Search results

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.

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.

“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.

Sampling bias toward more developed countries. Future study could use findings to create a more concise version to distribute more broadly.

Globally, these findings could be used as a platform for discussion and decision making related to policy, practice, and research in this area.

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.

Program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) is a priority setting approach that assists decision makers with allocating resources. Previous PBMA work establishes its efficacy and indicates that contextual factors complicate priority setting, which can hamper PBMA effectiveness. The purpose of this paper is to gain qualitative insight into PBMA effectiveness.

A Canadian case study of PBMA implementation. Data consist of decision-maker interviews pre (n=20), post year-1 (n=12) and post year-2 (n=9) of PBMA to examine perceptions of baseline priority setting practice vis-à-vis desired practice, and perceptions of PBMA usability and acceptability.

Fit emerged as a key theme in determining PBMA effectiveness. Fit herein refers to being of suitable quality and form to meet the intended purposes and needs of the end-users, and includes desirability, acceptability, and usability dimensions. Results confirm decision-maker desire for rational approaches like PBMA. However, most participants indicated that the timing of the exercise and the form in which PBMA was applied were not well-suited for this case study. Participant acceptance of and buy-in to PBMA changed during the study: a leadership change, limited organizational commitment, and concerns with organizational capacity were key barriers to PBMA adoption and thereby effectiveness.

These findings suggest that a potential way-forward includes adding a contextual readiness/capacity assessment stage to PBMA, recognizing organizational complexity, and considering incremental adoption of PBMA’s approach.

These insights help us to better understand and work with priority setting conditions to advance evidence-informed decision making.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The aim of this paper is to present results of a foresight study on identifying priorities for health-related research and development (R&D) in Russia for the period until 2030.

Research priorities were identified through consistent integrated expert analysis and evaluation of the subject area, i.e. biomedical research preceding development of medical technologies.

Key global and national trends in the biomedical R&D sector and related areas (medicine and health) were identified. According to the experts, the following markets have the best prospects for Russia: regenerative medicine, biodegradable and other biocompatible materials, diagnostic systems, implants, surgical equipment, targeted delivery systems and non-invasive visualisation systems. Entering these markets requires providing support to R&D in the following areas: promising drug candidates, molecular diagnostics, molecular profiling and mechanisms of human diseases, cell technologies (therapies), new materials (biomimetics and other), bioelectronic, bioimaging and biosensors and human genome databases.

Regularly updating research priorities is a necessary prerequisite of successful science and technology development of countries, innovative companies and academic institutions. Allocation of (always limited) financial resources on the basis of such priority-setting exercises’ results is evidence of adherence to scientific planning principles. Combined with monitoring and evaluation tools, priority setting for biomedical R&D must become an integral component of Russia’s innovation policy.

This is a first-ever presentation of Russian experience in setting research priorities for the health-related sphere. Global and national contexts for development of biomedical R&D are described; markets and research areas with the biggest potential for Russian companies are identified.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This is the first paper to determine the research priorities and organizational issues in conducting research in prisons of prison health service directors.

Including the views of service users, carers and clinical staff when prioritising health research can ensure future projects are meaningful and relevant to key stakeholders. One National Health Service Foundation Trust in England, UK undertook a project to identify the top 10 research priorities according to people with experience using or working in services for dementia and older adult mental health. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Service users with dementia and mental health difficulties; informal carers, family and friends of service users; clinical staff working in the Trust. Participants were surveyed for research ideas. Ideas were processed into research questions and checked for evidence. Participants were then asked to prioritise their personal top 10 from a long list of research questions. A shortlist of 26 topics was discussed in a consensus workshop with a sample of participants to decide on the final top 10 research priorities.

A total of 126 participants provided 418 research ideas, leading to 86 unique and unanswered research questions. In total, 58 participants completed interim prioritisation, 11 of whom were invited to the consensus workshop involving service users, carers and clinical staff. The final top 10 priorities were dominated by topics surrounding care, psychosocial support and mental health in dementia.

Future research from the Trust and collaborating organisations can use these results to develop relevant projects and applications for funding.

This project has demonstrated the possibility of including key stakeholders in older adult mental health research priority setting at the local level.

This research priority setting partnership (PSP) aims to collaboratively identify the “top ten” research priorities relating to communication and swallowing for children and adults with learning disabilities, across the lifespan in the UK, using a modified James Lind Alliance approach.

A steering group and reference group were established to oversee the PSP. A survey of speech and language therapists (SLTs) resulted in 157 research suggestions. These were further developed into 95 research questions through a multi-stakeholder workshop. Questions were prioritised via an online card-sort activity completed by SLTs, health-care or education professionals and carers. Research questions were analysed thematically. Ten adults with learning disabilities were supported to assign ratings to themes reflecting their prioritisation. The top ten research priorities were identified by combining results from these activities.

The top ten research priorities related to intervention, outcome measurement and service delivery around communication and dysphagia.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first UK-wide research PSP on learning disabilities and speech and language therapy across the lifespan. It uses a novel approach to incorporate the preferences of people with learning disabilities in the prioritisation.

There are many examples of consumer involvement in NHS research but few studies have examined the impact of this on service development or the research process. This study, involving service user and carer researchers working alongside professional researchers, aimed to examine the development of one service user and carer research group in a mental health Trust.

The research involved a review of existing literature on consumer involvement in research, a review of user involvement in research in South West Yorkshire Mental Health NHS Trust, a survey of consumers and NHS staff in the Trust, and a skills audit and training needs analysis of consumers.

The study identified the range and extent of consumer involvement and the impact of this on consumers and the Trust. Service users and carers were involved in a range of projects, mainly on the level of consultation or collaboration. The benefits for consumers were principally on a personal level and included gaining knowledge and experience, improved sense of well‐being, self esteem, and confidence. The benefit for the Trust was in having a service user perspective and focus. However, there is a tendency to omit service users from planning and setting priorities.

The study pointed to the need to build the evidence base on consumer involvement in research, particularly in terms of how consumers can impact on setting research priorities and selecting appropriate methods. It identifies the need for more training for consumers and for NHS staff and for a more coherent strategy.

This article will be of value to anyone who is at the start or in the early stages of their journey of consumer involvement. It identifies some of the practical issues faced by consumers and staff in working collaboratively, but also points to the benefits for all the stakeholders.

I examine three recent cases where local governments changed their processes for selecting capital projects. The central question is whether these changes institutionalized a more “strategic” outlook in capital improvement planning and budgeting for these jurisdictions? The findings suggest that local governments can set capital priorities strategically, but that the process of implementing those reforms must be adaptable to changing political circumstances. These findings add to the limited literature on the political, administrative, and other challenges that local governments must confront when reforming their capital improvement planning and budgeting processes.