Towards deep inclusion for equity-oriented health research priority-setting: A working model

Building a research agenda on preventing and addressing sexual assault and intimate partner violence against trans people: a two-stage priority-setting exercise

BACKGROUND

Transgender (trans) people experience high rates of sexual assault (SA) and intimate partner violence (IPV) and seldom receive the care and supports they need post-victimization. However, there is little to no research that aids in the development or improvement of related interventions. We undertook a study to build a novel Canadian research agenda on SA/IPV against trans people to guide future work and address these profound gaps in knowledge.

METHODS

Guided by the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method for research priority-setting, we developed and circulated two consecutive surveys to a multi-stakeholder group of government decision makers; mental health, health and social service providers, researchers and trans communities, among others, who proposed research questions related to preventing and addressing SA/IPV against trans persons. The initial survey launched March 2021 garnered responses from 213 stakeholders. These items were cleaned and collated into 20 final questions that fell within seven thematic areas. The refined research questions were evaluated in August 2021 on predefined criteria for answerability, feasibility, impact and equity by 79 of 95 survey 1 respondents who agreed to participate in the second survey (response rate = 83.2%). The questions were ranked using a research priority score calculated by dividing the sum of all the answers for each question across the four criteria by the number of answers received.

RESULTS

All questions were highly rated on each individual criterion and each had an overall research priority score of above 80%, with the most highly ranked question falling within the theme, "improving quality and implementation of education and training: How can training (e.g., for university/college students, educators, nurses, physicians, social workers, police, lawyers, security guards) be improved to better support trans survivors of sexual assault and intimate partner violence?".

CONCLUSIONS

These questions form Canada's first research agenda on SA/IPV against trans people. Together, they reflect the insights of stakeholder groups who have been historically excluded from research priority-setting processes and will guide future and much-needed work on the topic. Actionable information on preventing and addressing SA/IPV against trans persons will help reduce negative outcomes associated with being victimized.

Promoting Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Justice in Grantmaking for Health Care Research: A Pragmatic Review and Framework

Funders of research have an opportunity to advance health equity and social justice by incorporating principles of diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice (DEIJ) in their approach to grantmaking. We conducted a pragmatic review to identify opportunities for grantmakers in the health care sector to integrate DEIJ in their funding activities. The resulting framework discusses recommendations within three phases as follows: (1) Organizational Context (i.e., initiate DEIJ efforts within the grantmaking organization, invest in community partnerships, and establish DEIJ goals), (2) Grantmaking Process (i.e., DEIJ-specific practices related to grant design, application, proposal review processes, and support for grantees), and (3) Assessment of Process and Outcomes (i.e., measurement, evaluation, and dissemination to maximize impact of DEIJ efforts). Throughout all grantmaking phases, it is critical to partner with and engage individuals and communities that have been historically marginalized in health care and research. In this article, we describe how adoption of framework practices can leverage grantmaking to advance DEIJ for communities, researchers, and projects.

Doing community-based research during dual public health emergencies (COVID and overdose)

Meaningful engagement and partnerships with people who use drugs are essential to conducting research that is relevant and impactful in supporting desired outcomes of drug consumption as well as reducing drug-related harms of overdose and COVID-19. Community-based participatory research is a key strategy for engaging communities in research that directly affects their lives. While there are growing descriptions of community-based participatory research with people who use drugs and identification of key principles for conducting research, there is a gap in relation to models and frameworks to guide research partnerships with people who use drugs. The purpose of this paper is to provide a framework for research partnerships between people who use drugs and academic researchers, collaboratively developed and implemented as part of an evaluation of a provincial prescribed safer supply initiative introduced during dual public health emergencies (overdose and COVID-19) in British Columbia, Canada. The framework shifts from having researchers choose among multiple models (advisory, partnership and employment) to incorporating multiple roles within an overall community-based participatory research approach. Advocacy by and for drug users was identified as a key role and reason for engaging in research. Overall, both academic researchers and Peer Research Associates benefited within this collaborative partnerships approach. Each offered their expertise, creating opportunities for omni-directional learning and enhancing the research. The shift from fixed models to flexible roles allows for a range of involvement that accommodates varying time, energy and resources. Facilitators of involvement include development of trust and partnering with networks of people who use drugs, equitable pay, a graduate-level research assistant dedicated to ongoing orientation and communication, technical supports as well as fluidity in roles and opportunities. Key challenges included working in geographically dispersed locations, maintaining contact and connection over the course of the project and ensuring ongoing sustainable but flexible employment.

Tailoring an evidence-based clinical intervention and training package for the treatment and prevention of comorbid heavy drinking and depression in middle-income country settings: the development of the SCALA toolkit in Latin America

BACKGROUND

Effective interventions exist for heavy drinking and depression but to date there has been limited translation into routine practice in global health systems. This evidence-to-practice gap is particularly evident in low- and middle-income countries. The international SCALA project (Scale-up of Prevention and Management of Alcohol Use Disorders and Comorbid Depression in Latin America) sought to test the impact of multilevel implementation strategies on rates of primary health care-based measurement of alcohol consumption and identification of depression in Colombia, Mexico, and Peru.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the process of development and cultural adaptation of the clinical intervention and training package.

METHODS

We drew on Barrero and Castro's four-stage cultural adaption model: 1) information gathering, 2) preliminary adaption, 3) preliminary adaption tests, and 4) adaption refinement. The Tailored Implementation in Chronic Diseases checklist helped us identify potential factors that could affect implementation, with local stakeholder groups established to support the tailoring process, as per the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Going to Scale Framework.

RESULTS

In Stage 1, international best practice guidelines for preventing heavy drinking and depression, and intelligence on the local implementation context, were synthesised to provide an outline clinical intervention and training package. In Stage 2, feedback was gathered from local stakeholders and materials refined accordingly. These materials were piloted with local trainers in Stage 3, leading to further refinements including developing additional tools to support delivery in busy primary care settings. Stage 4 comprised further adaptions in response to real-world implementation, a period that coincided with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, including translating the intervention and training package for online delivery, and higher priority for depression screening in the clinical pathway.

CONCLUSION

Our experience highlights the importance of meaningful engagement with local communities, alongside the need for continuous tailoring and adaptation, and collaborative decision-making.

Research priorities for homecare for older people: A UK multi-stakeholder consultation

Homecare is generally understood to refer to services that support people to continue living in their own homes. Older people are the primary users and many countries report an increase in the number using homecare services and greater spending on such provision, driven in part by investment in 'ageing in place' policies. Despite this, and reflecting social care more generally, homecare is relatively under-researched. However, in the UK at least, there is growing interest and investment in social care research. In order that this investment is not wasted, it is essential that research addresses what stakeholders identify as research priorities. This study reports work undertaken in the UK during 2021/22 to identify research priorities for homecare for older people, and a broad scoping of existing evidence. A two-stage consultation process was used. First, topic areas for research were identified through consultations with stakeholders. Second, a survey ascertained agreement and differences between groups regarding the relative importance of topic areas as research priorities. Over 50 people participated including older people (n = 7), family members (n = 11), homecare workers (n = 16), homecare providers (n = 9) and national policy, evidence and advocacy leads (n = 13). Twenty discrete research topic areas were identified. Only one topic area (Joint working between homecare and health services) was a 'Top 5' research priority for all stakeholder groups. Timely engagement with homecare and Workforce: recruitment and retention were 'Top 5' priorities for three stakeholder groups. Scoping of existing research indicates that topic areas receiving the most research attention to date are not among those identified as being of high priority for research. To our knowledge, this is the first time research priorities for homecare have been generated. Findings will be of value to research funders, organisations using research evidence and the research community.

Needs Assessment and Best Practices for Digital Trainings for Health Professionals in Ethiopia Using the RE-AIM Framework: COVID-19, Case Study

OBJECTIVES

This study is aimed to assess the implementation science outcomes of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) e-health educational intervention in Ethiopia targeting health care workers via the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adaption, Implementation, Maintenance) framework.

METHODS

A series of three 1-hour medical seminars focused on COVID-19 prevention and treatment education were conducted between May and August 2020. Educational content was built from medical sites previously impacted by COVID-19. Post-seminar evaluation information was collected from physician and other participants by a survey instrument. Cross-sectional evaluation results are reported here by RE-AIM constructs.

RESULTS

The medical seminars reached 324 participants. Key success metrics include that 90% reporting the information delivered in a culturally sensitive/tailored manner (effectiveness), 80% reporting that they planned to share the information presented with someone else (adoption and implementation), and 64% reporting using information presented in their daily clinical responsibilities 6 months after the first medical seminars (maintenance).

CONCLUSION

Grounded in a theoretical framework and following evidence-based best practices, this intervention advances the field of dissemination and implementation science by demonstrating how to transition health care training and delivery from an in-person to digital medium in low-resource settings like Ethiopia.

Barriers to Equitable Public Participation in Health-System Priority Setting Within the Context of Decentralization: The Case of Vulnerable Women in a Ugandan District

BACKGROUND

Decentralization of healthcare decision-making in Uganda led to the promotion of public participation. To facilitate this, participatory structures have been developed at sub-national levels. However, the degree to which the participation structures have contributed to improving the participation of vulnerable populations, specifically vulnerable women, remains unclear. We aim to understand whether and how vulnerable women participate in health-system priority setting; identify any barriers to vulnerable women's participation; and to establish how the barriers to vulnerable women's participation can be addressed.

METHODS

We used a qualitative description study design involving interviews with district decision-makers (n=12), sub-county leaders (n=10), and vulnerable women (n=35) living in Tororo District, Uganda. Data was collected between May and June 2017. The analysis was conducting using an editing analysis style.

