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

Autores
Berra, Silvina del Valle; Sánchez, Emilia; Pons, Joan M. V.; Tebé, Cristian; Alonso, Jordi; Aymerich, Marta
Año de publicación
2010
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
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. 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. 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. 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.
Fil: Berra, Silvina del Valle. Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research; España. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias de la Salud. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias de la Salud; Argentina
Fil: Sánchez, Emilia. Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research; España
Fil: Pons, Joan M. V.. Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research; España
Fil: Tebé, Cristian. Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research; España
Fil: Alonso, Jordi. Universitat Pompeu Fabra; España
Fil: Aymerich, Marta. Universidad de Girona; España
Materia
Health services research
Priority-setting
Research assessment
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/110488
Acceder
id CONICETDig_4c297694688b618272e244ab9245b91d
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/110488
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Setting priorities in clinical and health services research: Properties of an adapted and updated methodBerra, Silvina del ValleSánchez, EmiliaPons, Joan M. V.Tebé, CristianAlonso, JordiAymerich, MartaHealth services researchPriority-settingResearch assessmenthttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/3.3https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3The 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. 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. 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. 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.Fil: Berra, Silvina del Valle. Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research; España. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias de la Salud. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias de la Salud; ArgentinaFil: Sánchez, Emilia. Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research; EspañaFil: Pons, Joan M. V.. Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research; EspañaFil: Tebé, Cristian. Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research; EspañaFil: Alonso, Jordi. Universitat Pompeu Fabra; EspañaFil: Aymerich, Marta. Universidad de Girona; EspañaCambridge University Press2010-04info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/110488Berra, Silvina del Valle; Sánchez, Emilia; Pons, Joan M. V.; Tebé, Cristian; Alonso, Jordi; et al.; Setting priorities in clinical and health services research: Properties of an adapted and updated method; Cambridge University Press; International Journal Of Technology Assessment In Health Care; 26; 2; 4-2010; 217-2240266-46231471-6348CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care/article/setting-priorities-in-clinical-and-health-services-research-properties-of-an-adapted-and-updated-method/76E77CED904129F208EFE9EA25DFACBCinfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1017/S0266462310000012info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-11-12T09:58:18Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/110488instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-11-12 09:58:19.155CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Setting priorities in clinical and health services research: Properties of an adapted and updated method
title Setting priorities in clinical and health services research: Properties of an adapted and updated method
spellingShingle Setting priorities in clinical and health services research: Properties of an adapted and updated method
Berra, Silvina del Valle
Health services research
Priority-setting
Research assessment
title_short Setting priorities in clinical and health services research: Properties of an adapted and updated method
title_full Setting priorities in clinical and health services research: Properties of an adapted and updated method
title_fullStr Setting priorities in clinical and health services research: Properties of an adapted and updated method
title_full_unstemmed Setting priorities in clinical and health services research: Properties of an adapted and updated method
title_sort Setting priorities in clinical and health services research: Properties of an adapted and updated method
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Berra, Silvina del Valle
Sánchez, Emilia
Pons, Joan M. V.
Tebé, Cristian
Alonso, Jordi
Aymerich, Marta
author Berra, Silvina del Valle
author_facet Berra, Silvina del Valle
Sánchez, Emilia
Pons, Joan M. V.
Tebé, Cristian
Alonso, Jordi
Aymerich, Marta
author_role author
author2 Sánchez, Emilia
Pons, Joan M. V.
Tebé, Cristian
Alonso, Jordi
Aymerich, Marta
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Health services research
Priority-setting
Research assessment
topic Health services research
Priority-setting
Research assessment
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3.3
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv 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. 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. 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. 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.
Fil: Berra, Silvina del Valle. Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research; España. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias de la Salud. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias de la Salud; Argentina
Fil: Sánchez, Emilia. Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research; España
Fil: Pons, Joan M. V.. Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research; España
Fil: Tebé, Cristian. Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research; España
Fil: Alonso, Jordi. Universitat Pompeu Fabra; España
Fil: Aymerich, Marta. Universidad de Girona; España
description 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. 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. 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. 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.
publishDate 2010
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2010-04
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/110488
Berra, Silvina del Valle; Sánchez, Emilia; Pons, Joan M. V.; Tebé, Cristian; Alonso, Jordi; et al.; Setting priorities in clinical and health services research: Properties of an adapted and updated method; Cambridge University Press; International Journal Of Technology Assessment In Health Care; 26; 2; 4-2010; 217-224
0266-4623
1471-6348
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/110488
identifier_str_mv Berra, Silvina del Valle; Sánchez, Emilia; Pons, Joan M. V.; Tebé, Cristian; Alonso, Jordi; et al.; Setting priorities in clinical and health services research: Properties of an adapted and updated method; Cambridge University Press; International Journal Of Technology Assessment In Health Care; 26; 2; 4-2010; 217-224
0266-4623
1471-6348
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care/article/setting-priorities-in-clinical-and-health-services-research-properties-of-an-adapted-and-updated-method/76E77CED904129F208EFE9EA25DFACBC
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1017/S0266462310000012
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Cambridge University Press
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Cambridge University Press
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1848598404360306688
score 12.976206

Publicaciones similares