Sentence examples for priority setting initiatives from inspiring English sources

Priority setting initiatives challenged these traditions and consequently were initially met with caution and skepticism by many researchers [ 1, 6, 7].

To date most priority setting initiatives in health systems have mainly focused on technical approaches involving information derived from burden of disease statistics, cost effectiveness analysis, and published clinical trials.

In either case, key marks of its success were whether the process were perceived to be an improvement over past priority setting initiatives and whether it were implemented in subsequent iterations of priority setting.

Thirty-nine studies have recruited through the databases (examples include core data analysis projects, surveys, cognitive neuroscience projects, intervention/treatment projects, research priority setting initiatives); many more studies will be supported in the coming years.

There is much to be learned from other examples of priority setting initiatives which have successfully implemented similar strategies (i.e. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Citizens Council, Canadian Expert Drug Advisory Committee, and the Citizens Council for Drug Policyy in Ontario).

However, to our knowledge there has not been an empirical study describing and evaluating a formal system-wide wait time strategy using "accountability for reasonableness" with particular attention to public involvement, nor is there guidance for how to involve the public in a wait time management priority setting initiative.

The leader/s of the priority setting initiative should be respected within the research community, have the relevant experience and have credibility amongst constituents.

The evaluation process aims to capture a broad overview of a complex phenomenon, or a global index [ 29] (see Table 3), that can evaluate a priority setting initiative and help identify strengths and opportunities for improvement.

Effects on the community focused on how external stakeholders, including members of the public, regional partners, health care peers (e.g., other academic health science organisations), and affiliated academic institutions, responded to the priority setting initiative.

Sampling of interview participants was done first using a convenience sampling (availability) and then a combination of theoretical sampling (people who were involved in a significant aspect of the priority setting initiative) and snowball sampling (asking participants to refer us to others).

A key strength of this study is its grounding in an explicit conceptual framework – 'Accountability for reasonableness' not only provides a useful framework for evaluating the legitimacy and fairness of any priority setting initiative, it also provides the theoretical and practical platform upon which to ground an evaluation of public involvement.