explore and add to the various proposed research questions. Finally, Dr. Amber Barnato conducted a simple vote count (see Table 1) to prioritize the panelists’ and the audience’s recommendations. PMID:17873249

Research priorities for specialized nursing practice in the United Arab Emirates.

PubMed

Al-Yateem, N; Al-Tamimi, M; Brenner, M; Altawil, H; Ahmad, A; Brownie, S

2017-08-25

Globally, nurses are undertaking expanded and more specialized roles in healthcare planning and service delivery in response to changing patterns and levels of health service demand. This means the nursing profession is increasingly considered as leaders in health service policy, research and practice. The United Arab Emirates has strengthened nursing governance and practice by establishing a Nursing and Midwifery Council and increasing the activity of nursing specialization, service leadership and research. This study aimed to identify clinically relevant research priorities to facilitate nursing contributions to evidence-based care and strengthening health services in the country. A two-stage Delphi study design was used. The first round involved 783 participants. The second round involved 1116 participants, as more clinical settings were accessed. In total, 58 research priorities across a variety of nursing specialties (paediatrics, emergency care, intensive care, labour and maternity care, operating theatre and long-term care) were identified as highly important. These identified priorities will guide a more informed programme of research in each nursing specialty, with the aim of strengthening the evidence base to improving outcomes for patients and their families in the United Arab Emirates. The findings provide guidance on key areas for nurses to focus research contributions to enhance evidence-based care and strengthen health systems. The identified priorities may also guide researchers in academic institutions to conduct research informed by current, clinically relevant issues. The findings may help inform funders and policymakers to support allocation of funding to research that has potential to contribute to enhancing nursing care in specialist areas. © 2017 International Council of Nurses.

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.

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

National Institutes of Health Research Plan on Rehabilitation

PubMed Central

O’Mara, Ann; Rowland, Julia H.; Greenwell, Thomas N.; Wiggs, Cheri L.; Fleg, Jerome; Joseph, Lyndon; McGowan, Joan; Panagis, James S.; Washabaugh, Charles; Peng, Grace C. Y.; Bray, Rosalina; Cernich, Alison N.; Cruz, Theresa H.; Marden, Sue; Michel, Mary Ellen; Nitkin, Ralph; Quatrano, Louis; Spong, Catherine Y.; Shekim, Lana; Jones, Teresa L. Z.; Juliano-Bult, Denise; Panchinson, David M.; Chen, Daofen; Jakeman, Lyn; Knebel, Ann; Tully, Lois A.; Chan, Leighton; Damiano, Diane; Tian, Biao; McInnes, Pamela; Khalsa, Partap; Reider, Eve; Shurtleff, David; Elwood, William; Ballard, Rachel; Ershow, Abby G.; Begg, Lisa

2017-01-01

Abstract One in five Americans experiences disability that affects their daily function because of impairments in mobility, cognitive function, sensory impairment, or communication impairment. The need for rehabilitation strategies to optimize function and reduce disability is a clear priority for research to address this public health challenge. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) recently published a Research Plan on Rehabilitation that provides a set of priorities to guide the field over the next 5 years. The plan was developed with input from multiple Institutes and Centers within the NIH, the National Advisory Board for Medical Rehabilitation Research, and the public. This article provides an overview of the need for this research plan, an outline of its development, and a listing of six priority areas for research. The NIH is committed to working with all stakeholder communities engaged in rehabilitation research to track progress made on these priorities and to work to advance the science of medical rehabilitation. This article is being published almost simultaneously in the following six journals: American Journal of Occupational Therapy, American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, Physical Therapy, and Rehabilitation Psychology. Citation information is as follows: NIH Medical Rehabilitation Coordinating Committee. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2017;97(4):404—407. PMID:28499003

Updating the School Counseling Research Agenda: A Delphi Study

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Villares, Elizabeth; Dimmitt, Carey

2017-01-01

The authors updated an earlier Delphi study identifying the research priorities for school counseling (Dimmitt et al., 2005). A 29-member expert panel selected research questions from the prior study, generated new questions, and rank ordered the combined set. The results provide guidance for prioritizing dissertation topics, targeting future…

78 FR 20618 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-04-05

... concerning habitat management areas, dedicated habitat research areas, and the inclusion of gear modification... will approve priorities for inclusion in the upcoming scallop research set-aside program announcement... emergency. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities...

Neonatal survival in complex humanitarian emergencies: setting an evidence-based research agenda

PubMed Central

2014-01-01

Background Over 40% of all deaths among children under 5 are neonatal deaths (0–28 days), and this proportion is increasing. In 2012, 2.9 million newborns died, with 99% occurring in low- and middle-income countries. Many of the countries with the highest neonatal mortality rates globally are currently or have recently been affected by complex humanitarian emergencies. Despite the global burden of neonatal morbidity and mortality and risks inherent in complex emergency situations, research investments are not commensurate to burden and little is known about the epidemiology or best practices for neonatal survival in these settings. Methods We used the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) methodology to prioritize research questions on neonatal health in complex humanitarian emergencies. Experts evaluated 35 questions using four criteria (answerability, feasibility, relevance, equity) with three subcomponents per criterion. Using SAS 9.2, a research prioritization score (RPS) and average expert agreement score (AEA) were calculated for each question. Results Twenty-eight experts evaluated all 35 questions. RPS ranged from 0.846 to 0.679 and the AEA ranged from 0.667 to 0.411. The top ten research priorities covered a range of issues but generally fell into two categories– epidemiologic and programmatic components of neonatal health. The highest ranked question in this survey was “What strategies are effective in increasing demand for, and use of skilled attendance?” Conclusions In this study, a diverse group of experts used the CHRNI methodology to systematically identify and determine research priorities for neonatal health and survival in complex humanitarian emergencies. The priorities included the need to better understand the magnitude of the disease burden and interventions to improve neonatal health in complex humanitarian emergencies. The findings from this study will provide guidance to researchers and program implementers in neonatal and complex humanitarian fields to engage on the research priorities needed to save lives most at risk. PMID:24959198

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…

Rural Clinician Evaluation of Children's Health Care Quality Measures: An Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network (ORPRN) Study.

PubMed

Fagnan, Lyle J; Michaels, LeAnn; Ramsey, Katrina; Shearer, Stefan; Droppers, Oliver; Gallia, Charles

2015-01-01

Responding to quality metrics is an accepted and expected component of the current health care environment. Little is known about which measures physicians identify as a priority when reporting the quality of care to their patients, especially the care of children in rural settings. The objective of this study is for physicians caring for children in rural communities to identify which of the initial core sets of 24 child health quality measures are useful and are a priority for reporting and improving care. A survey was sent to rural Oregon physicians who provide care to children. Of 955 eligible physicians, 172 (18%) completed the survey. The majority of respondents were family physicians (84%), and most respondents (58%) were in private practice. The child health measures stratified into 3 priority tiers: high, medium, and low priority. The top-tier priority measures included childhood immunization status, well-child visits, adolescent immunization status, body mass index assessment, and developmental screening. Dental treatment services, adequate prenatal care, and lower-birth-weight infants were among the lower-tier measures. The priority measures identified by rural family physicians reflect the relevance of the selected measures to their daily practice responsibilities, with missed opportunities to improve community health. © Copyright 2015 by the American Board of Family Medicine.

Policy and Practice-Relevant Youth Physical Activity Research Center Agenda.

PubMed

Botchwey, Nisha; Floyd, Myron F; Pollack Porter, Keshia; Cutter, Carmen L; Spoon, Chad; Schmid, Tom L; Conway, Terry L; Hipp, J Aaron; Kim, Anna J; Umstattd Meyer, M Renee; Walker, Amanda L; Kauh, Tina J; Sallis, Jim F

2018-06-08

The Physical Activity Research Center developed a research agenda that addresses youth physical activity (PA) and healthy weight, and aligns with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Culture of Health. This paper summarizes prioritized research studies with a focus on youth at higher risk for inactive lifestyles and childhood obesity in urban and rural communities. Systematic literature reviews, a survey, and discussions with practitioners and researchers provided guidance on research questions to build evidence and inform effective strategies to promote healthy weight and PA in youth across race, cultural, and economic groups. The research team developed a matrix of potential research questions, identified priority questions, and designed targeted studies to address some of the priority questions and inform advocacy efforts. The studies selected examine strategies advocating for activity-friendly communities, Play Streets, park use, and PA of youth in the summer. A broader set of research priorities for youth PA is proposed. Establishing the Physical Activity Research Center research agenda identified important initial and future research studies to promote and ensure healthy weight and healthy levels of PA for at-risk youth. Results will be disseminated with the goal of promoting equitable access to PA for youth.

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.

Translational educational research: a necessity for effective health-care improvement.

PubMed

McGaghie, William C; Issenberg, S Barry; Cohen, Elaine R; Barsuk, Jeffrey H; Wayne, Diane B

2012-11-01

Medical education research contributes to translational science (TS) when its outcomes not only impact educational settings, but also downstream results, including better patient-care practices and improved patient outcomes. Simulation-based medical education (SBME) has demonstrated its role in achieving such distal results. Effective TS also encompasses implementation science, the science of health-care delivery. Educational, clinical, quality, and safety goals can only be achieved by thematic, sustained, and cumulative research programs, not isolated studies. Components of an SBME TS research program include motivated learners, curriculum grounded in evidence-based learning theory, educational resources, evaluation of downstream results, a productive research team, rigorous research methods, research resources, and health-care system acceptance and implementation. National research priorities are served from translational educational research. National funding priorities should endorse the contribution and value of translational education research.

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.

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

PubMed

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

2014-01-01

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

Identifying Research Priorities for School Improvement in the Developing World

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Read, Robyn; Fernandez-Hermosilla, Magdalena; Anderson, Stephen; Mundy, Karen

2016-01-01

This paper discusses a research agenda setting project conducted for an international non-governmental organization which aims to help create a regionally relevant, high-quality knowledge base on key education issues of policy and practice. Specifically, we illustrate how our team adapted the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHRNI)…

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...

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.

Research Priorities for Dance Education: A Report to the Nation

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Bonbright, Jane M.; Bradley, Karen K.; Bucek, Loren; Faber, Rima; Gibb, Sara Lee; Hagood, Thomas K.; Koff, Susan; Press, Carol M.

2004-01-01

The Research in Dance Education (RDE) project grew out of a long-term national need to know what researchers in dance and allied fields have studied over 80 years, what they learned, and how existing research impacted teaching and learning. The project set out to answer the following questions: (1) What research exists in dance education?; (2)…

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.

A Priority Fuzzy Logic Extension of the XQuery Language

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Škrbić, Srdjan; Wettayaprasit, Wiphada; Saeueng, Pannipa

2011-09-01

In recent years there have been significant research findings in flexible XML querying techniques using fuzzy set theory. Many types of fuzzy extensions to XML data model and XML query languages have been proposed. In this paper, we introduce priority fuzzy logic extensions to XQuery language. Describing these extensions we introduce a new query language. Moreover, we describe a way to implement an interpreter for this language using an existing XML native database.

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.

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

PubMed

Kapiriri, Lydia; Razavi, Donya

2017-09-01

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

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).

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

Menstrual hygiene management among adolescent schoolgirls in low- and middle-income countries: research priorities

PubMed Central

Phillips-Howard, Penelope A.; Caruso, Bethany; Torondel, Belen; Zulaika, Garazi; Sahin, Murat; Sommer, Marni

2016-01-01

Background A lack of adequate guidance on menstrual management; water, disposal, and private changing facilities; and sanitary hygiene materials in low- and middle-income countries leaves schoolgirls with limited options for healthy personal hygiene during monthly menses. While a plethora of observational studies have described how menstrual hygiene management (MHM) barriers in school impact girls’ dignity, well-being, and engagement in school activities, studies have yet to confirm if inadequate information and facilities for MHM significantly affects quantifiable school and health outcomes influencing girls’ life chances. Evidence on these hard outcomes will take time to accrue; however, a current lack of standardized methods, tools, and research funding is hampering progress and must be addressed. Objectives Compile research priorities for MHM and types of research methods that can be used. Results In this article, we highlight the current knowledge gaps in school-aged girls’ MHM research, and identify opportunities for addressing the dearth of hard evidence limiting the ability of governments, donors, and other agencies to appropriately target resources. We outline a series of research priorities and methodologies that were drawn from an expert panel to address global priorities for MHM in schools for the next 10 years. Conclusions A strong evidence base for different settings, standardized definitions regarding MHM outcomes, improved study designs and methodologies, and the creation of an MHM research consortia to focus attention on this neglected global issue. PMID:27938648

Research priorities in Italian diabetes nursing care: findings from a Delphi study.

PubMed

Palese, A; Gentilini, S; Lo Grasso, G; Branca, M T; Chiandetti, R; Mansutti, I

2015-01-01

Defining a set of research priorities for diabetes nursing care in the Italian context. A two-step study design based on a modified Delphi technique was undertaken in 2013. In the first stage of research, five systematic reviews of literature were performed. Among them 865 recommendations in diabetes nursing care emerged, and 217 (25.1%) were categorized at level IV or lower, thus based on a lack of knowledge and therefore a potential research area. Homogeneous recommendations among the 217 emerged and were categorized by two researchers independently: 96 final recommendations were identified and transformed into items embodied into a questionnaire. A Likert scale ranging from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high) was used to collect the consensus regarding priority. For that purpose a sample of 200 nurses was randomly considered. Potential participants were invited to cooperate via email through a letter reporting aims and methods. In the first round 85 nurses participated; in the third and final round, only 13 nurses took part. Participants have identified 14 research priorities categorized into three main areas: 1) education strategies' effectiveness (n=7); 2) models of care delivery and advanced nursing education effectiveness (n=4); and 3) in specific clinical issues (n=3). More research on patient education and on models of care delivery and advanced nursing education should be included in any future Italian agenda.

Menstrual hygiene management among adolescent schoolgirls in low- and middle-income countries: research priorities.

PubMed

Phillips-Howard, Penelope A; Caruso, Bethany; Torondel, Belen; Zulaika, Garazi; Sahin, Murat; Sommer, Marni

2016-01-01

A lack of adequate guidance on menstrual management; water, disposal, and private changing facilities; and sanitary hygiene materials in low- and middle-income countries leaves schoolgirls with limited options for healthy personal hygiene during monthly menses. While a plethora of observational studies have described how menstrual hygiene management (MHM) barriers in school impact girls' dignity, well-being, and engagement in school activities, studies have yet to confirm if inadequate information and facilities for MHM significantly affects quantifiable school and health outcomes influencing girls' life chances. Evidence on these hard outcomes will take time to accrue; however, a current lack of standardized methods, tools, and research funding is hampering progress and must be addressed. Compile research priorities for MHM and types of research methods that can be used. In this article, we highlight the current knowledge gaps in school-aged girls' MHM research, and identify opportunities for addressing the dearth of hard evidence limiting the ability of governments, donors, and other agencies to appropriately target resources. We outline a series of research priorities and methodologies that were drawn from an expert panel to address global priorities for MHM in schools for the next 10 years. A strong evidence base for different settings, standardized definitions regarding MHM outcomes, improved study designs and methodologies, and the creation of an MHM research consortia to focus attention on this neglected global issue.

Case Definitions, Diagnostic Algorithms, and Priorities in Encephalitis: Consensus Statement of the International Encephalitis Consortium

PubMed Central

Venkatesan, A.; Tunkel, A. R.; Bloch, K. C.; Lauring, A. S.; Sejvar, J.; Bitnun, A.; Stahl, J-P.; Mailles, A.; Drebot, M.; Rupprecht, C. E.; Yoder, J.; Cope, J. R.; Wilson, M. R.; Whitley, R. J.; Sullivan, J.; Granerod, J.; Jones, C.; Eastwood, K.; Ward, K. N.; Durrheim, D. N.; Solbrig, M. V.; Guo-Dong, L.; Glaser, C. A.; Sheriff, Heather; Brown, David; Farnon, Eileen; Messenger, Sharon; Paterson, Beverley; Soldatos, Ariane; Roy, Sharon; Visvesvara, Govinda; Beach, Michael; Nasci, Roger; Pertowski, Carol; Schmid, Scott; Rascoe, Lisa; Montgomery, Joel; Tong, Suxiang; Breiman, Robert; Franka, Richard; Keuhnert, Matt; Angulo, Fred; Cherry, James

2013-01-01

Background.Encephalitis continues to result in substantial morbidity and mortality worldwide. Advances in diagnosis and management have been limited, in part, by a lack of consensus on case definitions, standardized diagnostic approaches, and priorities for research. Methods.In March 2012, the International Encephalitis Consortium, a committee begun in 2010 with members worldwide, held a meeting in Atlanta to discuss recent advances in encephalitis and to set priorities for future study. Results.We present a consensus document that proposes a standardized case definition and diagnostic guidelines for evaluation of adults and children with suspected encephalitis. In addition, areas of research priority, including host genetics and selected emerging infections, are discussed. Conclusions.We anticipate that this document, representing a synthesis of our discussions and supported by literature, will serve as a practical aid to clinicians evaluating patients with suspected encephalitis and will identify key areas and approaches to advance our knowledge of encephalitis. PMID:23861361

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

PubMed

Gruskin, Sofia; Daniels, Norman

2008-09-01

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

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.

A framework for strategic investments in research to reduce the global burden of preterm birth.