RESULTS

The vulnerable women expressed interest in participating in priority setting, believing they would make valuable contributions. However, both decision-makers and vulnerable women reported that vulnerable women did not consistently participate in decision-making, despite participatory structures that were instituted through decentralization. There are financial (transportation and lack of incentives), biomedical (illness/disability and menstruation), knowledge-based (lack of knowledge and/or information about participation), motivational (perceived disinterest, lack of feedback, and competing needs), socio-cultural (lack of decision-making power), and structural (hunger and poverty) barriers which hamper vulnerable women's participation.

CONCLUSION

The identified barriers hinder vulnerable women's participation in health-system priority setting. Some of the barriers could be addressed through the existing decentralization participatory structures. Respondents made both short-term, feasible recommendations and more systemic, ideational recommendations to improve vulnerable women's participation. Integrating the vulnerable women's creative and feasible ideas to enhance their participation in health-system decision-making should be prioritized.

Integrating health technology assessment and the right to health: a qualitative content analysis of procedural values in South African judicial decisions

South Africa's move towards implementing National Health Insurance includes a commitment to establish a health technology assessment (HTA) body to inform health priority-setting decisions. This study sought to analyse health rights cases in South Africa to inform the identification of country-specific procedural values related to health priority-setting and their implementation in a South African HTA body. The focus on health rights cases is motivated in part by the fact that case law can be an important source of insight into the values of a particular country. This focus is further motivated by a desire to mitigate the potential tension between a rights-based approach to healthcare access and national efforts to set health priorities. A qualitative content analysis of eight South African court cases related to the right to health was conducted. Cases were identified through a LexisNexis search and supplemented with expert judgement. Procedural values identified from the health priority-setting literature, including those comprising Accountability for Reasonableness (A4R), structured the thematic analysis. The importance of transparency and revision-two elements of A4R-is evident in our findings, suggesting that the courts can help to enforce elements of A4R. Yet our findings also indicate that A4R is likely to be insufficient for ensuring that HTA in South Africa meets the procedural demands of a constitutional rights-based approach to healthcare access. Accordingly, we also suggest that a South African HTA body ought to consider more demanding considerations related to transparency and revisions as well as explicit considerations related to inclusivity.

Approaches to prioritising primary health research: a scoping review

Objective

To systematically identify and describe approaches to prioritise primary research topics in any health-related area.

Methods

We searched Medline and CINAHL databases and Google Scholar. Teams of two reviewers screened studies and extracted data in duplicate and independently. We synthesised the information across the included approaches by developing common categorisation of relevant concepts.

Results

Of 44 392 citations, 30 articles reporting on 25 approaches were included, addressing the following fields: health in general (n=9), clinical (n=10), health policy and systems (n=10), public health (n=6) and health service research (n=5) (10 addressed more than 1 field). The approaches proposed the following aspects to be addressed in the prioritisation process: situation analysis/ environmental scan, methods for generation of initial list of topics, use of prioritisation criteria, stakeholder engagement, ranking process/technique, dissemination and implementation, revision and appeal mechanism, and monitoring and evaluation. Twenty-two approaches proposed involving stakeholders in the priority setting process. The most commonly proposed stakeholder category was ‘researchers/academia’ (n=17, 77%) followed by ‘healthcare providers’ (n=16, 73%). Fifteen of the approaches proposed a list of criteria for determining research priorities. We developed a common framework of 28 prioritisation criteria clustered into nine domains. The criterion most frequently mentioned by the identified approaches was ‘health burden’ (n=12, 80%), followed by ‘availability of resources’ (n=11, 73%).

Conclusion

We identified and described 25 prioritisation approaches for primary research topics in any health-related area. Findings highlight the need for greater participation of potential users (eg, policy-makers and the general public) and incorporation of equity as part of the prioritisation process. Findings can guide the work of researchers, policy-makers and funders seeking to conduct or fund primary health research. More importantly, the findings should be used to enhance a more coordinated approach to prioritising health research to inform decision making at all levels.

Equity, justice, and social values in priority setting: a qualitative study of resource allocation criteria for global donor organizations working in low-income countries

Background

There is increasing acceptance of the importance of social values such as equity and fairness in health care priority setting (PS). However, equity is difficult to define: the term means different things to different people, and the ways it is understood in theory often may not align with how it is operationalized. There is limited literature on how development assistance partner organizations (DAP) conceptualize and operationalize equity in their health care prioritization decisions that affect low-income countries (LIC). This paper explores whether and how equity is a consideration in DAP priority setting processes.

Methods

This was a qualitative study involving 38 in-depth interviews with DAPs involved in health-system PS for LICs and a review of their respective webpages.

Results

While several PS criteria were identified, direct articulation of equity as an explicit criterion was lacking. However, the criterion was implied in some of the responses in terms of prioritizing vulnerable populations. Where mentioned, respondents discussed the difficulties of operationalizing equity as a PS criterion since vulnerability is associated with several varying and competing factors including gender, age, geography, and income. Some respondents also suggested that equity could be operationalized in terms of an organization not supporting the pre-existing inequities.

