Using HTA and guideline development as a tool for research priority setting the NICE way: Reducing research waste by identifying the right research to fund.

BMJ Open

Volumn 8, Issue 3, 2018, Pages

  Sharma, Tarang ^a   Choudhury, Moni ^b   Rejón Parrilla, Juan Carlos ^b   Jonsson, Pall ^b   Garner, Sarah ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^b NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CARE EXCELLENCE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

priority setting; research priorities; research waste; resource allocation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONSULTATION; HUMAN; LANDSCAPE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; RESEARCH PRIORITY; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; ENGLAND; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ENGLAND; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH PRIORITIES; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS;

EID: 85044244998     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019777     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet 2014;383:156-65.
2. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. The Lancet 2009;374:86-9.
3. Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2005;2:e124.
4. Ioannidis JP, Greenland S, Hlatky MA, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet 2014;383:166-75.
5. Sharma T, Doyle N, Garner S, et al. NICE supporting England and Wales through times of change. Eurohealth 2011;17:30.
6. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Who we are. 2016 https://www.nice.org.uk/about/who-we-Are (accessed 16 Dec 2017).
7. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). What we do: Science policy and research. 2016 https://www.nice.org.uk/about/what-we-do/our-research-work (accessed 16 Dec 2017).
8. Thornton J, Alderson P, Tan T, et al. Introducing GRADE across the NICE clinical guideline program. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66:124-31.
9. Sharma T, Choudhury M, Kaur B, et al. Evidence informed decision making: The use of colloquial evidence at nice. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2015;31:138-46.
10. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Research recommendations. 2016 https://www.nice.org.uk/about/what-we-do/science-policy-research/research-recommendations (accessed 16 Dec 2017).
11. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Research recommendations process and methods guide. 2015 https://www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/About/what-we-do/Science-policy-Andresearch/research-recommendation-process-methods-guide-2015.pdf (accessed 27 Jun 2016).
12. National Institute for Health Research. Evaluation, trials and studies. 2016 http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/(accessed 16 Dec 2017).
13. Sharma T, Garner S, Naidoo B, et al. Horizon scanning for HTA methodological priorities: international cooperation is needed. Health Technology Assessment international (HTAi), Integrated Care for Patient-centred System Bilbao 25-27 June 2012: Gaceta Sanitaria, 2012.
14. Longworth L, Sculpher MJ, Bojke L, et al. Bridging the gap between methods research and the needs of policy makers: A review of the research priorities of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2011;27:180-7.
15. Claxton K, Palmer S, Longworth L, et al. Informing a decision framework for when NICE should recommend the use of health technologies only in the context of an appropriately designed programme of evidence development. Health Technol Assess 2012;16:323.
16. Medical Research Council (MRC). Observational data in healthcare decision making. 2017 https://www.mrc.ac.uk/funding/how-wefund-research/highlight-notices/observational-data-in-healthcaredecision-making/(accessed 20 Dec 2017).
17. Medical Research Council (MRC). HEE: Developing a reference protocol for expert elicitation in health care decision making. 2016 https://www.mrc.ac.uk/funding/how-we-fund-research/highlightnotices/methodology-for-eliciting-expert-opinion/successfullyfunded-proposals/(accessed 20 Dec 2017).
18. Research Councils UK. Gateway to Research. Going beyond health related quality of life-Towards a broader QALY measure for use across sectors. 2017 http://gtr.rcuk.ac.uk/projects?ref=MR%2FP015549%2F1 (accessed 20 Dec 2017).
19. Littlejohns P, Sharma T, Jeong K. Social values and health priority setting in England: "values" based decision making. J Health Organ Manag 2012;26:363-71.
20. Social Values and Health Priority Setting at UCL. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/socialvalues/(accessed 18 Dec 2017).
21. NICE Research Support Unit (RSU). Research Projects. 2015 http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Researchprojects/NICEResearchSupportUnit/tabid/3485/Default.aspx (accessed 16 Dec 2017).
22. GetReal. IMI: GetReal. 2013 https://www.imi-getreal.eu (accessed 18 Dec 2017).
23. IMI: ADAPT-SMART. ADAPT-SMART. 2015 http://adaptsmart.eu (accessed 18 Dec 2017).
24. BD4BO. IMI: BD4BO. 2016 http://bd4bo.eu (accessed 18 Dec 2017).
25. EUnetHTA. http://www.eunethta.eu/(accessed 18 Dec 2017).
26. DECIDE. Developing and Evaluating Communication Strategies to Support Informed Decisions and Practice Based on Evidence (2011-2015). http://www.decide-collaboration.eu/(accessed 16 Dec 2017).
27. Chalkidou K, Glassman A, Marten R, et al. Priority-setting for achieving universal health coverage. Bull World Health Organ 2016;94:462-7.
28. Nasser M, Welch V. Prioritization of systematic reviews leads prioritization of research gaps and needs. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66:522-3.
29. Vella K, Goldfrad C, Rowan K, et al. Use of consensus development to establish national research priorities in critical care. BMJ 2000;320:976-80.
30. Chalkidou K, Walley T, Culyer A, et al. Evidence-informed evidencemaking. J Health Serv Res Policy 2008;13:167-73.
31. Bhurke S, Cook A, Tallant A, et al. Using systematic reviews to inform NIHR HTA trial planning and design: A retrospective cohort. BMC Med Res Methodol 2015;15:108.
32. Ginnelly L, Claxton K, Sculpher MJ, et al. Using value of information analysis to inform publicly funded research priorities. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2005;4:37-46.
33. Claxton KP, Sculpher MJ. Using Value of Information Analysis to Prioritise Health Research. Pharmacoeconomics 2006;24:1055-68.
34. Minelli C, Baio G. Value of Information: A Tool to Improve Research Prioritization and Reduce Waste. PLoS Med 2015;12:e1001882.
35. Chalmers I, Atkinson P, Fenton M, et al. Tackling treatment uncertainties together: The evolution of the James Lind Initiative, 2003-2013. J R Soc Med 2013;106:482-91.
36. Snilstveit B, Vojtkova M, Bhavsar A, et al. Evidence gap maps-A tool for promoting evidence-informed policy and prioritizing future research. Washington DC: World Bank Group, 2013. Policy Research working paper; no. WPS 6725.