PubMed

Gravett, Michael G; Rubens, Craig E

2012-11-01

Preterm birth and stillbirth are among the greatest health burdens associated with pregnancy and childbirth. Fifteen million babies are born preterm each year, causing about 1 million deaths annually and lifelong problems for many survivors; 3 million stillbirths also occur annually. Worldwide, the number of women and children who die during pregnancy and childbirth exceeds the total number of births in the United States. New approaches could provide a greater understanding of prematurity, stillbirth, and maternal complications of pregnancy and childbirth. Integrated multidisciplinary investigations of the mother, fetus, and newborn in different contexts and populations could elucidate the biological pathways that result in adverse outcomes and how to prevent them. Descriptive research can determine the burden of disease, while more mechanistic discovery research could explore the physiology and pathophysiology of pregnancy and childbirth. Together, this research can lead to the development and delivery of new and much more effective interventions, even in low-resource settings. Recent surveys of researchers and funders reveal a striking lack of consensus regarding priority areas for research and the development of interventions. While researchers enumerate unanswered questions about pregnancy and childbirth, they lack consensus on priorities. Funders are equally uncertain about research and development projects that need to be undertaken, and many are hard-pressed to support research on the complex problems of pregnancy and childbirth given competing priorities. This lack of consensus provides an opportunity to engage with funders and researchers to recognize the importance of understanding healthy pregnancies and the consequences of adverse pregnancy outcomes. A strategic alliance of funders, researchers, nongovernmental organizations, the private sector, and others could organize a set of grand challenges centered on pregnancy and childbirth that could yield a substantial improvement in reproductive health. Copyright © 2012 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

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

Turbidity Threshold sampling in watershed research

Treesearch

Rand Eads; Jack Lewis

2003-01-01

Abstract - When monitoring suspended sediment for watershed research, reliable and accurate results may be a higher priority than in other settings. Timing and frequency of data collection are the most important factors influencing the accuracy of suspended sediment load estimates, and, in most watersheds, suspended sediment transport is dominated by a few, large...

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

PubMed

Rogge, Jana; Kittel, Bernhard

2016-01-01

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

Research Priorities for Mental Health Counseling with Youth: Implications for Counselor Preparation, Professional Development, and Research

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Mellin, Elizabeth A.; Pertuit, Terry L.

2009-01-01

Counselors encounter the needs of youth (3-17 years) in a variety of settings; however, outside of school counseling, the profession faces a lack of preparation, professional development, and research focused on mental health practice with youth. Using the Delphi method, 12 counselor educators and 15 practicing counselors were polled regarding…

Decision Making on Regional Landfill Site Selection in Hormozgan Province Using Smce

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Majedi, A. S.; Kamali, B. M.; Maghsoudi, R.

2015-12-01

Landfill site selection and suitable conditions to bury hazardous wastes are among the most critical issues in modern societies. Taking several factors and limitations into account along with true decision making requires application of different decision techniques. To this end, current paper aims to make decisions about regional landfill site selection in Hormozgan province and utilizes SMCE technique combined with qualitative and quantitative criteria to select the final alternatives. To this respect, we first will describe the existing environmental situation in our study area and set the goals of our study in the framework of SMCE and will analyze the effective factors in regional landfill site selection. Then, methodological procedure of research was conducted using Delphi approach and questionnaires (in order to determine research validity, Chronbach Alpha (0.94) method was used). Spatial multi-criteria analysis model was designed in the form of criteria tree in SMCE using IL WIS software. Prioritization of respective spatial alternatives included: Bandar Abbas city with total 4 spatial alternatives (one zone with 1st priority, one zone with 3rd priority and two zones with 4thpriority) was considered the first priority, Bastak city with total 3 spatial alternatives (one zone with 2nd priority, one zone with 3rdpriorit and one zone with 4th priority) was the second priority and Bandar Abbas, Minab, Jask and Haji Abad cities were considered as the third priority.

Educational affairs plan: A five-year strategy

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

1987-01-01

A five-year plan is presented to guide the use of NASA resources in administering a focused and consistent set of aeronautics and space science education programs. Major initiatives outlined in this plan fall into two categories: programmatic priorities and institutional priorities. Programmatic priorities for this plan include elementary education, teacher education, underrepresented minority participation, educational technology and the Aerospace Education Services Project (AESP). Institutional priorities highlighted in this plan include university programs, educational publications and their distribution, educational partnerships with public and private organizations, educational research and evaluation, and activities of the educational affairs administration. The plan's aim is to directly and indirectly help to ensure an adequate pool of talented scientists, engineers and technical personnel to keep NASA at the forefront of advancements for the 21st century.

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

PubMed

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

2018-02-28

To identify the top 10 unanswered research questions for primary care patient safety research. A modified nominal group technique. UK. Anyone with experience of primary care including: patients, carers and healthcare professionals. 341 patients and 86 healthcare professionals submitted questions. A top 10, and top 30, future research questions for primary care patient safety. 443 research questions were submitted by 341 patients and 86 healthcare professionals, through a national survey. After checking for relevance and rephrasing, a total of 173 questions were collated into themes. The themes were largely focused on communication, team and system working, interfaces across primary and secondary care, medication, self-management support and technology. The questions were then prioritised through a national survey, the top 30 questions were taken forward to the final prioritisation workshop. The top 10 research questions focused on the most vulnerable in society, holistic whole-person care, safer communication and coordination between care providers, work intensity, continuity of care, suicide risk, complex care at home and confidentiality. This study was the first national prioritisation exercise to identify patient and healthcare professional priorities for primary care patient safety research. The research priorities identified a range of important gaps in the existing evidence to inform everyday practice to address primary care patient safety. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

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.

Health policy and systems research agendas in developing countries.

PubMed

Gonzalez-Block, Miguel A

2004-08-05

BACKGROUND: Health policy and systems research (HPSR) is an international public good with potential to orient investments and performance at national level. Identifying research trends and priorities at international level is therefore important. This paper offers a conceptual framework and defines the HPSR portfolio as a set of research projects under implementation. The research portfolio is influenced by factors external to the research system as well as internal to it. These last include the capacity of research institutions, the momentum of research programs, funding opportunities and the influence of stakeholder priorities and public opinion. These dimensions can vary in their degree of coordination, leading to a complementary or a fragmented research portfolio. OBJECTIVE: The main objective is to identify the themes currently being pursued in the research portfolio and agendas within developing countries and to quantify their frequency in an effort to identify current research topics and their underlying influences. METHODS: HPSR topics being pursued by developing country producer institutions and their perceived priorities were identified through a survey between 2000 and 2002. The response to a call for letters of intent issued by the Alliance in 2000 for a broad range of topics was also analyzed. The institutions that were the universe of this study consisted of the 176 institutional partners of the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research producing research in low and middle income countries outside Europe. HPSR topics as well as the beneficiaries or issues and the health problems addressed were content analyzed. Topics were classified into 19 categories and their frequency analyzed across groups of countries with similar per capita income. Agendas were identified by analyzing the source of funding and of project initiation for projects under implementation. RESULTS: The highest ranking topic at the aggregate level is "Sector analysis", followed by "Disease burden" and "Management and organization". Categories at the bottom of this ranking are "Equity", "Policy process", "Economic policy and health" and "Information systems". "Disease burden" is more often funded than other topics for which there is more demand or perceived priority. Analysis suggests few although important differences across priorities, demand for funding and actual project funding. The donors' agenda coincides most with the ranking of research topics overall.Ranking across country income groups shows important differences. Topics that gain prominence in low income countries are "Disease burden" and "Accessibility". In lower middle income countries "Insurance" gains prominence. In upper middle income countries "Decentralization/local health systems", "Equity" and "Policy process" are more prominent. "Program evaluation" is the most consistently ranked topic across income regions, showing a neutral influence by donors, governments or researchers. CONCLUSIONS: The framework proposed offers a basis to identify and contrast research needs, projects and products at the international level and to identify the actor agendas and their influence. Research gaps are suggested when comparing topic ranking against the challenges to health system strengthening and scaling up of disease control programs. Differences across per capita income groups suggests the need for differentiated priority setting mechanisms guiding international support. Data suggests that stakeholders have different agendas, and that donors predominate in determining the research portfolio. High-level consensus building at the national and international levels is necessary to ensure that the diverse agendas play a complementary role in support of health system objectives.The Ministerial Summit for Health Research to be held in Mexico in November 2004 should be an opportunity to analyze further data and to commit funding for priorities identified through sharing and discussion of agendas.

Research priorities for nursing and midwifery in Southern Ireland.

PubMed

McCarthy, G; Savage, E; Lehane, E

2006-06-01

To identify research priorities for nursing and midwifery in the Southern Health Board area in Ireland for the immediate and long term. Ten focus groups were conducted over a 2-month period with 70 nurses and midwives working in clinical, managerial and educational roles participating. Based on focus group findings and a literature review a multi-item Likert type questionnaire was constructed and administered to 520 nurses and midwives (response rate 95%n=494). Research priorities were identified as: (1) impact of staff shortages on retention of RNs/RM's (80%); (2) quality of life of chronically ill patients (76%); (3) stress and bullying in the workplace (76%); (4) assessment and management of pain (75%); (5) skill mix and staff burnout (73%); (6) cardio-pulmonary resuscitation decision making (72%); (7) coordination of care between hospital and primary care settings (69%); (8) medication errors (67%); and (9) promoting healthy lifestyles (64%). Respondents also indicated that these priorities warranted immediate attention. Implications for practice include the need for: (1) emphasis on quality pain control; (2) recognition and exploration of the ethical issues relating to resuscitation; and (3) management of the context within which clinical care is given.

Experience in the United States with public deliberation about health insurance benefits using the small group decision exercise, CHAT.

PubMed

Danis, Marion; Ginsburg, Marjorie; Goold, Susan

2010-01-01

"Choosing Healthplans All Together" (CHAT) is a small group decision exercise designed to give the public a voice in priority setting in the face of unsustainable health care costs. It has been used for research, policy, and teaching purposes. Departments of insurance in various states in the United States have used CHAT to determine public opinion about what should be included in basic health insurance packages for the uninsured. Some municipalities have used it to assess public priorities for direct service delivery to the uninsured. Setting up the exercise requires substantial preparation, but the public finds it simple to use and understand.

Perspectives on embodiment and prosthetic incorporation in those with spinal cord injury: Comment on "The embodiment of assistive devices-from wheelchair to exoskeleton" by M. Pazzaglia and M. Molinari

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Cole, Jonathan

2016-03-01

Pazzaglia's group is introducing contemporary cognitive neuroscience research into rehabilitation after spinal cord injury (SCI), in novel ways [5]. And, importantly, this work also overlaps with the priorities of patients. In a recent statement from the UK James Lind Alliance (which sets aims for research between professionals and patients), their top priority was: 'whether activity based rehabilitation, including functional electrical stimulation coupled with physical activity and hydrotherapy, improved outcomes after SCI?' [3]. It is a propitious time for cognitive science and rehabilitation to come together.

Priority service needs and receipt across the lifespan for individuals with autism spectrum disorder

PubMed Central

Lai, Jonathan K. Y.

2017-01-01

Abstract Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) have a range of health, community, and social support needs across the lifespan that create age‐specific challenges in navigating service sectors. In this study, we set out to identify the priority needs of individuals with ASD across the lifespan, and the factors that predict receiving priority services. Participants included 3,317 individuals with ASD from a Canada‐wide online caregiver survey, stratified into five age groups (preschool, elementary school age, adolescence, emerging adulthood, adulthood). Priority receipt was calculated as a ratio of current services that corresponded to individualized priority need. Age‐stratified Poisson regression analyses were used to identify the sociodemographic, clinical and systemic predictors of priority receipt. Results indicate that the distribution of priority need varied by age, except for social skills programming, which was a high across all groups. The number of high and moderate priority needs diversified with age. Overall, 30% of individuals had none of their priority needs met and priority receipt decreased with age. Systemic factors were most consistently related to priority receipt across the lifespan. Understanding patterns and correlates of priority needs and use that currently exist in different age groups can inform policies to improve service access. Autism Res 2017, 10: 1436–1447. © 2017 International Society for Autism Research, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. PMID:28383156

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.

Research Strategies for Academic Medical Centers: A Framework for Advancements toward Translational Excellence

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Haley, Rand; Champagne, Thomas J., Jr.

2017-01-01

This review article presents a simplified framework for thinking about research strategy priorities for academic medical centers (AMCs). The framework can serve as a precursor to future advancements in translational medicine and as a set of planning guideposts toward ultimate translational excellence. While market pressures, reform uncertainties,…

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

An Employment Service Research and Development Strategy.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Aller, Curtis C.; And Others

The report presents a strategy developed by an outside research group for the manpower administration which would: (1) identify and organize the questions facing the U.S. Employment Service (ES), (2) set priorities among the questions, and (3) outline alternative approaches for answering the questions. The study was undertaken in order to clarify…

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.

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

PubMed

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

2016-05-01

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

Planning & Priority Setting for Basic Research

DTIC Science & Technology

2010-05-05

Integrated into numerous commercial codes in aerospace, automotive , semiconductor, and chemical industries Fast Multipole Methods (ONR 31) Applications... Use knowledge (even failures) to reduce risk in acquisition Provide the basis for future Navy and arine Corps syste s Ensure research...relevancy to Naval S&T strategy Transition pro ising Basic Research to applications Use kno ledge (even failures) to reduce risk in acquisition Maintain

The perspective of European researchers of national occupational safety and health institutes for contributing to a European research agenda: a modified Delphi study

PubMed Central

Gagliardi, Diana; Rondinone, Bruna M; Mirabile, Marco; Buresti, Giuliana; Ellwood, Peter; Hery, Michel; Paszkiewicz, Peter; Valenti, Antonio; Iavicoli, Sergio

2017-01-01

Objectives This study, developed within the frame of the Partnership for European Research on Occupational Safety and Health joint research activities and based on the frame designed by the 2013 European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) study, is the first example of using the points of view of European occupational safety and health (OSH) researchers. The objective is to identify priorities for OSH research that may contribute to the achievement of present and future sustainable growth objectives set by the European strategies. Methods The study was carried out using a modified Delphi method with a two-round survey. Each round involved a panel of about 110 researchers representing the network member institutes was selected according to specific criteria, including the ownership of research expertise in at least one of the four macroareas identified by the reference report developed by EU-OSHA in 2013. Results The study identified some innovative research topics (for example, ‘Emerging technological devices’ and ‘OSH consequences of markets integration’) and research priorities (ie, crowdsourcing, e-work, zero-hours contracts) that are not reflected in previous studies of this nature. The absence of any reference to violence and harassment at work among the researchers’ proposals is a major difference from previous similar studies, while topics related to gender issues and electromagnetic fields show a lower importance. Conclusions The innovative design of a research priorities identification process, which takes advantage of a large, representative and qualified panel of European researchers allowed the definition of a number of research priorities able to support the inclusion of innovative OSH research issues in the scope of the next European research agenda. PMID:28645965

Cancer research priorities and gaps in Iran: the influence of cancer burden on cancer research outputs between 1997 and 2014.

PubMed

Majidi, A; Salimzadeh, H; Beiki, O; Delavari, F; Majidi, S; Delavari, A; Malekzadeh, R

2017-03-01

As a developing country, Iran is experiencing the increasing burden of cancers, which are currently the third leading cause of mortality in Iran. This study aims to demonstrate that cancer research in Iran concentrates on the cancer research priorities based on the global burden of disease (GBD) reports. Descriptive evaluation of all cancers disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) was performed using GBD data. Also a comprehensive search was conducted using cancer-associated keywords to obtain all cancer-related publications from Iran, indexed in Web of Science. Multiple regression analysis and correlation coefficients (R 2 ) were used to evaluate the possible associations between cancer research publications and GBD. During 1996-2014, the majority of cancer-related publications in Iran focused on breast cancer, leukaemia and stomach cancer, respectively. This study found hypothetical correlations between cancer publications in Iran in line with the burden of cancer as reported by GBD. Particularly, correlations between years lived with disability (YLD) and cancer-related publications were more obvious. This study introduces a new outline in setting cancer research priorities in the region. Copyright © 2016 The Royal Society for Public Health. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Setting a research agenda for progressive multiple sclerosis: the International Collaborative on Progressive MS.

PubMed

Fox, Robert J; Thompson, Alan; Baker, David; Baneke, Peer; Brown, Doug; Browne, Paul; Chandraratna, Dhia; Ciccarelli, Olga; Coetzee, Timothy; Comi, Giancarlo; Feinstein, Anthony; Kapoor, Raj; Lee, Karen; Salvetti, Marco; Sharrock, Kersten; Toosy, Ahmed; Zaratin, Paola; Zuidwijk, Kim

2012-11-01

Despite significant progress in the development of therapies for relapsing MS, progressive MS remains comparatively disappointing. Our objective, in this paper, is to review the current challenges in developing therapies for progressive MS and identify key priority areas for research. A collaborative was convened by volunteer and staff leaders from several MS societies with the mission to expedite the development of effective disease-modifying and symptom management therapies for progressive forms of multiple sclerosis. Through a series of scientific and strategic planning meetings, the collaborative identified and developed new perspectives on five key priority areas for research: experimental models, identification and validation of targets and repurposing opportunities, proof-of-concept clinical trial strategies, clinical outcome measures, and symptom management and rehabilitation. Our conclusions, tackling the impediments in developing therapies for progressive MS will require an integrated, multi-disciplinary approach to enable effective translation of research into therapies for progressive MS. Engagement of the MS research community through an international effort is needed to address and fund these research priorities with the ultimate goal of expediting the development of disease-modifying and symptom-relief treatments for progressive MS.

Setting a research agenda for progressive multiple sclerosis: The International Collaborative on Progressive MS

PubMed Central

Thompson, Alan; Baker, David; Baneke, Peer; Brown, Doug; Browne, Paul; Chandraratna, Dhia; Ciccarelli, Olga; Coetzee, Timothy; Comi, Giancarlo; Feinstein, Anthony; Kapoor, Raj; Lee, Karen; Salvetti, Marco; Sharrock, Kersten; Toosy, Ahmed; Zaratin, Paola; Zuidwijk, Kim

2012-01-01

Despite significant progress in the development of therapies for relapsing MS, progressive MS remains comparatively disappointing. Our objective, in this paper, is to review the current challenges in developing therapies for progressive MS and identify key priority areas for research. A collaborative was convened by volunteer and staff leaders from several MS societies with the mission to expedite the development of effective disease-modifying and symptom management therapies for progressive forms of multiple sclerosis. Through a series of scientific and strategic planning meetings, the collaborative identified and developed new perspectives on five key priority areas for research: experimental models, identification and validation of targets and repurposing opportunities, proof-of-concept clinical trial strategies, clinical outcome measures, and symptom management and rehabilitation. Our conclusions, tackling the impediments in developing therapies for progressive MS will require an integrated, multi-disciplinary approach to enable effective translation of research into therapies for progressive MS. Engagement of the MS research community through an international effort is needed to address and fund these research priorities with the ultimate goal of expediting the development of disease-modifying and symptom-relief treatments for progressive MS. PMID:22917690

A U.S. Carbon Cycle Science Plan

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Michalak, Anna M.; Jackson, Rob; Marland, Gregg; Sabine, Christopher

2009-03-01

First Meeting of the Carbon Cycle Science Working Group; Washington, D. C., 17-18 November 2008; The report “A U.S. carbon cycle science plan” (J. L. Sarmiento and S. C. Wofsy, U.S. Global Change Res. Program, Washington, D. C., 1999) outlined research priorities and promoted coordinated carbon cycle research across federal agencies for nearly a decade. Building on this framework and subsequent reports (available at http://www.carboncyclescience.gov/docs.php), the Carbon Cycle Science Working Group (CCSWG) was formed in 2008 to develop an updated strategy for the next decade. The recommendations of the CCSWG will go to agency managers who have collective responsibility for setting national carbon cycle science priorities and for sponsoring much of the carbon cycle research in the United States.

