Donor funding health policy and systems research in low- and middle-income countries: how much, from where and to whom

The financial burden of noncommunicable diseases from out-of-pocket expenditure in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review

The growing financial burden of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) hinders the attainment of the sustainable development goals. However, there has been no updated synthesis of evidence in this regard. Therefore, our study summarizes the current evidence in the literature and identifies the gaps. We systematically search relevant databases (PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest) between 2015 and 2023, focusing on empirical studies on NCDs and their financial burden indicators, namely, catastrophic health expenditure (CHE), impoverishment, coping strategies, crowding-out effects and unmet needs for financial reasons (UNFRs) in SSA. We examined the distribution of the indicators, their magnitudes, methodological approaches and the depth of analysis. The 71 included studies mostly came from single-country (n = 64), facility-based (n = 52) research in low-income (n = 22), lower-middle-income (n = 47) and upper-middle-income (n = 10) countries in SSA. Approximately 50% of the countries lacked studies (n = 25), with 46% coming from West Africa. Cancer, cardiovascular disease (CVD) and diabetes were the most commonly studied NCDs, with cancer and CVD causing the most financial burden. The review revealed methodological deficiencies related to lack of depth, equity analysis and robustness. CHE was high (up to 95.2%) in lower-middle-income countries but low in low-income and upper-middle-income countries. UNFR was almost 100% in both low-income and lower-middle-income countries. The use of extreme coping strategies was most common in low-income countries. There are no studies on crowding-out effect and pandemic-related UNFR. This study underscores the importance of expanded research that refines the methodological estimation of the financial burden of NCDs in SSA for equity implications and policy recommendations.

Building Health Policy and Systems Research (HPSR) capacity in India: Reflections from the India HPSR fellowship program (2020-2023)

Building capacity for Health Policy and Systems Research (HPSR) is critical for advancing the field in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The India HPSR fellowship program is a home-grown capacity-building initiative, anchored at the Health Systems Transformation Platform (HSTP), New Delhi, and developed in collaboration with a network of institutes in India and abroad. In this practice-oriented commentary, we provide an overview of the fellowship program and critically reflect upon the learnings from working with three cohorts of fellows between 2020 and 2023. This commentary draws on routine program documentation (guidelines, faculty meeting reports, minutes of meetings of curricula and course development) as well as the perspectives of faculty and program managers associated with the fellowship. We have had several important learnings in the initial years of program implementation. One, it is important to iteratively modify globally available curricula and pedagogies on HPSR to suit country-specific requirements and include a strong component of 'unlearning' in such fellowships. Secondly, the goals of such fellowship programs need to be designed with country-specific contextual realities in mind. For instance, should publication of fellows' work be an intended goal, then contextual deterrents to publication such as article processing fees, language barriers and work-related obligations of faculty and participants need to be addressed. Furthermore, to improve the policy translation of fellows' work, such programs need to make broader efforts to strengthen research-policy-practice interfaces. Lastly, fellowship programs are cost-intensive, and outputs from them, such as papers or policy translation, are less immediate and less visible to donors. In the absence of these outputs, consistent funding can be a roadblock to sustaining these fellowships in LMICs. The experience of our fellowship program suggests that LMIC-led capacity-building initiatives on HPSR have the potential to influence changes in health systems and build the capacity of researchers to generate evidence for policy-making. The sharing of resources and teaching material through the fellowship can enable learning for all institutions involved. Furthermore, such initiatives can serve as a launchpad for the creation of regional and international HPSR communities of practice, with a focus on LMICs, thereby challenging epistemic injustice in teaching and learning HPSR.

Health system description and assessment: a scoping review of templates for systematic analyses

BACKGROUND

Understanding and comparing health systems is key for cross-country learning and health system strengthening. Templates help to develop standardised and coherent descriptions and assessments of health systems, which then allow meaningful analyses and comparisons. Our scoping review aims to provide an overview of existing templates, their content and the way data is presented.

