Sentence examples for priority setting against from inspiring English sources

Other empirical studies have evaluated actual priority setting against an ethical framework (e.g. [ 19, 23]).

The studies captured in this review, therefore, endeavoured to evaluate priority setting processes against the four conditions of AFR such as relevance, publicity, appeals and revision and enforcement.

Malaysia and Brazil were the countries that fared best when their priority setting processes were judged against the criteria.

To evaluate priority setting, we compared the description against the four conditions of Accountability for Reasonableness to identify areas of correspondence, which were considered good practices, and gaps, which were considered opportunities for improvement.

These surveys were often limited to reporting frequencies against selected characteristics of priority setting and were unable to explore how and why the different aspects of priority setting interact and affect each other.

In this sub-section, we define these features and use them as criteria against which the past priority setting practices can be evaluated.

We were able to evaluate the hospital against the 10 elements of successful priority setting derived from the conceptual framework.

As costs and service demands increase against a background of limited resources, priority setting has become a complex and increasingly central component of healthcare policymaking.

Kapiriri et al studied priority setting in a hospital in Uganda and found that the priority-setting decisions did not satisfy the conditions of procedural fairness when evaluating them against a widely used framework– 'accountability for reasonableness [ 13].

The objective of this paper is to describe priority setting in a teaching hospital in Uganda and evaluate the description against an ethical framework for fair priority setting processes – Accountability for Reasonableness.

In view of the extensive list of priorities identified, COSTECH appointed an expert panel to assess the 800 research priorities against the three criteria indicated above (the third priority setting filter, criteria for producing final list of research priorities) with the aim of reducing the list to a manageable instrument that could be used to guide research investment.