Setting priorities for research: a practical application of ‘payback’ and expected value of information

Fleurence, Rachael

doi:10.1002/hec.1225

Cited by 16 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Reviews and protocols representing the ten MHUDs were published by the following Cochrane review groups: Prostatic Diseases and Urologic Cancers Group (n=43); Renal Group (36); Incontinence Group (14); Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (8); Pregnancy and Childbirth Group (7); Infectious Diseases Group (3); Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group (2); Gynecological Cancer Group (2); and Neonatal Group (1). …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Research prioritization of men’s health and urologic diseases

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives We sought to determine whether disease representation in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) reflects disease burden, measured by the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study as disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs).Materials and Methods Two investigators performed independent assessment of ten men’s health and urologic diseases (MHUDs) in CDSR for systematic review and protocol representation, which were compared with percentage of total 2010 DALYs for the ten conditions. Data were analyzed for correlation using Spearman rank analysis.Results Nine of ten MHUDs were represented by at least one CDSR review. There was a poor and statistically insignificant positive correlation between CDSR representation and disease burden (rho = 0.42, p = 0.23). CDSR representation was aligned with disease burden for three conditions, greater than disease burden for one condition, and less than disease burden for six conditions.Conclusions These results yield high-quality estimates to inform future research prioritization for MHUDs. While prioritization processes are complex and multi-faceted, disease burden should be strongly considered. Awareness of research priority setting has the potential to minimize research disparities on a global scale.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Systematic approaches to inform research prioritization include identifying and prioritizing research questions, recognizing existing research, and setting goals for primary research (1, 2). A derivative of this approach is to value major diseases, injuries, and risk factors based on their burden to society (3).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research prioritization of men’s health and urologic diseases

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sixteen publications were excluded, i.e. because descriptive, [15] or dealing with prioritization of research topics rather than impact [16,17]. We included 22 publications, referring to 18 studies: four SRs [12,18-21] and 14 primary studies [8,9,22-36].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptual frameworks and empirical approaches used to assess the impact of health research: an overview of reviews

Banzi¹,

Moja

Pistotti³

et al. 2011

Health Res Policy Sys

123

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundHow to assess the impact of research is of growing interest to funders, policy makers and researchers mainly to understand the value of investments and to increase accountability. Broadly speaking the term "research impact" refers to the contribution of research activities to achieve desired societal outcomes. The aim of this overview is to identify the most common approaches to research impact assessment, categories of impact and their respective indicators.MethodsWe systematically searched the relevant literature (PubMed, The Cochrane Library (1990-2009)) and funding agency websites. We included systematic reviews, theoretical and methodological papers, and empirical case-studies on how to evaluate research impact. We qualitatively summarised the included reports, as well the conceptual frameworks.ResultsWe identified twenty-two reports belonging to four systematic reviews and 14 primary studies. These publications reported several theoretical frameworks and methodological approaches (bibliometrics, econometrics, ad hoc case studies). The "payback model" emerged as the most frequently used. Five broad categories of impact were identified: a) advancing knowledge, b) capacity building, c) informing decision-making, d) health benefits, e) broad socio-economic benefits. For each proposed category of impact we summarized a set of indicators whose pros and cons are presented and briefly discussed.ConclusionsThis overview is a comprehensive, yet descriptive, contribution to summarize the conceptual framework and taxonomy of an heterogeneous and evolving area of research. A shared and comprehensive conceptual framework does not seem to be available yet and its single components (epidemiologic, economic, and social) are often valued differently in different models.

show abstract

“…Conversely, small expected VOI indicates low uncertainty and minimal value for additional research. 57 However, different objective approaches have been proposed and implemented to prioritize research projects, including: one, burden of disease (cost of illness); two, welfare losses resulting from clinical variation; and three, payback from conducting research. Recently, a framework has been developed adopting the VOI approach to inform decision making for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in England.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%