Table 5.
Framework for prioritisation domains and criteria (N=15)
| Prioritization domains (n=9) and criteria (n=28) |
N (%)* | Berra59 2010 |
Carson58 2000† |
Chang60 2012 |
Chapman65 2013 |
Dubois61 2011 |
Ghaffar38 48 2009 | Hacking44 2016 |
Lomas46 2003‡ |
NIH57 2001 |
Okello39 2000 |
Rudan37 2008 |
Somanadhan53 2020§ |
Viergever62 2010 |
Wald51 2014 |
WHO75 1996 |
| Problem-related considerations | ||||||||||||||||
| Health burden | 12 (80%) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||
| Economic burden | 3 (20%) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||||
| Equity considerations | 4 (27%) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||
| Determinants of problem | 2 (13%) | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||||
| Practice considerations | ||||||||||||||||
| Variation in practice | 2 (13%) | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||||
| Uncertainty for decision-makers/ practitioners practitioners | 0 (0%) | |||||||||||||||
| Existing research base | ||||||||||||||||
| Availability of research on topic | 8 (53%) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
| Usefulness of available research on topic | 1 (7%) | ✓ | ||||||||||||||
| Potential to change conclusions/advance research | 1 (7%) | ✓ | ||||||||||||||
| Amenability to research | ||||||||||||||||
| Topic amenability to research | 3 (20%) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||||
| Urgency | ||||||||||||||||
| Urgency | 5 (33%) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||
| Interest of the topic to: | ||||||||||||||||
| Health professionals | 3 (20%) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||||
| Patients/consumers | 4 (27%) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||
| National stakeholders | 2 (13%) | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||||
| Regional/global stakeholders | 2 (13%) | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||||
| Implementation considerations | ||||||||||||||||
| Research capacity | 5 (33%) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||
| Applicability / utilization of research | 7 (47%) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||
| Availability of resources | 11 (73%) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
| Political will | 3 (20%) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||||
| Sustainability | 3 (20%) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||||
| Community engagement | 2 (13%) | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||||
| Expected impact of applying evidence on | ||||||||||||||||
| Health policy & practice | 3 (20%) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||||
| Health outcomes | 9 (60%) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
| Economic outcomes¶ | 10 (67%) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
| Patient experience of care | 2 (13%) | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||||
| Equity | 4 (27%) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||
| Development & broader society | 1 (7%) | ✓ | ||||||||||||||
| Ethical, human rights & moral considerations | ||||||||||||||||
| Ethical, human rights & moral considerations | 4 (27%) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||
*The denominator reflects the total number of approaches that proposed specific criteria to be used as part of the priority setting.
†This approach listed some examples of criteria considered by Steering Groups to help reduce a list of indicative questions to a more manageable size for ‘interim’ prioritisation by external stakeholders.
‡Criteria were used by research experts to translate priority issues identified by stakeholders during consultations into priority research themes.
§While two criteria were proposed ‘importance’ and ‘feasibility’, authors only considered the score for ‘importance’ when generating the top priorities.
¶This encompasses cost-effectiveness of interventions.