Dataset Information

Rapid prioritisation of topics for rapid evaluation: the case of innovations in adult social care and social work.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Prioritisation processes are widely used in healthcare research and increasingly in social care research. Previous research has recommended using consensus development methods for inclusive research agenda setting. This research has highlighted the need for transparent and systematic methods for priority setting. Yet there has been little research on how to conduct prioritisation processes using rapid methods. This is a particular concern when prioritisation needs to happen rapidly. This paper aims to describe and discuss a process of rapidly identifying and prioritising a shortlist of innovations for rapid evaluation applied in the field of adult social care and social work.

Method

We adapted the James Lind Alliance approach to priority setting for rapid use. We followed four stages: (1) Identified a long list of innovations, (2) Developed shortlisting criteria, (3) Grouped and sifted innovations, and (4) Prioritised innovations in a multi-stakeholder workshop (n?=?23). Project initiation through to completion of the final report took four months.

Results

Twenty innovations were included in the final shortlist (out of 158 suggested innovations). The top five innovations for evaluation were identified and findings highlighted key themes which influenced prioritisation. The top five priorities (listed here in alphabetical order) were: Care coordination for dementia in the community, family group conferencing, Greenwich prisons social care, local area coordination and MySense.Ai. Feedback from workshop participants (n?=?15) highlighted tensions from using a rapid process (e.g. challenges of reaching consensus in one workshop).

Conclusion

The method outlined in this manuscript can be used to rapidly prioritise innovations for evaluation in a feasible and robust way. We outline some implications and compromises of rapid prioritisation processes for future users of this approach to consider.

SUBMITTER: Cowan K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7944624 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Rapid prioritisation of topics for rapid evaluation: the case of innovations in adult social care and social work.

Cowan Katherine K Fulop Naomi J NJ Harshfield Amelia A Ng Pei Li PL Ntouva Antiopi A Sidhu Manbinder M Sussex Jon J Tomini Sonila M SM Walton Holly H

Health research policy and systems 20210310 1

<h4>Background</h4>Prioritisation processes are widely used in healthcare research and increasingly in social care research. Previous research has recommended using consensus development methods for inclusive research agenda setting. This research has highlighted the need for transparent and systematic methods for priority setting. Yet there has been little research on how to conduct prioritisation processes using rapid methods. This is a particular concern when prioritisation needs to happen ra ...[more]

PMID: 33691703

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Rapid evaluation was at the heart of National Health Service England's evaluation strategy of the new models of care vanguard programme. This was to facilitate the scale and spread of successful models of care throughout the health & social care system. The aim of this paper is to compare the findings of the two evaluations of the Enhanced health in Care Homes (EHCH) vanguard in Gateshead, one using a smaller data set for rapidity and one using a larger longitudinal data set and to investigate the implications of the use of rapid evaluations using interrupted time series (ITS) methods. METHODS:A quasi-experimental design study in the form of an ITS was used to evaluate the impact of the vanguard on secondary care use. Two different models are presented differing by timeframes only. The short-term model consisted of data for 11 months data pre and 20 months post vanguard. The long-term model consisted of data for 23 months pre and 34 months post vanguard. RESULTS:The cost consequences, including the cost of running the EHCH vanguard, were estimated using both a single tariff non-elective admissions methodology and a tariff per bed day methodology. The short-term model estimated a monthly cost increase of £73,408 using a single tariff methodology. When using a tariff per bed day, there was an estimated monthly cost increase of £14,315. The long-term model had, using a single tariff for non-elective admissions, an overall cost increase of £7576 per month. However, when using a tariff per bed-days, there was an estimated monthly cost reduction of £57,168. CONCLUSIONS:Although it is acknowledged that there is often a need for rapid evaluations in order to identify "quick wins" and to expedite learning within health and social care systems, we conclude that this may not be appropriate for quasi-experimental designs estimating effect using ITS for complex interventions. Our analyses suggests that care must be taken when conducting and interpreting the results of short-term evaluations using ITS methods, as they may produce misleading results and may lead to a misallocation of resources.

