Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: ECDC provides independent scientific expertise to EU bodies and Member States (MS) in the field of communicable diseases. Identifying topics of relevance for the European community in order to use the available limited resources in an efficient and equitable way becomes even more important in view of economic constraints.
Objectives: The aim was to develop a priority setting framework that ensures transparency throughout the whole process and the involvement of stakeholders.
Methods: A literature review was performed to identify examples of prioritisation exercises and guidelines. 155 publications were assessed in view of pre-defined objectives and 27 were used to inform the ECDC prioritisation framework IRIS. A matrix including four priority categories and three indicators each was created in collaboration with ECDC’s Advisory Forum (AF) (Tables). A commercially available survey tool was adapted to IRIS, piloted and revised, and firstly fully applied within the planning process for the work plan 2014. In a first step, each indicator was weighted. Project proposals provided by the Centre’s disease programmes were then ranked against the indicators by the AF members.
Results: 16/35 AF members participated in the weighting exercise, and 27/35 in the prioritisation of project proposals. However, the variation obtained in the weighting exercise was very wide with only a small preference given to ‘Saves MS resources when coordinated/performed at EU level’. 27 project proposals were then ranked against the weighted indicators. Within the possible range from −12 (no priority) to +12 (highest priority), the seven highest ranked projects were between 6 and 7. Only one project was ranked below zero.
Conclusions: The wide variation of results obtained during the weighting of the indicators most probably reflects the diversity of interests and needs in the different MS, although the low participation does not allow final conclusions. The participation in the prioritisation of project proposals was higher and the feedback received with regard to usefulness and feasibility generally positive. The objectives of developing an easy-to-use and transparent tool were met, although the right balance between individual MS and European level needs remains a challenge.
Objectives: The aim was to develop a priority setting framework that ensures transparency throughout the whole process and the involvement of stakeholders.
Methods: A literature review was performed to identify examples of prioritisation exercises and guidelines. 155 publications were assessed in view of pre-defined objectives and 27 were used to inform the ECDC prioritisation framework IRIS. A matrix including four priority categories and three indicators each was created in collaboration with ECDC’s Advisory Forum (AF) (Tables). A commercially available survey tool was adapted to IRIS, piloted and revised, and firstly fully applied within the planning process for the work plan 2014. In a first step, each indicator was weighted. Project proposals provided by the Centre’s disease programmes were then ranked against the indicators by the AF members.
Results: 16/35 AF members participated in the weighting exercise, and 27/35 in the prioritisation of project proposals. However, the variation obtained in the weighting exercise was very wide with only a small preference given to ‘Saves MS resources when coordinated/performed at EU level’. 27 project proposals were then ranked against the weighted indicators. Within the possible range from −12 (no priority) to +12 (highest priority), the seven highest ranked projects were between 6 and 7. Only one project was ranked below zero.
Conclusions: The wide variation of results obtained during the weighting of the indicators most probably reflects the diversity of interests and needs in the different MS, although the low participation does not allow final conclusions. The participation in the prioritisation of project proposals was higher and the feedback received with regard to usefulness and feasibility generally positive. The objectives of developing an easy-to-use and transparent tool were met, although the right balance between individual MS and European level needs remains a challenge.