Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T21:58:56.830Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Setting priorities in clinical and health services research: Properties of an adapted and updated method

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2010

Silvina Berra ,
Emília Sánchez ,
Joan M. V. Pons ,
Cristian Tebé ,
Jordi Alonso  and
Marta Aymerich
Silvina Berra
Affiliation:
Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research (CAHTA) and CIBERESP (CIBER en Epidemiología y Salud Pública), Spain
Emília Sánchez
Affiliation:
Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research (CAHTA) and CIBERESP (CIBER en Epidemiología y Salud Pública), Spain
Joan M. V. Pons
Affiliation:
Department of Health, Catalonia; Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research (CAHTA); and CIBERESP (CIBER en Epidemiología y Salud Pública), Spain
Cristian Tebé
Affiliation:
Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research (CAHTA) and CIBERESP (CIBER en Epidemiología y Salud Pública), Spain
Jordi Alonso
Affiliation:
IMIM – Hospital del Mar; Pompeu Fabra University Barcelona; and CIBERESP (CIBER en Epidemiología y Salud Pública), Spain
Marta Aymerich
Affiliation:
University of Girona
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The objectives of this study is to review the set of criteria of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) for priority-setting in research with addition of new criteria if necessary, and to develop and evaluate the reliability and validity of the final priority score.

Methods: Based on the evaluation of 199 research topics, forty-five experts identified additional criteria for priority-setting, rated their relevance, and ranked and weighted them in a three-round modified Delphi technique. A final priority score was developed and evaluated. Internal consistency, test–retest and inter-rater reliability were assessed. Correlation with experts’ overall qualitative topic ratings were assessed as an approximation to validity.

Results: All seven original IOM criteria were considered relevant and two new criteria were added (“potential for translation into practice”, and “need for knowledge”). Final ranks and relative weights differed from those of the original IOM criteria: “research impact on health outcomes” was considered the most important criterion (4.23), as opposed to “burden of disease” (3.92). Cronbach's alpha (0.75) and test–retest stability (interclass correlation coefficient = 0.66) for the final set of criteria were acceptable. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for overall assessment of priority was 0.66.

Conclusions: A reliable instrument for prioritizing topics in clinical and health services research has been developed. Further evaluation of its validity and impact on selecting research topics is required.