Project description:As part of the Vaccine Innovation Prioritisation Strategy (VIPS), three immunization-stakeholder consultations were conducted between September 2018 and February 2020 to ensure that countries' needs drove the prioritization of vaccine product innovations. All consultations targeted respondents with immunization program experience. They included: (1) an online survey to identify immunization implementation barriers and desired vaccine attributes in three use settings, (2) an online survey to identify and evaluate the most important immunization challenges for ten exemplar vaccines, and (3) in-depth interviews to better understand the perceived programmatic benefits and challenges that could be addressed by nine innovations and to rank the innovations that could best address current challenges. The first consultation included responses from 442 participants in 61 countries, representing 89% of the 496 respondents who correctly completed at least one section of the online survey. For facility-based settings, missed opportunities for vaccination due to reluctance to open multidose vaccine vials was the barrier most frequently selected by respondents. In community-based (outreach) and campaign settings, limited access to immunization services due to geographic barriers was most frequently selected. Multidose presentations with preservative or single-dose presentations were most frequently selected as desired vaccine attributes for facility-based settings while improved thermostability was most frequently selected for outreach and campaign settings. The second online survey was completed by 220 respondents in 54 countries. For the exemplar vaccines, vaccine ineffectiveness or wastage due to heat or freeze exposure and missed opportunities due to multidose vial presentations were identified as the greatest vaccine-specific challenges. In-depth interviews with 84 respondents in six countries ranked microarray patches, dual-chamber delivery devices, and heat-stable/controlled temperature chain qualified liquid vaccines as the three innovations that could have the greatest impact in helping address current immunization program challenges. These findings informed the VIPS prioritization and provided broader application to designing immunization interventions to better meet country needs.

Project description:ObjectivesTo identify, chart and analyse the literature on recent initiatives to improve long-term care (LTC) coverage, financial protection and financial sustainability for persons aged 60 and older.DesignRapid scoping review.Data sourcesFour databases and four sources of grey literature were searched for reports published between 2017 and 2022. After using a supervised machine learning tool to rank titles and abstracts, two reviewers independently screened sources against inclusion criteria.Eligibility criteriaStudies published from 2017-2022 in any language that captured recent LTC initiatives for people aged 60 and older, involved evaluation and directly addressed financing were included.Data extraction and analysisData were extracted using a form designed to answer the review questions and analysed using descriptive qualitative content analysis, with data categorised according to a prespecified framework to capture the outcomes of interest.ResultsOf 24 reports, 22 were published in peer-reviewed journals, and two were grey literature sources. Study designs included quasi-experimental study, policy analysis or comparison, qualitative description, comparative case study, cross-sectional study, systematic literature review, economic evaluation and survey. Studies addressed coverage based on the level of disability, income, rural/urban residence, employment and citizenship. Studies also addressed financial protection, including out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditures, copayments and risk of poverty related to costs of care. The reports addressed challenges to financial sustainability such as lack of service coordination and system integration, insufficient economic development and inadequate funding models.ConclusionsInitiatives where LTC insurance is mandatory and accompanied by commensurate funding are situated to facilitate ageing in place. Efforts to expand population coverage are common across the initiatives, with the potential for wider economic benefits. Initiatives that enable older people to access the services needed while avoiding OOP-induced poverty contribute to improved health and well-being. Preserving health in older people longer may alleviate downstream costs and contribute to financial sustainability.

Project description:BackgroundAddressing the problem of preventable drug related morbidity (PDRM) in primary care is a challenge for health care systems internationally. The increasing implementation of clinical information systems in the UK and internationally provide new opportunities to systematically identify patients at risk of PDRM for targeted medication review. The objectives of this study were (1) to develop a set of explicit medication assessment criteria to identify patients with sub-optimally effective or high-risk medication use from electronic medical records and (2) to identify medication use topics that are perceived by UK primary care clinicians to be priorities for quality and safety improvement initiatives.MethodsFor objective (1), a 2-round consensus process based on the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM) was conducted, in which candidate criteria were identified from the literature and scored by a panel of 10 experts for 'appropriateness' and 'necessity'. A set of final criteria was generated from candidates accepted at each level. For objective (2), thematically related final criteria were clustered into 'topics', from which a panel of 26 UK primary care clinicians identified priorities for quality improvement in a 2-round Delphi exercise.Results(1) The RAM process yielded a final set of 176 medication assessment criteria organised under the domains 'quality' and 'safety', each classified as targeting 'appropriate/necessary to do' (quality) or 'inappropriate/necessary to avoid' (safety) medication use. Fifty-two final 'quality' assessment criteria target patients with unmet indications, sub-optimal selection or intensity of beneficial drug treatments. A total of 124 'safety' assessment criteria target patients with unmet needs for risk-mitigating agents, high-risk drug selection, excessive dose or duration, inconsistent monitoring or dosing instructions. (2) The UK Delphi panel identified 11 (23%) of 47 scored topics as 'high priority' for quality improvement initiatives in primary care.ConclusionsThe developed criteria set complements existing medication assessment instruments in that it is not limited to the elderly, can be implemented in electronic data sets and focuses on drug groups and conditions implicated in common and/or severe PDRM in primary care. Identified priorities for quality and safety improvement can guide the selection of targets for initiatives to address the PDRM problem in primary care.

Dataset Information

Rapid prioritisation of topics for rapid evaluation: the case of innovations in adult social care and social work.

Background

Method

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Rapid prioritisation of topics for rapid evaluation: the case of innovations in adult social care and social work.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets