Original NGT | Modified NGT for priority setting | ||
---|---|---|---|
Steps | Brief description | Steps | Brief description |
Step 1: Generating ideas | Moderator directs participants to write their ideas in brief phases or statements | Step 1: Describe identified evidence practice gaps | Presentation about the evidence-practice gap literature review, with a brief summary for each gap provided |
 |  | Step 2: Present local data/information about the gaps | Presentation about national, jurisdictional and local data gathered to support the gaps |
Step 2: Recording idea | Round robin feedback session to concisely record each idea | Step 3: Elicit feedback and record additional gaps identified by participants | Elicit feedback about relevance and appropriateness of evidence-practice gaps in the local service setting. Opportunity for participants to nominate additional local gaps |
Step 3: Clarify, rank ideas | Participants express relative importance of each idea | ||
Step 4: Individuals vote privately to prioritise the ideas, using moderator-created criteria | Participants privately rate each gap | Step 4: Individuals vote privately to prioritise gaps, using moderator-created criteria | Participants privately rate each gap using Likert scale on the matrix tool |
Step 5: Each participant selects the five most important items from the prioritised list | Each participant ranks top five ideas, with the highest receiving 5 and lowest 1 | Step 5: Each participant selects the two most important gaps from the prioritised list | Each participant ranks top two gaps, with the highest receiving 2 and the lowest receiving 1 |
Step 6: Moderator creates tally sheet | The most highly rated ideas are the most favoured actions | Step 6: Focus group participants discuss ratings and moderator uses matrix tool as a tally sheet | In focus groups, participants share their ratings, speaking in turn to list their top two gaps and provide any clarification for their choices. Responses are recorded by a group facilitator on the matrix sheet in ‘Dotmocracy’ style |
 |  | Step 7: Whole group consensus | Small groups reform back into a larger group to review and discuss the gaps and resolve any differences to reach consensus |
 |  | Step 8. Investment exercise | Each participant asked to spend 100 fictitious dollars across each gap. Dollars are tallied and feedback provided to whole group |