Priority setting and health policy and systems research

Insights on health policies from a political philosophy perspective

Health policies play a crucial role in shaping people's well-being. While public health often relies on evidence-based policy to improve health outcomes, many non-scientific factors determine the health policy-making process. This article explores how public health advocacy can be strengthened by examining the relationship between political philosophy and the scientistic aspirations of public health.We begin by critically assessing the deliberative decision-making model, offering insights on policy processes that could inspire new directions in health policy research. To enhance these efforts, we delve into the philosophical critique of scientism, aiming to liberate public health from its technocratic inclinations. Our analysis draws on political philosophy from two angles: first, we revisit Renaissance utopias to highlight the risks of a science-driven society devoid of ethics; second, we introduce modern perspectives on democratic justice, advocating for health policies that resist domination.Ultimately, we argue for a new model of health policy science that positions public health as a key political actor. By focusing on the everyday realities of policy-making, public health can tackle two fundamental questions: How are citizens' interests considered in health policy? And how do we deliberate the goals and means of health policy? By addressing these questions, our proposals aim to enhance public health advocacy, promoting research and actions that lead to more just and inclusive health policies, ensuring the protection of everyone's health.

Health policy and systems research priority-setting exercise in Ethiopia: a collaborative approach

INTRODUCTION

Health policy and systems research (HPSR) is a multi-disciplinary approach of generating health system and policy-level evidence. Setting HPSR agendas is considered as an efficient strategy to map and identify policy and cost-effective research topics, but its practice in developing countries is limited. This paper aimed to conduct a collaborative health policy and system research priority-setting exercise in Ethiopia.

METHOD

The WHO's plan, implement, publish, and evaluate (PIPE) framework and the Delphi technique were used to conduct the priority-setting exercise. The PIPE model was used to lead the priority-setting process from planning to evaluation, while the Delphi technique was used to run the rating and ranking exercise with the aim of reaching a consensus. Two rounds of expert panel workshops supplemented with an online survey were used for the HPSR agenda setting, rating and ranking purposes. Groups were formed using the WHO health system building blocks as a base framework to identify and prioritize the HPSR topics.

RESULT

Under 8 themes, 32 sub-themes and 182 HPSR topics were identified. The identified research themes include leadership management and governance, health policy, health information system, healthcare financing, human resource for health, medical products and supply, service delivery and cross-cutting issues.

CONCLUSIONS

Priority HPSR topics focussing on national health priority issues were identified. The identified topics were shared with policymakers and academic and research institutions. Evidence generation on the identified priority topics will guide future research endeavours and improve evidence-informed decision-making practice, health system performance and national health goals and targets.

Explore the practice and barriers of collaborative health policy and system research-priority setting exercise in Ethiopia

INTRODUCTION

Collaboration is gaining prominence in the priority setting of Health Policy And System Research (HPSR). However, its practice and challenges are not well explored in Ethiopia. Understanding the practice and barriers of collaborative Health Policy and System Research will help design approaches and platforms for setting inclusive and participatory policy and system-level health research topics. This paper explores the practice and barriers of collaborative HPSR-priority setting exercise in Ethiopia.

METHODS

This study investigates the practice and barriers of collaborative health policy and system research priority-setting exercises in Ethiopia. Utilizing a mixed-methods approach, we conducted Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) and an online self-administered survey with open-ended questionnaires to capture diverse perspectives from stakeholders involved in the research priority-setting process. Through conventional content analysis, we identified key contents related to current practices, challenges, and opportunities for enhancing collaboration in health policy and system research prioritization.

RESULTS

Our findings reveal a complex landscape characterized by varying levels of stakeholder engagement, institutional capacity constraints, and competing priorities within the health research ecosystem. Despite notable efforts to foster collaboration, stakeholders identified persistent challenges such as limited resources, institutional fragmentation, and inadequate coordination mechanisms as barriers to effective priority-setting processes. The implications of our research extend beyond academic discourse, with direct relevance to health policy and system research practice in Ethiopia. By shedding light on the dynamics of collaborative priority-setting exercises, our findings offer valuable insights for policymakers, researchers, and practitioners seeking to enhance the effectiveness and inclusivity of health research prioritization processes. Addressing the identified barriers and leveraging existing strengths in the research ecosystem can contribute to more evidence-informed health policies and programs, ultimately improving health outcomes for Ethiopian populations.

CONCLUSIONS

Most institutions do not apply health policy and system research-priority setting to conduct informed decision-making. The barriers explored were weak integration, lack of knowledge, system, and platforms for the priority setting of Health Policy and System Resreach. So, it is recommended to build skills of different actors in the Health Policy and System Research-priority setting exercise and design a system and platform to integrate different stakeholders for collaborative research topics priority setting.

Prioritization criteria in policies and management of human resources for health: a proposal for a validated methodology

Objective

To create and validate criteria for prioritizing problems related to policies and management of the health workforce.

Methods

This methodological study was divided into three stages. First, the criteria were elaborated by means of a systematized literature review. Second, the criteria were evaluated online by a committee of judges comprised of eight specialists. In the third stage, an evaluation was carried out by the target audience in a hybrid workshop. The participants evaluated the material using the Suitability Assessment of Materials instrument, adapted for the research.

Results

Three prioritization criteria (relevance, window of opportunity and acceptability) and a scoring scale were developed based on the literature review. In the evaluation by the committee of judges, the approval percentage of the criteria and prioritization method was 84%. Modifications were made based on suggestions in relation to the material presented to the specialists. In the pre-test stage, the approval percentage varied by item, with six of them reaching a maximum approval of 100% (corresponding to approximately 46% of the items), four reaching 92% and three achieving 83% each, indicating positive results.

Conclusions

The developed criteria were considered valid for use in the context of policies and management in the area of human resources for health.

Research alignment in the U.S. national park system: Impact of transformative science policy on the supply and demand for scientific knowledge for protected area management

The US National Park System encompasses diverse environmental and tourism management regimes, together governed by the 1916 Organic Act and its dual mandate of conservation and provision of public enjoyment. However, with the introduction of transformative science policy in the 2000's, the mission scope has since expanded to promote overarching science-based objectives. Yet despite this paradigm shift instituting "science for parks, parks for science", there is scant research exploring the impact of the National Park Science Policy on the provision of knowledge. We address this gap by developing a spatiotemporal framework for evaluating research alignment, here operationalized via quantifiable measures of supply and demand for scientific knowledge. Specifically, we apply a machine learning algorithm (Latent Dirichlet analysis) to a comprehensive park-specific text corpus (combining official needs statements -i.e. demand- and scientific research metadata -i.e. supply-) to define a joint topic space, which thereby facilitates quantifying the direction and degree of alignment at multiple levels. Results indicate an overall robust degree of research alignment, with misaligned topics tending to be over-researched (as opposed to over-demanded), which may be favorable to many parks, but is inefficient from the park system perspective. Results further indicate that the transformative science policy exacerbated the misalignment in mandated research domains. In light of these results, we argue for improved decision support mechanisms to achieve more timely alignment of research efforts towards distinctive park needs, thereby fostering convergent knowledge co-production and leveraging the full value of National Parks as living laboratories.

Academic contributions to the development of evidence and policy systems: an EPPI Centre collective autoethnography

BACKGROUND

Evidence for policy systems emerging around the world combine the fields of research synthesis, evidence-informed policy and public engagement with research. We conducted this retrospective collective autoethnography to understand the role of academics in developing such systems.

METHODS

We constructed a timeline of EPPI Centre work and associated events since 1990. We employed: Transition Theory to reveal emerging and influential innovations; and Transformative Social Innovation theory to track their increasing depth, reach and embeddedness in research and policy organisations.

FINDINGS

The EPPI Centre, alongside other small research units, collaborated with national and international organisations at the research-policy interface to incubate, spread and embed new ways of working with evidence and policy. Sustainable change arising from research-policy interactions was less about uptake and embedding of innovations, but more about co-developing and tailoring innovations with organisations to suit their missions and structures for creating new knowledge or using knowledge for decisions. Both spreading and embedding innovation relied on mutual learning that both accommodated and challenged established assumptions and values of collaborating organisations as they adapted to closer ways of working. The incubation, spread and embedding of innovations have been iterative, with new ways of working inspiring further innovation as they spread and embedded. Institutionalising evidence for policy required change in both institutions generating evidence and institutions developing policy.

CONCLUSIONS

Key mechanisms for academic contributions to advancing evidence for policy were: contract research focusing attention at the research-policy interface; a willingness to work in unfamiliar fields; inclusive ways of working to move from conflict to consensus; and incentives and opportunities for reflection and consolidating learning.

Priority setting to support a public health research agenda: a modified Delphi study with public health stakeholders in Germany

BACKGROUND

Research priority setting (RPS) studies are necessary to close the significant gap between the scientific evidence produced and the evidence stakeholders need. Their findings can make resource allocation in research more efficient. However, no general framework for conducting an RPS study among public health stakeholders exists. RPS studies in public health are rare and no such study has been previously conducted and published in Germany. Therefore, we aimed to investigate which research topics in public health are prioritised by relevant stakeholders in Germany.

