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

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 217-224

  Berra, Silvina ^a,b   Sánchez, Emília ^a,b   Pons, Joan M V ^c   Tebé, Cristian ^a,b   Alonso, Jordi ^d   Aymerich, Marta ^e  

^a Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research   (Spain)

^b CIBER EPIDEMIOLOGÍA Y SALUD PÚBLICA CIBERESP   (Spain)

^c Department of Health ^*  (Spain)

^d INST MUNIC D INVESTIGACIO MEDICA   (Spain)

^e UNIVERSITY OF GIRONA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Health services research; Priority setting; Research assessment

Indexed keywords

STABILITY CRITERIA;

CRONBACH'S ALPHAS; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; INTER-RATER RELIABILITIES; INTERCLASS CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS; INTERNAL CONSISTENCY; PRIORITY SETTING; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC CURVES; RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY;

CLINICAL RESEARCH;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CONSENSUS; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH SERVICE; INTERRATER RELIABILITY; RESEARCH PRIORITY; RESEARCH SUBJECT; SCORING SYSTEM; TEST RETEST RELIABILITY;

EID: 77953587113     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462310000012     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Asua Batarrita J. Priorizacíon de necesidades de evaluacíon en el País Vasco. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Instituto de Salud Carlos III; 1999.
2. Bernal-Delgado E, Peiŕo S, Sotoca R. Prioridades de investigaci ́on en servicios sanitarios en el Sistema Nacional de Salud. Una aproximacíon por consenso de expertos. Gac Sanit. 2006;20:287-294.
3. Black N. A national strategy for research and development: Lessons from England. Annu Rev Public Health. 1997;18:485-505.
4. Brown P, Brunnhuber K, Chalkidou K, et al. How to formulate research recommendations. BMJ. 2006;333:804-806.
5. Brown K, Dyas J, Chahal P, et al. Discovering the research priorities of people with diabetes in a multicultural community: A focus group study. Br J Gen Pract. 2006;56:206-213.
6. Buxton M, Hanney S. How can payback from health services research be assessed? J Health Serv Res Policy. 1996;1:35-43.
7. Caron-Flinterman JF, Broerse JE, Teerling J, Bunders JF. Patients' priorities concerning health research: The case of asthma and COPD research in the Netherlands. Health Expect. 2005;8:253-263.
8. Carson N, Ansari Z, Hart W. Priority setting in public health and health services research. Aust Health Rev. 2000;23:46-57.
9. Claxton K,Ginnelly L, SculpherM, Philips Z, Palmer S.Apilot study on the use of decision theory and value of information analysis as part of the NHS Health Technology Assessment programme. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:1-103.
10. Dault M, Lomas J, Barer M, on behalf of the Listening for Direction II partners. Listening for direction II. National consultation on health services and policy issues for 2004-2007. Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Health Services Research Foundation and Institute of Health Services and Policy Research; 2004.
11. Department of Health. Best research for best health: A new national health research strategy. The NHS contribution to health research in England. London: HMSO; 2006.
12. Department of Health. Research for health. London: HMSO; 1992.
13. Donaldson MS, Sox HC, eds. Setting priorities for health technology assessment: A model process.Washington DC: National Academy Press; 1992.
14. Eden J, Wheatley B, McNeil B, Sox H, eds. Knowing what works in health care.Washington DC: National Academy Press; 2008.
15. Evidence-Based Care Resource Group. Evidence-based care: 1. Setting priorities: How important is this problem? Can Med Assoc J. 1994;150:1249-1254.
16. Fleurence RL, Torgerson DJ. Setting priorities for research. Health Policy. 2004;69:1-10.
17. Fulop N, Allen P, Clarke A, Black N. From health technology assessment to research on the organisation and delivery of health services: Addressing the balance. Health Policy. 2003;63:155-165.
18. Gross CP, Anderson GF, Powe NR. The relation between funding by the National Institutes of Health and the burden of disease. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:1881-1887.
19. Hanney S, Mugford M, Grant J, Buxton M. Assessing the benefits of health research: Lessons from research into the use of antenatal corticosteroids for the prevention of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome. Soc Sci Med. 2005;60:937-947.
20. Henshall C, Oortwijn W, Stevens A, Granados A, Banta D. Priority setting for health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:144-185.
21. Institute of Medicine. Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine; 2009.
22. Jones R, Lamont T, HainesA. Setting priorities for research and development in the NHS: A case study on the interface between primary and secondary care. BMJ. 1995;311:1076-1080.
23. LionisC, StoffersHE, Hummers-Pradier, et al. Setting priorities and identifying barriers for general practice research in Europe. Results from an EGPRW meeting. Fam Pract. 2004;21:587-593.
24. Meneu R. Variabilidad de las decisiones ḿedicas y su repercusi ́on sobre las poblaciones. Barcelona: Masson; 2002.
25. Michaud CM, Murray CJ, Bloom BR. Burden of disease: Implications for future research. JAMA. 2001;285:535-539.
26. Moreno-Casbas T, Martin-Arribas C, Orts-Cortes I, Comet-Cortes P, Investen-ISCIII Co-ordination and Development of Nursing Research Centre. Identification of priorities for nursing research in Spain: A Delphi study. J Adv Nurs. 2001;35:857-863.
27. Oortwijn WJ, Vondeling H, van Barneveld T, van Vugt C, Bouter LM. Priority setting for health technology assessment in The Netherlands: Principles and practice. Health Policy. 2002;62:227-242.
28. Phelps CE, Parente ST. Priority setting in medical technology and medical practice assessment. Med Care. 1990;28:703-723.
29. Śanchez E, Solans M, Jaldon C. VI call for clinical and health services research CAHTA 2006. CAHTA's Newsletter 2006. http://www.gencat.net/ salut/depsan/units/aatrm/pdf/but40en. pdf. (accessed August 14, 2009)
30. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003.
31. Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care. The ECHTA/ECAHI Project. 1999. http://ec.europa.eu/health/ ph-projects/1999/monitoring/fp- monitoring-1999-frep-09- en.pdf. (accessed August 14, 2009)
32. Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM. Practical clinical trials: Increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA. 2003;290:1624-1632.
33. Welfare MR, Colligan J, Molyneux S, Pearson P, Barton JR. The identification of topics for research that are important to people with ulcerative colitis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;18:939-944.
34. Zerhouni EA. US biomedical research: Basic, translational, and clinical sciences. JAMA. 2005;294:1352-1358.