Although several organizations’ webpages identify addressing inequities as a guiding principle, there were variations in how they spoke about its operationalization. While intersectionalities in vulnerabilities complicate its operationalization, if organizations explicitly articulate their equity focus the other organizations who also have equity as a guiding principle may, instead of focusing on the same aspect, concentrate on other dimensions of vulnerability. That way, all organizations will contribute to achieving equity in all the relevant dimensions.

Conclusions

Since most development organizations support some form of equity, this paper highlights a need for an internationally recognized framework that recognizes the intersectionalities of vulnerability, for mainstreaming and operationalizing equity in DAP priority setting and resource allocation. Such a framework will support consistency in the conceptualization of and operationalization of equity in global health programs. There is a need for studies which to assess the degree to which equity is actually integrated in these programs.

Equity has become an increasingly important focus in the health and social science literature, however, equity is a contested concept.

While development assistance partners supporting health development subscribe to equity as a guiding principle, they struggle with its operationalization.

There is need for a general framework that explicitly conceptualizes the operationalization of equity in health development.

The Comprehensive Communal Trauma Intervention Model (CCTIM), an Innovative Transdisciplinary Population-Level Model for Treating Trauma-Induced Illness and Mental Health in Global Vulnerable Communities: Palestine, a Case Study

This paper explores how Western medicine may not fully understand and address post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other trauma-induced illnesses in a culturally appropriate manner in marginalized communities and offers a theoretical framework to develop comprehensive, effective, and sustainable solutions that comprehensively address and treat the trauma on both a collective and individual level. Focused on Palestinians, this paper discusses the collective trauma Palestinians experienced and how it manifests in transgenerational effects on the body and mind that may be post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or perhaps another distinct condition that is yet to be codified in the Western medical lexicon. It describes local alternatives to Western medical diagnostic tools like the "ease to disease" diagnostic scale and the sociopolitical context-in this case, the Palestinian fight for karamah, or dignity-from which such alternatives arise. Based on these findings, a novel theoretical framework, the comprehensive communal trauma intervention model (CCTIM), a truly transdisciplinary population-level model for treating mental health in vulnerable communities globally, is proposed. It articulates the need to address the root cause of collective trauma, make modifications to the healthcare system, and cultivate strategic equity-oriented and research-based partnerships.

How ethics committees and requirements are structuring health research in the Philippines: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The last few decades have seen the rising global acknowledgment of the importance of ethics in the conduct of health research. But research ethics committees or institutional review boards (IRBs) have also been criticized for being barriers to research. This article examines the case of the Philippines, where little has been done to interrogate the health research and IRB culture, and whose circumstances can serve as reflection points for other low- and middle-income countries.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted from July to October 2020 to elicit health researchers' perspectives and experiences regarding IRBs and the ethics approval process in the country, as well as counterpoint narratives from researchers who have also worked for IRBs.

RESULTS

Across the fields of clinical, public health, and social science research, the issue of ethics review revealed itself to be foremost an issue of inequity. IRB processes serve as a barrier for those outside the academe; those belonging to institutions, cities, or entire regions without their own accredited IRBs; and researchers working independently, without ample budget, or on highly specialized topics-more so for non-clinical researchers who must grapple with the primarily biomedical framework of most IRBs. Consequently, the research landscape invariably favors those with the resources to do research, and researches that tend to attract funding.

CONCLUSION

The broader challenge of equity in health research will entail more fundamental reforms, but proximal interventions can be done to make the ethics approval process more equitable, such as enhancing institutional oversight, regulating IRB fees, and enabling a more supportive and welcoming environment for early-career, student, independent, and non-clinical health researchers. This article ends by reflecting on the implications of our findings toward the larger research culture.

Identifying research priorities to improve the health of incarcerated populations: results of citizens' juries in Australian prisons

Health disparities in incarcerated populations should guide investment in the health care and research of these communities. Although users of health-care services are important in providing input into decisions about research, the voices of people in prison are absent regarding research into their health. In this Health Policy paper, we present priorities for research into the health of people in prison according to people in prison themselves. By use of a deliberative research approach, citizens' juries were conducted in six prisons (three men's and three women's prisons) in Australia. Participants were selected following submissions of expression of interest forms that were distributed within the prisons. Prerecorded information by experts in the health of incarcerated people was shown to participants. Participants deliberated for up to 4 h before agreeing on five research priorities. All citizens' juries endorsed mental health as a number one research priority. Prison health-care services, alcohol and other drug use, education, and infectious diseases were identified as research priorities by most citizens' juries. Focal points within priorities included serious mental illness; grief and trauma; medication management; health-care service access, quality, and resources; drug withdrawal and peer support; prison-based needle and syringe programmes; and health and life skills education. If endeavours in research priority setting are to consider health equity goals, the views of our most health affected citizens need to be included.