METHODS

Our RPS study consisted of a scoping stage and a Delphi stage each split into two rounds. Firstly, we invited members of the German Public Health Association to gather expert insights during two initial workshops. Next, we defined the relevant stakeholder groups and recruited respondents. Thereafter, we collected research topics and assessment criteria with the respondents in the first Delphi round and aggregated the responses through content analysis. Finally, we asked the respondents to rate the research topics with the assessment criteria in the second Delphi round.

RESULTS

In total, 94 out of the 140 invited public health organisations nominated 230 respondents for the Delphi study of whom almost 90% participated in both Delphi rounds. We compiled a comprehensive list of 76 research topics that were rated and ranked by several assessment criteria. We split the research topics into two types, substantive research topics and methodological-theoretical research topics respectively, to ensure the comparability among the research topics. In both types of research topics-substantive research topics and methodological-theoretical research topics-the respective top five ranked research topics hardly differed between public health researchers and public health practitioners. However, clear differences exist in the priority ranking of many (non-top priority) research topics between the stakeholder groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This research demonstrates that it is possible, with limited resources, to prioritise research topics for public health at the national level involving a wide range of pertinent stakeholders. The results can be used by research funding institutions to initiate calls for research projects with an increased relevance for health and/or scientific progress.

Defining operational research priorities to improve malaria control and elimination in sub-Saharan Africa: results from a country-driven research prioritization setting process

BACKGROUND

In order to reignite gains and accelerate progress toward improved malaria control and elimination, policy, strategy, and operational decisions should be derived from high-quality evidence. The U.S. President's Malaria Initiative (PMI) Insights project together with the Université Cheikh Anta Diop of Dakar, Senegal, conducted a broad stakeholder consultation process to identify pressing evidence gaps in malaria control and elimination across sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), and developed a priority list of country-driven malaria operational research (OR) and programme evaluation (PE) topics to address these gaps.

METHODS

Five key stakeholder groups were engaged in the process: national malaria programmes (NMPs), research institutions in SSA, World Health Organization (WHO) representatives in SSA, international funding agencies, and global technical partners who support malaria programme implementation and research. Stakeholders were engaged through individual or small group interviews and an online survey, and asked about key operational challenges faced by NMPs, pressing evidence gaps in current strategy and implementation guidance, and priority OR and PE questions to address the challenges and gaps.

RESULTS

Altogether, 47 interviews were conducted with 82 individuals, and through the online survey, input was provided by 46 global technical partners. A total of 33 emergent OR and PE topics were identified through the consultation process and were subsequently evaluated and prioritized by an external evaluation committee of experts from NMPs, research institutions, and the WHO. The resulting prioritized OR and PE topics predominantly focused on generating evidence needed to close gaps in intervention coverage, address persistent challenges faced by NMPs in the implementation of core strategic interventions, and inform the effective deployment of new tools.

CONCLUSION

The prioritized research list is intended to serve as a key resource for informing OR and PE investments, thereby ensuring future investments focus on generating the evidence needed to strengthen national strategies and programme implementation and facilitating a more coordinated and impactful approach to malaria operational research.

Prehospital clinical practice guidelines for unintentional injuries: a scoping review and prioritisation process

BACKGROUND

Globally, millions of people die and many more develop disabilities resulting from injuries each year. Most people who die from injuries do so before they are transported to hospital. Thus, reliable, pragmatic, and evidence-based prehospital guidance for various injuries is essential. We systematically mapped and described prehospital clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for injuries in the global context, as well as prioritised injury topics for guidance development and adolopment.

METHODS

This study was sequentially conducted in three phases: a scoping review for CPGs (Phase I), identification and refinement of gaps in CPGs (Phase II), and ranking and prioritisation of gaps in CPGs (Phase III). For Phase I, we searched PubMed, SCOPUS, and Trip Database; guideline repositories and websites up to 23^rd May 2021. Two authors in duplicate independently screened titles and abstract, and full-text as well as extracted data of eligible CPGs. Guidelines had to meet 60% minimum methodological quality according to rigour of development domain in AGREE II. The second and third phases involved 17 participants from 9 African countries and 1 from Europe who participated in a virtual stakeholder engagement workshop held on 5 April 2022, and followed by an online ranking process.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight CPGs were included out of 3,427 guidance documents obtained and screened. 39/58 (67%) were developed de novo compared to 19 that were developed using alternative approaches. Twenty-five out of 58 guidelines (43%) were developed by bodies in countries within the WHO European Region, while only one guideline was targeted to the African context. Twenty-five (43%) CPGs targeted emergency medical service providers, while 13 (22%) targeted first aid providers (laypeople). Forty-three CPGs (74%) targeted people of all ages. The 58 guidance documents contained 32 injury topics. Injuries linked to road traffic accidents such as traumatic brain injuries and chest injuries were among the top prioritised topics for future guideline development by the workshop participants.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the availability, gaps and priority injury topics for future guideline development/adolopment, especially for the African context. Further research is needed to evaluate the recommendations in the 58 included CPGs for possible adaptation to the African context.

Lack of systematicity in research prioritisation processes - a scoping review of evidence syntheses

BACKGROUND

A systematically and transparently prepared research priority-setting process within a specific scientific area is essential in order to develop a comprehensive and progressive evidence-based approach that will have a substantial societal impact on the site of interest. On the basis of two consensus workshops, the authors suggest the following methods for all such processes: use of experts, stakeholder involvement, literature review, and ranking.

OBJECTIVES

The identification, categorisation, and discussion of methods for preparing a research prioritisation process.

METHODS

Eligibility criteria: Evidence synthesis includes original studies presenting a research prioritisation process and which listed the methods used to create a research prioritisation process. Only evidence syntheses related to health research were included.

DATA SOURCES

We searched the following electronic databases, without limiting by date or language: MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Epistemonikos, and CINAHL EBSCO.

CHARTING METHODS

The methods used were mapped and broken down into different elements, and the use of the elements was determined. To support the mapping, (A) all of the elements were collapsed into unique categories, and (B) four essential categories were selected as crucial to a successful research prioritisation process.

RESULTS

Twelve evidence syntheses were identified, including 416 original studies. The identification and categorisation of methods used resulted in 13 unique categories of methods used to prepare a research agenda.

CONCLUSION

None of the identified categories was used in all of the original studies. Surprisingly, all four of the essential categories were used in only one of the 416 original studies identified. There is seemingly no international consensus on which methods to use when preparing a research prioritisation process.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

The protocol was registered in Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/dygz8/ ).

Health Research Priority Agenda for Ministry of Health, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from 2020 to 2025

METHOD

The current study applied e-Delphi technique via online self-administered questionnaire was distributing to headquarter, and 16 health affairs directorates spanning 75 hospitals and specialized health centers, 24 primary health-care centers, 2 health-care clusters, and 5 medical cities. In addition, community involvement was represented by 26 organizations: 7 universities, 9 scientific health associations, 5 charitable associations, and 5 key Saudi health partner organizations. Research field's prioritization was performed by ranking weighed mean aggregate score via application of the combined consensus and metrics-based approach. Then the top five research topics were analyzed, verified, refined and classified into specific health research themes.

RESULTS

The study included 2252 participants and attained a 90% response rate. The study deliverables were listed into two research priority domains: health system research priorities (1st agenda) and diseases and health problems priorities (2nd agenda). Overall, the types of the top five research priorities in the first agenda included service delivery (40.9%), health workforce (14.4%), governance and leadership (13.0%) ,preparedness and response to disasters and emergency (10.2%), health information systems (9.3%), access to essential medicines products and vaccines (6.97%), and financing (5.1%). On the other hand, the top five research priority areas in the second agenda were non-communicable diseases (16.9%), child and neonatal health (15.9%), medications (13.6%), women health (10.4%), dental health (10.4%). furthermore, biomedical and radiology technology and devices (5.6%), communicable diseases (3.7%), nutrition (3.2%), trauma and general management (3.2%), innovative approaches (2.4%), emergency management (2.7%), physical therapy and rehabilitation (2.3%), public health (2.3%), holistic approaches to health and wellness, behavior and lifestyle (1.5%), environmental health (0.6%),pilgrims' health (0.6%), geriatric health (0.3%), and family medicine (0.3%).

CONCLUSION

Adequate description of the stakeholders and methodology can strengthen legitimacy and credibility and maximize the impact of the priority-setting process. Involvement of policymakers, researchers and funding organizations increases the opportunity of translation into actual research, supports redesigning the research landscape and ensures uptake of results and integration.

