Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: qualitative case study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Singer PA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC27534 | biostudies-literature | 2000 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: qualitative case study.
Singer P A PA Martin D K DK Giacomini M M Purdy L L
BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20001101 7272
<h4>Objective</h4>To describe priority setting for new technologies in medicine.<h4>Design</h4>Qualitative study using case studies and grounded theory.<h4>Setting</h4>Two committees advising on priorities for new technologies in cancer and cardiac care in Ontario, Canada.<h4>Participants</h4>The two committees and their 26 members.<h4>Main outcome measures</h4>Accounts of priority setting decision making gathered by reviewing documents, interviewing members, and observing meetings.<h4>Results</ ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background: The James Lind Alliance (JLA) offers a method for research priority setting with patients, clinicians and carers. The method is increasingly used but publications primarily discuss the outcome of such projects, rather than reflecting on the JLA method itself. Scrutiny of the method is crucial in order to understand and correctly interpret its outcomes.Methods: We conducted a qualitative interview study with people involved in a JLA project into Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA) (n?=?30) to better understand the mechanisms, procedures and decisional processes during such a project and to formulate recommendations for those who consider starting a JLA project in the future.Results: Four main themes were identified: 1) motivations, goals and expectations 2) inclusivity, roles and representation 3) procedures and decision-making 4) outcomes and future steps.Conclusion: While the top 10 of 'evidence uncertainties' seems to take the centre stage in JLA projects, the ways in which these priorities are determined may be influenced by 'process uncertainties'. We have formulated ten specific recommendations for future JLA projects. Reflection on and reporting of these process uncertainties would contribute to the improvement of JLA projects and increase the validity of the outcome of such projects.
| S-EPMC7678261 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo examine what factors influence the agenda-setting process and level of political priority afforded to micronutrient deficiencies (MNDs).DesignQualitative case study employing process tracing, informed by primary data collected from semistructured interviews with policymakers.SettingDakar, Senegal.ResultsSeveral facilitating and impeding factors affecting the level of political prioritisation for MNDs were identified. Facilitating factors included multiple stakeholders using aligned framing to collectively advocate for MNDs; availability of indicators to quantify issue severity and raise awareness; and transnational advocacy activities around micronutrients. Impeding factors included lack of awareness among policymakers and civil society about MNDs; issue complexity, with the need for coordinated multisectoral response to deliver a complex package of solutions; lack of resources trapping the issue in a 'low-priority' cycle; lack of a policy champion to advocate for the issue and the challenge of demonstrating the effectiveness of interventions to support advocacy efforts.ConclusionsThis study gives insight into the political prioritisation process for MNDs from the perspective of key stakeholders working at the national level in Senegal. In doing so, the study offers some explanation as to why the issue of MNDs has struggled to gain political attention and make it onto the national policy agenda. Moving forward, greater awareness of the factors affecting agenda setting for MNDs may help to devise political strategies to champion this development issue in countries with high burdens of micronutrient deficiencies.
| S-EPMC4127923 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC3331804 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundDespite continued investment, Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (MNCH) indicators in low and middle income countries have remained relatively poor. This could, in part, be explained by inadequate resources to adequately address these problems, inappropriate allocation of the available resources, or lack of implementation of the most effective interventions. Systematic priority setting and resource allocation could contribute to alleviating these limitations. There is a paucity of literature that follows through MNCH prioritization processes to implementation, making it difficult for policy makers to understand the impact of their decision-making on population health. The overall objective of this paper was to describe and evaluate priority setting for maternal, newborn and child health interventions in Uganda.MethodsFifty-four key informant interviews and a review of policies and media reports were used to describe priority setting for MNCH in Uganda. Kapiriri and Martin's conceptual framework was used to evaluate priority setting for MNCH.ResultsThere were three main prioritization exercises for maternal, newborn and child health in Uganda. The processes were participatory and were guided by explicit tools, evidence, and criteria, however, the public and the districts were insufficiently involved in the priority setting process. While there were conducive contextual factors including strong political support, implementation was constrained by the presence of competing actors, with varying priorities, an unequal allocation of resources between child health and maternal health interventions, limited financial and human resources, a weak health system and limited institutional capacity.ConclusionsStronger institutional capacity at the Ministry of Health and equitable engagement of key stakeholders in decision-making processes, especially the public, and implementers, would improve understanding, satisfaction and compliance with the priority setting process. Availability of financial and human resources that are appropriately allocated would facilitate the implementation of well-developed policies.
| S-EPMC6615092 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Chromatin adopts different configurations that are regulated by reversible covalent modifications, referred to as epigenetic marks. Epigenetic inhibitors have been approved for clinical use to restore epigenetic aberrations that result in silencing of tumor-suppressor genes, oncogene addictions, and enhancement of immune responses. However, these drugs suffer from major limitations, such as a lack of locus selectivity and potential toxicities. Technological advances have opened a new era of precision molecular medicine to reprogram cellular physiology. The locus-specificity of CRISPR/dCas9/12a to manipulate the epigenome is rapidly becoming a highly promising strategy for personalized medicine. This review focuses on new state-of-the-art epigenome editing approaches to modify the epigenome of neoplasms and other disease models towards a more 'normal-like state', having characteristics of normal tissue counterparts. We highlight biomolecular engineering methodologies to assemble, regulate, and deliver multiple epigenetic effectors that maximize the longevity of the therapeutic effect, and we discuss limitations of the platforms such as targeting efficiency and intracellular delivery for future clinical applications.