Defining Optimal Post-prison Care for Those With Psychosis: A Delphi Study

Background: Early treatment (considered as early contact with community mental health services) and treatment retention are associated with reduced reoffending among those with a previous diagnosis of psychosis, yet the attributes of care required to best achieve this is largely unexplored for people with psychosis leaving prison. This study sought consensus from a sample of experts and consumers regarding the attributes of an "optimal model of care" for those with a prior episode of psychosis leaving prison in New South Wales, Australia. Methods: A Delphi method was used, which involved establishing a consensus from a panel of 25 experts and consumers. Following three meetings, 34 model of care attributes and 168 attribute levels were generated for two rounds of online scoring. All attributes and levels were included in the final model if they scored "very important" or "extremely important;" or if the attribute was agreed on by 70% or more of participants. The participant retention rate across scoring rounds was 96% for Round 1 and 84% for Round 2, where consensus was reached. Two "member checking" procedures were undertaken to enhance the integrity of findings: a model "stress test" and an online consumer poll. Results: Thirty-two attributes and 72 attribute levels were included in the final model across four components: pre-release care planning and coordination; treatments in community; diversion from prison; and evaluation. Member checking endorsed a person-centered approach with carers and peer-support central to care. Conclusions: Participants agreed that an optimal model of care should involve a specialized team who works independent of community health service teams to directly deliver certain treatments and services while helping consumers to access external social an economic supports and services.

People with Disabilities and Other Forms of Vulnerability to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Study Protocol for a Scoping Review and Thematic Analysis

OBJECTIVES

To develop a protocol for a scoping review mapping as well as thematically analyzing the literature on the effect of, and responses to, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, focused on people with disabilities with other layers of individual vulnerability or social disadvantage.

METHODS

We will search scientific databases (Medline/PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, AgeLine, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC) and preprint servers (MedRxiv, SocArXiv, PsyArXiv). Google searches, snowballing, and key-informant strategies were also used, including a focus on the gray literature (eg, official reports). Peer-reviewed and preprint publications will be covered in 6 languages, and the gray literature in English. Publications will be included if they address individuals with disabilities; the COVID-19 pandemic or subsequent socioeconomic or occupational effects; and individual or social vulnerabilities, including any form of discrimination, marginalization, or social disadvantage. Two independent reviewers will perform eligibility decisions and key data extractions. Beyond mapping the literature, the results will thematically analyze any disproportionate risks people with disabilities and other forms of vulnerability experience in terms of being infected by COVID-19, having severe health consequences, and facing negative socioeconomic effects. Actions taken or recommended to reduce identified inequalities will also be synthesized. Our entire research team, with diverse backgrounds, will be involved in the synthesis.

CONCLUSIONS

This review, which we plan to expedite, aims to inform policy makers, health authorities, disability advocates, and other stakeholders regarding the needs and ways to promote equity and disability-inclusive responses to the COVID-19 pandemic and the resultant socioeconomic shockwaves.

An analysis of the strategic plan development processes of major public organisations funding health research in nine high-income countries worldwide

Background

There have been claims that health research is not satisfactorily addressing healthcare challenges. A specific area of concern is the adequacy of the mechanisms used to plan investments in health research. However, the way organisations within countries devise research agendas has not been systematically reviewed. This study seeks to understand the legal basis, the actors and the processes involved in setting research agendas in major public health research funding organisations.

Methods

We reviewed information relating to the formulation of strategic plans by 11 public funders in nine high-income countries worldwide. Information was collected from official websites and strategic plan documents in English, French, Italian and Spanish between January 2019 and December 2019, by means of a conceptual framework and information abstraction form.

Results

We found that the formulation of a strategic plan is a common and well-established practice in shaping research agendas across international settings. Most of the organisations studied are legally required to present a multi-year strategic plan. In some cases, legal provisions may set rules for actors and processes and may establish areas of research and/or types of research to be funded. Commonly, the decision-making process involves both internal and external stakeholders, with the latter being generally government officials and experts, and few examples of the participation of civil society. The process also varies across organisations depending on whether there is a formal requirement to align to strategic priorities developed by an overarching entity at national level. We also found that, while actors and their interactions were traceable, information, sources of information, criteria and the mechanisms/tools used to shape decisions were made less explicit.

Conclusions

A complex picture emerges in which multiple interactive entities appear to shape research plans. Given the complexity of the influences of different parties and factors, the governance of the health research sector would benefit from a traceable and standardised knowledge-based process of health research strategic planning. This would provide an opportunity to demonstrate responsible budget stewardship and, more importantly, to make efforts to remain responsive to healthcare challenges, research gaps and opportunities.

Inclusion of Marginalized Groups and Communities in Global Health Research Priority-Setting

Community engagement is gaining prominence in global health research. But community members, especially those from groups and communities that are considered disadvantaged and marginalized, rarely have a say in the agendas and priorities of the research projects that aim to help them. This article explores how to achieve their inclusion in priority-setting for global health research projects. A total of 29 in-depth interviews and one focus group were undertaken with researchers, research ethicists, community engagement practitioners, and community-based organization staff. Thematic analysis identified two core dimensions of inclusion-representation and voice-and what is necessary to realize them with marginalized groups and communities in global health research priority-setting. A set of ethical considerations is proposed to assist researchers and their partners design more inclusive priority-setting processes.