Framing rehabilitation through health policy and systems research: priorities for strengthening rehabilitation

BACKGROUND

Recent estimates report that 2.4 billion people with health conditions globally could benefit from rehabilitation. While the benefits of rehabilitation for individuals and society have been described in the literature, many individuals, especially in low- and middle-income countries do not have access to quality rehabilitation. As the need for rehabilitation continues to increase, it is crucial that health systems are adequately prepared to meet this need. Practice- and policy-relevant evidence plays an important role in health systems strengthening efforts. The aim of this paper is to report on the outcome of a global consultative process to advance the development of a research framework to stimulate health policy and systems research (HPSR) for rehabilitation, in order to generate evidence needed by key stakeholders.

METHODS

A multi-stakeholder participatory technical consultation was convened by WHO to develop a research framework. This meeting included participants from selected Member States, rehabilitation experts, HPSR experts, public health researchers, civil society and other stakeholders from around the world. The meeting focused on introducing systems approaches to stakeholders and deliberating on priority rehabilitation issues in health systems. Participants were allocated to one of four multi-stakeholder groups with a facilitator to guide the structured technical consultations. Qualitative data in the form of written responses to guiding questions were collected during the structured technical consultations. A technical working group was then established to analyse the data and extract its emerging themes. This informed the development of the HPSR framework for rehabilitation and a selection of preliminary research questions that exemplify how the framework might be used.

RESULTS

A total of 123 individuals participated in the multi-stakeholder technical consultations. The elaborated framework is informed by an ecological model and puts forth elements of the six WHO traditional building blocks of the health system, while emphasizing additional components pertinent to rehabilitation, such as political priority, engagement and participatory approaches, and considerations regarding demand and access. Importantly, the framework highlights the multilevel interactions needed across health systems in order to strengthen rehabilitation. Additionally, an initial set of research questions was proposed as a primer for how the framework might be used.

CONCLUSIONS

Strengthening health systems to meet the increasing need for rehabilitation will require undertaking more HPSR to inform the integration of rehabilitation into health systems globally. We anticipate that the proposed framework and the emerging research questions will support countries in their quest to increase access to rehabilitation for their populations.

Why is priority setting important for global burn care research?

The use of robust evidence is a key component of providing high quality care to patients. Synthesised evidence to support clinical decision-making is lacking for many aspects of clinical burn care. Identifying the most important areas of care that lack high quality evidence and requires research is necessary, as funding for primary research is limited. Priority setting research studies are a joint endeavour between patients, carers and clinicians to identify and rank topics for research in a healthcare area in order to reduce research waste. Such an exercise has yet to be undertaken in burns. The aim of this paper is to outline the importance of research prioritisation in burn care, to discuss how it facilitates the maximum benefit from limited research funding and to explain the methodologies used.

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.

Priority Setting for Collaborative Health Systems Research in India: A Method and the Way Forward

A comprehensive and collaborative knowledge translation and decision-making approach can help reduce the longstanding barriers to using research in policy and practice. Regular interaction between researchers and decision-makers increases the likelihood of using research knowledge. This interaction continuing over the entire research cycle is critical for developing research directions and potential use of the research outputs that benefit the health system.

The India Health Systems Collaborative and ACCESS Health International have conducted a rigorous exercise to arrive at the priority research topics. A consensus-based method customised to the existing need was created, adapting from the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method for research priority setting. In this method, conducting literature reviews, key informant interviews and survey-based stakeholder consultations are critical steps for identifying policy-relevant research topics that demand utmost attention in the Indian setting.

This article documents the processes followed to develop a preliminary list of core research priorities requiring urgent attention to facilitate policy development. Additionally, the article is about the essential and immediate next steps and the critical actions taken to undertake collaborative research on the identified research topics. The special issue of the Journal for Health Management dedicated to strengthening the Indian health system sets the foundation for promoting collaborative research, its dissemination for broader use by researchers and ensuing policy dialogues.

Identifying priorities for research on financial risk protection to achieve universal health coverage: a scoping overview of reviews

OBJECTIVES

Financial risk protection (FRP) is an indicator of the Sustainable Development Goal 3 universal health coverage (UHC) target. We sought to characterise what is known about FRP in the UHC context and to identify evidence gaps to prioritise in future research.

DESIGN

Scoping overview of reviews using the Arksey & O'Malley and Levac & Colquhoun framework and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews reporting guidelines.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL-Plus and PAIS Index were systematically searched for studies published between 1 January 1995 and 20 July 2021.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Records were screened by two independent reviewers in duplicate using the following criteria: (1) literature review; (2) focus on UHC achievement through FRP; (3) English or French language; (4) published after 1995 and (5) peer-reviewed.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers extracted data using a standard form and descriptive content analysis was performed to synthesise findings.

RESULTS

50 studies were included. Most studies were systematic reviews focusing on low-income and middle-income countries. Study periods spanned 1990 and 2020. While FRP was recognised as a dimension of UHC, it was rarely defined as a concept. Out-of-pocket, catastrophic and impoverishing health expenditures were most commonly used to measure FRP. Pooling arrangements, expansion of insurance coverage and financial incentives were the main interventions for achieving FRP. Evidence gaps pertained to the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and equity implications of efforts aimed at increasing FRP. Methodological gaps related to trade-offs between single-country and multicountry analyses; lack of process evaluations; inadequate mixed-methods evidence, disaggregated by relevant characteristics; lack of comparable and standardised measurement and short follow-up periods.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping overview of reviews characterised what is known about FRP as a UHC dimension and found evidence gaps related to the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and equity implications of FRP interventions. Theory-informed mixed-methods research using high-quality, longitudinal and disaggregated data is needed to address these objectives.

Partnering with survivors & families to determine research priorities for adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership

BACKGROUND

Research priority setting in health care has historically been done by expert health care providers and researchers and has not involved patients, family or the public. Survivors & family members have been particularly absent from this process in the field of resuscitation research and specifically adult out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). As such, we sought to conduct a priority setting exercise in partnership with survivors, lay responders and their families in order to ensure that their priorities were visible. We partnered with the James Lind Alliance (UK) and used their commonly used consensus methodology for Public Priority Setting Partnerships (PSPs) to identify research priorities that reflected the perspectives of all stakeholders.

METHODS

We used two rounds of public and health care professional surveys to create the initial priority lists. The initial survey collected open-ended questions while the second round consolidated the list of initial questions into a refined list for prioritization. This was done by reviewing existing evidence and thematic categorization by the multi-disciplinary steering committee. An in-person consensus workshop was conducted to come to consensus on the top ten priorities from all perspectives. The McMaster PPEET tool was used to measure engagement.

RESULTS

The initial survey yielded more than 425 responses and 1450 "questions" from survivors and family members (18%), lay responders, health care providers and others. The second survey asked participants to rank a short list of 125 questions. The final top 25 questions were brought to the in-person meeting, and a top ten were selected through the JLA consensus process. The final list of top ten questions included how to improve the rate of lay responder CPR, what interventions used at the scene of an arrest can improve resuscitation and survival, how survival can be improved in rural areas of Canada, what resuscitation medications are most effective, what care patient's family members need, what post-discharge support is needed for survivors, how communication should work for everyone involved with a cardiac arrest, what factors best predict neurologically intact survival, whether biomarkers/genetic tests are effective in predicting OHCA and more research on the short and long-term psycho-social impacts of OHCA on survivors. The PPEET showed overwhelmingly positive results for the patient and family engagement experience during the final workshop.

CONCLUSIONS

This inclusive research priority setting provides essential information for those doing resuscitation research internationally. The results provide a guide for priority areas of research and should drive our community to focus on questions that matter to survivors and their families in our work. In particular the Canadian Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium will be incorporating the top ten list into its strategic plan for the future.

Research priority-setting for human, plant, and animal virology: an online experience for the Virology Institute of the Philippines

BACKGROUND

Viral pandemics have had catastrophic consequences on population health and economies. The Philippine government intends to establish the Virology Institute of the Philippines, one of the key areas of which will be virology research. This project aimed to develop the institute's research agenda across the fields of human, plant, and animal virology.

METHODOLOGY

Key considerations for the prioritization methodology were (1) the imminent establishment of the Virology Institute of the Philippines, (2) mobility restrictions caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, (3) the timeline to develop the research agenda, and (4) the need to separate the research agenda for the three fields of human, plant, and animal virology. The process was fully conducted online in four steps: stakeholder identification, soliciting research priorities, generating initial research priorities, and final prioritization consultations conducted on Zoom Pro.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight participants attended three online consultations between 21 and 27 July 2020 through Zoom Pro. Participants selected the research prioritization criteria and its weights, and used these to evaluate the research priorities. The final research agenda covers topics in epidemiology, diagnostics, surveillance, biosafety, and genomics.

CONCLUSION

This initiative resulted in the first research agenda for the Virology Institute of the Philippines across the three fields of human, plant, and animal virology. An expert-driven process which places a premium on consensus-building facilitated through online platforms was the most feasible approach to develop the research agenda. This process resulted in an agenda aligned with the mandates of national research councils but leaves gaps on areas such as emerging infectious diseases. Pre-COVID-19 literature expressed apprehensions on the online medium that weakens social ties necessary for consensus. Our experience with changing the mode of consensus-building shows that users will continually adapt to technology. Online tools are currently able to address the limitations of the virtual space.

Rare Disease Research Partnership (RAinDRoP): a collaborative approach to identify research priorities for rare diseases in Ireland

Background:

Rare diseases are individually rare, but collectively these conditions are common. Research on rare diseases are currently focused on disease-specific needs rather than a life-course perspective. The Rare Disease Research Partnership (RAinDRoP) was established in 2018 to bring together a wide variety of diverse voices in the rare disease community in Ireland and form a research partnership.

Methods:

A participatory multiple phase approach was used to identify research priorities for rare diseases. The research process involved three main phases: Phase I, Public Consultation Survey(PCS); Phase II, Research Prioritisation Workshop (RPW); Phase III, Public Prioritisation Ranking Survey (PRS). The time frame for the entire study was from November 2018 to June 2019.

Results:

In total, 240 individuals completed the phase I, of which only 96 survey participants provided information on their background,  32% (n=31) self-identified as a person living with a rare disease(s). One thousand and fifteen statements were collected, which reflected issues and shared challenges in rare diseases. MSExcel was used to gain frequencies and percentages. Phase II was focused on three main themes (1) Route to Diagnosis (2) Living with Rare Disease (3) Integrated and Palliative Care. 42 participants engaged at each workshop. Seventy-five individuals completed the phase III prioritisation ranking survey and ranked the top 15 research priorities.  The top five priorities were (1)Support at the time of diagnosis, (2) Diagnostic test for rare diseases (3)Education and training (4) Patient voice (5) Data sharing and integration of services for rare diseases.

Conclusions:

The research priorities identified here for rare diseases were developed jointly in collaboration with patients, families, healthcare professionals and policymakers. So, we encourage researchers, funding bodies and other stakeholders to use this priority list as a guiding document for future research work to improve the health and lives of people living with rare diseases.

Rare Disease Research Partnership (RAinDRoP): a collaborative approach to identify the top 15 research priorities for rare diseases

Background: The Rare Disease Research Partnership (RAinDRoP) was established in 2018 to bring together a wide variety of diverse voices in the rare disease community in Ireland and form a research partnership. This approach enabled clinicians, patients, carers and researchers to work together to identify top research priorities for rare diseases, which focused on a life-course perspective rather than a disease-specific need.                                                                                                           Methods: A participatory multiple phase approach was used to identify research priorities for rare diseases. The research process involved three main phases: Phase I, Public Consultation Survey on Research in Rare Diseases in Ireland (PCSRRDI); Phase II, Research Prioritisation Workshop (RPW); Phase III, Follow-up Public Consultation and Prioritisation Survey (FWPCPS). Results: In total, 240 individuals completed the phase I PCSRRDI, which comprised of a cross-section of health care professionals, researchers and people living with rare diseases. One thousand and fifteen statements were collected, reflecting issues and shared challenges in rare diseases. A shortlisting step by step was used to identify any statements that had received a total score of above 50% into 10-12 researchable questions or statements per the theme for the phase II workshop. Phase II was focused on three main themes: (1) Route to Diagnosis, (2) Living with Rare Disease, (3) Integrated and Palliative Care. In total, 62 individuals attended the overall workshop; 42 participated in the prioritisation sessions. A cross-section of health care professionals, researchers and people living with rare diseases were engaged at each workshop. Seventy-five individuals completed the final phase III public ranking by priority responses, and they ranked the top 15 research priorities defined by the multi-stakeholders at the phase II consensus meeting. Conclusions: This study identified priorities for rare diseases research aimed at improving the health and wellbeing of people living with rare diseases.

Understanding the implications of the Sustainable Development Goals for health policy and systems research: results of a research priority setting exercise

BACKGROUND

Given the paradigmatic shift represented by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as compared to the Millennium Development Goals - in particular their broad and interconnected nature - a new set of health policy and systems research (HPSR) priorities are needed to inform strategies to address these interconnected goals.

OBJECTIVES

To identify high priority HPSR questions linked to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.

METHODS

We focused on three themes that we considered to be central to achieving the health related SDGs: (i) Protecting and promoting access to health services through systems of social protection (ii) Strengthening multisectoral collaborations for health and (iii) Developing more participatory and accountable institutions. We conducted 54 semi-structured interviews and two focus group discussions to investigate policy-maker perspectives on evidence needs. We also conducted an overview of literature reviews in each theme. Information from these sub-studies was extracted into a matrix of possible research questions and developed into three domain-specific lists of 30-36 potential priority questions. Topic experts from the global research community then refined and ranked the proposed questions through an online platform. A final webinar on each theme sought feedback on findings.

RESULTS

Policy-makers continue to demand HPSR for many well-established issues such as health financing, human resources for health, and service delivery. In terms of service delivery, policy-makers wanted to know how best to strengthen primary health care and community-based systems. In the themes of social protection and multisectoral collaboration, prioritized questions had a strong emphasis on issues of practical implementation. For participatory and accountable institutions, the two priority questions focused on political factors affecting the adoption of accountability measures, as well as health worker reactions to such measures.

CONCLUSIONS

To achieve the SDGs, there is a continuing need for research in some already well established areas of HPSR as well as key areas highlighted by decision-makers. Identifying appropriate conceptual frameworks as well as typologies of examples may be a prerequisite for answering some of the substantive policymaker questions. In addition, implementation research engaging non-traditional stakeholders outside of the health sector will be critical.

Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE)

BACKGROUND

Research priority setting with stakeholders can help direct the limited resources for health research toward priority areas of need. Ensuring transparency of the priority setting process can strengthen legitimacy and credibility for influencing the research agenda. This study aims to develop a reporting guideline for priority setting of health research.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases and relevant websites for sources (frameworks, guidelines, or models for conducting, appraising, reporting or evaluating health research priority setting, and reviews (including systematic reviews)), and primary studies of research priority setting to July 2019. We inductively developed a list of reporting items and piloted the preliminary guideline with a diverse range of 30 priority setting studies from the records retrieved.

RESULTS

From 21,556 records, we included 26 sources for the candidate REPRISE framework and 455 primary research studies. The REporting guideline for PRIority SEtting of health research (REPRISE) has 31 reporting items that cover 10 domains: context and scope, governance and team, framework for priority setting, stakeholders/participants, identification and collection of priorities, prioritization of research topics, output, evaluation and feedback, translation and implementation, and funding and conflict of interest. Each reporting item includes a descriptor and examples.

CONCLUSIONS

The REPRISE guideline can facilitate comprehensive reporting of studies of research priority setting. Improved transparency in research priority setting may strengthen the acceptability and implementation of the research priorities identified, so that efforts and funding are invested in generating evidence that is of importance to all stakeholders.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable.

US nursing and midwifery research capacity building opportunities to achieve the United Nations sustainable development goals

To meet the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the United States, research by nurses and midwives has a real opportunity to make a significant impact. This paper identifies opportunities to strengthen research capacity in the United States amongst nurses and midwives in ways that will help meet the SDGs and ensure its sustainability. Research capacity means that in a country, there are individuals and teams capable of defining problems, setting priorities, establishing objectives for the goals of the research study, and following rigorous scientific procedures. By strengthening U.S. research capacity by addressing critical weaknesses in content expertise, nursing and midwifery's voices in policy dialogues, and global research initiatives will be have greater assurance of being included.

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.

Stakeholder involvement in health research priority setting in low income countries: the case of Zambia

SUMMARY

While there is increasing recognition of the importance of stakeholder involvement in health research priority setting there is a paucity of literature reporting on stakeholder involvement in health research priority setting in low income countries. This paper fills this gap by identifying and discussing the roles and legitimacy of different stakeholders (including the public and patients) involved in the health research priority setting process in Zambia; identifying the barriers to public participation and proposing improvement strategies.We interviewed 28 policy makers and practitioners who had participated in the national level health research priority setting in Zambia. Reported participants in health research priority setting included research users, researchers, research funders and the community/ public. Research funders were thought to have undue influence while the public and patients were not effectively involved. This could be due to the public's lack of education, lack of resources to facilitate public involvement and limited skills to meaningfully engage the public. Participation of people from rural areas, women and young professionals was also limited.While there is a commitment to broad stakeholder involvement in health research priority setting, there's limited public/patient involvement. Public education, availing more resources, and skills to meaningfully engage the public need to be explored. The undue influence of research funders should be mitigated and incentives availed to ensure that they align their research funding with the national priorities. These efforts would strengthen meaningful stakeholder engagement in health research prioritization within Zambia and other similar contexts.

