Examples of interim priority setting

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


No. responding
to survey

No. of interim
survey questions

No. of interim

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
Palliative and end of life care 1,403 83  1,331 Choose 10
Scoliosis 697 54  750 Choose and rank
Stillbirth 574 48  1,118  Choose 10

The Diabetes (Type 2) PSP had a large response to their survey, which resulted in a long list of 114 indicative questions. The Steering Group queried whether this list was too long and whether they needed to find a way to reduce it. After much deliberation they decided to include all 114 questions in their priority setting survey. They felt that the response to the first survey indicated that the community were sufficiently engaged to not be put off by a long list. Over 1,500 people took part in the interim priority setting survey, in which they were asked to choose and rank 10 questions. Reviewing the results, the Steering Group decided not to generate a combined ranked list, as the difference between patient and clinician priorities was very marked. By selecting the top 10 questions identified by either (or both) people living with diabetes and their carers and healthcare professional groups, a shortlist of 23 questions was generated. The Steering Group then discussed the need to support the black, Asian and minority ethnic voice in the PSP and decided to shortlist questions that were also ranked in the top 10 priorities by black, Asian and minority ethnic respondents, leading to the inclusion of one additional question that was not already included. This left 24 questions in the final shortlist which were taken forward to the priority setting workshop. This process is described in more detail in their paper.

The Oral and Dental Health PSP survey resulted in the production of 38 indicative questions. These were all included in the interim priority setting survey, which asked people to choose up to 10 questions. It was agreed that a simple approach was required to encourage people to complete the survey, due to the challenge of engaging people in the first survey (perhaps due to the lack of single patient group, and the tendency for people not to necessarily see themselves as patients, unless they had experienced a dental health problem). To ensure equal influence, points for each respondent category were tallied separately, generating a total for healthcare professionals, and a separate total for patients, carers and the public, for each of the 38 questions.  Within each of the groups, the total points for each question were put into order from highest to lowest and given a new score according to their position, from 38 (for the most popular question) down to 1 (for the least popular).  Questions which had the same total, were ranked in joint place. These scores were added together to calculate a total combined score for each question and were then put into ranked order. The Steering Group was satisfied that both groups’ top 10 choices were included in the top-ranked questions in the shared list, and a shortlist of 25 questions was taken to the priority setting workshop.