Is Co-production Just a Pipe Dream for Applied Health Research Commissioning? An Exploratory Literature Review

Background and Rationale: Internationally, the idea of "co-production' has become more popular in health research because of the promise of partnership between researchers and patients to create research that focuses on patients' needs. Patient and public involvement (PPI) at an early stage in deciding what research should be funded, can improve the quality and impact of research. However, professional power over the process places limits on the public practising their participatory rights for involvement in commissioning research that affects them and can leave members of the public feeling unheard or excluded, particularly within the context of early phase applied health research. Aim: This article explores whether and how the public can be involved in the co-production of research commissioning early on in the process, with a focus on the power relations that pervade basic and early phase translational applied health research. Methods: An exploratory literature review of international peer-reviewed and gray health research literature using structured searches of electronic databases and key search terms. Results: There is very little literature that critically evaluates how PPI is embedded into the early phases of the commissioning process. The field of basic or early translational applied research appear to be particularly challenging. Four themes which emerged from the review are: reasons for PPI in research commissioning; benefits of PPI at strategic levels of research commissioning; contributions of patients and members of the public; improving PPI in research commissioning. Conclusion: Although the public are being consulted at some stages of the research commissioning process, it is evident that the process of determining research priorities and agendas is far from being widely co-produced. Moving PPI from a consultative paternalistic model to a collaborative partnership model should be a priority for commissioners. Significant changes to communication, practices, systems, structures, or cultures that exclude patients and the public from contributing in meaningful ways, are needed to fulfill the potential of co-produced models of research commissioning.

Community-based participatory action research on rheumatic heart disease in an Australian Aboriginal homeland: Evaluation of the 'On track watch' project

Strategies to date have been ineffective in reducing high rates of rheumatic heart disease (RHD) in Australian Aboriginal people; a disease caused by streptococcal infections. A remote Aboriginal community initiated a collaboration to work towards elimination of RHD. Based in 'both-way learning' (reciprocal knowledge co-creation), the aim of this study was to co-design, implement and evaluate community-based participatory action research (CBPAR) to achieve this vision. Activities related to understanding and addressing RHD social determinants were delivered through an accredited course adapted to meet learner and project needs. Theory-driven evaluation linking CBPAR to empowerment was applied. Data collection comprised focus groups, interviews, observation, and co-development and use of measurement tools such as surveys. Data analysis utilised process indicators from national guidelines for Aboriginal health research, and outcome indicators derived from the Wallerstein framework. Findings include the importance of valuing traditional knowledges and ways of learning such as locally-meaningful metaphors to explore unfamiliar concepts; empowerment through critical thinking and community ownership of knowledge about RHD and research; providing practical guidance in implementing empowering and decolonising principles / theories. Lessons learned are applicable to next stages of the RHD elimination strategy which must include scale-up of community leadership in research agenda-setting and implementation.

Justice and public participation in universal health coverage: when is tiered coverage unfair and who should decide?

Universal health coverage is often implemented within countries through several national insurance schemes that collectively cover their populations. Yet the extent of services and benefits available can vary substantially between different schemes. This paper argues that these variations in coverage comprise tiering and then reviews different accounts of health and social justice that consider whether and when a tiered health system is fair. Using these accounts, it shows that the fairness of tiering can be determined by assessing whether differences in coverage mean enrolees under some national insurance schemes do not achieve sufficient health or normal functioning and/or feel inferior relative to those belonging to other national insurance schemes. The paper further contends that these determinations of fairness should involve the people covered by different insurance schemes. Key universal health coverage questions to involve the public in answering are: Do the sum of differences between the schemes in your country generate feelings of unequal moral worth and/or mean enrolees struggle to achieve sufficient health or normal functioning? Which specific differences between health insurance schemes generate the greatest feelings of unequal moral worth in individuals? Which specific differences generate the greatest barriers to individuals achieving sufficient health or normal functioning? Rather than identifying which services to extend coverage to first, answering these questions will identify which disparities in services and benefits are the most morally urgent to address. Finally, some initial thoughts are offered on who from the public should be involved in making these decisions and how they might be involved as a matter of justice.

Exploring the ethics of global health research priority-setting

BACKGROUND

Thus far, little work in bioethics has specifically focused on global health research priority-setting. Yet features of global health research priority-setting raise ethical considerations and concerns related to health justice. For example, such processes are often exclusively disease-driven, meaning they rely heavily on burden of disease considerations. They, therefore, tend to undervalue non-biomedical research topics, which have been identified as essential to helping reduce health disparities. In recognition of these ethical concerns and the limited scholarship and dialogue addressing them, we convened an international workshop in September 2015. The workshop aimed to initiate discussion on the appropriate relationship between global and national levels of health research priority-setting and to begin exploring what might be ethically required for priority-setting at each of those levels.

