NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Cover of Prioritization Criteria Methodology for Future Research Needs Proposals Within the Effective Health Care Program

Prioritization Criteria Methodology for Future Research Needs Proposals Within the Effective Health Care Program

PiCMe-Prioritization Criteria Methods

Methods Future Research Needs Reports, No. 10

Investigator: , MD.

Vanderbilt Evidence-based Practice Center
Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); .
Report No.: 12(13)-EHC152-EF

Structured Abstract

Background:

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) through its Effective Health Care (EHC) Program partners with networks of researchers and clinical teams across North America, using input from stakeholders throughout the process of comparative effectiveness research, translation, dissemination, and implementation of research findings. The Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) perform in-depth reviews of existing evidence. An important part of these reviews is to not only synthesize the evidence, but also identify the gaps in evidence that limited the ability to answer the systematic review questions. AHRQ supports EPCs to work with various stakeholders to further develop and prioritize the future research needed by decisionmakers. AHRQ has commissioned a series of methods papers to inform this activity.

Objective:

Clearly defined criteria are integral to the future research needs (FRN) prioritization process. The objective of this paper is to propose preliminary criteria and a model worksheet that EPCs and stakeholders could use when identifying, developing, and prioritizing FRNs.

Methods/Approach:

The EHC Program topic selection criteria were used as a starting point. The experiences and reports of eight EPCs that conducted pilot projects for FRN prioritization were then utilized to refine the criteria. A draft proposal for FRN prioritization criteria and methodology was developed and circulated to the eight EPCs; feedback further informed a series of iterations, leading to this document.

Results:

The 18 EHC Program topic selection criteria were modified by the 8 EPCs as part of their FRN pilot projects. Criteria that did not apply to future research needs were dropped. Criteria that were already met by default, due to requirements for the selection of the topic for the comparative effectiveness reviews and systematic reviews, were set aside. The remaining criteria were separated into two domains: potential value and probability of success (feasibility, likelihood, capacity). The process for FRN projects was refined. The potential value criteria would be utilized for stakeholder prioritization of FRNs. The probability of success criteria would be applied after the priority FRNs underwent study design consideration by the EPC. EPCs could work with stakeholders to prioritize research gaps that are not or have not been addressed but are of high potential value. After identifying these high-priority research needs, the EPC will consider the feasibility and capacity criteria when developing potential study designs.

Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services1, Contract No. 290-2007-10065-I, Prepared by: Vanderbilt Evidence-based Practice Center, Nashville, TN

Suggested citation:

Andrews J. Prioritization Criteria Methodology for Future Research Needs Proposals Within the Effective Health Care Program. Methods Future Research Needs Report No. 10. (Prepared by Vanderbilt Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10065-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 12(13)-EHC152-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. January 2013. www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm.

This report is based on research conducted by the Vanderbilt Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No.290-2007-10065-I). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The information in this report is intended to help health care decisionmakers—patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers, among others—make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of health care services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical reference and in conjunction with all other pertinent information, i.e., in the context of available resources and circumstances presented by individual patients.

This report may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for development of clinical practice guidelines and other quality enhancement tools, or as a basis for reimbursement and coverage policies. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of such derivative products may not be stated or implied.

None of the investigators have any affiliations or financial involvement that conflicts with the material presented in this report.

1

540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850; www‚Äč.ahrq.gov

Bookshelf ID: NBK116679PMID: 23367528
PubReader format: click here to try

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page
  • PDF version of this title (369K)

Related information

Related citations in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...