Priority Setting Exercise
Priority Setting Exercise - Related Videos
14:43
A Novel Method for Involving Women of Color at High Risk for Preterm Birth in Research Priority Setting
0 Views •
Cited by 40 •
2018
This manuscript describes the Research Prioritization by Affected Communities (RPAC) protocol and findings from its use with women at risk for preterm birth. Using the protocol, women identified and prioritized their unanswered questions about pregnancy, birth and neonatal care aimed at influencing research priority setting by funders and researchers.
06:16
Involving Individuals with Developmental Language Disorder and Their Parents/Carers in Research Priority Setting
0 Views •
Cited by 7 •
2020
A protocol to enable individuals with developmental language disorder (DLD) and their parents/carers to meaningfully participate in a research priority setting exercise is established. The protocol includes a defined program of activities for data collection, and methods to incorporate this data into the broader research priority setting process.
06:00
Determining The Electromyographic Fatigue Threshold Following a Single Visit Exercise Test
0 Views •
Cited by 17 •
2015
This protocol describes the electromyographic fatigue threshold which demarcates between nonfatiguing and fatiguing exercise workloads. This information could be used to develop a more individualized training program.
09:42
Using Continuous Data Tracking Technology to Study Exercise Adherence in Pulmonary Rehabilitation
0 Views •
Cited by 7 •
2013
Pulmonary rehabilitation is widely recognized in the management of respiratory diseases. A key component to successful pulmonary rehabilitation is adherence to the recommended exercise training. The purpose of the present protocol is to describe how continuous data tracking technology can be used to precisely measure adherence to a prescribed aerobic training intensity.
11:15
Determining the Contribution of the Energy Systems During Exercise
0 Views •
Cited by 59 •
2012
This protocol allows researchers focused on exercise and sports sciences to determine the relative contribution of three different energy systems to the total energy expenditure during a large variety of exercises.
FAQs
Criteria determine which features make one option more important than another. Importance, urgency, feasibility, and expected impact can direct attention toward different health problems, interventions, or research questions. Making these criteria explicit allows participants to explain why options receive particular scores and makes the resulting ranking easier to examine, discuss, and justify.
Relevant evidence gives participants a basis for judging the likely importance, urgency, feasibility, or impact of each option. It reduces reliance on unsupported preferences and helps connect rankings to population needs and expected outcomes. Evidence does not remove disagreement, but it supports more informed discussion and makes trade-offs more transparent.
Stakeholder input brings different perspectives into the comparison of health problems, interventions, or research questions. Participants can discuss competing needs, clarify how criteria should be understood, and work toward consensus where views differ. This involvement can make the final priorities more transparent and better aligned with clinical, public health, or research concerns.
Closely ranked options require participants to examine the trade-offs behind the scores rather than treating the numerical results as self-explanatory. Further discussion can clarify differences in urgency, feasibility, or expected impact, while consensus building can help determine whether one option should be favored or whether several priorities should remain together.
A health system can use a Priority Setting Exercise when limited funding, staff, or services require explicit choices among competing health needs. By comparing options through stated criteria and relevant evidence, decision-makers can show how resources were allocated and connect those decisions with population needs, expected impact, and accountable use of available capacity.
Research teams can compare candidate questions according to their importance, urgency, feasibility, and potential to improve patient outcomes or address unmet needs. Stakeholder discussion and evidence review help identify which questions deserve attention first. The resulting agenda can align research activity with clinical and public health priorities rather than relying only on individual preferences.