Collating and scoring interim priorities
Completed interim prioritisation results should be grouped into patients and/or carers, and clinicians, and separate scores kept to ensure a fair weighting of the constituent groups. Some PSPs also score responses from organisations separately. Where people have been asked to choose and rank 10 questions, the most straightforward approach is to apply a reverse scoring system to each submission:
The Steering Group should look at the totals for both patients/carers and clinicians, record these for future reference, and then rank them again and reverse score them as above. It is those ranked scores which are then combined, to work out the final interim prioritised list. This means that where a low number of patients, for example, has responded compared with clinicians, their scores will still be given equal weighting.
Submissions are only considered to have been submitted more than once if they have been received from different sources. In other words, if a single-issue organisation submits the same uncertainty multiple times, this can be noted but not counted towards prioritisation as it will bias the overall ranking.
Steering Group members will need to have agreed who will be responsible for coordinating, collating and listing the interim prioritised uncertainties.
This process is closely monitored by the JLA Adviser to ensure transparency and minimisation of bias.
The JLA Adviser will work with the Steering Group to agree how many of the interim prioritised questions to take to the final workshop. Generally this will be between 25 and 30 questions. It is important to consider the number of people who will be at the workshop and the ease with which they are likely to be able to review large numbers of questions on the day. There may be an obvious place in the list of questions to draw the line, for example, scores may drop off rapidly after priority number 26. There may be a particular reason for including questions which are on the margins, for example, a question may be about an important aspect of the condition or may have been particularly important to one group of respondents.