How should horizon scanning studies be reported? Developing a checklist of standard items.
Garcia Gonzalez-Moral, S.; Fairweather, M.; Khan, S.; Fairbairn, R.; Norman, G.
Show abstract
IntroductionHorizon-scanning identifies weak signals of innovation to anticipate future developments, providing strategic value for healthcare decision-making. Unlike evidence synthesis, it addresses emerging and uncertain areas but lacks standardised reporting, limiting transparency, consistency, and impact. Inconsistent terminology and poorly described methods hinder comparability and uptake. This study aimed to develop a prototype reporting checklist and glossary to support structured, transparent, and reproducible reporting of horizon-scanning methods in healthcare innovation. MethodsA multidisciplinary working group of horizon-scanning, evidence synthesis, and information specialists was convened at the NIHR Innovation Observatory, the UK national horizon-scanning center, in May 2024. Using PRISMA-ScR as a framework, four workshops were held to adapt relevant reporting items and build a prototype checklist. Internal validation was conducted on 17 eligible Innovation Observatory reports (2017-2024), with scoring to assess item coverage. Items were then refined, classified as mandatory or optional, and finalised through consensus. ResultsOf 46 outputs screened, 17 met inclusion criteria. Fifteen checklist items achieved [≥]50% coverage; 20 scored <50%. The final 35-item checklist (31 single and 4 multi-part items) includes 28 mandatory and 7 optional items. Four novel components were introduced: interest holder description, HIP-D/I scope framework, technology characteristics, and integration of the PESTLE framework. Discussion and recommendationsThis is the first checklist to standardise reporting in health technology horizon-scanning. While this checklist prototype has been developed internally, external validation involving multidisciplinary experts via Delphi and a scoping review are planned. Its adoption can enhance transparency, reproducibility, and strategic impact, strengthening this methodological field.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- The use of the positive deviance approach for healthcare system service improvement: A scoping review protocol 93%
- Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions 93%
- Evidence of integrated health service delivery during COVID-19 in low- and middle-income countries: protocol for a scoping review 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Scoping Review Protocol on Integration of mobile-linked POC diagnostics in community-based healthcare: User Experience 94%
- Knowledge mobilisation of rapid evidence reviews to inform health and social care policy and practice in a public health emergency: appraisal of the Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre processes and impact, 2021-23 94%
- Modelling the impact of behavioural interventions during pandemics: A systematic review 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- The Monash Learning Health System Maturity Matrix: Codesign of a Tool to Measure and Guide Improvement in Complex Health System Behaviour 94%
- ‘Leading from the front’ implementation strategies increase the success of influenza vaccination drives among healthcare workers: A reanalysis of Systematic Review evidence using Intervention Component Analysis (ICA) and Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) 94%
- Educational interventions delivered to prescribing advisers to influence primary care prescribing: a very low-cost pragmatic randomised trial using routine data from OpenPrescribing.net 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Digital Health Interventions and Quality of Home-based Primary Care for Older Adults: A Scoping Review Protocol 91%
- AI-Driven Early Detection of Severe Influenza in Jiangsu, China: A Deep Learning Model Validated Through The Design of Multi-Center Clinical Trials and Prospective Real-World Deployment 90%
- Applying machine-learning to rapidly analyse large qualitative text datasets to inform the COVID-19 pandemic response: Comparing human and machine-assisted topic analysis techniques 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Improving the impact of pharmacy interventions in hospitals 91%
- How, Why And Under What Circumstances Does A Quality Improvement Collaborative Build Knowledge And Skills In Clinicians Working With People With Dementia? A Realist Informed Process Evaluation 90%
- National statutory reporting: not even ticking the boxes? The quality of ‘Learning from Deaths’ reporting in Quality Accounts within the NHS in England 2017-2020 90%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.