Background
Methods
Results
Year of publication | Reference | Institution | Country | Focus/title of the project | Time horizon [approx. in years] | Number of scenarios |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Before 1995 | ||||||
2 x 1988 | STGb | Netherlands | Aging in the Netherlands | 10 | 3 | |
1991, 1992 | STGb | Netherlands | Dementia in the Netherlands | 10 | 3 | |
1994 | Leufkens et al. [79] | STGb | Netherlands | Future of Medicine | 10 (15) | 4 |
1988, 1989 | STGb | Netherlands | Cancer diseases in the Netherlands | 15 | >5 | |
1988 | Schreuder [73] | STGb | Netherlands | Cardio-vascular diseases in the Netherlands | 15 | 19 |
1989, 1997 | STGb | Netherlands | Accident mortality and unintentional injuries in the Netherlands | 15 | 9 | |
1992 | Bezold [61] | IAFa | US | Leadership practices and organizational demands | 10 | 5 |
1993 | Venable et al. [53] | University of Alabama | US | Local public health departments | 5 | 2 |
1991 | Zentner [76] | Institute for Health Care Marketing | US | Health care organization (case example: future opportunities of American Transitional Care, Inc.) | 10 | 3 |
1995-2004 | ||||||
2001 | Harmsen et al. [80] | Aarhus School of Business | Denmark | Danish food industry | 10 | 3 |
1999 | Islei et al. [56] | Various universities | UK | Pharmaceutical industry | n.s.c | 7 |
1997 | Leufkens et al. [60] | Department of Pharmaco-epidemiology & Pharmacotherapy | Netherlands | Clinical pharmacy | n.s.c | 3 |
2000 | Ling & Hadridge [78] | Cambridge Foresight | UK | Health care | (15-) 20 | 2 |
2004 | Neiner et al. [24] | National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion | US | Public health (specifically to illustrate a health department’s desire to address chronic disease prevention and control) | n.s.c | 3 |
1998 | Nielsen [72] | Allen Memorial Hospital | US | Healthcare delivery | 10 | 1 |
2001 | Sager [59] | Life Science Strategy Consulting | US | Biotechnology | n.s.c | 4 |
2003 | Van Lente et al. [71] | University of Utrecht | Netherlands | Biotechnology in Europe | 10-15 | 4 |
Since 2005 | ||||||
2005 | Bezold [22] | IAFa/Picker Institute | US | Patient-centered care | 10 | 4 |
2005 | Bezold & Beck [54] | IAFa | US | Drug regulation | 50 | 3 |
2011 | Bierbooms et al. [13] | Tilburg University | Netherlands | What types of residence should be organized for people with mental health problems? | 5 | 4 |
2012 | Buchan & Seccombe [23] | Queen Margaret University | UK | Future supply of registered nursing staff, midwives and health visitors in the National Health Service (NHS) | 10 | 8 |
2013 | Carlsen et al. [84] | Defense Research Agency | Sweden | Local adaptation to climate change (health aspects) | 20 | 2 |
2 x 2005 | International Campaign to Revitalise Academic Medicine (ICRAM) | International | Academic medicine | 20 | 5 | |
2006 | Eberl & Schnepp [55] | The German Nurses Association | Germany | Family health nursing in Germany | n.s.c | 7 reduced to 5 |
2011 | Enzmann et al. [62] | Society of Chairs of Academic Radiology Departments (SCARD) | US | Field of radiology | 10 | 3 |
2012 | Gnatzy & Moser [18] | EBS Business School, Deutschland | India (Germany) | Evolving health insurance industry in rural India | 10 | 4 |
2014 | Gregório et al. [16] | WHO Collaborating Centre for Health Workforce Policy and Planning | Portugal | Community pharmacists | 10 | 3 |
2013 | Karger [29] | Forschungs-zentrum Jülich | Germany | Personalized medicine on the example of dementia | 20 | 4 |
2006 | Ma & Seid [63] | RAND cooperation | US | Disease management in the US | 15 | 8 |
2009 | Meristö [57] | My wellbeing project | Finland | Life control especially related to health and personal wellbeing using ICT-tools | n.s.c | 3 |
2014 | Nguyen et al. [30] | Centre for Public Health and Ecosystem Research | Vietnam | Community development | 10 | 2d |
2005 | Niewöhner et al. [65] | Max-Delbrueck-Center for Molecular Medicine (MDC) | Germany | Relationship between biomedicine and economy in Germany | 10 | 4 |
2012 | Retèl et al. [64] | Netherlands Cancer Institute | Netherlands | Developments in technology assessment (e.g. clinical implementation of the 70-gene signature for breast cancer) | 15 | 10 reduced to 5 |