ABSTRACT

Background Stakeholder involvement in health research priority setting contributes to the legitimacy and acceptability of the priorities. Hence legitimate priority setting should involve a broad representation of stakeholders including the public. While there is a growing body of literature on health research prioritization in low income countries, there is a paucity of literature reporting on stakeholder involvement in the process. The objectives of this paper are to; 1) identify the stakeholders who were involved in the health research priority setting process in Zambia; 2) discuss the roles and perceived legitimacy of the stakeholders and analyze the degree to which patients/ public was involved; 3) To discuss some of the barriers to stakeholder participation in Zambia and similar contexts and to propose improvement strategies.Methods This was a qualitative study involving 28 in-depth interviews with stakeholders who had participated in the national level health research priority setting exercises in Zambia. An interview guide was used. Audio recorded interviews were transcribed and analyzed using INVIVO 10. Analysis of the Stakeholders' theme involved identifying the different dimensions of stakeholder involvement as discussed in the interviews.Results Identified stakeholders included; research users, researchers, research funders and the community/ public. We found that health research priority setting involved research users, researchers, research funders and the community/ public. However, research funders were thought to have undue influence while the public and patients were not effectively involved. While the respondents recognized the advantages of involving the public and patients, they were not effectively involved. This could be due to the public's limited understanding of the technicalities of priority setting, lack of resources to facilitate public involvement and limited skills to meaningfully engage the public. Participation from rural areas, women, and young professionals was also limited.Conclusions While there is a commitment to broad stakeholder involvement in health research priority setting, the public is left out. Efforts such as public education, availing more resources, and skills to meaningfully engage the public need to be explored. The undue influence of research funders should be mitigated through their direct involvement in the prioritization process and incentives to ensure that they align their research funding with the national priorities. These efforts would strengthen meaningful stakeholder engagement in health research prioritization within Zambia and other similar contexts.

Identifying health policy and systems research priorities on multisectoral collaboration for health in low-income and middle-income countries

Introduction

While efforts to achieve Universal Health Coverage (UHC) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have reinvigorated interest in multisectoral collaborations (MSCs) among the global health and development community, there remains a plethora of questions about how best to conceptualise, plan, implement, evaluate and sustain MSCs. The objective of this paper is to present research priorities on MSC for health from researchers and policymakers around the globe, with an emphasis on low-income and middle-income countries.

Methods

The authors identified 30 priority research questions from two sources: (1) 38 review articles on MSC for health, and (2) interviews and focus groups with a total of 81 policymakers, including government officials (largely from ministries of health and state/provincial departments of health, but also offices of planning, public service, social development, the prime minister and others), large multilateral or bilateral organisations, and non-governmental organisations. In a third phase, questions were refined and ranked by a diverse group of researchers from around the globe using an online voting platform.

Results

The top-ranked questions focused predominantly on pragmatic questions, such as how best to structure, implement and sustain MSCs, as well as how to build stakeholder capacity and community partnerships. Despite substantial variation between review articles, policymakers’ reflections and online ranking by researchers, two topics emerged as research priorities for all three: (1) leadership, partnership and governance structures for MSCs; and (2) MSC implementation strategies and mechanisms. The review articles underscored the need for more guidance on appropriate study designs and methods for investigating MSCs, which may be a prerequisite for other identified research priorities.

Conclusion

These findings could inform efforts within and beyond the health sector to better align research objectives and funding with the evidence needs of policymakers grappling with questions about how best to leverage MSCs to achieve UHC and the SDGs.

Identifying health policy and systems research priorities for the sustainable development goals: social protection for health

BACKGROUND

There is an established body of evidence linking systems of social protection to health systems and health outcomes. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide further emphasis on this linkage as necessary to achieving health and non-health goals. Existing literature on social protection and health has focused primarily on cash transfers. We sought to identify potential research priorities concerning social protection and health in low and middle-income countries, from multiple perspectives.

METHODS

Priority research questions were identified through two sources: 1) research reviews on social protection interventions and health, 2) interviews with 54 policy makers from Ministries of Health, multi-lateral or bilateral organizations, and NGOs. Data was collated and summarized using a framework analysis approach. The final refining and ranking of the questions was completed by researchers from around the globe through an online platform.

RESULTS

The overview of reviews identified 5 main categories of social protection interventions: cash transfers; financial incentives and other demand side financing interventions; food aid and nutritional interventions; parental leave; and livelihood/social welfare interventions. Policy-makers focused on the implementation and practice of social protection and health, how social protection programs could be integrated with other sectors, and how they should be monitored/evaluated. A collated list resulted in 31 priority research questions. Scale and sustainability of social protection programs ranked highest. The top 10 research questions focused heavily on design, implementation, and context, with a range of interventions that included cash transfers, social insurance, and labor market interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

There is potentially a rich field of enquiry into the linkages between health systems and social protection programs, but research within this field has focused on a few relatively narrowly defined areas. The SDGs provide an impetus to the expansion of research of this nature, with priority setting exercises such as this helping to align funder investment with researcher effort and policy-maker evidence needs.

Advancing health research through research governance

Good governance practices are crucial for advancing research for health in LAC countries, argue Luis Alejandro Salicrup and colleagues

The quest for a framework for sustainable and institutionalised priority-setting for health research in a low-resource setting: the case of Zambia

Background

Priority-setting for health research in low-income countries remains a major challenge. While there have been efforts to systematise and improve the processes, most of the initiatives have ended up being a one-off exercise and are yet to be institutionalised. This could, in part, be attributed to the limited capacity for the priority-setting institutions to identify and fund their own research priorities, since most of the priority-setting initiatives are driven by experts. This paper reports findings from a pilot project whose aim was to develop a systematic process to identify components of a locally desirable and feasible health research priority-setting approach and to contribute to capacity strengthening for the Zambia National Health Research Authority.

Methods

Synthesis of the current literature on the approaches to health research prioritisations. The results of the synthesis were presented and discussed with a sample of Zambian researchers and decision-makers who are involved in health research priority-setting. The ultimate aim was for them to explore the different approaches available for guiding health research priority-setting and to identify an approach that would be relevant and feasible to implement and sustain within the Zambian context.

Results

Based on the evidence that was presented, the participants were unable to identify one approach that met the criteria. They identified attributes from the different approaches that they thought would be most appropriate and proposed a process that they deemed feasible within the Zambian context.

Conclusion

While it is easier to implement prioritisation based on one approach that the initiator might be interested in, researchers interested in capacity-building for health research priority-setting organisations should expose the low-income country participants to all approaches. Researchers ought to be aware that sometimes one shoe may not fit all, as in the case of Zambia, instead of choosing one approach, the stakeholders may select desirable attributes from the different approaches and piece together an approach that would be feasible and acceptable within their context. An approach that builds on the decision-makers’ understanding of their contexts and their input to its development would foster local ownership and has a greater potential for sustainability.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-017-0268-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A research utilisation framework for informing global health and development policies and programmes

A shift in the culture and practice of health and development research is required to maximise the real-world use of evidence by non-academic or non-research-oriented audiences. Many frameworks have been developed to guide and measure the research utilisation process, yet none have been widely applied. Some frameworks are simplified to an unrealistic linear representation while others are rendered overly complex and unusable in an attempt to capture all aspects of the research utilisation process. Additionally, many research utilisation frameworks have focused on the policy development process or within a clinical setting, with less application of the translation process at the programme level. In response to this gap – and drawing from over a decade of experience implementing research utilisation strategies – we developed a simple, four-phase framework to guide global health and development efforts that seek to apply evidence to policies and programmes. We present a detailed description of each phase in our framework, with examples of its relevance and application illustrated through our own case study experiences in global health. We believe the utility of this framework extends beyond the health sector and is relevant for maximising use of evidence to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.

'Knowledge for better health' revisited - the increasing significance of health research systems: a review by departing Editors-in-Chief

How can nations organise research investments to obtain the best bundle of knowledge and the maximum level of improved health, spread as equitably as possible? This question was the central focus of a major initiative from WHO led by Prof Tikki Pang, which resulted in a range of developments, including the publication of a conceptual framework for national health research systems - Knowledge for better health - in 2003, and in the founding of the journal Health Research Policy and Systems (HARPS). As Editors-in-Chief of the journal since 2006, we mark our retirement by tracking both the progress of the journal and the development of national health research systems. HARPS has maintained its focus on a range of central themes that are key components of a national health research system in any country. These include building capacity to conduct and use health research, identifying appropriate priorities, securing funds and allocating them accountably, producing scientifically valid research outputs, promoting the use of research in polices and practice in order to improve health, and monitoring and evaluating the health research system. Some of the themes covered in HARPS are now receiving increased attention and, for example, with the assessment of research impact and development of knowledge translation platforms, the journal has covered their progress throughout that expansion of interest. In addition, there is increasing recognition of new imperatives, including the importance of promoting gender equality in health research if benefits are to be maximised. In this Editorial, we outline some of the diverse and developing perspectives considered within each theme, as well as considering how they are held together by the growing desire to build effective health research systems in all countries.From 2003 until mid-June 2017, HARPS published 590 articles on the above and related themes, with authors being located in 76 countries. We present quantitative data tracing the journal's growth and the increasing external recognition of its role. We thank the many colleagues who have kindly contributed to the journal's success, and finish on an exciting note by welcoming the new Editors-in-Chief who will take HARPS forward.

