Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 4
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Rankin, Nicole M. McGregor, Deborah Butow, Phyllis N. White, Kate Phillips, Jane L. Young, Jane M. Pearson, Sallie A. York, Sarah and Shaw, Tim 2016. Adapting the nominal group technique for priority setting of evidence-practice gaps in implementation science. BMC Medical Research Methodology, Vol. 16, Issue. 1,

    Adam, P. Solans-Domenech, M. Pons, J. M. V. Aymerich, M. Berra, S. Guillamon, I. Sanchez, E. and Permanyer-Miralda, G. 2012. Assessment of the impact of a clinical and health services research call in Catalonia. Research Evaluation, Vol. 21, Issue. 4, p. 319.

    2012. Summary Report from the Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Aging Consensus Project: Treatment Strategies for Clinicians Managing Older Individuals with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, Vol. 60, Issue. 5, p. 974.

    Hasson, Felicity and Keeney, Sinead 2011. Enhancing rigour in the Delphi technique research. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 78, Issue. 9, p. 1695.

  • International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Volume 26, Issue 2
  • April 2010, pp. 217-224

Setting priorities in clinical and health services research: Properties of an adapted and updated method

  • Silvina Berra (a1), Emília Sánchez (a1), Joan M. V. Pons (a2), Cristian Tebé (a1), Jordi Alonso (a3) and Marta Aymerich (a4)
  • DOI:
  • Published online: 15 April 2010

Objectives: The objectives of this study is to review the set of criteria of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) for priority-setting in research with addition of new criteria if necessary, and to develop and evaluate the reliability and validity of the final priority score.

Methods: Based on the evaluation of 199 research topics, forty-five experts identified additional criteria for priority-setting, rated their relevance, and ranked and weighted them in a three-round modified Delphi technique. A final priority score was developed and evaluated. Internal consistency, test–retest and inter-rater reliability were assessed. Correlation with experts’ overall qualitative topic ratings were assessed as an approximation to validity.

Results: All seven original IOM criteria were considered relevant and two new criteria were added (“potential for translation into practice”, and “need for knowledge”). Final ranks and relative weights differed from those of the original IOM criteria: “research impact on health outcomes” was considered the most important criterion (4.23), as opposed to “burden of disease” (3.92). Cronbach's alpha (0.75) and test–retest stability (interclass correlation coefficient = 0.66) for the final set of criteria were acceptable. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for overall assessment of priority was 0.66.

Conclusions: A reliable instrument for prioritizing topics in clinical and health services research has been developed. Further evaluation of its validity and impact on selecting research topics is required.

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

2.E Bernal-Delgado , S Peiró , R. Sotoca Prioridades de investigación en servicios sanitarios en el Sistema Nacional de Salud. Una aproximación por consenso de expertos. Gac Sanit. 2006;20:287294.

3.N. Black A national strategy for research and development: Lessons from England. Annu Rev Public Health. 1997;18:485505.

4.P Brown , K Brunnhuber , K Chalkidou , How to formulate research recommendations. BMJ. 2006;333:804806.

7.JF Caron-Flinterman , JE Broerse , J Teerling , JF. Bunders Patients’ priorities concerning health research: The case of asthma and COPD research in the Netherlands. Health Expect. 2005;8:253263.

8.N Carson , Z Ansari , W. Hart Priority setting in public health and health services research. Aust Health Rev. 2000;23:4657.

9.K Claxton , L Ginnelly , M Sculpher , Z Philips , S Palmer . A pilot study on the use of decision theory and value of information analysis as part of the NHS Health Technology Assessment programme. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:1103.

16.RL Fleurence , DJ Torgerson . Setting priorities for research. Health Policy. 2004;69:110.

17.N Fulop , P Allen , A Clarke , N Black . From health technology assessment to research on the organisation and delivery of health services: Addressing the balance. Health Policy. 2003;63:155165.

18.CP Gross , GF Anderson , NR Powe . The relation between funding by the National Institutes of Health and the burden of disease. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:18811887.

19.S Hanney , M Mugford , J Grant , M Buxton . Assessing the benefits of health research: Lessons from research into the use of antenatal corticosteroids for the prevention of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome. Soc Sci Med. 2005;60:937947.

22.R Jones , T Lamont , A Haines . Setting priorities for research and development in the NHS: A case study on the interface between primary and secondary care. BMJ. 1995;311:10761080.

23.C Lionis , HE Stoffers , Hummers-Pradier, Setting priorities and identifying barriers for general practice research in Europe. Results from an EGPRW meeting. Fam Pract. 2004;21:587593.

25.CM Michaud , CJ Murray , BR Bloom . Burden of disease: Implications for future research. JAMA. 2001;285:535539.

26.T Moreno-Casbas , C Martin-Arribas , I Orts-Cortes , P Comet-Cortes , Investen-ISCIII Co-ordination and Development of Nursing Research Centre. Identification of priorities for nursing research in Spain: A Delphi study. J Adv Nurs. 2001;35:857863.

27.WJ Oortwijn , H Vondeling , T van Barneveld , C van Vugt , LM Bouter . Priority setting for health technology assessment in The Netherlands: Principles and practice. Health Policy. 2002;62:227242.

28.CE Phelps , ST Parente . Priority setting in medical technology and medical practice assessment. Med Care. 1990;28:703723.

32.SR Tunis , DB Stryer , CM Clancy . Practical clinical trials: Increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA. 2003;290:16241632.

33.MR Welfare , J Colligan , S Molyneux , P Pearson , JR Barton . The identification of topics for research that are important to people with ulcerative colitis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;18:939944.

34.EA Zerhouni . US biomedical research: Basic, translational, and clinical sciences. JAMA. 2005;294:13521358.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  • ISSN: 0266-4623
  • EISSN: 1471-6348
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *