WorldWideScience

Sample records for research priority setting

  1. Setting research priorities for Type 1 diabetes.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Gadsby, R; Snow, R; Daly, A C; Crowe, S; Matyka, K; Hall, B; Petrie, J

    2012-10-01

    Research priorities are often set by academic researchers or the pharmaceutical industry. The interests of patients, carers and clinicians may therefore be overlooked and research questions that matter may be neglected. The aims of this study were to collect uncertainties about the treatment of Type 1 diabetes from patients, carers and health professionals, and to collate and prioritize these uncertainties to develop a top 10 list of research priorities, using a structured priority-setting partnership of patients, carers, health professionals and diabetes organizations, as described by the James Lind Alliance. A partnership of interested organizations was set up, and from this a steering committee of 10 individuals was formed. An online and paper survey was used to identify uncertainties. These were collated, and the steering group carried out an interim priority-setting exercise with partner organizations. This group of uncertainties was then voted on to give a smaller list that went forward to the final priority-setting workshop. At this meeting, a final list of the top 10 research priorities was agreed. An initial 1141 uncertainties were described. These were reduced to 88 indicative questions, 47 of which went out for voting. Twenty-four were then taken forward to a final priority-setting workshop. This workshop resulted in a list of top 10 research priorities in Type 1 diabetes. We have shown that it is possible using the James Lind Alliance process to develop an agreed top 10 list of research priorities for Type 1 diabetes from health professionals, patients and carers. © 2012 The Authors. Diabetic Medicine © 2012 Diabetes UK.

  2. Setting stroke research priorities: The consumer perspective.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Sangvatanakul, Pukkaporn; Hillege, Sharon; Lalor, Erin; Levi, Christopher; Hill, Kelvin; Middleton, Sandy

    2010-12-01

    To test a method of engaging consumers in research priority-setting using a quantitative approach and to determine consumer views on stroke research priorities for clinical practice recommendations with lower levels of evidence (Level III and Level IV) and expert consensus opinion as published in the Australian stroke clinical practice guidelines. Survey Urban community Eighteen stroke survivors (n = 12) and carers (n = 6) who were members of the "Working Aged Group - Stroke" (WAGS) consumer support group. Phase I: Participants were asked whether recommendations were "worth" researching ("yes" or "no"); and, if researched, what potential impact they likely would have on patient outcomes. Phase II: Participants were asked to rank recommendations rated by more than 75% of participants in Phase I as "worth" researching and "highly likely" or "likely" to generate research with a significant effect on patient outcomes (n = 13) in order of priority for future stroke research. All recommendations were rated by at least half (n = 9, 50%) of participants as "worth" researching. The majority (67% to 100%) rated all recommendations as "highly likely" or "likely" that research would have a significant effect on patient outcomes. Thirteen out of 20 recommendations were ranked for their research priorities. Recommendations under the topic heading Getting to hospital were ranked highest and Organization of care and Living with stroke were ranked as a lower priority for research. This study provided an example of how to involve consumers in research priority setting successfully using a quantitative approach. Stroke research priorities from the consumer perspective were different from those of health professionals, as published in the literature; thus, consumer opinion should be considered when setting research priorities. Copyright © 2010 Society for Vascular Nursing, Inc. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

  3. Setting Research Priorities for Kidney Cancer.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  4. New directions in research priority-setting

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Nielsen, Morten Velsing

    2017-01-01

    The way governments set priorities for research and innovation in Europe is changing. The new focus on responsible research and innovation (RRI) emphasises broader inclusion, increased dialogue, and a focus on societal challenges. The case of RESEARCH2015 in Denmark is one of the first European...... priority-setting processes to incorporate such criteria. This paper develops a theoretical model to explore how RESEARCH2015 contributes to mutual responsiveness among actors, a main objective of RRI. Studying mutual responsiveness means going beyond the often-stated focus on policy impact to look...... at the creation of trust, interdependence and mutual understanding among participants. The study finds that mutual responsiveness is an important precondition for priority-setting, but that the process's contribution to mutual responsiveness is limited, due to the limited attention to social impacts. Still...

  5. Setting research priorities by applying the combined approach matrix.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Ghaffar, Abdul

    2009-04-01

    Priority setting in health research is a dynamic process. Different organizations and institutes have been working in the field of research priority setting for many years. In 1999 the Global Forum for Health Research presented a research priority setting tool called the Combined Approach Matrix or CAM. Since its development, the CAM has been successfully applied to set research priorities for diseases, conditions and programmes at global, regional and national levels. This paper briefly explains the CAM methodology and how it could be applied in different settings, giving examples and describing challenges encountered in the process of setting research priorities and providing recommendations for further work in this field. The construct and design of the CAM is explained along with different steps needed, including planning and organization of a priority-setting exercise and how it could be applied in different settings. The application of the CAM are described by using three examples. The first concerns setting research priorities for a global programme, the second describes application at the country level and the third setting research priorities for diseases. Effective application of the CAM in different and diverse environments proves its utility as a tool for setting research priorities. Potential challenges encountered in the process of research priority setting are discussed and some recommendations for further work in this field are provided.

  6. Priority setting and health policy and systems research

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Bennett Sara C

    2009-12-01

    Full Text Available Abstract Health policy and systems research (HPSR has been identified as critical to scaling-up interventions to achieve the millennium development goals, but research priority setting exercises often do not address HPSR well. This paper aims to (i assess current priority setting methods and the extent to which they adequately include HPSR and (ii draw lessons regarding how HPSR priority setting can be enhanced to promote relevant HPSR, and to strengthen developing country leadership of research agendas. Priority setting processes can be distinguished by the level at which they occur, their degree of comprehensiveness in terms of the topic addressed, the balance between technical versus interpretive approaches and the stakeholders involved. When HPSR is considered through technical, disease-driven priority setting processes it is systematically under-valued. More successful approaches for considering HPSR are typically nationally-driven, interpretive and engage a range of stakeholders. There is still a need however for better defined approaches to enable research funders to determine the relative weight to assign to disease specific research versus HPSR and other forms of cross-cutting health research. While country-level research priority setting is key, there is likely to be a continued need for the identification of global research priorities for HPSR. The paper argues that such global priorities can and should be driven by country level priorities.

  7. Setting priorities for space research: An experiment in methodology

    Science.gov (United States)

    1995-01-01

    In 1989, the Space Studies Board created the Task Group on Priorities in Space Research to determine whether scientists should take a role in recommending priorities for long-term space research initiatives and, if so, to analyze the priority-setting problem in this context and develop a method by which such priorities could be established. After answering the first question in the affirmative in a previous report, the task group set out to accomplish the second task. The basic assumption in developing a priority-setting process is that a reasoned and structured approach for ordering competing initiatives will yield better results than other ways of proceeding. The task group proceeded from the principle that the central criterion for evaluating a research initiative must be its scientific merit -- the value of the initiative to the proposing discipline and to science generally. The group developed a two-stage methodology for priority setting and constructed a procedure and format to support the methodology. The first of two instruments developed was a standard format for structuring proposals for space research initiatives. The second instrument was a formal, semiquantitative appraisal procedure for evaluating competing proposals. This report makes available complete templates for the methodology, including the advocacy statement and evaluation forms, as well as an 11-step schema for a priority-setting process. From the beginning of its work, the task group was mindful that the issue of priority setting increasingly pervades all of federally supported science and that its work would have implications extending beyond space research. Thus, although the present report makes no recommendations for action by NASA or other government agencies, it provides the results of the task group's work for the use of others who may study priority-setting procedures or take up the challenge of implementing them in the future.

  8. Community Priority Index: utility, applicability and validation for priority setting in community-based participatory research

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Hamisu M. Salihu

    2015-07-01

    Full Text Available Background. Providing practitioners with an intuitive measure for priority setting that can be combined with diverse data collection methods is a necessary step to foster accountability of the decision-making process in community settings. Yet, there is a lack of easy-to-use, but methodologically robust measures, that can be feasibly implemented for reliable decision-making in community settings. To address this important gap in community based participatory research (CBPR, the purpose of this study was to demonstrate the utility, applicability, and validation of a community priority index in a community-based participatory research setting. Design and Methods. Mixed-method study that combined focus groups findings, nominal group technique with six key informants, and the generation of a Community Priority Index (CPI that integrated community importance, changeability, and target populations. Bootstrapping and simulation were performed for validation. Results. For pregnant mothers, the top three highly important and highly changeable priorities were: stress (CPI=0.85; 95%CI: 0.70, 1.00, lack of affection (CPI=0.87; 95%CI: 0.69, 1.00, and nutritional issues (CPI=0.78; 95%CI: 0.48, 1.00. For non-pregnant women, top priorities were: low health literacy (CPI=0.87; 95%CI: 0.69, 1.00, low educational attainment (CPI=0.78; 95%CI: 0.48, 1.00, and lack of self-esteem (CPI=0.72; 95%CI: 0.44, 1.00. For children and adolescents, the top three priorities were: obesity (CPI=0.88; 95%CI: 0.69, 1.00, low self-esteem (CPI=0.81; 95%CI: 0.69, 0.94, and negative attitudes toward education (CPI=0.75; 95%CI: 0.50, 0.94. Conclusions. This study demonstrates the applicability of the CPI as a simple and intuitive measure for priority setting in CBPR.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

  10. Rapid research and implementation priority setting for wound care uncertainties.

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Trish A Gray

    Full Text Available 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

  11. Rapid research and implementation priority setting for wound care uncertainties

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

  12. Defining Priorities for Future Research: Results of the UK Kidney Transplant Priority Setting Partnership.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

  13. Setting research priorities for patients on or nearing dialysis.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

  15. Research priorities in mesothelioma: A James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

  16. Setting Priorities for Space Research: Opportunities and Imperatives

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  17. An Emergency Medicine Research Priority Setting Partnership to establish the top 10 research priorities in emergency medicine.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  19. Global health trials methodological research agenda:results from a priority setting exercise

    OpenAIRE

    Blazeby, Jane; Nasser, Mona; Soares-Weiser, Karla; Sydes, Matthew R.; Zhang, Junhua; Williamson, Paula R

    2018-01-01

    BackgroundMethodological 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 ...

  20. Relevance or Excellence? Setting Research Priorities for Mental Health and Psychosocial Support in Humanitarian Settings

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Terry Robert F

    2010-12-01

    Full Text Available 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.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    Viergever, Roderik F; Olifson, Sylvie; Ghaffar, Abdul; Terry, Robert F

    2010-12-15

    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.

  3. Top ten research priorities for spinal cord injury: the methodology and results of a British priority setting partnership.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  4. RESEARCH PRIORITY-SETTING IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA: POLICIES, METHODS AND PRACTICALITIES

    OpenAIRE

    Omuru, Eric; Kingwell, Ross S.

    2000-01-01

    Agricultural research priority-setting at best promotes the effective and efficient use of scarce research resources. This paper reviews firstly the priority-setting methods used in Papua New Guinea for agricultural R&D and examines the practicalities of implementing these and other methods. Secondly, this paper reports on key factors affecting the strategic directions for agricultural R&D in Papua New Guinea. These factors include:(i) the long term trends in international crop prices; (ii) l...

  5. Shared research priorities for pessary use in women with prolapse: results from a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  6. Setting research priorities across science, technology, and health sectors: the Tanzania experience.

    Science.gov (United States)

    de Haan, Sylvia; Kingamkono, Rose; Tindamanyire, Neema; Mshinda, Hassan; Makandi, Harun; Tibazarwa, Flora; Kubata, Bruno; Montorzi, Gabriela

    2015-03-12

    Identifying research priorities is key to innovation and economic growth, since it informs decision makers on effectively targeting issues that have the greatest potential public benefit. As such, the process of setting research priorities is of pivotal importance for favouring the science, technology, and innovation (STI)-driven development of low- and middle-income countries. We report herein on a major cross-sectoral nationwide research priority setting effort recently carried out in Tanzania by the Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology (COSTECH) in partnership with the Council on Health Research for Development (COHRED) and the NEPAD Agency. The first of its type in the country, the process brought together stakeholders from 42 sub-sectors in science, technology, and health. The cross-sectoral research priority setting process consisted of a 'training-of-trainers' workshop, a demonstration workshop, and seven priority setting workshops delivered to representatives from public and private research and development institutions, universities, non-governmental organizations, and other agencies affiliated to COSTECH. The workshops resulted in ranked listings of research priorities for each sub-sector, totalling approximately 800 priorities. This large number was significantly reduced by an expert panel in order to build a manageable instrument aligned to national development plans that could be used to guide research investments. The Tanzania experience is an instructive example of the challenges and issues to be faced in when attempting to identify research priority areas and setting an STI research agenda in low- and middle-income countries. As countries increase their investment in research, it is essential to increase investment in research management and governance as well, a key and much needed capacity for countries to make proper use of research investments.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  8. Towards deep inclusion for equity-oriented health research priority-setting: A working model.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  9. Hypertension management research priorities from patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers: A report from the Hypertension Canada Priority Setting Partnership Group.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  10. Setting research priorities to improve global newborn health and prevent stillbirths by 2025

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Yoshida, Sachiyo; Martines, José; Lawn, Joy E

    2016-01-01

    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...

  11. Involving healthcare professionals and family carers in setting research priorities for end-of-life care.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  12. Differences between patients' and clinicians' research priorities from the Anaesthesia and Peri-operative Care Priority Setting Partnership.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  13. 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.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

  14. Managing multiple projects: a literature review of setting priorities and a pilot survey of healthcare researchers in an academic setting.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Hopkins, Robert Borden; Campbell, Kaitryn; O'Reilly, Daria; Tarride, Jean-Eric; Bowen, Jim; Blackhouse, Gord; Goerre, Ron

    2007-05-16

    To summarize and then assess with a pilot study the use of published best practice recommendations for priority setting during management of multiple healthcare research projects, in a resource-constrained environment. Medical, economic, business, and operations literature was reviewed to summarize and develop a survey to assess best practices for managing multiple projects. Fifteen senior healthcare research project managers, directors, and faculty at an urban academic institution were surveyed to determine most commonly used priority rules, ranking of rules, characteristics of their projects, and availability of resources. Survey results were compared to literature recommendations to determine use of best practices. Seven priority-setting rules were identified for managing multiple projects. Recommendations on assigning priorities by project characteristics are presented. In the pilot study, a large majority of survey respondents follow best practice recommendations identified in the research literature. However, priority rules such as Most Total Successors (MTS) and Resource Scheduling Method (RSM) were used "very often" by half of the respondents when better performing priority rules were available. Through experience, project managers learn to manage multiple projects under resource constraints. Best practice literature can assist project managers in priority setting by recommending the most appropriate priority given resource constraints and project characteristics. There is room for improvement in managing multiple projects.

  15. Setting health research priorities using the CHNRI method: III. Involving stakeholders

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Sachiyo Yoshida

    2016-06-01

    Full Text Available Setting health research priorities is a complex and value–driven process. The introduction of the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI method has made the process of setting research priorities more transparent and inclusive, but much of the process remains in the hands of funders and researchers, as described in the previous two papers in this series. However, the value systems of numerous other important stakeholders, particularly those on the receiving end of health research products, are very rarely addressed in any process of priority setting. Inclusion of a larger and more diverse group of stakeholders in the process would result in a better reflection of the system of values of the broader community, resulting in recommendations that are more legitimate and acceptable.

  16. 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.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  17. Setting Priorities in Global Child Health Research Investments: Guidelines for Implementation of the CHNRI Method

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

  18. Research priorities for shoulder surgery: results of the 2015 James Lind Alliance patient and clinician priority setting partnership.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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/

  19. Creating a Research Agenda and Setting Research Priorities for Clinical Nurse Specialists.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  20. The kidney cancer research priority-setting partnership: Identifying the top 10 research priorities as defined by patients, caregivers, and expert clinicians.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  1. Setting Priorities for Gerontological Social Work Research: A National Delphi Study

    Science.gov (United States)

    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…

  2. Setting research priorities to improve global newborn health and prevent stillbirths by 2025

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    José Martines

    2016-06-01

    Full Text Available 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.

  3. Setting conservation priorities.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  4. Development of a new model to engage patients and clinicians in setting research priorities.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  5. Setting health research priorities using the CHNRI method: I. Involving funders

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Igor Rudan

    2016-06-01

    Full Text Available In 2007 and 2008, the World Health Organization's Department for Child and Adolescent Health and Development commissioned five large research priority setting exercises using the CHNRI (Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative method. The aim was to define research priorities related to the five major causes of child deaths for the period up to the year 2015. The selected causes were childhood pneumonia, diarrhoea, birth asphyxia, neonatal infections and preterm birth/low birth weight. The criteria used for prioritization in all five exercises were the “standard” CHNRI criteria: answerability, effectiveness, deliverability, potential for mortality burden reduction and the effect on equity. Having completed the exercises, the WHO officers were left with another question: how “fundable” were the identified priorities, i.e. how attractive were they to research funders?

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Igor Rudan

    2016-06-01

    Full Text Available 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.

  7. Setting research priorities to improve global newborn health and prevent stillbirths by 2025.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

  8. The trials methodological research agenda: results from a priority setting exercise

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

  9. Setting priorities for zinc-related health research to reduce children's disease burden worldwide: an application of the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative's research priority-setting method.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Brown, Kenneth H; Hess, Sonja Y; Boy, Erick; Gibson, Rosalind S; Horton, Susan; Osendarp, Saskia J; Sempertegui, Fernando; Shrimpton, Roger; Rudan, Igor

    2009-03-01

    To make the best use of limited resources for supporting health-related research to reduce child mortality, it is necessary to apply a suitable method to rank competing research options. The Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) developed a new methodology for setting health research priorities. To broaden experience with this priority-setting technique, we applied the method to rank possible research priorities concerning the control of Zn deficiency. Although Zn deficiency is not generally recognized as a direct cause of child mortality, recent research indicates that it predisposes children to an increased incidence and severity of several of the major direct causes of morbidity and mortality. Leading experts in the field of Zn research in child health were identified and invited to participate in a technical working group (TWG) to establish research priorities. The individuals were chosen to represent a wide range of expertise in Zn nutrition. The seven TWG members submitted a total of ninety research options, which were then consolidated into a final list of thirty-one research options categorized by the type of resulting intervention. The identified priorities were dominated by research investment options targeting Zn supplementation, and were followed by research on Zn fortification, general aspects of Zn nutrition, dietary modification and other new interventions. In general, research options that aim to improve the efficiency of an already existing intervention strategy received higher priority scores. Challenges identified during the implementation of the methodology and suggestions to modify the priority-setting procedures are discussed.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

  11. Setting research priorities to reduce global mortality from preterm birth and low birth weight by 2015.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  13. 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.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

  14. 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

    OpenAIRE

    Boney, O.; Bell, M.; Bell, N.; Conquest, A.; Cumbers, M.; Drake, S.; Galsworthy, M.; Gath, J.; Grocott, M. P.; Harris, E.; Howell, S.; Ingold, A.; Nathanson, M. H.; Pinkney, T.; Metcalf, L.

    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) rank...

  15. Comparison of national health research priority-setting methods and characteristics in Latin America and the Caribbean, 2002-2012.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Reveiz, Ludovic; Elias, Vanessa; Terry, Robert F; Alger, Jackeline; Becerra-Posada, Francisco

    2013-07-01

    To compare health research priority-setting methods and characteristics among countries in Latin America and the Caribbean during 2002 - 2012. This was a systematic review that identified national health research policies and priority agendas through a search of ministry and government databases related to health care institutions. PubMed, LILACS, the Health Research Web, and others were searched for the period from January 2002 - February 2012. The study excluded research organized by governmental institutions and specific national strategies on particular disease areas. Priority-setting methods were compared to the "nine common themes for good practice in health research priorities." National health research priorities were compared to those of the World Health Organization's Millennium Development Goals (MDG). Of the 18 Latin American countries assessed, 13 had documents that established national health research priorities; plus the Caribbean Health Research Council had a research agenda for its 19 constituents. These 14 total reports varied widely in terms of objectives, content, dissemination, and implementation; most provided a list of strategic areas, suggestions, and/or sub-priorities for each country; however, few proposed specific research topics and questions. Future reports could be improved by including more details on the comprehensive approach employed to identify priorities, on the information gathering process, and on practices to be undertaken after priorities are set. There is a need for improving the quality of the methodologies utilized and coordinating Regional efforts as countries strive to meet the MDG.

  16. Comparison of national health research priority-setting methods and characteristics in Latin America and the Caribbean, 2002 - 2012

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Ludovic Reveiz

    2013-07-01

    Full Text Available OBJECTIVE: To compare health research priority-setting methods and characteristics among countries in Latin America and the Caribbean during 2002 - 2012. METHODS: This was a systematic review that identified national health research policies and priority agendas through a search of ministry and government databases related to health care institutions. PubMed, LILACS, the Health Research Web, and others were searched for the period from January 2002 - February 2012. The study excluded research organized by governmental institutions and specific national strategies on particular disease areas. Priority-setting methods were compared to the "nine common themes for good practice in health research priorities." National health research priorities were compared to those of the World Health Organization's Millennium Development Goals (MDG. RESULTS: Of the 18 Latin American countries assessed, 13 had documents that established national health research priorities; plus the Caribbean Health Research Council had a research agenda for its 19 constituents. These 14 total reports varied widely in terms of objectives, content, dissemination, and implementation; most provided a list of strategic areas, suggestions, and/or sub-priorities for each country; however, few proposed specific research topics and questions. CONCLUSIONS: Future reports could be improved by including more details on the comprehensive approach employed to identify priorities, on the information gathering process, and on practices to be undertaken after priorities are set. There is a need for improving the quality of the methodologies utilized and coordinating Regional efforts as countries strive to meet the MDG.

  17. Research Priority Setting for Social Determinants of Health Research Center of Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences in 2013

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Mohammad-Reza Sohrabi

    2015-02-01

    Full Text Available Background and objective: It is obvious that, because of the lack of resources, we should devote our limited resources to priorities in order to reach an acceptable level of health. The objective of this study was to research priority setting for Pediatric Surgery Research Center; with the participation of all stakeholders.Material and Methods: This is a Health System Research (HSR project in order to apply governance and leadership issues with the participation of 41 people including faculty members in Pediatric Surgery Research Center, Shahid Beheshti Medical University and the other pediatric specialists and health system stakeholders as well as the people associated with health system inside & outside the university. This was performed in 2010 using the Council on Health Research for Development COHRED( model with little change. Based on the model, at first the stakeholders were identified and the field situation of Pediatric Surgery was analyzed. Then, research areas and titles were specified and research priorities were set out by giving scores according to the criteria.Results: The seven obtained research areas in priority order are included pediatric trauma, pediatric cancers, pediatric urology diseases, undescended testicles in children, developmental genetics & congenital defects, emergency in children and application of laparoscopic surgery in children. Because each of the research areas is composed of multiple subareas, we managed to finally specify 43 research subareas as research priorities. These subareas included epidemiology, risk factors, prevention, screening, diagnosis and treatment. They also included follow-up, complications, knowledge & attitudes of parents, quality of life, economy aspects and data bank for further research.Conclusion: In this project, research priorities were set out for Pediatric Surgery Research Center of Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, with the participation of all the stakeholders

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

  20. Setting Priorities For Large Research Facility Projects Supported By the National Science Foundation

    National Research Council Canada - National Science Library

    2005-01-01

    ...) level has stalled in the face of a backlog of approved but unfunded projects. Second, the rationale and criteria used to select projects and set priorities among projects for MREFC funding have not been clearly and publicly articulated...

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  2. Setting and meeting priorities in Indigenous health research in Australia and its application in the Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal health.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Monk, Johanna M; Rowley, Kevin G; Anderson, Ian Ps

    2009-11-20

    Priority setting is about making decisions. Key issues faced during priority setting processes include identifying who makes these decisions, who sets the criteria, and who benefits. The paper reviews the literature and history around priority setting in research, particularly in Aboriginal health research. We explore these issues through a case study of the Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal Health (CRCAH)'s experience in setting and meeting priorities.Historically, researchers have made decisions about what research gets done. Pressures of growing competition for research funds and an increased public interest in research have led to demands that appropriate consultation with stakeholders is conducted and that research is of benefit to the wider society. Within Australian Aboriginal communities, these demands extend to Aboriginal control of research to ensure that Aboriginal priorities are met.In response to these demands, research priorities are usually agreed in consultation with stakeholders at an institutional level and researchers are asked to develop relevant proposals at a project level. The CRCAH's experience in funding rounds was that scientific merit was given more weight than stakeholders' priorities and did not necessarily result in research that met these priorities. After reviewing these processes in 2004, the CRCAH identified a new facilitated development approach. In this revised approach, the setting of institutional priorities is integrated with the development of projects in a way that ensures the research reflects stakeholder priorities.This process puts emphasis on identifying projects that reflect priorities prior to developing the quality of the research, rather than assessing the relevance to priorities and quality concurrently. Part of the CRCAH approach is the employment of Program Managers who ensure that stakeholder priorities are met in the development of research projects. This has enabled researchers and stakeholders to come

  3. Setting and meeting priorities in Indigenous health research in Australia and its application in the Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal Health

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Anderson Ian PS

    2009-11-01

    Full Text Available Abstract Priority setting is about making decisions. Key issues faced during priority setting processes include identifying who makes these decisions, who sets the criteria, and who benefits. The paper reviews the literature and history around priority setting in research, particularly in Aboriginal health research. We explore these issues through a case study of the Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal Health (CRCAH's experience in setting and meeting priorities. Historically, researchers have made decisions about what research gets done. Pressures of growing competition for research funds and an increased public interest in research have led to demands that appropriate consultation with stakeholders is conducted and that research is of benefit to the wider society. Within Australian Aboriginal communities, these demands extend to Aboriginal control of research to ensure that Aboriginal priorities are met. In response to these demands, research priorities are usually agreed in consultation with stakeholders at an institutional level and researchers are asked to develop relevant proposals at a project level. The CRCAH's experience in funding rounds was that scientific merit was given more weight than stakeholders' priorities and did not necessarily result in research that met these priorities. After reviewing these processes in 2004, the CRCAH identified a new facilitated development approach. In this revised approach, the setting of institutional priorities is integrated with the development of projects in a way that ensures the research reflects stakeholder priorities. This process puts emphasis on identifying projects that reflect priorities prior to developing the quality of the research, rather than assessing the relevance to priorities and quality concurrently. Part of the CRCAH approach is the employment of Program Managers who ensure that stakeholder priorities are met in the development of research projects. This has enabled

  4. Research priority setting for health policy and health systems strengthening in Nigeria: the policymakers and stakeholders perspective and involvement.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Uneke, Chigozie Jesse; Ezeoha, Abel Ebeh; Ndukwe, Chinwendu Daniel; Oyibo, Patrick Gold; Onwe, Friday; Aulakh, Bhupinder Kaur

    2013-01-01

    Nigeria is one of the low and middle income countries (LMICs) facing severe resource constraint, making it impossible for adequate resources to be allocated to the health sector. Priority setting becomes imperative because it guides investments in health care, health research and respects resource constraints. The objective of this study was to enhance the knowledge and understanding of policymakers on research priority setting and to conduct a research priority setting exercise. A one-day evidence-to-policy research priority setting meeting was held. The meeting participants included senior and middle level policymakers and key decision makers/stakeholders in the health sector in Ebonyi State southeastern Nigeria. The priorities setting meeting involved a training session on priority setting process and conduction of priority setting exercise using the essential national health research (ENHR) approach. The focus was on the health systems building blocks (health workforce; health finance; leadership/governance; medical products/technology; service delivery; and health information/evidence). Of the total of 92 policymakers invited 90(97.8%) attended the meeting. It was the consensus of the policymakers that research should focus on the challenges of optimal access to health products and technology; effective health service delivery and disease control under a national emergency situation; the shortfalls in the supply of professional personnel; and the issues of governance in the health sector management. Research priority setting exercise involving policymakers is an example of demand driven strategy in the health policymaking process capable of reversing inequities and strengthening the health systems in LMICs.

  5. Approaches, tools and methods used for setting priorities in health research in the 21(st) century.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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 (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

  6. Approaches, tools and methods used for setting priorities in health research in the 21st century

    Science.gov (United States)

    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 (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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  8. Setting health research priorities using the CHNRI method: VI. Quantitative properties of human collective opinion.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Yoshida, Sachiyo; Rudan, Igor; Cousens, Simon

    2016-06-01

    Crowdsourcing has become an increasingly important tool to address many problems - from government elections in democracies, stock market prices, to modern online tools such as TripAdvisor or Internet Movie Database (IMDB). The CHNRI method (the acronym for the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative) for setting health research priorities has crowdsourcing as the major component, which it uses to generate, assess and prioritize between many competing health research ideas. We conducted a series of analyses using data from a group of 91 scorers to explore the quantitative properties of their collective opinion. We were interested in the stability of their collective opinion as the sample size increases from 15 to 90. From a pool of 91 scorers who took part in a previous CHNRI exercise, we used sampling with replacement to generate multiple random samples of different size. First, for each sample generated, we identified the top 20 ranked research ideas, among 205 that were proposed and scored, and calculated the concordance with the ranking generated by the 91 original scorers. Second, we used rank correlation coefficients to compare the ranks assigned to all 205 proposed research ideas when samples of different size are used. We also analysed the original pool of 91 scorers to to look for evidence of scoring variations based on scorers' characteristics. The sample sizes investigated ranged from 15 to 90. The concordance for the top 20 scored research ideas increased with sample sizes up to about 55 experts. At this point, the median level of concordance stabilized at 15/20 top ranked questions (75%), with the interquartile range also generally stable (14-16). There was little further increase in overlap when the sample size increased from 55 to 90. When analysing the ranking of all 205 ideas, the rank correlation coefficient increased as the sample size increased, with a median correlation of 0.95 reached at the sample size of 45 experts (median of the rank

  9. How Are Health Research Priorities Set in Low and Middle Income Countries? A Systematic Review of Published Reports

    Science.gov (United States)

    McGregor, Skye; Henderson, Klara J.; Kaldor, John M.

    2014-01-01

    Background Priority setting is increasingly recognised as essential for directing finite resources to support research that maximizes public health benefits and drives health equity. Priority setting processes have been undertaken in a number of low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings, using a variety of methods. We undertook a critical review of reports of these processes. Methods and Findings We searched electronic databases and online for peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed literature. We found 91 initiatives that met inclusion criteria. The majority took place at the global level (46%). For regional or national initiatives, most focused on Sub Saharan Africa (49%), followed by East Asia and Pacific (20%) and Latin America and the Caribbean (18%). A quarter of initiatives aimed to cover all areas of health research, with a further 20% covering communicable diseases. The most frequently used process was a conference or workshop to determine priorities (24%), followed by the Child Health and Nutrition Initiative (CHNRI) method (18%). The majority were initiated by an international organization or collaboration (46%). Researchers and government were the most frequently represented stakeholders. There was limited evidence of any implementation or follow-up strategies. Challenges in priority setting included engagement with stakeholders, data availability, and capacity constraints. Conclusions Health research priority setting (HRPS) has been undertaken in a variety of LMIC settings. While not consistently used, the application of established methods provides a means of identifying health research priorities in a repeatable and transparent manner. In the absence of published information on implementation or evaluation, it is not possible to assess what the impact and effectiveness of health research priority setting may have been. PMID:25275315

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

  11. Healthcare priority setting in Kenya

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Bukachi, Salome A.; Onyango-Ouma, Washington; Siso, Jared Maaka

    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...

  12. Setting priorities for research in medical nutrition education: an international approach.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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/.

  13. 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.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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…

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  17. Research Priorities for the Intersection of Alcohol and HIV/AIDS in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Priority Setting Exercise.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

  18. Using the Nine Common Themes of Good Practice checklist as a tool for evaluating the research priority setting process of a provincial research and program evaluation program.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Mador, Rebecca L; Kornas, Kathy; Simard, Anne; Haroun, Vinita

    2016-03-23

    Given the context-specific nature of health research prioritization and the obligation to effectively allocate resources to initiatives that will achieve the greatest impact, evaluation of priority setting processes can refine and strengthen such exercises and their outcomes. However, guidance is needed on evaluation tools that can be applied to research priority setting. This paper describes the adaption and application of a conceptual framework to evaluate a research priority setting exercise operating within the public health sector in Ontario, Canada. The Nine Common Themes of Good Practice checklist, described by Viergever et al. (Health Res Policy Syst 8:36, 2010) was used as the conceptual framework to evaluate the research priority setting process developed for the Locally Driven Collaborative Projects (LDCP) program in Ontario, Canada. Multiple data sources were used to inform the evaluation, including a review of selected priority setting approaches, surveys with priority setting participants, document review, and consultation with the program advisory committee. The evaluation assisted in identifying improvements to six elements of the LDCP priority setting process. The modifications were aimed at improving inclusiveness, information gathering practices, planning for project implementation, and evaluation. In addition, the findings identified that the timing of priority setting activities and level of control over the process were key factors that influenced the ability to effectively implement changes. The findings demonstrate the novel adaptation and application of the 'Nine Common Themes of Good Practice checklist' as a tool for evaluating a research priority setting exercise. The tool can guide the development of evaluation questions and enables the assessment of key constructs related to the design and delivery of a research priority setting process.