MAIN TEXT

This paper comprises our reflections following the workshop. Its main objective is to launch a research agenda for the ethics of global health research priority-setting. We identify three domains of global health research priority-setting-scope, underlying values and substantive requirements, and procedural considerations. For each domain, specific research questions are highlighted and why they need to be explored is explained. Some preliminary thoughts and normative arguments as to how the research questions might be answered are also offered. For example, we provide initial ideas about the appropriate relationship between different priority-setting levels and what values and substantive considerations should guide or underpin global health research priority-setting as a matter of justice.

CONCLUSION

We anticipate that framing a new research agenda for the ethics of global health research priority-setting will spur ethicists, researchers, and policymakers to refocus their efforts on developing more rigorous and ethically sound approaches to priority-setting.

Public involvement and health research system governance: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Interest in public involvement in health research projects has led to increased attention on the coordination of public involvement through research organisations, networks and whole systems. We draw on previous work using the 'health research system' framework to explore organisational actors and stewardship functions relevant to governance for public involvement.

METHODS

To inform efforts in Ontario, Canada, to mobilise public involvement across the provincial health research enterprise, we conducted an exploratory, qualitative descriptive study of efforts in two jurisdictions (England, United Kingdom, and Alberta, Canada) where there were active policy efforts to support public involvement, alongside jurisdiction-wide efforts to mobilise health research. Focusing on the efforts of public sector organisations with responsibility for funding health research, enabling public involvement, and using research results, we conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 26 expert informants and used a qualitative thematic approach to explore how the involvement of publics in health research has been embedded and supported.

RESULTS

We identified three sets of common issues in efforts to advance public involvement. First, the initial aim to embed public involvement leveraged efforts to build self-conscious research 'systems', and mobilised policy guidance, direction, investment and infrastructure. Second, efforts to sustain public involvement aimed to deepen involvement activity and tackle diversity limitations, while managing the challenges of influencing research priorities and forging common purpose on the evaluation of public involvement. Finally, public involvement was itself an influential force, with the potential to reinforce - or complicate - the ties that link actors within research systems, and to support - or constrain - the research system's capacity to serve and strengthen health systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite differences in the two jurisdictions analysed and in the organisation of public involvement within them, the supporters and stewards of public involvement sought to leverage research systems to advance public involvement, anticipated similar opportunities for improvement in involvement processes and identified similar challenges for future involvement activities. This suggests the value of a health research system framework in governance for public involvement, and the importance of public involvement for the success of health research systems and the health systems they aim to serve.

Public involvement in health research systems: a governance framework

Background

Growing interest in public involvement in health research has led to organisational and policy change. Additionally, an emerging body of policy-oriented scholarship has begun to identify the organisational and network arrangements that shape public involvement activity. Such developments suggest the need to clearly conceptualise and characterise public involvement in health research in terms of governance.

Methods

We drew on an established health research system framework to analyse governance functions related to public involvement, adapting scoping review methods to identify evidence from a corpus of journal papers and policy reports. We drew on the logics of aggregation and top down configuration, using a qualitative interpretive approach to combine and link findings from different studies into framework categories.

Results

We identified a total of 32 scholarly papers and 13 policy reports (n = 45 included papers) with relevance to governance for public involvement. Included papers were broadly consonant in identifying the need for activity to specify and support public involvement across all four governance functions of stewardship, financing, creating and sustaining resources, and research production and use. However, different visions for public involvement, and the activity required to implement it and achieve impact, were particularly evident with respect to the stewardship function, which seeks to set overall directions for research while addressing the potentially competing demands of a system’s many constituents.

Conclusions

A governance perspective has considerable value for public involvement in health research systems, supporting efforts to coordinate and institutionalise the burgeoning public involvement enterprise. Furthermore, it highlights challenges for what is, ultimately, a highly political intervention, suggesting that diverse publics must be both involved within health research systems and enrolled as governors of them.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-018-0352-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Patient and public engagement in priority setting: A systematic rapid review of the literature

Background

Current research suggests that while patients are becoming more engaged across the health delivery spectrum, this involvement occurs most often at the pre-preparation stage to identify ‘high-level’ priorities in health ecosystem priority setting, and at the preparation phase for health research.

Objective

The purpose of this systematic rapid review of the literature is to describe the evidence that does exist in relation to patient and public engagement priority setting in both health ecosystem and health research.

Data sources

HealthStar (via OVID); CINAHL; Proquest Databases; and Scholar’s Portal.

Study eligibility criteria

i) published in English; ii) published within the timeframe of 2007—Current (10 years) unless the report/article was formative in synthesizing key considerations of patient engagement in health ecosystem and health research priority setting; iii) conducted in Canada, the US, Europe, UK, Australia/New Zealand, or Scandinavian countries.

Study appraisal and synthesis

i) Is the research valid, sound, and applicable?; ii) what outcomes can we potentially expect if we implement the findings from this research?; iii) will the target population (i.e., health researchers and practitioners) be able to use this research?. A summary of findings from each of the respective processes was synthesized to highlight key information that would support decision-making for researchers when determining the best priority setting process to apply for their specific patient-oriented research.

