Katherine Cowan1, Naomi J Fulop2, Amelia Harshfield3,4, Pei Li Ng2, Antiopi Ntouva5, Manbinder Sidhu6, Jon Sussex3, Sonila M Tomini2, Holly Walton7. 1. Katherine Cowan Consulting Limited, St Leonards, UK. 2. Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK. 3. RAND Europe, Westbrook Centre, Milton Road, Cambridge, CB4 1YG, UK. 4. NIHR BioResource, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge Blood Donor Centre, Long Road, Cambridge, CB2 0PT, UK. 5. Public Health England, 5 St Philip's Place, Birmingham, B3 2PW, UK. 6. Health Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham, Park House, 40 Edgbaston Road, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. 7. Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK. holly.walton@ucl.ac.uk.
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.
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.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adults; Innovations; Prioritisation; Rapid; Social care
Authors: Tara Lamont; Nicholas Barber; John de Pury; Naomi Fulop; Stephanie Garfield-Birkbeck; Richard Lilford; Liz Mear; Rosalind Raine; Ray Fitzpatrick Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-02-01
Authors: Iain Chalmers; Michael B Bracken; Ben Djulbegovic; Silvio Garattini; Jonathan Grant; A Metin Gülmezoglu; David W Howells; John P A Ioannidis; Sandy Oliver Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-01-08 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Fabian Peeks; Willemijn F Boonstra; Lut de Baere; Camilla Carøe; Thomas Casswall; Damián Cohen; Katherine Cowan; Iris Ferrecchia; Alberto Ferriani; Caroline Gimbert; Marcus Landgren; Nerea L Maldonado; Jason McMillan; Antal Nemeth; Niccolò Seidita; Ute Stachelhaus-Theimer; David A Weinstein; Terry G J Derks Journal: J Inherit Metab Dis Date: 2019-11-13 Impact factor: 4.982
Authors: Dolores M McKeen; Jillian C Banfield; Daniel I McIsaac; Jason McVicar; Colleen McGavin; Mary Anne Earle; Claire Ward; Katharina Kovacs Burns; Donna Penner; Gilbert Blaise; Thierry de Greef; Katherine Cowan; Andreas Laupacis Journal: Can J Anaesth Date: 2020-03-10 Impact factor: 5.063
Authors: Katie H Thomson; Nicole O'Connor; Kim Tuyen Dangova; Sean Gill; Sara Jackson; Donna Z Bliss; Sheila A Wallace; Fiona Pearson Journal: BMJ Open Gastroenterol Date: 2022-05