Research priorities for the influence of gender on diagnostic imaging choices in the emergency department setting.

PubMed

Ashurst, John V; Cherney, Alan R; Evans, Elizabeth M; Kennedy Hall, Michael; Hess, Erik P; Kline, Jeffrey A; Mitchell, Alice M; Mills, Angela M; Weigner, Michael B; Moore, Christopher L

2014-12-01

Diagnostic imaging is a cornerstone of patient evaluation in the acute care setting, but little effort has been devoted to understanding the appropriate influence of sex and gender on imaging choices. This article provides background on this issue and a description of the working group and consensus findings reached during the diagnostic imaging breakout session at the 2014 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference "Gender-specific Research in Emergency Care: Investigate, Understand, and Translate How Gender Affects Patient Outcomes." Our goal was to determine research priorities for how sex and gender may (or should) affect imaging choices in the acute care setting. Prior to the conference, the working group identified five areas for discussion regarding the research agenda in sex- and gender-based imaging using literature review and expert consensus. The nominal group technique was used to identify areas for discussion for common presenting complaints to the emergency department where ionizing radiation is often used for diagnosis: suspected pulmonary embolism, suspected kidney stone, lower abdominal pain with a concern for appendicitis, and chest pain concerning for coronary artery disease. The role of sex- and gender-based shared decision-making in diagnostic imaging decisions is also raised. © 2014 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

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

Incorporating Target Priorities in the Sensor Tasking Reward Function

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Gehly, S.; Bennett, J.

2016-09-01

Orbital debris tracking poses many challenges, most fundamentally the need to track a large number of objects from a limited number of sensors. The use of information theoretic sensor allocation provides a means to efficiently collect data on the multitarget system. An additional need of the community is the ability to specify target priorities, driven both by user needs and environmental factors such as collision warnings. This research develops a method to incorporate target priorities in the sensor tasking reward function, allowing for several applications in different tasking modes such as catalog maintenance, calibration, and collision monitoring. A set of numerical studies is included to demonstrate the functionality of the method.

Stakeholder Engagement to Identify Priorities for Improving the Quality and Value of Critical Care.

PubMed

Stelfox, Henry T; Niven, Daniel J; Clement, Fiona M; Bagshaw, Sean M; Cook, Deborah J; McKenzie, Emily; Potestio, Melissa L; Doig, Christopher J; O'Neill, Barbara; Zygun, David

2015-01-01

Large amounts of scientific evidence are generated, but not implemented into patient care (the 'knowledge-to-care' gap). We identified and prioritized knowledge-to-care gaps in critical care as opportunities to improve the quality and value of healthcare. We used a multi-method community-based participatory research approach to engage a Network of all adult (n = 14) and pediatric (n = 2) medical-surgical intensive care units (ICUs) in a fully integrated geographically defined healthcare system serving 4 million residents. Participants included Network oversight committee members (n = 38) and frontline providers (n = 1,790). Network committee members used a modified RAND/University of California Appropriateness Methodology, to serially propose, rate (validated 9 point scale) and revise potential knowledge-to-care gaps as priorities for improvement. The priorities were sent to frontline providers for evaluation. Results were relayed back to all frontline providers for feedback. Initially, 68 knowledge-to-care gaps were proposed, rated and revised by the committee (n = 32 participants) over 3 rounds of review and resulted in 13 proposed priorities for improvement. Then, 1,103 providers (62% response rate) evaluated the priorities, and rated 9 as 'necessary' (median score 7-9). Several factors were associated with rating priorities as necessary in multivariable logistic regression, related to the provider (experience, teaching status of ICU) and topic (strength of supporting evidence, potential to benefit the patient, potential to improve patient/family experience, potential to decrease costs). A community-based participatory research approach engaged a diverse group of stakeholders to identify 9 priorities for improving the quality and value of critical care. The approach was time and cost efficient and could serve as a model to prioritize areas for research quality improvement across other settings.

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

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.

Changing Faculty Roles and Responsibilities: Expanding the Skill Set of Faculty Perspective "From a Graduate Dean"

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

DePauw, Karen P.

2003-01-01

The roles and responsibilities of faculty in higher education continue to evolve. Although research and teaching have been perceived to be top priority, the skill set for faculty has expanded. Kennedy (1997) observed that academic freedom is widely shared value but that academic duty is mysterious. He identified the following as key components of…

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...

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

"It still haunts me whether we did the right thing": a qualitative analysis of free text survey data on the bereavement experiences and support needs of family caregivers.

PubMed

Harrop, Emily; Morgan, Fiona; Byrne, Anthony; Nelson, Annmarie

2016-11-08

Research suggests that there may be bereavement experiences and support needs which are specific to family caregivers providing end of life care (EoLC), although this remains an under-researched area. This paper focuses on themes relating to bereavement which were derived from an analysis of free text survey responses collected in a research priority setting exercise for palliative and EoLC. The priority setting exercise involved a public survey, designed to generate research priorities. Rather than identify research topics, many people instead described their experiences and raised more general questions relating to palliative and end of life care. To explore these experiences and perspectives a supplementary thematic analysis was conducted on the survey responses. 1403 respondents took part, including patients, current and bereaved carers, health and social care professionals, volunteers and members of the public. Several grief issues were identified, which seem specific to the experiences of family caregivers. Responses demonstrated a relationship between death experiences, feelings of guilt and bereavement outcomes for some family caregivers, as well as caregiver experiences of a "void" created by the withdrawal of professional support after death. Communication and support needs were also identified by participants. This analysis provides further evidence of some of the specific effects that caring for a loved one at the end of life can have on bereavement experiences. Finding ways of improving communication around the time of death and effective follow up approaches post death could help to address some of these issues.

[General legal conditions for prioritisation within the scope of the German Statutory Health Insurance system].

PubMed

Welti, Felix

2009-01-01

In setting health care priorities the law, and in particular the constitution, has to be obeyed. The social constitutional state must guarantee minimum access to health care. Members of the Statutory Health Insurance (SHI) shall have access to health care services protecting their life and ensuring their participation in society. They shall not be discriminated according to gender, race and ethnic origin, language, disability, age and sexual orientation. Essential decisions will have to be made by the legislator. Within the EC the right to access health care services in another EC member state may be an obstacle to prioritisation on the national level, e.g., to waiting lists. The exclusion of health care services on the basis of the social security law may be too simplistic an approach. Administrative discretion needs priorities, but it is unclear whether these are set to meet political priorities and real needs. The decisions of the Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss) are sophisticated enough but have to respect the rule of law. There are deficits in research on the prioritisation effects of health care law. Diminishing these deficits is a prerequisite for turning political priorities into effective legal provisions.

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.

[Priority pollutants ranking and screening of coke industry based on USEtox model].

PubMed

Hao, Tian; Du, Peng-Fei; Du, Bin; Zeng, Si-Yu

2014-01-01

Thesis aims at evaluating and setting priority to human toxicity and ecotoxicity of coking pollutants. A field research and sampling project are conducted in coke plant in Shanxi so as to complete the coke emission inventory. The USEtox model representing recommended practice in LCIA characterization is applied to the emission inventory to quantify the potential impacts on human toxicity and ecotoxicity of emerging pollutants. Priority pollutants, production procedures and effects of changing plant site on the toxicity are analyzed. As conclusions, benzo(a) pyrene, benzene, Zn and As are identified as the priority pollutants in human toxicity, while pyrene and anthracene in ecotoxicity. Coal charging is the dominant procedure for organic toxicity and priority pollutants include benzo (a) pyrene, benzene, naphthalene, etc. While coke drenching is the dominant procedure for metal toxicity and priority pollutants include Zn, As, Ti, Hg etc. Emission to rural environment can reduce the organic toxicity significantly compared to the emission to urban environment. However, the site changing has no effect on metal toxicity and might increase the risk of the metal pollution to rural water and soil.

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

PubMed

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

2015-12-16

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

Lessons from the West Africa Ebola Epidemic: A Systematic Review of Epidemiological and Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities.

PubMed

Abramowitz, Sharon A; Hipgrave, David B; Witchard, Alison; Heymann, David L

2018-06-23

This systematic literature review compared the epidemiological (EPI) research and the qualitative social and behavioral science (SBS) research published during the West Africa Ebola virus disease (EVD) epidemic. Beginning with an initial capture of over 2,000 articles, we extracted 236 EPI and 171 SBS studies to examine how disciplinary priorities affected research conducted during the EVD response, with implications for epidemic response effectiveness. Building on this research, we set forth a roadmap for the closer integration of EPI and SBS research in all aspects of epidemic preparedness and response that incorporates the lessons of the West Africa EVD outbreak. Key priorities include: (1) developing the capacity to systematically quantify qualitative sociocultural variables, (2) establishing interdisciplinary collaborations to improve "risk segmentation" practices, (3) creating and pre-positioning qualitative indicators and composite sociocultural indexes for rapid deployment in outbreaks; (4) integrating novel systems with community resources; (5) developing new techniques for modeling social mobilization and community engagement; (6) prioritizing good data and complex analyses early in emergencies, and (7) learning from past experiences. Our findings support a program of action that situates data collection and analysis in real-time, recursive, integrated efforts to move community attitudes, behaviors, and responses into epidemiological research.

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.

In Brief: Climate Adaptation Summit report released

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Showstack, Randy

2010-10-01

“We understand from the science that we have no choice between mitigation and adaptation. We have to do both,” John Holdren, President Barack Obama's science and technology advisor, said at a 29 September meeting where he was presented with a new report about national and regional preparations for adapting to changing climate. The report is based on the National Climate Adaptation Summit, which was convened by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research in May 2010. Stating that the United States must adapt to a changing climate now and prepare for increasing impacts on urban infrastructure, food, water, human health, and ecosystems in the coming decades, the report identifies a set of priorities for near-term action. Among the priorities are developing an overarching national strategy, with research, planning, and management components to guide federal climate change adaptation programs. Other priorities include improving coordination of federal plans and programs and creating a federal climate information portal and a clearinghouse of best practices and tool kits for adaptation. The report also identifies other priorities, including the need for support for assessments in the U.S. Global Change Research Program agency budgets, for increasing funding for research on vulnerability and impacts, and for initiating a regional series of ongoing climate adaptation forums. For more information, see http://www.joss.ucar.edu/events/2010/ncas/index.html.

Consensus-based Recommendations for Research Priorities Related to Interventions to Safeguard Patient Safety in the Crowded Emergency Department

PubMed Central

Fee, Christopher; Hall, Kendall; Morrison, J. Bradley; Stephens, Robert; Cosby, Karen; Fairbanks, Rollin (Terry) J.; Youngberg, Barbara; Lenehan, Gail; Abualenain, Jameel; O’Connor, Kevin; Wears, Robert

2012-01-01

This article describes the results of the Interventions to Safeguard Safety breakout session of the 2011 Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) consensus conference entitled “Interventions to Assure Quality in the Crowded Emergency Department.” Using a multistep nominal group technique, experts in emergency department (ED) crowding, patient safety, and systems engineering defined knowledge gaps and priority research questions related to the maintenance of safety in the crowded ED. Consensus was reached for seven research priorities related to interventions to maintain safety in the setting of a crowded ED. Included among these are: 1) How do routine corrective processes and compensating mechanism change during crowding? 2) What metrics should be used to determine ED safety? 3) How can checklists ensure safer care and what factors contribute to their success or failure? 4) What constitutes safe staffing levels / ratios? 5) How can we align emergency medicine (EM)-specific patient safety issues with national patient safety issues? 6) How can we develop metrics and skills to recognize when an ED is getting close to catastrophic overload conditions? and 7) What can EM learn from experts and modeling from fields outside of medicine to develop innovative solutions? These priorities have the potential to inform future clinical and human factors research and extramural funding decisions related to this important topic. PMID:22168192

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 research priorities for HIV/AIDS-related research in a post-graduate training programme: lessons learnt from the Nigeria Field Epidemiology and Laboratory Training Programme scientific workshop.

PubMed

Poggensee, Gabriele; Waziri, Ndadilnasiya Endie; Bashorun, Adebobola; Nguku, Patrick Mboya; Fawole, Olufunmilayo Ibitola; Sabitu, Kabir

2014-01-01

In Nigeria the current prevalence of HIV is 4.1% with over 3.5 million infected and estimated 1.5 million in need of anti-retroviral treatment. Epidemiological and implementation studies are necessary for monitoring and evaluation of interventions. To define research areas which can be addressed by participants of the Nigeria Field Epidemiology and Training Programme (NFELTP) a workshop was held in April 2013 in Abuja, Nigeria. Priority research areas were identified using criteria lists for ranking of the relevance of research questions. Based on a research matrix, NFELTP residents developed the aims and objectives, study design for HIV-related research proposals. This workshop was the first workshop held by the NFELTP to establish an inventory of research questions which can be addressed by the residents within their training period. This inventory will help to increase HIV/AIDS-related activities of NFELTP which are in accordance with research needs in Nigeria and PEPFAR objectives.

Final priorities; National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research--Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program--Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers. Final priorities.

PubMed

2013-06-11

The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services announces priorities under the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program administered by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR). Specifically, we announce priorities for a Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center (RERC) on Rehabilitation Strategies, Techniques, and Interventions (Priority 1), Information and Communication Technologies Access (Priority 2), Individual Mobility and Manipulation (Priority 3), and Physical Access and Transportation (Priority 4). The Assistant Secretary may use one or more of these priorities for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2013 and later years. We take this action to focus research attention on areas of national need. We intend these priorities to improve community living and participation, health and function, and employment outcomes of individuals with disabilities.

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.

Developing a national dental education research strategy: priorities, barriers and enablers.

PubMed

Ajjawi, Rola; Barton, Karen L; Dennis, Ashley A; Rees, Charlotte E

2017-03-29

This study aimed to identify national dental education research (DER) priorities for the next 3-5 years and to identify barriers and enablers to DER. Scotland. In this two-stage online questionnaire study, we collected data with multiple dental professions (eg, dentistry, dental nursing and dental hygiene) and stakeholder groups (eg, learners, clinicians, educators, managers, researchers and academics). Eighty-five participants completed the Stage 1 qualitative questionnaire and 649 participants the Stage 2 quantitative questionnaire. Eight themes were identified at Stage 1. Of the 24 DER priorities identified, the top three were: role of assessments in identifying competence; undergraduate curriculum prepares for practice and promoting teamwork. Following exploratory factor analysis, the 24 items loaded onto four factors: teamwork and professionalism, measuring and enhancing performance, dental workforce issues and curriculum integration and innovation. Barriers and enablers existed at multiple levels: individual, interpersonal, institutional structures and cultures and technology. This priority setting exercise provides a necessary first step to developing a national DER strategy capturing multiple perspectives. Promoting DER requires improved resourcing alongside efforts to overcome peer stigma and lack of valuing and motivation. 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/.

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.

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

PubMed

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

2010-08-01

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

Therapy interventions for children with neurodisabilities: a qualitative scoping study.

PubMed

Beresford, Bryony; Clarke, Susan; Maddison, Jane

2018-01-01

Therapy interventions emerged four times in the top 10 research priorities in a James Lind Alliance research prioritisation exercise for children with neurodisabilities (Morris C, Simkiss D, Busk M, Morris M, Allard A, Denness J, et al. 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. BMJ Open 2015; 5 :e006233). The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) commissioned this study as part of an information-gathering exercise in response to this. The objectives were to (1) describe the current practice, approaches and schools of thought in relation to physiotherapy, occupational therapy and speech and language therapy for children with neurodisability; (2) explore clinical decision-making; (3) investigate views on outcomes and their measurement, particularly participation as an outcome, that is, the child's ability to have the opportunity to be involved in life situations and activities (e.g. communication, mobility, interpersonal interactions, self-care, learning and applying knowledge); (4) seek views on the aspects of therapy interventions that have an impact on outcomes; and (5) elicit stakeholder views on research needs and priorities. More than 70 professionals (therapists, service leads, paediatricians and education staff) and 25 parents participated in a qualitative interview (either individually or as part of a focus group). Professional thinking and models of service delivery are in a state of flux and development. There is a move towards goals-focused, family-centred approaches. Work tends to be highly individualised, with few protocols. Parents are certain of the value of therapies, although they may experience difficulties with provision and may seek (additional) private provision. Therapy interventions are conceived as three components: the therapist, the procedures/equipment, etc., and the wider therapeutic environment. They are believed to be highly complex and poorly understood. Although participation is widely endorsed as a core intervention objective of therapy interventions, its suitability, or appropriateness, as an outcome measure was questioned. Other child and/or parent outcomes were identified as more or equally important. Notions of intermediate outcomes - in terms of body structure/function, and the achievement of activities - were regarded as important and not counter to participation-focused approaches. Among therapists, research on intervention effectiveness was (cautiously) welcomed. A number of methodological challenges were identified. A portfolio of study designs - quantitative and qualitative, experimental and observational - was called for, and which included economic evaluation and clear pathways to impact. The study was not successful in recruiting children and young people. Further work is required to elucidate the views of this key stakeholder group. Therapy interventions are poorly understood. There was strong support, tempered a little by concerns among some about the feasibility of demonstrating impact, for investment in research. The identification of research priorities was a core study objective, and a wide-ranging research agenda was identified. It included 'foundational' research into neurodisability, the active components of therapy interventions and the concept of participation. Three areas of evaluation were identified: overall approaches to therapy, service organisation and delivery issues, and the evaluation of specific techniques. Parents regarded evaluations of approaches to therapy (e.g. goals-focused; supporting family-self management) as priorities, along with evaluations of models of service provision. Professionals' views were broadly similar, with an additional emphasis on methodological research. In terms of specific techniques, there was no shared agreement regarding priorities, with views informed by personal interests and experiences. The NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme.

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

Assisted Repeated Reading with an Advanced-Level Japanese EFL Reader: A Longitudinal Diary Study

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Taguchi, Etsuo; Gorsuch, Greta; Takayasu-Maass, Miyoko; Snipp, Kirsten

2012-01-01

Reading fluency has attracted the attention of reading researchers and educators since the early 1970s and has become a priority issue in English as a first language (L1) settings. It has also become a critical issue in English as a second or foreign language (L2) settings because the lack of fluency is considered a major obstacle to developing…

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.

Can Experiential Education Strategies Improve Elementary Science Teachers' Perceptions of and Practices in Science Teaching?

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Sindel, Kasey D.

2010-01-01

This study was prompted by the growing amount of research that is in support of science reform and from this researcher's personal experience and concern that science instructions is no longer a top priority in elementary schools nor are young scientists given the opportunities to act as scientists in a real world setting. This study uses…

APPETITE CONTROL: METHODOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF THE EVALUATION OF FOODS

PubMed Central

Blundell, John; de Graaf, Cees; Hulshof, Toine; Jebb, Susan; Livingstone, Barbara; Lluch, Anne; Mela, David; Salah, Samir; Schuring, Ewoud; van der Knaap, Henk; Westerterp, Margriet

2013-01-01

This report describes a set of scientific procedures used to assess the impact of foods and food ingredients on the expression of appetite (psychological and behavioural). An overarching priority has been to enable potential evaluators of health claims about foods to identify justified claims, and to exclude claims that are not supported by scientific evidence for the effect cited. This priority follows precisely from the principles set down in the PASSCLAIM report. (4) The report allows the evaluation of the strength of health claims, about the effects of foods on appetite, which can be sustained on the basis of the commonly used scientific designs and experimental procedures. The report includes different designs for assessing effects on satiation as opposed to satiety,detailed coverage of the extent to which a change in hunger can stand-alone as a measure of appetite control, and an extensive discussion of the statistical procedures appropriate for handling data in this field of research. Since research in this area is continually evolving, new improved methodologies may emerge over time and will need to be incorporated into the framework. One main objective of the report has been to produce guidance on good practice in carrying out appetite research, and not to set down a series of commandments that must be followed. PMID:20122136

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.

BACTERIAL PATHOGENIC RESEARCH IN RESPONSE TO CONTAMINANT CANDIDATE LIST NEEDS

EPA Science Inventory

The Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended in 1996, requires EPA to establish a Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) of unregulated microbiological and chemical contaminants to aid in priority setting for the Agency's drinking water program. At predetermined intervals the Agency must s...

Horizon 2020 Priorities in Clinical Mental Health Research: Results of a Consensus-Based ROAMER Expert Survey

PubMed Central

Elfeddali, Iman; van der Feltz-Cornelis, Christina M.; van Os, Jim; Knappe, Susanne; Vieta, Eduard; Wittchen, Hans-Ulrich; Obradors-Tarragó, Carla; Haro, Josep Maria

2014-01-01

Within the ROAMER project, which aims to provide a Roadmap for Mental Health Research in Europe, a two-stage Delphi survey among 86 European experts was conducted in order to identify research priorities in clinical mental health research. Expert consensus existed with regard to the importance of three challenges in the field of clinical mental health research: (1) the development of new, safe and effective interventions for mental disorders; (2) understanding the mechanisms of disease in order to be able to develop such new interventions; and (3) defining outcomes (an improved set of outcomes, including alternative outcomes) to use for clinical mental health research evaluation. Proposed actions involved increasing the utilization of tailored approaches (personalized medicine), developing blended eHealth/mHealth decision aids/guidance tools that help the clinician to choose between various treatment modalities, developing specific treatments in order to better target comorbidity and (further) development of biological, psychological and psychopharmacological interventions. The experts indicated that addressing these priorities will result in increased efficacy and impact across Europe; with a high probability of success, given that Europe has important strengths, such as skilled academics and a long research history. Finally, the experts stressed the importance of creating funding and coordinated networking as essential action needed in order to target the variety of challenges in clinical mental health research. PMID:25337940

The perspective of European researchers of national occupational safety and health institutes for contributing to a European research agenda: a modified Delphi study.

PubMed

Gagliardi, Diana; Rondinone, Bruna M; Mirabile, Marco; Buresti, Giuliana; Ellwood, Peter; Hery, Michel; Paszkiewicz, Peter; Valenti, Antonio; Iavicoli, Sergio

2017-06-23

This study, developed within the frame of the Partnership for European Research on Occupational Safety and Health joint research activities and based on the frame designed by the 2013 European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) study, is the first example of using the points of view of European occupational safety and health (OSH) researchers.The objective is to identify priorities for OSH research that may contribute to the achievement of present and future sustainable growth objectives set by the European strategies. The study was carried out using a modified Delphi method with a two-round survey. Each round involved a panel of about 110 researchers representing the network member institutes was selected according to specific criteria, including the ownership of research expertise in at least one of the four macroareas identified by the reference report developed by EU-OSHA in 2013. The study identified some innovative research topics (for example, 'Emerging technological devices' and 'OSH consequences of markets integration') and research priorities (ie, crowdsourcing, e-work, zero-hours contract s ) that are not reflected in previous studies of this nature.The absence of any reference to violence and harassment at work among the researchers' proposals is a major difference from previous similar studies, while topics related to gender issues and electromagnetic fields show a lower importance. The innovative design of a research priorities identification process, which takes advantage of a large, representative and qualified panel of European researchers allowed the definition of a number of research priorities able to support the inclusion of innovative OSH research issues in the scope of the next European research agenda. © 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.

Predicting nutrient responses to mitigation at catchment to national scale: the UK research platform (Invited)

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Johnes, P.

2013-12-01

Nutrient enrichment of waters from land-based and atmospheric sources presents a significant management challenge, requiring effective stakeholder engagement and policy development, properly underpinned by robust scientific evidence. The challenge is complex, raising significant questions about the specific sources, apportionment and pathways that determine nutrient enrichment and the key priorities for effective management and policy intervention. This paper presents outputs from 4 major UK research programmes: the Defra Demonstration Test Catchments programme (DTC), the Environment Agency's Catchment Sensitive Farming monitoring and evaluation programme (CSF), Natural Resources Wales Welsh Catchment Initiative (WCI) and the NERC Environmental Virtual Observatory programme (EVOp). Funded to meet this challenge, they are delivering new understanding of the rates and sources of pollutant fluxes from land to water, their impacts on ecosystem goods and services, and likely trends under future climate and land use change from field to national scale. DTC, a 12m investment by the UK Government, has set up long-term, high resolution research platforms equipped with novel telemetered sensor networks to monitor stream ecosystem responses to on-farm mitigation measures at a representative scale for catchment management. Ecosystem structural and functional responses and bulk hydrochemistry are also being monitored using standard protocols. CSF has set up long-term, enhanced monitoring in 8 priority catchments, with monthly monitoring in a further 72 English catchments and 6 Welsh priority catchments, to identify shifts in pollutant flux to waters resulting from mitigation measures in priority areas and farming sectors. CSF and WCI have contributed to >50 million of targeted farm improvements to date, representing a significant shift in farming practice. Each programme has generated detailed evidence on stream ecosystem responses to targeted mitigation. However, to provide effective underpinning for policy the major challenge has been to upscale this knowledge beyond these data-rich systems and identify the dominant contributing areas and priorities for management intervention to control nutrient flux and ecological impacts in data-poor systems which are located downstream from existing monitoring infrastructure or are in unmonitored catchments in remote locations. EVOp has directly addressed this challenge, developing a cloud computing enabled National Biogeochemical Modelling Framework to support ensemble modelling, knowledge capture and transfer from DTC, CSF, WCI and data-rich research catchments. This platform provides opportunities for further development of national biogeochemical modelling capability, allowing upscaled predictions from plot to catchment and national scale, enabling knowledge transfer from data-rich to data-poor areas. This paper presents initial findings from these research platforms, identifying the key priorities for action emerging from our national scale scenario analysis, and future research directions to further improve understanding, prediction and management capability in nutrient enriched waters and their catchments under changing climate and land use.

Oversight Hearing on the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI). Hearing before the Subcommittee on Select Education, Committee on Education and Labor. House of Representatives, One Hundred First Congress, First Session.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Congress of the U.S., Washington, DC. House Committee on Education and Labor.

This hearing is the first of two to consider whether the priority setting, the guidelines, and the competitive process for the funding of 12 proposed research and development centers (which constitute nearly 80% of the budget of the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) for center-based research) will be adequate to establish a…

A patient-centered research agenda for the care of the acutely ill older patient.

PubMed

Wald, Heidi L; Leykum, Luci K; Mattison, Melissa L P; Vasilevskis, Eduard E; Meltzer, David O

2015-05-01

Hospitalists and others acute-care providers are limited by gaps in evidence addressing the needs of the acutely ill older adult population. The Society of Hospital Medicine sponsored the Acute Care of Older Patients Priority Setting Partnership to develop a research agenda focused on bridging this gap. Informed by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute framework for identification and prioritization of research areas, we adapted a methodology developed by the James Lind Alliance to engage diverse stakeholders in the research agenda setting process. The work of the Partnership proceeded through 4 steps: convening, consulting, collating, and prioritizing. First, the steering committee convened a partnership of 18 stakeholder organizations in May 2013. Next, stakeholder organizations surveyed members to identify important unanswered questions in the acute care of older persons, receiving 1299 responses from 580 individuals. Finally, an extensive and structured process of collation and prioritization resulted in a final list of 10 research questions in the following areas: advanced-care planning, care transitions, delirium, dementia, depression, medications, models of care, physical function, surgery, and training. With the changing demographics of the hospitalized population, a workforce with limited geriatrics training, and gaps in evidence to inform clinical decision making for acutely ill older patients, the identified research questions deserve the highest priority in directing future research efforts to improve care for the older hospitalized patient and enrich training. © 2015 Society of Hospital Medicine.

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

PubMed Central

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

2015-01-01

Objectives The Acne Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) was set up to identify and rank treatment uncertainties by bringing together people with acne, and professionals providing care within and beyond the National Health Service (NHS). Setting The UK with international participation. Participants Teenagers and adults with acne, parents, partners, nurses, clinicians, pharmacists, private practitioners. Methods Treatment uncertainties were collected via separate online harvesting surveys, embedded within the PSP website, for patients and professionals. A wide variety of approaches were used to promote the surveys to stakeholder groups with a particular emphasis on teenagers and young adults. Survey submissions were collated using keywords and verified as uncertainties by appraising existing evidence. The 30 most popular themes were ranked via weighted scores from an online vote. At a priority setting workshop, patients and professionals discussed the 18 highest-scoring questions from the vote, and reached consensus on the top 10. Results In the harvesting survey, 2310 people, including 652 professionals and 1456 patients (58% aged 24 y or younger), made submissions containing at least one research question. After checking for relevance and rephrasing, a total of 6255 questions were collated into themes. Valid votes ranking the 30 most common themes were obtained from 2807 participants. The top 10 uncertainties prioritised at the workshop were largely focused on management strategies, optimum use of common prescription medications and the role of non-drug based interventions. More female than male patients took part in the harvesting surveys and vote. A wider range of uncertainties were provided by patients compared to professionals. Conclusions Engaging teenagers and young adults in priority setting is achievable using a variety of promotional methods. The top 10 uncertainties reveal an extensive knowledge gap about widely used interventions and the relative merits of drug versus non-drug based treatments in acne management. PMID:26187120

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...

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

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.

NASA Aeronautics Research: An Assessment

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

2008-01-01

The U.S. air transportation system is vital to the economic well-being and security of the United States. To support continued U.S. leadership in aviation, Congress and NASA requested that the National Research Council undertake a decadal survey of civil aeronautics research and technology (R&T) priorities that would help NASA fulfill its responsibility to preserve U.S. leadership in aeronautics technology. In 2006, the National Research Council published the Decadal Survey of Civil Aeronautics. That report presented a set of six strategic objectives for the next decade of aeronautics R&T, and it described 51 high-priority R&T challenges--characterized by five common themes--for both NASA and non-NASA researchers. The National Research Council produced the present report, which assesses NASA's Aeronautics Research Program, in response to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-155). This report focuses on three sets of questions: 1. How well does NASA's research portfolio implement appropriate recommendations and address relevant high-priority research and technology challenges identified in the Decadal Survey of Civil Aeronautics? If gaps are found, what steps should be taken by the federal government to eliminate them? 2. How well does NASA's aeronautics research portfolio address the aeronautics research requirements of NASA, particularly for robotic and human space exploration? How well does NASA's aeronautics research portfolio address other federal government department/agency non-civil aeronautics research needs? If gaps are found, what steps should be taken by NASA and/or other parts of the federal government to eliminate them? 3. Will the nation have a skilled research workforce and research facilities commensurate with the requirements in (1) and (2) above? What critical improvements in workforce expertise and research facilities, if any, should NASA and the nation make to achieve the goals of NASA's research program? This report continues the good work begun by the Decadal Survey of Civil Aeronautics, and it expands that work to consider in more depth NASA aeronautics research issues related to the space program, non-civil applications, workforce, and facilities.

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

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.

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...

The Politics of Budgeting for Deferred Maintenance.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Saunders, Laura E.

1989-01-01

The University of Washington has addressed its deferred maintenance needs through a strategy that includes building an externally reinforced consensus, internal monitoring, a review and priority-setting system, and a conscious budget strategy that separates needs for deferred maintenance from projects that serve teaching and research directly.…

REGIONAL VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT (REVA): TARGETING RISK MANAGEMENT ACTIONS AND PROVIDING OPTIONS FOR INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT

EPA Science Inventory

EPA's Regional Vulnerability Assessment (ReVA) program is an approach to regional scale, priority-setting assessment being developed by EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD). ReVA will effectively informs decision-makers as to the magnitude, extent, distribution, and unc...

African stakeholders' views of research options to improve nutritional status in sub-Saharan Africa.

PubMed

Holdsworth, Michelle; Kruger, Annamarie; Nago, Eunice; Lachat, Carl; Mamiro, Peter; Smit, Karlien; Garimoi-Orach, Chris; Kameli, Yves; Roberfroid, Dominique; Kolsteren, Patrick

2015-09-01

Setting research priorities for improving nutrition in Africa is currently ad hoc and there is a need to shift the status quo in the light of slow progress in reducing malnutrition. This study explored African stakeholders' views on research priorities in the context of environmental and socio-demographic changes that will impact on nutritional status in Africa in the coming years. Using Multi-Criteria Mapping, quantitative and qualitative data were gathered from 91 stakeholders representing 6 stakeholder groups (health professionals, food Industry, government, civil society, academics and research funders) in Benin, Mozambique, South Africa, Tanzania, Togo and Uganda. Stakeholders appraised six research options (ecological nutrition, nutritional epidemiology, community nutrition interventions, behavioural nutrition, clinical nutrition and molecular nutrition) for how well they could address malnutrition in Africa. Impact (28.3%), research efficacy (23.6%) and social acceptability (22.4%) were the criteria chosen the most to evaluate the performance of research options. Research on the effectiveness of community interventions was seen as a priority by stakeholders because they were perceived as likely to have an impact relatively quickly, were inexpensive and cost-effective, involved communities and provided direct evidence of what works. Behavioural nutrition research was also highly appraised. Many stakeholders, particularly academics and government were optimistic about the value of ecological nutrition research (the impact of environmental change on nutritional status). Research funders did not share this enthusiasm. Molecular nutrition was least preferred, considered expensive, slow to have an impact and requiring infrastructure. South Africa ranked clinical and molecular nutrition the highest of all countries. Research funders should redirect research funds in Africa towards the priorities identified by giving precedence to develop the evidence for effective community nutrition interventions. Expanding research funding in behavioural and ecological nutrition was also valued and require multi-disciplinary collaborations between nutritionists, social scientists, agricultural and climate change scientists. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine © The Author 2014; all rights reserved.

Considerations for an Obesity Policy Research Agenda

PubMed Central

McKinnon, Robin A.; Orleans, C. Tracy; Kumanyika, Shiriki K.; Haire-Joshu, Debra; Krebs-Smith, Susan M.; Finkelstein, Eric A.; Brownell, Kelly D.; Thompson, Joseph W.; Ballard-Barbash, Rachel

2010-01-01

The rise in obesity levels in the U.S. in the past several decades has been dramatic, with serious implications for public health and the economy. Experiences in tobacco control and other public health initiatives have shown that public policy may be a powerful tool to effect structural change to alter population-level behavior. In 2007, the National Cancer Institute convened a meeting to discuss priorities for a research agenda to inform obesity policy. Issues considered were how to define obesity policy research, key challenges and key partners in formulating/implementing an obesity policy research agenda, criteria by which to set research priorities, and specific research needs and questions. Themes that emerged were: (1) the embryonic nature of obesity policy research, (2) the need to study “natural experiments” resulting from policy-based efforts to address the obesity epidemic, (3) the importance of research focused beyond individual-level behavior change, (4) the need for economic research across several relevant policy areas, and (5) the overall urgency of taking action in the policy arena. Moving forward, timely evaluation of natural experiments is of especially high priority. A variety of policies intended to promote healthy weight in children and adults are being implemented in communities and at the state and national levels. Although some of these policies are supported by the findings of intervention research, additional research is needed to evaluate the implementation and quantify the impact of new policies designed to address obesity. PMID:19211215

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.

Involving citizens in priority setting for public health research: Implementation in infection research.

