Article type
Abstract
Background
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) provides national guidance to enhance health and social care in England and Wales and is well known for its globally respected evidence evaluation processes. NICE has embarked on a review of its prioritization strategy but wants to uphold equity across all sectors, with particular concern to those areas that may be lacking in evidence, specifically public health, social care, and rare diseases. Recognizing potential evidence gaps, strategic principles were devised to guide decision-making in these areas.
Methods
Extensive engagement, both internally and externally, featured diverse stakeholders such as advisory boards, patient groups, and national policymakers. Results were collated and feasibility was assessed before constructing the principles and accompanying definitions.
Results
Strategic principles have been developed and are now being publicly consulted on for each domain: public health, social care, and rare diseases. Common themes explored in engagement activity included: 1) differentiating between activity that will benefit the system versus activity that NICE is well placed to do given its strengths in methodological rigor and the evidence base, 2) the challenge in reaching beyond traditional clinical audiences and exploring what mechanisms incentivize change within social care and public health (ie, what’s the logic model for impact?), and 3) rarity cannot be considered alone and should be considered in line with severity and the availability of existing treatments.
These principles, once finalized, will aid the prioritization process, providing additional guidance in areas with limited evidence or where the nature of evidence may be different to that considered in clinical trials.
Conclusion
The strategic principles will empower NICE and its prioritization board to navigate topic selection judiciously, fostering equity despite evidence constraints. Alongside the prioritization framework, the principles will ensure informed decision-making by the board and ultimately support the delivery of best practice in health and social care while ensuring value for the taxpayer. Successful implementation now hinges on stakeholder consultation and the board having clarity of definitions and ensuring adherence to these principles when addressing topics.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) provides national guidance to enhance health and social care in England and Wales and is well known for its globally respected evidence evaluation processes. NICE has embarked on a review of its prioritization strategy but wants to uphold equity across all sectors, with particular concern to those areas that may be lacking in evidence, specifically public health, social care, and rare diseases. Recognizing potential evidence gaps, strategic principles were devised to guide decision-making in these areas.
Methods
Extensive engagement, both internally and externally, featured diverse stakeholders such as advisory boards, patient groups, and national policymakers. Results were collated and feasibility was assessed before constructing the principles and accompanying definitions.
Results
Strategic principles have been developed and are now being publicly consulted on for each domain: public health, social care, and rare diseases. Common themes explored in engagement activity included: 1) differentiating between activity that will benefit the system versus activity that NICE is well placed to do given its strengths in methodological rigor and the evidence base, 2) the challenge in reaching beyond traditional clinical audiences and exploring what mechanisms incentivize change within social care and public health (ie, what’s the logic model for impact?), and 3) rarity cannot be considered alone and should be considered in line with severity and the availability of existing treatments.
These principles, once finalized, will aid the prioritization process, providing additional guidance in areas with limited evidence or where the nature of evidence may be different to that considered in clinical trials.
Conclusion
The strategic principles will empower NICE and its prioritization board to navigate topic selection judiciously, fostering equity despite evidence constraints. Alongside the prioritization framework, the principles will ensure informed decision-making by the board and ultimately support the delivery of best practice in health and social care while ensuring value for the taxpayer. Successful implementation now hinges on stakeholder consultation and the board having clarity of definitions and ensuring adherence to these principles when addressing topics.