Rapid prioritisation of topics for rapid evaluation: the case of innovations in adult social care and social work

Abstract

Background Prioritisation processes are widely used in healthcare research and increasingly in social care research. Previous research has recommended using consensus development methods for inclusive research agenda setting. This research has highlighted the need for transparent and systematic methods for priority setting. Yet there has been little research on how to conduct prioritisation processes using rapid methods. This is a particular concern when prioritisation needs to happen rapidly. This paper aims to describe and discuss a process of rapidly identifying and prioritising a shortlist of innovations for rapid evaluation applied in the field of adult social care and social work. Method We adapted the James Lind Alliance approach to priority setting for rapid use. We followed four stages: (1) Identified a long list of innovations, (2) Developed shortlisting criteria, (3) Grouped and sifted innovations, and (4) Prioritised innovations in a multi-stakeholder workshop (n = 23). Project initiation through to completion of the final report took four months. Results Twenty innovations were included in the final shortlist (out of 158 suggested innovations). The top five innovations for evaluation were identified and findings highlighted key themes which influenced prioritisation. The top five priorities (listed here in alphabetical order) were: Care coordination for dementia in the community, family group conferencing, Greenwich prisons social care, local area coordination and MySense.Ai. Feedback from workshop participants (n = 15) highlighted tensions from using a rapid process (e.g. challenges of reaching consensus in one workshop). Conclusion The method outlined in this manuscript can be used to rapidly prioritise innovations for evaluation in a feasible and robust way. We outline some implications and compromises of rapid prioritisation processes for future users of this approach to consider.

Identifying Regional Stakeholder-Informed Priorities for Adult Social Care Research: A Mixed-Method Study in Kent, Surrey, and Sussex

“…The current study extended the literature by taking a bottom-up approach to the identification of regional stakeholder-informed research and implementation priorities for adult social care. Previous priority-setting studies within adult social care are scarce and, although valuable, focussed exclusively on national priorities and did not always include stakeholders from the outset (Cowan et al, 2021;Cyhlarova & Clark, 2019;James Lind Alliance, 2018). This study was designed within the Applied Research Collaboration Kent, Surrey, and Sussex (ARC KSS), supporting applied health and care research that responds to and meets the needs of local populations and care systems.…”

“…Stakeholders were consulted for the development of the final list; however, initial priorities were identified through document review. The most recent report of 5 research priorities was published by Cowan and colleagues in 2021 and focussed on rapid prioritisation of innovations in adults social care and social work (Cowan et al 2021).…”

Rapid priority setting exercise on faecal incontinence for Cochrane Incontinence

“…A second phase of research would be necessary to explore these topic uncertainties to achieve a consensus of deliverable research questions. 37 …”

“…Due to the nature of the topics identified, we were unable to ascertain specific questions from survey results and subsequent group discussions. A second phase of research would be necessary to explore these topic uncertainties to achieve a consensus of deliverable research questions 37…”

A rapid priority setting exercise combining existing, emergent evidence with stakeholder knowledge identified broad topic uncertainties

“…Rapid methods are increasingly undertaken to ensure timely identification and delivery of health research priorities, and there are examples of their successful use [4]. However, there is no universally accepted rapid approach and methods that may include single screening of topic uncertainties, audio transcription of qualitative components with single coding rather than verbatim transcription and double data coding [4,5].…”