MAIN BODY

Based on the WHO building blocks framework, we defined templates as having (1) an overall framework, (2) a list of indicators or topics, and (3) instructions for authors, while covering (4) the design of the health system, (5) an assessment of health system performance, and (6) should cover the entire health system. We conducted a scoping review of grey literature published between 2000 and 2023 to identify templates. The content of the identified templates was screened, analyzed and compared. We found 12 documents that met our inclusion criteria. The building block `health financing´ is covered in all 12 templates; and many templates cover ´service delivery´ and ´health workforce'. Health system performance is frequently assessed with regard to 'access and coverage', 'quality and safety', and 'financial protection'. Most templates do not cover 'responsiveness' and 'efficiency'. Seven templates combine quantitative and qualitative data, three are mostly quantitative, and two are primarily qualitative. Templates cover data and information that is mostly relevant for specific groups of countries, e.g. a particular geographical region, or for high or for low and middle-income countries (LMICs). Templates for LMICs rely more on survey-based indicators than administrative data.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first scoping review of templates for standardized descriptions of health systems and assessments of their performance. The implications are that (1) templates can help analyze health systems across countries while accounting for context; (2) template-guided analyses of health systems could underpin national health policies, strategies, and plans; (3) organizations developing templates could learn from approaches of other templates; and (4) more research is needed on how to improve templates to better achieve their goals. Our findings provide an overview and help identify the most important aspects and topics to look at when comparing and analyzing health systems, and how data are commonly presented. The templates were created by organizations with different agendas and target audiences, and with different end products in mind. Comprehensive health systems analyses and comparisons require production of quantitative indicators and complementing them with qualitative information to build a holistic picture.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

  Not applicable.

Analysis of funding landscape for health policy and systems research in the Eastern Mediterranean Region: A scoping review of the literature over the past decade

BACKGROUND

Health policy and systems research (HPSR) can strengthen health systems and improve population health outcomes. In the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR), there is limited recognition of the importance of HPSR and funding remains the main challenge. This study seeks to: (1) assess the reporting of funding in HPSR papers published between 2010 and 2022 in the EMR, (2) examine the source of funding in the published HPSR papers in the EMR and (3) explore variables influencing funding sources, including any difference in funding sources for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related articles.

METHODS

We conducted a rapid scoping review of HPSR papers published between 2010 and 2022 (inclusively) in the EMR, addressing the following areas: reporting of funding in HPSR papers, source of funding in the published HPSR papers, authors' affiliations and country of focus. We followed the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines for conducting scoping reviews. We also conducted univariate and bivariate analyses for all variables at 0.05 significance level.

RESULTS

Of 10,797 articles screened, 3408 were included (of which 9.3% were COVID-19-related). More than half of the included articles originated from three EMR countries: Iran (n = 1018, 29.9%), the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (n = 595, 17.5%) and Pakistan (n = 360, 10.6%). Approximately 30% of the included articles did not report any details on study funding. Among articles that reported funding (n = 1346, 39.5%), analysis of funding sources across all country income groups revealed that the most prominent source was national (55.4%), followed by international (41.7%) and lastly regional sources (3%). Among the national funding sources, universities accounted for 76.8%, while governments accounted for 14.9%. Further analysis of funding sources by country income group showed that, in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, all or the majority of funding came from international sources, while in high-income and upper-middle-income countries, national funding sources, mainly universities, were the primary sources of funding. The majority of funded articles' first authors were affiliated with academia/university, while a minority were affiliated with government, healthcare organizations or intergovernmental organizations. We identified the following characteristics to be significantly associated with the funding source: country income level, the focus of HPSR articles (within the EMR only, or extending beyond the EMR as part of international research consortia), and the first author's affiliation. Similar funding patterns were observed for COVID-19-related HPSR articles, with national funding sources (78.95%), mainly universities, comprising the main source of funding. In contrast, international funding sources decreased to 15.8%.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to address the reporting of funding and funding sources in published HPSR articles in the EMR. Approximately 30% of HPSR articles did not report on the funding source. Study findings revealed heavy reliance on universities and international funding sources with minimal role of national governments and regional entities in funding HPSR articles in the EMR. We provide implications for policy and practice to enhance the profile of HPSR in the region.