  19. An approach for setting evidence-based and stakeholder-informed research priorities in low- and middle-income countries.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  20. Comparing two sampling methods to engage hard-to-reach communities in research priority setting.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Valerio, Melissa A; Rodriguez, Natalia; Winkler, Paula; Lopez, Jaime; Dennison, Meagen; Liang, Yuanyuan; Turner, Barbara J

    2016-10-28

    Effective community-partnered and patient-centered outcomes research needs to address community priorities. However, optimal sampling methods to engage stakeholders from hard-to-reach, vulnerable communities to generate research priorities have not been identified. In two similar rural, largely Hispanic communities, a community advisory board guided recruitment of stakeholders affected by chronic pain using a different method in each community: 1) snowball sampling, a chain- referral method or 2) purposive sampling to recruit diverse stakeholders. In both communities, three groups of stakeholders attended a series of three facilitated meetings to orient, brainstorm, and prioritize ideas (9 meetings/community). Using mixed methods analysis, we compared stakeholder recruitment and retention as well as priorities from both communities' stakeholders on mean ratings of their ideas based on importance and feasibility for implementation in their community. Of 65 eligible stakeholders in one community recruited by snowball sampling, 55 (85 %) consented, 52 (95 %) attended the first meeting, and 36 (65 %) attended all 3 meetings. In the second community, the purposive sampling method was supplemented by convenience sampling to increase recruitment. Of 69 stakeholders recruited by this combined strategy, 62 (90 %) consented, 36 (58 %) attended the first meeting, and 26 (42 %) attended all 3 meetings. Snowball sampling recruited more Hispanics and disabled persons (all P research, focusing on non-pharmacologic interventions for management of chronic pain. Ratings on importance and feasibility for community implementation differed only on the importance of massage services (P = 0.045) which was higher for the purposive/convenience sampling group and for city improvements/transportation services (P = 0.004) which was higher for the snowball sampling group. In each of the two similar hard-to-reach communities, a community advisory board partnered with researchers

  1. Comparing two sampling methods to engage hard-to-reach communities in research priority setting

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Melissa A. Valerio

    2016-10-01

    Full Text Available Abstract Background Effective community-partnered and patient-centered outcomes research needs to address community priorities. However, optimal sampling methods to engage stakeholders from hard-to-reach, vulnerable communities to generate research priorities have not been identified. Methods In two similar rural, largely Hispanic communities, a community advisory board guided recruitment of stakeholders affected by chronic pain using a different method in each community: 1 snowball sampling, a chain- referral method or 2 purposive sampling to recruit diverse stakeholders. In both communities, three groups of stakeholders attended a series of three facilitated meetings to orient, brainstorm, and prioritize ideas (9 meetings/community. Using mixed methods analysis, we compared stakeholder recruitment and retention as well as priorities from both communities’ stakeholders on mean ratings of their ideas based on importance and feasibility for implementation in their community. Results Of 65 eligible stakeholders in one community recruited by snowball sampling, 55 (85 % consented, 52 (95 % attended the first meeting, and 36 (65 % attended all 3 meetings. In the second community, the purposive sampling method was supplemented by convenience sampling to increase recruitment. Of 69 stakeholders recruited by this combined strategy, 62 (90 % consented, 36 (58 % attended the first meeting, and 26 (42 % attended all 3 meetings. Snowball sampling recruited more Hispanics and disabled persons (all P < 0.05. Despite differing recruitment strategies, stakeholders from the two communities identified largely similar ideas for research, focusing on non-pharmacologic interventions for management of chronic pain. Ratings on importance and feasibility for community implementation differed only on the importance of massage services (P = 0.045 which was higher for the purposive/convenience sampling group and for city improvements

  2. Setting health research priorities using the CHNRI method: V. Quantitative properties of human collective knowledge.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Rudan, Igor; Yoshida, Sachiyo; Wazny, Kerri; Chan, Kit Yee; Cousens, Simon

    2016-06-01

    The CHNRI method for setting health research priorities has crowdsourcing as the major component. It uses the collective opinion of a group of experts to generate, assess and prioritize between many competing health research ideas. It is difficult to compare the accuracy of human individual and collective opinions in predicting uncertain future outcomes before the outcomes are known. However, this limitation does not apply to existing knowledge, which is an important component underlying opinion. In this paper, we report several experiments to explore the quantitative properties of human collective knowledge and discuss their relevance to the CHNRI method. We conducted a series of experiments in groups of about 160 (range: 122-175) undergraduate Year 2 medical students to compare their collective knowledge to their individual knowledge. We asked them to answer 10 questions on each of the following: (i) an area in which they have a degree of expertise (undergraduate Year 1 medical curriculum); (ii) an area in which they likely have some knowledge (general knowledge); and (iii) an area in which they are not expected to have any knowledge (astronomy). We also presented them with 20 pairs of well-known celebrities and asked them to identify the older person of the pair. In all these experiments our goal was to examine how the collective answer compares to the distribution of students' individual answers. When answering the questions in their own area of expertise, the collective answer (the median) was in the top 20.83% of the most accurate individual responses; in general knowledge, it was in the top 11.93%; and in an area with no expertise, the group answer was in the top 7.02%. However, the collective answer based on mean values fared much worse, ranging from top 75.60% to top 95.91%. Also, when confronted with guessing the older of the two celebrities, the collective response was correct in 18/20 cases (90%), while the 8 most successful individuals among the

  3. Setting priorities for safeguards upgrades

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Al-Ayat, R.A.; Judd, B.R.; Patenaude, C.J.; Sicherman, A.

    1987-01-01

    This paper describes an analytic approach and a computer program for setting priorities among safeguards upgrades. The approach provides safeguards decision makers with a systematic method for allocating their limited upgrade resources. The priorities are set based on the upgrades cost and their contribution to safeguards effectiveness. Safeguards effectiveness is measured by the probability of defeat for a spectrum of potential insider and outsider adversaries. The computer program, MI$ER, can be used alone or as a companion to ET and SAVI, programs designed to evaluate safeguards effectiveness against insider and outsider threats, respectively. Setting the priority required judgments about the relative importance (threat likelihoods and consequences) of insider and outsider threats. Although these judgments are inherently subjective, MI$ER can analyze the sensitivity of the upgrade priorities to these weights and determine whether or not they are critical to the priority ranking. MI$ER produces tabular and graphical results for comparing benefits and identifying the most cost-effective upgrades for a given expenditure. This framework provides decision makers with an explicit and consistent analysis to support their upgrades decisions and to allocate the safeguards resources in a cost-effective manner

  4. Massage therapy and canadians' health care needs 2020: proceedings of a national research priority setting summit.

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2014-03-01

    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. 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. 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). Twenty-six researchers, policymakers, and other stakeholders actively participated in the events. 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. 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.

  5. 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.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

  6. Setting health research priorities using the CHNRI method: VII. A review of the first 50 applications of the CHNRI method.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2009-03-05

    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. 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). 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. 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.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  9. Priority Setting for Occupational Cancer Prevention

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Cheryl E. Peters

    2018-06-01

    Full Text Available Background: Selecting priority occupational carcinogens is important for cancer prevention efforts; however, standardized selection methods are not available. The objective of this paper was to describe the methods used by CAREX Canada in 2015 to establish priorities for preventing occupational cancer, with a focus on exposure estimation and descriptive profiles. Methods: Four criteria were used in an expert assessment process to guide carcinogen prioritization: (1 the likelihood of presence and/or use in Canadian workplaces; (2 toxicity of the substance (strength of evidence for carcinogenicity and other health effects; (3 feasibility of producing a carcinogen profile and/or an occupational estimate; and (4 special interest from the public/scientific community. Carcinogens were ranked as high, medium or low priority based on specific conditions regarding these criteria, and stakeholder input was incorporated. Priorities were set separately for the creation of new carcinogen profiles and for new occupational exposure estimates. Results: Overall, 246 agents were reviewed for inclusion in the occupational priorities list. For carcinogen profile generation, 103 were prioritized (11 high, 33 medium, and 59 low priority, and 36 carcinogens were deemed priorities for occupational exposure estimation (13 high, 17 medium, and 6 low priority. Conclusion: Prioritizing and ranking occupational carcinogens is required for a variety of purposes, including research, resource allocation at different jurisdictional levels, calculations of occupational cancer burden, and planning of CAREX-type projects in different countries. This paper outlines how this process was achieved in Canada; this may provide a model for other countries and jurisdictions as a part of occupational cancer prevention efforts. Keywords: cancer prevention, carcinogen exposure, occupational health

  10. Consulting patients in setting priorities in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (M.E.) research: findings from a national on-line survey.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  11. Priority setting for health in emerging markets.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  12. Setting Priorities Personal Values, Organizational Results

    CERN Document Server

    (CCL), Center for Creative Leadership

    2011-01-01

    To be a successful leader, you need to 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 expectations. In this way you can successfully meet organizational objectives and consistently produce results.

  13. Missed opportunities for impact in patient and carer involvement: a mixed methods case study of research priority setting.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Snow, R; Crocker, J C; Crowe, S

    2015-01-01

    (including patients, carers, healthcare professionals and voluntary organisations) were invited to submit suggested research questions about the treatment of type 1 diabetes, via a national online and paper survey. The partnership followed formal protocols that defined a researchable question. This meant that many respondents' suggested research questions were rejected at the start of the process. We analysed survey submissions to find out which groups of respondents were most likely to have their suggestions rejected and what these suggestions were about. Results Five hundred eighty-three respondents submitted 1143 suggested research questions, of which 249 (21.8 %) were rejected at the first stage. Respondents with lived experience of this long-term condition (patients and carers) were more likely than those without lived experience to submit a research question that would be rejected (35.6 vs. 16.5 %; p  researchable question restricted patients' and carers' contributions to priority setting. When discussions about a project's remit take place before service users are involved, researchers risk distorting the potential impact of involvement. Impact assessments should consider not only the differences patients and carers make to research but also the differences they could have made in the absence of systemic barriers. We recommend that initiatives aimed at involving patients and carers in identifying research questions involve them as early as possible, including in decisions about how and why suggested research questions are selected or rejected.

  14. A programme of research to set priorities and reduce uncertainties for the prevention and treatment of skin disease

    OpenAIRE

    Thomas, K. S.; Batchelor, J. M.; Bath-Hextall, F.; Chalmers, J. R.; Clarke, T.; Crowe, S.; Delamere, F. M.; Eleftheriadou, V.; Evans, N.; Firkins, L.; Greenlaw, N.; Lansbury, L.; Lawton, S.; Layfield, C.; Leonardi-Bee, J.

    2016-01-01

    BACKGROUND: Skin diseases are very common and can have a large impact on the quality of life of patients and caregivers. This programme addressed four diseases: (1) eczema, (2) vitiligo, (3) squamous cell skin cancer (SCC) and (4) pyoderma gangrenosum (PG). OBJECTIVE: To set priorities and reduce uncertainties for the treatment and prevention of skin disease in our four chosen diseases. DESIGN: Mixed methods including eight systematic reviews, three prioritisation exercises, tw...

  15. On Setting Priorities among Human Rights

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Philips, Jos

    2014-01-01

    Should conflicts among human rights be dealt with by including general principles for priority setting at some prominent place in the practice of human rights? This essay argues that neither setting prominent and principled priorities nor a case-by-case approach are likely to be defensible as

  16. Research Priorities in Spasmodic Dysphonia

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

  17. International Occupational Therapy Research Priorities.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

  19. Accountable priority setting for trust in health systems - the need for research into a new approach for strengthening sustainable health action in developing countries

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Olsen Øystein E

    2009-10-01

    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.

  20. Accountable priority setting for trust in health systems--the need for research into a new approach for strengthening sustainable health action in developing countries.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

  1. Setting global research priorities for integrated community case management (iCCM: Results from a CHNRI (Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative exercise

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Kerri Wazny

    2014-11-01

    Full Text Available Aims: to systematically identify global research gaps and resource priorities for integrated community case management (iCCM. Methods: an iCCM Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI Advisory Group, in collaboration with the Community Case Management Operational Research Group (CCM ORG identified experts to participate in a CHNRI research priority setting exercise. These experts generated and systematically ranked research questions for iCCM. Research questions were ranked using a “Research Priority Score” (RPS and the “Average Expert Agreement” (AEA was calculated for every question. Our groups of experts were comprised of both individuals working in Ministries of Health or Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs in low– and middle–income countries (LMICs and individuals working in high–income countries (HICs in academia or NGO headquarters. A Spearman's Rho was calculated to determine the correlation between the two groups' research questions' ranks. Results: The overall RPS ranged from 64.58 to 89.31, with a median score of 81.43. AEA scores ranged from 0.54 to 0.86. Research questions involving increasing the uptake of iCCM services, research questions concerning the motivation, retention, training and supervision of Community Health Workers (CHWs and concerning adding additional responsibilities including counselling for infant and young child feeding (IYCF and treatment of severe acute malnutrition (SAM ranked highly. There was weak to moderate, statistically significant, correlation between scores by representatives of high–income countries and those working in–country or regionally (Spearman's ρ = 0.35034, P < 0.01. Conclusions: Operational research to determine optimal training, supervision and modes of motivation and retention for the CHW is vital for improving iCCM, globally, as is research to motivate caregivers to take advantage of iCCM services. Experts working in–country or regionally in

  2. Research priority setting for integrated early child development and violence prevention (ECD+) in low and middle income countries: An expert opinion exercise.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  3. Setting priorities for ambient air quality objectives

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2004-10-01

    Alberta has ambient air quality objectives in place for several pollutants, toxic substances and other air quality parameters. A process is in place to determine if additional air quality objectives are required or if existing objectives should be changed. In order to identify the highest priority substances that may require an ambient air quality objective to protect ecosystems and public health, a rigorous, transparent and cost effective priority setting methodology is required. This study reviewed, analyzed and assessed successful priority setting techniques used by other jurisdictions. It proposed an approach for setting ambient air quality objective priorities that integrates the concerns of stakeholders with Alberta Environment requirements. A literature and expert review were used to examine existing priority-setting techniques used by other jurisdictions. An analysis process was developed to identify the strengths and weaknesses of various techniques and their ability to take into account the complete pathway between chemical emissions and damage to human health or the environment. The key strengths and weaknesses of each technique were identified. Based on the analysis, the most promising technique was the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts (TRACI). Several considerations for using TRACI to help set priorities for ambient air quality objectives were also presented. 26 refs, 8 tabs., 4 appendices

  4. Quantitative benefit-harm assessment for setting research priorities: the example of roflumilast for patients with COPD.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Puhan, Milo A; Yu, Tsung; Boyd, Cynthia M; Ter Riet, Gerben

    2015-07-02

    When faced with uncertainties about the effects of medical interventions regulatory agencies, guideline developers, clinicians, and researchers commonly ask for more research, and in particular for more randomized trials. The conduct of additional randomized trials is, however, sometimes not the most efficient way to reduce uncertainty. Instead, approaches such as value of information analysis or other approaches should be used to prioritize research that will most likely reduce uncertainty and inform decisions. In situations where additional research for specific interventions needs to be prioritized, we propose the use of quantitative benefit-harm assessments that illustrate how the benefit-harm balance may change as a consequence of additional research. The example of roflumilast for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease shows that additional research on patient preferences (e.g., how important are exacerbations relative to psychiatric harms?) or outcome risks (e.g., what is the incidence of psychiatric outcomes in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease without treatment?) is sometimes more valuable than additional randomized trials. We propose that quantitative benefit-harm assessments have the potential to explore the impact of additional research and to identify research priorities Our approach may be seen as another type of value of information analysis and as a useful approach to stimulate specific new research that has the potential to change current estimates of the benefit-harm balance and decision making.

  5. Evidence-informed capacity building for setting health priorities in low- and middle-income countries: A framework and recommendations for further research.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

  6. Evidence-informed capacity building for setting health priorities in low- and middle-income countries: A framework and recommendations for further research [version 1; referees: 2 approved

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Ryan Li

    2017-03-01

    Full Text Available 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

  7. Setting healthcare priorities in hospitals: a review of empirical studies.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  8. 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.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

  9. A strategy to improve priority setting in developing countries.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  10. Priority Setting for Improvement of Cervical Cancer Prevention in Iran

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Majidi, A.; Ghiasvand, R.; Hadji, M.

    2016-01-01

    , 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...

  11. Dreissenid mussel research priorities workshop

    Science.gov (United States)

    Sytsma, Mark; Phillips, Stephen; Counihan, Timothy D.

    2015-01-01

    Currently, dreissenid mussels have yet to be detected in the northwestern part of the United States and western Canada. Infestation of one of the jurisdictions within the mussel-free Pacific Northwest would likely have significant economic, soci­etal and environmental implications for the entire region. Understanding the biology and environmental tolerances of dreissenid mussels, and effectiveness of various man­agement strategies, is key to prevention.On November 4-5, 2015, the Aquatic Bioinvasion Research and Policy Institute and the Center for Lakes and Reservoirs at Portland State University, the US Geological Survey, and the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, convened a Dreissenid Mussel Research Priorities Workshop funded by the Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative. The purpose of the workshop was to review dreissenid research priorities in the 2010 Quagga-Zebra Mussel Action Plan for Western U.S. Waters, reassess those priorities, incorporate new information and emerging trends, and develop priorities to strategically focus research efforts on zebra and quagga mussels in the Pacific Northwest and ensure that future research is focused on the highest priorities. It is important to note that there is some repetition among dreissenid research priority categories (e.g., prevention, detection, control, monitoring, and biology).Workshop participants with research experience in dreissenid mussel biology and management were identified by a literature review. State and federal agency managers were also invited to the workshop to ensure relevancy and practicality of the work­shop outcomes. A total of 28 experts (see sidebar) in mussel biology, ecology, and management attended the workshop.

  12. Priority-setting in health systems

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Byskov, Jens

    2013-01-01

    improvements work similarly in the vast array of social and other local contextual factors. Local, fair and accountable priority setting processes are neccessary to make the best of ever shifting national level strategies and priorities. An approach is described, which can assist in the involvement......DBL - under core funding from Danish International Development Agency (Danida) 2013 WHY HAVE HEALTH SYSTEMS WHEN EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS ARE KNOWN? Case: A teenage mother lives in a poor sub-Saharan village next to a big lake. The area is known to have malaria transmission all year around......, and surveys in nearby villages have shown a high prevalence of intestinal helminthiasis and schistosomiasis. The HIV prevalence in similar rural settings is about 10% in her age group. She has been losing weight over the last months and now her one-year-old child feels hot and is not eating well. She has...

  13. Priority Setting, Cost-Effectiveness, and the Affordable Care Act.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Persad, Govind

    2015-01-01

    The Affordable Care Act (ACA) may be the most important health law statute in American history, yet much of the most prominent legal scholarship examining it has focused on the merits of the court challenges it has faced rather than delving into the details of its priority-setting provisions. In addition to providing an overview of the ACA's provisions concerning priority setting and their developing interpretations, this Article attempts to defend three substantive propositions. First, I argue that the ACA is neither uniformly hostile nor uniformly friendly to efforts to set priorities in ways that promote cost and quality. Second, I argue that the ACA does not take a single, unified approach to priority setting; rather, its guidance varies depending on the aspect of the healthcare system at issue (Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Medicare, essential health benefits) and the factors being excluded from priority setting (age, disability, life expectancy). Third, I argue that cost-effectiveness can be achieved within the ACA's constraints, but that doing so will require adopting new approaches to cost-effectiveness and priority setting. By limiting the use of standard cost-effectiveness analysis, the ACA makes the need for workable rivals to cost-effectiveness analysis a pressing practical concern rather than a mere theoretical worry.

  14. Establishing and prioritizing research questions for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of hair loss (excluding alopecia areata): the Hair Loss Priority Setting Partnership.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Macbeth, A; Tomlinson, J; Messenger, A; Moore-Millar, K; Michaelides, C; Shipman, A; Kassim, J; Brockley, J; Szczecinska, W; Farrant, P; Robinson, R; Rodgers, J; Chambers, J; Upadhyaya, S; Harries, M

    2018-02-01

    Hair and scalp problems are common. Unfortunately, many uncertainties exist around the most effective management and treatment strategies for these disorders. To identify uncertainties in hair-loss management, prevention, diagnosis and treatment that are important to both people with hair loss and healthcare professionals. A Hair Loss Priority Setting Partnership was established between patients, their carers and relatives, and healthcare professionals to identify the most important uncertainties in hair loss. The methodology of the James Lind Alliance was followed to ensure a balanced, inclusive and transparent process. In total, 2747 treatment uncertainties were submitted by 912 participants; following exclusions 884 uncertainties relating to hair loss (excluding alopecia areata) were analysed. Questions were combined into 'indicative uncertainties' following a structured format. A series of ranking exercises further reduced this list to a top 25 that was taken to a final prioritization workshop where the top 10 priorities were agreed. We present the top 10 research priorities for hair loss (excluding alopecia areata) to guide researchers and funding bodies to support studies important to both patients and clinicians. © 2017 British Association of Dermatologists.

  15. Research Priorities for Business Education

    Science.gov (United States)

    Schultheis, Robert A.

    1971-01-01

    Most pressing problems representing research priorities for the business education profession do not fit into such narrow functional categories as typewriting and shorthand. Rather the problems critical to survival of our discipline in the decade ahead are more of an interdisciplinary nature. (Author)

  16. Accountable priority setting for trust in health systems--the need for research into a new approach for strengthening sustainable health action in developing countries

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Byskov, Jens; Bloch, Paul; Blystad, Astrid

    2009-01-01

    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...

  17. Quantitative benefit-harm assessment for setting research priorities: the example of roflumilast for patients with COPD

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Puhan, Milo A.; Yu, Tsung; Boyd, Cynthia M.; ter Riet, Gerben

    2015-01-01

    When faced with uncertainties about the effects of medical interventions regulatory agencies, guideline developers, clinicians, and researchers commonly ask for more research, and in particular for more randomized trials. The conduct of additional randomized trials is, however, sometimes not the

  18. Publishing priorities of biomedical research funders

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  20. Research priorities for public mental health in Europe

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Forsman, Anna K; Wahlbeck, Kristian; Aarø, Leif Edvard

    2015-01-01

    experts were involved in the priority setting process. RESULTS: Twenty priorities for public mental health research were identified through the consensus process. The research priorities were divided into summary principles-encompassing overall recommendations for future public mental health research...... field. METHODS: Experts were invited to compile and discuss research priorities in a series of topic-based scientific workshops. In addition, a Delphi process was carried out to reach consensus on the list of research priorities and their rank order. Three web-based surveys were conducted. Nearly 60...... in Europe-and thematic research priorities, including area-specific top priorities on research topics and methods. The priorities represent three overarching goals mirroring societal challenges, that is, to identify causes, risk and protective factors for mental health across the lifespan; to advance...

  1. Application of economic principles in healthcare priority setting.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  2. Patient involvement in research priorities (PIRE)

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Piil, Karin; Jarden, Mary

    2016-01-01

    Introduction: Patient involvement in healthcare has expanded from the clinical practice setting to include collaboration during the research process. There has been a growing international interest in patient and public involvement in setting research priorities to reduce the risk of discrepancy...... between what patients with cancer and their relatives experience as important unanswered questions and those which are actually researched. This study aims to challenge the conventional research process by inviting patients with life-threatening cancer (primary malignant brain tumours or acute leukaemia......), relatives and patient organisations to join forces with clinical specialists and researchers to identify, discuss and prioritise supportive care and rehabilitation issues in future research. Methods and analysis: This is an exploratory qualitative study comprising two sets of three focus group interviews...

  3. Leadership and priority setting: the perspective of hospital CEOs.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  4. Priority setting for existing chemicals : automated data selection routine

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Haelst, A.G. van; Hansen, B.G.

    2000-01-01

    One of the four steps within Council Regulation 793/93/EEC on the evaluation and control of existing chemicals is the priority setting step. The priority setting step is concerned with selecting high-priority substances from a large number of substances, initially starting with 2,474

  5. Setting Priorities: Personal Values, Organizational Results. Ideas into Action Guidebooks

    Science.gov (United States)

    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…

  6. 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.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

  7. Research priorities: women in Africa.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Okeyo, A P

    1979-01-01

    In December 1979, an Expert Meeting on Research and Data Collection on Women and Development was convened in Nairobi for the purpose of defining research priorities and methodological approaches for studying the role of African women in development. After reviewing current literature relevant to the subject matter, the participants developed a number of hypotheses regarding the impact of development activities on the role and status of women, and recommended that these hypotheses be tested in future reserach. In general, agrarian reform, mechanization of agriculture, the introduction of cash cropping, and modernization were hypothesized as having a negative impact on the role, status, productive activities, and nutritional standards of women. Other hypotheses stated that development programs and agricultural extension services tended to neglect women. Recommended research methodologies include: 1) efforts to involve the community members in the development and implementation of research projects undertaken in their communities; 2) increased use of local experts and community members in data collection; and 3) interdisciplinary collaboration. The participants also recommended that each country compile a statistical profile on the women in their countries. The profiles should include comparable information on: 1) fertility; 2) educational levels, employment status, and income levels for women; 3) household composition; and 4) types of services available to women.

  8. Promoting community participation in priority setting in district health systems

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Kamuzora, Peter; Maluka, Stephen; Ndawi, Benedict

    2013-01-01

    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....

  9. Priority setting and economic appraisal: whose priorities--the community or the economist?

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  10. Setting priorities for EU healthcare workforce IT skills competence improvement.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  11. The unfunded priorities: an evaluation of priority setting for noncommunicable disease control in Uganda.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

  12. Decentralized health care priority-setting in Tanzania

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Maluka, Stephen; Kamuzora, Peter; Sebastiån, Miguel San

    2010-01-01

    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...... 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...

  13. Priority setting in clinical nursing practice: literature review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  14. Basic priority rating model 2.0: current applications for priority setting in health promotion practice.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  15. Improving district level health planning and priority setting in Tanzania through implementing accountability for reasonableness framework

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Maluka, Stephen; Kamuzora, Peter; Sebastián, Miguel San

    2010-01-01

    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...

  16. Research priorities for occupational radiation protection

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    1994-02-01

    The Subpanel on Occupational Radiation Protection Research concludes that the most urgently needed research is that leading to the resolution of the potential effects of low-level ionizing radiation. This is the primary driving force in setting appropriate radiation protection standards and in directing the emphasis of radiation protection efforts. Much has already been done in collecting data that represents a compendium of knowledge that should be fully reviewed and understood. It is imperative that health physics researchers more effectively use that data and apply the findings to enhance understanding of the potential health effects of low-level ionizing radiation and improve the risk estimates upon which current occupational radiation protection procedures and requirements depend. Research must be focused to best serve needs in the immediate years ahead. Only then will we get the most out of what is accomplished. Beyond the above fundamental need, a number of applied research areas also have been identified as national priority issues. If effective governmental focus is achieved on several of the most important national priority issues, important occupational radiation protection research will be enhanced, more effectively coordinated, and more quickly applied to the work environment. Response in the near term will be enhanced and costs will be reduced by: developing microprocessor-aided open-quotes smartclose quotes instruments to simplify the use and processing of radiation data; developing more sensitive, energy-independent, and tissue-equivalent dosimeters to more accurately quantify personnel dose; and developing an improved risk assessment technology base. This can lead to savings of millions of dollars in current efforts needed to ensure personnel safety and to meet new, more stringent occupational guidelines

  17. Probabilistic inversion in priority setting of emerging zoonoses.

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Kurowicka, D.; Bucura, C.; Cooke, R.; Havelaar, A.H.

    2010-01-01

    This article presents methodology of applying probabilistic inversion in combination with expert judgment in priority setting problem. Experts rank scenarios according to severity. A linear multi-criteria analysis model underlying the expert preferences is posited. Using probabilistic inversion, a

  18. Priorities in Construction IT Research

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Gaarslev, Axel

    1999-01-01

    Gives the results of a survey of the use and needs of research in IT in relation to construction......Gives the results of a survey of the use and needs of research in IT in relation to construction...

  19. Priority Settings in patients with Chronic Diseases and Cancer

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Arreskov, Anne Beiter; Graungaard, Anette Hauskov; Søndergaard, Jens

    Priority setting in patients with cancer and comorbidities Background and aim As both the cancer incidence and the number of patients diagnosed with chronic diseases are increasing, a growing population of cancer survivors will also deal with comorbid chronic diseases. The period after completed...... to comorbidities. Some studies show that participation in regular follow-up consultations concerning comorbid chronic diseases and lifestyle are lower among cancer survivors than non-cancer patients. This could be explained by changes in the patient’s priority setting or in the doctor’s priority and attempt...... to spare the patient for further treatment burden, perhaps resulting in comorbidities falling down the agenda. The overall purpose is to explore patients’ and doctors’ priority settings of comorbidities in patients who have been diagnosed with non-metastatic cancer. Method: The study will consist of three...

  20. Setting research priorities to reduce malaria burden in a post graduate training programme: lessons learnt from the Nigeria field epidemiology and laboratory training programme scientific workshop.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Fawole, Olufunmilayo I; Ajumobi, Olufemi; Poggensee, Gabriele; Nguku, Patrick

    2014-01-01

    Although several research groups within institutions in Nigeria have been involved in extensive malaria research, the link between the research community and policy formulation has not been optimal. The workshop aimed to assist post graduate students to identify knowledge gaps and to develop relevant Malaria-related research proposals in line with identified research priorities. A training needs assessment questionnaire was completed by 22 students two week prior to the workshop. Also, a one page concept letter was received from 40 residents. Thirty students were selected based the following six criteria: - answerability and ethics; efficacy and impact; deliverability, affordability; scalability, sustainability; health systems, partnership and community involvement; and equity in achieved disease burden reduction. The workshop was over a three day period. The participants at the workshop were 30 Nigeria Field Epidemiology and Laboratory Training Programme (NFELTP) residents from cohorts 4 and 5. Ten technical papers were presented by the experts from the academia, National Malaria Elimination (NMEP) Programme, NFELTP Faculty and Implementing partners including CDC/PMI. Draft proposals were developed and presented by the residents. The "strongest need" for training was on malaria prevention, followed by malaria diagnosis. Forty seven new research questions were generated, while the 19 developed by the NMEP were shared. Evaluation revealed that all (100%) students either "agreed" that the workshop objectives were met. Full proposals were developed by some of the residents. A debriefing meeting was held with the NMEP coordinator to discuss funding of the projects. Future collaborative partnership has developed as the residents have supported NMEP to develop a research protocol for a national evaluation. Research prioritization workshops are required in most training programmes to ensure that students embark on studies that address the research needs of their country

  1. Using evaluation theory in priority setting and resource allocation.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  2. Scientists’ perspectives on global ocean research priorities

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Murray Alan Rudd

    2014-08-01

    Full Text Available Diverse natural and social science research is needed to support policies to recover and sustain healthy oceans. While a wide variety of expert-led prioritization initiatives have identified research themes and priorities at national and regional scale, over the past several years there has also been a surge in the number of scanning exercises that have identified important environmental research questions and issues ‘from the bottom-up’. From those questions, winnowed from thousands of contributions by scientists and policy-makers around the world who participated in terrestrial, aquatic and domain-specific horizon scanning and big question exercises, I identified 657 research questions potentially important for informing decisions regarding ocean governance and sustainability. These were distilled to a short list of 67 distinctive research questions that, in an internet survey, were ranked by 2179 scientists from 94 countries. Five of the top 10 research priorities were shared by respondents globally. Despite significant differences between physical and ecological scientists’ priorities regarding specific research questions, they shared seven common priorities among their top 10. Social scientists’ priorities were, however, much different, highlighting their research focus on managerial solutions to ocean challenges and questions regarding the role of human behavior and values in attaining ocean sustainability. The results from this survey provide a comprehensive and timely assessment of current ocean research priorities among research-active scientists but highlight potential challenges in stimulating crossdisciplinary research. As ocean and coastal research necessarily becomes more transdisciplinary to address complex ocean challenges, it will be critical for scientists and research funders to understand how scientists from different disciplines and regions might collaborate and strengthen the overall evidence base for ocean

  3. Special Globelics session proposal on: Lessons learned for priority setting and indicators relevant to the impact of research programmes in Europe and Emerging Economies. An evidence-based debate between the research and the policy-shaping community

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Caloghirou, Y.; Vonortas, N.

    2016-07-01

    The purpose of this session is to present a coherent set of papers offering useful insights on research priority setting processes/activities and indicators used to measure the impact of research and technology development programmes in Europe and Emerging Economies (Brazil, Chile, Peru and Russia). In particular, the first paper focuses on the research collaborative networks funded by the European Union during the past three decades and offers a comprehensive picture of science-industry collaboration in Europe by using network indicators and providing data on the characteristics and the innovative performance of young firms participating in these networks. The second paper presents three cases of non-traditional indicators for R&D funding agencies from emerging economies and aims at contributing to the discussions on the importance of employing suitable indicators that can complement classic STI indicators. The third paper seeks to provide a critical overview of the recent exercise in the evaluation of public research institutions in Russia. The session (180 min) aims at bringing together researchers from both developed and emerging countries as well as policy makers and will be divided into two parts . The first part will be devoted in papers’ presentation and the second one in papers’ discussion by invited policy experts and officials. (Author)

  4. Setting priorities for reducing risk and advancing patient safety.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  5. Research priorities in environmental education

    Science.gov (United States)

    George H. Moeller

    1977-01-01

    Although natural processes operate in urban areas, they are difficult to observe. Much discussion during the symposium-fair was devoted to finding ways to improve urban children's environmental understanding through environmental education programs. But before effective environmental education programs can be developed, research is needed to: test the...

  6. 75 FR 75469 - Priority Setting for the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA...

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-12-03

    ... Advisor, Child Health and Quality Improvement, Office of Extramural Research, Education, and Priority...: Importance has several dimensions: To what extent is the topic important to children's health outcomes... Setting for the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA) Pediatric Quality...

  7. [The Danish Debate on Priority Setting in Medicine--An Update].

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  8. European research priorities for intracerebral haemorrhage

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Steiner, Thorsten; Petersson, Jesper; Al-Shahi Salman, Rustam

    2011-01-01

    Over 2 million people are affected by intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) worldwide every year, one third of them dying within 1 month, and many survivors being left with permanent disability. Unlike most other stroke types, the incidence, morbidity and mortality of ICH have not declined over time...... and disability. The European Research Network on Intracerebral Haemorrhage EURONICH is a multidisciplinary academic research collaboration that has been established to define current research priorities and to conduct large clinical studies on all aspects of ICH....

  9. Health care priority setting in Norway a multicriteria decision analysis

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Defechereux, T.; Paolucci, F.; Mirelman, A.; Youngkong, S.; Botten, G.; Hagen, T.P.; Niessen, L.W.

    2012-01-01

    BACKGROUND: Priority setting in population health is increasingly based on explicitly formulated values. The Patients Rights Act of the Norwegian tax-based health service guaranties all citizens health care in case of a severe illness, a proven health benefit, and proportionality between need and

  10. Communitarian claims and community capabilities: furthering priority setting?

    Science.gov (United States)

    Mooney, Gavin

    2005-01-01

    Priority setting in health care is generally not done well. This paper draws on ideas from Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum and adds some communitarian underpinnings to provide a way of improving on current uses of program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) in priority setting. The paper suggests that shifting to a communitarian base for priority setting alters the distribution of property rights over health service decision making and increases the probability that recommendations from PBMA exercises will be implemented. The approach is built on a paradigm which departs from three tenets of welfarism as it is normally conceived: (i) individuals qua individuals seek to maximise their individual utility/well-being; (ii) individuals want to do this; and (iii) it is the values of individuals qua individuals that count. Some of the problems of PBMA, as it has been applied to date, are highlighted. It is argued that these are due largely to a lack of 'credible commitment'. Bringing in the community and communitarian values to PBMA priority setting exercises can help to overcome some of the barriers to getting PBMA recommendations implemented. The approach has the merit of reflecting Sen's concept of capabilities (but extending that to a community level). It avoids the often consequentialist base of a conventional welfarist framework, and it allows community values as opposed to individual values to come to the fore. How to elicit communitarian values is explored.

  11. What are the macro-social health research priorities?

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Narges Tabrizchi

    2016-10-01

    Full Text Available   Background: Setting research priorities is a scientific process to allocate resources to the best use. In low- and middle-income countries, allocation of limited resources to fundamental issues is more important. So, the present study was conducted to determine social health research priorities.  Methods: In the first step, important issues and research topics of social health were extracted from documents and studies conducted at the national level.In qualitative phase, reciprocating questionnaires were sent and interviews were conducted with experts and stakeholders, social health issues (as members of Delphi. In the next step, the research topics extracted were discussed in small groups (suggested by Council on Health Research for Development to score the proposed priority topics by Delphi members. Finally, the list of priorities (titles that acquired more than 80% of the total score was sent to Delphi members for final approval.  Results: During the study, 220 topics were obtained in four research domains: “description of the problem and its consequences”, “cause finding”, “intervention to eliminate or reduce problems”, and “Management-Policymaking”. Finally, 30 of these topics remained as priority topics. High priority research topics in social health were equity, happiness, economics, and ethics, respectively.  Conclusion: The findings provide a list of research priorities that help researchers carrying out studies that will have the greatest social health impact. Some targeting areas such as happiness and ethics were identified as less attended subjects that need more investment in research policies, management, and governance.

  12. Evaluating priority setting success in healthcare: a pilot study

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Upshur Ross

    2010-05-01

    Full Text Available Abstract Background In healthcare today, decisions are made in the face of serious resource constraints. Healthcare managers are struggling to provide high quality care, manage resources effectively, and meet changing patient needs. Healthcare managers who are constantly making difficult resource decisions desire a way to improve their priority setting processes. Despite the wealth of existing priority setting literature (for example, program budgeting and marginal analysis, accountability for reasonableness, the 'describe-evaluate-improve' strategy there are still no tools to evaluate how healthcare resources are prioritised. This paper describes the development and piloting of a process to evaluate priority setting in health institutions. The evaluation process was designed to examine the procedural and substantive dimensions of priority setting using a multi-methods approach, including a staff survey, decision-maker interviews, and document analysis. Methods The evaluation process was piloted in a mid-size community hospital in Ontario, Canada while its leaders worked through their annual budgeting process. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used to analyze the data. Results The evaluation process was both applicable to the context and it captured the budgeting process. In general, the pilot test provided support for our evaluation process and our definition of success, (i.e., our conceptual framework. Conclusions The purpose of the evaluation process is to provide a simple, practical way for an organization to better understand what it means to achieve success in its priority setting activities and identify areas for improvement. In order for the process to be used by healthcare managers today, modification and contextualization of the process are anticipated. As the evaluation process is applied in more health care organizations or applied repeatedly in an organization, it may become more streamlined.

