Article type
Abstract
Background: The importance of prioritization in guideline development lies in the need for optimal resource allocation and time efficiency.
Objectives: To describe priority setting approaches as depicted in methodological guidance by guideline-producing organizations.
Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search to identify published methodological guidance on practice guideline development. We screened guideline-producing organizations’ documents and abstracted data in duplicate and independently. We abstracted details of prioritization approaches, including steps and criteria used in prioritization of topics and questions.
Results: Out of 133 organizations, 99 (74%) reported on prioritization approaches, with 86% and 35% of organizations reporting on prioritization of topics and questions respectively. While 93% of organizations mentioned the process of initial list generation for topic prioritization, the percentage was lower for question prioritization (68%). Expert opinion was the leading source in both topics (87%) and questions (83%). Most organizations reported on consumer, public, or patient input when generating the initial list of topics (70%), while the percentage was lower for questions (39%). Three organizations (4%) referred to a published prioritization tool for topics, and none for questions. Half of organizations addressed the maximum number of questions to be considered, with 60% reporting on the maximum questions (range: 2-20) and 40% only reporting that a limit is needed. Few organizations used categorization (2% and 0%), rating (8% and 9%), and ranking (12 and 15%) as part of topic and question prioritization, respectively. The majority (92%) and more than half (56%) of the organizations reported on using criteria as part of prioritization of topics and questions, respectively. The two leading criteria for both topics and questions were variation in practice and availability of evidence.
Conclusion: More than two thirds of the identified guideline-producing organizations reported on prioritization approaches, with most mentioning a process of initial list generation for topics and questions, and using criteria as part of prioritization. Other aspects such as rating and ranking, and patient or public engagement are yet to be better addressed.
Relevance and importance to patients: priority setting in guideline development improves healthcare systems’ sustainability by directing resources to areas where guidance is needed.
Objectives: To describe priority setting approaches as depicted in methodological guidance by guideline-producing organizations.
Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search to identify published methodological guidance on practice guideline development. We screened guideline-producing organizations’ documents and abstracted data in duplicate and independently. We abstracted details of prioritization approaches, including steps and criteria used in prioritization of topics and questions.
Results: Out of 133 organizations, 99 (74%) reported on prioritization approaches, with 86% and 35% of organizations reporting on prioritization of topics and questions respectively. While 93% of organizations mentioned the process of initial list generation for topic prioritization, the percentage was lower for question prioritization (68%). Expert opinion was the leading source in both topics (87%) and questions (83%). Most organizations reported on consumer, public, or patient input when generating the initial list of topics (70%), while the percentage was lower for questions (39%). Three organizations (4%) referred to a published prioritization tool for topics, and none for questions. Half of organizations addressed the maximum number of questions to be considered, with 60% reporting on the maximum questions (range: 2-20) and 40% only reporting that a limit is needed. Few organizations used categorization (2% and 0%), rating (8% and 9%), and ranking (12 and 15%) as part of topic and question prioritization, respectively. The majority (92%) and more than half (56%) of the organizations reported on using criteria as part of prioritization of topics and questions, respectively. The two leading criteria for both topics and questions were variation in practice and availability of evidence.
Conclusion: More than two thirds of the identified guideline-producing organizations reported on prioritization approaches, with most mentioning a process of initial list generation for topics and questions, and using criteria as part of prioritization. Other aspects such as rating and ranking, and patient or public engagement are yet to be better addressed.
Relevance and importance to patients: priority setting in guideline development improves healthcare systems’ sustainability by directing resources to areas where guidance is needed.