1
|
Fadlallah R, Daher N, El-Harakeh A, Hammam R, Brax H, Bou Karroum L, Lopes LC, Arnous G, Kassamany I, Baltayan S, Harb A, Lotfi T, El-Jardali F, Akl EA. Approaches to prioritising primary health research: a scoping review. BMJ Glob Health 2022; 7:bmjgh-2021-007465. [PMID: 35501067 PMCID: PMC9062777 DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-007465] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/20/2021] [Accepted: 02/28/2022] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Racha Fadlallah
- Department of Health Management and Policy, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.,Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.,Knowledge to Policy (K2P) Center, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Najla Daher
- Knowledge to Policy (K2P) Center, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Amena El-Harakeh
- Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.,Clinical Research Institute, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Rima Hammam
- Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Hneine Brax
- Faculty of Medicine, Université Saint-Joseph, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Lama Bou Karroum
- Department of Health Management and Policy, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.,Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.,Knowledge to Policy (K2P) Center, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | | | - Ghida Arnous
- Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Inas Kassamany
- Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Stephanie Baltayan
- Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Aya Harb
- Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Tamara Lotfi
- Clinical Research Institute, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Fadi El-Jardali
- Department of Health Management and Policy, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.,Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.,Knowledge to Policy (K2P) Center, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Elie A Akl
- Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon .,Clinical Research Institute, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.,Department of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Kok MO, Gyapong JO, Wolffers I, Ofori-Adjei D, Ruitenberg J. Which health research gets used and why? An empirical analysis of 30 cases. Health Res Policy Syst 2016; 14:36. [PMID: 27188305 PMCID: PMC4869365 DOI: 10.1186/s12961-016-0107-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 62] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/26/2015] [Accepted: 04/21/2016] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND While health research is considered essential for improving health worldwide, it remains unclear how it is best organized to contribute to health. This study examined research that was part of a Ghanaian-Dutch research program that aimed to increase the likelihood that results would be used by funding research that focused on national research priorities and was led by local researchers. The aim of this study was to map the contribution of this research to action and examine which features of research and translation processes were associated with the use of the results. METHODS Using Contribution Mapping, we systematically examined how 30 studies evolved and how results were used to contribute to action. We combined interviews with 113 purposively selected key informants, document analysis and triangulation to map how research and translation processes evolved and contributions to action were realized. After each case was analysed separately, a cross-case analysis was conducted to identify patterns in the association between features of research processes and the use of research. RESULTS The results of 20 of the 30 studies were used to contribute to action within 12 months. The priority setting and proposal selection process led to the funding of studies which were from the outset closely aligned with health sector priorities. Research was most likely to be used when it was initiated and conducted by people who were in a position to use their results in their own work. The results of 17 out of 18 of these user-initiated studies were translated into action. Other features of research that appeared to contribute to its use were involving potential key users in formulating proposals and developing recommendations. CONCLUSIONS Our study underlines the importance of supporting research that meets locally-expressed needs and that is led by people embedded in the contexts in which results can be used. Supporting the involvement of health sector professionals in the design, conduct and interpretation of research appears to be an especially worthwhile investment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maarten Olivier Kok
- Institute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
- VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | | | - Ivan Wolffers
- Department of Health Care and Culture, VU University Medical Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - David Ofori-Adjei
- Noguchi Memorial Institute for Medical Research, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana
| | | |
Collapse
|