  13. Conclusions on severe accident research priorities

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Klein-Heßling, W.; Sonnenkalb, M.; Jacquemain, D.; Clément, B.; Raimond, E.; Dimmelmeier, H.; Azarian, G.; Ducros, G.; Journeau, C.; Herranz Puebla, L.E.; Schumm, A.; Miassoedov, A.; Kljenak, I.; Pascal, G.; Bechta, S.; Güntay, S.; Koch, M.K.; Ivanov, I.; Auvinen, A.; Lindholm, I.

    2014-01-01

    Highlights: • Estimation of research priorities related to severe accident phenomena. • Consideration of new topics, partly linked to the severe accidents at Fukushima. • Consideration of results of recent projects, e.g. SARNET, ASAMPSA2, OECD projects. - Abstract: The objectives of the SARNET network of excellence are to define and work on common research programs in the field of severe accidents in Gen. II–III nuclear power plants and to further develop common tools and methodologies for safety assessment in this area. In order to ensure that the research conducted on severe accidents is efficient and well-focused, it is necessary to periodically evaluate and rank the priorities of research. This was done at the end of 2008 by the Severe Accident Research Priority (SARP) group at the end of the SARNET project of the 6th Framework Programme of European Commission (FP6). This group has updated this work in the FP7 SARNET2 project by accounting for the recent experimental results, the remaining safety issues as e.g. highlighted by Level 2 PSA national studies and the results of the recent ASAMPSA2 FP7 project. These evaluation activities were conducted in close relation with the work performed under the auspices of international organizations like OECD or IAEA. The Fukushima-Daiichi severe accidents, which occurred while SARNET2 was running, had some effects on the prioritization and definition of new research topics. Although significant progress has been gained and simulation models (e.g. the ASTEC integral code, jointly developed by IRSN and GRS) were improved, leading to an increased confidence in the predictive capabilities for assessing the success potential of countermeasures and/or mitigation measures, most of the selected research topics in 2008 are still of high priority. But the Fukushima-Daiichi accidents underlined that research efforts had to focus still more to improve severe accident management efficiency

  14. Wood Protection Research Council: Research Priorities 2013

    Science.gov (United States)

    Carol A Clausen; Frederick Green III; Grant T. Kirker; Stan T. Lebow

    2014-01-01

    This report summarizes presentations and comments from the inaugural Wood Protection Research Council meeting. Research needs for the wood protection industry were identified and prioritized. Methods for successfully addressing research needs were discussed by industry, academia, and association representatives.

  15. Research Needs and Priorities in Health Informatics

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Brender, Jytte; Nøhr, Christian; McNair, Peter

    2000-01-01

    A Delphi study was accomplished on the topic "what is needed to implement the information society within healthcare? and which research topics should be given higher priority than other topics to achieve the desired evolution?", involving 29 international experts. The study was comprised of four....... In contrast, only a minority of the research issues emphasised was related to technical issues. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved....... research items and 58 supplementary barriers were raised, divided into 14 topics grouped according to homogeneity. The emphasised research topics are business process re-engineering, the electronic patient record and connected inter-operating systems, (support for) evidence-based medicine and clinical...

  16. European research priorities for intracerebral haemorrhage

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Steiner, Thorsten; Petersson, Jesper; Al-Shahi Salman, Rustam

    2011-01-01

    and disability. The European Research Network on Intracerebral Haemorrhage EURONICH is a multidisciplinary academic research collaboration that has been established to define current research priorities and to conduct large clinical studies on all aspects of ICH........ No standardised diagnostic workup for the detection of the various underlying causes of ICH currently exists, and the evidence for medical or surgical therapeutic interventions remains limited. A dedicated European research programme for ICH is needed to identify ways to reduce the burden of ICH-related death...

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  18. Setting health priorities in a community: a case example

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Fábio Alexandre Melo do Rego Sousa

    Full Text Available ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE To describe the methodology used in the process of setting health priorities for community intervention in a community of older adults. METHODS Based on the results of a health diagnosis related to active aging, a prioritization process was conceived to select the priority intervention problem. The process comprised four successive phases of problem analysis and classification: (1 grouping by level of similarity, (2 classification according to epidemiological criteria, (3 ordering by experts, and (4 application of the Hanlon method. These stages combined, in an integrated manner, the views of health team professionals, community nursing and gerontology experts, and the actual community. RESULTS The first stage grouped the identified problems by level of similarity, comprising a body of 19 issues for analysis. In the second stage these problems were classified by the health team members by epidemiological criteria (size, vulnerability, and transcendence. The nine most relevant problems resulting from the second stage of the process were submitted to expert analysis and the five most pertinent problems were selected. The last step identified the priority issue for intervention in this specific community with the participation of formal and informal community leaders: Low Social Interaction in Community Participation. CONCLUSIONS The prioritization process is a key step in health planning, enabling the identification of priority problems to intervene in a given community at a given time. There are no default formulas for selecting priority issues. It is up to each community intervention team to define its own process with different methods/techniques that allow the identification of and intervention in needs classified as priority by the community.

  19. What are today's priorities in research?

    Science.gov (United States)

    1994-01-01

    The World Health Organization (WHO) Global Programme on AIDS has identified priority areas of HIV/AIDS-related research. Vaccine trials are need to evaluate their effectiveness and their accessibility and availability (supply and price) to developing countries with the greatest need. The pharmaceutical industry and national governments should work to develop microbicidal agents for use in the vagina. Research on the care of people with AIDS is needed to document the best way to provide their care in developing countries and to improve their quality of life. Another research priority is the resurgence of tuberculosis (TB): its association with HIV infection, and management of TB in areas where the HIV prevalence is high. WHO would like to see research establishing simplified case management regimes for the control and management of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), STD case management that can be integrated into primary health care systems or at the primary health care level, simple and inexpensive diagnostic tests (particularly for women, who often are asymptomatic), and integration of STD management into family planning programs. More research needs to conducted on the availability and use of female condoms, so women can enhance their capability of protecting themselves. WHO would like more HIV/AIDS-related behavior research in the following areas: descriptive research, economic impact, community support, women's empowerment, and behavior change. HIV/AIDS-related researchers should ask themselves 3 fundamental questions: Does it work? What is the best way to do it? What does it cost?

  20. The implications of fundamental cause theory for priority setting.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Goldberg, Daniel S

    2014-10-01

    Application of fundamental cause theory to Powers and Faden's model of social justice highlights the ethical superiority of upstream public health interventions. In this article, I assess the ramifications of fundamental cause theory specifically in context of public health priority setting. Ethically optimal public health policy simultaneously maximizes overall population health and compresses health inequalities. The fundamental cause theory is an important framework in helping to identify which categories of public health interventions are most likely to advance these twin goals.

  1. Priority setting for orphan drugs: an international comparison.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Rosenberg-Yunger, Zahava R S; Daar, Abdallah S; Thorsteinsdóttir, Halla; Martin, Douglas K

    2011-04-01

    To describe the process of priority setting for two orphan drugs - Cerezyme and Fabrazyme - in Canada, Australia and Israel, in order to understand and improve the process based on stakeholder perspectives. We conducted qualitative case studies of how three independent drug advisory committees made decisions relating to the funding of Cerezyme and Fabrazyme. Interviews were conducted with 22 informants, including committee members, patient groups and industry representatives. (1) DESCRIPTION: Orphan drugs reimbursement recommendations by expert panels were based on clinical evidence, cost and cost-effectiveness analysis. (2) EVALUATION: Committee members expressed an overall preference for the current drug review process used by their own committee, but were concerned with the fairness of the process particularly for orphan drugs. Other informants suggested the inclusion of other relevant values (e.g. lack of alternative treatments) in order to improve the priority setting process. Some patient groups suggested the use of an alternative funding mechanism for orphan drugs. Priority setting for drugs is not solely a technical process (involving cost-effective analysis, evidence-based medicine, etc.). Understanding the process by which reimbursement decisions are made for orphan drugs may help improve the system for future orphan drugs. Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

  2. Patient and public engagement in priority setting: A systematic rapid review of the literature

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

  3. Patient and public engagement in priority setting: A systematic rapid review of the literature.

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Elizabeth Manafò

    Full Text Available 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

  4. Involving patients in setting priorities for healthcare improvement: a cluster randomized trial.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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 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 priorities. Patient involvement can change priorities driving healthcare

  5. Priorities for research in soil ecology.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Eisenhauer, Nico; Antunes, Pedro M; Bennett, Alison E; Birkhofer, Klaus; Bissett, Andrew; Bowker, Matthew A; Caruso, Tancredi; Chen, Baodong; Coleman, David C; de Boer, Wietse; de Ruiter, Peter; DeLuca, Thomas H; Frati, Francesco; Griffiths, Bryan S; Hart, Miranda M; Hättenschwiler, Stephan; Haimi, Jari; Heethoff, Michael; Kaneko, Nobuhiro; Kelly, Laura C; Leinaas, Hans Petter; Lindo, Zoë; Macdonald, Catriona; Rillig, Matthias C; Ruess, Liliane; Scheu, Stefan; Schmidt, Olaf; Seastedt, Timothy R; van Straalen, Nico M; Tiunov, Alexei V; Zimmer, Martin; Powell, Jeff R

    2017-07-01

    The ecological interactions that occur in and with soil are of consequence in many ecosystems on the planet. These interactions provide numerous essential ecosystem services, and the sustainable management of soils has attracted increasing scientific and public attention. Although soil ecology emerged as an independent field of research many decades ago, and we have gained important insights into the functioning of soils, there still are fundamental aspects that need to be better understood to ensure that the ecosystem services that soils provide are not lost and that soils can be used in a sustainable way. In this perspectives paper, we highlight some of the major knowledge gaps that should be prioritized in soil ecological research. These research priorities were compiled based on an online survey of 32 editors of Pedobiologia - Journal of Soil Ecology. These editors work at universities and research centers in Europe, North America, Asia, and Australia.The questions were categorized into four themes: (1) soil biodiversity and biogeography, (2) interactions and the functioning of ecosystems, (3) global change and soil management, and (4) new directions. The respondents identified priorities that may be achievable in the near future, as well as several that are currently achievable but remain open. While some of the identified barriers to progress were technological in nature, many respondents cited a need for substantial leadership and goodwill among members of the soil ecology research community, including the need for multi-institutional partnerships, and had substantial concerns regarding the loss of taxonomic expertise.

  6. [Qualitative research: which priority for scientific journals?].

    Science.gov (United States)

    Rodella, Stefania

    2016-04-01

    Quantitative and qualitative approaches in scientific research should not be looked at as separate or even opposed fields of thinking and action, but could rather offer complementary perspectives in order to build appropriate answers to increasingly complex research questions. An open letter recently published by the BMJ and signed by 76 senior academics from 11 countries invite the editors to reconsider their policy of rejecting qualitative research on the grounds of low priority and challenge the journal to develop a proactive, scholarly and pluralistic approach to research that aligns with its stated mission. The contents of the letter, the many voices raised by almost fifty rapid responses and the severe but not closed responses of the editors outline a stimulating debate and hopefully prelude some "change in emphasis", ensuring that all types of research relevant to the mission of the BMJ (as well as other core journals) are considered for publication and providing an evolving landmark for scientific and educational purposes.

  7. 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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

  8. Setting priorities for the evolution of the market design

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    2001-01-01

    This report, which examines the forces that will influence the evolution of the Ontario electric power market over the next 4 or 5 years, is intended for market participants and other stakeholders. It sets priorities for the next phase of market development. Some of the market rules that need more work were identified and participants and stakeholders were invited to present their comments on whether the list accurately reflects the critical market development issues that need to be addressed after market opening. The report also discusses criteria that can be used to evaluate market design changes and their relative priorities. The list of potential high priority issues include: the energy forward market; the capacity reserve market; locational marginal pricing; a capability for full assignment of physical bilateral contracts; the export of operating reserve; moving to real time bidding; encouraging dispatchability and demand side responsiveness; transmission expansion; and, introducing markets in ancillary services. This list includes the main market design issues that need to be addressed over the next several years. 1 fig., 2 tabs

  9. Against proportional shortfall as a priority-setting principle.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Altmann, Samuel

    2018-05-01

    As the demand for healthcare rises, so does the need for priority setting in healthcare. In this paper, I consider a prominent priority-setting principle: proportional shortfall. My purpose is to argue that proportional shortfall, as a principle, should not be adopted. My key criticism is that proportional shortfall fails to consider past health.Proportional shortfall is justified as it supposedly balances concern for prospective health while still accounting for lifetime health, even though past health is deemed irrelevant. Accounting for this lifetime perspective means that the principle may indirectly consider past health by accounting for how far an individual is from achieving a complete, healthy life. I argue that proportional shortfall does not account for this lifetime perspective as it fails to incorporate the fair innings argument as originally claimed, undermining its purported justification.I go on to demonstrate that the case for ignoring past health is weak, and argue that past health is at least sometimes relevant for priority-setting decisions. Specifically, when an individual's past health has a direct impact on current or future health, and when one individual has enjoyed significantly more healthy life years than another.Finally, I demonstrate that by ignoring past illnesses, even those entirely unrelated to their current illness, proportional shortfall can lead to instances of double jeopardy, a highly problematic implication. These arguments give us reason to reject proportional shortfall. © 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.

  10. Patients' views on priority setting in neurosurgery: A qualitative study.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Gunaratnam, Caroline; Bernstein, Mark

    2016-01-01

    Accountability for Reasonableness is an ethical framework which has been implemented in various health care systems to improve and evaluate the fairness of priority setting. This framework is grounded on four mandatory conditions: relevance, publicity, appeals, and enforcement. There have been few studies which have evaluated the patient stakeholders' acceptance of this framework; certainly no studies have been done on patients' views on the prioritization system for allocating patients for operating time in a system with pressure on the resource of inpatient beds. The aim of this study is to examine neurosurgical patients' views on the prioritization of patients for operating theater (OT) time on a daily basis at a tertiary and quaternary referral neurosurgery center. Semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with thirty-seven patients, recruited from the neurosurgery clinic at Toronto Western Hospital. Family members and friends who accompanied the patient to their clinic visit were encouraged to contribute to the discussion. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and subjected to thematic analysis using open and axial coding. Overall, patients are supportive of the concept of a priority-setting system based on fairness, but felt that a few changes would help to improve the fairness of the current system. These changes include lowering the level of priority given to volume-funded cases and providing scheduled surgeries that were previously canceled a higher level of prioritization. Good communication, early notification, and rescheduling canceled surgeries as soon as possible were important factors that directly reflected the patients' confidence level in their doctor, the hospital, and the health care system. This study is the first clinical qualitative study of patients' perspective on a prioritization system used for allocating neurosurgical patients for OT time on a daily basis in a socialized not-for-profit health care system with

  11. Bottom-up priority setting revised. A second evaluation of an institutional intervention in a Swedish health care organisation.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  12. A simplified approach to the PROMETHEE method for priority setting in management of mine action projects

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Marko Mladineo

    2016-12-01

    Full Text Available In the last 20 years, priority setting in mine actions, i.e. in humanitarian demining, has become an increasingly important topic. Given that mine action projects require management and decision-making based on a multi -criteria approach, multi-criteria decision-making methods like PROMETHEE and AHP have been used worldwide for priority setting. However, from the aspect of mine action, where stakeholders in the decision-making process for priority setting are project managers, local politicians, leaders of different humanitarian organizations, or similar, applying these methods can be difficult. Therefore, a specialized web-based decision support system (Web DSS for priority setting, developed as part of the FP7 project TIRAMISU, has been extended using a module for developing custom priority setting scenarios in line with an exceptionally easy, user-friendly approach. The idea behind this research is to simplify the multi-criteria analysis based on the PROMETHEE method. Therefore, a simplified PROMETHEE method based on statistical analysis for automated suggestions of parameters such as preference function thresholds, interactive selection of criteria weights, and easy input of criteria evaluations is presented in this paper. The result is web-based DSS that can be applied worldwide for priority setting in mine action. Additionally, the management of mine action projects is supported using modules for providing spatial data based on the geographic information system (GIS. In this paper, the benefits and limitations of a simplified PROMETHEE method are presented using a case study involving mine action projects, and subsequently, certain proposals are given for the further research.

  13. Health care priority setting in Norway a multicriteria decision analysis

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Defechereux Thierry

    2012-02-01

    Full Text Available Abstract Background Priority setting in population health is increasingly based on explicitly formulated values. The Patients Rights Act of the Norwegian tax-based health service guaranties all citizens health care in case of a severe illness, a proven health benefit, and proportionality between need and treatment. This study compares the values of the country's health policy makers with these three official principles. Methods In total 34 policy makers participated in a discrete choice experiment, weighting the relative value of six policy criteria. We used multi-variate logistic regression with selection as dependent valuable to derive odds ratios for each criterion. Next, we constructed a composite league table - based on the sum score for the probability of selection - to rank potential interventions in five major disease areas. Results The group considered cost effectiveness, large individual benefits and severity of disease as the most important criteria in decision making. Priority interventions are those related to cardiovascular diseases and respiratory diseases. Less attractive interventions rank those related to mental health. Conclusions Norwegian policy makers' values are in agreement with principles formulated in national health laws. Multi-criteria decision approaches may provide a tool to support explicit allocation decisions.

  14. Health care priority setting in Norway a multicriteria decision analysis.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Defechereux, Thierry; Paolucci, Francesco; Mirelman, Andrew; Youngkong, Sitaporn; Botten, Grete; Hagen, Terje P; Niessen, Louis W

    2012-02-15

    Priority setting in population health is increasingly based on explicitly formulated values. The Patients Rights Act of the Norwegian tax-based health service guaranties all citizens health care in case of a severe illness, a proven health benefit, and proportionality between need and treatment. This study compares the values of the country's health policy makers with these three official principles. In total 34 policy makers participated in a discrete choice experiment, weighting the relative value of six policy criteria. We used multi-variate logistic regression with selection as dependent valuable to derive odds ratios for each criterion. Next, we constructed a composite league table - based on the sum score for the probability of selection - to rank potential interventions in five major disease areas. The group considered cost effectiveness, large individual benefits and severity of disease as the most important criteria in decision making. Priority interventions are those related to cardiovascular diseases and respiratory diseases. Less attractive interventions rank those related to mental health. Norwegian policy makers' values are in agreement with principles formulated in national health laws. Multi-criteria decision approaches may provide a tool to support explicit allocation decisions.

  15. Mapping of Florida's Coastal and Marine Resources: Setting Priorities Workshop

    Science.gov (United States)

    Robbins, Lisa; Wolfe, Steven; Raabe, Ellen

    2008-01-01

    The importance of mapping habitats and bioregions as a means to improve resource management has become increasingly clear. Large areas of the waters surrounding Florida are unmapped or incompletely mapped, possibly hindering proper management and good decisionmaking. Mapping of these ecosystems is among the top priorities identified by the Florida Oceans and Coastal Council in their Annual Science Research Plan. However, lack of prioritization among the coastal and marine areas and lack of coordination of agency efforts impede efficient, cost-effective mapping. A workshop on Mapping of Florida's Coastal and Marine Resources was sponsored by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), and Southeastern Regional Partnership for Planning and Sustainability (SERPPAS). The workshop was held at the USGS Florida Integrated Science Center (FISC) in St. Petersburg, FL, on February 7-8, 2007. The workshop was designed to provide State, Federal, university, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) the opportunity to discuss their existing data coverage and create a prioritization of areas for new mapping data in Florida. Specific goals of the workshop were multifold, including to: * provide information to agencies on state-of-the-art technology for collecting data; * inform participants of the ongoing mapping programs in waters off Florida; * present the mapping needs and priorities of the State and Federal agencies and entities operating in Florida; * work with State of Florida agencies to establish an overall priority for areas needing mapping; * initiate discussion of a unified classification of habitat and bioregions; * discuss and examine the need to standardize terminology and data collection/storage so that data, in particular habitat data, can be shared; 9 identify opportunities for partnering and leveraging mapping efforts among agencies and entities; * identify impediments and organizational gaps that hinder collection

  16. Best Practices and Processes for Choosing Research Priorities

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

  17. Public engagement in setting healthcare priorities: a ranking exercise in Cyprus.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

  18. Participatory health system priority setting: Evidence from a budget experiment.

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2015-12-01

    Budget experiments can provide additional guidance to health system reform requiring the identification of a subset of programs and services that accrue the highest social value to 'communities'. Such experiments simulate a realistic budget resource allocation assessment among competitive programs, and position citizens as decision makers responsible for making 'collective sacrifices'. This paper explores the use of a participatory budget experiment (with 88 participants clustered in social groups) to model public health care reform, drawing from a set of realistic scenarios for potential health care users. We measure preferences by employing a contingent ranking alongside a budget allocation exercise (termed 'willingness to assign') before and after program cost information is revealed. Evidence suggests that the budget experiment method tested is cognitively feasible and incentive compatible. The main downside is the existence of ex-ante "cost estimation" bias. Additionally, we find that participants appeared to underestimate the net social gain of redistributive programs. Relative social value estimates can serve as a guide to aid priority setting at a health system level. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

  19. Community views and public health priority setting: how do health department priorities, community views, and health indicator data compare?

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  20. Public Issue Priority Formation: Media Agenda-Setting and Social Interaction.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Zhu, Jian-Hua; And Others

    1993-01-01

    Presents a mathematical model to explain the public's issue priority by integrating media agenda-setting and social interaction. Finds that the public's issue priority was influenced by both media and social interaction. (RS)

  1. Setting health priorities in a community: a case example.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Sousa, Fábio Alexandre Melo do Rego; Goulart, Maria José Garcia; Braga, Antonieta Manuela Dos Santos; Medeiros, Clara Maria Oliveira; Rego, Débora Cristina Martins; Vieira, Flávio Garcia; Pereira, Helder José Alves da Rocha; Tavares, Helena Margarida Correia Vicente; Loura, Marta Maria Puim

    2017-03-02

    To describe the methodology used in the process of setting health priorities for community intervention in a community of older adults. Based on the results of a health diagnosis related to active aging, a prioritization process was conceived to select the priority intervention problem. The process comprised four successive phases of problem analysis and classification: (1) grouping by level of similarity, (2) classification according to epidemiological criteria, (3) ordering by experts, and (4) application of the Hanlon method. These stages combined, in an integrated manner, the views of health team professionals, community nursing and gerontology experts, and the actual community. The first stage grouped the identified problems by level of similarity, comprising a body of 19 issues for analysis. In the second stage these problems were classified by the health team members by epidemiological criteria (size, vulnerability, and transcendence). The nine most relevant problems resulting from the second stage of the process were submitted to expert analysis and the five most pertinent problems were selected. The last step identified the priority issue for intervention in this specific community with the participation of formal and informal community leaders: Low Social Interaction in Community Participation. The prioritization process is a key step in health planning, enabling the identification of priority problems to intervene in a given community at a given time. There are no default formulas for selecting priority issues. It is up to each community intervention team to define its own process with different methods/techniques that allow the identification of and intervention in needs classified as priority by the community. Descrever a metodologia utilizada no processo de estabelecimento de prioridades em saúde para intervenção comunitária, numa comunidade idosa. Partindo dos resultados de um diagnóstico de saúde no âmbito da promoção do envelhecimento

  2. Research priorities for nursing and midwifery in Southern Ireland.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  3. Priority-setting in New Zealand: translating principles into practice.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Ashton, T; Cumming, J; Devlin, N

    2000-07-01

    In May 1998 the New Zealand Health Funding Authority released a discussion paper which proposed a principles-based approach to setting purchasing priorities that incorporates the economic methods of programme budgeting and marginal analysis, and cost-utility analysis. The principles upon which the process was to be based are effectiveness, cost, equity of health outcomes, Maori health and acceptability. This essay describes and critiques issues associated with translating the principles into practice, most particularly the proposed methods for evaluating the effectiveness and measuring the cost of services. It is argued that the proposals make an important contribution towards the development of a method for prioritizing services which challenges our thinking about those services and their goals, and which is systematic, explicit, and transparent. The shift towards 'thinking at the margin' and systematically reviewing the value for money of competing claims on resources is likely to improve the quality of decision-making compared with the status quo. This does not imply that prioritization can, or should, be undertaken by means of any simple formula. Any prioritization process should always be guided by informed judgement. The approach is more appropriate for some services than for others. Key methodological issues that need further consideration include the choice of instrument for measuring health gains, the identification of marginal services, how to combine qualitative and quantitative information, and how to ensure consistency across different levels of decision-making.

  4. Fit for purpose? Introducing a rational priority setting approach into a community care setting.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Cornelissen, Evelyn; Mitton, Craig; Davidson, Alan; Reid, Colin; Hole, Rachelle; Visockas, Anne-Marie; Smith, Neale

    2016-06-20

    Purpose - Program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) is a priority setting approach that assists decision makers with allocating resources. Previous PBMA work establishes its efficacy and indicates that contextual factors complicate priority setting, which can hamper PBMA effectiveness. The purpose of this paper is to gain qualitative insight into PBMA effectiveness. Design/methodology/approach - A Canadian case study of PBMA implementation. Data consist of decision-maker interviews pre (n=20), post year-1 (n=12) and post year-2 (n=9) of PBMA to examine perceptions of baseline priority setting practice vis-à-vis desired practice, and perceptions of PBMA usability and acceptability. Findings - Fit emerged as a key theme in determining PBMA effectiveness. Fit herein refers to being of suitable quality and form to meet the intended purposes and needs of the end-users, and includes desirability, acceptability, and usability dimensions. Results confirm decision-maker desire for rational approaches like PBMA. However, most participants indicated that the timing of the exercise and the form in which PBMA was applied were not well-suited for this case study. Participant acceptance of and buy-in to PBMA changed during the study: a leadership change, limited organizational commitment, and concerns with organizational capacity were key barriers to PBMA adoption and thereby effectiveness. Practical implications - These findings suggest that a potential way-forward includes adding a contextual readiness/capacity assessment stage to PBMA, recognizing organizational complexity, and considering incremental adoption of PBMA's approach. Originality/value - These insights help us to better understand and work with priority setting conditions to advance evidence-informed decision making.

  5. SETTING HEALTH PRIORITIES IN RESEARCH: AN AFRICAN PERSPECTIVE ESTABLECIMIENTO DE PRIORIDADES DE SALUD EN INVESTIGACIÓN: UNA PERSPECTIVA AFRICANA ESTABELECIMENTO DE PRIORIDADES DE SAÚDE NA PESQUISA: UMA PERSPECTIVA AFRICANA

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Angela Amondi Wasunna

    2004-01-01

    Full Text Available There is much biomedical and epidemiological research taking place in Africa today. This research is both horizontal (involving local researchers and regional research institutions and vertical (involving international research sponsors and collaborators. Research is the necessary pathway for any biomedical innovation designed to improve health and, in most cases, such research requires the use of human beings as research participants. Research participants cannot however, be viewed in isolation; they live in communities. This begs the question: how do communities benefit from research activities taking place within their own locales? It has become almost a mantra in the research ethics world to say that communities must benefit from positive research outcomes. This ethical rule is important; however, my paper will focus on community involvement prior to the actual research being carried out. Using African examples as case studies, I will examine the extent to which communities are involved in setting the health research agenda for their members and whether or not they are included in priority setting activities. Research being undertaken in several African communities may indeed address health problems in that community; however, how high are those problems in the list of health priorities for that particular community? Are other important health problems being neglected? While much has been said about provision of treatment shown to be successful after research to the wider community, not enough has been said about who decides what research is important for the community before such research is carried outHoy día, en África, se realiza mucha investigación biomédica y epidemiológica, que es tanto horizontal (involucra a investigadores locales y a instituciones regionales de investigación como vertical (involucra patrocinadores y colaboradores internacionales. La investigación es el camino necesario para lograr innovaciones biom

  6. The accountability for reasonableness approach to guide priority setting in health systems within limited resources

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Byskov, Jens; Marchal, Bruno; Maluka, Stephen

    2014-01-01

    : 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...... 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....

  7. Research priorities about stoma-related quality of life from the perspective of people with a stoma : a pilot survey

    OpenAIRE

    Hubbard, Gill; Taylor, Claire; Beeken, Becca; Campbell, Anna; Gracey, Jackie; Grimmett, Chloe; Fisher, Abi; Ozakinci, Gozde; Slater, Sarah; Gorely, Trish

    2017-01-01

    We thank the following charities for advertising the study: Ileostomy Association, Colostomy Association, Bowel and Cancer Research, Urostomy Association. Background There is a recognized need to include patients in setting research priorities. Research priorities identified by people with a stoma are rarely elicited. Objectives To improve the quality of life of people with a stoma through use of evidence-based practice based on research priorities set by patients.Design and Methods Online...

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Martin Douglas K

    2004-09-01

    Full Text Available Abstract Background 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. Discussion 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. Summary 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.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  10. Setting Healthcare Priorities at the Macro and Meso Levels: A Framework for Evaluation.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

  11. Setting Healthcare Priorities at the Macro and Meso Levels: A Framework for Evaluation

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

  12. Setting Healthcare Priorities at the Macro and Meso Levels: A Framework for Evaluation

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Edwine W. Barasa

    2015-11-01

    Full Text Available 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

  13. Consensus and contention in the priority setting process: examining the health sector in Uganda.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  14. ORIGINAL ARTICLES Cost-effectiveness analysis for priority-setting ...

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    health outcomes and wasted resources.4-5 It was found that the cost- effectiveness of South ... Priorities for Developing Countries Project was that emergency (and even some elective) ... to control air pollutants found that in South Africa the most cost- effective ..... outdoor air pollution in South Africa in 2000. S Afr Med J ...

  15. TB and HIV Therapeutics: Pharmacology Research Priorities

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Kelly E. Dooley

    2012-01-01

    Full Text Available An unprecedented number of investigational drugs are in the development pipeline for the treatment of tuberculosis. Among patients with tuberculosis, co-infection with HIV is common, and concurrent treatment of tuberculosis and HIV is now the standard of care. To ensure that combinations of anti-tuberculosis drugs and antiretrovirals are safe and are tested at doses most likely to be effective, selected pharmacokinetic studies based on knowledge of their metabolic pathways and their capacity to induce or inhibit metabolizing enzymes of companion drugs must be conducted. Drug interaction studies should be followed up by evaluations in larger populations to evaluate safety and pharmacodynamics more fully. Involving patients with HIV in trials of TB drugs early in development enhances the knowledge gained from the trials and will ensure that promising new tuberculosis treatments are available to patients with HIV as early as possible. In this review, we summarize current and planned pharmacokinetic and drug interaction studies involving investigational and licensed tuberculosis drugs and antiretrovirals and suggest priorities for tuberculosis-HIV pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and drug-drug interaction studies for the future. Priority studies for children and pregnant women with HIV and tuberculosis co-infection are briefly discussed.

  16. Priority setting in general practice: health priorities of older patients differ from treatment priorities of their physicians.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Voigt, Isabel; Wrede, Jennifer; Diederichs-Egidi, Heike; Dierks, Marie-Luise; Junius-Walker, Ulrike

    2010-12-01

    To ascertain health priorities of older patients and treatment priorities of their general practitioners (GP) on the basis of a geriatric assessment and to determine the agreement between these priorities. The study included a sample of 9 general practitioners in Hannover, Germany, and a stratified sample of 35 patients (2-5 patients per practice, 18 female, average age 77.7 years). Patients were given a geriatric assessment using the Standardized Assessment for Elderly Patients in Primary Care (STEP) to gain an overview of their health and everyday problems. On the basis of these results, patients and their physicians independently rated the importance of each problem disclosed by the assessment. Whereas patients assessed the importance for their everyday lives, physicians assessed the importance for patients' medical care and patients' everyday lives. Each patient had a mean ± standard deviation of 18 ± 9.2 health problems. Thirty five patients disclosed a total of 634 problems; 537 (85%) were rated by patients and physicians. Of these 537 problems, 332 (62%) were rated by patients and 334 (62%) by physicians as important for patients' everyday lives. In addition, 294 (55%) were rated by physicians as important for patients' medical care. Although these proportions of important problems were similar between patients and physicians, there was little overlap in the specific problems that each group considered important. The chance-corrected agreement (Cohen κ) between patients and physicians on the importance of problems for patients' lives was low (κ=0.23). Likewise, patients and physicians disagreed on the problems that physicians considered important for patients' medical care (κ=0.18, Ppriorities between patients and physicians necessitates better communication between the two parties to strengthen mutual understanding.

  17. Priority targets for environmental research in the Sinos River basin

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    FR. Spilki

    Full Text Available The Sinos River Basin is often mentioned as a highly degraded watershed. A series of impacts on water quality, soil and air has been reported in this environment on a recurring basis over the years. This situation of environmental degradation has its origins in a process of huge economic development uncoupled from environmental conservation concerns. The intense consequent urbanization observed for the municipalities within the watershed was not preceded by urban planning proper zoning. The time has arrived for initiatives in scientific research in the Sinos River basin that are applicable to a more efficient and integrated management and recovery of the basin. In this article, a set of targets for research is suggested which the authors consider as the main priorities for the next few years, aiming for better knowledge and better management of the watershed. Some are still in course, while others have to be initiated as soon as possible.

  18. Research priorities in medical education: A national study

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Mina Tootoonchi

    2012-01-01

    Full Text Available Background: One preliminary step to strengthen medical education research would be determining the research prior-ities. The aim of this study was to determine the research priorities of medical education in Iran in 2007-2008. Methods: This descriptive study was carried out in two phases. Phase one was performed in 3 stages and used Delphi technique among academic staffs of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences. The three stages included a brainstorming workshop for 140 faculty members and educational experts resulting in a list of research priorities, then, in the second and third stages 99 and 76 questionnaires were distributed among faculty members. In the second phase, the final ques-tionnaires were mailed to educational research center managers of universities type I, II and III, and were distributed among 311 academic members and educational experts to rate the items on a numerical scale ranging from 1 to 10. Results: The most important research priorities included faculty members′ development methods, faculty members′ motives, satisfaction and welfare, criteria and procedures of faculty members′ promotion, teaching methods and learning techniques, job descriptions and professional skills of graduates, quality management in education, second language, clinical education, science production in medicine, faculty evaluation and information technology. Conclusions: This study shows the medial education research priorities in national level and in different types of medical universities in Iran. It is recommended that faculty members and research administrators consider the needs and requirements of education and plan the researches in education according to these priorities.

  19. Research priorities in medical education: A national study.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Tootoonchi, Mina; Yamani, Nikoo; Changiz, Tahereh; Yousefy, Alireza

    2012-01-01

    One preliminary step to strengthen medical education research would be determining the research priorities. The aim of this study was to determine the research priorities of medical education in Iran in 2007-2008. This descriptive study was carried out in two phases. Phase one was performed in 3 stages and used Delphi technique among academic staffs of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences. The three stages included a brainstorming workshop for 140 faculty members and educational experts resulting in a list of research priorities, then, in the second and third stages 99 and 76 questionnaires were distributed among faculty members. In the second phase, the final questionnaires were mailed to educational research center managers of universities type I, II and III, and were distributed among 311 academic members and educational experts to rate the items on a numerical scale ranging from 1 to 10. The most important research priorities included faculty members' development methods, faculty members' motives, satisfaction and welfare, criteria and procedures of faculty members' promotion, teaching methods and learning techniques, job descriptions and professional skills of graduates, quality management in education, second language, clinical education, science production in medicine, faculty evaluation and information technology. This study shows the medial education research priorities in national level and in different types of medical universities in Iran. It is recommended that faculty members and research administrators consider the needs and requirements of education and plan the researches in education according to these priorities.