"Research ends with publication": a qualitative study on the use of health policy and systems research in Ethiopia

BACKGROUND

Decision-making about the design and implementation of health care policies should be supported by research evidence. This article reports on a qualitative study on the experiences of both research institutes and policymakers in Ethiopia in generating and using research evidence to inform health policy decision-making.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted from January through March 2020, with representatives of research institutes and with policymakers in Ethiopia. The data collected during the interviews were analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

Half of the institutions represented had engaged in health policy and systems research (HPSR). These institutes' capacities were limited by multiple factors, including unsupportive research environments; the limited number of researchers with extensive experience; high turnover among senior researchers; lack of staff motivation mechanisms; underdeveloped research culture; limited technical and analytical capacity among researchers; lack of core funding for HPSR; ineffective financial management; and, lack of connections with health policy platforms. Research institutes also lacked the capacity in strategic packaging of findings to influence policy decision-making, although some programs have recently improved in this area. Meanwhile, there lacked a culture of using evidence in policymaking settings. In general, we found that policymakers had poor attitudes towards the quality or value of the evidence, and had little capacity to interpret evidence and apply findings to policy options. As a result, much of the research produced by the institutes have only been relevant academically, with little impact on policy. However, respondents reported that the environment is slowly changing, and the recent creation of a Research Advisory Council at the Ministry of Health offers a promising model.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite some recent changes, in Ethiopia researchers and policymakers alike often tend to consider health policy and systems research (HPSR) to be not very valuable since the findings generated are rarely used for evidence-informed policy development. Research institutes and researchers need to strengthen their technical, analytical, and administrative capacities (through, among other efforts, seeking more funding for research, and better incentives to attract, retain and build skills among qualified researchers); they also need to improve their understanding of the evidence-to-policy cycle and how to engage effectively with policymakers.

Institutional roles, structures, funding and research partnerships towards evidence-informed policy-making: a multisector survey among policy-makers in Nigeria

BACKGROUND

Evidence-informed policy-making aims to ensure that the best and most relevant evidence is systematically generated and used for policy-making. The aim of this study was to assess institutional structures, funding, policy-maker perspectives on researcher-policy-maker interactions and the use of research evidence in policy-making in five states in Nigeria.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study carried out among 209 participants from two geopolitical zones in Nigeria. Study participants included programme officers/secretaries, managers/department/facility heads and state coordinators/directors/presidents/chairpersons in various ministries and the National Assembly. A pretested semi-structured self-administered questionnaire on a five-point Likert scale was used to collect information on institutional structures for policy and policy-making in participants' organizations, the use of research evidence in policy and policy-making processes, and the status of funding for policy-relevant research in the participants' organizations. Data were analysed using IBM SPSS version 20 software.

RESULTS

The majority of the respondents were older than 45 years (73.2%), were male (63.2) and had spent 5 years or less (74.6%) in their present position. The majority of the respondents' organizations had a policy in place on research involving all key stakeholders (63.6%), integration of stakeholders' views within the policy on research (58.9%) and a forum to coordinate the setting of research priorities (61.2%). A high mean score of 3.26 was found for the use of routine data generated from within the participants' organizations. Funding for policy-relevant research was captured in the budget (mean = 3.47) but was inadequate (mean = 2.53) and mostly donor-driven (mean = 3.64). Funding approval and release/access processes were also reported to be cumbersome, with mean scores of 3.74 and 3.89, respectively. The results showed that capacity existed among career policy-makers and the Department of Planning, Research and Statistics to advocate for internal funds (mean = 3.55) and to attract external funds such as grants (3.76) for policy-relevant research. Interaction as part of the priority-setting process (mean = 3.01) was the most highly rated form of policy-maker-researcher interaction, while long-term partnerships with researchers (mean = 2.61) had the lower mean score. The agreement that involving policy-makers in the planning and execution of programmes could enhance the evidence-to-policy process had the highest score (mean = 4.40).

