Policy briefs are more likely to be useful in informing the decisions taken by policymakers and stakeholders if explicit criteria and systematic, transparent processes are used to prioritise topics.¹ A worksheet for planning a priority setting process for policy briefs is provided in the ‘Additional resources’ section of this guide. Further guidance on developing a priority-setting process for supporting evidence-informed health policymaking can be found in the SUPPORT Tool for priority setting. A review of priority-setting processes for evidence-based guidelines is also provided in the ‘Additional resources’ section of this guide.
There is no single, optimal way of prioritising topics for policy briefs. The formal priority-setting process described in this document, for example, will not occur if the stakeholder who is commissioning a policy brief has already requested a particular topic (click here to listen to a description of how a formal priority-setting process did not occur for a policy brief in Ethiopia. This example is also outlined in the 'Additional resources', together with some more audio clips describing experiences in other countries. Policy brief topics may be derived from existing priorities; decided as part of priority-setting processes which are already in place, such as national health strategies; or they may be internationally-agreed health priorities, such as the Millennium Development Goals. Before priorities are considered, it is important to evaluate whether they are appropriate as topics for policy briefs, and to ensure that they reflect a national need. Participation in the priority-setting process may also be partially dictated by external or other processes.
There are challenges to consider when deciding on and applying a priority-setting process for policy briefs, including balancing the need for a rapid and efficient process against the need for processes that are explicit, systematic and fair.
The priorities which are set need to focus on long-term goals and strategic planning but also to be reactive and responsive to unanticipated events and opportunities. One way of achieving this is to use prioritisation criteria that capture both of these needs. For example, one criterion requiring that policy briefs address important problems, such as those associated with a high burden of disease, could be used to ensure a focus on long-term goals and strategic planning. Another criterion could specify that the policy brief should respond to windows of opportunity for change brought about by political or other events. Another approach to setting priorities that are both proactive and reactive is to use processes that allow priorities to be revised or updated quickly.
Policy briefs take weeks or months to prepare and the timeframe for a priority-setting process needs to take account of this. Thus, on the one hand it is unlikely to be useful to set priorities for policy briefs years or even many months in advance – at least not without revising or updating them close to the time when a decision is to be made. On the other hand, priority-setting processes should occur far enough in advance of decisions about which policy briefs to prepare to ensure that there is adequate time to both collect the information needed and to involve policymakers and stakeholders. One way to achieve this balance is to develop a list of priority issues that can be revised relatively quickly prior to making a decision to prepare a policy brief.