Table 2 Typical methods, designs and frameworks identified within prioritisation projects
1. Comprehensive approach | 2. Inclusiveness | 3. Information gathering | 4. Deciding priorities |
|---|---|---|---|
Focus on a participatory approach | Use of stakeholder steering groups involving some patient representatives | Review of the literature (research, policies, and guidelines) | Tended to identify research themes and questions |
Stakeholder steering group set up to inform prioritisation agenda | Stakeholders appeared recruited contingent on how their expertise aligned to the aims of the priority setting | Online surveys | Nominal group technique to finalise priorities |
Modified James Lind Alliance framework | Attempts made to have some patient and caregiver participation with identifying priorities | Focus groups | Ranking (including metric-based) of priorities |
Modified Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative framework | Recruitment involved advertising via social media, gaining contact using databases of relevant stakeholders, and with assistance of advocacy groups | Modified Delphi exercises | Collaborative workshops |
Systematic mapping review to inform prioritisation agenda Literature review to inform prioritisation agenda | Mostly researcher led with designing processes and overseeing key phrases | Nominal group technique | Combining consensus building in group work e.g., use of nominal groups |
Consensus building using the Delphi method | Online consultations | Consideration given to consensus building with finalisation of priorities | |
Stakeholder surveys to inform prioritisation agenda | Consultation with advocacy/patient groups | Interactive voting techniques such as “dot-mocracy” [36:2] | |
Discursive group meetings to inform prioritisation agenda | Workshops/discursive meetings | Combining ranking and discussion within group work | |
Consultation with advocacy/patient groups to inform prioritisation agenda |