CONCLUSION

The study revealed that although institutional structures such as institutional policies, fora and stakeholder engagement existed in the organizations studied, there was suboptimal use of evidence obtained from research initiated by both internal and external researchers. Organizations surveyed had budget lines for research, but this funding was depicted as inadequate. There was suboptimal actual participation of policy-makers in the co-creation, production and dissemination of evidence. The implementation of contextually relevant and sustained mutual institutional policy-maker-researcher engagement approaches is needed to promote evidence-informed policy-making. Thus there is a need for institutional prioritization and commitment to research evidence generation.

Global financing for health policy and systems research: a review of funding opportunities

Health policy and systems research (HPSR) is a neglected area in global health financing. Despite repeated calls for greater investment, it seems that there has been little growth. We analysed trends in reported funding and activity between 2015 and 2021 using a novel real-time source of global health data, the Devex.com database, the world's largest source of funding opportunities related to international development. We performed a systematic search of the Devex.com database for HPSR-related terms with a focus on low- and middle-income countries. We included 'programs', 'tenders & grants' and 'contract awards', covering all call statuses (open, closed or forecast). Such funding opportunities were included if they were related specifically to HPSR funding or had an HPSR component; pure biomedical funding was excluded. Our findings reveal a relative neglect of HPSR, as only ∼2% of all global health funding calls included a discernible HPSR component. Despite increases in funding calls until 2019, this situation reversed in 2020, likely reflecting the redirection of resources to rapid assessments of the impacts of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Most identified projects represented small-scale opportunities-commonly for consultancies or technical assistance. To the extent that new data were generated, these projects were either tied to a specific large intervention or were narrow in scope to meet a specific challenge-with many examples informing policy responses to the Covid-19 pandemic. Nearly half of advertised funding opportunities were multi-country projects, usually addressing global policy priorities like health systems strengthening or development of coordinated public health policies at a regional level. The Covid-19 pandemic has shown why investing in HPSR is more important than ever to enable the delivery of effective health interventions and avoid costly implementation failures. The evidence presented here highlights the need to scale up efforts to convince global health funders to institutionalize the inclusion of HPSR components in all funding calls.

Donor support for Health Policy and Systems Research: barriers to financing and opportunities for overcoming them

BACKGROUND

The vast investments that have been made in recent decades in new medicines, vaccines, and technologies will only lead to improvements in health if there are appropriate and well-functioning health systems to make use of them. However, despite the growing acceptance by major global donors of the importance of health systems, there is an enthusiasm gap when it comes to disbursing funds needed to understand the intricacies of how, why and when these systems deliver effective interventions. To understand the reasons behind this, we open up the black box of donor decision-making vis-à-vis Health Policy and Systems Research (HPSR) financing: what are the organizational processes behind the support for HPSR, and what are the barriers to increasing engagement?

METHODS

We conducted 27 semi-structured interviews with staff of major global health funders, asking them about four key issues: motivations for HPSR financing; priorities in HPSR financing; barriers for increasing HPSR allocations; and challenges or opportunities for the future. We transcribed the interviews and manually coded responses.

RESULTS

Our findings point to the growing appreciation that funders have of HPSR, even though it is often still seen as an 'afterthought' to larger programmatic interventions. In identifying barriers to funding HPSR, our informants emphasised the perceived lack of mandate and capacities of their organizations. For most funding organisations, a major barrier was that their leadership often voiced scepticism about HPSR's long time horizons and limited ability to quantify results.

CONCLUSION

Meeting contemporary health challenges requires strong and effective health systems. By allocating more resources to HPSR, global donors can improve the quality of their interventions, and also contribute to building up a stock of knowledge that domestic policymakers and other funders can draw on to develop better targeted programmes and policies.

