Examples of interim priority setting
Here are some examples of the numbers of survey responses received by PSPs:
| JLA PSP | Number of survey respondents | Number of questions in interim survey | Number of particip-ants in interim survey | Approach 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.