Keywords

Health services researchPriority-settingResearch assessment
Type
METHODS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , April 2010 , pp. 217 - 224
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Asua Batarrita, J. Priorización de necesidades de evaluación en el País Vasco. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Instituto de Salud Carlos III; 1999.Google Scholar
2. Bernal-Delgado, E, Peiró, S, Sotoca, R. Prioridades de investigación en servicios sanitarios en el Sistema Nacional de Salud. Una aproximación por consenso de expertos. Gac Sanit. 2006;20:287–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Black, N. A national strategy for research and development: Lessons from England. Annu Rev Public Health. 1997;18:485–505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Brown, P, Brunnhuber, K, Chalkidou, K, et al. How to formulate research recommendations. BMJ. 2006;333:804–806.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Brown, K, Dyas, J, Chahal, P, et al. Discovering the research priorities of people with diabetes in a multicultural community: A focus group study. Br J Gen Pract. 2006;56:206–213.Google Scholar
6. Buxton, M, Hanney, S. How can payback from health services research be assessed? J Health Serv Res Policy. 1996;1:35–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Caron-Flinterman, JF, Broerse, JE, Teerling, J, Bunders, JF. Patients’ priorities concerning health research: The case of asthma and COPD research in the Netherlands. Health Expect. 2005;8:253–263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Carson, N, Ansari, Z, Hart, W. Priority setting in public health and health services research. Aust Health Rev. 2000;23:46–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Claxton, K, Ginnelly, L, Sculpher, M, Philips, Z, Palmer, S. A pilot study on the use of decision theory and value of information analysis as part of the NHS Health Technology Assessment programme. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:1–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Dault, M, Lomas, J, Barer, M, on behalf of the Listening for Direction II partners. Listening for direction II. National consultation on health services and policy issues for 2004–2007. Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Health Services Research Foundation and Institute of Health Services and Policy Research; 2004.Google Scholar
11. Department of Health. Best research for best health: A new national health research strategy. The NHS contribution to health research in England. London: HMSO; 2006.Google Scholar
12. Department of Health. Research for health. London: HMSO; 1992.Google Scholar
13. Donaldson, MS, Sox, HC, eds. Setting priorities for health technology assessment: A model process. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 1992.Google Scholar
14. Eden, J, Wheatley, B, McNeil, B, Sox, H, eds. Knowing what works in health care. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 2008.Google Scholar
15. Evidence-Based Care Resource Group. Evidence-based care: 1. Setting priorities: How important is this problem? Can Med Assoc J. 1994;150:1249–1254.Google Scholar
16. Fleurence, RL, Torgerson, DJ. Setting priorities for research. Health Policy. 2004;69:1–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Fulop, N, Allen, P, Clarke, A, Black, N. From health technology assessment to research on the organisation and delivery of health services: Addressing the balance. Health Policy. 2003;63:155–165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Gross, CP, Anderson, GF, Powe, NR. The relation between funding by the National Institutes of Health and the burden of disease. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:1881–1887.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Hanney, S, Mugford, M, Grant, J, Buxton, M. Assessing the benefits of health research: Lessons from research into the use of antenatal corticosteroids for the prevention of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome. Soc Sci Med. 2005;60:937–947.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Henshall, C, Oortwijn, W, Stevens, A, Granados, A, Banta, D. Priority setting for health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:144–185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Institute of Medicine. Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine; 2009.Google Scholar
22. Jones, R, Lamont, T, Haines, A. Setting priorities for research and development in the NHS: A case study on the interface between primary and secondary care. BMJ. 1995;311:1076–1080.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Lionis, C, Stoffers, HE, Hummers-Pradier, , et al. Setting priorities and identifying barriers for general practice research in Europe. Results from an EGPRW meeting. Fam Pract. 2004;21:587–593.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Meneu, R. Variabilidad de las decisiones médicas y su repercusión sobre las poblaciones. Barcelona: Masson; 2002.Google Scholar
25. Michaud, CM, Murray, CJ, Bloom, BR. Burden of disease: Implications for future research. JAMA. 2001;285:535–539.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. Moreno-Casbas, T, Martin-Arribas, C, Orts-Cortes, I, Comet-Cortes, P, Investen-ISCIII Co-ordination and Development of Nursing Research Centre. Identification of priorities for nursing research in Spain: A Delphi study. J Adv Nurs. 2001;35:857–863.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27. Oortwijn, WJ, Vondeling, H, van Barneveld, T, van Vugt, C, Bouter, LM. Priority setting for health technology assessment in The Netherlands: Principles and practice. Health Policy. 2002;62:227–242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28. Phelps, CE, Parente, ST. Priority setting in medical technology and medical practice assessment. Med Care. 1990;28:703–723.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29. Sánchez, E, Solans, M, Jaldon, C. VI call for clinical and health services research CAHTA 2006. CAHTA's Newsletter 2006. http://www.gencat.net/salut/depsan/units/aatrm/pdf/but40en.pdf. (accessed August 14, 2009)Google Scholar
30. Streiner, DL, Norman, GR. Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31. Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care. The ECHTA/ECAHI Project. 1999. http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_projects/1999/monitoring/fp_monitoring_1999_frep_09_en.pdf. (accessed August 14, 2009)Google Scholar
32. Tunis, SR, Stryer, DB, Clancy, CM. Practical clinical trials: Increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA. 2003;290:1624–1632.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33. Welfare, MR, Colligan, J, Molyneux, S, Pearson, P, Barton, JR. The identification of topics for research that are important to people with ulcerative colitis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;18:939–944.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34. Zerhouni, EA. US biomedical research: Basic, translational, and clinical sciences. JAMA. 2005;294:1352–1358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed