Article type
Abstract
Background
Prioritising helps publicly funded institutions to allocate limited resources maximising the use of expertise and budget to achieve the highest possible impact and largest equity while being economically and politically sustainable.
Objectives
The objective was to develop an easy-to-use framework supporting open multi-disciplinary debates between decision-makers, advisors and public health experts and transparent strategic decision-making regarding the prioritisation of scientific activities for a maximum benefit to European Public Health.
Methods
IRIS 2.0 is built on narrative proposals, a four-criteria priority matrix and multi-disciplinary debates, consensus-building, ranking and decision-making. It considers proposals along three dimensions - cost effectiveness, impact and health equity - and follows a 4-step process:
•Collection of narrative proposals describing a public health issue and the approach to tackle it.
•Evaluation of the proposals by multi-disciplinary evaluators.
•Rounds of debates supported by anonymous online poll to promote engagement and inclusiveness and minimise bias.
•Ranking of the proposal activities and decision-making.
Results
IRIS 2.0 was piloted on two proposals: ‘e-health: feasibility and added value of using existing electronic health data in Member States for EU surveillance’ and ‘A Foresight Programme for early warning and preparedness for infectious disease threats in Europe’. Both the proposal topic and activities were subjected to the prioritisation setting. The pilot required two rounds of debates and a round of revision of the proposals to reach a consensus on the inclusion in the work plan and allocation of resources.
Conclusions
With its mixed format of discussions and anonymous polling along a four-criteria matrix, IRIS 2.0 achieved high engagement and acceptance rates and met its objective of providing an easy-to-use framework for multi-disciplinary discussion and priority setting. The pilot demonstrated a priority-setting process open to debate, criticism and revision. IRIS 2.0 is now an integrated part of the strategic planning of the Centre’s work plan.
Prioritising helps publicly funded institutions to allocate limited resources maximising the use of expertise and budget to achieve the highest possible impact and largest equity while being economically and politically sustainable.
Objectives
The objective was to develop an easy-to-use framework supporting open multi-disciplinary debates between decision-makers, advisors and public health experts and transparent strategic decision-making regarding the prioritisation of scientific activities for a maximum benefit to European Public Health.
Methods
IRIS 2.0 is built on narrative proposals, a four-criteria priority matrix and multi-disciplinary debates, consensus-building, ranking and decision-making. It considers proposals along three dimensions - cost effectiveness, impact and health equity - and follows a 4-step process:
•Collection of narrative proposals describing a public health issue and the approach to tackle it.
•Evaluation of the proposals by multi-disciplinary evaluators.
•Rounds of debates supported by anonymous online poll to promote engagement and inclusiveness and minimise bias.
•Ranking of the proposal activities and decision-making.
Results
IRIS 2.0 was piloted on two proposals: ‘e-health: feasibility and added value of using existing electronic health data in Member States for EU surveillance’ and ‘A Foresight Programme for early warning and preparedness for infectious disease threats in Europe’. Both the proposal topic and activities were subjected to the prioritisation setting. The pilot required two rounds of debates and a round of revision of the proposals to reach a consensus on the inclusion in the work plan and allocation of resources.
Conclusions
With its mixed format of discussions and anonymous polling along a four-criteria matrix, IRIS 2.0 achieved high engagement and acceptance rates and met its objective of providing an easy-to-use framework for multi-disciplinary discussion and priority setting. The pilot demonstrated a priority-setting process open to debate, criticism and revision. IRIS 2.0 is now an integrated part of the strategic planning of the Centre’s work plan.