Table 1

Method characteristics and prioritisation of recommendations per method

StudyName of methodDescription of method and prioritisation of recommendationsCategories used for prioritisation from poor to excellent
Brandrud et al11Change Process and Outcome evaluation instrument ScaleThe scale comprises 20 items, of which six items address recommendationsThe items addressing recommendations were rated on a 1 to 5 scale
Coburn et al12NRFor each recommendation, four criteria were ratedThe criteria were rated on a 1 to 5 scale
de Dianous and Fiévez13Typology of safety functionsRecommendations are placed in one of four categories, according to their intended effect‘Limit, reduce or mitigate’, ‘control’, ‘prevent’, ‘avoid’
Flottorp et al14Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases’ checklist.
Worksheet 1: prioritisation of recommendations
The worksheet addresses three criteria for recommendationsThe criteria are rated on a 1 to 5 scale for each recommendation
Geller et al15Taxonomy of behaviour change strategies to guide intervention development and evaluationEach recommendation is assigned one or more of 24 behaviour change techniquesThe sum of points per behaviour change technique will prioritise the recommendation for each specific technique: 1 to 4
Hettinger et al16Model of sustainability and effectiveness in root cause analysis solutionsEach recommendation is placed in one of 13 solution categories in which they intend to intervene, which were placed on a two-dimensional frameworkEffectiveness (y-axis): Minimal—low—moderate—high
Sustainability (x-axis): Minimal—low—moderate—high
McCaughan17Hierarchy of hazard controlsRecommendations are placed in one of five categories in which they intend to intervene or according to their intended effectWork practice controls, administrative procedures, engineering controls, substitution and elimination
McLeod et al18Summary of the relationships between components of a barrier systemRecommendations are placed in one of four categories in which they intend to intervene or according to their intended effectHuman—operational, human—organisational, combination and technical
Mira et al19NRRecommendations are assessed for understandability, feasibility and usefulnessThe items are rated using a scale of 0 to 10
Rodriguez-Gonzalez et al20NRRecommendations are prioritised based on the order in which they should be implemented by calculating a risk priority numberPriority of implementation on 5 to 1
Testik et al21Analytical Hierarchy Process methodologyA multicriteria decision-making method, wherein prioritisation of recommendations is conducted by using mathematical pairwise comparisonsRelative weights corresponding to each comparison is ranked and the one with the highest weight is identified as the highest priority
  • NR, not reported.