The SPARK Tool to prioritise questions for systematic reviews in health policy and systems research: development and initial validation

Background

Groups or institutions funding or conducting systematic reviews in health policy and systems research (HPSR) should prioritise topics according to the needs of policymakers and stakeholders. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a tool to prioritise questions for systematic reviews in HPSR.

Methods

We developed the tool following a four-step approach consisting of (1) the definition of the purpose and scope of tool, (2) item generation and reduction, (3) testing for content and face validity, (4) and pilot testing of the tool. The research team involved international experts in HPSR, systematic review methodology and tool development, led by the Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK). We followed an inclusive approach in determining the final selection of items to allow customisation to the user’s needs.

Results

The purpose of the SPARK tool was to prioritise questions in HPSR in order to address them in systematic reviews. In the item generation and reduction phase, an extensive literature search yielded 40 relevant articles, which were reviewed by the research team to create a preliminary list of 19 candidate items for inclusion in the tool. As part of testing for content and face validity, input from international experts led to the refining, changing, merging and addition of new items, and to organisation of the tool into two modules. Following pilot testing, we finalised the tool, with 22 items organised in two modules – the first module including 13 items to be rated by policymakers and stakeholders, and the second including 9 items to be rated by systematic review teams. Users can customise the tool to their needs, by omitting items that may not be applicable to their settings. We also developed a user manual that provides guidance on how to use the SPARK tool, along with signaling questions.

Conclusion

We have developed and conducted initial validation of the SPARK tool to prioritise questions for systematic reviews in HPSR, along with a user manual. By aligning systematic review production to policy priorities, the tool will help support evidence-informed policymaking and reduce research waste. We invite others to contribute with additional real-life implementation of the tool.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-017-0242-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The perspective of European researchers of national occupational safety and health institutes for contributing to a European research agenda: a modified Delphi study

OBJECTIVES

This study, developed within the frame of the Partnership for European Research on Occupational Safety and Health joint research activities and based on the frame designed by the 2013 European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) study, is the first example of using the points of view of European occupational safety and health (OSH) researchers.The objective is to identify priorities for OSH research that may contribute to the achievement of present and future sustainable growth objectives set by the European strategies.

METHODS

The study was carried out using a modified Delphi method with a two-round survey. Each round involved a panel of about 110 researchers representing the network member institutes was selected according to specific criteria, including the ownership of research expertise in at least one of the four macroareas identified by the reference report developed by EU-OSHA in 2013.

RESULTS

The study identified some innovative research topics (for example, 'Emerging technological devices' and 'OSH consequences of markets integration') and research priorities (ie, crowdsourcing, e-work, zero-hours contracts) that are not reflected in previous studies of this nature.The absence of any reference to violence and harassment at work among the researchers' proposals is a major difference from previous similar studies, while topics related to gender issues and electromagnetic fields show a lower importance.

CONCLUSIONS

The innovative design of a research priorities identification process, which takes advantage of a large, representative and qualified panel of European researchers allowed the definition of a number of research priorities able to support the inclusion of innovative OSH research issues in the scope of the next European research agenda.

Health systems research in fragile and conflict-affected states: a research agenda-setting exercise

BACKGROUND

There is increasing interest amongst donors in investing in the health sectors of fragile and conflict-affected states, although there is limited research evidence and research funding to support this. Agreeing priority areas is therefore critical. This paper describes an 18-month process to develop a consultative research agenda and questions for health systems research, providing reflections on the process as well as its output.

METHODS

After a scoping review had been conducted, primary data was collected from August 2014 to September 2015. Data was collected using a mixture of methods, including an online survey (n = 61), two face-to-face group sessions (one with 11 participants; one with 17), email consultation (n = 18), a webinar (n = 65), and feedback via LinkedIn. Two steering committees of purposively selected experts guided the research process - a core steering committee (n = 10) and broad steering committee (n = 20). The process moved from developing broad topics and lists of research needs to grouping and honing them down into a smaller, prioritised agenda, with specific research questions associated to each topic.

RESULTS

An initial list of 146 topics was honed down to 25 research needs through this process, grouped thematically under transition and sustainability, resilience and fragility, gender and equity, accessibility, capacity building, actors and accountability, community, healthcare delivery, health workforce, and health financing. They were not ranked, as all health system areas are interdependent. The research agenda forms a starting point for local contextualisation and is not definitive.

CONCLUSIONS

A wide range of stakeholders participated in the different stages of this exercise, which produced a useful starting point for health systems research agenda setting in fragile and conflict-affected states. The process of engagement may have been as valuable for building a community of researchers as the product. It is now important to drive forward the research agenda. Without both a higher profile and deeper focus for this area, there is a real risk that fragile and conflict-affected states will continue to fall behind in global health and development goals.

Establishing research priorities for malaria elimination in the context of the emergency response to artemisinin resistance framework-the Cambodian approach

Background

Countries of the greater Mekong subregion have made a transition from malaria control to an aim for falciparum and vivax malaria elimination. The elimination of falciparum malaria will have to be achieved against a background of increasing artemisinin and multi-drug resistance. This ambitious goal requires an operational research (OR) agenda that addresses the dynamic challenges encountered on the path to elimination, which will need to be flexible and developed in close relation with the cambodian national programme for parasitology, entomology and malaria control (CNM). In Cambodia, a number of meetings with stakeholders were convened by the CNM and emergency response to artemisinin resistance (ERAR) hub, producing an initial list of priority OR topics. The process and outcome of these meetings are described, which could serve as a template for other countries in the region.

Methods

A landscaping exercise was conducted to gather all past, on-going and planned malaria focussed OR activities conducted by the cambodian research consortium in Cambodia and categorized according to research theme. The six themes included (1) malaria epidemiology, surveillance and response, (2) malaria case management, (3) malaria vector control, (4) malaria behavioural issues, (5) malaria clinical studies, and (6) other vector-borne diseases (dengue, neglected tropical diseases, soil-transmitted helminths). The different themes were discussed in small focus groups, which made an initial prioritization list which was then presented to a plenary group for further discussion. This produced a list of research questions ranked according to priority.

Results

OR priorities produced by the thematic groups were discussed in the plenary meeting and given a priority score by group voting. A list of 17 OR questions were developed, finalized and listed, which included questions on surveillance, active case detection and treatment efficacy.

Conclusion

This paper describes ERAR’s work on supporting Cambodia’s transition to malaria elimination by identifying national operational research priorities. ERAR has initiated and currently plays a critical role in the development of country specific research agendas for malaria elimination. The first example of this has been the described exercise in Cambodia, which could serve a template for setting OR priorities in the wider region.

Setting priorities in health research using the model proposed by the World Health Organization: development of a quantitative methodology using tuberculosis in South Africa as a worked example

Background

Setting priorities is important in health research given the limited resources available for research. Various guidelines exist to assist in the priority setting process; however, priority setting still faces significant challenges such as the clear ranking of identified priorities. The World Health Organization (WHO) proposed a Disability Adjusted Life Year (DALY)-based model to rank priorities by research area (basic, health systems and biomedical) by dividing the DALYs into ‘unavertable with existing interventions’, ‘avertable with improved efficiency’ and ‘avertable with existing but non-cost-effective interventions’, respectively. However, the model has conceptual flaws and no clear methodology for its construction. Therefore, the aim of this paper was to amend the model to address these flaws, and develop a clear methodology by using tuberculosis in South Africa as a worked example.

Methods

An amended model was constructed to represent total DALYs as the product of DALYs per person and absolute burden of disease. These figures were calculated for all countries from WHO datasets. The lowest figures achieved by any country were assumed to represent ‘unavertable with existing interventions’ if extrapolated to South Africa. The ratio of ‘cost per patient treated’ (adjusted for purchasing power and outcome weighted) between South Africa and the best country was used to calculate the ‘avertable with improved efficiency section’. Finally, ‘avertable with existing but non-cost-effective interventions’ was calculated using Disease Control Priorities Project efficacy data, and the ratio between the best intervention and South Africa’s current intervention, irrespective of cost.

Results

The amended model shows that South Africa has a tuberculosis burden of 1,009,837.3 DALYs; 0.009% of DALYs are unavertable with existing interventions and 96.3% of DALYs could be averted with improvements in efficiency. Of the remaining DALYs, a further 56.9% could be averted with existing but non-cost-effective interventions.