PubMed

Rawson, Timothy M; Castro-Sánchez, Enrique; Charani, Esmita; Husson, Fran; Moore, Luke S P; Holmes, Alison H; Ahmad, Raheelah

2018-02-01

Public sources fund the majority of UK infection research, but citizens currently have no formal role in resource allocation. To explore the feasibility and willingness of citizens to engage in strategic decision making, we developed and tested a practical tool to capture public priorities for research. A scenario including six infection themes for funding was developed to assess citizen priorities for research funding. This was tested over two days at a university public festival. Votes were cast anonymously along with rationale for selection. The scenario was then implemented during a three-hour focus group exploring views on engagement in strategic decisions and in-depth evaluation of the tool. 188/491(38%) prioritized funding research into drug-resistant infections followed by emerging infections(18%). Results were similar between both days. Focus groups contained a total of 20 citizens with an equal gender split, range of ethnicities and ages ranging from 18 to >70 years. The tool was perceived as clear with participants able to make informed comparisons. Rationale for funding choices provided by voters and focus group participants are grouped into three major themes: (i) Information processing; (ii) Knowledge of the problem; (iii) Responsibility; and a unique theme within the focus groups (iv) The potential role of citizens in decision making. Divergent perceptions of relevance and confidence of "non-experts" as decision makers were expressed. Voting scenarios can be used to collect, en-masse, citizens' choices and rationale for research priorities. Ensuring adequate levels of citizen information and confidence is important to allow deployment in other formats. © 2017 The Authors Health Expectations Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Use of consensus development to establish national research priorities in critical care

PubMed Central

Vella, Keryn; Goldfrad, Caroline; Rowan, Kathy; Bion, Julian; Black, Nick

2000-01-01

Objectives To test the feasibility of using a nominal group technique to establish clinical and health services research priorities in critical care and to test the representativeness of the group's views. Design Generation of topics by means of a national survey; a nominal group technique to establish the level of consensus; a survey to test the representativeness of the results. Setting United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. Subjects Nominal group composed of 10 doctors (8 consultants, 2 trainees) and 2 nurses. Main outcome measure Level of support (median) and level of agreement (mean absolute deviation from the median) derived from a 9 point Likert scale. Results Of the 325 intensive care units approached, 187 (58%) responded, providing about 1000 suggestions for research. Of the 106 most frequently suggested topics considered by the nominal group, 37 attracted strong support, 48 moderate support and 21 weak support. There was more agreement after the group had met—overall mean of the mean absolute deviations from the median fell from 1.41 to 1.26. The group's views represented the views of the wider community of critical care staff (r=0.73, P<0.01). There was no significant difference in the views of staff from teaching or from non-teaching hospitals. Of the 37 topics that attracted the strongest support, 24 were concerned with organisational aspects of critical care and only 13 with technology assessment or clinical research. Conclusions A nominal group technique is feasible and reliable for determining research priorities among clinicians. This approach is more democratic and transparent than the traditional methods used by research funding bodies. The results suggest that clinicians perceive research into the best ways of delivering and organising services as a high priority. PMID:10753149

Priorities to Advance Monitoring of Ecosystem Services Using Earth Observation.

PubMed

Cord, Anna F; Brauman, Kate A; Chaplin-Kramer, Rebecca; Huth, Andreas; Ziv, Guy; Seppelt, Ralf

2017-06-01

Managing ecosystem services in the context of global sustainability policies requires reliable monitoring mechanisms. While satellite Earth observation offers great promise to support this need, significant challenges remain in quantifying connections between ecosystem functions, ecosystem services, and human well-being benefits. Here, we provide a framework showing how Earth observation together with socioeconomic information and model-based analysis can support assessments of ecosystem service supply, demand, and benefit, and illustrate this for three services. We argue that the full potential of Earth observation is not yet realized in ecosystem service studies. To provide guidance for priority setting and to spur research in this area, we propose five priorities to advance the capabilities of Earth observation-based monitoring of ecosystem services. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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.

Agricultural Research Service: biodefense research.

PubMed

Gay, C G

2013-01-01

The National Animal Health Program at the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), includes research programs dedicated to the defense of animal agriculture against the treat of biological agents with the potential of significant economic harm and/or public health consequences. This article provides a summary of the program and identifies its relevance to national initiatives to protect livestock and poultry as well as global food security. An introduction to setting research priorities and a selection of research accomplishments that define the scope of the biodefense research program is provided.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

Elementary School Mathematics Priorities

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Wilson, W. Stephen

2009-01-01

This article first describes some of the basic skills and knowledge that a solid elementary school mathematics foundation requires. It then elaborates on several points germane to these practices. These are then followed with a discussion and conclude with final comments and suggestions for future research. The article sets out the five…

76 FR 28987 - Agency Information Collection Request; 30-Day Public Comment Request

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-05-19

... diverse populations and clinical practice settings, that is, comparative effectiveness research (CER). The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 (ARRA) expanded Federal resources devoted to CER by... also called for a report to Congress and the Secretary of HHS on priority CER topics by the Institute...

Sustainable Schools: Making Energy Efficiency a Lifestyle Priority

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Purnell, Ken; Sinclair, Mark; Gralton, Anna

2004-01-01

Promoting efficient energy use in schools that consequently reduces greenhouse gas emissions is the purpose of a residential Energy Efficiency in Schools (EEIS) program reported on in this paper. Research on this program aligns with one of the "key "overarching" sustainability issues", set out in the "Learning for…

How Do We Go about Investigating Test Fairness?

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Xi, Xiaoming

2010-01-01

Previous test fairness frameworks have greatly expanded the scope of fairness, but do not provide a means to fully integrate fairness investigations and set priorities. This article proposes an approach to guide practitioners on fairness research and practices. This approach treats fairness as an aspect of validity and conceptualizes it as…

Research priorities in health economics and funding for palliative care: views of an international think tank.

PubMed

Harding, Richard; Gomes, Barbara; Foley, Kathleen M; Higginson, Irene J

2009-07-01

At the conclusion of the November 2007 meeting, the assembled international expert group identified the research agenda. The adoption of this agenda would take forward health economic research in palliative care, and generate the necessary data for improved funding decision making, and resource allocation. Recommendations for study included international comparative research into the components of care and settings, evaluative studies, methodologic development and strategies to initiate studies, and make better use of data.

The Evaluation of Federal Programs in Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Resource Conservation, Research, and Forestry of the Committee on Agriculture. House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, Second Session (March 27, May 14, July 17, 1996).

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Congress of the U.S., Washington, DC. House Committee on Agriculture.

Three House of Representatives' subcommittee hearings were held in March, May, and July 1996 to evaluate the goals, priority setting, and advisory mechanisms of federal programs in agricultural research, education, and extension. To become competitive in global markets, farmers will need to rely on the research community to provide up-to-date…

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.

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...

Setting Research Priorities for HIV/AIDS-related research in a post-graduate training programme: lessons learnt from the Nigeria Field Epidemiology and Laboratory Training Programme scientific workshop

PubMed Central

Poggensee, Gabriele; Waziri, Ndadilnasiya Endie; Bashorun, Adebobola; Nguku, Patrick Mboya; Fawole, Olufunmilayo Ibitola; Sabitu, Kabir

2014-01-01

In Nigeria the current prevalence of HIV is 4.1% with over 3.5 million infected and estimated 1.5 million in need of anti-retroviral treatment. Epidemiological and implementation studies are necessary for monitoring and evaluation of interventions. To define research areas which can be addressed by participants of the Nigeria Field Epidemiology and Training Programme (NFELTP) a workshop was held in April 2013 in Abuja, Nigeria. Priority research areas were identified using criteria lists for ranking of the relevance of research questions. Based on a research matrix, NFELTP residents developed the aims and objectives, study design for HIV-related research proposals. This workshop was the first workshop held by the NFELTP to establish an inventory of research questions which can be addressed by the residents within their training period. This inventory will help to increase HIV/AIDS-related activities of NFELTP which are in accordance with research needs in Nigeria and PEPFAR objectives. PMID:25426209

Charting the landscape of priority problems in psychiatry, part 1: classification and diagnosis.

PubMed

Stephan, Klaas E; Bach, Dominik R; Fletcher, Paul C; Flint, Jonathan; Frank, Michael J; Friston, Karl J; Heinz, Andreas; Huys, Quentin J M; Owen, Michael J; Binder, Elisabeth B; Dayan, Peter; Johnstone, Eve C; Meyer-Lindenberg, Andreas; Montague, P Read; Schnyder, Ulrich; Wang, Xiao-Jing; Breakspear, Michael

2016-01-01

Contemporary psychiatry faces major challenges. Its syndrome-based disease classification is not based on mechanisms and does not guide treatment, which largely depends on trial and error. The development of therapies is hindered by ignorance of potential beneficiary patient subgroups. Neuroscientific and genetics research have yet to affect disease definitions or contribute to clinical decision making. In this challenging setting, what should psychiatric research focus on? In two companion papers, we present a list of problems nominated by clinicians and researchers from different disciplines as candidates for future scientific investigation of mental disorders. These problems are loosely grouped into challenges concerning nosology and diagnosis (this Personal View) and problems related to pathogenesis and aetiology (in the companion Personal View). Motivated by successful examples in other disciplines, particularly the list of Hilbert's problems in mathematics, this subjective and eclectic list of priority problems is intended for psychiatric researchers, helping to re-focus existing research and providing perspectives for future psychiatric science. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

76 FR 38134 - Final Priorities; Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program-Disability...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-06-29

...-identified research designs to generate reliable and valid findings. Changes: None. Final Priorities Priority... DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Final Priorities; Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program--Disability Rehabilitation Research Projects, etc. AGENCY: Office of Special Education and...

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.

Setting Research Priorities for Patients on or Nearing Dialysis

PubMed Central

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

2014-01-01

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

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.

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

PubMed

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

2013-01-01

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

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

PubMed Central

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

2013-01-01

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

Emergency medicine in the developing world: a Delphi study.

PubMed

Hodkinson, Peter W; Wallis, Lee A

2010-07-01

Emergency medicine (EM) as a specialty has developed rapidly in the western world, but remains largely immature in developing nations. There is an urgent need for emergency services, but no clear guidelines are available on the priorities for establishing EM in the developing world. This study seeks to establish consensus on key areas of EM development in developing world settings, with respect to scope of EM, staffing needs, training requirements, and research priorities. A three-round Delphi study was conducted via e-mail. A panel was convened of 50 EM specialists or equivalent, with experience in or interest in EM in the developing world. In the first round, panelists provided free-text statements on scope, staffing, training, and research priorities for EM in the developing world. A five-point Likert scale was used to rate agreement with the statements in Rounds 2 and 3. Consensus statements are presented as a series of synopsis statements for each of the four major themes. A total of 168 of 208 statements (81%) had reached consensus at the end of the study. Key areas in which consensus was reached included EM being a specialist-driven service, with substantial role for nonphysicians. International training courses should be adapted to local needs. EM research in developing countries should be clinically driven and focus on local issues of importance. The scope and function of EM and relationships with other specialties are defined. Unambiguous principles are laid out for the development of the specialty in developing world environments. The next step required in this process is translation into practical guidelines for the development of EM in developing world settings where they may be used to drive policy, protocols, and research. 2010 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine

Issues and priorities of medical education research in Asia.

PubMed

Majumder, M A A

2004-03-01

This article addresses the roles, issues, approaches, rationale, pitfalls, priorities and balance of research in medical education, particularly its "disarray" status in Asia. Research in medical education has influenced education in many ways. Most importantly, it provides legitimate evidences to stakeholders on which to make educational decisions. It also has a wider social impact on teaching practice and subsequent clinical practice. However, in Asia, medical educational research has not substantially influenced educational policy and medical practices. Moreover, it fails to receive comparable attention as in developed countries. A number of constraints that have hampered the development of educational research in Asia are identified: low socio-economic condition of the region; cultural and religious values and beliefs of the people; lack of congruence between the mission and vision of medical schools; leadership crisis; lack of financial resources; inadequate exposure to medical educational research in undergraduate training; lack of collaboration and commitment; and unforeseeable short-term outcome of medical education. The article concludes with some specific recommendations to strengthen research and to create a research culture in the region, including active leadership and commitment of the institutes/organisations, careful assessment and strategic settings of the priorities of medical educational research, establishment of a regional centre for medical education research, availability of financial resources, wider dissemination of research findings, collaboration with the developed countries and initiative to publish regional-based medical education journals, including electronic journals. Appropriate research environment and culture will enable stakeholders to obtain evidence-based information from educational research to increase the relevance, quality, cost-effectiveness and equity of medical education and practice in Asia.

Priorities for Antiretroviral Therapy Research in Sub-Saharan Africa: A 2002 Consensus Conference in Zambia

PubMed Central

Zulu, Isaac; Schuman, Paula; Musonda, Rosemary; Chomba, Elwyn; Mwinga, Kasonde; Sinkala, Moses; Chisembele, Maureen; Mwaba, Peter; Kasonde, Dorothy; Vermund, Sten H.

2009-01-01

Background A consensus conference was held to discuss priorities for antiretroviral therapy (ART) research in Zambia, one of the world’s most heavily HIV-afflicted nations. Zambia, like other resource-limited settings, has increasing access to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) because of declining drug costs, use of government-purchased generic medications, and increased global donations. For sustained delivery of care with HAART in a resource-constrained medical and public health context, operational research is required and clinical trials are desirable. The priority areas for research are most relevant today given the increasing availability of HAART. Methods A conference was held in Lusaka, Zambia, in January 2002 to discuss priority areas for ART research in Zambia, with participants drawn from a broad cross section of Zambian society. State-of-the-art reviews and 6 intensive small group discussions helped to formulate a suggested research agenda. Results Conference participants believed that the most urgent research priorities were to assess how therapeutic resources could be applied for the greatest overall benefit and to minimize the impact of nonadherence and viral resistance. Identified research priorities were as follows: To determine when to initiate HAART in relation to CD4+ cell count To assess whether HIV/AIDS can be managed well without the use of costly frequent viral load measurements and CD4+ cell count monitoring To assess whether HIV/AIDS can be managed in the same fashion in patients coinfected with opportunistic infections such as tuberculosis and HIV-related chronic diarrhea, taking into consideration complications that may occur in tuberculosis such as immune reconstitution syndrome and medication malabsorption in the presence of diarrhea To carefully assess and characterize toxicities, adverse effects, and viral resistance patterns in Zambia, including studies of mothers exposed to prepartum single-dose nevirapine To conduct operational research to assess clinical and field-based strategies to maximize adherence for better outcomes of ART in Zambia To assess ART approaches most valuable for pediatric and adolescent patients in Zambia Conference participants recommended that HIV-related clinical care and research be integrated within home-based care services and operated within the existing health delivery structures to ensure sustainability, reduce costs, and strengthen the structures. Conclusion Our consensus was that antiretroviral clinical trials and operational research are essential for Zambia to address the new challenges arising from increasing ART availability. There is global consensus that antiretroviral clinical trials in resource-constrained countries are possible, and the capacity for such trials should be developed further in Africa. PMID:15213567

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

PubMed

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

2017-12-01

The Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group (TAG) conducts systematic reviews of the evidence for tobacco cessation and prevention interventions. In 2016 TAG conducted a priority-setting, stakeholder engagement project to identify where further research is needed in the areas of tobacco control and smoking cessation. The project comprised two surveys and a workshop. A range of stakeholders participated, including members of the public (smokers and ex-smokers), clinicians, researchers, research funders, health-care commissioners and public health organizations. The first survey phase identified unanswered research questions in the field of tobacco control. The second phase asked participants to rank these, with overall rankings calculated by combining scores across participants. The workshop allowed attendees to discuss prioritization of topics and questions in more depth. Workshop discussions were transcribed and analysed thematically, and a final voting activity at the close of the workshop allowed participants to choose topics to prioritize and to de-prioritize. A total of 304 stakeholders (researchers, health professionals, smokers and ex-smokers, guideline developers, research funders and policymakers, representing 28 countries) identified 183 unanswered research questions. These were categorized into 15 research categories. A total of 175 participants prioritized categories and questions in the second survey phase, with 'electronic cigarettes'; 'addressing inequalities'; and 'mental health and other substance abuse' prioritized as the top three categories. Forty-three stakeholders attended the workshop and discussed reasons for and against category prioritization. Prioritized research categories largely mirrored those in the survey stage, although 'treatment delivery' also emerged as a key category. Five cross-cutting themes emerged: efficacy; relative efficacy; cost effectiveness; addressing inequalities; and different types of evidence. There are many unanswered questions in the field of tobacco control. Stakeholders highlighted electronic cigarettes, addressing inequalities and mental health and other substance abuse as key areas for further research, and efficacy, relative efficacy, cost-effectiveness and use of non-randomized studies as important themes cutting across research areas. Future prioritization work would benefit from targeting non-US and non-UK stakeholders explicitly and from examining where priorities may differ based on stakeholder group. © 2017 The Authors. Addiction published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society for the Study of Addiction.

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

PubMed

Mentzakis, Emmanouil; Paolucci, Francesco; Rubicko, Georg

2014-06-01

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

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.

International Occupational Therapy Research Priorities.

PubMed

Mackenzie, Lynette; Coppola, Susan; Alvarez, Liliana; Cibule, Lolita; Maltsev, Sergey; Loh, Siew Yim; Mlambo, Tecla; Ikiugu, Moses N; Pihlar, Zdenka; Sriphetcharawut, Sarinya; Baptiste, Sue; Ledgerd, Richard

2017-04-01

Occupational therapy is a global profession represented by the World Federation of Occupational Therapists (WFOT). International research priorities are needed for strategic guidance on global occupational therapy practice. The objective of this study was to develop international research priorities to reflect global occupational therapy practice. A Delphi study using three rounds of electronic surveys, distributed to WFOT member organizations and WFOT accredited universities, was conducted. Data were analyzed after each round, and priorities were presented for rating and ranking in order of importance. Forty-six (53%) out of 87 WFOT member countries participated in the Delphi process. Eight research priorities were confirmed by the final electronic survey round. Differences were observed in rankings given by member organizations and university respondents. Despite attrition at Round 3, the final research priorities will help to focus research efforts in occupational therapy globally. Follow-up research is needed to determine how the research priorities are being adopted internationally.

