Priority setting in guideline development

Article 2 in integrating and coordinating efforts in COPD guideline development. An official ATS/ERS workshop report

David Atkins, Rogelio Perez-Padilla, William MacNee, A (Sonia) Buist, Alvaro A. Cruz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

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. Itensures 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 shouldbe 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, ourown 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. None the less, 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 deficitsor weak pointsin 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)225-228
Number of pages4
JournalProceedings of the American Thoracic Society
Volume9
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 15 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Guidelines
Education
Cost of Illness
Research
Administrative Personnel
Practice Guidelines
PubMed
Uncertainty
Referral and Consultation
Research Personnel
Organizations
Databases
Delivery of Health Care

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine

Cite this

Priority setting in guideline development : Article 2 in integrating and coordinating efforts in COPD guideline development. An official ATS/ERS workshop report. / Atkins, David; Perez-Padilla, Rogelio; MacNee, William; Buist, A (Sonia); Cruz, Alvaro A.

In: Proceedings of the American Thoracic Society, Vol. 9, No. 5, 15.12.2012, p. 225-228.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{62ad3bb5be9749e4af49e95a636dba0e,
title = "Priority setting in guideline development: Article 2 in integrating and coordinating efforts in COPD guideline development. An official ATS/ERS workshop report",
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. Itensures 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 shouldbe 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, ourown 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. None the less, 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 deficitsor weak pointsin 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.",
author = "David Atkins and Rogelio Perez-Padilla and William MacNee and Buist, {A (Sonia)} and Cruz, {Alvaro A.}",
year = "2012",
month = "12",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1513/pats.201208-055ST",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "9",
pages = "225--228",
journal = "Annals of the American Thoracic Society",
issn = "2325-6621",
publisher = "American Thoracic Society",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Priority setting in guideline development

T2 - Article 2 in integrating and coordinating efforts in COPD guideline development. An official ATS/ERS workshop report

AU - Atkins, David

AU - Perez-Padilla, Rogelio

AU - MacNee, William

AU - Buist, A (Sonia)

AU - Cruz, Alvaro A.

PY - 2012/12/15

Y1 - 2012/12/15

N2 - 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. Itensures 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 shouldbe 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, ourown 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. None the less, 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 deficitsor weak pointsin 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.

AB - 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. Itensures 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 shouldbe 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, ourown 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. None the less, 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 deficitsor weak pointsin 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84872690814&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84872690814&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1513/pats.201208-055ST

DO - 10.1513/pats.201208-055ST

M3 - Article

VL - 9

SP - 225

EP - 228

JO - Annals of the American Thoracic Society

JF - Annals of the American Thoracic Society

SN - 2325-6621

IS - 5

ER -