  20. Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Baltussen Rob

    2006-08-01

    Full Text Available Abstract Priority setting of health interventions is often ad-hoc and resources are not used to an optimal extent. Underlying problem is that multiple criteria play a role and decisions are complex. Interventions may be chosen to maximize general population health, to reduce health inequalities of disadvantaged or vulnerable groups, ad/or to respond to life-threatening situations, all with respect to practical and budgetary constraints. This is the type of problem that policy makers are typically bad at solving rationally, unaided. They tend to use heuristic or intuitive approaches to simplify complexity, and in the process, important information is ignored. Next, policy makers may select interventions for only political motives. This indicates the need for rational and transparent approaches to priority setting. Over the past decades, a number of approaches have been developed, including evidence-based medicine, burden of disease analyses, cost-effectiveness analyses, and equity analyses. However, these approaches concentrate on single criteria only, whereas in reality, policy makers need to make choices taking into account multiple criteria simultaneously. Moreover, they do not cover all criteria that are relevant to policy makers. Therefore, the development of a multi-criteria approach to priority setting is necessary, and this has indeed recently been identified as one of the most important issues in health system research. In other scientific disciplines, multi-criteria decision analysis is well developed, has gained widespread acceptance and is routinely used. This paper presents the main principles of multi-criteria decision analysis. There are only a very few applications to guide resource allocation decisions in health. We call for a shift away from present priority setting tools in health – that tend to focus on single criteria – towards transparent and systematic approaches that take into account all relevant criteria

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

  2. Research Priorities on the Relationship between Wasting and Stunting.

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Chloe Angood

    Full Text Available Wasting and stunting are global public health problems that frequently co-exist. However, they are usually separated in terms of policy, guidance, programming and financing. Though both wasting and stunting are manifestations of undernutrition caused by disease and poor diet, there are critical gaps in our understanding of the physiological relationship between them, and how interventions for one may affect the other. The aim of this exercise was to establish research priorities in the relationships between wasting and stunting to guide future research investments.We used the CHNRI (Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative methodology for setting research priorities in health. We utilised a group of experts in nutrition, growth and child health to prioritise 30 research questions against three criteria (answerability, usefulness and impact using an online survey. Eighteen of 25 (72% experts took part and prioritised research directly related to programming, particularly at the public health level. The highest-rated questions were: "Can interventions outside of the 1000 days, e.g. pre-school, school age and adolescence, lead to catch-up in height and in other developmental markers?"; "What timely interventions work to mitigate seasonal peaks in both wasting and stunting?"; and "What is the optimal formulation of ready-to-use foods to promote optimal ponderal growth and also support linear growth during and after recovery from severe acute malnutrition?" There was a high level of agreement between experts, particularly for the highest ranking questions.Increased commitment to rigorous evaluations of treatment and prevention interventions at the public health level, addressing questions of the timing of intervention, and the extent to which impacts for both wasting and stunting can be achieved, is needed to inform global efforts to tackle undernutrition and its consequences.

  3. Norwegian Priority Setting in Practice – an Analysis of Waiting Time Patterns Across Medical Disciplines

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Jurgita Januleviciute Gangstøe

    2016-06-01

    Full Text Available Background: Different strategies for addressing the challenge of prioritizing elective patients efficiently and fairly have been introduced in Norway. In the time period studied, there were three possible outcomes for elective patients that had been through the process of priority setting: (i high priority with assigned individual maximum waiting time; (ii low priority without a maximum waiting time; and (iii refusal (not in need for specialized services. We study variation in priority status and waiting time of the first two groups across different medical disciplines. Methods: Data was extracted from the Norwegian Patient Register (NPR and contains information on elective referrals to 41 hospitals in the Western Norway Regional Health Authority in 2010. The hospital practice across different specialties was measured by patient priority status and waiting times. The distributions of assigned maximum waiting times and the actual ones were analyzed using standard Kernel density estimation. The perspective of the planning process was studied by measuring the time interval between the actual start of healthcare and the maximum waiting time. Results: Considerable variation was found across medical specialties concerning proportion of priority patients and their maximum waiting times. The degree of differentiation in terms of maximum waiting times also varied by medical discipline. We found that the actual waiting time was very close to the assigned maximum waiting time. Furthermore, there was no clear correspondence between the actual waiting time for patients and their priority status. Conclusion: Variations across medical disciplines are often interpreted as differences in clinical judgment and capacity. Alternatively they primarily reflect differences in patient characteristics, patient case-mix, as well as capacity. One hypothesis for further research is that the introduction of maximum waiting times may have contributed to push the actual

  4. Establishing research priorities for patient safety in emergency medicine: a multidisciplinary consensus panel.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

  5. Energy secretary's priorities include San Francisco area research projects

    CERN Multimedia

    Widener, A

    2003-01-01

    "Bay Area research labs got a big boost Monday when the Secretary of Energy unveiled his priorities for major research projects his agency hopes to fund over the next two decades. Among the agency's 28 top priorities are a major computer expansion and an experiment examining the expanding universe that could be housed at Lawrence Berkeley Lab and a powerful X-ray laser planned for the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center" (1 page).

  6. The mycetoma knowledge gap: identification of research priorities.

    Science.gov (United States)

    van de Sande, Wendy W J; Maghoub, El Sheikh; Fahal, Ahmed H; Goodfellow, Michael; Welsh, Oliverio; Zijlstra, Ed

    2014-03-01

    Mycetoma is a tropical disease which is caused by a taxonomically diverse range of actinomycetes (actinomycetoma) and fungi (eumycetoma). The disease was only recently listed by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a neglected tropical disease (NTD). This recognition is the direct result of a meeting held in Geneva on February 1, 2013, in which experts on the disease from around the world met to identify the key research priorities needed to combat mycetoma. The areas that need to be addressed are highlighted here. The initial priority is to establish the incidence and prevalence of the disease in regions where mycetoma is endemic, prior to determining the primary reservoirs of the predominant causal agents and their mode of transmission to susceptible individuals in order to establish novel interventions that will reduce the impact of the disease on individuals, families, and communities. Critically, economical, reliable, and effective methods are required to achieve early diagnosis of infections and consequential improved therapeutic outcomes. Molecular techniques and serological assays were considered the most promising in the development of novel diagnostic tools to be used in endemic settings. Improved strategies for treating eumycetoma and actinomycetoma are also considered.

  7. Research and management priorities for Hawai‘i forest birds

    Science.gov (United States)

    Paxton, Eben H.; Laut, Megan; Vetter, J.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.

  8. Research Priorities in Neonatal and Pediatric Nursing

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Thaíla Corrêa Castral

    2014-03-01

    ]. 114 p. Disponível em: http://conselho.saude.gov.br/biblioteca/Relatorios/plano_nacional_saude_2012_2015.pdf. 4. Ministério da Saúde. Agenda nacional de prioridades de pesquisa em saúde [Internet]. 2ª ed. Brasília (Brasil: Ministério da Saúde; 2008 [acesso em: 20 mar 2014]. 68 p. Disponível em: http://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/AGENDA_PORTUGUES_MONTADO.pdf. 5. Munari DB, Chaves LDP, Peduzzi M, Laus AM, Fugulin FMT, Ribeiro LCM, Scochi CGS. The setting of research production by nursing and management graduate programs in Brazil. Rev Esc Enferm USP [Internet]. 2011 [acesso em: 20 mar 2014];45(esp:1543-50. Disponível em: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0080-62342011000700002.

  9. Cancer Trends: Influencing Care and Research Priorities

    Science.gov (United States)

    Many of the trends being seen in cancer are changing how we view cancer and how we address it, from prompting research to identify the underlying causes of cancers increasing in incidence to informing research on treatment and prevention.

  10. Occupational health research priorities in Malaysia: a Delphi study.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Sadhra, S; Beach, J R; Aw, T C; Sheikh-Ahmed, K

    2001-07-01

    As part of a consultancy project on occupational health, the Delphi method was used to identify research priorities in occupational health in Malaysia. Participation was sought from government ministries, industry, and professional organisations, and university departments with an interest in occupational and public health. Two rounds of questionnaires resulted in a final list of priorities, with noticeable differences between participants depending on whether they worked in industry or were from government organisations. The participation rate of 71% (55 of 78) was obtained for the first questionnaire and 76% (72 of 95) for the second questionnaire. The participants identified occupational health problems for specific groups and industries as the top research priority area (ranked as top priority by 25% of participants). Ministry of Health participants placed emphasis on healthcare workers (52% ranking it as top priority), whereas those from industry identified construction and plantation workers as groups, which should be accorded the highest priority. Evaluation of research and services was given a low priority. The priorities for occupational health determined with the Delphi approach showed differences between Malaysia, a developing country, and findings from similar European studies. This may be expected, as differences exist in stages of economic development, types of industries, occupational activities, and cultural attitudes to occupational health and safety. Chemical poisonings and workplace accidents were accorded a high priority. By contrast with findings from western countries, workplace psychosocial problems and musculoskeletal injuries were deemed less important. There also seemed to be greater emphasis on adopting interventions for identified problems based on experience in other countries rather than the need to evaluate local occupational health provisions.

  11. [The Danish debate on priority setting in medicine - characteristics and results].

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  12. Self-management priority setting and decision-making in adults with multimorbidity: a narrative review of literature.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

  13. Energy-related indoor environmental quality research: A priority agenda

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Fisk, W.J.; Brager, G.; Burge, H.; Cummings, J.; Levin, H.; Loftness, V.; Mendell, M.J.; Persily, A.; Taylor, S.; Zhang, J.S.

    2002-08-01

    A multidisciplinary team of IEQ and energy researchers has defined a program of priority energy-related IEQ research. This paper describes the methods employed to develop the agenda, and 35 high priority research and development (R&D) project areas related to four broad goals: (1) identifying IEQ problems and opportunities; (2) developing and evaluating energy-efficient technologies for improving IEQ; (3) developing and evaluating energy-efficient practices for improving IEQ; and (4) encouraging or assisting the implementation of technologies or practices for improving IEQ. The identified R&D priorities reflect a strong need to benchmark IEQ conditions in small commercial buildings, schools, and residences. The R&D priorities also reflect the need to better understand how people are affected by IEQ conditions and by the related building characteristics and operation and maintenance practices. The associated research findings will provide a clearer definition of acceptable IEQ that is required to guide the development of technologies, practices, standards, and guidelines. Quantifying the effects of building characteristics and practices on IEQ conditions, in order to provide the basis for development of energy efficient and effective IEQ control measures, was also considered a priority. The development or advancement in a broad range of IEQ tools, technologies, and practices are also a major component of the priority research agenda. Consistent with the focus on ''energy-related'' research priorities, building ventilation and heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and processes are very prominent in the agenda. Research related to moisture and microbiological problems, particularly within hot and humid climates, is also prominent within the agenda. The agenda tends to emphasize research on residences, small commercial buildings, and schools because these types of buildings have been underrepresented in prior research. Most of

  14. Financial Literacy and Education Research Priorities

    Science.gov (United States)

    Schuchardt, Jane; Hanna, Sherman D.; Hira, Tahira K.; Lyons, Angela C.; Palmer, Lance; Xiao, Jing Jian

    2009-01-01

    Twenty-nine scholars from public and private universities, non-profit organizations, and the federal government participated in a National Research Symposium on Financial Literacy and Education in October 2008 in Washington, DC. The purpose was to identify critical research questions that could inform outcomes-based financial education, relevant…

  15. Physiotherapy Research Priorities in Switzerland: Views of the Various Stakeholders.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Nast, Irina; Tal, Amir; Schmid, Stefan; Schoeb, Veronika; Rau, Barbara; Barbero, Marco; Kool, Jan

    2016-09-01

    Research priorities, defined by multiple stakeholders, can proximally facilitate the coordination of research projects and national and international cooperation and distally further improve the quality of physiotherapy practice. The aim of this study was therefore to establish physiotherapy research priorities in Switzerland considering multiple stakeholders' opinions. A mixed methods design was chosen. For a qualitative identification of physiotherapy research topics, 18 focus group discussions and 23 semi-structured interviews/written commentaries were conducted. For the quantitative analysis, 420 participants prioritized research topics using a two-round Delphi questionnaire survey. The following stakeholder groups were surveyed in the German-speaking, French-speaking and Italian-speaking regions of Switzerland: physiotherapy researchers, practitioners and educators, representatives of patient organizations, public health organizations, health insurers, physicians, nurses, occupational therapists and other health professionals, as well as physical educators. The top five overall physiotherapy research priorities identified were as follows: physiotherapy treatment, physiotherapy assessment and diagnosis, prevention, physiotherapist-patient interaction and physiotherapy professional education at the bachelor level. With regard to diagnostic groups, the highest priorities were placed on musculoskeletal disorders, neurology, orthopaedics, geriatrics and ergonomics/occupational health. Consensus was moderate to high, and only few differences between stakeholder groups were revealed. Research directly related to physiotherapy treatment is of highest priority. It should focus on diagnostic groups related to chronicity in anticipation of demographic changes. Multidisciplinary networks for research and practice, alongside sound coordination of research projects, should increase the impact of physiotherapy research. An accurate dissemination of research priorities

  16. Fulfillment of the Brazilian Agenda of Priorities in Health Research

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-01-01

    This commentary describes how the Brazilian Ministry of Health's (MoH) research support policy fulfilled the National Agenda of Priorities in Health Research (NAPHR). In 2003, the MoH started a democratic process in order to establish a priority agenda in health research involving investigators, health managers and community leaders. The Agenda was launched in 2004 and is guiding budget allocations in an attempt to reduce the gap between scientific knowledge and health practice and activities, aiming to contribute to improving Brazilian quality of life. Many strategies were developed, for instance: Cooperation Agreements between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Science and Technology; the decentralization of research support at state levels with the participation of local Health Secretariats and Science and Technology Institutions; Health Technology Assessment; innovation in neglected diseases; research networks and multicenter studies in adult, women's and children's health; cardiovascular risk in adolescents; clinical research and stem cell therapy. The budget allocated by the Ministry of Health and partners was expressive: US$419 million to support almost 3,600 projects. The three sub-agenda with the higher proportion of resources were "industrial health complex", "clinical research" and "communicable diseases", which are considered strategic for innovation and national development. The Southeast region conducted 40.5% of all projects and detained 59.7% of the resources, attributable to the concentration of the most traditional health research institutes and universities in the states of São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. The second most granted region was the Northeast, which reflects the result of a governmental policy to integrate and modernize this densely populated area and the poorest region in the country. Although Brazil began the design and implementation of the NAPHR in 2003, it has done so in accordance with the 'good practice principles

  17. Fulfillment of the Brazilian Agenda of Priorities in Health Research

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Guimarães Reinaldo

    2011-08-01

    Full Text Available Abstract This commentary describes how the Brazilian Ministry of Health's (MoH research support policy fulfilled the National Agenda of Priorities in Health Research (NAPHR. In 2003, the MoH started a democratic process in order to establish a priority agenda in health research involving investigators, health managers and community leaders. The Agenda was launched in 2004 and is guiding budget allocations in an attempt to reduce the gap between scientific knowledge and health practice and activities, aiming to contribute to improving Brazilian quality of life. Many strategies were developed, for instance: Cooperation Agreements between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Science and Technology; the decentralization of research support at state levels with the participation of local Health Secretariats and Science and Technology Institutions; Health Technology Assessment; innovation in neglected diseases; research networks and multicenter studies in adult, women's and children's health; cardiovascular risk in adolescents; clinical research and stem cell therapy. The budget allocated by the Ministry of Health and partners was expressive: US$419 million to support almost 3,600 projects. The three sub-agenda with the higher proportion of resources were "industrial health complex", "clinical research" and "communicable diseases", which are considered strategic for innovation and national development. The Southeast region conducted 40.5% of all projects and detained 59.7% of the resources, attributable to the concentration of the most traditional health research institutes and universities in the states of São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. The second most granted region was the Northeast, which reflects the result of a governmental policy to integrate and modernize this densely populated area and the poorest region in the country. Although Brazil began the design and implementation of the NAPHR in 2003, it has done so in accordance with the 'good

  18. Priorities for emergency department syncope research

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Sun, Benjamin C.; Costantino, Giorgio; Barbic, Franca; Bossi, Ilaria; Casazza, Giovanni; Dipaola, Franca; McDermott, Daniel; Quinn, James; Reed, Matthew; Sheldon, Robert S.; Solbiati, Monica; Thiruganasambandamoorthy, Venkatesh; Krahn, Andrew D.; Beach, Daniel; Bodemer, Nicolai; Brignole, Michele; Casagranda, Ivo; Duca, Piergiorgio; Falavigna, Greta; Ippoliti, Roberto; Montano, Nicola; Olshansky, Brian; Raj, Satish R.; Ruwald, Martin H.; Shen, Win-Kuang; Stiell, Ian; Ungar, Andrea; van Dijk, J. Gert; van Dijk, Nynke; Wieling, Wouter; Furlan, Raffaello

    2014-01-01

    There is limited evidence to guide the emergency department (ED) evaluation and management of syncope. The First International Workshop on Syncope Risk Stratification in the Emergency Department identified key research questions and methodological standards essential to advancing the science of

  19. Occupational health research priorities in Malaysia: a Delphi study

    OpenAIRE

    Sadhra, S; Beach, J; Aw, T; Sheikh-Ahmed, K

    2001-01-01

    OBJECTIVES—As part of a consultancy project on occupational health, the Delphi method was used to identify research priorities in occupational health in Malaysia.
METHODS—Participation was sought from government ministries, industry, and professional organisations, and university departments with an interest in occupational and public health. Two rounds of questionnaires resulted in a final list of priorities, with noticeable differences between participants depending on whether they worked i...

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  2. Redefining risk research priorities for nanomaterials

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Grieger, Khara Deanne; Baun, Anders; Owen, R.

    2010-01-01

    Chemical-based risk assessment underpins the current approach to responsible development of nanomaterials (NM). It is now recognised, however, that this process may take decades, leaving decision makers with little support in the near term. Despite this, current and near future research efforts...

  3. Reasoned Approach to Setting Priorities in Health | IDRC ...

    International Development Research Centre (IDRC) Digital Library (Canada)

    Six world-class research teams to investigate overcoming therapeutic resistance in high fatality cancers. The world-class research teams will direct their focus towards new frontiers in cancer research. View moreSix world-class research teams to investigate overcoming therapeutic resistance in high fatality cancers ...

  4. Research priorities for coordinating management of food safety and water quality.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Crohn, David M; Bianchi, Mary L

    2008-01-01

    Efforts to exclude disease organisms from farms growing irrigated lettuce and leafy vegetables on California's central coast are conflicting with traditionally accepted strategies to protect surface water quality. To begin resolving this dilemma, over 100 officials, researchers, and industry representatives gathered in April 2007 to set research priorities that could lead to effective co-management of both food safety and water quality. Following the meeting, research priorities were refined and ordered by way of a Delphi process completed by 35 meeting participants. Although water quality and food safety experts conceptualized the issues differently, there were no deep disagreements with respect to research needs. Top priority was given to investigating the fate of pathogens potentially present on farms. Intermediate priorities included characterizing the influence of specific farm management practices on food safety and improving our understanding of vector processes. A scientific subdiscipline focusing on competing risks is needed to characterize and resolve conflicts between human and environmental health.

  5. Prioridades de investigación en servicios sanitarios en el Sistema Nacional de Salud: Una aproximación por consenso de expertos Setting health services research priorities in the public health system: An approach through expert consensus

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Enrique Bernal-Delgado

    2006-08-01

    Technique features. Health Services Research Priorities were identified and scored (7 to 9, high relevance; 4 to 6 mild relevance and 1 to 3, low or no relevance. Results were sorted regarding the median score and its dispersion. Results: 53 research issues were identified. Strategies to improve effectiveness in health care, information to patients, health care quality and safety, equity, access and sustainability were considered of high priority and high consensus; just 4 items had remarkable dispersion (Intercuartile interval (ICI ≥ 2. Organizational improvement, productivity and efficiency enhancement, workforce and equipments were classified of mild priority. Additionally, this group of items reached very low consensus: 59% of them reached ICI ≥ 2. Conclusions: Our approach offers reference about priorities to Spanish health services researchers, and also, orientation to financers and users of this kind of research, though several limitations have been described.

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Narendra K Arora

    2017-01-01

    Full Text Available 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.

  7. Tracking SMME research in South Africa’s priority sectors

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Christian Rogerson

    2012-05-01

    Full Text Available The National Industrial Policy Framework and the Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative for South Africa emphasize the importance of promoting select ‘priority sectors’. This paper provides a review of existing research concerning SMME development in the three priority sectors of tourism, business process outsourcing and offshoring (BPO & O and, creative industries. The paper argues for the importance of undertaking sector-differentiated research on SMME development in South Africa in order to complement other research which is focussed on sector development as a whole.

  8. Using geographical and taxonomic metadata to set priorities in specimen digitization

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Walter G. Berendsohn

    2010-10-01

    Full Text Available Digitizing the information carried by specimens in natural history collections is a key endeavor providing falsifiable information about past and present biodiversity on a global scale, for application in a variety of research fields far beyond the current application in biosystematics. Existing digitization efforts are driven by individual institutional necessities and are not coordinated on a global scale. This led to an over-all information resource that is patchy in taxonomic and geographic coverage as well as in quality. Digitizing all specimens is not an achievable aim at present, so that priorities need to be set. Most biodiversity studies are both taxonomically and geographically restricted, but access to non-digitized collection information is almost exclusively by taxon name. Creating a “Geotaxonomic Index” providing metadata on the number of specimens from a specific geographic region belonging to a specific higher taxonomic category may provide a means to attract the attention of researchers and governments towards relevant non-digitized holdings of the collections and set priorities for their digitization according to the needs of information users outside the taxonomic community.

  9. Pharmaceutical priority setting and the use of health economic evaluations: a systematic literature review.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  10. Research priorities about stoma-related quality of life from the perspective of people with a stoma: A pilot survey.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Hubbard, Gill; Taylor, Claire; Beeken, Becca; Campbell, Anna; Gracey, Jackie; Grimmett, Chloe; Fisher, Abi; Ozakinci, Gozde; Slater, Sarah; Gorely, Trish

    2017-12-01

    There is a recognized need to include patients in setting research priorities. Research priorities identified by people with a stoma are rarely elicited. To improve the quality of life of people with a stoma through use of evidence-based practice based on research priorities set by patients. Online pilot survey publicized in 2016 via United Kingdom stoma charities. People ranked nine stoma-related quality of life topics in order of research priority. People 16 years of age and over who currently have or have had a stoma for treatment for any medical condition. Distributions of the priority scores for each of the nine research topics were examined. Group differences were explored using either the Mann-Whitney U-test or the Kruskal-Wallis test depending on the number of groups. In total, 225 people completed the survey. The most important research priority was pouch leak problems and stoma bag/appliance problems followed by hernia risk. There were statistically significant differences in ranking research priorities between males and females, age, underlying disease that led to a stoma, stoma type and length of time with a stoma. People with a stoma are willing to engage in and set research priorities. The results should contribute towards future research about setting the research agenda for the study of stoma-related concerns that impact quality of life. © 2017 The Authors Health Expectations Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

  11. Strengthening fairness, transparency and accountability in health care priority setting at district level in Tanzania

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Stephen Maluka

    2011-11-01

    Full Text Available 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

  12. What do District Health Planners in Tanzania think about improving priority setting using 'Accountability for Reasonableness'?

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Olsen Oystein

    2007-11-01

    Full Text Available Abstract 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.

  13. SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 3: Setting priorities for supporting evidence-informed policymaking.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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?

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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…

  16. Introducing priority setting and resource allocation in home and community care programs.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  17. Vision-related research priorities and how to finance them

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Catherine A McCarty

    2012-01-01

    Full Text Available A number of organizations have employed a consultative process with the vision community to engage relevant parties in identifying needs and opportunities for vision research. The National Eye Institute in the US and the European Commission are currently undergoing consultation to develop priorities for vision research. Once these priorities have been established, the challenge will be to identify the resources to advance these research agendas. Success rates for Federal funding for research have decreased recently in the USA, UK, and Australia. Researchers should consider various potential funding sources for their research. The universal consideration for funding is that the reason for funding should align with the mission of the funding organization. In addition to Federal research organizations that fund investigator-initiated research, other potential funding sources include nongovernmental organizations, for-profit companies, individual philanthropy, and service organizations. In addition to aligning with organizational funding priorities, researchers need to consider turn-around time and total funds available including whether an organization will cover institutional indirect costs. Websites are useful tools to find information about organizations that fund research, including grant deadlines. Collaboration is encouraged.

  18. Vision-related research priorities and how to finance them.

    Science.gov (United States)

    McCarty, Catherine A

    2012-01-01

    A number of organizations have employed a consultative process with the vision community to engage relevant parties in identifying needs and opportunities for vision research. The National Eye Institute in the US and the European Commission are currently undergoing consultation to develop priorities for vision research. Once these priorities have been established, the challenge will be to identify the resources to advance these research agendas. Success rates for Federal funding for research have decreased recently in the USA, UK, and Australia. Researchers should consider various potential funding sources for their research. The universal consideration for funding is that the reason for funding should align with the mission of the funding organization. In addition to Federal research organizations that fund investigator-initiated research, other potential funding sources include nongovernmental organizations, for-profit companies, individual philanthropy, and service organizations. In addition to aligning with organizational funding priorities, researchers need to consider turn-around time and total funds available including whether an organization will cover institutional indirect costs. Websites are useful tools to find information about organizations that fund research, including grant deadlines. Collaboration is encouraged.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

  20. research priorities for environmental education in southern africa

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    completed study on research priorities in southern. Africa. The study ... In 1991 a desire to develop theoretical depth within environmental ... has an important role to play in our society and several of them .... mediation between learning new information ti·om an existing ... implementation/dissemination gap. The notion that.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  2. Risk analysis and priority setting for environmental policy

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Travis, C.C.

    1991-01-01

    There is a growing realization that the demand for funding to correct our nation's environmental problems will soon outstrip available resources. In the hazardous waste area alone, the estimated cost of remediating Superfund sites ranges from $32 billion to $80 billion. Numerous other areas of competing for these same financial resources. These include ozone depletion, global warming, the protection of endangered species and wetlands, toxic air pollution, carcinogenic pesticides, and urban smog. In response to this imbalance in the supply and demand for national funds, several political constituencies are calling for the use of risk assessment as a tool in the prioritization of research and budget needs. Comparative risk analysis offers a logical framework in which to organize information about complex environmental problems. Risk analysis allows policy analysts to make resource allocation decisions on the basis of scientific judgement rather than political expediency

  3. Setting priorities in primary health care - on whose conditions? A questionnaire study

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Arvidsson Eva

    2012-11-01

    Full Text Available Abstract Background 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. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusions 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.

  4. Setting priorities in primary health care--on whose conditions? A questionnaire study.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  5. A systematic review of stated preference studies reporting public preferences for healthcare priority setting.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Whitty, Jennifer A; Lancsar, Emily; Rixon, Kylie; Golenko, Xanthe; Ratcliffe, Julie

    2014-01-01

    There is current interest in incorporating weights based on public preferences for health and healthcare into priority-setting decisions. The aim of this systematic review was to explore the extent to which public preferences and trade-offs for priority-setting criteria have been quantified, and to describe the study contexts and preference elicitation methods employed. A systematic review was performed in April 2013 to identify empirical studies eliciting the stated preferences of the public for the provision of healthcare in a priority-setting context. Studies are described in terms of (i) the stated preference approaches used, (ii) the priority-setting levels and contexts, and (iii) the criteria identified as important and their relative importance. Thirty-nine studies applying 40 elicitation methods reported in 41 papers met the inclusion criteria. The discrete choice experiment method was most commonly applied (n = 18, 45.0 %), but other approaches, including contingent valuation and the person trade-off, were also used. Studies prioritised health systems (n = 4, 10.2 %), policies/programmes/services/interventions (n = 16, 41.0 %), or patient groups (n = 19, 48.7 %). Studies generally confirmed the importance of a wide range of process, non-health and patient-related characteristics in priority setting in selected contexts, alongside health outcomes. However, inconsistencies were observed for the relative importance of some prioritisation criteria, suggesting context and/or elicitation approach matter. Overall, findings suggest caution in directly incorporating public preferences as weights for priority setting unless the methods used to elicit the weights can be shown to be appropriate and robust in the priority-setting context.

  6. Living with Parkinson's disease: priorities for research suggested by patients.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Schipper, K; Dauwerse, L; Hendrikx, A; Leedekerken, J W; Abma, T A

    2014-08-01

    To describe a study in which patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) were engaged to list priorities for research to complement the professionals' research agenda. The study was conducted by researchers and people with PD or relatives. Interviews and focus groups were held to develop a research agenda from patients' perspectives. A questionnaire was completed by patients to prioritize the research topics. Voiceover group meetings and meetings with the advisory group were organized to obtain feedback on the research process and to deliberate the preliminary findings. Finally, dialog meetings were organized with stakeholders to discuss the agenda and to achieve a shared research agenda. Patients prioritized 18 research themes. Top priorities included fundamental research, research on medication, coping, family & relations and good care. Patients asked for applied and multidisciplinary research. Professionals and charitable funding bodies acknowledged the importance of such research but did not feel capable of judging such proposals. Patients furthermore asked for more attention to be paid to living with the illness in the here-and-now to complement fundamental research. The patients' research agenda can be used to match research with patients' needs and to adapt the clinical support of professionals to patients' wishes. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

  7. IMPORTANCE OF MULTIPLE CRITERIA FOR PRIORITY SETTING OF HIV/AIDS INTERVENTIONS.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  8. Research priorities for Chagas disease, human African trypanosomiasis and leishmaniasis.

    Science.gov (United States)

    2012-01-01

    This report provides a review and analysis of the research landscape for three diseases - Chagas disease, human African trypanosomiasis and leishmaniasis - that disproportionately afflict poor and remote populations with limited access to health services. It represents the work of the disease reference group on Chagas Disease, Human African Trypanosomiasis and Leishmaniasis (DRG3) which was established to identify key research priorities through review of research evidence and input from stakeholders' consultations. The diseases, which are caused by related protozoan parasites, are described in terms of their epidemiology and diseases burden, clinical forms and pathogenesis, HIV coinfection, diagnosis, drugs and drug resistance, vaccines, vector control, and health-care interventions. Priority areas for research are identified based on criteria such as public health relevance, benefit and impact on poor populations and equity, and feasibility. The priorities are found in the areas of diagnostics, drugs, vector control, asymptomatic infection, economic analysis of treatment and vector control methods, and in some specific issues such as surveillance methods or transmission-blocking vaccines for particular diseases. This report will be useful to researchers, policy and decision-makers, funding bodies, implementation organizations, and civil society. This is one of ten disease and thematic reference group reports that have come out of the TDR Think Tank, all of which have contributed to the development of the Global Report for Research on Infectious Diseases of Poverty, available at: www.who.int/tdr/stewardship/global_report/en/index.html.

  9. Priority Setting in Indigenous Health: Why We Need an Explicit Decision Making Approach

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Michael E. Otim

    2015-06-01

    Full Text Available Indigenous Australians have significantly poorer health outcomes than the non-Indigenous population worldwide. The Australian government has increased its investment in Indigenous health through the "Closing the Health Gap" initiative. Deciding where to invest scarce resources so as to maximize health outcomes for Indigenous peoples may require improved priority setting processes. Current government practice involves a mix of implicit and explicit processes to varying degrees at the macro and meso decision making levels. In this article, we argue that explicit priority setting should be emphasized in Indigenous health, as it can ensure that the decision making process is accountable, systematic, and transparent. Following a review of the literature, we outline four key issues that need to be considered for explicit priority setting: developing an Indigenous health "constitution," strengthening the evidence base, selecting mechanisms for priority setting, and establishing appropriate incentives and institutional structure. We then summarize our findings into a checklist that can help a decision makers ensure that explicit priority setting is undertaken in Indigenous health. By addressing these key issues, the benefits of an explicit approach, which include increased efficiency, equity, and use of evidence, can be realized, thereby maximizing Indigenous health outcomes.

  10. SARS and hospital priority setting: a qualitative case study and evaluation

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Upshur Ross EG

    2004-12-01

    Full Text Available Abstract Background 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'. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusions '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.

  11. SARS and hospital priority setting: a qualitative case study and evaluation.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  12. Research priorities on ending child marriage and supporting married girls.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Svanemyr, Joar; Chandra-Mouli, Venkatraman; Raj, Anita; Travers, Ellen; Sundaram, Lakshmi

    2015-09-03

    Over the past few years the issue of child marriage has received growing political and programmatic attention. In spite of some progress in a number of countries, global rates have not declined over the past decade. Knowledge gaps remain in understanding trends, drivers and approaches to ending child marriage, especially to understand what is needed to achieve results on a large scale. This commentary summarizes the outcomes of an Expert Group Meeting organized by World Health Organization to discuss research priorities on Ending Child Marriage and Supporting Married Girls. It presents research gaps and recommends priorities for research in five key areas; (i) prevalence and trends of child marriage; (ii) causes of child marriage (iii) consequences of child marriage; (iv) efforts to prevent child marriage; (v) efforts to support married girls.

  13. Setting priorities for knowledge translation of Cochrane reviews for health equity: Evidence for Equity.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Tugwell, Peter; Petkovic, Jennifer; Welch, Vivian; Vincent, Jennifer; Bhutta, Zulfiqar A; Churchill, Rachel; deSavigny, Don; Mbuagbaw, Lawrence; Pantoja, Tomas

    2017-12-02

    A focus on equity in health can be seen in many global development goals and reports, research and international declarations. With the development of a relevant framework and methods, the Campbell and Cochrane Equity Methods Group has encouraged the application of an 'equity lens' to systematic reviews, and many organizations publish reviews intended to address health equity. The purpose of the Evidence for Equity (E4E) project was to conduct a priority-setting exercise and apply an equity lens by developing a knowledge translation product comprising summaries of systematic reviews from the Cochrane Library. E4E translates evidence from systematic reviews into 'friendly front end' summaries for policy makers. The following topic areas with high burdens of disease globally, were selected for the pilot: diabetes/obesity, HIV/AIDS, malaria, nutrition, and mental health/depression. For each topic area, a "stakeholder panel" was assembled that included policymakers and researchers. A systematic search of Cochrane reviews was conducted for each area to identify equity-relevant interventions with a meaningful impact. Panel chairs developed a rating sheet which was used by all panels to rank the importance of these interventions by: 1) Ease of Implementation; 2) Health System Requirements; 3)Universality/Generalizability/Share of Burden; and 4) Impact on Inequities/Effect on equity. The ratings of panel members were averaged for each intervention and criterion, and interventions were ordered according to the average overall ratings. Stakeholder panels identified the top 10 interventions from their respective topic areas. The evidence on these interventions is being summarized with an equity focus and the results posted online, at http://methods.cochrane.org/equity/e4e-series . This method provides an explicit approach to setting priorities by systematic review groups and funders for providing decision makers with evidence for the most important equity

  14. Communicating in context: a priority for gene therapy researchers.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Robillard, Julie M

    2015-03-01

    History shows that public opinion of emerging biotechnologies has the potential to impact the research process through mechanisms such as funding and advocacy. It is critical, therefore, to consider public attitudes towards modern biotechnology such as gene therapy and more specifically towards the ethics of gene therapy, alongside advances in basic and clinical research. Research conducted through social media recently assessed how online users view the ethics of gene therapy and showed that while acceptability is high, significant ethical concerns remain. To address these concerns, the development of effective and evidence-based communication strategies that engage a wide range of stakeholders should be a priority for researchers.