Conclusions

The amended model was successfully constructed using limited data sources. The generalizability of the data used is the main limitation of the model. More complex formulas are required to deal with such potential confounding variables; however, the results act as starting point for development of a more robust model.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-016-0081-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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

Growing consensus that health research funders should align their investments with national research priorities presupposes that such national priorities exist and are just. Arguably, justice requires national health research priority-setting to promote health equity. Such a position is consistent with recommendations made by the World Health Organization and at global ministerial summits that health research should serve to reduce health inequalities between and within countries. Thus far, no specific requirements for equity-oriented research priority-setting have been described to guide policymakers. As a step towards the explication and defence of such requirements, we propose that deep inclusion is a key procedural component of equity-oriented research priority-setting. We offer a model of deep inclusion that was developed by applying concepts from work on deliberative democracy and development ethics. This model consists of three dimensions--breadth, qualitative equality, and high-quality non-elite participation. Deep inclusion is captured not only by who is invited to join a decision-making process but also by how they are involved and by when non-elite stakeholders are involved. To clarify and illustrate the proposed dimensions, we use the sustained example of health systems research. We conclude by reviewing practical challenges to achieving deep inclusion. Despite the existence of barriers to implementation, our model can help policymakers and other stakeholders design more inclusive national health research priority-setting processes and assess these processes' depth of inclusion.

Global justice and health systems research in low- and middle-income countries

Scholarship focusing on how international research can contribute to justice in global health has primarily explored requirements for the conduct of clinical trials. Yet health systems research in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has increasingly been identified as vital to the reduction of health disparities between and within countries. This paper expands an existing ethical framework based on the health capability paradigm - research for health justice - to externally-funded health systems research in LMICs. It argues that a specific form of health systems research in LMICs is required if the enterprise is to advance global health equity. "Research for health justice" requirements for priority setting, research capacity strengthening, and post-study benefits in health systems research are derived in light of the field's distinctive characteristics. Specific obligations are established for external research actors, including governments, funders, sponsors, and investigators. How these framework requirements differ from those for international clinical research is discussed.

How are health research priorities set in low and middle income countries? A systematic review of published reports

BACKGROUND

Priority setting is increasingly recognised as essential for directing finite resources to support research that maximizes public health benefits and drives health equity. Priority setting processes have been undertaken in a number of low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings, using a variety of methods. We undertook a critical review of reports of these processes.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We searched electronic databases and online for peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed literature. We found 91 initiatives that met inclusion criteria. The majority took place at the global level (46%). For regional or national initiatives, most focused on Sub Saharan Africa (49%), followed by East Asia and Pacific (20%) and Latin America and the Caribbean (18%). A quarter of initiatives aimed to cover all areas of health research, with a further 20% covering communicable diseases. The most frequently used process was a conference or workshop to determine priorities (24%), followed by the Child Health and Nutrition Initiative (CHNRI) method (18%). The majority were initiated by an international organization or collaboration (46%). Researchers and government were the most frequently represented stakeholders. There was limited evidence of any implementation or follow-up strategies. Challenges in priority setting included engagement with stakeholders, data availability, and capacity constraints.

CONCLUSIONS

Health research priority setting (HRPS) has been undertaken in a variety of LMIC settings. While not consistently used, the application of established methods provides a means of identifying health research priorities in a repeatable and transparent manner. In the absence of published information on implementation or evaluation, it is not possible to assess what the impact and effectiveness of health research priority setting may have been.

Assessment of capacity for Health Policy and Systems Research and Analysis in seven African universities: results from the CHEPSAA project

The importance of health policy and systems research and analysis (HPSR+A) is widely recognized. Universities are central to strengthening and sustaining the HPSR+A capacity as they teach the next generation of decision-makers and health professionals. However, little is known about the capacity of universities, specifically, to develop the field. In this article, we report results of capacity self- assessments by seven universities within five African countries, conducted through the Consortium for Health Policy and Systems Analysis in Africa (CHEPSAA). The capacity assessments focused on both capacity 'assets' and 'needs', and covered the wider context, as well as organizational and individual capacity levels. Six thematic areas of capacity were examined: leadership and governance, organizations' resources, scope of HPSR+A teaching and research, communication, networking and getting research into policy and practice (GRIPP), demand for HPRS+A and resource environment. The self-assessments by each university used combinations of document reviews, semi-structured interviews and staff surveys, followed by comparative analysis. A framework approach, guided by the six thematic areas, was used to analyse data. We found that HPSR+A is an international priority, and an existing activity in Africa, though still neglected field with challenges including its reliance on unpredictable international funding. All universities have capacity assets, such as ongoing HPSR+A teaching and research. There are, however, varying levels of assets (such as differences in staff numbers, group sizes and amount of HPSR+A teaching and research), which, combined with different capacity needs at all three levels (such as individual training, improvement in systems for quality assurance and fostering demand for HPSR+A work), can shape a future agenda for HPSR+A capacity strengthening. Capacity assets and needs at different levels appear related. Possible integrated strategies for strengthening universities' capacity include: refining HPSR+A vision, mainstreaming the subject into under- and post-graduate teaching, developing emerging leaders and aligning HPSR+A capacity strengthening within the wider organizational development.

Systematic reviews addressing identified health policy priorities in Eastern Mediterranean countries: a situational analysis

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews can offer policymakers and stakeholders concise, transparent, and relevant evidence pertaining to pressing policy priorities to help inform the decision-making process. The production and the use of systematic reviews are specifically limited in the Eastern Mediterranean region. The extent to which published systematic reviews address policy priorities in the region is still unknown. This situational analysis exercise aims at assessing the extent to which published systematic reviews address policy priorities identified by policymakers and stakeholders in Eastern Mediterranean region countries. It also provides an overview about the state of systematic review production in the region and identifies knowledge gaps.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of the Health System Evidence database to identify published systematic reviews on policy-relevant priorities pertaining to the following themes: human resources for health, health financing, the role of the non-state sector, and access to medicine. Priorities were identified from two priority-setting exercises conducted in the region. We described the distribution of these systematic reviews across themes, sub-themes, authors' affiliations, and countries where included primary studies were conducted.

RESULTS

Out of the 1,045 systematic reviews identified in Health System Evidence on selected themes, a total of 200 systematic reviews (19.1%) addressed the priorities from the Eastern Mediterranean region. The theme with the largest number of systematic reviews included was human resources for health (115) followed by health financing (33), access to medicine (27), and role of the non-state sector (25). Authors based in the region produced only three systematic reviews addressing regional priorities (1.5%). Furthermore, no systematic review focused on the Eastern Mediterranean region. Primary studies from the region had limited contribution to systematic reviews; 17 systematic reviews (8.5%) included primary studies conducted in the region.

CONCLUSIONS

There are still gaps in the production of systematic reviews addressing policymakers' and stakeholders' priorities in the Eastern Mediterranean region. Efforts should be directed towards better aligning systematic review production with policy needs and priorities. Study findings can inform the agendas of researchers, research institutions, and international funding agencies of priority areas where systematic reviews are required.

Stakeholders' perspectives on access-to-medicines policy and research priorities in Latin America and the Caribbean: face-to-face and web-based interviews

Background

This study aims to rank policy concerns and policy-related research issues in order to identify policy and research gaps on access to medicines (ATM) in low- and middle-income countries in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), as perceived by policy makers, researchers, NGO and international organization representatives, as part of a global prioritization exercise.

Methods

Data collection, conducted between January and May 2011, involved face-to-face interviews in El Salvador, Colombia, Dominican Republic, and Suriname, and an e-mail survey with key-stakeholders. Respondents were asked to choose the five most relevant criteria for research prioritization and to score policy/research items according to the degree to which they represented current policies, desired policies, current research topics, and/or desired research topics. Mean scores and summary rankings were obtained. Linear regressions were performed to contrast rankings concerning current and desired policies (policy gaps), and current and desired research (research gaps).

Results

Relevance, feasibility, and research utilization were the top ranked criteria for prioritizing research. Technical capacity, research and development for new drugs, and responsiveness, were the main policy gaps. Quality assurance, staff technical capacity, price regulation, out-of-pocket payments, and cost containment policies, were the main research gaps. There was high level of coherence between current and desired policies: coefficients of determination (R²) varied from 0.46 (Health system structure; r = 0.68, P <0.01) to 0.86 (Sustainable financing; r = 0.93, P <0.01). There was also high coherence between current and desired research on Rational selection and use of medicines (r = 0.71, P <0.05, R² = 0.51), Pricing/affordability (r = 0.82, P <0.01, R² = 0.67), and Sustainable financing (r = 0.76, P <0.01, R² = 0.58). Coherence was less for Health system structure (r = 0.61, P <0.01, R² = 0.38).

Conclusions

This study combines metrics approaches, contributing to priority setting methodology development, with country and regional level stakeholder participation. Stakeholders received feedback with the results, and we hope to have contributed to the discussion and implementation of ATM research and policy priorities in LAC.

Scientometric trends and knowledge maps of global health systems research

BACKGROUND

In the last few decades, health systems research (HSR) has garnered much attention with a rapid increase in the related literature. This study aims to review and evaluate the global progress in HSR and assess the current quantitative trends.

METHODS

Based on data from the Web of Science database, scientometric methods and knowledge visualization techniques were applied to evaluate global scientific production and develop trends of HSR from 1900 to 2012.