Engaging stakeholders to identify gaps and develop strategies to inform evidence use for health policymaking in Nigeria

Introduction

recent efforts to bridge the evidence-policy gap in low-and middle-income countries have seen growing interest from key audiences such as government, civil society, international organizations, private sector players, academia, and media. One of such engagement was a two-day virtual participant-driven conference (the convening) in Nigeria. The aim of the convening was to develop strategies for improving evidence use in health policy. The convening witnessed a participant blend of health policymakers, researchers, political policymakers, philanthropists, global health practitioners, program officers, students, and the media.

Methods

in this study, we analyzed conversations at the convening with the aim to disseminate findings to key stakeholders in Nigeria. The recordings from the convening were transcribed and analyzed inductively to identify emerging themes, which were interpreted, and inferences are drawn.

Results

a total of 630 people attended the convening. Participants joined from 13 countries. Participants identified poor collaboration between researchers and policymakers, poor community involvement in research and policy processes, poor funding for research, and inequalities as key factors inhibiting the use of evidence for policymaking in Nigeria. Strategies proposed to address these challenges include the use of participatory and embedded research methods, leveraging existing systems and networks, advocating for improved funding and ownership for research, and the use of context-sensitive knowledge translation strategies.

Conclusion

overall, better interaction among the various stakeholders will improve the evidence generation, translation, and use in Nigeria. A road map for the dissemination of findings from this conference has been developed for implementation across the strata of the health system.

Health Policy and Systems Research Capacities in Ethiopia and Ghana: Findings From a Self-Assessment

Government investment in strengthening health policy and systems research capacities is needed to enhance the generation of evidence for effective policy making. Researchers’ engagement in the policy-making process helps shape policy-relevant research and support policy-relevant decisions.

Introduction:

Health systems are complex. Policies targeted at health system development may be informed by health policy and systems research (HPSR). This study assesses HPSR capacity to generate evidence and inform policy in Ethiopia and Ghana.

Methods:

We used a mixed-methods approach including a self-administered survey at selected HPSR institutes and in-depth interviews of policy makers.

Results:

Both countries have limited capacity to generate HPSR evidence, especially in terms of mobilizing adequate funding and retaining a critical number of competent researchers who understand complex policy processes, have the skills to influence policy, and know policy makers’ demands for evidence. Common challenges are limited government research funding, rigidity in executing the research budget, and reliance on donor funding that might not respond to national health priorities. There are no large research programs in either country. The annual number of HPSR projects per research institute in Ethiopia (10 projects) was higher than in Ghana (2.5 projects), Ethiopia has a significantly smaller annual budget for health research. Policy makers in the 2 countries increasingly recognize the importance of evidence-informed policy making, but various challenges remain in building effective interactions with HPSR institutes.

Conclusion:

We propose 3 synergistic recommendations to strengthen HPSR capacity in Ethiopia and Ghana. First, strengthen researchers’ capacity and enhance their opportunities to know policy actors; engage with the policy community; and identify and work with policy entrepreneurs, who have attributes, skills, and strategies to achieve a successful policy. Second, deliver policy-relevant research findings in a timely way and embed research into key health programs to guide effective implementation. Third, mobilize local and international funding to strengthen HPSR capacities as well as address challenges with recruiting and retaining a critical number of talented researchers. These recommendations may be applied to other low- and middle-income countries to strengthen HPSR capacities.

Policy Analysis for Prevention and Control of Influenza in Aged Care

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to analyze national influenza infection control policy documents within aged care settings by identifying the consistencies, inconsistencies, and gaps with the current evidence and by evaluating methodological quality. Aged care providers can use these findings to identify their policy documents' strengths and weaknesses.

DESIGN

A quality and content analysis of national level policy documents.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Aged care settings rely on national agencies' policy recommendations to control and prevent outbreaks. There is limited research on the effectiveness of control measures to prevent and treat influenza within aged care settings. Because of the complexities around aged care governance, the primary responsibility in developing a comprehensive facility-level, infection-prevention policy, falls to the providers.

METHODS

The analysis was conducted using the (1) International Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation assessment tool, containing 23 items across 6 domains; and the (2) Influenza Related Control Measures in Aged Care settings checklist, developed by the authors, with 82 recommendations covering: medical interventions, nonmedical interventions, and physical layout.