Objectives, priorities, reliable knowledge, and science-based management of Missouri River interior least terns and piping plovers

USGS Publications Warehouse

Sherfy, Mark; Anteau, Michael J.; Shaffer, Terry; Sovada, Marsha; Stucker, Jennifer

2011-01-01

Supporting recovery of federally listed interior least tern (Sternula antillarum athalassos; tern) and piping plover (Charadrius melodus; plover) populations is a desirable goal in management of the Missouri River ecosystem. Many tools are implemented in support of this goal, including habitat management, annual monitoring, directed research, and threat mitigation. Similarly, many types of data can be used to make management decisions, evaluate system responses, and prioritize research and monitoring. The ecological importance of Missouri River recovery and the conservation status of terns and plovers place a premium on efficient and effective resource use. Efficiency is improved when a single data source informs multiple high-priority decisions, whereas effectiveness is improved when decisions are informed by reliable knowledge. Seldom will a single study design be optimal for addressing all data needs, making prioritization of needs essential. Data collection motivated by well-articulated objectives and priorities has many advantages over studies in which questions and priorities are determined retrospectively. Research and monitoring for terns and plovers have generated a wealth of data that can be interpreted in a variety of ways. The validity and strength of conclusions from analyses of these data is dependent on compatibility between the study design and the question being asked. We consider issues related to collection and interpretation of biological data, and discuss their utility for enhancing the role of science in management of Missouri River terns and plovers. A team of USGS scientists at Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center has been conducting tern and plover research on the Missouri River since 2005. The team has had many discussions about the importance of setting objectives, identifying priorities, and obtaining reliable information to answer pertinent questions about tern and plover management on this river system. The objectives of this presentation are to summarize those conversations and to share insights about concepts that could contribute to rigorous science support for management of this river system.

Health services research: building capacity to meet the needs of the health care system

PubMed Central

Barratt, Helen; Shaw, Jay; Simpson, Lisa; Bhatia, Sacha; Fulop, Naomi

2017-01-01

Health services researchers have an important role to play in helping health care systems around the world provide high quality, affordable services. However, gaps between the best evidence and current practice suggest that researchers need to work in new ways. The production of research that meets the needs and priorities of the health system requires researchers to work in partnership with decision-makers to conduct research and then mobilize the findings. To do this effectively, researchers require a new set of skills that are not conventionally taught as part of doctoral research programmes. In addition to wider contextual changes, researchers need to understand better the needs of decision-makers, for example through short placements in health system decision-making settings. Second, researchers need to learn to accommodate those needs throughout the research process, including identifying research needs; conducting research collaboratively with decision-makers and producing effective research products. PMID:28786700

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...

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.

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. ...

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.

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.

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...

Head, Heart, and Hands for Our Youngest Children.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Southeastern Regional Vision for Education (SERVE), Tallahassee, FL.

This document details a strategy to bring together state and community leaders in the southeastern United States to establish dialogue, set priorities, and make system-wide changes for supporting literacy for the youngest children and their families. The Head, Heart, and Hands campaign has three focal points: (1) Head--understanding research and…

Minimum viable populations: Is there a 'magic number' for conservation practitioners?

Treesearch

Curtis H. Flather; Gregory D. Hayward; Steven R. Beissinger; Philip A. Stephens

2011-01-01

Establishing species conservation priorities and recovery goals is often enhanced by extinction risk estimates. The need to set goals, even in data-deficient situations, has prompted researchers to ask whether general guidelines could replace individual estimates of extinction risk. To inform conservation policy, recent studies have revived the concept of the minimum...

Why We Do What We Do: Exploring Priorities within Public Services Librarianship

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Johnson, Corey M.; Lindsay, Elizabeth Blakesley

2006-01-01

Public services librarians perform an increasingly diverse set of duties, and this study explores which job components are most important to librarians. The researchers surveyed public services librarians at ARL libraries to gather data on both intrinsic and extrinsic factors that influence how public services librarians spend their time. The…

Setting priorities for research on pollution reduction functions of agricultural buffers

Treesearch

Michael G. Dosskey

2002-01-01

The success of buffer installation initiatives and programs to reduce nonpoint source pollution of streams on agricultural lands will depend the ability of local planners to locate and design buffers for specific circumstances with substantial and predictable results. Current predictive capabilities are inadequate, and major sources of uncertainty remain. An...

The University-Business Nexus in Australia. Go8 Backgrounder 26

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Group of Eight (NJ1), 2012

2012-01-01

An effective innovation system requires productive interactions between all its parts. Within Australia there is a view that business-university interactions are suboptimal. Government has set a target for doubling the interactions between business and publicly funded researchers by 2020; and the Group of Eight has a strategic priority to build…

Willingness to pay for hypothetical malaria vaccines in rural Burkina Faso.

PubMed

Sauerborn, Rainer; Gbangou, Adjima; Dong, Hengjin; Przyborski, Jude M; Lanzer, Michael

2005-01-01

This study aims to set priorities for anti-disease malaria vaccines by determining community preference in a hyperendemic area. A bidding game technique was used to elucidate willingness to pay in rural Burkina Faso and 2,326 adults were interviewed. It is shown that there are significant differences between community preference for an anti-disease vaccine aimed at reducing pathology in pregnant women, and for a vaccine directed against childhood malaria. While the target population was willing to pay CFAfr 2101 for a vaccine against maternal malaria, its members were prepared to pay only CFAfr 1433 for a vaccine against childhood malaria. Whilst it is increasingly likely that anti-disease malaria vaccines will become available in the foreseeable future, lessons from the past suggest that a lack of acceptance and support from the intended recipients may lead to less than optimal compliance, and hence efficacy. For the planning of vaccine development and application strategies, it is therefore highly important to take community views into account. Here it is argued that such information could help researchers and funding agencies to set priorities for future vaccine research.

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.

Better Communication for Better Public Health: Perspectives From an Interdisciplinary Training Program.

PubMed

Shlafer, Rebecca J; McRee, Annie-Laurie; Gower, Amy L; Bearinger, Linda H

2016-03-01

Myriad factors determine the health of young people-biological, psychological, familial, contextual, environmental, and political, to name a few. Improving the health of adolescents means that leaders in health care and public health must have the requisite skills for translating research into priorities, practices, and policies that influence a wide array of health determinants. While adolescent health training programs may give emphasis to effective communication with adolescents as patients or as priority populations in health education/promotion efforts, are we adequately preparing our future leaders with the skill sets necessary for moving scientific evidence into practice, programs, and policies? Internship and fellowship programs may invest heavily in teaching skills for conducting research and health education/promotion, but they may not focus enough on how to translate scientific evidence into practice, programs, and policy. In this commentary, we share our experiences equipping professionals working with adolescents in health care and public health settings with skills for scientific writing, public speaking, and advocacy on behalf of young people, and discuss the need for more collaboration across disciplines. © 2016 Society for Public Health Education.

Backing the winners and the research infrastructure.

PubMed

Leliveld, H

1985-04-26

The industrial policy of the Dutch government is a priority area policy, that backs the winners of today and, even more, the potential winners of tomorrow. Important elements of this policy are the selection of high-chance activities, setting up new and informal relationships, promoting co-operation and supporting industrial research and development. To this end the government has set up Innovative Research Programmes and an Innovation Stimulation Scheme. Co-operation of universities and industry is essential for these programmes to succeed. Also international co-operation is a precondition to a firm position of European industry. The establishment of the Center for Bio-Pharmaceutical Sciences is entirely in line with the objectives of this policy.

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...

Final priority; National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research--Research Fellowships Program (also known as the Mary E. Switzer Research Fellowships). Final priority.

PubMed

2014-07-28

The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services announces a priority for the Research Fellowships Program administered by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR). Specifically, this notice announces a priority for a Distinguished Residential Disability and Rehabilitation Policy Fellowship. We take this action to focus attention on an area of national need. We intend the priority to build research capacity by providing support to highly qualified, experienced researchers, including those who are individuals with disabilities, to conduct policy research in the areas of disability and rehabilitation.

Priority of road maintenance management based on halda reading range on NAASRA method

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Surbakti, M.; Doan, A.

2018-02-01

The road pavement, constantly experiencing stress-strain due to traffic load through it, can cause damage to the pavement. Therefore, early detection and repair of the damage will be able to prevent more severe damage that can develop into pavement failure. A road condition survey is one of the earliest attempts to detect the initial damage of a pavement. In this case the driving comfort is the most important part for the driver in assessing road conditions that are affected by the level of road surface roughness. To determine the level of roughness of the road, one of the methods developed is the measurement using the NAASRA method. In this method the roughness of the road is an accumulation of the average unevenness of the road, with the general setting on halda of 100 m. However, with this 100-meter setting, in some places the final value of the roughness value is too large or too small so that it will result in the priority of the road maintenance. This is what underlies roughness research by comparing halda settings at 50 m and 200 m different from the general settings above.This study uses the International Roughness Index (IRI) method in determining the level of road stability concerning driving discomfort. IRI score obtained from direct survey in field by using Roughometer-NAASRA.The final result shows that there is a significant difference between the reading of halda which is set at 100 m reading with halda set with 50 and 200 meter readings. This may lead to differences in handling priorities, which may impact on the sustainability of road network maintenance management (Sustainaible Road Management)

Corporate sponsorship of global health research: Questions to promote critical thinking about potential funding relationships.

PubMed

Brisbois, Ben W; Cole, Donald C; Davison, Colleen M; Di Ruggiero, Erica; Hanson, Lori; Janes, Craig R; Larson, Charles P; Nixon, Stephanie; Plamondon, Katrina; Stime, Bjorn

2016-12-27

Funding options for global health research prominently include grants from corporations, as well as from foundations linked to specific corporations. While such funds can enable urgently-needed research and interventions, they can carry the risk of skewing health research priorities and exacerbating health inequities. With the objective of promoting critical reflection on potential corporate funding options for global health research, we propose a set of three questions developed through an open conference workshop and reflection on experiences of global health researchers and their institutions: 1) Does this funding allow me/us to retain control over research design, methodology and dissemination processes? 2) Does accessing this funding source involve altering my/our research agenda (i.e., what is the impact of this funding source on research priorities)? 3) What are the potential "unintended consequences" of accepting corporate funding, in terms of legitimizing corporations or models of development that are at the root of many global health problems? These questions outline an intentional and cautionary approach to decision-making when corporate funding for global health research is being considered by funding agencies, institutions, researchers and research stakeholders.

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...

Research priorities in occupational safety and health: a review.

PubMed

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

2006-01-01

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

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

Interdisciplinary Priorities for Dissemination, Implementation, and Improvement Science: Frameworks, Mechanics, and Measures.

PubMed

Brunner, Julian W; Sankaré, Ibrahima C; Kahn, Katherine L

2015-12-01

Much of dissemination, implementation, and improvement (DII) science is conducted by social scientists, healthcare practitioners, and biomedical researchers. While each of these groups has its own venues for sharing methods and findings, forums that bring together the diverse DII science workforce provide important opportunities for cross-disciplinary collaboration and learning. In particular, such forums are uniquely positioned to foster the sharing of three important components of research. First: they allow the sharing of conceptual frameworks for DII science that focus on the use and spread of innovations. Second: they provide an opportunity to share strategies for initiating and governing DII research, including approaches for eliciting and incorporating the research priorities of patients, study participants, and healthcare practitioners, and decision-makers. Third: they allow the sharing of outcome measures well-suited to the goals of DII science, thereby helping to validate these outcomes in diverse contexts, improving the comparability of findings across settings, and elevating the study of the implementation process itself. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Interdisciplinary Priorities for Dissemination, Implementation, and Improvement Science: Frameworks, Mechanics, and Measures

PubMed Central

Brunner, Julian W.; Sankaré, Ibrahima C.

2015-01-01

Abstract Much of dissemination, implementation, and improvement (DII) science is conducted by social scientists, healthcare practitioners, and biomedical researchers. While each of these groups has its own venues for sharing methods and findings, forums that bring together the diverse DII science workforce provide important opportunities for cross‐disciplinary collaboration and learning. In particular, such forums are uniquely positioned to foster the sharing of three important components of research. First: they allow the sharing of conceptual frameworks for DII science that focus on the use and spread of innovations. Second: they provide an opportunity to share strategies for initiating and governing DII research, including approaches for eliciting and incorporating the research priorities of patients, study participants, and healthcare practitioners, and decision‐makers. Third: they allow the sharing of outcome measures well‐suited to the goals of DII science, thereby helping to validate these outcomes in diverse contexts, improving the comparability of findings across settings, and elevating the study of the implementation process itself. PMID:26349456

Social and behavioral science priorities for genomic translation.

PubMed

Koehly, Laura M; Persky, Susan; Spotts, Erica; Acca, Gillian

2018-01-29

This commentary highlights the essential role of the social and behavioral sciences for genomic translation, and discusses some priority research areas in this regard. The first area encompasses genetics of behavioral, social, and neurocognitive factors, and how integration of these relationships might impact the development of treatments and interventions. The second area includes the contributions that social and behavioral sciences make toward the informed translation of genomic developments. Further, there is a need for behavioral and social sciences to inform biomedical research for effective implementation. The third area speaks to the need for increased outreach and education efforts to improve the public's genomic literacy such that individuals and communities can make informed health-related and societal (e.g., in legal or consumer settings) decisions. Finally, there is a need to prioritize representation of diverse communities in genomics research and equity of access to genomic technologies. Examples from National Institutes of Health-based intramural and extramural research programs and initiatives are used to discuss these points. © Society of Behavioral Medicine 2018.

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

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...

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

PubMed

2014-07-09

The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services announces a priority under the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program administered by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR). Specifically, we announce a priority for a Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center (RERC) on Improving the Accessibility, Usability, and Performance of Technology for Individuals who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing. The Assistant Secretary may use this priority for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2014 and later years. We take this action to focus research attention on an area of national need. We intend the priority to contribute to improving the accessibility, usability, and performance of technology for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing.

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

PubMed

2013-06-14

The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services announces a priority for a Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center (RERC) on Universal Interfaces and Information Technology Access under the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program administered by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR). The Assistant Secretary may use this priority for a competition in fiscal year (FY) 2013 and later years. We take this action to focus research attention on areas of national need. We intend to use this priority to improve outcomes for individuals with disabilities.

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...

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.

The European initiative on low-dose risk research: from the HLEG to MELODI.

PubMed

Belli, Mauro; Tabocchini, Maria Antonella; Jourdain, Jean-René; Salomaa, Sisko; Repussard, Jacques

2015-09-01

The importance of low-dose risk research for radiation protection is now widely recognised. The European Commission (EC) and five European Union (EU) Member States involved in the Euratom Programme set up in 2008 a 'High Level and Expert Group on European Low Dose Risk Research' (HLEG) aimed at identifying research needs and proposing a better integration of European efforts in the field. The HLEG revised the research challenges and proposed a European research strategy based on a 'Multidisciplinary European LOw Dose Initiative' (MELODI). In April 2009, five national organisations, with the support of the EC, created the initial core of MELODI (http://www.melodi-online.eu) with a view to integrate the EU institutions with significant programmes in the field, while being open to other scientific organisations and stakeholders, and to develop an agreed strategic research agenda (SRA) and roadmap. Since then, open workshops have been organised yearly, exploring ideas for SRA implementation. As of October 2014, 31 institutions have been included as members of MELODI. HLEG recommendations and MELODI SRA have become important reference points in the radiation protection part of the Euratom Research Programme. MELODI has established close interactions through Memorandum of Understanding with other European platforms involved in radiation protection (Alliance, NERIS and EURADOS) and, together with EURADOS, with the relevant medical European Associations. The role of Joint Programming in priority setting, foreseen in the forthcoming EU Horizon 2020, calls for keeping MELODI an open, inclusive and transparent initiative, able to avoid redundancies and possible conflicts of interest, while promoting common initiatives in radiation protection research. An important issue is the establishment of a proper methodology for managing these initiatives, and this includes the set-up of an independent MELODI Scientific Committee recently extended to Alliance, NERIS and EURADOS, with the aim of identifying research priorities to suggest for the forthcoming Euratom research calls. © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Research priorities and history of advanced composite compression testing

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

Baumann, K. J.

1981-01-01

Priorities for standard compression testing research in advanced laminated fibrous composite materials are presented along with a state of the art survey (completed in 1979) including history and commentary on industrial test methods. Historically apparent research priorities and consequent (lack of) progress are supporting evidence for newly derived priorities.

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.

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.

National occupational health research priorities, agenda and strategy of Japan: invited report in NORA symposium 2001, USA.

PubMed

Araki, Shunichi; Tachi, Masatomo

2003-01-01

An invited report on national occupational health research priorities, agenda and strategy of Japan was delivered in the NORA (National Occupational Research Agenda) Symposium 2001, USA. The third NORA Symposium was held by the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in Washington DC on June 27, 2001. The national conference in Japan entitled "Conference on Occupational Health Research Strategies in the 21st Century" was organized by the Japanese Ministry of Labour (Currently, Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare) in the years 1998-2001, and the national occupational health research agenda and strategy for the next decade in Japan was identified. A total of 50 Conference members, i.e., representatives from various fields of occupational health in Japan, ranked 58 comprehensive research topics, yielding short-term (5-year) and long-term (6-10 year) priority research topics. Overall (10-year) priority research topics were calculated by combining the short-term and long-term priority scores. Together with the ranking by 145 extramural occupational health specialists, it was identified that work stress (i.e., one of the 58 research topics) was the first overall priority research topic for the next 10 years in Japan. Three other topics, i.e., elderly workers, women workers and maternity protection, and mental health and quality of work and life, were the second group of priority topics; and hazard and risk assessment and biological effect index were the third priority group. Based on the scores for the short-term and long-term priority research topics, all 58 research topics were classified into three key research areas with 18 key research issues (National Occupational Health Research Agenda, NOHRA). Finally, eight implementation measures of national strategy for the Japanese Government to promote occupational health research were introduced.

Stakeholder Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

PubMed Central

Lindenauer, Peter K.; Au, David H.; Carson, Shannon S.; Lee, Todd A.; McBurnie, Mary Ann; Naureckas, Edward T.; Vollmer, William M.; Mularski, Richard A.