RESULTS

HSR has increased rapidly over the past 20 years. Currently, there are 28,787 research articles published in 3,674 journals that are listed in 140 Web of Science subject categories. The research in this field has mainly focused on public, environmental and occupational health (6,178, 21.46%), health care sciences and services (5,840, 20.29%), and general and internal medicine (3,783, 13.14%). The top 10 journals had published 2,969 (10.31%) articles and received 5,229 local citations and 40,271 global citations. The top 20 authors together contributed 628 papers, which accounted for a 2.18% share in the cumulative worldwide publications. The most productive author was McKee, from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, with 48 articles. In addition, USA and American institutions ranked the first in health system research productivity, with high citation times, followed by the UK and Canada.

CONCLUSIONS

HSR is an interdisciplinary area. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries showed they are the leading nations in HSR. Meanwhile, American and Canadian institutions and the World Health Organization play a dominant role in the production, collaboration, and citation of high quality articles. Moreover, health policy and analysis research, health systems and sub-systems research, healthcare and services research, health, epidemiology and economics of communicable and non-communicable diseases, primary care research, health economics and health costs, and pharmacy of hospital have been identified as the mainstream topics in HSR fields. These findings will provide evidence of the current status and trends in HSR all over the world, as well as clues to the impact of this popular topic; thus, helping scientific researchers and policy makers understand the panorama of HSR and predict the dynamic directions of research.

Health policy and systems research in access to medicines: a prioritized agenda for low- and middle-income countries

OBJECTIVES

To identify priority policy issues in access to medicines (ATM) relevant for low- and middle-income countries, to identify research questions that would help address these policy issues, and to prioritize these research questions in a health policy and systems research (HPSR) agenda.

METHODS

The study involved i) country- and regional-level priority-setting exercises performed in 17 countries across five regions, with a desk review of relevant grey and published literature combined with mapping and interviews of national and regional stakeholders; ii) interviews with global-level stakeholders; iii) a scoping of published literature; and iv) a consensus building exercise with global stakeholders which resulted in the formulation and ranking of HPSR questions in the field of ATM.

RESULTS

A list of 18 priority policy issues was established following analysis of country-, regional-, and global-level exercises. Eighteen research questions were formulated during the global stakeholders' meeting and ranked according to four ranking criteria (innovation, impact on health and health systems, equity, and lack of research). The top three research questions were: i) In risk protection schemes, which innovations and policies improve equitable access to and appropriate use of medicines, sustainability of the insurance system, and financial impact on the insured? ii) How can stakeholders use the information available in the system, e.g., price, availability, quality, utilization, registration, procurement, in a transparent way towards improving access and use of medicines? and iii) How do policies and other interventions into private markets, such as information, subsidies, price controls, donation, regulatory mechanisms, promotion practices, etc., impact on access to and appropriate use of medicines?

CONCLUSIONS

Our HPSR agenda adopts a health systems perspective and will guide relevant, innovative research, likely to bear an impact on health, health systems and equity.

Research priority setting for health policy and health systems strengthening in Nigeria: the policymakers and stakeholders perspective and involvement

Introduction

Nigeria is one of the low and middle income countries (LMICs) facing severe resource constraint, making it impossible for adequate resources to be allocated to the health sector. Priority setting becomes imperative because it guides investments in health care, health research and respects resource constraints. The objective of this study was to enhance the knowledge and understanding of policymakers on research priority setting and to conduct a research priority setting exercise.

Methods

A one-day evidence-to-policy research priority setting meeting was held. The meeting participants included senior and middle level policymakers and key decision makers/stakeholders in the health sector in Ebonyi State southeastern Nigeria. The priorities setting meeting involved a training session on priority setting process and conduction of priority setting exercise using the essential national health research (ENHR) approach. The focus was on the health systems building blocks (health workforce; health finance; leadership/governance; medical products/technology; service delivery; and health information/evidence).

Results

Of the total of 92 policymakers invited 90(97.8%) attended the meeting. It was the consensus of the policymakers that research should focus on the challenges of optimal access to health products and technology; effective health service delivery and disease control under a national emergency situation; the shortfalls in the supply of professional personnel; and the issues of governance in the health sector management.

Conclusion

Research priority setting exercise involving policymakers is an example of demand driven strategy in the health policymaking process capable of reversing inequities and strengthening the health systems in LMICs.

Access to essential medicines in Pakistan: policy and health systems research concerns

INTRODUCTION

Inadequate access to essential medicines is a common issue within developing countries. Policy response is constrained, amongst other factors, by a dearth of in-depth country level evidence. We share here i) gaps related to access to essential medicine in Pakistan; and ii) prioritization of emerging policy and research concerns.

METHODS

An exploratory research was carried out using a health systems perspective and applying the WHO Framework for Equitable Access to Essential Medicine. Methods involved key informant interviews with policy makers, providers, industry, NGOs, experts and development partners, review of published and grey literature, and consultative prioritization in stakeholder's Roundtable.

FINDINGS

A synthesis of evidence found major gaps in essential medicine access in Pakistan driven by weaknesses in the health care system as well as weak pharmaceutical regulation. 7 major policy concerns and 11 emerging research concerns were identified through consultative Roundtable. These related to weaknesses in medicine registration and quality assurance systems, unclear and counterproductive pricing policies, irrational prescribing and sub-optimal drug availability. Available research, both locally and globally, fails to target most of the identified policy concerns, tending to concentrate on irrational prescriptions. It overlooks trans-disciplinary areas of policy effectiveness surveillance, consumer behavior, operational pilots and pricing interventions review.

CONCLUSION

Experience from Pakistan shows that policy concerns related to essential medicine access need integrated responses across various components of the health systems, are poorly addressed by existing evidence, and require an expanded health systems research agenda.

Health research funding in Mexico: the need for a long-term agenda

Background

The legal framework and funding mechanisms of the national health research system were recently reformed in Mexico. A study of the resource allocation for health research is still missing. We identified the health research areas funded by the National Council on Science and Technology (CONACYT) and examined whether research funding has been aligned to national health problems.

Methods and Findings

We collected the information to create a database of research grant projects supported through the three main Sectoral Funds managed by CONACYT between 2003 and 2010. The health-related projects were identified and classified according to their methodological approach and research objective. A correlation analysis was carried out to evaluate the association between disease-specific funding and two indicators of disease burden. From 2003 to 2010, research grant funding increased by 32% at a compound annual growth rate of 3.5%. By research objective, the budget fluctuated annually resulting in modest increments or even decrements during the period under analysis. The basic science category received the largest share of funding (29%) while the less funded category was violence and accidents (1.4%). The number of deaths (ρ = 0.51; P<0.001) and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs; ρ = 0.33; P = 0.004) were weakly correlated with the funding for health research. Considering the two indicators, poisonings and infectious and parasitic diseases were among the most overfunded conditions. In contrast, congenital anomalies, road traffic accidents, cerebrovascular disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were the most underfunded conditions.

Conclusions

Although the health research funding has grown since the creation of CONACYT sectoral funds, the financial effort is still low in comparison to other Latin American countries with similar development. Furthermore, the great diversity of the funded topics compromises the efficacy of the investment. Better mechanisms of research priority-setting are required to adjust the research portfolio to the new health panorama of Mexican population.

Contribution mapping: a method for mapping the contribution of research to enhance its impact

Background

At a time of growing emphasis on both the use of research and accountability, it is important for research funders, researchers and other stakeholders to monitor and evaluate the extent to which research contributes to better action for health, and find ways to enhance the likelihood that beneficial contributions are realized. Past attempts to assess research 'impact' struggle with operationalizing 'impact', identifying the users of research and attributing impact to research projects as source. In this article we describe Contribution Mapping, a novel approach to research monitoring and evaluation that aims to assess contributions instead of impacts. The approach focuses on processes and actors and systematically assesses anticipatory efforts that aim to enhance contributions, so-called alignment efforts. The approach is designed to be useful for both accountability purposes and for assisting in better employing research to contribute to better action for health.

Methods

Contribution Mapping is inspired by a perspective from social studies of science on how research and knowledge utilization processes evolve. For each research project that is assessed, a three-phase process map is developed that includes the main actors, activities and alignment efforts during research formulation, production and knowledge extension (e.g. dissemination and utilization). The approach focuses on the actors involved in, or interacting with, a research project (the linked actors) and the most likely influential users, who are referred to as potential key users. In the first stage, the investigators of the assessed project are interviewed to develop a preliminary version of the process map and first estimation of research-related contributions. In the second stage, potential key-users and other informants are interviewed to trace, explore and triangulate possible contributions. In the third stage, the presence and role of alignment efforts is analyzed and the preliminary results are shared with relevant stakeholders for feedback and validation. After inconsistencies are clarified or described, the results are shared with stakeholders for learning, improvement and accountability purposes.

Conclusion

Contribution Mapping provides an interesting alternative to existing methods that aim to assess research impact. The method is expected to be useful for research monitoring, single case studies, comparing multiple cases and indicating how research can better be employed to contribute to better action for health.