Cargando…
Rapid prioritisation of topics for rapid evaluation: the case of innovations in adult social care and social work
BACKGROUND: Prioritisation processes are widely used in healthcare research and increasingly in social care research. Previous research has recommended using consensus development methods for inclusive research agenda setting. This research has highlighted the need for transparent and systematic met...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7944624/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33691703 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-021-00693-2 |
_version_ | 1783662709713141760 |
---|---|
author | Cowan, Katherine Fulop, Naomi J. Harshfield, Amelia Ng, Pei Li Ntouva, Antiopi Sidhu, Manbinder Sussex, Jon Tomini, Sonila M. Walton, Holly |
author_facet | Cowan, Katherine Fulop, Naomi J. Harshfield, Amelia Ng, Pei Li Ntouva, Antiopi Sidhu, Manbinder Sussex, Jon Tomini, Sonila M. Walton, Holly |
author_sort | Cowan, Katherine |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Prioritisation processes are widely used in healthcare research and increasingly in social care research. Previous research has recommended using consensus development methods for inclusive research agenda setting. This research has highlighted the need for transparent and systematic methods for priority setting. Yet there has been little research on how to conduct prioritisation processes using rapid methods. This is a particular concern when prioritisation needs to happen rapidly. This paper aims to describe and discuss a process of rapidly identifying and prioritising a shortlist of innovations for rapid evaluation applied in the field of adult social care and social work. METHOD: We adapted the James Lind Alliance approach to priority setting for rapid use. We followed four stages: (1) Identified a long list of innovations, (2) Developed shortlisting criteria, (3) Grouped and sifted innovations, and (4) Prioritised innovations in a multi-stakeholder workshop (n = 23). Project initiation through to completion of the final report took four months. RESULTS: Twenty innovations were included in the final shortlist (out of 158 suggested innovations). The top five innovations for evaluation were identified and findings highlighted key themes which influenced prioritisation. The top five priorities (listed here in alphabetical order) were: Care coordination for dementia in the community, family group conferencing, Greenwich prisons social care, local area coordination and MySense.Ai. Feedback from workshop participants (n = 15) highlighted tensions from using a rapid process (e.g. challenges of reaching consensus in one workshop). CONCLUSION: The method outlined in this manuscript can be used to rapidly prioritise innovations for evaluation in a feasible and robust way. We outline some implications and compromises of rapid prioritisation processes for future users of this approach to consider. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12961-021-00693-2. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7944624 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-79446242021-03-10 Rapid prioritisation of topics for rapid evaluation: the case of innovations in adult social care and social work Cowan, Katherine Fulop, Naomi J. Harshfield, Amelia Ng, Pei Li Ntouva, Antiopi Sidhu, Manbinder Sussex, Jon Tomini, Sonila M. Walton, Holly Health Res Policy Syst Research BACKGROUND: Prioritisation processes are widely used in healthcare research and increasingly in social care research. Previous research has recommended using consensus development methods for inclusive research agenda setting. This research has highlighted the need for transparent and systematic methods for priority setting. Yet there has been little research on how to conduct prioritisation processes using rapid methods. This is a particular concern when prioritisation needs to happen rapidly. This paper aims to describe and discuss a process of rapidly identifying and prioritising a shortlist of innovations for rapid evaluation applied in the field of adult social care and social work. METHOD: We adapted the James Lind Alliance approach to priority setting for rapid use. We followed four stages: (1) Identified a long list of innovations, (2) Developed shortlisting criteria, (3) Grouped and sifted innovations, and (4) Prioritised innovations in a multi-stakeholder workshop (n = 23). Project initiation through to completion of the final report took four months. RESULTS: Twenty innovations were included in the final shortlist (out of 158 suggested innovations). The top five innovations for evaluation were identified and findings highlighted key themes which influenced prioritisation. The top five priorities (listed here in alphabetical order) were: Care coordination for dementia in the community, family group conferencing, Greenwich prisons social care, local area coordination and MySense.Ai. Feedback from workshop participants (n = 15) highlighted tensions from using a rapid process (e.g. challenges of reaching consensus in one workshop). CONCLUSION: The method outlined in this manuscript can be used to rapidly prioritise innovations for evaluation in a feasible and robust way. We outline some implications and compromises of rapid prioritisation processes for future users of this approach to consider. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12961-021-00693-2. BioMed Central 2021-03-10 /pmc/articles/PMC7944624/ /pubmed/33691703 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-021-00693-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Cowan, Katherine Fulop, Naomi J. Harshfield, Amelia Ng, Pei Li Ntouva, Antiopi Sidhu, Manbinder Sussex, Jon Tomini, Sonila M. Walton, Holly Rapid prioritisation of topics for rapid evaluation: the case of innovations in adult social care and social work |
title | Rapid prioritisation of topics for rapid evaluation: the case of innovations in adult social care and social work |
title_full | Rapid prioritisation of topics for rapid evaluation: the case of innovations in adult social care and social work |
title_fullStr | Rapid prioritisation of topics for rapid evaluation: the case of innovations in adult social care and social work |
title_full_unstemmed | Rapid prioritisation of topics for rapid evaluation: the case of innovations in adult social care and social work |
title_short | Rapid prioritisation of topics for rapid evaluation: the case of innovations in adult social care and social work |
title_sort | rapid prioritisation of topics for rapid evaluation: the case of innovations in adult social care and social work |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7944624/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33691703 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-021-00693-2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT cowankatherine rapidprioritisationoftopicsforrapidevaluationthecaseofinnovationsinadultsocialcareandsocialwork AT fulopnaomij rapidprioritisationoftopicsforrapidevaluationthecaseofinnovationsinadultsocialcareandsocialwork AT harshfieldamelia rapidprioritisationoftopicsforrapidevaluationthecaseofinnovationsinadultsocialcareandsocialwork AT ngpeili rapidprioritisationoftopicsforrapidevaluationthecaseofinnovationsinadultsocialcareandsocialwork AT ntouvaantiopi rapidprioritisationoftopicsforrapidevaluationthecaseofinnovationsinadultsocialcareandsocialwork AT sidhumanbinder rapidprioritisationoftopicsforrapidevaluationthecaseofinnovationsinadultsocialcareandsocialwork AT sussexjon rapidprioritisationoftopicsforrapidevaluationthecaseofinnovationsinadultsocialcareandsocialwork AT tominisonilam rapidprioritisationoftopicsforrapidevaluationthecaseofinnovationsinadultsocialcareandsocialwork AT waltonholly rapidprioritisationoftopicsforrapidevaluationthecaseofinnovationsinadultsocialcareandsocialwork |