Results

Seventy articles from the UK, US, Canada, Netherlands and Australia were selected for review. Results were organized into two tiers of public and patient engagement in prioritization: Tier 1—Deliberative and Tier 2—Consultative. Highly structured patient and public engagement planning activities include the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnerships (UK), Dialogue Method (Netherlands), Global Evidence Mapping (Australia), and the Deep Inclusion Method/CHoosing All Together (US).

Limitations

The critical study limitations include challenges in comprehensively identifying the patient engagement literature for review, bias in article selection due to the identified scope, missed information due to a more limited use of exhaustive search strategies (e.g., in-depth hand searching), and the heterogeneity of reported study findings.

Conclusion

The four public and patient engagement priority setting processes identified were successful in setting priorities that are inclusive and objectively based, specific to the priorities of stakeholders engaged in the process. The processes were robust, strategic and aimed to promote equity in patient voices. Key limitations identified a lack of evaluation data on the success and extent in which patients were engaged. Issues pertaining to feasibility of stakeholder engagement, coordination, communication and limited resources were also considered.

Linking Participatory Action Research on Health Systems to Justice in Global Health: A Case Study of the Maternal and Neonatal Implementation for Equitable Health Systems Project in Rural Uganda

An ethical framework called "research for health justice" provides initial guidance on how to link health systems research in low- and middle-income countries to health equity. To further develop the largely conceptual framework, we tested its guidance against the experience of the Maternal and Neonatal Implementation for Equitable Health Systems (Manifest) project, which was performed in rural Uganda by researchers from Makerere University. We conducted 21 in-depth interviews with investigators and research implementers, directly observed study sites, and reviewed study-related documents. Our analysis identifies where alignment exists between the framework's guidance and the Manifest project, providing initial lessons on how that was achieved. It also identifies where nonalignment occurred and gaps in the framework's guidance. Suggestions are then made for revising and expanding "research for health justice."

Towards fair and effective North-South collaboration: realising a programme for demand-driven and locally led research

BACKGROUND

At the turn of the 90s, studies showed that health research contributed little to health and development in low- and middle-income countries because it was oriented towards international priorities and dominated by researchers from the North. A new approach to North-South collaboration was required that would support demand-driven and locally led research in the South. The aim of this study was to analyse the development and functioning of a programme for demand-driven and locally led research in Ghana that was supported by a North-South collaboration.

METHODS

For this mixed-method case study, we combined document analysis, key informant interviews and observation of programme events.

RESULTS

The development of the research programme started with constructing a sponsorship constellation in the Netherlands. After highlighting the problems with traditional research collaboration, an advisory council formulated a vision for a more equal and effective approach to North-South collaboration. Together with Ghanaian partners, this vision was turned into a proposal for a Ghanaian-led programme for demand-driven and locally led research, which was funded by the Netherlands government. Research priority setting showed that the Ghanaian research needs were very different from the priorities of foreign funders and researchers. After a slow start, the number of locally submitted proposals increased from 13 in 2001 to 94 in 2005, revealing the existence of a substantial, but partly latent reservoir of research capacity. In total, 79 studies were funded. An impact evaluation showed that the results of the majority of the studies were used to contribute to action. Despite its success, the research programme came to an end in 2008 after the sponsorship constellation in the Netherlands fell apart.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that realising a programme for demand-driven and locally led research in the South provides an effective approach to North-South collaboration in which results are used and local capacities and institutions are strengthened.

Which health research gets used and why? An empirical analysis of 30 cases

BACKGROUND

While health research is considered essential for improving health worldwide, it remains unclear how it is best organized to contribute to health. This study examined research that was part of a Ghanaian-Dutch research program that aimed to increase the likelihood that results would be used by funding research that focused on national research priorities and was led by local researchers. The aim of this study was to map the contribution of this research to action and examine which features of research and translation processes were associated with the use of the results.

METHODS

Using Contribution Mapping, we systematically examined how 30 studies evolved and how results were used to contribute to action. We combined interviews with 113 purposively selected key informants, document analysis and triangulation to map how research and translation processes evolved and contributions to action were realized. After each case was analysed separately, a cross-case analysis was conducted to identify patterns in the association between features of research processes and the use of research.

RESULTS

The results of 20 of the 30 studies were used to contribute to action within 12 months. The priority setting and proposal selection process led to the funding of studies which were from the outset closely aligned with health sector priorities. Research was most likely to be used when it was initiated and conducted by people who were in a position to use their results in their own work. The results of 17 out of 18 of these user-initiated studies were translated into action. Other features of research that appeared to contribute to its use were involving potential key users in formulating proposals and developing recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study underlines the importance of supporting research that meets locally-expressed needs and that is led by people embedded in the contexts in which results can be used. Supporting the involvement of health sector professionals in the design, conduct and interpretation of research appears to be an especially worthwhile investment.