Involving clinical experts in prioritising topics for health technology assessment: a randomised controlled trial
Involving clinical experts in prioritising topics for health technology assessment: a randomised controlled trial
Objectives: the objective of this study was to explore whether reducing the material supplied to external experts during peer review and decreasing the burden of response would maintain review quality into prioritising research questions for a major research funder.
Methods and analysis: clinical experts who agreed to review documents outlining research for potential commissioning were screened for eligibility and randomised in a factorial design to 2 types of review materials (long document vs. short document) and response modes (structured review form vs. free-text email response). Previous and current members of the funder’s programme groups were excluded. Response quality was assessed by use of a 4-point scoring tool and analysed by intention to treat.
Results: 554 consecutive experts were screened for eligibility and 460 were randomised (232 and 228 to long document or short document, respectively; 230 each to structured response or free text). 356 participants provided reviews, 90 did not respond, and 14 were excluded after randomisation as not eligible.
The pooled mean quality score was 2.4 (SD = 0.95). The short document scored 0.037 (Cohen’s d = 0.039) extra quality points over the long document arm, and the structured response 0.335 (Cohen’s d = 0.353) over free text. The allocation did not appear to have any effect on the expert’s willingness to engage with the task.
Conclusions: neither providing a short or a long document outlining suggested research was shown to be superior. However, providing a structured form to guide the expert response provided more useful information than allowing free text. The funder should continue to use a structured form to gather responses. It would be acceptable to provide shorter documents to reviewers, if there were reasons to do so.
Trial registration: ANZCTR12614000167662
Peer Review, health technology assessment, clinicians
Cook, Andrew
ab9c7bb3-974a-4db9-b3c2-9942988005d5
Streit, Elke
b32d5462-990c-45f4-b36d-585f8e8eb3f5
Davage, Gillian
1b02a3b5-f90b-42b9-9e4b-ff9f5935cc05
August 2017
Cook, Andrew
ab9c7bb3-974a-4db9-b3c2-9942988005d5
Streit, Elke
b32d5462-990c-45f4-b36d-585f8e8eb3f5
Davage, Gillian
1b02a3b5-f90b-42b9-9e4b-ff9f5935cc05
Cook, Andrew, Streit, Elke and Davage, Gillian
(2017)
Involving clinical experts in prioritising topics for health technology assessment: a randomised controlled trial.
BMJ Open, 7, [e016104].
(doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016104).
Abstract
Objectives: the objective of this study was to explore whether reducing the material supplied to external experts during peer review and decreasing the burden of response would maintain review quality into prioritising research questions for a major research funder.
Methods and analysis: clinical experts who agreed to review documents outlining research for potential commissioning were screened for eligibility and randomised in a factorial design to 2 types of review materials (long document vs. short document) and response modes (structured review form vs. free-text email response). Previous and current members of the funder’s programme groups were excluded. Response quality was assessed by use of a 4-point scoring tool and analysed by intention to treat.
Results: 554 consecutive experts were screened for eligibility and 460 were randomised (232 and 228 to long document or short document, respectively; 230 each to structured response or free text). 356 participants provided reviews, 90 did not respond, and 14 were excluded after randomisation as not eligible.
The pooled mean quality score was 2.4 (SD = 0.95). The short document scored 0.037 (Cohen’s d = 0.039) extra quality points over the long document arm, and the structured response 0.335 (Cohen’s d = 0.353) over free text. The allocation did not appear to have any effect on the expert’s willingness to engage with the task.
Conclusions: neither providing a short or a long document outlining suggested research was shown to be superior. However, providing a structured form to guide the expert response provided more useful information than allowing free text. The funder should continue to use a structured form to gather responses. It would be acceptable to provide shorter documents to reviewers, if there were reasons to do so.
Trial registration: ANZCTR12614000167662
Text
REVISION-CLEAN 20170530-Involving Clinical Experts WITH DIAGRAMS
- Accepted Manuscript
Text
e016104.full
- Version of Record
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 23 June 2017
e-pub ahead of print date: 21 August 2017
Published date: August 2017
Keywords:
Peer Review, health technology assessment, clinicians
Organisations:
NETSCC, Clinical Trials Unit
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 411939
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/411939
ISSN: 2044-6055
PURE UUID: f58ebcbc-2523-4347-9280-9a77212b21d5
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 30 Jun 2017 16:30
Last modified: 16 Mar 2024 03:50
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Elke Streit
Author:
Gillian Davage
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics
