Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Professional societies, like many other organizations around the world, have recognized the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that health care recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. Priority setting is an essential component of developing clinical practice guidelines informed by the best available research evidence. It ensures that resources and attention are devoted to those areas in which clinical recommendations will provide the greatest benefit to patients, clinicians, and policy makers. This is the second of a series of 14 articles that methodologists and researchers from around the world prepared to advise guideline developers in respiratory and other diseases. This review focuses on priority setting, addressing five key questions. METHODS: In this review, we addressed the following questions. (1) At which steps of guideline development should priorities be considered? (2) How do we create an initial list of potential topics within the guideline? (3) What criteria should be used to establish priorities? (4) What parties should be involved and what processes should be used to set priorities? (5)What are the potential challenges of setting priorities? We updated an existing review on priority setting, and searched PubMed and other databases of methodological studies for existing systematic reviews and relevant methodological research. We did not conduct systematic reviews ourselves. Our conclusions are based on available evidence, our own experience working with guideline developers, and workshop discussions. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Existing literature on priority setting largely applies to identifying priorities for which guidelines to develop rather than setting priorities for recommendations within a guideline. Nonetheless, there is substantial consensus about the general factors that should be considered in setting priorities. These include the burdens and costs of illness, potential impact of a recommendation, identified deficits or weak points in practice, variation or uncertainty in practice, and availability of evidence. The input of a variety of stakeholders is useful in setting priorities, although informal consultation is used more often than formal methods. Processes for setting priorities remains poorly described in most guidelines.
Hide

Abstract

The US Preventive Services Task Force is an expert panel established by the federal government in 1984 to develop evidence-based practice guidelines on screening tests and other preventive services. Its recommendations are published elsewhere. This article explores the lessons learned in the process of developing and disseminating the recommendations. Topics include project organization (analytic philosophy, project sponsorship, panel composition, topic selection); the review of evidence (selecting outcome measures for judging effectiveness, constructing "causal pathways," searching the literature, rating the evidence, synthesizing the results); crafting recommendations (extrapolation, assessing magnitude, balancing risks and benefits, addressing costs, dealing with insufficient data, separating science from policy); peer review; collaboration with other groups; evaluating impact on clinicians'knowledge, attitudes, and behavior; updating recommendations; and defining a research agenda. The lessons learned suggest potential refinements in the future work of the task force and other groups engaged in guideline development.
Hide

Abstract

Setting priorities and selecting topics are important steps in guidelines development, but they have received relatively little attention to date. Responses from a survey of guidelines stakeholders in Canada suggest that the health burden of a clinical condition on the population is an important factor in priority setting. Economic considerations, cast as either costs of treatment to the health care system or the economic burden of illness to society, are given varying importance by different stakeholder groups. Drawing on the literature and the survey results, the authors propose a framework for priority setting. Important issues requiring consideration include the role of public and community participation, the need for and appropriate emphasis on quantitative data regarding current practice and its variation, and mechanisms to link guidelines to health-policy development and management of the health care system.
Hide