2013-01-01

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is intended to address the expressed needs of patients, clinicians, and other stakeholders. Representatives of 54 stakeholder groups with an interest in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) participated in workshops convened by the COPD Outcomes-based Network for Clinical Effectiveness and Research Translation (CONCERT) over a 2-year period. Year 1 focused on chronic care and care coordination. Year 2 focused on acute care and transitions in care between healthcare settings. Discussions and provisional voting were conducted via teleconferences and e-mail exchanges before the workshop. Final prioritization votes occurred after in-person discussions at the workshop. We used a modified Delphi approach to facilitate discussions and consensus building. To more easily quantify preferences and to evaluate the internal consistency of rankings, the Analytic Hierarchy Process was incorporated in Year 2. Results of preworkshop and final workshop voting often differed, suggesting that prioritization efforts relying solely on requests for topics from stakeholder groups without in-person discussion may provide different research priorities. Research priorities varied across stakeholder groups, but generally focused on studies to evaluate different approaches to healthcare delivery (e.g., spirometry for diagnosis and treatment, integrated healthcare strategies during transitions in care) rather than head-to-head comparisons of medications. This research agenda may help to inform groups intending to respond to CER funding opportunities in COPD. The methodologies used, detailed in the online supplement, may also help to inform prioritization efforts for CER in other health conditions. PMID:23155144

Stakeholder priorities for comparative effectiveness research in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a workshop report.

PubMed

Krishnan, Jerry A; Lindenauer, Peter K; Au, David H; Carson, Shannon S; Lee, Todd A; McBurnie, Mary Ann; Naureckas, Edward T; Vollmer, William M; Mularski, Richard A

2013-02-01

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is intended to address the expressed needs of patients, clinicians, and other stakeholders. Representatives of 54 stakeholder groups with an interest in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) participated in workshops convened by the COPD Outcomes-based Network for Clinical Effectiveness and Research Translation (CONCERT) over a 2-year period. Year 1 focused on chronic care and care coordination. Year 2 focused on acute care and transitions in care between healthcare settings. Discussions and provisional voting were conducted via teleconferences and e-mail exchanges before the workshop. Final prioritization votes occurred after in-person discussions at the workshop. We used a modified Delphi approach to facilitate discussions and consensus building. To more easily quantify preferences and to evaluate the internal consistency of rankings, the Analytic Hierarchy Process was incorporated in Year 2. Results of preworkshop and final workshop voting often differed, suggesting that prioritization efforts relying solely on requests for topics from stakeholder groups without in-person discussion may provide different research priorities. Research priorities varied across stakeholder groups, but generally focused on studies to evaluate different approaches to healthcare delivery (e.g., spirometry for diagnosis and treatment, integrated healthcare strategies during transitions in care) rather than head-to-head comparisons of medications. This research agenda may help to inform groups intending to respond to CER funding opportunities in COPD. The methodologies used, detailed in the online supplement, may also help to inform prioritization efforts for CER in other health conditions.

Research and management priorities for Hawaiian forest birds

USGS Publications Warehouse

Paxton, Eben H.; Laut, Megan; Vetter, John P.; Kendall, Steve J.

2018-01-01

Hawai‘i's forest birds face a number of conservation challenges that, if unaddressed, will likely lead to the extinction of multiple species in the coming decades. Threats include habitat loss, invasive plants, non-native predators, and introduced diseases. Climate change is predicted to increase the geographic extent and intensity of these threats, adding urgency to implementation of tractable conservation strategies. We present a set of actionable research and management approaches, identified by conservation practitioners in Hawai'i, that will be critical for the conservation of Hawaiian forest birds in the coming years. We also summarize recent progress on these conservation priorities. The threats facing Hawai‘i's forest birds are not unique to Hawai‘i, and successful conservation strategies developed in Hawai‘i can serve as a model for other imperiled communities around the world, especially on islands.

Massage Therapy and Canadians’ Health Care Needs 2020: Proceedings of a National Research Priority Setting Summit

PubMed Central

Dryden, Trish; Sumpton, Bryn; Shipwright, Stacey; Kahn, Janet; Reece, Barbara (Findlay)

2014-01-01

Background The health care landscape in Canada is changing rapidly as forces, such as an aging population, increasingly complex health issues and treatments, and economic pressure to reduce health care costs, bear down on the system. A cohesive national research agenda for massage therapy (MT) is needed in order to ensure maximum benefit is derived from research on treatment, health care policy, and cost effectiveness. Setting A one-day invitational summit was held in Toronto, Ontario to build strategic alliances among Canadian and international researchers, policy makers, and other stakeholders to help shape a national research agenda for MT. Method Using a modified Delphi method, the summit organizers conducted two pre-summit surveys to ensure that time spent during the summit was relevant and productive. The summit was facilitated using the principles of Appreciative Inquiry which included a “4D” strategic planning approach (defining, discovery, dreaming, designing) and application of a SOAR framework (strengths, opportunities, aspirations, and results). Participants Twenty-six researchers, policymakers, and other stakeholders actively participated in the events. Results Priority topics that massage therapists believe are important to the Canadian public, other health care providers, and policy makers and massage therapists themselves were identified. A framework for a national massage therapy (MT) research agenda, a grand vision of the future for MT research, and a 12-month action plan were developed. Conclusion The summit provided an excellent opportunity for key stakeholders to come together and use their experience and knowledge of MT to develop a much-needed plan for moving the MT research and professionalization agenda forward. PMID:24592299

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...

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

PubMed

2013-06-19

The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services announces a priority for a Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center (RERC) on Technologies to Support Successful Aging with Disability under the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program administered by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR). The Assistant Secretary may use this priority for a competition in fiscal year (FY) 2013 and later years. We take this action to focus research attention on areas of national need. We intend to use this priority to improve outcomes for individuals with disabilities.

Exploring practical approaches to maximising data quality in electronic healthcare records in the primary care setting and associated benefits. Report of panel-led discussion held at SAPC in July 2014.

PubMed

Dungey, Sheena; Glew, Simon; Heyes, Barbara; Macleod, John; Tate, A Rosemary

2016-09-01

Electronic healthcare records provide information about patient care over time which not only affords the opportunity to improve patient care directly through effective monitoring and identification of care requirements but also offers a unique platform for both clinical and service-model research essential to the longer-term development of the health service. The quality of the recorded data can, however, be variable and can compromise the validity of data use both for primary and secondary purposes. In order to explore the challenges and benefits of and approaches to recording high quality primary care electronic records, a Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) sponsored workshop was held at the Society of Academic Primary Care (SAPC) conference in 2014 with the aim of engaging GPs and other data users. The workshop was held as a structured discussion, led by an expert panel and focused around three questions: (1) What are the data quality priorities for clinicians and researchers? How do these priorities differ or overlap? (2) What challenges might GPs face in provision of good data quality both for treating their patients and for research? Do these aims conflict? (3) What tools (such as data metrics and visualisations or software components) could assist the GP in improving data quality and patient management and could this tie in with analytical processes occurring at the research stage? The discussion highlighted both overlap and differences in the perceived data quality priorities and challenges for different user groups. Five key areas of focus were agreed upon and recommendations determined for moving forward in improving quality. The importance of good high quality electronic healthcare records has been set forth along with the need for a practical user-considered and collaborative approach to its improvement.

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.

Public priorities for joint pain research: results from a general population survey

PubMed Central

Carter, Pam; Ong, Bie Nio; Bedson, John; Jordan, Kelvin P.; Jinks, Clare

2012-01-01

Objective. We aimed to identify the priorities for joint pain research from a large general population survey and identify characteristics associated with these priorities. Methods. A question about research priorities was developed in collaboration with the Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre’s Research Users’ Group. The question was embedded in a postal survey to an existing cohort of adults with self-reported joint pain, aged ≥56 years, in North Staffordshire. Respondents were asked to rank their top three priorities for research. Factor mixture modelling was used to determine subgroups of priorities. Results. In all, 1756 (88%) people responded to the survey. Of these, 1356 (77%) gave three priorities for research. Keeping active was rated the top priority by 38%, followed by research around joint replacement (9%) and diet/weight loss (9%). Two clusters of people were identified: 62% preferred lifestyle/self-management topics (e.g. keeping active, weight loss) and 38% preferred medical intervention topics (e.g. joint replacement, tablets). Those who preferred the medical options tended to be older and have hip or foot pain. Conclusion. This study has provided population data on priorities for joint pain research expressed by a large cohort of older people who report joint pain. The most popular topics for research were linked to lifestyle and self-management opportunities. Pharmaceutical and invasive interventions, despite being common topics of research, are of less importance to these respondents than non-medical topics. Specific research questions will be generated from this study with collaboration of the patient’s group. PMID:22886341

NASA strategic plan

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

1994-01-01

The NASA Strategic Plan is a living document. It provides far-reaching goals and objectives to create stability for NASA's efforts. The Plan presents NASA's top-level strategy: it articulates what NASA does and for whom; it differentiates between ends and means; it states where NASA is going and what NASA intends to do to get there. This Plan is not a budget document, nor does it present priorities for current or future programs. Rather, it establishes a framework for shaping NASA's activities and developing a balanced set of priorities across the Agency. Such priorities will then be reflected in the NASA budget. The document includes vision, mission, and goals; external environment; conceptual framework; strategic enterprises (Mission to Planet Earth, aeronautics, human exploration and development of space, scientific research, space technology, and synergy); strategic functions (transportation to space, space communications, human resources, and physical resources); values and operating principles; implementing strategy; and senior management team concurrence.

Implications for Scaling up Advanced Course Offerings and Takings: Evidence from Florida

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Iatarola, Patrice

2016-01-01

This chapter summarizes a set of research studies that focus on high school course offerings, takings, and effects. Improving high school experiences and having students graduate from high school ready for college are national priorities under President Obama's Race to the Top initiative. Doing so by expanding access to advanced courses dates back…

Science priorities for reducing the threat of invasive species

Treesearch

E. A. Chornesky; A. M. Bartuska; G. H. Aplet; J. Cummings-Carlson; F. W. Davis; J. Eskow; D. R. Gordon; K. W. Gottschalk; R. A. Haack; A. J. Hansen; R. N. Mack; F. J. Rahel; M. A. Shannon; L. A. Wainger; T. B. Wigley

2005-01-01

Invasive species pose a major, yet poorly addressed, threat to sustainable forestry. Here we set forth an interdisciplinary science strategy of research, development, and applications to reduce this threat. To spur action by public and private entities that too often are slow, reluctant, or unable to act, we recommend (a) better integrating invasive species into...

76 FR 17808 - Final Vehicle Safety Rulemaking and Research Priority Plan 2011-2013

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-03-31

... [Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0108] Final Vehicle Safety Rulemaking and Research Priority Plan 2011- 2013 AGENCY... availability. SUMMARY: This document announces the availability of the Final NHTSA Vehicle Safety and Fuel.... This Priority Plan is an update to the Final Vehicle Safety Rulemaking and Research Priority Plan 2009...

78 FR 28543 - Proposed Priority-National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research-Rehabilitation...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-05-15

... Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research--Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers AGENCY... priority under the Rehabilitation Research and Training Center (RRTC) Program administered by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR). Specifically, this notice proposes a priority...

78 FR 26560 - Proposed Priority-National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research-Rehabilitation...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-05-07

... Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research--Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers AGENCY... priority for the Rehabilitation Research and Training Center (RRTC) Program administered by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR). Specifically, this notice proposes a priority...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Research priorities in medical education at Shiraz University of Medical Sciences:categories and subcategories in the Iranian context

PubMed Central

NABEIEI, PARISA; AMINI, MITRA; GHANAVATI, SHIRIN; MARHAMATI, SAADAT

2016-01-01

Introduction Research in education is a globally significant issue without a long history. Due to the importance of the issue in Health System Development programs, this study intended to determine research priorities in medical education, considering their details and functions. By determining barriers existing in research in education progress, it is tried to make research priorities more functional by recommending acceptable strategies. Methods This is a qualitative-descriptive study in two descriptive phases. The goal of these phases was to determine research priorities subcategories in medical education by Nominal Group Technique (NGT) and two rounds of Delphi method. Through the first phase, subcategories of research priorities were determined, using Nominal Group Technique under medical education experts’ supervision. Through two rounds of Delphi, a questionnaire was constructed based on the subcategories. Eventually, research priorities were determined based on their highest score (scores more than 7 out of 10). Results In the first phase (NGT), 35 priorities in 5 major fields of medical education were presented. In the second phase, priorities were scored, using Delphi method. Medical Ethics and professionalism gained the highest scores (7.63±1.26) and educational evaluation the lowest (7.28±1.52). In this stage, 7 items were omitted but 2 of them were added again after experts’ revision in the third round of Delphi. Conclusion According to the results of the present study and based on previous studies, it really seems that the fields of “Learning and Teaching Approaches” and “Medical Ethics and Professionalism” were more important. Because of financial and resource limitations in our country and the importance of research priorities, it is recommended to frequently study “research priorities determination program” at universities. PMID:26793723

Locating Errors Through Networked Surveillance: A Multimethod Approach to Peer Assessment, Hazard Identification, and Prioritization of Patient Safety Efforts in Cardiac Surgery.

PubMed

Thompson, David A; Marsteller, Jill A; Pronovost, Peter J; Gurses, Ayse; Lubomski, Lisa H; Goeschel, Christine A; Gosbee, John W; Wahr, Joyce; Martinez, Elizabeth A

2015-09-01

The objectives were to develop a scientifically sound and feasible peer-to-peer assessment model that allows health-care organizations to evaluate patient safety in cardiovascular operating rooms and to establish safety priorities for improvement. The locating errors through networked surveillance study was conducted to identify hazards in cardiac surgical care. A multidisciplinary team, composed of organizational sociology, organizational psychology, applied social psychology, clinical medicine, human factors engineering, and health services researchers, conducted the study. We used a transdisciplinary approach, which integrated the theories, concepts, and methods from each discipline, to develop comprehensive research methods. Multiple data collection was involved: focused literature review of cardiac surgery-related adverse events, retrospective analysis of cardiovascular events from a national database in the United Kingdom, and prospective peer assessment at 5 sites, involving survey assessments, structured interviews, direct observations, and contextual inquiries. A nominal group methodology, where one single group acts to problem solve and make decisions was used to review the data and develop a list of the top priority hazards. The top 6 priority hazard themes were as follows: safety culture, teamwork and communication, infection prevention, transitions of care, failure to adhere to practices or policies, and operating room layout and equipment. We integrated the theories and methods of a diverse group of researchers to identify a broad range of hazards and good clinical practices within the cardiovascular surgical operating room. Our findings were the basis for a plan to prioritize improvements in cardiac surgical care. These study methods allowed for the comprehensive assessment of a high-risk clinical setting that may translate to other clinical settings.

Research Priorities in Networking and Communications.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

National Science Foundation, Washington, DC.

A workshop focused on major research issues in networking and communications. This report defines the context for research priorities and initiatives and deals with issues in networking and communications. Fifteen major research priorities and four research specific initiatives were identified by participants as areas that should be pursued over…

78 FR 27036 - Final Priority. National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research-Traumatic Brain...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-05-09

... individuals with disabilities in conducting TBIMS research. Types of Priorities When inviting applications for... Rehabilitation Research--Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems Centers Collaborative Research Project AGENCY... Services announces a priority for the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program...

Engaging Patients in Setting a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Agenda in Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation

PubMed Central

Burns, Linda J; Abbetti, Beatrice; Arnold, Stacie D; Bender, Jeffrey; Doughtie, Susan; El-Jawahiri, Areej; Gee, Gloria; Hahn, Theresa; Horowitz, Mary M; Johnson, Shirley; Juckett, Mark; Krishnamurit, Lakshmanan; Kullberg, Susan; LeMaistre, C. Fred; Loren, Alison; Majhail, Navneet S; Murphy, Elizabeth A; Rizzo, Doug; Roche-Green, Alva; Saber, Wael; Schatz, Barry A; Schmit-Pokorny, Kim; Shaw, Bronwen E; Syrjala, Karen L; Tierney, D. Kathryn; Ullrich, Christina; Vanness, David J; Wood, William A; Denzen, Ellen M

2018-01-01

The goal of patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) is to help patients and those who care for them make informed decisions about healthcare. However, the clinical research enterprise has not involved patients, caregivers, and other non-providers routinely in the process of prioritizing, designing and conducting research in hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). To address this need, the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP)/Be The Match® engaged patients, caregivers, researchers and other key stakeholders in a two-year project with the goal of setting a PCOR agenda for the HCT community. Through a collaborative process, we identified six major areas of interest: 1) Patient, Caregiver and Family Education and Support; 2) Emotional, Cognitive and Social Health; 3) Physical Health and Fatigue; 4) Sexual Health and Relationships; 5) Financial Burden; and 6) Models of Survivorship Care Delivery. We then organized into multi-stakeholder Working Groups to identify gaps in knowledge and make priority recommendations for critical research to fill those gaps. Gaps varied by Working Group, but all noted that a historical lack of consistency in measures utilized and patient populations made it difficult to compare outcomes across studies and urged investigators to incorporate uniform measures and homogenous patient groups in future research. Some groups advised that additional pre-emptory work is needed before conducting prospective interventional trials, whereas others felt ready to proceed with comparative clinical effectiveness research studies. This report presents the results of this major initiative, and makes recommendations by Working Group on priority questions for PCOR in HCT. PMID:29408289

Identifying priority policy issues and health system research questions associated with recovery outcomes for burns survivors in India: a qualitative inquiry

PubMed Central

Chamania, Shobha; Potokar, Tom; Ivers, Rebecca

2018-01-01

Objectives This study aimed to identify priority policy issues and health system research questions associated with recovery outcomes for burns survivors in India. Design Qualitative inquiry; data were collected through semistructured in-depth interviews and focus group discussions. Setting Nine sites in urban and rural settings across India, through primary, secondary and tertiary health facilities. Participants Healthcare providers, key informants, burns survivors and/or their carers. Results Participants acknowledged the challenges of burns care and recovery, and identified the need for prolonged rehabilitation. Challenges identified included poor communication between healthcare providers and survivors, limited rehabilitation services, difficulties with transportation to health facility and high cost associated with burns care. Burns survivors and healthcare providers identified the stigma attached with burns as the biggest challenge within the healthcare system, as well as in the community. Systems barriers (eg, limited infrastructure and human resources), lack of economic and social support, and poor understanding of recovery and rehabilitation were identified as major barriers to recovery. Conclusions Though further research is needed for addressing gaps in data, strengthening of health systems can enable providers to address issues such as developing/providing, protocols, capacity building, effective coordination between key organisations and referral networks. PMID:29523568

Patient-centered outcomes research in radiology: trends in funding and methodology.

PubMed

Lee, Christoph I; Jarvik, Jeffrey G

2014-09-01

The creation of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 presents new opportunities for funding patient-centered comparative effectiveness research (CER) in radiology. We provide an overview of the evolution of federal funding and priorities for CER with a focus on radiology-related priority topics over the last two decades, and discuss the funding processes and methodological standards outlined by PCORI. We introduce key paradigm shifts in research methodology that will be required on the part of radiology health services researchers to obtain competitive federal grant funding in patient-centered outcomes research. These paradigm shifts include direct engagement of patients and other stakeholders at every stage of the research process, from initial conception to dissemination of results. We will also discuss the increasing use of mixed methods and novel trial designs. One of these trial designs, the pragmatic trial, has the potential to be readily applied to evaluating the effectiveness of diagnostic imaging procedures and imaging-based interventions among diverse patient populations in real-world settings. Copyright © 2014 AUR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

[Priority research agendas: a strategic resource for health in Latin America].

PubMed

Becerra-Posada, Francisco; de Snyder, Nelly Salgado; Cuervo, Luis Gabriel; Montorzi, Gabriela

2014-12-01

Understand and analyze procedures used to create national integrated research agendas from 2007 to 2011 in Argentina, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, and Paraguay. Descriptive, cross-sectional study using an online survey of agenda preparation processes; specifically, development, integration, implementation, and use and dissemination of the agenda. The 45 respondents reported following specific methodologies for agenda construction and had a good opinion of organizational aspects with regard to prior information provided and balance among disciplines and stakeholders. Some 60% considered the coordinators impartial, although 25% mentioned biases favoring some subject; 42% received technical support from consultants, reading matter, and methodological guidelines; 40% engaged in subject-matter priority-setting; and 55% confirmed dissemination and communication of the agenda. However, only 22% reported inclusion of agenda topics in national calls for research proposals. In the countries studied, development of the health research agenda was characterized by prior planning and appropriate organization to achieve - consensus-based outcomes. Nevertheless, the agendas were not used in national calls for research proposals, reflecting lack of coordination in national health research systems and lack of connection between funders and researchers. It is recommended that stakeholders strengthen integration and advocacy efforts to modify processes and structures of agenda-based calls for research proposals.

The knowledge translation status in selected Eastern-Mediterranean universities and research institutes.

PubMed

Maleki, Katayoun; Hamadeh, Randah R; Gholami, Jaleh; Mandil, Ahmed; Hamid, Saima; Butt, Zahid Ahmad; Bin Saeed, Abdulaziz; El Kheir, Dalia Y M; Saleem, Mohammed; Maqsoud, Sahar; Safi, Najibullah; Abdul-Majeed, Ban A; Majdzadeh, Reza

2014-01-01

A serious worldwide effort to strengthen research based knowledge translation (KT) has begun in recent years and some countries, particularly developed ones, are trying to incorporate KT in their health and health research systems. Keeping in mind the recent economic depression and the need to perform more efficient research, we aimed to assess and compare the KT status of selected health research institutes in the Eastern Mediterranean Regions' countries, and to identify their strengths and weaknesses in the field. After finding the focal points that would steer the focus group discussions (FGDs) and help complete the 'Self Assessment Tool for Research Institutes' (SATORI) tool, each focal point held two FGDs in which researchers, research authorities and other individuals specified in detail further in the study were held. The scores obtained by each institute were evaluated quantitatively, and the transcriptions were analyzed qualitatively with OpenCode software. For ease of analysis the 50 items of the SATORI were classified into 7 main domains: 'priority setting', 'research quality and timeliness', 'researchers' KT capacities', 'facilities and pre-requisites of KT', 'processes and regulations supporting KT', 'interaction with research users', and 'promoting and evaluating the use of knowledge'. Based on the scoring system, the strongest domain was 'research quality and timeliness'. 'Priority setting' was the weakest domain of all. The remaining domains were more or less equal in strength and were not in a favorable state. The qualitative findings confirmed the quantitative findings. The main problem, it seems, is that a KT climate does not exist in the region. And despite the difference in the contexts, there are many similarities in the region's institutes included in this study. Collaborative efforts can play a role in creating this climate by steering countries towards KT and suggesting regional strategic directions according to their needs.

Development of an international research agenda for adult congenital heart disease nursing.

PubMed

Goossens, Eva; Fleck, Desiree; Canobbio, Mary M; Harrison, Jeanine L; Moons, Philip

2013-02-01

Since the population of adults with congenital heart disease (CHD) is growing, the role of nurse specialists is expanding. In order to advance ACHD nursing, the establishment of an international nursing research agenda is recommended. We aimed to investigate research priorities as perceived by nurse specialists and researchers in ACHD. We applied a sequential quan-qual design. In the quantitative phase, a two-round Delphi study was conducted, in which 37 nurse specialists and nurse researchers in ACHD care participated. Respondents assessed the level of priority of 21 research topics using a 9-point rating scale (1 = no priority at all; 9 = very high priority). In the qualitative phase, semi-structured interviews were performed with six selected Delphi panelists, to scrutinize pending research questions. This study revealed that priority should be given to studies investigating knowledge and education of patients, outcomes of Advanced Practice Nursing, quality of life, transfer and transition, and illness experiences and psychosocial issues in adults with CHD. A low priority was given to post-operative pain, sexual functioning, transplantation in ACHD, and health care costs and utilization. Agreement about the level of priority was obtained for 14 out of 21 research topics. Based on this study, we could develop an international research agenda for ACHD. Researchers ought to focus on these areas of highest priority, in order to expand and strengthen the body of knowledge in ACHD nursing.

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...

Implementing Effective Substance Abuse Treatments in General Medical Settings: Mapping the Research Terrain

PubMed Central

Ducharme, Lori J.; Chandler, Redonna K.; Harris, Alex H. S.

2015-01-01

The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), and Veterans Health Administration (VHA) share an interest in promoting high quality, rigorous health services research to improve the availability and utilization of evidence-based treatment for substance use disorders (SUD). Recent and continuing changes in the healthcare policy and funding environments prioritize the integration of evidence-based substance abuse treatments into primary care and general medical settings. This area is a prime candidate for implementation research. Recent and ongoing implementation projects funded by these agencies are reviewed. Research in five areas is highlighted: screening and brief intervention for risky drinking; screening and brief intervention for tobacco use; uptake of FDA-approved addiction pharmacotherapies; safe opioid prescribing; and disease management. Gaps in the portfolios, and priorities for future research, are described. PMID:26233697

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.

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. ...

Challenges to replicating evidence-based research in real-world settings: training African-American peers as patient navigators for colon cancer screening.

PubMed

Sly, Jamilia R; Jandorf, Lina; Dhulkifl, Rayhana; Hall, Diana; Edwards, Tiffany; Goodman, Adam J; Maysonet, Elithea; Azeez, Sulaiman

2012-12-01

Many cancer-prevention interventions have demonstrated effectiveness in diverse populations, but these evidenced-based findings slowly disseminate into practice. The current study describes the process of disseminating and replicating research (i.e., peer patient navigation for colonoscopy screening) in real-world settings. Two large metropolitan hospitals collaborated to replicate a peer patient navigation model within their existing navigation systems. Six African-American peer volunteers were recruited and trained to navigate patients through colonoscopy scheduling and completion. Major challenges included: (1) operating within multiple institutional settings; (2) operating within nonacademic/research infrastructures; (3) integrating into an established navigation system; (4) obtaining support of hospital staff without overburdening; and (5) competing priorities and time commitments. Bridging the gap between evidence-based research and practice is critical to eliminating many cancer health disparities; therefore, it is crucial that researchers and practitioners continue to work to achieve both diffusion and fusion of evidence-based findings. Recommendations for addressing these challenges are discussed.

[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.

Setting a health policy research agenda for controlling cancer burden in Korea.

PubMed

Jang, Sung-In; Cho, Kyoung-Hee; Kim, Sun Jung; Lee, Kwang-Sig; Park, Eun-Cheol

2015-04-01

The aim of study was to provide suggestions for prioritizing research in effort to reduce cancer burden in Korea based on a comprehensive analysis of cancer burden and Delphi consensus among cancer experts. Twenty research plans covering 10 topics were selected based on an assessment of the literature, and e-mail surveys were analyzed using a two-round modified Delphi method. Thirty-four out of 79 experts were selected from four organizations to participate in round one, and 21 experts among them had completed round two. Each item had two questions; one regarding the agreement of the topic as a priority item to reduce cancer burden, and the other about the importance of the item on a nine-point scale. A consensus was defined to be an average lower coefficient of variation with less than 30% in importance. Seven plans that satisfied the three criteria were selected as priority research plans for reducing cancer burden. These plans are "research into advanced clinical guidelines for thyroid cancer given the current issue with over-diagnosis," "research into smoking management plans through price and non-price cigarette policy initiatives," "research into ways to measure the quality of cancer care," "research on policy development to expand hospice care," "research into the spread and management of Helicobacter pylori," "research on palliative care in a clinical setting," and "research into alternative mammography methods to increase the accuracy of breast cancer screenings." The seven plans identified in this study should be prioritized to reduce the burden of cancer in Korea. We suggest that policy makers and administrators study and invest significant effort in these plans.

Standard operating procedures for clinical research departments.

PubMed

Kee, Ashley Nichole

2011-01-01

A set of standard operating procedures (SOPs) provides a clinical research department with clear roles, responsibilities, and processes to ensure compliance, accuracy, and timeliness of data. SOPs also serve as a standardized training program for new employees. A practice may have an employee that can assist in the development of SOPs. There are also consultants that specialize in working with a practice to develop and write practice-specific SOPs. Making SOPs a priority will save a practice time and money in the long run and make the research practice more attractive to corporate study sponsors.

Mental health research priorities in low- and middle-income countries of Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean.

PubMed

Sharan, P; Gallo, C; Gureje, O; Lamberte, E; Mari, J J; Mazzotti, G; Patel, V; Swartz, L; Olifson, S; Levav, I; de Francisco, A; Saxena, S

2009-10-01

Studies suggest a paucity of and lack of prioritisation in mental health research from low- and middle-income (LAMI) countries. To investigate research priorities in mental health among researchers and other stakeholders in LAMI countries. We used a two-stage design that included identification, through literature searches and snowball technique, of researchers and stakeholders in 114 countries of Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean; and a mail survey on priorities in research. The study identified broad agreement between researchers and stakeholders and across regions regarding research priorities. Epidemiology (burden and risk factors), health systems and social science ranked highest for type of research. Depression/anxiety, substance use disorders and psychoses; and children and adolescents, women, and people exposed to violence/trauma were prioritised among the disorders and population groups respectively. Important criteria for prioritising research were burden of disease, social justice, and availability of funds. Stakeholder groups differed in the importance they gave to the personal interest of researchers as a criterion for prioritising research. Researchers' and stakeholders' priorities were consistent with burden of disease estimates, however suicide was underprioritised compared with its burden. Researchers' and stakeholders' priorities were also largely congruent with the researchers' projects. The results of this first ever conducted survey of researchers and stakeholders regarding research priorities in mental health suggest that it should be possible to develop consensus at regional and international levels regarding the research agenda that is necessary to support health system objectives in LAMI countries.

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...

Research Map of Research Priorities in HE Studies in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

AlSumih, A. M.

2016-01-01

This study presents a research map for the key research priorities of higher education (HE) in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The study diagnoses and analyzes the research reality in HE studies in KSA in terms of strength points and improvement opportunities. It also explores the research map fields of current and prospective research priorities in…

Research priorities to achieve universal access to hepatitis C prevention, management and direct-acting antiviral treatment among people who inject drugs.

PubMed

Grebely, Jason; Bruneau, Julie; Lazarus, Jeffrey V; Dalgard, Olav; Bruggmann, Philip; Treloar, Carla; Hickman, Matthew; Hellard, Margaret; Roberts, Teri; Crooks, Levinia; Midgard, Håvard; Larney, Sarah; Degenhardt, Louisa; Alho, Hannu; Byrne, Jude; Dillon, John F; Feld, Jordan J; Foster, Graham; Goldberg, David; Lloyd, Andrew R; Reimer, Jens; Robaeys, Geert; Torrens, Marta; Wright, Nat; Maremmani, Icro; Norton, Brianna L; Litwin, Alain H; Dore, Gregory J

2017-09-01

Globally, it is estimated that 71.1 million people have chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, including an estimated 7.5 million people who have recently injected drugs (PWID). There is an additional large, but unquantified, burden among those PWID who have ceased injecting. The incidence of HCV infection among current PWID also remains high in many settings. Morbidity and mortality due to liver disease among PWID with HCV infection continues to increase, despite the advent of well-tolerated, simple interferon-free direct-acting antiviral (DAA) HCV regimens with cure rates >95%. As a result of this important clinical breakthrough, there is potential to reverse the rising burden of advanced liver disease with increased treatment and strive for HCV elimination among PWID. Unfortunately, there are many gaps in knowledge that represent barriers to effective prevention and management of HCV among PWID. The Kirby Institute, UNSW Sydney and the International Network on Hepatitis in Substance Users (INHSU) established an expert round table panel to assess current research gaps and establish future research priorities for the prevention and management of HCV among PWID. This round table consisted of a one-day workshop held on 6 September, 2016, in Oslo, Norway, prior to the International Symposium on Hepatitis in Substance Users (INHSU 2016). International experts in drug and alcohol, infectious diseases, and hepatology were brought together to discuss the available scientific evidence, gaps in research, and develop research priorities. Topics for discussion included the epidemiology of injecting drug use, HCV, and HIV among PWID, HCV prevention, HCV testing, linkage to HCV care and treatment, DAA treatment for HCV infection, and reinfection following successful treatment. This paper highlights the outcomes of the roundtable discussion focused on future research priorities for enhancing HCV prevention, testing, linkage to care and DAA treatment for PWID as we strive for global elimination of HCV infection. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

76 FR 37341 - Final Priority; Rehabilitation Research and Training Center-Interventions To Promote Community...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-06-27

... research, demonstration projects, training, and related activities, to develop methods, procedures, and... DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [CFDA Number: 84.133B-1] Final Priority; Rehabilitation Research and... priority for a Rehabilitation Research and Training Center (RRTC) on Interventions to Promote Community...

76 FR 17396 - Proposed Priorities: Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-03-29

...-science conference on its designated priority research area in the fourth year of the project period, and... Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative... and Rehabilitative Services proposes two priorities for the Disability and Rehabilitation Research...

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...

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...

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.

Identifying research priorities for patient safety in mental health: an international expert Delphi study.

PubMed

Dewa, Lindsay H; Murray, Kevin; Thibaut, Bethan; Ramtale, Sonny Christian; Adam, Sheila; Darzi, Ara; Archer, Stephanie

2018-03-03

Physical healthcare has dominated the patient safety field; research in mental healthcare is not as extensive but findings from physical healthcare cannot be applied to mental healthcare because it delivers specialised care that faces unique challenges. Therefore, a clearer focus and recognition of patient safety in mental health as a distinct research area is still needed. The study aim is to identify future research priorities in the field of patient safety in mental health. Semistructured interviews were conducted with the experts to ascertain their views on research priorities in patient safety in mental health. A three-round online Delphi study was used to ascertain consensus on 117 research priority statements. Academic and service user experts from the USA, UK, Switzerland, Netherlands, Ireland, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore were included. Agreement in research priorities on a five-point scale. Seventy-nine statements achieved consensus (>70%). Three out of the top six research priorities were patient driven; experts agreed that understanding the patient perspective on safety planning, on self-harm and on medication was important. This is the first international Delphi study to identify research priorities in safety in the mental field as determined by expert academic and service user perspectives. A reasonable consensus was obtained from international perspectives on future research priorities in patient safety in mental health; however, the patient perspective on their mental healthcare is a priority. The research agenda for patient safety in mental health identified here should be informed by patient safety science more broadly and used to further establish this area as a priority in its own right. The safety of mental health patients must have parity with that of physical health patients to achieve this. © 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.

How the Recovery Act's Federal Coordinating Council paved the way for the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

PubMed

Conway, Patrick H

2010-11-01

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided $1.1 billion for comparative effectiveness research and established the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research to direct that investment. The council laid a critical foundation for comparative effectiveness research in the steps it took to gather information, invite public input, set priorities, coordinate project solicitations, and stress the importance of evaluating research investments. Although the council has been superseded by a successor--the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute--the experiences of the council can and should inform the work of the new institute as it begins its operations.

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

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 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…

Promoting the Implementation of an Evidence-Based Intervention for Adolescent Marijuana Abuse in Community Settings: Testing the Use of Intensive Quality Assurance

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Henggeler, Scott W.; Sheidow, Ashli J.; Cunningham, Phillippe B.; Donohue, Bradley C.; Ford, Julian D.

2008-01-01

The development and evaluation of effective strategies for transporting evidence-based practices to community-based clinicians has become a research and policy priority. Using multisystemic therapy programs as a platform, an experimental design examined the capacity of an Intensive Quality Assurance (IQA) system to promote therapist implementation…

SEPARATIONS AND WASTE FORMS CAMPAIGN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

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

Vienna, John D.; Todd, Terry A.; Peterson, Mary E.

2012-11-26

This Separations and Waste Forms Campaign Implementation Plan provides summary level detail describing how the Campaign will achieve the objectives set-forth by the Fuel Cycle Reasearch and Development (FCRD) Program. This implementation plan will be maintained as a living document and will be updated as needed in response to changes or progress in separations and waste forms research and the FCRD Program priorities.

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…