2012 | Rhea & Bettles [77] | Academy of Nutrition & Dietetics | US | Dietetics workforce supply and demand | 10 | 4 |
2006 | Rydström & Törnberg [58] | Karolinska Institute | Sweden | External influences on cervical cancer incidence and mortality | n.s.c | 8 |
2011 | Suk & Semenza [75] | European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) | Europe (Sweden) | Future infectious disease threats to Europe | 10 | 8 |
2014 | Vollmar et al. [21] | German Center for Neuro-degenerative Diseases (DZNE) | Germany | Health care for people with dementia in Germany | 20 | 5 |
2008 | Wiek et al. [66] | Institute for Environmental Decisions (IED) | Switzerland | Possible future developments of nanotechnology in Switzerland | 10 | 5 |
Main topics
Discussion
Limitations
Decision against reviewing grey literature
-
Firstly, although non-peer reviewed publications have the potential to provide valuable insights in this area, the quality of methods applied to data collection, analysis and interpretation may vary substantially [98]. We conducted an exploratory search on the internet before we used a systematic search approach. We randomly surveyed the reports and found a very heterogeneous quality. Although there were a few reports reflecting high scientific quality (e.g. [25, 99]) we also identified reports of lesser quality and reports with minimal to non-existent descriptions of the methods used [93]. Notably, one can be assumed that reports from commercial/consulting firms [92, 93] try to avoid detailed and transparent description of the scenario preparation process in order to protect proprietary data and the nature of their business model.
-
Secondly, in order to confirm that our results could be replicated, we wanted to ensure that all studies had been subjected to some form of peer-review. In order to still allow a maximal amount of comprehensiveness, we conducted a systematic search for literature in the mentioned databases and also in the reference lists of the identified literature (backward tracking).
-
Thirdly, there is still a lack of persistent identifiers and open standards of metadata for grey literature, which complicates the identification of relevant publications.
-
Fourthly, the large number of existing scenario projects addressed in reports (e.g. [25, 91, 93, 94, 99‐101]) made it impossible to handle a comprehensive search with our limited resources. Because of that, the effort associated with a comprehensive search for grey literature would be disproportionate to the resulting benefits. For example, the study group for future scenarios in health care (STG/STC) listed 29 published books for their program alone [48]. For this program we identified eight scenario project articles published in scientific journals [67‐70, 73, 74, 79, 81].
Limitations of the scenario method itself
Criteria |
---|
Aim of the scenario project |
• Does the word “scenario project (planning, approach…)” appear in the title along with the topic of primary interest? |
• Is the topic of interest clearly described? |
• What are the proposed implications? |
• Are the target groups and/or stakeholders specified? |
• Is there a clear time horizon? |
Framework of the scenario project |
• Are the preconditions and presuppositions well described? |
• Is the process of developing the areas of influence, key factors, and future projections adequately described? |
• Who is involved (description of scenario development team and participants/experts)? |
• Is the background of participants/experts clear? |
• How will participants/experts be selected or excluded? |
Methodological approach of the scenario project |
• Is the specific scenario technique used (e.g. only narrative, consistence analysis, cross-impact analysis) well described? |
• If any, is the mathematical approach well described? |
• How is the mathematical approach transformed/implemented in software (if applicable)? |
• Is there any combination with other methods like the Delphi technique? |
• Is the presentation of the scenario development process adequate? |
• Are the scenarios presented in a sound manner (to the specified target groups/stakeholders)? |
Impact of the scenario project |
• Are there any recommendations for different target groups/stakeholders? |
• What are the next steps after the scenario project? |