Using HTA and guideline development as a tool for research priority setting the NICE way: reducing research waste by identifying the right research to fund.

Abstract

BackgroundThe National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) was established in 1999 and provides national guidance and advice to improve health and social care. Several steps in the research cycle have been identified that can support the reduction of waste that occurs in biomedical research. The first step in the process is ensuring appropriate research priority setting occurs so only the questions that are needed to fill existing gaps in the evidence are funded. This paper summarises the research priority setting processes at NICE.MethodsNICE uses its guidance production processes to identify and prioritise research questions through systematic reviews, economic analyses and stakeholder consultations and then highlights those priorities by engagement with the research community. NICE also highlights its methodological areas for research to ensure the appropriate development and growth of the evidence landscape.ResultsNICE has prioritised research questions through its guidance production and methodological work and has successfully had several research products funded through the National Institute for Health Research and Medical Research Council. This paper summarises those activities and results.ConclusionsThis activity of NICE therefore reduces research waste by ensuring that the research it recommends has been systematically prioritised through evidence reviews and stakeholder input.

What do we know about evidence-informed priority setting processes to set population-level health-research agendas: an overview of reviews

“…As was found by Sharma et al ( 2018 ) and others, many priority setting documents do not clearly or consistently report methods (Garcia et al 2015 ; Bryant et al 2014 ; Hasson et al 2020 ). Commonly used priority setting approaches included formalized methods such as the CHNRI and Delphi approaches, and informal approaches, such as expert consultation.…”

An analysis of the strategic plan development processes of major public organisations funding health research in nine high-income countries worldwide

“…Over recent decades, methods and tools have been produced in order to guide the process of setting the health research agenda and facilitate more explicit and transparent judgment regarding research priorities. There is no single method that is considered appropriate for all settings and purposes, yet it is recognised that their optimal application requires a knowledge of health needs, research gaps and the perspectives of key stakeholders [ 6 – 10 ].…”