Setting Priorities for Research and Development in the NHS: A Case Study on the Interface Between Primary and Secondary Care

Jones et al. (1995) full text summary PDF

For which topic were research priorities identified?

primary and secondary care

In which location was the research priority setting conducted?

Europe - United Kingdom

Why was it conducted at all?

The NHS research and development programme is a new departure and the first attempt in Britain to establish a coherent research strategy to support the promotion of health and the provision of health care. The objective of the research and development strategy is to create a research based health service, in which reliable and relevant information is available for decisions on health policy, clinical practice, and the management of services.

What was the objective?

to identify research and development priorities at the interface between primary and secondary care

What was the outcome?

a list of 21 research areas

How long did the research prioritization take?

No information provided.

Which methods were used to identify research priorities?

consultation; survey; workshop

How were the priorities for research identified exactly?

Step 1: setting up advisory group. Step 2: advisory group created three panels: tasks were to review existing evidence and to identify key issues within 3 areas. Step 3: identifying research priorities: consultation of stakeholders, additionally workshops to generate informal discussions. Step 4: translating problems into research needs: 800 research needs were suggested. Step 5: identifying priorities: 25 topics were forwarded by the three panels to the advisory group, advisory group discussed topics, master list of 21 topics was agreed on, 21 topics were then rated

Which stakeholders took part?

NHs staff, statutory agencies, professional bodies, consumer groups, academic centers, research organizations. Participants: 242 organizations.

How were stakeholders recruited?

No information provided.

Were stakeholders actively involved or did they just participate?

Stakeholders not only participated but were also actively involved in the research prioritization process: They were part of an advisory board. The advisory board consisted of 16 members. The members reviewed evidence and identified key priorities.