  15. Priorities in public relations research: An international Delphi study

    OpenAIRE

    Watson, Tom

    2008-01-01

    A Delphi study on the priorities for public relations research, conducted in 2007 amongst\\ud academics, practitioners and senior executives of professional and industry bodies in five\\ud continents, has ranked the ten most important topics for research and proposed the associated\\ud research questions. This is the first completed Delphi study into public relations research since\\ud Synnott and McKie (1997) which was itself a development of earlier studies of this type by\\ud McElreath (1980, 1...

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  17. Priority setting at the micro-, meso- and macro-levels in Canada, Norway and Uganda.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

  18. Priority setting for horizon scanning of new health technologies in Denmark:

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Douw, Karla; Vondeling, Hindrik; Oortwijn, Wija

    2006-01-01

    In the context of the establishment of a Danish Horizon Scanning System (HSS) the views of health care stakeholders and health economists were solicitated by means of postal survey on the need for adaptation of a priority setting instrument for health technology assessment (HTA). The aim...... was to investigate if the instrument needed adaptation for priority setting in the context of a Danish HSS and, if so, how the instrument should be changed. A literature study served to enhance interpretation of the findings of the surveys and to formulate changes in the instrument that synthesize or bridge any...... impact on health policy; such as the educational needs and organisational changes associated with the new technology. The proposed changes are regarded as an intermediate step in the process of producing a fully adapted instrument that can serve as a formal support for priority setting of new health technologies...

  19. Priority setting for risk assessment-The benefit of human experience

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Alonzo, Cristina; Laborde, Amalia

    2005-01-01

    The chemical risk assessment process plays an essential role in the potential human health risk evaluation. Setting priorities for this purpose is critical for better use of the available human and material resources. It has been generally accepted that all new chemicals require safety evaluation before manufacture and sale. This is a difficult task due to the large number of chemicals directly consumed by man, as well as those that are widely used. At present, more than 50% of chemicals do not have the minimum data requirements for risk assessment. Production and release volumes are well-established prioritization criteria, although volume itself does not directly reflect the likelihood of human exposure. This quantitative approach applied in setting priorities may be influenced by human experience. Human data provided by epidemiological investigations have been accepted as the most credible evidence for human toxicity although analytical studies are expensive and require long-term follow up. Unfortunately, some epidemiological studies continue to have difficulties with exposure documentation, controlling bias and confounding, and are not able to provide predictions of risk until humans are exposed. Clinical toxicology services and Poison Centres around the world accumulate a great amount of toxicological-related information that may contribute to the evidence-based medicine and research and so collaborate with all the risk assessment disciplines. The information obtained from these services and centers has the potential to prioritize existing chemical assessment processes or to influence scheduling of classes of chemicals. Prioritization process may be improved by evaluating Poisons Centres statistics about frequency of cases, severity of effects, detection of unusual circumstances of exposure, as well as vulnerable sub-populations. International efforts for the harmonization of these data offer a useful tool to take advantage of this global information. Case

  20. Health technology assessment: research trends and future priorities in Europe.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Nielsen, Camilla Palmhøj; Funch, Tina Maria; Kristensen, Finn Børlum

    2011-07-01

    To provide an overview of health services research related to health technology assessment (HTA) and to identify research priorities from a European perspective. Several methods were used: systematic review of articles indexed with the MeSH term 'technology assessment' in PubMed from February 1999-2009; online survey among experts; and conference workshop discussions. Research activity in HTA varies considerably across Europe. The research was categorised into six areas: (1) the breadth of analysis in HTA (such as economic, organizational and social aspects); (2) HTA products developed to meet the needs of policy-makers (such as horizon scanning, mini-HTA, and core HTA); (3) handling life-cycle perspectives in relation to technologies; (4) topics that challenge existing methods and for which HTA should be developed to address the themes more comprehensively (such as public health interventions and organizational interventions); (5) development of HTA capacity and programmes; and (6) links between policy and HTA. An online survey showed that the three areas that were given priority were the relationship between HTA and policy-making (71%), the impact of HTA (62%) and incorporating patient aspects in HTA (50%). Policy-makers highlighted HTA and innovation processes as their main research priority (42%). Areas that the systematic review identified as future priorities include issues within the six existing research areas such as disinvestment, developing evidence for new technologies, assessing the wider effects of technology use, and determining how HTA affects decision-making. In addition, relative effectiveness and individualized treatments are areas of growing interest. The research priorities identified are important for obtaining high quality and cost-effective health care in Europe. Managing the introduction, use and phasing out of technologies challenges health services throughout Europe, and these processes need to be improved to successfully manage future

  1. Global research priorities for interpersonal violence prevention: a modified Delphi study.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  2. Factors explaining priority setting at community mental health centres: a quantitative analysis of referral assessments.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Grepperud, Sverre; Holman, Per Arne; Wangen, Knut Reidar

    2014-12-14

    Clinicians at Norwegian community mental health centres assess referrals from general practitioners and classify them into three priority groups (high priority, low priority, and refusal) according to need where need is defined by three prioritization criteria (severity, effect, and cost-effectiveness). In this study, we seek to operationalize the three criteria and analyze to what extent they have an effect on clinical-level priority setting after controlling for clinician characteristics and organisational factors. Twenty anonymous referrals were rated by 42 admission team members employed at 14 community mental health centres in the South-East Health Region of Norway. Intra-class correlation coefficients were calculated and logistic regressions were performed. Variation in clinicians' assessments of the three criteria was highest for effect and cost-effectiveness. An ordered logistic regression model showed that all three criteria for prioritization, three clinician characteristics (education, being a manager or not, and "guideline awareness"), and the centres themselves (fixed effects), explained priority decisions. The relative importance of the explanatory factors, however, depended on the priority decision studied. For the classification of all admitted patients into high- and low-priority groups, all clinician characteristics became insignificant. For the classification of patients, into those admitted and non-admitted, one criterion (effect) and "being a manager or not" became insignificant, while profession ("being a psychiatrist") became significant. Our findings suggest that variation in priority decisions can be reduced by: (i) reducing the disagreement in clinicians' assessments of cost-effectiveness and effect, and (ii) restricting priority decisions to clinicians with a similar background (education, being a manager or not, and "guideline awareness").

  3. Improving district level health planning and priority setting in Tanzania through implementing accountability for reasonableness framework: Perceptions of stakeholders.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

  4. Setting practical conservation priorities for birds in the Western Andes of Colombia.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Ocampo-Peñuela, Natalia; Pimm, Stuart L

    2014-10-01

    We aspired to set conservation priorities in ways that lead to direct conservation actions. Very large-scale strategic mapping leads to familiar conservation priorities exemplified by biodiversity hotspots. In contrast, tactical conservation actions unfold on much smaller geographical extents and they need to reflect the habitat loss and fragmentation that have sharply restricted where species now live. Our aspirations for direct, practical actions were demanding. First, we identified the global, strategic conservation priorities and then downscaled to practical local actions within the selected priorities. In doing this, we recognized the limitations of incomplete information. We started such a process in Colombia and used the results presented here to implement reforestation of degraded land to prevent the isolation of a large area of cloud forest. We used existing range maps of 171 bird species to identify priority conservation areas that would conserve the greatest number of species at risk in Colombia. By at risk species, we mean those that are endemic and have small ranges. The Western Andes had the highest concentrations of such species-100 in total-but the lowest densities of national parks. We then adjusted the priorities for this region by refining these species ranges by selecting only areas of suitable elevation and remaining habitat. The estimated ranges of these species shrank by 18-100% after accounting for habitat and suitable elevation. Setting conservation priorities on the basis of currently available range maps excluded priority areas in the Western Andes and, by extension, likely elsewhere and for other taxa. By incorporating detailed maps of remaining natural habitats, we made practical recommendations for conservation actions. One recommendation was to restore forest connections to a patch of cloud forest about to become isolated from the main Andes. © 2014 Society for Conservation Biology.

  5. Theories of justice and their implications for priority setting in health care.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  6. Setting priorities for environmental restoration at the DOE Nuclear Weapons Complex

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Ton, My K.; Morgan, Robert P.

    1992-01-01

    This paper provides an evaluation of the computerized methodologies and approaches that the Department of Energy (DOE) has developed to assist in setting cleanup priorities and in allocating Environmental Restoration funds to various activities within the DOE Nuclear Weapons Complex. Issues examined include the appropriateness of the methodologies for priority setting or budget planning, their strengths and weaknesses; the limitations to the use of such systems to aid decision making; public acceptance of these systems; and the level of participation by affected or interested parties and the public in the development and implementation processes. (author)

  7. [Priority setting of health interventions. Review of criteria, approaches and role of assessment agencies].

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

  10. Public and patient research priorities for orthostatic hypotension.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Frith, James; Bashir, Ayat S; Elliott, Chris S; Newton, Julia L

    2014-11-01

    With a rapidly expanding older population and increased survival of older people with chronic disease, we can expect to see increasing numbers of people with orthostatic hypotension (OH). Unfortunately the evidence base for people with OH, with particular relevance to older people, has not kept up and has resulted in a real lack of progress and little good evidence. There are several areas of research that could potentially benefit patients but establishing which ones are priority areas requires public and patient involvement (PPI). This process includes people/patients in the research team to maximise the relevance, success and translation of the research. This brief report describes the early involvement of older people in prioritising the research question, methods to improve adherence during a trial and the preferred methods to disseminate research output. The individuals' priority was to research non-pharmacological treatment strategies and to improve the education of patients about their condition. Education was felt to be the best strategy to promote adherence during a trial, with change in symptoms and quality of life felt to be the most important outcome measures as opposed to blood pressure. This report offers guidance for academics that are undertaking OH-related research and how they can improve its relevance and increase its translation into clinical practice. © The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

  14. Radioactivity and United Kingdom estuaries: an overview identifying research priorities

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Hamilton, E.I.; Clifton, R.J.; Stevens, H.E.

    1985-05-01

    The report consists of the results of an evaluation of research priorities for the environmental radioactivity of estuaries, (and near shore waters) of the United Kingdom. The format of this report is:(i) general conclusions for the future requirements for research in the field of environmental radioactivity; (ii) an overview of some specific recommendations for research; and (iii) an appendix in which a comprehensive evaluation of the research priorities for specific areas of research are given. On the basis that man is the prime target for concern and protection, special attention has been given to the environment in the vicinity of the British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) reprocessing plant at Sellafield, Cumbria, which is the source of major releases of a variety of radionuclides into the natural environment. Subjects covered in the Appendix are: site factors; pathways to man; source term; hot particles; terrestrial inputs; surveys and monitoring; analysis; organics; field versus laboratory data; biology; bioaccumulation factors; some bioaccumulators of radioactivity; bioturbation; bacteria; genetics; natural change; sediment; resuspension; surfaces; Ksub(d) factors; pore liquids; diagenesis and the ageing processes; airborne transport of radionuclides; models; natural radioactivity; public opinion; recreation; the ICRP; the ALARA principle; decommissioning of nuclear power stations; identification of research requirements; environmental radioactivity - the national effort. (U.K.)

  15. Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis.

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Baltussen, R.M.P.M.; Niessen, L.

    2006-01-01

    ABSTRACT: Priority setting of health interventions is often ad-hoc and resources are not used to an optimal extent. Underlying problem is that multiple criteria play a role and decisions are complex. Interventions may be chosen to maximize general population health, to reduce health inequalities of

  16. Setting priorities for improving the preoperative assessment clinic: the patients' and the professionals' perspective.

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Edward, G.M.; de Haes, J.C.J.M.; Oort, F.J.; Lemaire, L.C.; Hollmann, M.W.; Preckel, B.

    2008-01-01

    Background: The quality of the preoperative assessment clinic (PAC) is determined by many factors. Patients’ experiences are important indicators, but often overlooked. We prepare to set priorities to improve the PAC by obtaining detailed patients’ feedback on the quality of the PAC, and

  17. Using Multiattribute Utility Theory as a Priority-Setting Tool in Human Services Planning.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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)

  18. Identification and priority setting for health technology assessment in The Netherlands : Actors and activities

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Oortwijn, W.; Banta, D.; Vondeling, H.; Bouter, L.

    1999-01-01

    This article describes the actual situation at the beginning of 1999 with regard to identification and priority setting for health technology assessment (HTA) on a national level in the Netherlands. For this purpose the literature on HTA published in 1980-1998, mainly national, was thoroughly

  19. Proceduralism and its role in economic evaluation and priority setting in health.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Jan, Stephen

    2014-05-01

    This paper provides a critical overview of Gavin Mooney's proceduralist approach to economic evaluation and priority setting in health. Proceduralism is the notion that the social value attached to alternative courses of action should be determined not only by outcomes, but also processes. Mooney's brand of proceduralism was unique and couched within a broader critique of 'neo-liberal' economics. It operated on a number of levels. At the micro level of the individual program, he pioneered the notion that 'process utility' could be valued and measured within economic evaluation. At a macro level, he developed a framework in which the social objective of equity was defined by procedural justice in which communitarian values were used as the basis for judging how resources should be allocated across the health system. Finally, he applied the notion of procedural justice to further our understanding of the political economy of resource allocation; highlighting how fairness in decision making processes can overcome the sometimes intractable zero-sum resource allocation problem. In summary, his contributions to this field have set the stage for innovative programs of research to help in developing health policies and programs that are both in alignment with community values and implementable. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

  20. Burden of Disease Study and Priority Setting in Korea: an Ethical Perspective.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Park, So Youn; Kwon, Ivo; Oh, In Hwan

    2016-11-01

    When thinking about priority setting in access to healthcare resources, decision-making requires that cost-effectiveness is balanced against medical ethics. The burden of disease has emerged as an important approach to the assessment of health needs for political decision-making. However, the disability adjusted life years approach hides conceptual and methodological issues regarding the claims and value of disabled people. In this article, we discuss ethical issues that are raised as a consequence of the introduction of evidence-based health policy, such as economic evidence, in establishing resource allocation priorities. In terms of ethical values in health priority setting in Korea, there is no reliable rationale for the judgment used in decision-making as well as for setting separate and distinct priorities for different government bodies. An important question, therefore, is which ethical values guiding the practice of decision-making should be reconciled with the economic evidence found in Korean healthcare. The health technology assessment core model from the European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) project is a good example of incorporating ethical values into decision-making. We suggest that a fair distribution of scarce healthcare resources in South Korea can be achieved by considering the ethical aspects of healthcare.

  1. Stakeholder views on criteria and processes for priority setting in Norway: a qualitative study.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Aidem, Jeremy M

    2017-06-01

    Since 2013, Norway has engaged in political processes to revise criteria for priority setting. These processes have yielded key efficiency and equity criteria, but excluded potentially relevant social values. This study describes the views of 27 stakeholders in Norway's health system regarding a wider set of priority-setting criteria and procedural characteristics. Between January and February 2016, semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with a purposive sample of policymakers, hospital administrators, practitioners, university students and seniors. Improving health among low-socioeconomic-status groups was considered an important policy objective: some favored giving more priority to diseases affecting socioeconomically disadvantaged groups, and some believed inequalities in health could be more effectively addressed outside the health sector. Age was not widely accepted as an independent criterion, but deemed relevant as an indicator of capacity to benefit, cost-effectiveness and health loss. Cost-effectiveness, severity and health-loss measures were judged relevant to policymaking, but cost-effectiveness and health loss were considered less influential to clinical decision-making. Public engagement was seen as essential yet complicated by media and stakeholder pressures. This study highlights how views on the relevance and implementation of criteria can vary significantly according to the health system level being evaluated. Further, the findings suggest that giving priority to socioeconomically disadvantaged groups and reducing inequalities in health may be relevant preferences not captured in recent policy proposals. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

  2. The state of logistics: Research priorities for sustained improvement

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Esbeth van Dyk

    2008-11-01

    Full Text Available The importance of logistics and supply chain management for the South African economy was re-emphasised by the findings of the CSIR’s third annual State of Logistics Survey. To meet current and future demands, the research agenda for logistics needs to be wider than the traditional (mainstream focus. System inefficiencies as well as specific non-traditional areas need to be explored, e.g. the integration of rural and small businesses, government service delivery, sector cooperation, and emergency logistics. This article provides a brief overview of the current state of logistics in the country and the government’s response in terms of the National Freight Logistics Strategy. Research needs, research priorities and the role of research organisations are discussed.

  3. 78 FR 27038 - Final Priorities; National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research-Rehabilitation...

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-05-09

    ... settings, including the community, rehabilitation service- delivery institutions, vocational rehabilitation...) Vocational rehabilitation (VR) practices that contribute to improved employment outcomes for individuals with... or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or...

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  5. Identifying research priorities for effective retention strategies in clinical trials.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kearney, Anna; Daykin, Anne; Shaw, Alison R G; Lane, Athene J; Blazeby, Jane M; Clarke, Mike; Williamson, Paula; Gamble, Carrol

    2017-08-31

    The failure to retain patients or collect primary-outcome data is a common challenge for trials and reduces the statistical power and potentially introduces bias into the analysis. Identifying strategies to minimise missing data was the second highest methodological research priority in a Delphi survey of the Directors of UK Clinical Trial Units (CTUs) and is important to minimise waste in research. Our aim was to assess the current retention practices within the UK and priorities for future research to evaluate the effectiveness of strategies to reduce attrition. Seventy-five chief investigators of NIHR Health Technology Assessment (HTA)-funded trials starting between 2009 and 2012 were surveyed to elicit their awareness about causes of missing data within their trial and recommended practices for improving retention. Forty-seven CTUs registered within the UKCRC network were surveyed separately to identify approaches and strategies being used to mitigate missing data across trials. Responses from the current practice surveys were used to inform a subsequent two-round Delphi survey with registered CTUs. A consensus list of retention research strategies was produced and ranked by priority. Fifty out of seventy-five (67%) chief investigators and 33/47 (70%) registered CTUs completed the current practice surveys. Seventy-eight percent of trialists were aware of retention challenges and implemented strategies at trial design. Patient-initiated withdrawal was the most common cause of missing data. Registered CTUs routinely used newsletters, timeline of participant visits, and telephone reminders to mitigate missing data. Whilst 36 out of 59 strategies presented had been formally or informally evaluated, some frequently used strategies, such as site initiation training, have had no research to inform practice. Thirty-five registered CTUs (74%) participated in the Delphi survey. Research into the effectiveness of site initiation training, frequency of patient contact

  6. Precision in Setting Cancer Prevention Priorities: Synthesis of Data, Literature, and Expert Opinion.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Girschik, Jennifer; Miller, Laura Jean; Addiscott, Tony; Daube, Mike; Katris, Paul; Ransom, David; Slevin, Terry; Threlfall, Tim; Weeramanthri, Tarun Stephen

    2017-01-01

    Cancer will continue to be a leading cause of ill health and death unless we can capitalize on the potential for 30-40% of these cancers to be prevented. In this light, cancer prevention represents an enormous opportunity for public health, potentially saving much of the pain, anguish, and cost associated with treating cancer. However, there is a challenge for governments, and the wider community, in prioritizing cancer prevention activities, especially given increasing financial constraints. This paper describes a method for identifying cancer prevention priorities. This method synthesizes detailed cancer statistics, expert opinion, and the published literature for the priority setting process. The process contains four steps: assessing the impact of cancer types; identifying cancers with the greatest impact; considering opportunities for prevention; and combining information on impact and preventability. The strength of our approach is that it is straightforward, transparent and reproducible for other settings. Applying this method in Western Australia produced a priority list of seven adult cancers which were identified as having not only the biggest impact on the community but also the best opportunities for prevention. Work conducted in an additional project phase went on to present data on these priority cancers to a public consultation and develop an agenda for action in cancer prevention.

  7. Operational research as implementation science: definitions, challenges and research priorities.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Monks, Thomas

    2016-06-06

    Operational research (OR) is the discipline of using models, either quantitative or qualitative, to aid decision-making in complex implementation problems. The methods of OR have been used in healthcare since the 1950s in diverse areas such as emergency medicine and the interface between acute and community care; hospital performance; scheduling and management of patient home visits; scheduling of patient appointments; and many other complex implementation problems of an operational or logistical nature. To date, there has been limited debate about the role that operational research should take within implementation science. I detail three such roles for OR all grounded in upfront system thinking: structuring implementation problems, prospective evaluation of improvement interventions, and strategic reconfiguration. Case studies from mental health, emergency medicine, and stroke care are used to illustrate each role. I then describe the challenges for applied OR within implementation science at the organisational, interventional, and disciplinary levels. Two key challenges include the difficulty faced in achieving a position of mutual understanding between implementation scientists and research users and a stark lack of evaluation of OR interventions. To address these challenges, I propose a research agenda to evaluate applied OR through the lens of implementation science, the liberation of OR from the specialist research and consultancy environment, and co-design of models with service users. Operational research is a mature discipline that has developed a significant volume of methodology to improve health services. OR offers implementation scientists the opportunity to do more upfront system thinking before committing resources or taking risks. OR has three roles within implementation science: structuring an implementation problem, prospective evaluation of implementation problems, and a tool for strategic reconfiguration of health services. Challenges facing OR

  8. Diversity as a common research priority for Nordic and Southern African Universities

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Petersen, Karen Bjerg

    This paper sets out to consider concepts of diversity as means to discuss and address the increasing diversity of modern societies and to reflect the development of research priorities for universities in Nordic and Southern African countries. Based on reconceptualisations of theoretical concepts...... like culture, multiculturalism and national identity the presentation will address and reflect upon how modern societies in South and North are becoming increasingly diverse with respect to demographic and ethno cultural composition of the population. The paper sets out to discuss how various European...... countries like e.g. Denmark have responded differently to diversification during the past decades. Based on this, challenges in deal-ing with diversity as a common research priority for Nordic and African universities will be shortly addressed....

  9. What criteria do decision makers in Thailand use to set priorities for vaccine introduction?

    Science.gov (United States)

    Pooripussarakul, Siriporn; Riewpaiboon, Arthorn; Bishai, David; Muangchana, Charung; Tantivess, Sripen

    2016-08-02

    There is a need to identify rational criteria and set priorities for vaccines. In Thailand, many licensed vaccines are being considering for introduction into the Expanded Program on Immunization; thus, the government has to make decisions about which vaccines should be adopted. This study aimed to set priorities for new vaccines and to facilitate decision analysis. We used a best-worst scaling study for rank-ordering of vaccines. The candidate vaccines were determined by a set of criteria, including burden of disease, target age group, budget impact, side effect, effectiveness, severity of disease, and cost of vaccine. The criteria were identified from a literature review and by in-depth, open-ended interviews with experts. The priority-setting model was conducted among three groups of stakeholders, including policy makers, healthcare professionals and healthcare administrators. The vaccine data were mapped and then calculated for the probability of selection. From the candidate vaccines, the probability of hepatitis B vaccine being selected by all respondents (96.67 %) was ranked first. This was followed, respectively, by pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-13 (95.09 %) and Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine (90.87 %). The three groups of stakeholders (policy makers, healthcare professionals and healthcare administrators) showed the same ranking trends. Most severe disease, high fever rate and high disease burden showed the highest coefficients for criterion levels being selected by all respondents. This result can be implied that a vaccine which can prevent most severe disease with high disease burden and has low safety has a greater chance of being selected by respondents in this study. The priority setting of vaccines through a multiple-criteria approach could contribute to transparency and accountability in the decision-making process. This is a step forward in the development of an evidence-based approach that meets the need of developing country. The

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

  11. Mapping of multiple criteria for priority setting of health interventions: an aid for decision makers

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Tromp Noor

    2012-12-01

    Full Text Available Abstract Background In rationing decisions in health, many criteria like costs, effectiveness, equity and feasibility concerns play a role. These criteria stem from different disciplines that all aim to inform health care rationing decisions, but a single underlying concept that incorporates all criteria does not yet exist. Therefore, we aim to develop a conceptual mapping of criteria, based on the World Health Organization’s Health Systems Performance and Health Systems Building Blocks frameworks. This map can be an aid to decision makers to identify the relevant criteria for priority setting in their specific context. Methods We made an inventory of all possible criteria for priority setting on the basis of literature review. We categorized the criteria according to both health system frameworks that spell out a country’s health system goals and input. We reason that the criteria that decision makers use in priority setting exercises are a direct manifestation of this. Results Our map includes thirty-one criteria that are distributed among five categories that reflect the goals of a health system (i.e. to improve level of health, fair distribution of health, responsiveness, social & financial risk protection and efficiency and leadership/governance one category that reflects feasibiliy based on the health system building blocks (i.e. service delivery, health care workforce , information, medical products, vaccines & technologies, financing and. Conclusions This conceptual mapping of criteria, based on well-established health system frameworks, will further develop the field of priority setting by assisting decision makers in the identification of multiple criteria for selection of health interventions.

  12. Disseminating evidence-based treatments for PTSD in organizational settings: A high priority focus area.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Ruzek, Josef I; Rosen, Raymond C

    2009-11-01

    Dissemination of evidence-based treatments for PTSD has become an important focus of activity in the aftermath of recent terrorist attacks (e.g., London underground and U.S. 9/11 attacks), natural disasters (e.g., Indian Ocean tsunami and Hurricane Katrina), and wars (e.g., in Iraq and Afghanistan). This has become a high priority need for all mental health training and service delivery organizations. Researchers and educators have begun to examine clinician and client perceptions and preferences regarding PTSD treatment processes, and health care systems are organizing more comprehensive efforts at training and system change. As this evolution of services moves forward, effective dissemination should be a major focus of health policy research for the next decade or more. This review critically evaluates the PTSD-related research and emerging theory related to four major sets of variables that affect dissemination: (1) Practitioner factors, (2) Training methods, (3) The practice innovation(s) being disseminated; and (4) Organization or system factors. We evaluate findings from recent studies in light of emerging models of dissemination, and in the final section of the paper, we consider five broad topics with particular implications for dissemination of PTSD-specific treatments. They are: (1) The content of dissemination (i.e., which treatment protocols or intervention methods should be prioritized); (2) Strict adherence versus flexibility in the use of treatment manuals and the role of fidelity assessment; (3) The need for collaboration with user audiences; (4) The potential role of web-based technologies in increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of dissemination; and (5) Development of dissemination infrastructures within organizations.

  13. Priority setting in health care: trends and models from Scandinavian experiences.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Hofmann, Bjørn

    2013-08-01

    The Scandinavian welfare states have public health care systems which have universal coverage and traditionally low influence of private insurance and private provision. Due to raises in costs, elaborate public control of health care, and a significant technological development in health care, priority setting came on the public agenda comparatively early in the Scandinavian countries. The development of health care priority setting has been partly homogeneous and appears to follow certain phases. This can be of broader interest as it may shed light on alternative models and strategies in health care priority setting. Some general trends have been identified: from principles to procedures, from closed to open processes, and from experts to participation. Five general approaches have been recognized: The moral principles and values based approach, the moral principles and economic assessment approach, the procedural approach, the expert based practice defining approach, and the participatory practice defining approach. There are pros and cons with all of these approaches. For the time being the fifth approach appears attractive, but its lack of true participation and the lack of clear success criteria may pose significant challenges in the future.

  14. [The national public discourse on priority setting in health care in German print media].

    Science.gov (United States)

    Liesching, Florian; Meyer, Thorsten; Raspe, Heiner

    2012-01-01

    Germany's Central Ethics Committee of the Federal Chamber of Physicians (FCP) and other relevant national actors called for a public discourse on priority setting in health care. Politicians, members of a Federal Joint Committee and health insurance representatives, however, refused to promote or participate in the establishment of a public discussion. A change to that attitude only became apparent after former FCP President Hoppe's opening speech at the annual FCP assembly in Mainz in 2009. The present paper applies the Sociology of Knowledge Approach to Discourse, implemented through Qualitative Content Analysis and elements of Grounded Theory, to examine the development of the national public discourse in leading German print media. It creates a matrix that represents the discourse development between May 2009 and May 2010 and reflects central actors, their "communicative phenomena" and their interactions. Additionally, the matrix has been extended to cover the period until December 2011. Hoppe's arguments for priority setting in health care are faced with a wide opposition assuming opposing prerequisites and thus demanding alternative remedies. The lack of interaction between the different parties prevents any development of the speakers' positions. Incorrect accounts, reductions and left-outs in the media representation add to this effect. Consequently, the public discussion on priority setting is far from being an evolving rational discourse. Instead, it constitutes an exchange of preformed opposing positions. Copyright © 2012. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

  15. A population-based model for priority setting across the care continuum and across modalities

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Mortimer Duncan

    2006-03-01

    Full Text Available Abstract Background The Health-sector Wide (HsW priority setting model is designed to shift the focus of priority setting away from 'program budgets' – that are typically defined by modality or disease-stage – and towards well-defined target populations with a particular disease/health problem. Methods The key features of the HsW model are i a disease/health problem framework, ii a sequential approach to covering the entire health sector, iii comprehensiveness of scope in identifying intervention options and iv the use of objective evidence. The HsW model redefines the unit of analysis over which priorities are set to include all mutually exclusive and complementary interventions for the prevention and treatment of each disease/health problem under consideration. The HsW model is therefore incompatible with the fragmented approach to priority setting across multiple program budgets that currently characterises allocation in many health systems. The HsW model employs standard cost-utility analyses and decision-rules with the aim of maximising QALYs contingent upon the global budget constraint for the set of diseases/health problems under consideration. It is recognised that the objective function may include non-health arguments that would imply a departure from simple QALY maximisation and that political constraints frequently limit degrees of freedom. In addressing these broader considerations, the HsW model can be modified to maximise value-weighted QALYs contingent upon the global budget constraint and any political constraints bearing upon allocation decisions. Results The HsW model has been applied in several contexts, recently to osteoarthritis, that has demonstrated both its practical application and its capacity to derive clear evidenced-based policy recommendations. Conclusion Comparisons with other approaches to priority setting, such as Programme Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA and modality-based cost

  16. 76 FR 17808 - Final Vehicle Safety Rulemaking and Research Priority Plan 2011-2013

    Science.gov (United States)

    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...

  17. Emergency planning and management in health care: priority research topics.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Boyd, Alan; Chambers, Naomi; French, Simon; Shaw, Duncan; King, Russell; Whitehead, Alison

    2014-06-01

    Many major incidents have significant impacts on people's health, placing additional demands on health-care organisations. The main aim of this paper is to suggest a prioritised agenda for organisational and management research on emergency planning and management relevant to U.K. health care, based on a scoping study. A secondary aim is to enhance knowledge and understanding of health-care emergency planning among the wider research community, by highlighting key issues and perspectives on the subject and presenting a conceptual model. The study findings have much in common with those of previous U.S.-focused scoping reviews, and with a recent U.K.-based review, confirming the relative paucity of U.K.-based research. No individual research topic scored highly on all of the key measures identified, with communities and organisations appearing to differ about which topics are the most important. Four broad research priorities are suggested: the affected public; inter- and intra-organisational collaboration; preparing responders and their organisations; and prioritisation and decision making.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Penelope A. Phillips-Howard

    2016-12-01

    Full Text Available 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.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  1. Low back pain research priorities: a survey of primary care practitioners

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Das Anurina

    2007-07-01

    Full Text Available Abstract Background Despite the large amount of time and money which has been devoted to low back pain research, successful management remains an elusive goal and low back pain continues to place a large burden on the primary care setting. One reason for this may be that the priorities for research are often developed by researchers and funding bodies, with little consideration of the needs of primary care practitioners. This study aimed to determine the research priorities of primary care practitioners who manage low back pain on a day-to-day basis. Methods A modified-Delphi survey of primary care practitioners was conducted, consisting of three rounds of questionnaires. In the first round, 70 practitioners who treat low back pain were each asked to provide up to five questions which they would like answered with respect to low back pain in primary care. The results were collated into a second round questionnaire consisting of 39 priorities, which were rated for importance by each practitioner on a likert-scale. The third round consisted of asking the practitioners to rank the top ten priorities in order of importance. Results Response rates for the modified-Delphi remained above 70% throughout the three rounds. The ten highest ranked priorities included the identification of sub-groups of patients that respond optimally to different treatments, evaluation of different exercise approaches in the management of low back pain, self-management of low back pain, and comparison of different treatment approaches by primary care professions treating low back pain. Conclusion Practitioners identified a need for more information on a variety of topics, including diagnosis, the effectiveness of treatments, and identification of patient characteristics which affect treatment and recovery.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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).

  3. Global research priorities in rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Carapetis, Jonathan R; Zühlke, Liesl J

    2011-01-01

    We now stand at a critical juncture for rheumatic fever (RF) and rheumatic heart disease (RHD) control. In recent years, we have seen a surge of interest in these diseases in regions of the world where RF/RHD mostly occur. This brings real opportunities to make dramatic progress in the next few years, but also real risks if we miss these opportunities. Most public health and clinical approaches in RF/RHD arose directly from programmes of research. Many unanswered questions remain, including those around how to implement what we know will work, so research will continue to be essential in our efforts to bring a global solution to this disease. Here we outline our proposed research priorities in RF/RHD for the coming decade, grouped under the following four challenges: Translating what we know already into practical RHD control; How to identify people with RHD earlier, so that preventive measures have a higher chance of success; Better understanding of disease pathogenesis, with a view to improved diagnosis and treatment of ARF and RHD; and Finding an effective approach to primary prevention. We propose a mixture of basic, applied, and implementation science. With concerted efforts, strong links to clinical and public health infrastructure, and advocacy and funding support from the international community, there are good prospects for controlling these RF and RHD over the next decade

  4. Setting priorities for safe motherhood interventions in resource-scarce settings.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Prata, Ndola; Sreenivas, Amita; Greig, Fiona; Walsh, Julia; Potts, Malcolm

    2010-01-01

    Guide policy-makers in prioritizing safe motherhood interventions. Three models (LOW, MED, HIGH) were constructed based on 34 sub-Saharan African countries to assess the relative cost-effectiveness of available safe motherhood interventions. Cost and effectiveness data were compiled and inserted into the WHO Mother Baby Package Costing Spreadsheet. For each model we assessed the percentage in maternal mortality reduction after implementing all interventions, and optimal combinations of interventions given restricted budgets of US$ 0.50, US$ 1.00, US$ 1.50 per capital maternal health expenditures respectively for LOW, MED, and HIGH models. The most cost-effective interventions were family planning and safe abortion (fpsa), antenatal care including misoprostol distribution for postpartum hemorrhage prevention at home deliveries (anc-miso), followed by sepsis treatment (sepsis) and facility-based postpartum hemorrhage management (pph). The combination of interventions that avert the greatest number of maternal deaths should be prioritized and expanded to cover the greatest number of women at risk. Those which save the most number of lives in each model are 'fpsa, anc-miso' and 'fpsa, sepsis, safe delivery' for LOW; 'fpsa, anc-miso' and 'fpsa, sepsis, safe delivery' for MED; and 'fpsa, anc-miso, sepsis, eclampsia treatment, safe delivery' for HIGH settings. Safe motherhood interventions save a significant number of newborn lives.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  6. What criteria do decision makers in Thailand use to set priorities for vaccine introduction?

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Siriporn Pooripussarakul

    2016-08-01

    Full Text Available Abstract Background There is a need to identify rational criteria and set priorities for vaccines. In Thailand, many licensed vaccines are being considering for introduction into the Expanded Program on Immunization; thus, the government has to make decisions about which vaccines should be adopted. This study aimed to set priorities for new vaccines and to facilitate decision analysis. Methods We used a best-worst scaling study for rank-ordering of vaccines. The candidate vaccines were determined by a set of criteria, including burden of disease, target age group, budget impact, side effect, effectiveness, severity of disease, and cost of vaccine. The criteria were identified from a literature review and by in-depth, open-ended interviews with experts. The priority-setting model was conducted among three groups of stakeholders, including policy makers, healthcare professionals and healthcare administrators. The vaccine data were mapped and then calculated for the probability of selection. Results From the candidate vaccines, the probability of hepatitis B vaccine being selected by all respondents (96.67 % was ranked first. This was followed, respectively, by pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-13 (95.09 % and Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine (90.87 %. The three groups of stakeholders (policy makers, healthcare professionals and healthcare administrators showed the same ranking trends. Most severe disease, high fever rate and high disease burden showed the highest coefficients for criterion levels being selected by all respondents. This result can be implied that a vaccine which can prevent most severe disease with high disease burden and has low safety has a greater chance of being selected by respondents in this study. Conclusions The priority setting of vaccines through a multiple-criteria approach could contribute to transparency and accountability in the decision-making process. This is a step forward in the development of an evidence

  7. Human dimensions in cyber operations research and development priorities.

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Forsythe, James Chris; Silva, Austin Ray; Stevens-Adams, Susan Marie; Bradshaw, Jeffrey [Institute for Human and Machine Cognition

    2012-11-01

    Within cyber security, the human element represents one of the greatest untapped opportunities for increasing the effectiveness of network defenses. However, there has been little research to understand the human dimension in cyber operations. To better understand the needs and priorities for research and development to address these issues, a workshop was conducted August 28-29, 2012 in Washington DC. A synthesis was developed that captured the key issues and associated research questions. Research and development needs were identified that fell into three parallel paths: (1) human factors analysis and scientific studies to establish foundational knowledge concerning factors underlying the performance of cyber defenders; (2) development of models that capture key processes that mediate interactions between defenders, users, adversaries and the public; and (3) development of a multi-purpose test environment for conducting controlled experiments that enables systems and human performance measurement. These research and development investments would transform cyber operations from an art to a science, enabling systems solutions to be engineered to address a range of situations. Organizations would be able to move beyond the current state where key decisions (e.g. personnel assignment) are made on a largely ad hoc basis to a state in which there exist institutionalized processes for assuring the right people are doing the right jobs in the right way. These developments lay the groundwork for emergence of a professional class of cyber defenders with defined roles and career progressions, with higher levels of personnel commitment and retention. Finally, the operational impact would be evident in improved performance, accompanied by a shift to a more proactive response in which defenders have the capacity to exert greater control over the cyber battlespace.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

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

    LENUS (Irish Health Repository)

    2012-02-01

    Aim. To incorporate an international and multidisciplinary consensus in the determination of the research and education priorities for wound healing and tissue repair. Background. 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. Design. The study used a survey method. Methods. A four-round eDelphi technique was used to collect responses from an international population of health professionals across 24 countries. Results. 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. Relevance to clinical practice. 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

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  11. Monitoring drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene in non-household settings: Priorities for policy and practice.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Cronk, Ryan; Slaymaker, Tom; Bartram, Jamie

    2015-11-01

    -household settings as a priority. National and international monitoring systems will be important to better understand status, trends, to identify priorities and target resources accordingly, and to improve accountability for progressive improvements in WaSH in non-household settings. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

  12. Research priorities in pediatric rheumatology: The Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA consensus

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Mellins Elizabeth D

    2008-04-01

    Full Text Available Abstract Background North American pediatric rheumatologists have created an investigator-initiated research network (the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance – CARRA to facilitate multi-centre studies. One of the first projects undertaken by this network was to define, by consensus, research priorities for the group, and if possible a first group-sponsored clinical trial in which all members could participate. Methods We determined consensus using the Delphi approach. This approach has been used extensively in health research to reach consensus in large groups. It uses several successive iterations of surveys eliciting ideas and opinions from specialists in the field. Three surveys were designed based on this method and were distributed to members of CARRA to elicit and rank-order research priorities. Results A response rate of 87.6% was achieved in the final survey. The most highly ranked research suggestion was to study infliximab treatment of uveitis unresponsive to methotrexate. Other highly ranked suggestions were to study i the treatment of systemic arthritis with anakinra and ii the treatment of pediatric systemic lupus erythematosus with mycophenolate mofetil. Conclusion The Delphi approach was an effective and practical method to define research priorities in this group. Ongoing discussion and cooperation among pediatric rheumatologists in CARRA and others world-wide will help in developing further research priorities and to facilitate the execution of clinical trials in the future.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Jana Rogge

    Full Text Available 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.

  15. Diseases of livestock in the Pacific Islands region: setting priorities for food animal biosecurity.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Brioudes, Aurélie; Warner, Jeffrey; Hedlefs, Robert; Gummow, Bruce

    2015-03-01

    Most Pacific Island countries and territories (PICTs) have developing economies and face a critical shortage of veterinarians with limited financial resources allocated to their animal disease surveillance programmes. Thus, animal health authorities have to set priorities for better focusing their scarce resources. The main objective of this study was to identify animal diseases perceived to be of importance by decision makers within selected PICTs, at the regional and national levels, to ensure better targeting of animal health resources. A second objective was to investigate whether the targeted surveillance programmes resulting from this rationalized approach would also benefit the local communities engaged in livestock production. A multi-criteria prioritization process was developed, involving local experts, to score and rank 132 animal diseases based on their priority at the regional and national levels for four PICTs: Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu, which form part of a regional Food Animal Biosecurity Network. In parallel interviews with farmers and field animal health and production workers were conducted to assess their perception of animal diseases. The list of the top-twenty ranked diseases for the Pacific Islands region shows a mix of endemic zoonotic diseases (such as leptospirosis ranked first; brucellosis third; tuberculosis sixth; and endoparasites and ectoparasites, respectively eleventh and thirteenth) with exotic diseases (such as HPAI ranked second, FMD fifth, and rabies ninth). There were different disease ranking lists for each of the four targeted PICTs, confirming different strategies of disease prevention and control may be required for each country, rather than a regional approach. Interviewed animal health and production workers were unfamiliar with most of the prioritized diseases and a majority acknowledged that they would not be able to recognize clinical signs if outbreaks were to occur in their area

  16. The No-Destination Ship of Priority-Setting in Healthcare: A Call for More Democracy.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Seixas, Brayan V

    2017-10-11

    In dealing with scarcity of resources within healthcare systems, decision-makers inevitably have to make choices about which services to fund. Setting priorities represents a challenging task that requires systematic, explicit and transparent methodologies with focus on economic efficiency. In addition, the engagement of the general public in the process of decision-making has been regarded as one of the most important aspects of the management of publicly-funded health systems in liberal democracies. In the current essay, we aim to discuss the problematics of public engagement in the process of resource allocation and priority-setting within the context of publiclyfunded health systems. Our central argument is that although there may be a conflict between democratic mechanisms of citizen participation and economic efficiency, in the extra-welfarist sense, expected for/from the system, the solution for this tension does not seem to rely on more or novel authoritative technocratic approaches, but rather on the deepening and betterment of democratic participation. © 2018 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

  17. Overall strategy for risk evaluation and priority setting of risk regulations

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Hokstad, Per; Steiro, Trygve

    2006-01-01

    This paper presents the framework of an approach to support planning and priority setting for risk control. Such an approach could assist government/regulatory authorities in their allocation of resources among different sectors. The term risk will here be used in a very wide sense, and it will include, but not restrict to, the traditional HES (Health, Environment and Safety) concept. An overall classification of risk ('loss categories'), to be used across sectors and directorates is suggested. The risk evaluation includes a number of factors not accounted for in a standard risk assessment, but should be taken into account when authorities set priorities regarding risk control. Sociological, psychological and ethical perspectives are included, and the need for a discourse during the decision process is pinpointed. The paper also discusses the potential inclusion of cost benefit analyses in such an approach. The indicated approach is denoted Risk Across Sectors (RAS), and suggestions regarding the process to implement it are given. Such an implementation process will by itself increase the knowledge and competence of the involved parties

  18. Following Suit: Using Conversation Cards for Priority Setting in Pediatric Weight Management.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kebbe, Maryam; Byrne, Jillian L S; Damanhoury, Samah; Ball, Geoff D C

    To describe families' selections of Conversation Cards (CCs), a priority-setting tool in pediatric weight management, and examine CC-related differences based on families' anthropometric and sociodemographic characteristics. A retrospective medical record review was conducted of 2- to 17-year-olds with obesity and their families who enrolled in a pediatric weight management clinic between January, 2012 and September, 2016. Medical records of 146 children were included. On average, families selected 10 ± 6 CCs (range, 3-32 CCs); only 50% of families (n = 73) indicated perceived readiness to make healthy changes. Adolescents (vs children) revealed less healthy eating behaviors (P = .001) and physical activity habits (P = .002). Goal setting was perceived to be a motivator across several sociodemographic characteristics (all P < .05). The CCs were useful in describing families' priorities. The diversity of issues identified by families highlighted the importance of multidisciplinary expertise in pediatric weight management. Copyright © 2017 Society for Nutrition Education and Behavior. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

  19. 78 FR 35758 - Final Priority; National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research-Rehabilitation...

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-06-14

    ... Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research--Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers AGENCY... 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...

  20. Research Priorities in Limb and Task-Specific Dystonias

    Science.gov (United States)

    Pirio Richardson, Sarah; Altenmüller, Eckart; Alter, Katharine; Alterman, Ron L.; Chen, Robert; Frucht, Steven; Furuya, Shinichi; Jankovic, Joseph; Jinnah, H. A.; Kimberley, Teresa J.; Lungu, Codrin; Perlmutter, Joel S.; Prudente, Cecília N.; Hallett, Mark

    2017-01-01

    Dystonia, which causes intermittent or sustained abnormal postures and movements, can present in a focal or a generalized manner. In the limbs, focal dystonia can occur in either the upper or lower limbs and may be task-specific causing abnormal motor performance for only a specific task, such as in writer’s cramp, runner’s dystonia, or musician’s dystonia. Focal limb dystonia can be non-task-specific and may, in some circumstances, be associated with parkinsonian disorders. The true prevalence of focal limb dystonia is not known and is likely currently underestimated, leaving a knowledge gap and an opportunity for future research. The pathophysiology of focal limb dystonia shares some commonalities with other dystonias with a loss of inhibition in the central nervous system and a loss of the normal regulation of plasticity, called homeostatic plasticity. Functional imaging studies revealed abnormalities in several anatomical networks that involve the cortex, basal ganglia, and cerebellum. Further studies should focus on distinguishing cause from effect in both physiology and imaging studies to permit focus on most relevant biological correlates of dystonia. There is no specific therapy for the treatment of limb dystonia given the variability in presentation, but off-label botulinum toxin therapy is often applied to focal limb and task-specific dystonia. Various rehabilitation techniques have been applied and rehabilitation interventions may improve outcomes, but small sample size and lack of direct comparisons between methods to evaluate comparative efficacy limit conclusions. Finally, non-invasive and invasive therapeutic modalities have been explored in small studies with design limitations that do not yet clearly provide direction for larger clinical trials that could support new clinical therapies. Given these gaps in our clinical, pathophysiologic, and therapeutic knowledge, we have identified priorities for future research including: the development of

  1. Research Priorities in Limb and Task-Specific Dystonias

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Sarah Pirio Richardson

    2017-05-01

    Full Text Available Dystonia, which causes intermittent or sustained abnormal postures and movements, can present in a focal or a generalized manner. In the limbs, focal dystonia can occur in either the upper or lower limbs and may be task-specific causing abnormal motor performance for only a specific task, such as in writer’s cramp, runner’s dystonia, or musician’s dystonia. Focal limb dystonia can be non-task-specific and may, in some circumstances, be associated with parkinsonian disorders. The true prevalence of focal limb dystonia is not known and is likely currently underestimated, leaving a knowledge gap and an opportunity for future research. The pathophysiology of focal limb dystonia shares some commonalities with other dystonias with a loss of inhibition in the central nervous system and a loss of the normal regulation of plasticity, called homeostatic plasticity. Functional imaging studies revealed abnormalities in several anatomical networks that involve the cortex, basal ganglia, and cerebellum. Further studies should focus on distinguishing cause from effect in both physiology and imaging studies to permit focus on most relevant biological correlates of dystonia. There is no specific therapy for the treatment of limb dystonia given the variability in presentation, but off-label botulinum toxin therapy is often applied to focal limb and task-specific dystonia. Various rehabilitation techniques have been applied and rehabilitation interventions may improve outcomes, but small sample size and lack of direct comparisons between methods to evaluate comparative efficacy limit conclusions. Finally, non-invasive and invasive therapeutic modalities have been explored in small studies with design limitations that do not yet clearly provide direction for larger clinical trials that could support new clinical therapies. Given these gaps in our clinical, pathophysiologic, and therapeutic knowledge, we have identified priorities for future research including

  2. Allocating limited resources in a time of fiscal constraints: a priority setting case study from Dalhousie University Faculty of Medicine.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  3. Developing research priorities for palliative care of people with intellectual disabilities in Europe: a consultation process using nominal group technique.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Tuffrey-Wijne, I; Wicki, M; Heslop, P; McCarron, M; Todd, S; Oliver, D; de Veer, A; Ahlström, G; Schäper, S; Hynes, G; O'Farrell, J; Adler, J; Riese, F; Curfs, L

    2016-03-24

    Empirical knowledge around palliative care provision and needs of people with intellectual disabilities is extremely limited, as is the availability of research resources, including expertise and funding. This paper describes a consultation process that sought to develop an agenda for research priorities for palliative care of people with intellectual disabilities in Europe. A two-day workshop was convened, attended by 16 academics and clinicians in the field of palliative care and intellectual disability from six European countries. The first day consisted of round-table presentations and discussions about the current state of the art, research challenges and knowledge gaps. The second day was focused on developing consensus research priorities with 12 of the workshop participants using nominal group technique, a structured method which involved generating a list of research priorities and ranking them in order of importance. A total of 40 research priorities were proposed and collapsed into eleven research themes. The four most important research themes were: investigating issues around end of life decision making; mapping the scale and scope of the issue; investigating the quality of palliative care for people with intellectual disabilities, including the challenges in achieving best practice; and developing outcome measures and instruments for palliative care of people with intellectual disabilities. The proposal of four major priority areas and a range of minor themes for future research in intellectual disability, death, dying and palliative care will help researchers to focus limited resources and research expertise on areas where it is most needed and support the building of collaborations. The next steps are to cross-validate these research priorities with people with intellectual disabilities, carers, clinicians, researchers and other stakeholders across Europe; to validate them with local and national policy makers to determine how they could best be

  4. 76 FR 15961 - Funding Priorities and Selection Criterion; Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and...

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-03-22

    ... priorities and a selection criterion for the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers... outcomes for underserved populations; (4) identify research gaps; (5) identify mechanisms of integrating research and practice; and (6) disseminate findings. This notice proposes two priorities and a selection...

  5. [Research priorities and research topics for cardiovascular nursing: the Swiss Research Agenda for Nursing].

    Science.gov (United States)

    Mahrer-Imhof, Romy; Imhof, Lorenz

    2008-12-01

    Cardiovascular diseases are worldwide a major challenge for the health care system and the number one reason for premature mortality and lost life years. Many accomplishments to reduce risk factors and improve treatment in acute and chronic disease and rehabilitation have been initiated by medical research but were also embraced by nursing research, which provided valuable knowledge about supporting risk factor modification and patients' self-management. Nursing research in the cardiovascular field has a long tradition in the US. In Europe cardiovascular nursing research also developed over the past decade, with increasing participation of Swiss nurse researchers. Efforts in this field of cardiovascular nursing have been made to convey projects in nursing research that help to enhance the health of the population sustainably and improve well-being in patients with acute and chronic courses of cardiovascular disease. Scientific knowledge is pivotal in developing evidence-based nursing interventions. Since both the German and the French speaking part of Switzerland have been lacking a literature-based and expert-supported agenda for nursing research, the aim of the Swiss Research Agenda for Nursing (SRAN) project was to develop an agenda providing researchers, funding agencies, and politics with orientation. This article takes the seven priorities of the SRAN project and links them to the topics of risk factor modification, rehabilitation programs, self-care, and patient education. The article presents the first agenda for cardiovascular nursing for the years 2007 to 2017. The agenda will serve to develop an action plan and to promote nursing research projects in the field of cardiovascular nursing in Switzerland.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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/.

  7. 75 FR 1115 - Invitation for Public Comment on Strategic Research Direction, Research Priority Areas and...

    Science.gov (United States)

    2010-01-08

    .... The RD&T strategic planning process is collaborative, cross-modal, and forward looking, focusing on... strategic planning effort that will guide the Department's research, development, and technology activities... planning process to cover the years 2010-2015 and to address the proposed Departmental key priorities as...

  8. Structural fire resistance experimental research priority needs of U.S. industry

    CERN Document Server

    Almand, Kathleen H

    2012-01-01

    Structural Fire Resistance Experimental ResearchPriority Needs of U.S. Industry provides a synthesis of stakeholder input to a prioritized agenda for research at the National Fire Research Laboratory (NFRL) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) designed to accelerate the implementation of performance-based fire engineering for structures. The NFRL presents a broad range of unanswered questions regarding the performance of real structures in fire conditions, and informs performance-based design methods and standards in this field. The authors conducted a comprehensive literature review of large-scale structural fire testing and compiled research needs from a variety of sources. The book addresses major issues of broad concern in the fire community, such as real fire exposure and structural response, composite floor system performance, enhancing modeling performance, and understanding the embedded safety features in design methods. It concludes with a prioritized set of research reco...

  9. Setting Priorities for Monitoring and Managing Non-native Plants: Toward a Practical Approach.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Koch, Christiane; Jeschke, Jonathan M; Overbeck, Gerhard E; Kollmann, Johannes

    2016-09-01

    Land managers face the challenge to set priorities in monitoring and managing non-native plant species, as resources are limited and not all non-natives become invasive. Existing frameworks that have been proposed to rank non-native species require extensive information on their distribution, abundance, and impact. This information is difficult to obtain and often not available for many species and regions. National watch or priority lists are helpful, but it is questionable whether they provide sufficient information for environmental management on a regional scale. We therefore propose a decision tree that ranks species based on more simple albeit robust information, but still provides reliable management recommendations. To test the decision tree, we collected and evaluated distribution data from non-native plants in highland grasslands of Southern Brazil. We compared the results with a national list from the Brazilian Invasive Species Database for the state to discuss advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches on a regional scale. Out of 38 non-native species found, only four were also present on the national list. If management would solely rely on this list, many species that were identified as spreading based on the decision tree would go unnoticed. With the suggested scheme, it is possible to assign species to active management, to monitoring, or further evaluation. While national lists are certainly important, management on a regional scale should employ additional tools that adequately consider the actual risk of non-natives to become invasive.

  10. National Priority Setting of Clinical Practice Guidelines Development for Chronic Disease Management.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Jo, Heui-Sug; Kim, Dong Ik; Oh, Moo-Kyung

    2015-12-01

    By November 2013, a total of 125 clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been developed in Korea. However, despite the high burden of diseases and the clinical importance of CPGs, most chronic diseases do not have available CPGs. Merely 83 CPGs are related to chronic diseases, and only 40 guidelines had been developed in the last 5 yr. Considering the rate of the production of new evidence in medicine and the worsening burden from chronic diseases, the need for developing CPGs for more chronic diseases is becoming increasingly pressing. Since 2011, the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences and the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have been jointly developing CPGs for chronic diseases. However, priorities have to be set and resources need to be allocated within the constraint of a limited funding. This study identifies the chronic diseases that should be prioritized for the development of CPGs in Korea. Through an objective assessment by using the analytic hierarchy process and a subjective assessment with a survey of expert opinion, high priorities were placed on ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular diseases, Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, osteoarthritis, neck pain, chronic kidney disease, and cirrhosis of the liver.

  11. Patients' self-interested preferences: empirical evidence from a priority setting experiment.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Alvarez, Begoña; Rodríguez-Míguez, Eva

    2011-04-01

    This paper explores whether patients act according to self-interest in priority setting experiments. The analysis is based on a ranking experiment, conducted in Galicia (Spain), to elicit preferences regarding the prioritization of patients on a waiting list for an elective surgical intervention (prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia). Participants were patients awaiting a similar intervention and members of the general populations. All of them were asked to rank hypothetical patients on a waiting list. A rank-ordered logit was then applied to their responses in order to obtain a prioritization scoring system. Using these estimations, we first test for differences in preferences between patients and general population. Second, we implement a procedure based on the similarity between respondents (true patients) and the hypothetical scenarios they evaluate (hypothetical patients) to analyze whether patients provide self-interested rankings. Our results show that patient preferences differ significantly from general population preferences. The findings also indicate that, when patients rank the hypothetical scenarios on the waiting list, they consider not only the explicit attributes but also the similarity of each scenario to their own. In particular, they assign a higher priority to scenarios that more closely match their own states. We also find that such a preference structure increases their likelihood of reporting "irrational" answers. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  14. 78 FR 26509 - Final Priority; National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research-Disability and...

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-05-07

    ... inclusion of individuals with disabilities on the teams that develop the cloud and Web technologies... Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research--Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects... Rehabilitative Services announces a priority under the Disability Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers...

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  16. Stakeholder Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

  17. Developing risk-based priorities for reducing air pollution in urban settings in Ukraine.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Brody, Michael; Caldwell, Jane; Golub, Alexander

    2007-02-01

    Ukraine, when part of the former Soviet Union, was responsible for about 25% of its overall industrial production. This aging industrial infrastructure continues to emit enormous volumes of air and water pollution and wastes. The National Report on the State of Environment in Ukraine 1999 (Ukraine Ministry of Environmental Protection [MEP], 2000) shows significant air pollution. There are numerous emissions that have been associated with developmental effects, chronic long-term health effects, and cancer. Ukraine also has been identified as a major source of transboundary air pollution for the eastern Mediterranean region. Ukraine's Environment Ministry is not currently able to strategically target high-priority emissions and lacks the resources to address all these problems. For these reasons, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency set up a partnership with Ukraine's Ministry of Environmental Protection to strengthen its capacity to set environmental priorities through the use of comparative environmental risk assessment and economic analysis--the Capacity Building Project. The project is also addressing improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of the use of its National Environmental Protection Fund. The project consists of a series of workshops with Ukrainian MEP officials in comparative risk assessment of air pollutant emissions in several heavily industrialized oblasts; cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis; and environmental finance. Pilot risk assessment analyses have been completed. At the end of the Capacity Building Project it is expected that the use of the National Environmental Protection fund and the regional level oblast environmental protection funds will begin to target and identify the highest health and environmental risk emissions.

  18. The influence of spatial grain size on the suitability of the higher-taxon approach in continental priority-setting

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Larsen, Frank Wugt; Rahbek, Carsten

    2005-01-01

    The higher-taxon approach may provide a pragmatic surrogate for the rapid identification of priority areas for conservation. To date, no continent-wide study has examined the use of higher-taxon data to identify complementarity-based networks of priority areas, nor has the influence of spatial gr...... grain size been assessed. We used data obtained from 939 sub-Saharan mammals to analyse the performance of higher-taxon data for continental priority-setting and to assess the influence of spatial grain sizes in terms of the size of selection units (1°× 1°, 2°× 2° and 4°× 4° latitudinal...... as effectively as species-based priority areas, genus-based areas perform considerably less effectively than species-based areas for the 1° and 2° grain size. Thus, our results favour the higher-taxon approach for continental priority-setting only when large grain sizes (= 4°) are used.......The higher-taxon approach may provide a pragmatic surrogate for the rapid identification of priority areas for conservation. To date, no continent-wide study has examined the use of higher-taxon data to identify complementarity-based networks of priority areas, nor has the influence of spatial...

  19. Priority setting in HIV/AIDS control in West Java Indonesia: an evaluation based on the accountability for reasonableness framework.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  20. Cardiovascular disease outcomes: priorities today, priorities tomorrow for research and community health.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Yancy, Clyde W

    2012-01-01

    The disparities and differences in heart disease and stroke among Black, White and Hispanic populations tell a compelling and continuing story that should drive research agendas to improve health outcomes. With Black men and women having the highest prevalence of hypertension, Black females having higher rates of coronary heart disease, stroke and breast cancer than White females, and Blacks, at all ages, having a greater risk for stroke mortality than Whites, researchers and health care providers must understand the clinical appropriateness of treatment for different states of disease among distinct populations. Further, to eliminate health disparities, the health care systems and legal regulatory climate must facilitate access to care while biases, prejudices and stereotyping by health care providers and all those in the health care system must be eliminated. Importantly, research continues to illustrate that many are dying prematurely or have advanced stages of disease because of disparate care. This article explores four strategies to address inequitable care and to work toward eliminating poorer health outcomes among minorities. First, those who deliver health care must adopt a quality-focused approach that improves the care of all patients while facilitating the reduction and elimination of health disparities. Second, cultural awareness and cultural competency must be improved. Third, we must remove barriers to access and promote public policies that lead to greater health awareness and healthier environments. Lastly, but most importantly, we need a prevention focus as the reduction in the onset of disease is the first step towards improving health outcomes.

  1. Accounting Research in the Japanese Setting

    OpenAIRE

    Douglas J. Skinner

    2011-01-01

    In this commentary I offer some thoughts on the possibilities for accounting research that uses the Japanese setting. I argue that the uniqueness of the Japanese setting offers many opportunities for researchers, and hope that we can encourage more researchers to take advantage of this setting to advance the literature on financial reporting and disclosure.

  2. Establishing research priorities relating to the long-term impact of TIA and minor stroke through stakeholder-centred consensus.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Turner, Grace M; Backman, Ruth; McMullan, Christel; Mathers, Jonathan; Marshall, Tom; Calvert, Melanie

    2018-01-01

    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

  3. Combining evidence and values in priority setting: testing the balance sheet method in a low-income country.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  4. Setting priorities for action plans at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Final report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Miller, A.C.

    1992-09-30

    This report summarizes work done by Applied Decision Analysis (ADA) for Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) under Subcontract Number 9-XQ2-Y3837-1 with the University of California. The purpose of this work was to develop a method of setting priorities for environmental, safety, and health (ES&H) deficiencies at Los Alamos. The deficiencies were identified by a DOE Tiger Team that visited LANL in the fall of 1991, and by self assessments done by the Laboratory. ADA did the work described here between October 1991 and the end of September 1992. The ADA staff working on this project became part of a Risk Management Team in the Laboratory`s Integration and Coordination Office (ICO). During the project, the Risk Management Team produced a variety of documents describing aspects of the action-plan prioritization system. Some of those documents are attached to this report. Rather than attempt to duplicate their contents, this report provides a guide to those documents, and references them whenever appropriate.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  6. How to conduct focus groups: researching group priorities through discussion.

    Science.gov (United States)

    1992-01-01

    Focus groups serve to uncover priorities and beliefs of a target group, but health project designers do not always take the time to seek this information beforehand. Focus groups also allow various local subgroups to communicate their concerns before the project starts. Focus groups can also breed ideas and dialogue that individual interviews cannot and they provide baseline information so managers can determine if attitudes or priorities have resulted from the project. Diverse people have different beliefs, e.g., women who have young children view oral rehydration therapy differently from women with no children. Project designers can use these basic differences to arrive at some conclusions about general attitudes. Focus group facilitators should have a discussion outline to help keep the group on the topic of concern. They should limit sessions to 60-90 minutes. Each focus groups should include 8-10 people. It is important to have members of various community subgroups in each group. Yet group designers should be careful not to include within the same group, those who may intimidate other people in the group, e.g., in situations where farmers depend on middlemen, farmers may not be open if middlemen are also in the focus group. Facilitators should launch each session with an attempt to encourage the members to be open and to feel comfortable. For example, in Malawi, a facilitator leads her focus group discussions with songs. Stories are another icebreaker. It is important that all focus groups centering around a certain project discuss the same topics. Facilitators need to stress to the group that all discussions are to be kept confidential. The designers should also carefully word the questions so that facilitators will not impart their bias. Facilitators should not direct the group to certain conclusions, but instead keep the discussions focused.

  7. Research Priorities for the Conservation and Sustainable Governance of Andean Forest Landscapes

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Sarah-Lan Mathez-Stiefel

    2017-08-01

    Full Text Available The long-term survival of Andean forest landscapes (AFL and of their capacity to contribute to sustainable development in a context of global change requires integrated adaptation and mitigation responses informed by a thorough understanding of the dynamic and complex interactions between their ecological and social components. This article proposes a research agenda that can help guide AFL research efforts for the next 15 years. The agenda was developed between July 2015 and June 2016 through a series of workshops in Ecuador, Peru, and Switzerland and involved 48 researchers and development experts working on AFL from different disciplinary perspectives. Based on our review of current research and identification of pressing challenges for the conservation and sustainable governance of AFL, we propose a conceptual framework that draws on sustainability sciences and social–ecological systems research, and we identify a set of high-priority research goals and objectives organized into 3 broad categories: systems knowledge, target knowledge, and transformation knowledge. This paper is intended to be a reference for a broad array of actors engaged in policy, research, and implementation in the Andean region. We hope it will trigger collaborative research initiatives for the continued conservation and sustainable governance of AFL.

  8. Discovery, research, and development of new antibiotics: the WHO priority list of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and tuberculosis.

    Science.gov (United States)

    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

  9. 76 FR 38134 - Final Priorities; Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program-Disability...

    Science.gov (United States)

    2011-06-29

    ... gaps; (5) identify mechanisms of integrating research and practice; and (6) disseminate findings. This... determine ADA knowledge gaps. Nothing in the priority precludes applicants from proposing collaborations with policymakers, service providers, and other relevant stakeholders to determine knowledge gaps and...

  10. Intervention complexity--a conceptual framework to inform priority-setting in health.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Gericke, Christian A; Kurowski, Christoph; Ranson, M Kent; Mills, Anne

    2005-04-01

    Health interventions vary substantially in the degree of effort required to implement them. To some extent this is apparent in their financial cost, but the nature and availability of non-financial resources is often of similar importance. In particular, human resource requirements are frequently a major constraint. We propose a conceptual framework for the analysis of interventions according to their degree of technical complexity; this complements the notion of institutional capacity in considering the feasibility of implementing an intervention. Interventions are categorized into four dimensions: characteristics of the basic intervention; characteristics of delivery; requirements on government capacity; and usage characteristics. The analysis of intervention complexity should lead to a better understanding of supply- and demand-side constraints to scaling up, indicate priorities for further research and development, and can point to potential areas for improvement of specific aspects of each intervention to close the gap between the complexity of an intervention and the capacity to implement it. The framework is illustrated using the examples of scaling up condom social marketing programmes, and the DOTS strategy for tuberculosis control in highly resource-constrained countries. The framework could be used as a tool for policy-makers, planners and programme managers when considering the expansion of existing projects or the introduction of new interventions. Intervention complexity thus complements the considerations of burden of disease, cost-effectiveness, affordability and political feasibility in health policy decision-making. Reducing the technical complexity of interventions will be crucial to meeting the health-related Millennium Development Goals.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  12. Priorities for the next decade of research in radiation ecology

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Hoffman, F.O. Jr.; McCormick, J.F.

    1987-01-01

    Radiation ecology is the study of the fate and effects of ionizing radiations in the environment. The 1986 Chernobyl accident provides unprecedented opportunities to test models of the transport of a great variety of radionuclides in a variety of ecosystems under a variety of conditions throughout the world. International collaboration provides exciting opportunities to explore the fate of radionuclides on a global scale. Our understanding of ecological effects of ionizing radiations is based almost entirely upon results of point source gamma studies such as those described in this symposium. While results of these studies are incomplete and insufficient, even less is known of ecological effects resulting from high levels of radioactive fallout. High priority should be given to completing long term studies of previously irradiated ecosystems and to initiating studies of the ecological effects of radioactive fallout. The most challenging task is to improve and couple our knowledge of radionuclide transport, radiation dosimetry and ecological effects so that, for a given level of radioactivity released into specific ecosystems, we can predict immediate and long term consequences

  13. Research Priorities for NCD Prevention and Climate Change: An International Delphi Survey.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Colagiuri, Ruth; Boylan, Sinead; Morrice, Emily

    2015-10-16

    Climate change and non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are arguably the greatest global challenges of the 21st Century. However, the confluence between them remains under-examined and there is little evidence of a comprehensive, systematic approach to identifying research priorities to mitigate their joint impact. Consequently, we: (i) convened a workshop of academics (n = 25) from the Worldwide Universities Network to identify priority areas at the interface between NCDs and climate change; (ii) conducted a Delphi survey of international opinion leaders in public health and relevant other disciplines; and (iii) convened an expert panel to review and advise on final priorities. Three research areas (water security; transport; conceptualising NCD harms to support policy formation) were listed among the top 10 priorities by >90% of Delphi respondents, and ranked among the top 12 priorities by >60% of respondents who ranked the order of priority. A fourth area (reducing the carbon footprint of cities) was ranked highest by the same >60% of respondents. Our results are consistent with existing frameworks on health and climate change, and extends them by focusing specifically on NCDs. Researching these priorities could progress understanding of climate change and NCDs, and inform global and national policy decisions for mitigating associated harms.

  14. Research Priorities for NCD Prevention and Climate Change: An International Delphi Survey

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Ruth Colagiuri

    2015-10-01

    Full Text Available Climate change and non-communicable diseases (NCDs are arguably the greatest global challenges of the 21st Century. However, the confluence between them remains under-examined and there is little evidence of a comprehensive, systematic approach to identifying research priorities to mitigate their joint impact. Consequently, we: (i convened a workshop of academics (n = 25 from the Worldwide Universities Network to identify priority areas at the interface between NCDs and climate change; (ii conducted a Delphi survey of international opinion leaders in public health and relevant other disciplines; and (iii convened an expert panel to review and advise on final priorities. Three research areas (water security; transport; conceptualising NCD harms to support policy formation were listed among the top 10 priorities by >90% of Delphi respondents, and ranked among the top 12 priorities by >60% of respondents who ranked the order of priority. A fourth area (reducing the carbon footprint of cities was ranked highest by the same >60% of respondents. Our results are consistent with existing frameworks on health and climate change, and extends them by focusing specifically on NCDs. Researching these priorities could progress understanding of climate change and NCDs, and inform global and national policy decisions for mitigating associated harms.

  15. Priority setting of ICU resources in an influenza pandemic: a qualitative study of the Canadian public's perspectives

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Silva Diego S

    2012-03-01

    Full Text Available Abstract Background Pandemic influenza may exacerbate existing scarcity of life-saving medical resources. As a result, decision-makers may be faced with making tough choices about who will receive care and who will have to wait or go without. Although previous studies have explored ethical issues in priority setting from the perspective of clinicians and policymakers, there has been little investigation into how the public views priority setting during a pandemic influenza, in particular related to intensive care resources. Methods To bridge this gap, we conducted three public town hall meetings across Canada to explore Canadian's perspectives on this ethical challenge. Town hall discussions group discussions were digitally recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis. Results Six interrelated themes emerged from the town hall discussions related to: ethical and empirical starting points for deliberation; criteria for setting priorities; pre-crisis planning; in-crisis decision-making; the need for public deliberation and input; and participants' deliberative struggle with the ethical issues. Conclusions Our findings underscore the importance of public consultation in pandemic planning for sustaining public trust in a public health emergency. Participants appreciated the empirical and ethical uncertainty of decision-making in an influenza pandemic and demonstrated nuanced ethical reasoning about priority setting of intensive care resources in an influenza pandemic. Policymakers may benefit from a better understanding the public's empirical and ethical 'starting points' in developing effective pandemic plans.

  16. Priority setting of ICU resources in an influenza pandemic: a qualitative study of the Canadian public's perspectives.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Silva, Diego S; Gibson, Jennifer L; Robertson, Ann; Bensimon, Cécile M; Sahni, Sachin; Maunula, Laena; Smith, Maxwell J

    2012-03-26

    Pandemic influenza may exacerbate existing scarcity of life-saving medical resources. As a result, decision-makers may be faced with making tough choices about who will receive care and who will have to wait or go without. Although previous studies have explored ethical issues in priority setting from the perspective of clinicians and policymakers, there has been little investigation into how the public views priority setting during a pandemic influenza, in particular related to intensive care resources. To bridge this gap, we conducted three public town hall meetings across Canada to explore Canadian's perspectives on this ethical challenge. Town hall discussions group discussions were digitally recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis. Six interrelated themes emerged from the town hall discussions related to: ethical and empirical starting points for deliberation; criteria for setting priorities; pre-crisis planning; in-crisis decision-making; the need for public deliberation and input; and participants' deliberative struggle with the ethical issues. Our findings underscore the importance of public consultation in pandemic planning for sustaining public trust in a public health emergency. Participants appreciated the empirical and ethical uncertainty of decision-making in an influenza pandemic and demonstrated nuanced ethical reasoning about priority setting of intensive care resources in an influenza pandemic. Policymakers may benefit from a better understanding the public's empirical and ethical 'starting points' in developing effective pandemic plans.

  17. Research priorities for conservation and natural resource management in Oceania's small-island developing states.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Weeks, R; Adams, V M

    2018-02-01

    For conservation science to effectively inform management, research must focus on creating the scientific knowledge required to solve conservation problems. We identified research questions that, if answered, would increase the effectiveness of conservation and natural resource management practice and policy in Oceania's small-island developing states. We asked conservation professionals from academia, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations across the region to propose such questions and then identify which were of high priority in an online survey. We compared the high-priority questions with research questions identified globally and for other regions. Of 270 questions proposed by respondents, 38 were considered high priority, including: What are the highest priority areas for conservation in the face of increasing resource demand and climate change? How should marine protected areas be networked to account for connectivity and climate change? What are the most effective fisheries management policies that contribute to sustainable coral reef fisheries? High-priority questions related to the particular challenges of undertaking conservation on small-island developing states and the need for a research agenda that is responsive to the sociocultural context of Oceania. Research priorities for Oceania relative to elsewhere were broadly similar but differed in specific issues relevant to particular conservation contexts. These differences emphasize the importance of involving local practitioners in the identification of research priorities. Priorities were reasonably well aligned among sectoral groups. Only a few questions were widely considered answered, which may indicate a smaller-than-expected knowledge-action gap. We believe these questions can be used to strengthen research collaborations between scientists and practitioners working to further conservation and natural resource management in this region. © 2017 The Authors. Conservation Biology

  18. Generalized cost-effectiveness analysis for national-level priority-setting in the health sector

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Edejer Tessa

    2003-12-01

    Full Text Available Abstract Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA is potentially an important aid to public health decision-making but, with some notable exceptions, its use and impact at the level of individual countries is limited. A number of potential reasons may account for this, among them technical shortcomings associated with the generation of current economic evidence, political expediency, social preferences and systemic barriers to implementation. As a form of sectoral CEA, Generalized CEA sets out to overcome a number of these barriers to the appropriate use of cost-effectiveness information at the regional and country level. Its application via WHO-CHOICE provides a new economic evidence base, as well as underlying methodological developments, concerning the cost-effectiveness of a range of health interventions for leading causes of, and risk factors for, disease. The estimated sub-regional costs and effects of different interventions provided by WHO-CHOICE can readily be tailored to the specific context of individual countries, for example by adjustment to the quantity and unit prices of intervention inputs (costs or the coverage, efficacy and adherence rates of interventions (effectiveness. The potential usefulness of this information for health policy and planning is in assessing if current intervention strategies represent an efficient use of scarce resources, and which of the potential additional interventions that are not yet implemented, or not implemented fully, should be given priority on the grounds of cost-effectiveness. Health policy-makers and programme managers can use results from WHO-CHOICE as a valuable input into the planning and prioritization of services at national level, as well as a starting point for additional analyses of the trade-off between the efficiency of interventions in producing health and their impact on other key outcomes such as reducing inequalities and improving the health of the poor.

  19. The perceptions of research values and priorities in water resource ...

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    Research has played an important role in water resource management and a consensus on research objectives would increase the efficiency of these practices. In this paper we aimed to elicit the views of attendees of the 3rd Orange River Basin Symposium regarding water-related research, by using both quantitative and ...

  20. Overview: Forging Research Priorities for Women's Mental Health.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Russo, Nancy Felipe

    1990-01-01

    Discusses gender differences in mental disorder. Presents a research agenda for women's mental health research in the following areas: (1) diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders; (2) mental health issues for older women; (3) multiple roles; and (4) poverty. Discusses gender bias in research. (JS)

  1. Environmental-performance research priorities: Wood products. Final report

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    NONE

    1998-01-15

    This report describes a research plan to establish environmental, energy, and economic performance measures for renewable building materials, and to identify management and technology alternatives to improve environmental performance in a cost-effective manner. The research plan is designed to: (1) collect environmental and economic data on all life-cycle stages of the materials, (2) ensure that the data follows consistent definitions and collection procedures, and (3) develop analytical procedures for life-cycle analysis to address environmental performance questions. The research will be subdivided into a number of individual project modules. The five processing stages of wood used to organize the research plan are: (1) resource management and harvesting; (2) processing; (3) design and construction of structures; (4) use, maintenance, and disposal; and (5) waste recycling. Individual research module descriptions are provided in the report, as well as assessment techniques, research standards and protocol, and research management. 13 refs., 5 figs., 3 tabs.

  2. Public involvement in the priority setting activities of a wait time management initiative: a qualitative case study.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Bruni, Rebecca A; Laupacis, Andreas; Levinson, Wendy; Martin, Douglas K

    2007-11-16

    As no health system can afford to provide all possible services and treatments for the people it serves, each system must set priorities. Priority setting decision makers are increasingly involving the public in policy making. This study focuses on public engagement in a key priority setting context that plagues every health system around the world: wait list management. The purpose of this study is to describe and evaluate priority setting for the Ontario Wait Time Strategy, with special attention to public engagement. This study was conducted at the Ontario Wait Time Strategy in Ontario, Canada which is part of a Federal-Territorial-Provincial initiative to improve access and reduce wait times in five areas: cancer, cardiac, sight restoration, joint replacements, and diagnostic imaging. There were two sources of data: (1) over 25 documents (e.g. strategic planning reports, public updates), and (2) 28 one-on-one interviews with informants (e.g. OWTS participants, MOHLTC representatives, clinicians, patient advocates). Analysis used a modified thematic technique in three phases: open coding, axial coding, and evaluation. The Ontario Wait Time Strategy partially meets the four conditions of 'accountability for reasonableness'. The public was not directly involved in the priority setting activities of the Ontario Wait Time Strategy. Study participants identified both benefits (supporting the initiative, experts of the lived experience, a publicly funded system and sustainability of the healthcare system) and concerns (personal biases, lack of interest to be involved, time constraints, and level of technicality) for public involvement in the Ontario Wait Time Strategy. Additionally, the participants identified concern for the consequences (sustainability, cannibalism, and a class system) resulting from the Ontario Wait Times Strategy. We described and evaluated a wait time management initiative (the Ontario Wait Time Strategy) with special attention to public

  3. Public involvement in the priority setting activities of a wait time management initiative: a qualitative case study

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Laupacis Andreas

    2007-11-01

    Full Text Available Abstract Background As no health system can afford to provide all possible services and treatments for the people it serves, each system must set priorities. Priority setting decision makers are increasingly involving the public in policy making. This study focuses on public engagement in a key priority setting context that plagues every health system around the world: wait list management. The purpose of this study is to describe and evaluate priority setting for the Ontario Wait Time Strategy, with special attention to public engagement. Methods This study was conducted at the Ontario Wait Time Strategy in Ontario, Canada which is part of a Federal-Territorial-Provincial initiative to improve access and reduce wait times in five areas: cancer, cardiac, sight restoration, joint replacements, and diagnostic imaging. There were two sources of data: (1 over 25 documents (e.g. strategic planning reports, public updates, and (2 28 one-on-one interviews with informants (e.g. OWTS participants, MOHLTC representatives, clinicians, patient advocates. Analysis used a modified thematic technique in three phases: open coding, axial coding, and evaluation. Results The Ontario Wait Time Strategy partially meets the four conditions of 'accountability for reasonableness'. The public was not directly involved in the priority setting activities of the Ontario Wait Time Strategy. Study participants identified both benefits (supporting the initiative, experts of the lived experience, a publicly funded system and sustainability of the healthcare system and concerns (personal biases, lack of interest to be involved, time constraints, and level of technicality for public involvement in the Ontario Wait Time Strategy. Additionally, the participants identified concern for the consequences (sustainability, cannibalism, and a class system resulting from the Ontario Wait Times Strategy. Conclusion We described and evaluated a wait time management initiative (the Ontario

  4. Key performance indicators (KPIs) and priority setting in using the multi-attribute approach for assessing sustainable intelligent buildings

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    ALwaer, H. [The University of Dundee, School of Architecture, Matthew Building, 13 Perth Road, Dundee DD1 4HT (United Kingdom); Clements-Croome, D.J. [School of Construction Management and Engineering, The University of Reading, Whiteknights, PO Box 219, Reading RG6 6AW (United Kingdom)

    2010-04-15

    The main objectives of this paper are to: firstly, identify key issues related to sustainable intelligent buildings (environmental, social, economic and technological factors); develop a conceptual model for the selection of the appropriate KPIs; secondly, test critically stakeholder's perceptions and values of selected KPIs intelligent buildings; and thirdly develop a new model for measuring the level of sustainability for sustainable intelligent buildings. This paper uses a consensus-based model (Sustainable Built Environment Tool- SuBETool), which is analysed using the analytical hierarchical process (AHP) for multi-criteria decision-making. The use of the multi-attribute model for priority setting in the sustainability assessment of intelligent buildings is introduced. The paper commences by reviewing the literature on sustainable intelligent buildings research and presents a pilot-study investigating the problems of complexity and subjectivity. This study is based upon a survey perceptions held by selected stakeholders and the value they attribute to selected KPIs. It is argued that the benefit of the new proposed model (SuBETool) is a 'tool' for 'comparative' rather than an absolute measurement. It has the potential to provide useful lessons from current sustainability assessment methods for strategic future of sustainable intelligent buildings in order to improve a building's performance and to deliver objective outcomes. Findings of this survey enrich the field of intelligent buildings in two ways. Firstly, it gives a detailed insight into the selection of sustainable building indicators, as well as their degree of importance. Secondly, it tesst critically stakeholder's perceptions and values of selected KPIs intelligent buildings. It is concluded that the priority levels for selected criteria is largely dependent on the integrated design team, which includes the client, architects, engineers and facilities managers

  5. Priority research directions in the area of qualitative methodology

    OpenAIRE

    Melnikova, Olga; Khoroshilov, Dmitry

    2010-01-01

    The basic directions of modern theoretical and practical research in the area of qualitative methodology in Russia are discussed in the article. The complexity of research is considered from three points of view: the development of methodology of qualitative analysis, qualitative methods, and verbal and nonverbal projective techniques. The authors present an integrative model of the qualitative analysis, the research on specificity of the use of discourse-analysis method and projective techni...

  6. 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.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Jenniskens, Françoise; Tiendrebeogo, Georges; Coolen, Anne; Blok, Lucie; Kouanda, Seni; Sataru, Fuseini; Ralisimalala, Andriamampianina; Mwapasa, Victor; Kiyombo, Mbela; Plummer, David

    2012-12-11

    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.

  7. 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

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Jenniskens Françoise

    2012-12-01

    -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.

  8. ARS irrigation research priorities and projects-An update

    Science.gov (United States)

    The USDA Agricultural Research Service focuses on six areas of research that are crucial to safe and effective use of all water resources for agricultural production: 1) Irrigation Scheduling Technologies for Water Productivity; 2) Water Productivity (WP) at Multiple Scales; 3) Irrigation Applicatio...

  9. Priority water research questions for South Africa developed through ...

    African Journals Online (AJOL)

    This paper describes a collaborative process of identifying and prioritising current and future water research questions from a wide range of water specialists within South Africa. Over 1 600 questions were collected, reduced in number and prioritised by specialists working in water research and practice. A total of 59 ...

  10. Exploring research priorities in landscape architecture: An international Delphi study

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Meijering, J.V.; Tobi, H.; Brink, van den A.; Morris, F.A.; Bruns, D.

    2015-01-01

    Many of the world's major challenges require responses that are embedded in landscape planning, design, and management. To date, however, it is unclear which research domains should form the core of a future landscape architecture research agenda. This study explored which domains landscape

  11. International identification of research priorities for postgraduate theses in musculoskeletal physiotherapy using a modified Delphi technique.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Rushton, Alison; Moore, Ann

    2010-04-01

    Research priorities are established to identify gaps and maximise opportunities in developing an evidence base. Numerous postgraduate research theses are undertaken each year within the specialist area of musculoskeletal physiotherapy, and although some are published, greater potential for influence exists. This paper identifies international research priorities for postgraduate theses developed using a consensual Delphi process. A purposive sample included course tutors and expert clinicians nominated by Member Organisations of the International Federation of Orthopaedic Manipulative Physical Therapists (N=91). Round 1 requested >10 priorities for theses, and content analysis identified research themes. Round 2 requested participants rank the importance of each theme on a 1-5 scale, and round 3 requested ranking the importance and feasibility of the research question areas within each agreed theme. Descriptive analysis and use of Kendall's coefficient of concordance enabled interpretation of consensus. The response rate of 68% was good, identifying 23 research themes in round 1. Round 2 identified 14 research themes as important. Participant rating of the importance and feasibility of research question areas in round 3 supported 43 agreed priorities demonstrating good measurement validity. Establishing priorities provides a vision of how postgraduate theses can contribute to the developing evidence base and offer a focus for international collaboration. Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

  12. Research priorities for a multi-center child abuse pediatrics network - CAPNET.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Lindberg, Daniel M; Wood, Joanne N; Campbell, Kristine A; Scribano, Philip V; Laskey, Antoinette; Leventhal, John M; Pierce, Mary Clyde; Runyan, Desmond K

    2017-03-01

    Although child maltreatment medical research has benefited from several multi-center studies, the new specialty of child abuse pediatrics has not had a sustainable network capable of pursuing multiple, prospective, clinically-oriented studies. The Child Abuse Pediatrics Network (CAPNET) is a new multi-center research network dedicated to child maltreatment medical research. In order to establish a relevant, practical research agenda, we conducted a modified Delphi process to determine the topic areas with highest priority for such a network. Research questions were solicited from members of the Ray E. Helfer Society and study authors and were sorted into topic areas. These topic areas were rated for priority using iterative rounds of ratings and in-person meetings. The topics rated with the highest priority were missed diagnosis and selected/indicated prevention. This agenda can be used to target future multi-center child maltreatment medical research. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

  13. 1988 Delphi survey of nursing research priorities for New York State.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Shortridge, L; Doswell, W; Evans, M E; Levin, R F; Millor, G K; Carter, E

    1989-09-01

    In order to inform decisions about nursing research and health care policy, the Council on Nursing Research of the New York State Nurses Association (NYSNA) conducted a Delphi survey to identify the priorities for nursing research in New York state. The Delphi technique is a method of eliciting judgements from experts for the purpose of short-term forecasting and planning. The survey was conducted by mail in three rounds during 1988. Round I required participants to identify three primary research priorities for the nursing profession. In Round II participants ranked the 37 most frequently identified categories from Round I. The highest 16 categories from Round II were ranked by participants in Round III to provide the final 10 nursing research priority categories for New York state. All members of the New York State Nurses Association holding a minimum of a master's degree in nursing were invited to participate. The response rates were: Round I, 34% (N = 872); Round II, 38% (N = 985); Round III 37% (N = 974). Of the 10 nursing research priority categories identified in the final round, 5 relate to nurses, 2 relate to nursing, and 3 relate to clients. None of the high-risk conditions or populations with whom nurses work appear in the top 10, and only 2 of these are ranked in the top 15 priority categories. These priority categories will be used by the NYSNA Council on Nursing Research to influence its future agenda and activities. They can be used by the nursing profession and others for planning, policy making, and establishing nursing research funding priorities.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

  14. Intervention complexity--a conceptual framework to inform priority-setting in health.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Gericke, Christian A.; Kurowski, Christoph; Ranson, M. Kent; Mills, Anne

    2005-01-01

    Health interventions vary substantially in the degree of effort required to implement them. To some extent this is apparent in their financial cost, but the nature and availability of non-financial resources is often of similar importance. In particular, human resource requirements are frequently a major constraint. We propose a conceptual framework for the analysis of interventions according to their degree of technical complexity; this complements the notion of institutional capacity in considering the feasibility of implementing an intervention. Interventions are categorized into four dimensions: characteristics of the basic intervention; characteristics of delivery; requirements on government capacity; and usage characteristics. The analysis of intervention complexity should lead to a better understanding of supply- and demand-side constraints to scaling up, indicate priorities for further research and development, and can point to potential areas for improvement of specific aspects of each intervention to close the gap between the complexity of an intervention and the capacity to implement it. The framework is illustrated using the examples of scaling up condom social marketing programmes, and the DOTS strategy for tuberculosis control in highly resource-constrained countries. The framework could be used as a tool for policy-makers, planners and programme managers when considering the expansion of existing projects or the introduction of new interventions. Intervention complexity thus complements the considerations of burden of disease, cost-effectiveness, affordability and political feasibility in health policy decision-making. Reducing the technical complexity of interventions will be crucial to meeting the health-related Millennium Development Goals. PMID:15868020

  15. Pediatric Critical Care Nursing Research Priorities-Initiating International Dialogue.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Tume, Lyvonne N; Coetzee, Minette; Dryden-Palmer, Karen; Hickey, Patricia A; Kinney, Sharon; Latour, Jos M; Pedreira, Mavilde L G; Sefton, Gerri R; Sorce, Lauren; Curley, Martha A Q

    2015-07-01

    To identify and prioritize research questions of concern to the practice of pediatric critical care nursing practice. One-day consensus conference. By using a conceptual framework by Benner et al describing domains of practice in critical care nursing, nine international nurse researchers presented state-of-the-art lectures. Each identified knowledge gaps in their assigned practice domain and then poised three research questions to fill that gap. Then, meeting participants prioritized the proposed research questions using an interactive multivoting process. Seventh World Congress on Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care in Istanbul, Turkey. Pediatric critical care nurses and nurse scientists attending the open consensus meeting. Systematic review, gap analysis, and interactive multivoting. The participants prioritized 27 nursing research questions in nine content domains. The top four research questions were 1) identifying nursing interventions that directly impact the child and family's experience during the withdrawal of life support, 2) evaluating the long-term psychosocial impact of a child's critical illness on family outcomes, 3) articulating core nursing competencies that prevent unstable situations from deteriorating into crises, and 4) describing the level of nursing education and experience in pediatric critical care that has a protective effect on the mortality and morbidity of critically ill children. The consensus meeting was effective in organizing pediatric critical care nursing knowledge, identifying knowledge gaps and in prioritizing nursing research initiatives that could be used to advance nursing science across world regions.

  16. Increased fairness in priority setting processes within the health sector: the case of Kapiri-Mposhi District, Zambia.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Zulu, Joseph M; Michelo, Charles; Msoni, Carol; Hurtig, Anna-Karin; Byskov, Jens; Blystad, Astrid

    2014-02-18

    The challenge of priority setting (PS) in health care within contexts of severe resource limitations has continued to receive attention. Accountability for Reasonableness (AFR) has emerged as a useful framework to guide the implementation of PS processes. In 2006, the AFR approach to enhance legitimate and fair PS was introduced by researchers and decision makers within the health sector in the EU funded research project entitled 'Response to Accountable priority setting for Trust in health systems' (REACT). The project aimed to strengthen fairness and accountability in the PS processes of health systems at district level in Zambia, Tanzania and Kenya. This paper focuses on local perceptions and practices of fair PS (baseline study) as well as at the evolution of such perceptions and practices in PS following an AFR based intervention (evaluation study), carried out at district level in Kapiri-Mposhi District in Zambia. Data was collected using in depth interviews (IDIs), focus group discussions (FGDs) and review of documents from national to district level. The study population for this paper consisted of health related stakeholders employed in the district administration, in non-governmental organizations (NGO) and in health facilities. During the baseline study, concepts of legitimacy and fairness in PS processes were found to be grounded in local values of equity and impartiality. Government and other organizational strategies strongly supported devolution of PS and decision making procedures. However, important gaps were identified in terms of experiences of stakeholder involvement and fairness in PS processes in practice. The evaluation study revealed that a transformation of the views and methods regarding fairness in PS processes was ongoing in the study district, which was partly attributed to the AFR based intervention. The study findings suggest that increased attention was given to fairness in PS processes at district level. The changes were linked to a

  17. [Priorities for health policy and systems research focused on human resources in health].

    Science.gov (United States)

    Reveiz, Ludovic; Chapman, Evelina; Flórez, Carlos E Pinzón; Torres, Rubén

    2013-11-01

    Identify priorities for health policy and systems research related to human resources in Latin America and Caribbean countries. An online survey was designed based on a search in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and LILACS that contributed previously prioritized research questions. Respondents, mainly researchers and decision-makers, were identified through various sources. The first round, directed at researchers, aimed at refining and adding research questions and prioritizing questions that researchers regarded as relevant or very relevant. The second round was directed at researchers and decision-makers. A question was considered a priority when 50% (or more) of respondents described it as "relevant" or "very relevant." The first round included 20 questions on human resources and 33/66 researchers responded. Questions suggested by the researchers were added, resulting in 26 questions for the second round, which were sent to 121 researchers and decision-makers. Respondent representation by country was uniform in both rounds. In the second round, 14/26 (54%) questions were described as very relevant. Priority issues related to regulation of the market, integration of education and health care needs, and distribution of human resources. The response rate was 50% in the first round (33/66), and 34% in the second round (41/121). The results of this exercise provide a starting point for mobilization of resources for health policy and systems research. Identification of health systems research priorities is an effective and efficient strategy for reorienting political, financial, management, and social organization efforts for attaining universal health coverage.

  18. An examination of the research priorities for a hospice service in New Zealand: A Delphi study.

    Science.gov (United States)

    de Vries, Kay; Walton, Jo; Nelson, Katherine; Knox, Rhondda

    2016-06-01

    Palliative care research is relatively diverse and prioritizing research in this field is dependent on multiple factors such as complex ethical decisions in designing and conducting the research; access to participants who may be deemed "vulnerable" and an increasingly medically focused approach to care. The aim of this study was to inform organizational decision-making and policy development regarding future research priorities for a hospice service in New Zealand. A modified three-round Delphi technique was employed. Participants were drawn from one dedicated specialist palliative care service that delivers care in the community, day-care, hospice inpatient, aged residential care, and acute hospital palliative care service. A purposive sample included palliative care staff (n = 10, 18, 9, for rounds 1-3, respectively) volunteers (n = 10, 12, 11); and patients and family carers (n = 6, 8, for rounds 1 and 2). Patients and family carers were not involved in the third round. At final ranking of six research themes encompassing 23 research topics were identified by staff and volunteers. These were: symptom management; aged care; education; community; patient and family; and bereavement support and young people. Patients and family carers agreed on four themes, made up of 10 research topics. These were: decision-making, bereavement and loss, symptom management; and recognition of need and response of service. The study generated a rich set of research themes and specific research topics. The perspectives of staff and volunteers are significantly different from those of patients and family members, in spite of the recognition by all concerned that palliative care services work within a philosophy of patient-centered care. Open discussion of ideas has the potential to engage both staff and patients and carers in quality improvement initiatives, and to reinforce the value of research for patient care.

  19. Study of research needs and priorities in radioactive waste management

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Carson, W.E.; Mitchell, W. III.

    1984-02-01

    This report presents the results of an assessment of long-range research needs in nuclear waste management. The purpose is to aid the Director of Energy Research in determining the health of DOE's research programs. The intent of the project reported here was to identify additional, basic research necessary in the 1980s and 1990s to develop an adequate scientific data base for nuclear waste management activities likely to be important around the turn of the century. The recommendations resulted from an overview of the entire area of nuclear waste management, not from focused examinations of narrow topics within that area. The suggested research may be the subject of future studies or more intense work by DOE. The recommendations presented in this report are not accompanied by designations of responsible program offices within DOE. It is anticipated that the contents of the report will be shared with the program offices involved and that those offices will recognize and respond to recommendations within their purviews

  20. Research Priorities from Animal Behaviour for Maximising Conservation Progress.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Greggor, Alison L; Berger-Tal, Oded; Blumstein, Daniel T; Angeloni, Lisa; Bessa-Gomes, Carmen; Blackwell, Bradley F; St Clair, Colleen Cassady; Crooks, Kevin; de Silva, Shermin; Fernández-Juricic, Esteban; Goldenberg, Shifra Z; Mesnick, Sarah L; Owen, Megan; Price, Catherine J; Saltz, David; Schell, Christopher J; Suarez, Andrew V; Swaisgood, Ronald R; Winchell, Clark S; Sutherland, William J

    2016-12-01

    Poor communication between academic researchers and wildlife managers limits conservation progress and innovation. As a result, input from overlapping fields, such as animal behaviour, is underused in conservation management despite its demonstrated utility as a conservation tool and countless papers advocating its use. Communication and collaboration across these two disciplines are unlikely to improve without clearly identified management needs and demonstrable impacts of behavioural-based conservation management. To facilitate this process, a team of wildlife managers and animal behaviour researchers conducted a research prioritisation exercise, identifying 50 key questions that have great potential to resolve critical conservation and management problems. The resulting agenda highlights the diversity and extent of advances that both fields could achieve through collaboration. Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

  1. Unsaturated flow and transport research questions and priorities

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Chery, D.L.

    1993-01-01

    A little over two years ago, a similar meeting (Workshop IV - Flow and Transport through Unsaturated Fractured Rock; Related to High-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal) was held her in Tucson, Arizona, to discuss the same issues discussed here the past 4 days. This presentation revisits what was said 2 years ago, reviews research needs that have been articulated by the licensing staff of the Division of High-Level Waste Management, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and presents some of the thoughts on research needs resulting from the deliberations of a special committee of the National Research Council. After considering these aspects the questions of what has been accomplished in the past 2 years and where attention and energies should be focused in the coming few years, can be asked. 3 refs

  2. The Competitive edge: research priorities for U.S. manufacturing

    National Research Council Canada - National Science Library

    National Research Council Staff; Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems; Board on Manufacturing and Engineering Design; Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences; National Research Council; National Academy of Sciences

    1991-01-01

    ... Manufacturing Studies Board Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1991 i Copyrightthe cannot be not from book, paper however, version for formatting, original authoritative the typesetting-specific the as from created publication files XML from other this and of...

  3. Research Priorities for Robust and Beneficial Artificial Intelligence

    OpenAIRE

    Russell, Stuart; Dewey, Daniel; Tegmark, Max

    2015-01-01

    Success in the quest for artificial intelligence has the potential to bring unprecedented benefits to humanity, and it is therefore worthwhile to investigate how to maximize these benefits while avoiding potential pitfalls. This article gives numerous examples (which should by no means be construed as an exhaustive list) of such worthwhile research aimed at ensuring that AI remains robust and beneficial.

  4. The competitive edge: research priorities for U.S. manufacturing

    National Research Council Canada - National Science Library

    National Research Council Staff; Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems; Board on Manufacturing and Engineering Design; Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences; National Research Council; National Academy of Sciences

    1991-01-01

    ... Manufacturing Studies Board Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1991 i Copyrightthe cannot be not from book, paper however, version for formatting, original authoritative the typesetting-specific the as from created publication files XML from other this and of...

  5. NCI Funding Trends and Priorities in Physical Activity and Energy Balance Research Among Cancer Survivors.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Alfano, Catherine M; Bluethmann, Shirley M; Tesauro, Gina; Perna, Frank; Agurs-Collins, Tanya; Elena, Joanne W; Ross, Sharon A; O'Connell, Mary; Bowles, Heather R; Greenberg, Deborah; Nebeling, Linda

    2016-01-01

    There is considerable evidence that a healthy lifestyle consisting of physical activity, healthy diet, and weight control is associated with reduced risk of morbidity and mortality after cancer. However, these behavioral interventions are not widely adopted in practice or community settings. Integrating heath behavior change interventions into standard survivorship care for the growing number of cancer survivors requires an understanding of the current state of the science and a coordinated scientific agenda for the future with focused attention in several priority areas. To facilitate this goal, this paper presents trends over the past decade of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) research portfolio, fiscal year 2004 to 2014, by funding mechanism, research focus, research design and methodology, primary study exposures and outcomes, and study team expertise and composition. These data inform a prioritized research agenda for the next decade focused on demonstrating value and feasibility and creating desire for health behavior change interventions at multiple levels including the survivor, clinician, and healthcare payer to facilitate the development and implementation of appropriately targeted, adaptive, effective, and sustainable programs for all survivors. Published by Oxford University Press (2015). This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.

  6. Ethics of conducting research in conflict settings

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Mills Edward J

    2009-07-01

    Full Text Available Abstract Humanitarian agencies are increasingly engaged in research in conflict and post-conflict settings. This is justified by the need to improve the quality of assistance provided in these settings and to collect evidence of the highest standard to inform advocacy and policy change. The instability of conflict-affected areas, and the heightened vulnerability of populations caught in conflict, calls for careful consideration of the research methods employed, the levels of evidence sought, and ethical requirements. Special attention needs to be placed on the feasibility and necessity of doing research in conflict-settings, and the harm-benefit ratio for potential research participants.

  7. Habitability research priorities for the International Space Station and beyond.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Whitmore, M; Adolf, J A; Woolford, B J

    2000-09-01

    Advanced technology and the desire to explore space have resulted in increasingly longer manned space missions. Long Duration Space Flights (LDSF) have provided a considerable amount of scientific research on the ability of humans to adapt and function in microgravity environments. In addition, studies conducted in analogous environments, such as winter-over expeditions in Antarctica, have complemented the scientific understanding of human performance in LDSF. These findings indicate long duration missions may take a toll on the individual, both physiologically and psychologically, with potential impacts on performance. Significant factors in any manned LDSF are habitability, workload and performance. They are interrelated and influence one another, and therefore necessitate an integrated research approach. An integral part of this approach will be identifying and developing tools not only for assessment of habitability, workload, and performance, but also for prediction of these factors as well. In addition, these tools will be used to identify and provide countermeasures to minimize decrements and maximize mission success. The purpose of this paper is to identify research goals and methods for the International Space Station (ISS) in order to identify critical factors and level of impact on habitability, workload, and performance, and to develop and validate countermeasures. Overall, this approach will provide the groundwork for creating an optimal environment in which to live and work onboard ISS as well as preparing for longer planetary missions.

  8. Science for Alaska: Public Understanding of University Research Priorities

    Science.gov (United States)

    Campbell, D.

    2015-12-01

    Science for Alaska: Public Understanding of Science D. L. Campbell11University of Alaska Fairbanks, USA Around 200 people brave 40-below-zero temperatures to listen to university researchers and scientists give lectures about their work at an event called the Science for Alaska Lecture Series, hosted by the University of Alaska Fairbanks Geophysical Institute. It is held once a week, for six weeks during the coldest part of a Fairbanks, Alaska, winter. The topics range from space physics to remote sensing. The lectures last for 45 minutes with 15 minutes for audience questions and answers. It has been popular for about 20 years and is one of many public outreach efforts of the institute. The scientists are careful in their preparations for presentations and GI's Public Relations staff chooses the speakers based on topic, diversity and public interest. The staff also considers the speaker's ability to speak to a general audience, based on style, clarity and experience. I conducted a qualitative research project to find out about the people who attended the event, why they attend and what they do with the information they hear about. The participants were volunteers who attended the event and either stayed after the lectures for an interview or signed up to be contacted later. I used used an interview technique with open-ended questions, recorded and transcribed the interview. I identified themes in the interviews, using narrative analysis. Preliminary data show that the lecture series is a form of entertainment for people who are highly educated and work in demanding and stressful jobs. They come with family and friends. Sometimes it's a date with a significant other. Others want to expose their children to science. The findings are in keeping with the current literature that suggests that public events meant to increase public understanding of science instead draws like-minded people. The findings are different from Campbell's hypothesis that attendance was based

  9. Cause, care, cure: research priorities for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Stolee, Paul; Hillier, Loretta M; Cook, Sheila; Rockwood, Kenneth

    2011-12-01

    Part of Ontario's strategy on Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) was to develop research priorities and recommend strategies for building research capacity. The process to achieve these objectives included an environmental scan, key informant interviews, surveys, and a consensus workshop; this process involved over 100 researchers, clinicians, persons with early dementia, and family caregivers. This article describes the process undertaken, key issues identified, and recommendations for research priorities and for building research capacity; and provides a strategic direction for dementia research in Ontario that is relevant for other jurisdictions. ADRD research in all aspects is required to advance knowledge of ADRD cause, care, and cure; gaps currently exist in understanding effective approaches to care and knowledge transfer. Capacity for high-calibre research hinges on maintaining attractive career paths for researchers, solid infrastructures, and strong partnerships. For research to inform policy and practice, better mechanisms are needed for knowledge exchange.

  10. Livestock Production - Future Directions and Priority Research Areas

    Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDEWEB)

    Robinson, P.H., E-mail: phrobinson@ucdavis.edu [Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, CA (United States)

    2014-07-15

    While specific issues facing ruminant production differ in detail between developed and developing countries, the general constraints and challenges suggest that common research interests will continue to exist. The need to increase outputs of ruminant meat and milk products differ sharply between the developed and developing world, although a need to increase animal productivity is evident in both, albeit primarily to increase product output in the developing world but to decrease environmental impacts of food producing ruminants in the developed world. The largest single limitation to increasing productivity of ruminants in the low digestibility of the structural carbohydrates which comprise a large proportion of their diets. Research on actions of secondary compounds in ruminal metabolism is required to avoid their negative effects and harvest the benefits of their positive effects. Domesticated ruminants have historically provided a substantial portion of the world's supplies. However if that is to continue, ways must be found to increase digestibility of their primary feedstocks, increase the 'healthfulness' of their products to humans, and decrease the environmental impact of their production systems.

  11. Livestock Production - Future Directions and Priority Research Areas

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Robinson, P.H.

    2014-01-01

    While specific issues facing ruminant production differ in detail between developed and developing countries, the general constraints and challenges suggest that common research interests will continue to exist. The need to increase outputs of ruminant meat and milk products differ sharply between the developed and developing world, although a need to increase animal productivity is evident in both, albeit primarily to increase product output in the developing world but to decrease environmental impacts of food producing ruminants in the developed world. The largest single limitation to increasing productivity of ruminants in the low digestibility of the structural carbohydrates which comprise a large proportion of their diets. Research on actions of secondary compounds in ruminal metabolism is required to avoid their negative effects and harvest the benefits of their positive effects. Domesticated ruminants have historically provided a substantial portion of the world's supplies. However if that is to continue, ways must be found to increase digestibility of their primary feedstocks, increase the 'healthfulness' of their products to humans, and decrease the environmental impact of their production systems

  12. Cost reduction has priority in solar cell research

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Van Zolingen, R.J.C.; Sinke, W.C.

    1993-01-01

    The main topic in the research and development of photovoltaic cells is cost reduction. Although new materials, improved techniques and increasing efficiency are promising aspects of the clean and sustainable option of a photovoltaic conversion of sunlight to produce electricity at a large scale, the high prices form an obstacle. Photovoltaic conversion is at least a factor three too expensive compared to the conventional power generation techniques by means of fossil fuels. Attention is paid to the theoretical maximum efficiency of photovoltaic conversion, the efficiencies realized sofar, the importance of thin film solar cells, the payback period of photovoltaic modules, the environmental impacts of using photovoltaic cells, and finally the costs. 2 figs., 1 ill., 2 tabs., 6 refs

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

    Science.gov (United States)

    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.

  14. Priorities for Advancing Research on Youth with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Co-Occurring Anxiety

    Science.gov (United States)

    Vasa, Roma A.; Keefer, Amy; Reaven, Judy; South, Mikle; White, Susan W.