| S-EPMC7736826 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Priority-driven funding streams for population and public health are an important part of the health research landscape and contribute to orienting future scholarship in the field. While research priorities are often made public through targeted calls for research, less is known about how research funding organisations arrive at said priorities. Our objective was to explore how public health research funding organisations develop priorities for strategic extramural research funding programmes. METHODS:Content analysis of published academic and grey literature and key informant interviews for five public and private funders of public health research in the United Kingdom, Australia, the United States and France were performed. RESULTS:We found important distinctions in how funding organisations processed potential research priorities through four non-sequential phases, namely idea generation, idea analysis, idea socialisation and idea selection. Funders generally involved the public health research community and public health decision-makers in idea generation and socialisation, but other groups of stakeholders (e.g. the public, advocacy organisations) were not as frequently included. CONCLUSIONS:Priority-setting for strategic funding programmes in public health research involves consultation mainly with researchers in the early phase of the process. There is an opportunity for greater breadth of participation and more transparency in priority-setting mechanisms for strategic funding programmes in population and public health research.
| S-EPMC6014000 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe James Lind Alliance (JLA) supports priority setting partnerships (PSPs) in which patients, carers and health professionals collaborate to identify a Top 10 list of research priorities. Few studies have examined how partnerships plan for the post-prioritisation phase, or how context and post-PSP processes influence the fortunes of priorities. This evaluation aimed to explore these questions.MethodsWe selected a diverse sample of 20 interviewees who had knowledge of 25 PSPs. Thirteen interviewees had led a PSP, either from a university, patient organisation or charity. Three were patients who had taken part in a PSP workshop. Four others, three researchers and one funder, had worked with JLA PSP priorities to develop research proposals. We analysed the data thematically, exploring how success was understood and achieved.ResultsThe JLA PSPs had different histories, funding sources, goals and stakeholders. Whilst their focus was on generating priority research topics, PSPs' wider impacts included enhanced status and greater confidence for individuals, as well as relationship-building and network strengthening for the organisations involved. To follow through on a Top 10, additional work was needed to refine broad priority topics into research questions and match them with appropriate funding sources. Commitment to post-PSP action from partners appeared to increase the chance that priority topics would be followed through to funded studies. Academic publications could alert researchers to a PSP's outputs, but not all PSPs had the capacity to produce them. A Top 10 list potentially influences funding decisions through direct funding, themed calls or as a prompt in open calls. Influence on funders appears to depend on alignment between a priority and the funder's remit, culture and values.ConclusionThe history and context of a JLA PSP have a major influence on its impact. Our findings suggest that there is no universal formula for success, but that greater resource and attention should be given to what happens after prioritisation. Further research is needed on what works best in what circumstances. Overall, we conclude that a wider cultural change in the research world is needed for JLA PSPs to achieve their goal of shaping the research agenda.
| S-EPMC7353437 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionBuilding on a survey of key decision-makers within the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) of British Columbia, a process for prioritizing new service options within this organization for the 2005/06 budget cycle was developed and implemented by senior managers and researchers at the University of British Columbia.MethodsA case study approach was taken in which development and implementation of the prioritization process was documented and feedback was obtained from decision-makers to evaluate the activity. Information from the literature was also used to identify areas for improvement.ResultsThe 13-member Executive Committee of the PHSA conducted the prioritization. Criteria were defined and weighted, and options for new funding were explicitly rated against them. Multi-attribute decision software was used to rank options based on an overall benefit score. Cost-benefit ratios were also derived and program options were further ranked according to decision-makers' "gut-feel." Ranking between the methods was comparable, and each method contributed to the final decisions by the Executive Committee regarding which programs would receive limited new funding.ConclusionThrough a collaborative effort between decision-makers and researchers, the PHSA was able to shift from allocating new resources on the basis of politics and bargaining to an evidence-driven, transparent, defensible process. Lessons learned from the current activity will help inform future priority setting in the PHSA and should provide insight for decision-makers elsewhere.
| S-EPMC2585430 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsThe 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).ConclusionsThe 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.
| S-EPMC2890637 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Patients and stakeholders are increasingly engaging in health research to help address evidence-practice gaps and improve health-care delivery. We previously engaged patients, caregivers, health-care providers (HCPs) and policymakers in identifying priorities for chronic kidney disease (CKD) research. OBJECTIVE:We aimed to explore participants' views on the research priorities and prioritization process 2 years after the exercise took place. DESIGN:In this qualitative descriptive study, individual interviews were conducted and analysed using an inductive, thematic analysis approach. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS:Participants resided across Canada. We purposively sampled across stakeholder groups (CKD patients, caregivers, HCPs and policymakers) and types of engagement (wiki, workshop and/or steering committee) from the previous CKD priority-setting project. RESULTS:Across 23 interviews, participants discussed their research priorities over time, views on the prioritization process and perceived applicability of the priorities. Even though their individual priorities may have changed, participants remained in agreement overall with the previously identified priorities, and some perceived a distinction between patient and HCP priorities. They tended to balance individual priorities with their broader potential impact and viewed the prioritization process as systematic, collaborative and legitimate. However, participants acknowledged challenges to applying the priorities and emphasized the importance of communicating the project's outcomes upon its completion. CONCLUSION:Two years after engaging in CKD research prioritization, stakeholder participants remained in agreement with the previously identified priorities, which they felt reflected group deliberation and consensus. Rapport and communication were highlighted as key elements supporting effective engagement in research prioritization.
| S-EPMC6250874 | biostudies-other