Analytic approaches for research priority-setting: issues, challenges and the way forward

Abstract

In the last two decades, growing demand for studies assessing healthcare interventions, coupled with the acknowledgment that limited public funds for research ought to be allocated efficiently, has led to increasing calls for the use of analytic approaches for research prioritization. Two main approaches have been proposed – ‘value of information’ and ‘prospective payback of research’ – but neither of them is used formally in the prioritization process. This article discusses possible barriers to the formal adoption and use of analytic approaches. These include uncertainties around the appropriateness of using results of analytic approaches for priority-setting, questions around the validity of the results and challenges in introducing and using analytical methods as part of the prioritization process. It is argued that most of these challenges can be overcome and ways of doing so are discussed. The author’s view on the direction and pace of future developments is provided, followed by recommendations for further research.

Keywords:

• decision-making
• prospective payback of research
• research funding
• research prioritization
• value of information

Financial & competing interests disclosure

Financial support for this study has been provided by the National Institute for Health Research in the UK through a personal Doctoral Researcher Fellowship award (NIHR DRF 2009–08). Views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the National Institute for Health Research, the National Health System or the Department of Health. The author has no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending or royalties.

Key issues

• Research funding decisions represent investments of public resources and, in principle, they should be informed by evidence on the cost and benefits of competing research programs.

• Currently, estimates of the potential value of research are neither requested nor taken into account in research funding decisions, despite the fact that analytic approaches to provide such estimates are available.

• A number of factors may have deterred the formal use of analytic approaches, including uncertainties around their validity, questions about the appropriateness of using results of analytic methods for priority-setting and consideration around practical aspects of using analytic approaches as part of the prioritization process.

• Addressing these challenges is likely to be a demanding task which will require the joint efforts of researchers and funding organizations.

• In the years to come, it is expected that greater emphasis on ensuring a transparent and efficient use of public funds, coupled with an increasing demand for healthcare research, will create a more receptive environment for the use of analytic approaches in the future.

• As methodological issues in the approaches are resolved, future research should gradually turn to challengers related to the role and actual use of the approaches in the research prioritization context.