    2018-01-01

    Research on anxiety disorders in youth with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) has burgeoned in the past two decades. Yet, critical gaps exist with respect to measuring and treating anxiety in this population. This study used the nominal group technique to identify the most important research priorities on co-occurring anxiety in ASD. An international…

  15. 78 FR 27036 - Final Priority. National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research-Traumatic Brain...

    Science.gov (United States)

    2013-05-09

    ... affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety... Rehabilitation Research--Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems Centers Collaborative Research Project AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education. ACTION: Final priority...

  16. Political strategies in difficult times - The "backstage" experience of Swedish politicians on formal priority setting in healthcare.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Garpenby, Peter; Nedlund, Ann-Charlotte

    2016-08-01

    This paper contributes to the knowledge on the governing of healthcare in a democratic context in times of austerity. Resource allocation in healthcare is a highly political issue but the political nature of healthcare is not always made clear and the role of politicians is often obscure. The absence of politicians in rationing/disinvestment arrangements is usually explained with blame-shifting arguments; they prefer to delegate "the burden of responsibility" to administrative agencies or professionals. Drawing on a case where Swedish regional politicians involved themselves in setting priorities at a more detailed level than previously, the findings suggest that the subject of "blame avoidance" is more complicated than usually assumed. A qualitative case study was designed, involving semi-structured interviews with 14 regionally elected politicians in one Swedish health authority, conducted in June 2011. The interviews were analysed through a thematic analysis in accordance with the "framework approach" by Ritchie and Lewis. Findings show that an overarching strategy among the politicians was to appear united and to suppress conflict, which served to underpin the vital strategy of bringing the medical profession into the process. A key finding is the importance that politicians, when appearing "backstage", attach to the prevention of blame from the medical profession. This case illustrates that one has to take into account that priority settings requires various types of skills and knowledges - not only technical but also political and social. Another important lesson points toward the need to broaden the political leadership repertoire, as leadership in the case of priority setting is not about politicians being all in or all out. The results suggest that in a priority-setting process it is of importance to have politics on-board at an early stage to secure loyalty to the process, although not necessarily being involved in all details. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier

  17. Economic evaluation and the Jordan Rational Drug List: an exploratory study of national-level priority setting.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Lafi, Rania; Robinson, Suzanne; Williams, Iestyn

    2012-01-01

    To explore the extent of and barriers to the use of economic evaluation in compiling the Jordan Rational Drug List in the health care system of Jordan. The research reported in this article involved a case study of the Jordan Rational Drug List. Data collection methods included semi-structured interviews with decision makers and analysis of secondary documentary sources. The case study was supplemented by additional interviews with a small number of Jordanian academics involved in the production of economic evaluation. The research found that there was no formal requirement for cost-effectiveness information submitted as part of the decision-making process for the inclusion of new technologies on the Jordan Rational Drug List. Both decision makers and academics suggested that economic evidence was not influential in formulary decisions. This is unusual for national formulary bodies. The study identified a number of barriers that prevent substantive and routine use of economic evaluation. While some of these echo findings of previous studies, others-notably the extent to which the sectional interests of clinical groups and commercial (pharmaceutical) industry exert undue influence over decision making-more obviously result from the specific Jordanian context. Economic evaluation was not found to be influential in the Jordan Rational Drug List. Recommendations for improvement include enhancing capacity in relation to generating, accessing, and/or applying health economic analysis to priority setting decisions. There is a further need to incentivize the use of economic evaluation, and this requires that organizational and structural impediments be removed. Copyright © 2012 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

  18. Setting priorities for surveillance, prevention, and control of zoonoses in Bogotá, Colombia.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Cediel, Natalia; Villamil, Luis Carlos; Romero, Jaime; Renteria, Libardo; De Meneghi, Daniele

    2013-05-01

    To establish priorities for zoonoses surveillance, prevention, and control in Bogotá, Colombia. A Delphi panel of experts in veterinary and human medicine was conducted using a validated prioritization method to assess the importance of 32 selected zoonoses. This exercise was complemented by a questionnaire survey, using the knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) methodology, administered in 19 districts of Bogotá from September 2009 to April 2010 to an at-risk population (workers at veterinary clinics; pet shops; butcher shops; and traditional food markets that sell poultry, meat, cheese, and eggs). A risk indicator based on level of knowledge about zoonoses was constructed using categorical principal component and logistic regression analyses. Twelve experts participated in the Delphi panel. The diseases scored as highest priority were: influenza A(H1N1), salmonellosis, Escherichia coli infection, leptospirosis, and rabies. The diseases scored as lowest priority were: ancylostomiasis, scabies, ringworm, and trichinellosis. A total of 535 questionnaires were collected and analyzed. Respondents claimed to have had scabies (21%), fungi (8%), brucellosis (8%), and pulicosis (8%). Workers with the most limited knowledge on zoonoses and therefore the highest health risk were those who 1) did not have a professional education, 2) had limited or no zoonoses prevention training, and 3) worked in Usme, Bosa, or Ciudad Bolívar districts. According to the experts, influenza A(H1N1) was the most important zoonoses. Rabies, leptospirosis, brucellosis, and toxoplasmosis were identified as priority diseases by both the experts and the exposed workers. This is the first prioritization exercise focused on zoonoses surveillance, prevention, and control in Colombia. These results could be used to guide decision-making for resource allocation in public health.

  19. Control module and module for priority set-up for the CAMAC universal branch driver

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Nguen Fuk; Smirnov, V.A.

    1976-01-01

    Control module of BKD-871 universal branch driver operates as a controller in the control crate. This module performs synchronous data transmission to (from) the computer and shapes time signals for A-type controllers. The following regimes of data block transmission may be organized with the help of the control module: address scanning regime; repeated reference regime; stop regime. A priority driving module is required for organization of simultaneous operation from several control sources

  20. Science priorities for seamounts: research links to conservation and management.

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Malcolm R Clark

    Full Text Available Seamounts shape the topography of all ocean basins and can be hotspots of biological activity in the deep sea. The Census of Marine Life on Seamounts (CenSeam was a field program that examined seamounts as part of the global Census of Marine Life (CoML initiative from 2005 to 2010. CenSeam progressed seamount science by collating historical data, collecting new data, undertaking regional and global analyses of seamount biodiversity, mapping species and habitat distributions, challenging established paradigms of seamount ecology, developing new hypotheses, and documenting the impacts of human activities on seamounts. However, because of the large number of seamounts globally, much about the structure, function and connectivity of seamount ecosystems remains unexplored and unknown. Continual, and potentially increasing, threats to seamount resources from fishing and seabed mining are creating a pressing demand for research to inform conservation and management strategies. To meet this need, intensive science effort in the following areas will be needed: 1 Improved physical and biological data; of particular importance is information on seamount location, physical characteristics (e.g. habitat heterogeneity and complexity, more complete and intensive biodiversity inventories, and increased understanding of seamount connectivity and faunal dispersal; 2 New human impact data; these shall encompass better studies on the effects of human activities on seamount ecosystems, as well as monitoring long-term changes in seamount assemblages following impacts (e.g. recovery; 3 Global data repositories; there is a pressing need for more comprehensive fisheries catch and effort data, especially on the high seas, and compilation or maintenance of geological and biodiversity databases that underpin regional and global analyses; 4 Application of support tools in a data-poor environment; conservation and management will have to increasingly rely on predictive

  1. Science priorities for seamounts: research links to conservation and management.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Clark, Malcolm R; Schlacher, Thomas A; Rowden, Ashley A; Stocks, Karen I; Consalvey, Mireille

    2012-01-01

    Seamounts shape the topography of all ocean basins and can be hotspots of biological activity in the deep sea. The Census of Marine Life on Seamounts (CenSeam) was a field program that examined seamounts as part of the global Census of Marine Life (CoML) initiative from 2005 to 2010. CenSeam progressed seamount science by collating historical data, collecting new data, undertaking regional and global analyses of seamount biodiversity, mapping species and habitat distributions, challenging established paradigms of seamount ecology, developing new hypotheses, and documenting the impacts of human activities on seamounts. However, because of the large number of seamounts globally, much about the structure, function and connectivity of seamount ecosystems remains unexplored and unknown. Continual, and potentially increasing, threats to seamount resources from fishing and seabed mining are creating a pressing demand for research to inform conservation and management strategies. To meet this need, intensive science effort in the following areas will be needed: 1) Improved physical and biological data; of particular importance is information on seamount location, physical characteristics (e.g. habitat heterogeneity and complexity), more complete and intensive biodiversity inventories, and increased understanding of seamount connectivity and faunal dispersal; 2) New human impact data; these shall encompass better studies on the effects of human activities on seamount ecosystems, as well as monitoring long-term changes in seamount assemblages following impacts (e.g. recovery); 3) Global data repositories; there is a pressing need for more comprehensive fisheries catch and effort data, especially on the high seas, and compilation or maintenance of geological and biodiversity databases that underpin regional and global analyses; 4) Application of support tools in a data-poor environment; conservation and management will have to increasingly rely on predictive modelling

  2. Science Priorities for Seamounts: Research Links to Conservation and Management

    Science.gov (United States)

    Clark, Malcolm R.; Schlacher, Thomas A.; Rowden, Ashley A.; Stocks, Karen I.; Consalvey, Mireille

    2012-01-01

    Seamounts shape the topography of all ocean basins and can be hotspots of biological activity in the deep sea. The Census of Marine Life on Seamounts (CenSeam) was a field program that examined seamounts as part of the global Census of Marine Life (CoML) initiative from 2005 to 2010. CenSeam progressed seamount science by collating historical data, collecting new data, undertaking regional and global analyses of seamount biodiversity, mapping species and habitat distributions, challenging established paradigms of seamount ecology, developing new hypotheses, and documenting the impacts of human activities on seamounts. However, because of the large number of seamounts globally, much about the structure, function and connectivity of seamount ecosystems remains unexplored and unknown. Continual, and potentially increasing, threats to seamount resources from fishing and seabed mining are creating a pressing demand for research to inform conservation and management strategies. To meet this need, intensive science effort in the following areas will be needed: 1) Improved physical and biological data; of particular importance is information on seamount location, physical characteristics (e.g. habitat heterogeneity and complexity), more complete and intensive biodiversity inventories, and increased understanding of seamount connectivity and faunal dispersal; 2) New human impact data; these shall encompass better studies on the effects of human activities on seamount ecosystems, as well as monitoring long-term changes in seamount assemblages following impacts (e.g. recovery); 3) Global data repositories; there is a pressing need for more comprehensive fisheries catch and effort data, especially on the high seas, and compilation or maintenance of geological and biodiversity databases that underpin regional and global analyses; 4) Application of support tools in a data-poor environment; conservation and management will have to increasingly rely on predictive modelling

  3. Can wide consultation help with setting priorities for large-scale biodiversity monitoring programs?

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Frédéric Boivin

    Full Text Available Climate and other global change phenomena affecting biodiversity require monitoring to track ecosystem changes and guide policy and management actions. Designing a biodiversity monitoring program is a difficult task that requires making decisions that often lack consensus due to budgetary constrains. As monitoring programs require long-term investment, they also require strong and continuing support from all interested parties. As such, stakeholder consultation is key to identify priorities and make sound design decisions that have as much support as possible. Here, we present the results of a consultation conducted to serve as an aid for designing a large-scale biodiversity monitoring program for the province of Québec (Canada. The consultation took the form of a survey with 13 discrete choices involving tradeoffs in respect to design priorities and 10 demographic questions (e.g., age, profession. The survey was sent to thousands of individuals having expected interests and knowledge about biodiversity and was completed by 621 participants. Overall, consensuses were few and it appeared difficult to create a design fulfilling the priorities of the majority. Most participants wanted 1 a monitoring design covering the entire territory and focusing on natural habitats; 2 a focus on species related to ecosystem services, on threatened and on invasive species. The only demographic characteristic that was related to the type of prioritization was the declared level of knowledge in biodiversity (null to high, but even then the influence was quite small.

  4. Setting and changing feature priorities in visual short-term memory.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Kalogeropoulou, Zampeta; Jagadeesh, Akshay V; Ohl, Sven; Rolfs, Martin

    2017-04-01

    Many everyday tasks require prioritizing some visual features over competing ones, both during the selection from the rich sensory input and while maintaining information in visual short-term memory (VSTM). Here, we show that observers can change priorities in VSTM when, initially, they attended to a different feature. Observers reported from memory the orientation of one of two spatially interspersed groups of black and white gratings. Using colored pre-cues (presented before stimulus onset) and retro-cues (presented after stimulus offset) predicting the to-be-reported group, we manipulated observers' feature priorities independently during stimulus encoding and maintenance, respectively. Valid pre-cues reliably increased observers' performance (reduced guessing, increased report precision) as compared to neutral ones; invalid pre-cues had the opposite effect. Valid retro-cues also consistently improved performance (by reducing random guesses), even if the unexpected group suddenly became relevant (invalid-valid condition). Thus, feature-based attention can reshape priorities in VSTM protecting information that would otherwise be forgotten.

  5. Can wide consultation help with setting priorities for large-scale biodiversity monitoring programs?

    Science.gov (United States)

    Boivin, Frédéric; Simard, Anouk; Peres-Neto, Pedro

    2014-01-01

    Climate and other global change phenomena affecting biodiversity require monitoring to track ecosystem changes and guide policy and management actions. Designing a biodiversity monitoring program is a difficult task that requires making decisions that often lack consensus due to budgetary constrains. As monitoring programs require long-term investment, they also require strong and continuing support from all interested parties. As such, stakeholder consultation is key to identify priorities and make sound design decisions that have as much support as possible. Here, we present the results of a consultation conducted to serve as an aid for designing a large-scale biodiversity monitoring program for the province of Québec (Canada). The consultation took the form of a survey with 13 discrete choices involving tradeoffs in respect to design priorities and 10 demographic questions (e.g., age, profession). The survey was sent to thousands of individuals having expected interests and knowledge about biodiversity and was completed by 621 participants. Overall, consensuses were few and it appeared difficult to create a design fulfilling the priorities of the majority. Most participants wanted 1) a monitoring design covering the entire territory and focusing on natural habitats; 2) a focus on species related to ecosystem services, on threatened and on invasive species. The only demographic characteristic that was related to the type of prioritization was the declared level of knowledge in biodiversity (null to high), but even then the influence was quite small.

  6. Identifying research priorities for public health research to address health inequalities: use of Delphi-like survey methods.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Turner, S; Ollerhead, E; Cook, A

    2017-10-09

    In the funding of health research and public health research it is vital that research questions posed are important and that funded research meets a research need or a gap in evidence. Many methods are used in the identification of research priorities, however, these can be resource intensive, costly and logistically challenging. Identifying such research priorities can be particularly challenging for complex public health problems as there is a need to consult a number of experts across disciplines and with a range of expertise. This study investigated the use of Delphi-like survey methods in identifying important research priorities relating to health inequalities and framing tractable research questions for topic areas identified. The study was conducted in two phases, both using Delphi-like survey methods. Firstly, public health professionals with an interest in health inequalities were asked to identify research priorities. Secondly academic researchers were asked to frame tractable research questions relating to the priorities identified. These research priorities identified using Delphi-like survey methods were subsequently compared to those identified using different methods. A total of 52 public health professionals and 21 academics across the United Kingdom agreed to take part. The response rates were high, from public health professionals across three survey rounds (69%, 50% and 40%) and from academics across one round (52%), indicating that participants were receptive to the method and motivated to respond. The themes identified as encompassing the most important research priorities were mental health, healthy environment and health behaviours. Within these themes, the topic areas that emerged most strongly included community interventions for prevention of mental health problems and the food and alcohol environment. Some responses received from academic researchers were (as requested) in the form of tractable research questions, whereas others

  7. Priority Setting for Universal Health Coverage: We Need Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes, Not Just More Evidence on Cost-Effectiveness

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    Baltussen, R.; Jansen, M.P.M.; Mikkelsen, E.; Tromp, N.; Hontelez, J.; Bijlmakers, L.; Wilt, G.J. van der

    2016-01-01

    Priority setting of health interventions is generally considered as a valuable approach to support low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in their strive for universal health coverage (UHC). However, present initiatives on priority setting are mainly geared towards the development of more

  8. Priority setting for universal health coverage: We need evidence-informed deliberative processes, not just more evidence on cost-effectiveness

    NARCIS (Netherlands)

    R. Baltussen (R.); Jansen, M.P. (Maarten P.); T.S. Mikkelsen; N. Tromp; J.A.C. Hontelez (Jan); Bijlmakers, L. (Leon); G.-J. van der Wilt (Gert-Jan)

    2016-01-01

    textabstractPriority setting of health interventions is generally considered as a valuable approach to support low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in their strive for universal health coverage (UHC). However, present initiatives on priority setting are mainly geared towards the development of

  9. Respiratory medicines for children: current evidence, unlicensed use and research priorities

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Smyth, A R; Barbato, A; Beydon, N

    2010-01-01

    deficiency. We hope that this summary of the evidence for respiratory medicines in children, highlighting gaps and research priorities, will be useful for the pharmaceutical industry, the paediatric committee of the European Medicines Agency, academic investigators and the lay public.......This European Respiratory Society task force has reviewed the evidence for paediatric medicines in respiratory disease occurring in adults and children. We describe off-licence use, research priorities and ongoing studies. Off-licence and off-label prescribing in children is widespread...

  10. Research in a dental practice setting.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Fardal, Oystein

    2004-09-01

    There is a shortage of research from dental practice. The aim of this article is to stimulate more interest in dental research. This is done by explaining the basic principles of doing research in a dental practice setting. Examples are taken from the author's own practice. Emphasis is placed on the following points: how to develop and research ideas; factors specific to dental practice; how articles and journals are rated; making a protocol for the study; examiners' reliability and statistical analysis.

  11. Setting healthcare priorities: a description and evaluation of the budgeting and planning process in county hospitals in Kenya.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Barasa, Edwine W; Cleary, Susan; Molyneux, Sassy; English, Mike

    2017-04-01

    This paper describes and evaluates the budgeting and planning processes in public hospitals in Kenya. We used a qualitative case study approach to examine these processes in two hospitals in Kenya. We collected data by in-depth interviews of national level policy makers, hospital managers, and frontline practitioners in the case study hospitals (n = 72), a review of documents, and non-participant observations within the hospitals over a 7 month period. We applied an evaluative framework that considers both consequentialist and proceduralist conditions as important to the quality of priority-setting processes. The budgeting and planning process in the case study hospitals was characterized by lack of alignment, inadequate role clarity and the use of informal priority-setting criteria. With regard to consequentialist conditions, the hospitals incorporated economic criteria by considering the affordability of alternatives, but rarely considered the equity of allocative decisions. In the first hospital, stakeholders were aware of - and somewhat satisfied with - the budgeting and planning process, while in the second hospital they were not. Decision making in both hospitals did not result in reallocation of resources. With regard to proceduralist conditions, the budgeting and planning process in the first hospital was more inclusive and transparent, with the stakeholders more empowered compared to the second hospital. In both hospitals, decisions were not based on evidence, implementation of decisions was poor and the community was not included. There were no mechanisms for appeals or to ensure that the proceduralist conditions were met in both hospitals. Public hospitals in Kenya could improve their budgeting and planning processes by harmonizing these processes, improving role clarity, using explicit priority-setting criteria, and by incorporating both consequentialist (efficiency, equity, stakeholder satisfaction and understanding, shifted priorities

  12. Call for a change in research funding priorities: the example of mental health in Costa Rica

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Javier Contreras

    2014-10-01

    Full Text Available The World Health Organization (WHO Mental Health Action Plan 2013-2020 urges its Member States to strengthen leadership in mental health, ensure mental and social health interventions in community-based settings, promote mental health and strengthen information systems, and increase evidence and research for mental health. Although Costa Rica has strongly invested in public health and successfully reduced the burden of nutritional and infectious diseases, its transitional epidemiological pattern, population growth, and immigration from unstable neighboring countries has shifted the burden to chronic disorders. Although policies for chronic disorders have been in place for several decades, mental disorders have not been included. Recently, as the Ministry of Health of Costa Rica developed a Mental Health Policy for 2013-2020, it became evident that the country needs epidemiological data to prioritize evidence-based intervention areas. This article stresses the importance of conducting local epidemiological studies on mental health, and calls for changes in research funding priorities by public and private national and international funding agencies in order to follow the WHO Mental Health Action Plan.

  13. Call for a change in research funding priorities: the example of mental health in Costa Rica.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Contreras, Javier; Raventós, Henriette; Rodríguez, Gloriana; Leandro, Mauricio

    2014-10-01

    The World Health Organization (WHO) Mental Health Action Plan 2013-2020 urges its Member States to strengthen leadership in mental health, ensure mental and social health interventions in community-based settings, promote mental health and strengthen information systems, and increase evidence and research for mental health. Although Costa Rica has strongly invested in public health and successfully reduced the burden of nutritional and infectious diseases, its transitional epidemiological pattern, population growth, and immigration from unstable neighboring countries has shifted the burden to chronic disorders. Although policies for chronic disorders have been in place for several decades, mental disorders have not been included. Recently, as the Ministry of Health of Costa Rica developed a Mental Health Policy for 2013-2020, it became evident that the country needs epidemiological data to prioritize evidence-based intervention areas. This article stresses the importance of conducting local epidemiological studies on mental health, and calls for changes in research funding priorities by public and private national and international funding agencies in order to follow the WHO Mental Health Action Plan.

  14. Transfusion research priorities for blood services in sub-Saharan Africa.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Bates, Imelda; Hassall, Oliver; Mapako, Tonderai

    2017-06-01

    Evidence to support many blood transfusion policies and practices in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is weak or lacking. SSA cannot extrapolate from wealthy countries' research findings because its environment, users and structures are very different and SSA has critical blood shortages. SSA needs to generate its own evidence but research funds are very scarce and need to be carefully targeted to match need. This study aimed to define this need by determining research priorities for blood services in SSA. Thirty-five stakeholders representing diverse blood services' interests and expertise participated in a workshop. An adapted 'consensus development method' was used to identify, agree and justify research priorities under five themes through small group and plenary discussion, and cumulative voting. Research priorities covered traditional research areas, such as clinical use of blood and infection screening, but also highlighted many new, under-researched topics, mostly concerning blood service 'systems', such as economics, blood components and regulation. Lack of electronic information management systems was an important hindrance to the blood services' ability to generate robust research data. This study has identified and prioritised novel research that will help blood services in SSA to address their own needs including their most urgent problem: the lack of access to adequate blood supplies. To catalyse this research blood services in SSA need to enhance their capacity to conduct, commission and manage research and to strengthen their collaborations within and beyond Africa. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

  15. Implementing an International Consultation on Earth System Research Priorities Using Web 2.0 Tools

    Science.gov (United States)

    Goldfarb, L.; Yang, A.

    2009-12-01

    Leah Goldfarb, Paul Cutler, Andrew Yang*, Mustapha Mokrane, Jacinta Legg and Deliang Chen The scientific community has been engaged in developing an international strategy on Earth system research. The initial consultation in this “visioning” process focused on gathering suggestions for Earth system research priorities that are interdisciplinary and address the most pressing societal issues. It was implemented this through a website that utilized Web 2.0 capabilities. The website (http://www.icsu-visioning.org/) collected input from 15 July to 1 September 2009. This consultation was the first in which the international scientific community was asked to help shape the future of a research theme. The site attracted over 7000 visitors from 133 countries, more than 1000 of whom registered and took advantage of the site’s functionality to contribute research questions (~300 questions), comment on posts, and/or vote on questions. To facilitate analysis of results, the site captured a small set of voluntary information about each contributor and their contribution. A group of ~50 international experts were invited to analyze the inputs at a “Visioning Earth System Research” meeting held in September 2009. The outcome of this meeting—a prioritized list of research questions to be investigated over the next decade—was then posted on the visioning website for additional comment from the community through an online survey tool. In general, many lessons were learned in the development and implementation of this website, both in terms of the opportunities offered by Web 2.0 capabilities and the application of these capabilities. It is hoped that this process may serve as a model for other scientific communities. The International Council for Science (ICSU) in cooperation with the International Social Science Council (ISSC) is responsible for organizing this Earth system visioning process.

  16. Is cost-effectiveness analysis preferred to severity of disease as the main guiding principle in priority setting in resource poor settings? The case of Uganda

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Norheim Ole

    2004-01-01

    Full Text Available Abstract Introduction Several studies carried out to establish the relative preference of cost-effectiveness of interventions and severity of disease as criteria for priority setting in health have shown a strong preference for severity of disease. These preferences may differ in contexts of resource scarcity, as in developing countries, yet information is limited on such preferences in this context. Objective This study was carried out to identify the key players in priority setting in health and explore their relative preference regarding cost-effectiveness of interventions and severity of disease as criteria for setting priorities in Uganda. Design 610 self-administered questionnaires were sent to respondents at national, district, health sub-district and facility levels. Respondents included mainly health workers. We used three different simulations, assuming same patient characteristics and same treatment outcome but with varying either severity of disease or cost-effectiveness of treatment, to explore respondents' preferences regarding cost-effectiveness and severity. Results Actual main actors were identified to be health workers, development partners or donors and politicians. This was different from what respondents perceived as ideal. Above 90% of the respondents recognised the importance of both severity of disease and cost-effectiveness of intervention. In the three scenarios where they were made to choose between the two, a majority of the survey respondents assigned highest weight to treating the most severely ill patient with a less cost-effective intervention compared to the one with a more cost-effective intervention for a less severely ill patient. However, international development partners in in-depth interviews preferred the consideration of cost-effectiveness of intervention. Conclusions In a survey among health workers and other actors in priority setting in Uganda, we found that donors are considered to have more say than

  17. Basic science research and education: a priority for training and capacity building in developing countries.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Deckelbaum, Richard J; Ntambi, James M; Wolgemuth, Debra J

    2011-09-01

    This article provides evidence that basic science research and education should be key priorities for global health training, capacity building, and practice. Currently, there are tremendous gaps between strong science education and research in developed countries (the North) as compared to developing countries (the South). In addition, science research and education appear as low priorities in many developing countries. The need to stress basic science research beyond the typical investment of infectious disease basic service and research laboratories in developing areas is significant in terms of the benefits, not only to education, but also for economic strengthening and development of human resources. There are some indications that appreciation of basic science research education and training is increasing, but this still needs to be applied more rigorously and strengthened systematically in developing countries. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

  18. Decision Making and Priority Setting: The Evolving Path Towards Universal Health Coverage.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Paolucci, Francesco; Redekop, Ken; Fouda, Ayman; Fiorentini, Gianluca

    2017-12-01

    Health technology assessment (HTA) is widely viewed as an essential component in good universal health coverage (UHC) decision-making in any country. Various HTA tools and metrics have been developed and refined over the years, including systematic literature reviews (Cochrane), economic modelling, and cost-effectiveness ratios and acceptability curves. However, while the cost-effectiveness ratio is faithfully reported in most full economic evaluations, it is viewed by many as an insufficient basis for reimbursement decisions. Emotional debates about the reimbursement of cancer drugs, orphan drugs, and end-of-life treatments have revealed fundamental disagreements about what should and should not be considered in reimbursement decisions. Part of this disagreement seems related to the equity-efficiency tradeoff, which reflects fundamental differences in priorities. All in all, it is clear that countries aiming to improve UHC policies will have to go beyond the capacity building needed to utilize the available HTA toolbox. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) offers a more comprehensive tool for reimbursement decisions where different weights of different factors/attributes can give policymakers important insights to consider. Sooner or later, every country will have to develop their own way to carefully combine the results of those tools with their own priorities. In the end, all policymaking is based on a mix of facts and values.

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2016-01-14

    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. We conducted a Delphi process using an online survey with two rounds in 2014 and 2015. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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/

  20. Establishing Long Term Data Management Research Priorities via a Data Decadal Survey

    Science.gov (United States)

    Wilson, A.; Uhlir, P.; Meyer, C. B.; Robinson, E.

    2013-12-01

    We live in a time of unprecedented collection of and access to scientific data. Improvements in sensor technologies and modeling capabilities are constantly producing new data sources. Data sets are being used for unexpected purposes far from their point of origin, as research spans projects, discipline domains, and temporal and geographic boundaries. The nature of science is evolving, with more open science, open publications, and changes to the nature of peer review and data "publication". Data-intensive, or computational science, has been identified as a new research paradigm. There is recognition that the creation of a data set can be a contribution to science deserving of recognition comparable to other scientific publications. Federally funded projects are generally expected to make their data open and accessible to everyone. In this dynamic environment, scientific progress is ever more dependent on good data management practices and policies. Yet current data management and stewardship practices are insufficient. Data sets created at great, and often public, expense are at risk of being lost for technological or organizational reasons. Insufficient documentation and understanding of data can mean that the data are used incorrectly or not at all. Scientific results are being scrutinized and questioned, and occasionally retracted due to problems in data management. The volume of data is greatly increasing while funding for data management is meager and generally must be found within existing budgets. Many federal government agencies, including NASA, USGS, NOAA and NSF are already making efforts to address data management issues. Executive memos and directives give substantial impetus to those efforts, such as the May 9 Executive Order directing agencies to implement Open Data Policy requirements and regularly report their progress. However, these distributed efforts risk duplicating effort, lack a unifying, long-term strategic vision, and too often work in

  1. The OMERACT MRI in Arthritis Working Group - Update on Status and Future Research Priorities

    DEFF Research Database (Denmark)

    Østergaard, Mikkel; Bird, Paul; Gandjbakhch, Frédérique

    2015-01-01

    OBJECTIVE: To provide an update on the status and future research priorities of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in arthritis working group. METHODS: A summary is provided of the activities of the group within rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic...

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

    Science.gov (United States)

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

    2017-01-01

    Background: 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…

  3. USDA Cranberry Entomology Laboratory (CEL) research priorities in the 2016 growing season

    Science.gov (United States)

    Research priorities during the 2016 growing season will be focused on 1) discovery and screening of native WI nematodes as bio-control agents, and 2) continued refinement of the drone-deployed mating disruption system. Extramural funding will be needed for both, and the degree of funding will dictat...

  4. Research Priorities for YouTube and Video-Sharing Technologies: A Delphi Study

    Science.gov (United States)

    Snelson, Chareen; Rice, Kerry; Wyzard, Constance

    2012-01-01

    Online video-sharing services, particularly YouTube, have gained an audience of billions of users including educators and scholars. While the academic literature provides some evidence that YouTube has been studied and written about, little is known about priorities for YouTube research. The study employed the Delphi method to obtain a consensus…

  5. Ecosystems and Climate Change. Research Priorities for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program

    Science.gov (United States)

    2006-06-01

    photosynthesis ), evapotranspiration, and energy balance. 12 Climate change recommended research priorities Organic matter inputs to soils and aquatic...may be altered through changes in climate (e.g., coral reefs, seagrass ). Finally, services provided by a number of federally protected areas depend

  6. Advancing Evidence-Based Assessment in School Mental Health: Key Priorities for an Applied Research Agenda.

    Science.gov (United States)

    Arora, Prerna G; Connors, Elizabeth H; George, Melissa W; Lyon, Aaron R; Wolk, Courtney B; Weist, Mark D

    2016-12-01

    Evidence-based assessment (EBA) is a critically important aspect of delivering high-quality, school-based mental health care for youth. However, research in this area is limited and additional applied research on how best to support the implementation of EBA in school mental health (SMH) is needed. Accordingly, this manuscript seeks to facilitate the advancement of research on EBA in SMH by reviewing relevant literature on EBA implementation in schools and providing recommendations for key research priorities. Given the limited number of published studies available, findings from child and adolescent mental health and implementation science research are also included to inform a robust and comprehensive research agenda on this topic. Based on this literature review, five priorities for research on EBA in SMH are outlined: (1) effective identification of assessment targets, (2) appropriate selection of assessment measures, (3) investigation of organizational readiness for EBA, (4) study of implementation support for EBA, and (5) promotion of EBA data integration and use. Each priority area includes recommended directions for future research. A comprehensive and robust research agenda is warranted to build the science and practice of implementing EBA in SMH. Specific directions for this agenda are offered.

  7. Patients’ and caregivers’ needs, experiences, preferences and research priorities in spiritual care: A focus group study across nine countries

    Science.gov (United States)

    Selman, Lucy Ellen; Brighton, Lisa Jane; Sinclair, Shane; Karvinen, Ikali; Egan, Richard; Speck, Peter; Powell, Richard A; Deskur-Smielecka, Ewa; Glajchen, Myra; Adler, Shelly; Puchalski, Christina; Hunter, Joy; Gikaara, Nancy; Hope, Jonathon

    2017-01-01

    Background: Spiritual distress is prevalent in advanced disease, but often neglected, resulting in unnecessary suffering. Evidence to inform spiritual care practices in palliative care is limited. Aim: To explore spiritual care needs, experiences, preferences and research priorities in an international sample of patients with life-limiting disease and family caregivers. Design: Focus group study. Setting/participants: Separate patient and caregiver focus groups were conducted at 11 sites in South Africa, Kenya, South Korea, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Finland and Poland. Discussions were transcribed, translated into English and analysed thematically. Results: A total of 74 patients participated: median age 62 years; 53 had cancer; 48 were women. In total, 71 caregivers participated: median age 61 years; 56 were women. Two-thirds of participants were Christian. Five themes are described: patients’ and caregivers’ spiritual concerns, understanding of spirituality and its role in illness, views and experiences of spiritual care, preferences regarding spiritual care, and research priorities. Participants reported wide-ranging spiritual concerns spanning existential, psychological, religious and social domains. Spirituality supported coping, but could also result in framing illness as punishment. Participants emphasised the need for staff competence in spiritual care. Spiritual care was reportedly lacking, primarily due to staff members’ de-prioritisation and lack of time. Patients’ research priorities included understanding the qualities of human connectedness and fostering these skills in staff. Caregivers’ priorities included staff training, assessment, studying impact, and caregiver’s spiritual care needs. Conclusion: To meet patient and caregiver preferences, healthcare providers should be able to address their spiritual concerns. Findings should inform patient- and caregiver-centred spiritual care provision, education and

  8. AEC sets five year nuclear safety research program

    International Nuclear Information System (INIS)

    Anon.

    1976-01-01

    The research by the government for the establishment of means of judging the adequacy of safety measures incorporated in nuclear facilities, including setting safety standards and collecting documents of general criteria, and the research by the industry on safety measures and the promotion of safety-related technique are stated in the five year program for 1976-80 reported by subcommittees, Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). Four considerations on the research items incorporated in the program are 1) technical programs relating to the safety of nuclear facilities and the necessary criteria, 2) priority of the relevant items decided according to their impact on circumstances, urgency, the defence-indepth concept and so on, 3) consideration of all relevant data and documents collected, and research subjects necessary to quantify safety measurement, and 4) consideration of technological actualization, the capability of each research body, the budget and the time schedule. In addition, seven major themes decided on the basis of these points are 1) reactivity-initiated accident, 2) LOCA, 3) fuel behavior, 4) structural safety, 5) radioactive release, 6) statistical method of safety evaluation, and 7) seismic characteristics. The committee has deliberated the appropriate division of researches between the government and the industry. A set of tables showing the nuclear safety research plan for 1976-80 are attached. (Iwakiri, K.)

  9. Research on bulk-cargo-port berth assignment based on priority of resource allocation

    Directory of Open Access Journals (Sweden)

    Chunfang Guo

    2013-03-01

    Full Text Available Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to propose a Priority of Resource Allocation model about how to utilize the resources of the port efficiently, through the improvement of traditional ant colony algorithm, the ship-berth matching relation constraint matrix formed by ontology reasoning. Design/methodology/approach: Through questionnaires?Explore factor analysis (EFA and principal component analysis, the authors extract the importance of the goods, the importance of customers, and type of trade as the main factors of the ship operating priority. Then the authors combine berth assignment problem with the improved ant colony algorithm, and use the model to improve ship scheduling quality. Finally, the authors verify the model with physical data in a b