Study | Name of method | Description of method and prioritisation of recommendations | Categories used for prioritisation from poor to excellent |
Brandrud et al11 | Change Process and Outcome evaluation instrument Scale | The scale comprises 20 items, of which six items address recommendations | The items addressing recommendations were rated on a 1 to 5 scale |
Coburn et al12 | NR | For each recommendation, four criteria were rated | The criteria were rated on a 1 to 5 scale |
de Dianous and Fiévez13 | Typology of safety functions | Recommendations are placed in one of four categories, according to their intended effect | ‘Limit, reduce or mitigate’, ‘control’, ‘prevent’, ‘avoid’ |
Flottorp et al14 | Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases’ checklist. Worksheet 1: prioritisation of recommendations | The worksheet addresses three criteria for recommendations | The criteria are rated on a 1 to 5 scale for each recommendation |
Geller et al15 | Taxonomy of behaviour change strategies to guide intervention development and evaluation | Each recommendation is assigned one or more of 24 behaviour change techniques | The sum of points per behaviour change technique will prioritise the recommendation for each specific technique: 1 to 4 |
Hettinger et al16 | Model of sustainability and effectiveness in root cause analysis solutions | Each recommendation is placed in one of 13 solution categories in which they intend to intervene, which were placed on a two-dimensional framework | Effectiveness (y-axis): Minimal—low—moderate—high Sustainability (x-axis): Minimal—low—moderate—high |
McCaughan17 | Hierarchy of hazard controls | Recommendations are placed in one of five categories in which they intend to intervene or according to their intended effect | Work practice controls, administrative procedures, engineering controls, substitution and elimination |
McLeod et al18 | Summary of the relationships between components of a barrier system | Recommendations are placed in one of four categories in which they intend to intervene or according to their intended effect | Human—operational, human—organisational, combination and technical |
Mira et al19 | NR | Recommendations are assessed for understandability, feasibility and usefulness | The items are rated using a scale of 0 to 10 |
Rodriguez-Gonzalez et al20 | NR | Recommendations are prioritised based on the order in which they should be implemented by calculating a risk priority number | Priority of implementation on 5 to 1 |
Testik et al21 | Analytical Hierarchy Process methodology | A multicriteria decision-making method, wherein prioritisation of recommendations is conducted by using mathematical pairwise comparisons | Relative weights corresponding to each comparison is ranked and the one with the highest weight is identified as the highest priority |
NR, not reported.