RESULTS

There were 19 documents from 9 different high-income countries, with a moderately high methodological quality in general. The quality assessment's average score was 40.2% (95% CI 31.9%-44.7%). "Stakeholder involvement" ranked third, and "Editorial independence" and "Rigor of development" had the lowest average scores across all domains. The content analysis' average score was 37.2% (95% CI 10.5%-21.5%). The highest scoring document (59.1%) included term definitions, cited evidence for recommendations, and clear measurable instructions. "Physical Layout" had the least coverage and averaged 21.9% (95% CI 4.2%-37.5%), which shows a substantial gap in built environment recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Existing policy documents vary in their comprehensiveness. The higher scoring documents provide an ideal model for providers. The checklist tools can be used to assess and enhance documents. Further research on document end-user evaluation would be useful, as there is room for improvement in methodological quality and coverage of recommendation coverage, especially related to physical layout.

Focused Research on the Challenges and Productivity of Researchers in Nigerian Academic Institutions Without Funding

Background: The challenge of research funding constraints has brought to bear enormous pressure on researchers. Research productivity is relevant to prestige and career progression of academic staff. However, this study aimed to explore significant challenges associated with researchers' productivity and the impact of non-funding of research in Nigerian research and tertiary institutions. Methods: This study adopted a qualitative exploratory design involving academics at various research and tertiary institutions across the six geographical regions in Nigeria. A semi-structured questionnaire was distributed electronically to all participants who consented to take part in this study. Exactly 4,159 questionnaires were administered and 2,350 were completely filled and returned. Pearson correlation matrices with logistic regression were used for data analysis and are presented in frequencies and percentages. Results: On challenges faced by respondents, 42.98% reported a lack of research funding, 17.11% mentioned brain drain challenge while 8.85% indicated a lack of motivation. Of the 23,927 publications reported, the number of those in sciences, engineering, and medical sciences averaged 9.6, 11.5, and 9.5 respectively. The average number of publications by women (10.8) was more than by men (9.7). Lecturers had the highest average research publication number (11.8) followed by researchers (10.2) and others (3.9). Men had the highest (11.9) average number of conferences compared to women (9.2). Participants in engineering had an average number of 13.8 conferences per respondents followed by those in education (11.2), sciences (11.1), and 10.9 for those in agricultural sciences. The result revealed a negative significant correlation between research publication and academic qualification at p < 0.01. Positive significant correlation was observed between research productivity and discipline at p < 0.05. Findings show that the combined influence of the independent variables on research productivity was significant using linear regression analysis. Conclusions: The failure to prioritize research has resulted in underdevelopment in Nigeria. It is therefore imperative that the federal government prioritize research and establish a functional Special Research Trust Fund to oversee research funding in Nigeria.

What Drives Outpatient Care Costs in Kenya? An Analysis With Generalized Estimating Equations

Objective: This study aimed to identify the factors associated with outpatient expenses incurred by households in Kenya.

Background: The problem of outpatient healthcare expenses incurred by citizens in countries with limited resources has received little attention. Thus, this study aimed to determine the predictors of household spending on outpatient expenses in Kenya.

Method: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis on households in Kenya using data from the 2018 Kenya Household Health Expenditure and Utilization Survey. We applied the generalized estimating equations method to determine the best subset of predictors of outpatient care cost.

Findings: The best predictors of outpatient care expenses in Kenya are age, wealth index, and education level of the household head.

Conclusions: There were no differences regarding age in the mean spending on outpatient care. Moreover, we found that the cost of outpatient care changes with age in a sinusoidal manner. We observed that rich households spent more on outpatient care, mostly owing to their financial ability. Households whose heads reported primary or secondary school education level spent less on outpatient costs than households headed by those who never went to school.

