Development of the methods for prioritising recommendations
| Study | Description of the development of the method | Development of method based on |
| Brandrud et al11 | The items included in the CPO scale were formulated based on four pillars: the three fundamental questions of the method for improvement (What are we trying to accomplish? How will we know if a change is an improvement? What changes can we make that will result in improvement?),23 improvement of literature, final reports of improvement collaboratives of the Norwegian Medical Association and the research team’s discussions | Systematic literature search and expert opinion |
| Coburn et al12 | An expert panel evaluated the results of a literature review, data analysis from recommended patient safety interventions from national organisations and telephone interview surveys, and began to identify and prioritise a list of rural-relevant patient safety areas and interventions, after which the panel developed the four criteria for evaluating the rural relevance of potential safety interventions | Systematic literature search, interviews and expert opinion |
| de Dianous and Fiévez13 | NR | The bowtie method |
| Flottorp et al14 | The developed checklist was based on desirable attributes selected from existing checklists identified by literature search. The selection of these attributes was built on previous criteria for ‘sensibility’ (the extent to which the criteria are sensible), discussion among collaborators and iterative revisions | Systematic literature search and expert opinion |
| Geller et al15 | 24 behaviour change techniques were distilled from a review of behavioural science literature. The four categories that are hypothesised to have immediate impact on an intervention which are rated by this method are based on literature review and empirical studies of safety belt promotion | Systematic literature search and expert opinion |
| Hettinger et al16 | Through qualitative analysis of a multi-institutional data set of 334 root cause analysis cases with 782 solutions, a team of safety science experts developed a preliminary model of sustainable and effective solution categories. This model was then modified through interviews of front-line staff regarding selected solutions | Practical experience and expert opinion |
| McCaughan17 | NR | NR |
| McLeod et al18 | NR | Barrier management |
| Mira et al19 | NR | NR |
| Rodriguez-Gonzalez et al20 | NR | Failure Mode Effect and Criticality Analysis methodology |
| Testik et al21 | NR | Cause-and-effect diagrams |
NR, not reported.