Examples of interim priority setting

Here are some examples of the numbers of survey responses received by PSPs:  

JLA PSPNumber of survey respondentsNumber of questions in interim surveyNumber of particip-ants in interim surveyApproach used
Adult Social Work 485  61  632 Choose 10
Autism 1,213  40  1,266 Choose and rank
Blood Transfusion and Blood Donation 408  50  568 Choose 10
Childhood Disability 369  57  75 Choose and rank
Diabetes (Type 2) 2,500+ 114 1,500+  Choose and rank
Mesothelioma 453 52  202 Likert scale
Multiple Sclerosis  507 67  669  Likert scale
Palliative and end of life care 1,403 83  1,331 Choose 10
Scoliosis 697 54  750 Choose and rank
Spinal Cord Injury 403 84  293  Likert scale
Stillbirth 574 48  1,118  Choose 10
Teenage and Young Adult Cancer 292 104  174  Likert scale

The Diabetes (Type 1) PSP sent out 47 indicative questions, which the Steering Group had shortlisted from a much longer list, based on the original number of submissions. The interim prioritisation form that describes these, and asks partners to rank their interim top 10, is in the Key Documents section of the Diabetes (Type 1) PSP page on the JLA website.

The Schizophrenia PSP conducted its interim prioritisation exercise by email. Partners were asked to choose and rank their top 10 schizophrenia treatment uncertainties (indicative questions) from a long list of 237, which was organised into a taxonomy agreed by the Steering Group.

Eleven partners responded either as individuals, on behalf of an organisation or having consulted with colleagues and/or members. The submitted rankings were collated. Separate running totals were recorded for patient, carer and clinician submissions. This enabled the Steering Group to examine each groups' rankings, as well as their combined ranking, which ultimately determined the make-up of the shortlist. This was provided as background information and was a useful discussion point at the final priority setting workshop. 

A shortlist of 26 indicative questions was developed as this was the logical cut-off point. This was sent out to partners to rank once again in advance of the final priority setting workshop.