Adapting the nominal group technique for priority setting of evidence-practice gaps in implementation science.

Nicole M Rankin,Kate White,Jane L Phillips,Sallie A Pearson,Deborah Mcgregor,Sarah York,Phyllis N Butow,Jane M Young,Tim Shaw

doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0210-7

Abstract

BackgroundThere are a variety of methods for priority setting in health research but few studies have addressed how to prioritise the gaps that exist between research evidence and clinical practice. This study aimed to build a suite of robust, evidence based techniques and tools for use in implementation science projects. We applied the priority setting methodology in lung cancer care as an example.MethodsWe reviewed existing techniques and tools for priority setting in health research and the criteria used to prioritise items. An expert interdisciplinary consensus group comprised of health service, cancer and nursing researchers iteratively reviewed and adapted the techniques and tools. We tested these on evidence-practice gaps identified for lung cancer. The tools were pilot tested and finalised. A brief process evaluation was conducted.ResultsWe based our priority setting on the Nominal Group Technique (NGT). The adapted tools included a matrix for individuals to privately rate priority gaps; the same matrix was used for group discussion and reaching consensus. An investment exercise was used to validate allocation of priorities across the gaps. We describe the NGT process, criteria and tool adaptations and process evaluation results.ConclusionsThe modified NGT process, criteria and tools contribute to building a suite of methods that can be applied in prioritising evidence-practice gaps. These methods could be adapted for other health settings within the broader context of implementation science projects.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0210-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Highlights

There are a variety of methods for priority setting in health research but few studies have addressed how to prioritise the gaps that exist between research evidence and clinical practice
We conducted three search strategies in Medline, PsychInfo and PubMed databases to: a) identify relevant health priority setting approaches or techniques that had been used in focus or small group settings; b) identify original research studies conducted in oncology settings, where oncology health professionals and/or consumers were the target audience for priority setting; and, c) locate relevant documents in the grey literature and web-based sources about group decision making tools used in health
The results are described : selecting the technique; selecting the criteria; the resulting tools and the modified Nominal Group Technique (NGT) process

Summary

Introduction

There are a variety of methods for priority setting in health research but few studies have addressed how to prioritise the gaps that exist between research evidence and clinical practice. Health researchers and clinicians participate in collaborative efforts to determine how best to implement evidence into routine clinical practice. Priority setting offers an important opportunity for collaborators to determine what evidence is relevant to implement, how. Few studies have addressed methods that prioritise existing gaps between research evidence and clinical practice [1]. (NGT) and trialled in community workshops to set priorities with participants (professionals alone in the control group or professional and patients in the intervention group) [5]. The study found that the NGT intervention was effective and patient involvement significantly shifted priorities towards quality of care factors

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion