87
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

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

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

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

          Related collections

          Most cited references45

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Public participation in health care priority setting: A scoping review.

          While much literature has debated public engagement in health care decision-making, there is no consensus on when public engagement should be sought and how it should be obtained. We conducted a scoping review to examine public engagement in one specific area: priority setting and resource allocation. The review drew upon a broad range of health and non-health literature in an attempt to elicit what is known and not known on this topic, and through this to outline any guidance to assist decision-makers and identify where efforts for future research should be directed. Governments appear to recognize benefits in consulting multiple publics using a range of methods, though more traditional approaches to engagement continue to predominate. There appears to be growing interest in deliberative approaches to public engagement, which are more commonly on-going rather than one-off and more apt to involve face-to-face contact. However, formal evaluation of public engagement efforts is rare. Also absent is any real effort to demonstrate how public views might be integrated with other decision inputs when allocating social resources. While some strands can be taken to inform current priority setting activity, this scoping review identified many gaps and highlights numerous areas for further research.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 13: Preparing and using policy briefs to support evidence-informed policymaking

            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. Policy briefs are a relatively new approach to packaging research evidence for policymakers. The first step in a policy brief is to prioritise a policy issue. Once an issue is prioritised, the focus then turns to mobilising the full range of research evidence relevant to the various features of the issue. Drawing on available systematic reviews makes the process of mobilising evidence feasible in a way that would not otherwise be possible if individual relevant studies had to be identified and synthesised for every feature of the issue under consideration. In this article, we suggest questions that can be used to guide those preparing and using policy briefs to support evidence-informed policymaking. These are: 1. Does the policy brief address a high-priority issue and describe the relevant context of the issue being addressed? 2. Does the policy brief describe the problem, costs and consequences of options to address the problem, and the key implementation considerations? 3. Does the policy brief employ systematic and transparent methods to identify, select, and assess synthesised research evidence? 4. Does the policy brief take quality, local applicability, and equity considerations into account when discussing the synthesised research evidence? 5. Does the policy brief employ a graded-entry format? 6. Was the policy brief reviewed for both scientific quality and system relevance?
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              An economic approach to clinical trial design and research priority-setting.

              Whilst significant advances have been made in persuading clinical researchers of the value of conducting economic evaluation alongside clinical trials, a number of problems remain. The most fundamental is the fact that economic principles are almost entirely ignored in the traditional approach to trial design. For example, in the selection of an optimal sample size no consideration is given to the marginal costs or benefits of sample information. In the traditional approach this can lead to either unbounded or arbitrary sample sizes. This paper presents a decision-analytic approach to trial design which takes explicit account of the costs of sampling, the benefits of sample information and the decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis. It also provides a consistent framework for setting priorities in research funding and establishes a set of screens (or hurdles) to evaluate the potential cost-effectiveness of research proposals. The framework permits research priority setting based explicitly on the budget constraint faced by clinical practitioners and on the information available prior to prospective research. It demonstrates the link between the value of clinical research and the budgetary restrictions on service provision, and it provides practical tools to establish the optimal allocation of resources between areas of clinical research or between service provision and research.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Health Res Policy Syst
                Health Research Policy and Systems
                BioMed Central
                1478-4505
                2010
                15 December 2010
                : 8
                : 36
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property (PHI), World Health Organization (WHO), Geneva, Switzerland
                [2 ]Global Forum for Health Research, Geneva, Switzerland
                [3 ]Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, World Health Organization (WHO), Geneva, Switzerland
                [4 ]WHO strategy on research for health, Department of Research Policy and Cooperation (RPC), World Health Organization (WHO), Geneva, Switzerland
                Article
                1478-4505-8-36
                10.1186/1478-4505-8-36
                3018439
                21159163
                5c7e2808-77b7-4c83-9c86-fcaa3d93d24b
                Copyright ©2010 Viergever et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                Copyright World Heath Organization; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article in the spirit of the BioMed Central Open Access Charter http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/charter/, without any waiver of WHO's privileges and immunities under international law, convention or agreement. This article should not be reproduced for use in association with the promotion of commercial products, services or legal entity. There should be no suggestion that WHO endorses any specific organisation or products. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. This notice should be preserved along with the article's original URL.

                History
                : 1 September 2010
                : 15 December 2010
                Categories
                Review

                Health & Social care
                Health & Social care

                Comments

                Comment on this article