Abstract
BackgroundGiven the context-specific nature of health research prioritization and the obligation to effectively allocate resources to initiatives that will achieve the greatest impact, evaluation of priority setting processes can refine and strengthen such exercises and their outcomes. However, guidance is needed on evaluation tools that can be applied to research priority setting. This paper describes the adaption and application of a conceptual framework to evaluate a research priority setting exercise operating within the public health sector in Ontario, Canada.MethodsThe Nine Common Themes of Good Practice checklist, described by Viergever et al. (Health Res Policy Syst 8:36, 2010) was used as the conceptual framework to evaluate the research priority setting process developed for the Locally Driven Collaborative Projects (LDCP) program in Ontario, Canada. Multiple data sources were used to inform the evaluation, including a review of selected priority setting approaches, surveys with priority setting participants, document review, and consultation with the program advisory committee.ResultsThe evaluation assisted in identifying improvements to six elements of the LDCP priority setting process. The modifications were aimed at improving inclusiveness, information gathering practices, planning for project implementation, and evaluation. In addition, the findings identified that the timing of priority setting activities and level of control over the process were key factors that influenced the ability to effectively implement changes.ConclusionsThe findings demonstrate the novel adaptation and application of the ‘Nine Common Themes of Good Practice checklist’ as a tool for evaluating a research priority setting exercise. The tool can guide the development of evaluation questions and enables the assessment of key constructs related to the design and delivery of a research priority setting process.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-016-0092-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Highlights
Given the context-specific nature of health research prioritization and the obligation to effectively allocate resources to initiatives that will achieve the greatest impact, evaluation of priority setting processes can refine and strengthen such exercises and their outcomes
The checklist was designed to facilitate the planning and implementation of a research priority setting process, we describe its utility as an evaluation tool
No conceptual frameworks for evaluating research priority setting processes were identified through a review of academic and grey literature, a plethora of articles were found describing a range of methods and various approaches used to select research priorities across disciplines and within specific contexts
Summary
Given the context-specific nature of health research prioritization and the obligation to effectively allocate resources to initiatives that will achieve the greatest impact, evaluation of priority setting processes can refine and strengthen such exercises and their outcomes. Guidance is needed on evaluation tools that can be applied to research priority setting. This paper describes the adaption and application of a conceptual framework to evaluate a research priority setting exercise operating within the public health sector in Ontario, Canada. A myriad of methodological approaches to designing and implementing research priority setting processes have been published for a variety of contexts Given that there is no gold standard approach to research prioritization [11], there is a need to understand the strengths and weaknesses of different models and their effectiveness in achieving desired outcomes [12]. To date, published evaluations of priority setting exercises are lacking [8]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
