A. Extent to which the question is important to patients and other health decision-makers |
A1 Not shown to be important to either patients or decision-makers |
No clinician or relevant healthcare consumer consultation |
A2 Shown to be important to health decision-makers but not patients |
Relevant healthcare consumers not consulted or do not rate research question highly |
A3 Shown to be important to patients but not decision-makers |
Relevant healthcare consumers rate research question highly but other health decision makers do not |
A4 Shown to be important to both patients and decision-makers |
Relevant healthcare consumers and other health decision makers (not researchers only) rate the research question highly. |
B. That it addresses an area of high patient burden |
B1 Low patient burden |
Mild symptoms and little or no associated disability |
B2 Medium patient burden |
Moderate symptoms and some disability |
B3 High patient burden |
Significantly disabling, associated with mortality risk or no effective treatments available |
C. That it addresses an area of high social burden |
C1 Condition is rare |
(<0.1% prevalence) |
C2 Condition is somewhat common |
(0.1–1% prevalence) |
C3 Condition is common |
(1–10% prevalence) |
C4 Condition is highly prevalent |
(>10% prevalence) |
D. Potential reduction in patient and/or social burden due to (clinical or implementation) intervention |
D1 Symptomatic treatment only and small potential effect size |
Intervention has potential to only improve patient symptoms to a modest degree (anticipated effect size <1) |
D2 Symptomatic treatment and large potential effect size |
Intervention has potential to only improve patient symptoms to a substantial degree (anticipated effect size >1) |
D3 Potential for intervention to treat both symptoms and underlying disease pathology |
There is a plausible case that some pathophysiological consequences of disease (eg anatomical damage) could be prevented |
D4 Potential for cure or fundamental alteration of disease course |
There is a plausible case that the disease could be rendered entirely non-active with minimal risk of recurrence, with or without ongoing treatment |
E. Potential scalability and uptake of intervention |
E1 Low potential for scalability and uptake |
Prohibitive costs to patient or healthcare system, major systems restructure; and substantial behaviour/belief change by clinicians or patients |
E2 High potential for uptake but low scalability |
Minimal behaviour/belief change by clinicians or patients required but prohibitive costs to healthcare system, major systems restructure |
E3 High potential for scalability but low potential for uptake |
Immediately feasible with minimal changes required to healthcare system but requires a substantial change in patients/clinicians beliefs or behaviour or has high direct patient costs |
E4 High potential for both scalability and uptake |
Immediately feasible and minimal behaviour/belief change by clinicians or patients required |
F. Extent to which the question addresses health equity |
F1 No information |
No attempt to address health equity |
F2 Not relevant |
Discussed using Progress Plus items (O’Neill et al., 2014) but intervention not relevant or appropriate |
F3 Somewhat (may have some application to reduce health disparity) |
Intervention shown to have some potential application to improving health equity issues |
F4 Reducing health disparity is the focus |
The intervention is explicitly designed to improve health equity issues |