Donor Commitments and Disbursements for Sexual and Reproductive Health Aid in Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia

Background: Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR) investments are critical to people's well-being. However, despite the demonstrated returns on investments, underfunding of SRHR still persists. The objective of this study was to characterize donor commitments and disbursements to SRH aid in four sub-Saharan countries of Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia and to compare trends in donor aids with SRH outcome and impact indicators for each of these countries. Methods: The study is a secondary analysis of data from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development's Assistance creditor reporting system and SRH indicator data from the Global Health Observatory and country demographic health surveys for a 16-year period (2002-2017). We downloaded and compared commitments to disbursements of all donors for population policies, programs and reproductive health for the four African countries. SRH indicators were stratified into health facility level process/outcome indicators (modern contraceptive prevalence rate, unmet need for family planning, antenatal care coverage and skilled birth attendance) and health impact level indicators (maternal mortality ratio, newborn mortality rate, infant mortality rate and under five mortality rate). Results: Donor commitments for SRH aid grew on average by 20% while disbursements grew by 21% annually between 2002 and 2017. The overall disbursement rate was 93%. Development Assistance Cooperation (DAC) countries donated the largest proportion (79%) of aid. Kenya took 33% of total aid, followed by Tanzania 26%, Uganda 23% and then Zambia (18%). There was improvement in all SRH outcome and impact indicators, but not enough to meet targets. Conclusion: Donor aid to SRH grew over time and in the same period indicators improved, but improvement remained slow. Unpredictability and insufficiency of aid may be disruptive to recipient country planning. Donors and low- and middle-income countries should increase funding in order to meet global SRHR targets.

Global Research on Maxillofacial Fracture Over the Last 40 Years: A Bibliometric Study

ABSTRACT

Maxillofacial injuries are widely investigated worldwide as it consists a significant portion of trauma patients. Many researchers from various regions have reported the clinical and statistical analyses of maxillofacial fractures (MFFs) as the statistical data of MMFs are of great importance for both effective control and prevention of these cases. The number of studies concerning the diagnosis and treatment modalities of MFFs has significantly increased over the years. The bibliometric method was used to analyze publication outputs, countries, journals, most citations, and trends. In this study, the bibliometric analysis method was used in the publications related to MFFs published between 1980 and 2019, which were Science Citation Index Expanded indexed in the Web of Science database. Bibliometric analysis is applied to evaluate existing data in an evidence-based manner. The highest number of scientific articles on MFFs came from the USA, which was also the most cited country among others. When the distribution of the words in abstracts and titles by years was examined, it was seen that there was a significant change in the words "navigation," "computer," and "technology" between 2009 and 2012. The authors predict that our study would provide a novel perspective to the studies about MFFs and contribute to the researchers about the limits of the topic, and being aware of the active journals that publish the papers on this issue would facilitate the work of the researchers.

Identifying advocacy strategies, challenges and opportunities for increasing domestic health policy and health systems research funding in Nigeria: Perspectives of researchers and policymakers

Introduction

Poor funding for Health Policy and Systems Research (HPSR) is a major constraint to the development, generation and uptake of HPSR evidence in Low and Middle-Income countries. The study assessed the status of HPSR domestic funding and advocacy strategies for improving HPSR funding in Nigeria. It equally explored the knowledge and perception of the domestic funding status of HPSR and the effect of capacity building on the knowledge of domestic funding for HPSR in Nigeria.

Methods

This was a sub-national study involving policymakers and researchers from Enugu and Ebonyi States in Southeast Nigeria who participated in the sub-national Health Systems Global convening for the African region. A before-after study design (workshop) was utilized. Data collection employed semi-structured questionnaires, group and panel discussions. The workshop facilitated knowledge of HPSR, funding processes, and advocacy strategies for increased domestic funding for HPSR. Pre and immediate post-workshop knowledge assessments were done. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 25 and thematic analysis.

Results

Twenty-six participants were involved in the study. Half were females (50.0%) and 46.2% were aged 35–44 years. Policymakers constituted 23.1% of the participants. Domestic funding for HPSR in Nigeria was adjudged to be grossly inadequate. Identified barriers to domestic funding of HPSR included bureaucratic bottlenecks, political and policy transitions, and corruption. Potential opportunities centered on existing policy documents and emerging private sector willingness to fund health research. Multi-stakeholder advocacy coalitions, continuous advocacy and researcher skill-building on advocacy with active private sector involvement were the strategies proffered by the participants. Pre-workshop, understanding of the meaning of HPSR had the highest mean ratings while knowledge of budgeting processes and use of legal action to enable opportunities for budget advocacy for HPSR funding had the lowest mean ratings. Following the capacity-building workshop, all knowledge and understanding parameters markedly improved (percentage increase of 12.5%–71.0%).

Conclusion

This study found that there was paucity of domestic funding for HPSR in Nigeria alongside poor knowledge of budgeting and advocacy strategies among both policymakers and researchers. We recommend the deployment of these identified strategies and wider national and regional stakeholder engagement towards prioritizing and improving domestic funding for HPSR.

How to strengthen a health research system: WHO's review, whose literature and who is providing leadership?

BACKGROUND

Health research is important for the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. However, there are many challenges facing health research, including securing sufficient funds, building capacity, producing research findings and using both local and global evidence, and avoiding waste. A WHO initiative addressed these challenges by developing a conceptual framework with four functions to guide the development of national health research systems. Despite some progress, more is needed before health research systems can meet their full potential of improving health systems. The WHO Regional Office for Europe commissioned an evidence synthesis of the systems-level literature. This Opinion piece considers its findings before reflecting on the vast additional literature available on the range of specific health research system functions related to the various challenges. Finally, it considers who should lead research system strengthening.

MAIN TEXT

The evidence synthesis identifies two main approaches for strengthening national health research systems, namely implementing comprehensive and coherent strategies and participation in partnerships. The literature describing these approaches at the systems level also provides data on ways to strengthen each of the four functions of governance, securing financing, capacity-building, and production and use of research. Countries effectively implementing strategies include England, Ireland and Rwanda, whereas West Africa experienced effective partnerships. Recommended policy approaches for system strengthening are context specific. The vast literature on each function and the ever-growing evidence-base are illustrated by considering papers in just one key journal, Health Research Policy and Systems, and analysing the contribution of two national studies. A review of the functions of the Iranian system identifies over 200 relevant and mostly national records; an analysis of the creation of the English National Institute for Health Research describes the key leadership role played by the health department. Furthermore, WHO is playing leadership roles in helping coordinate partnerships within and across health research systems that have been attempting to tackle the COVID-19 crisis.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence synthesis provides a firm basis for decision-making by policy-makers and research leaders looking to strengthen national health research systems within their own national context. It identifies five crucial policy approaches - conducting situation analysis, sustaining a comprehensive strategy, engaging stakeholders, evaluating impacts on health systems, and partnership participation. The vast and ever-growing additional literature could provide further perspectives, including on crucial leadership roles for health ministries.

Measuring development assistance for health systems strengthening and health security: an analysis using the Creditor Reporting System database

Background: Health systems strengthening (HSS) and health security are two pillars of universal health coverage (UHC). Investments in these areas are essential for meeting the Sustainable Development Goals and are of heightened relevance given the emergence of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). This study aims to generate information on development assistance for health (DAH) for these areas, including how to track it and how funding levels align with country needs.

Methods: We developed a framework to analyze the amount of DAH disbursed in 2015 for the six building blocks of the health system (‘system-wide HSS’) plus health security (emergency preparedness, risk management, and response) at both the global (transnational) and country level. We reviewed 2,427 of 32,801 DAH activities in the Creditor Reporting System (CRS) database (80% of the total value of disbursements in 2015) and additional public information sources. Additional aid activities were identified through a keyword search.

Results: In 2015, we estimated that US$3.1 billion (13.4%) of the US$22.9 billion of DAH captured in the CRS database was for system-wide HSS and health security: US$2.5 billion (10.9%) for system-wide HSS, mostly for infrastructure, and US$0.6 billion (2.5%) for system-wide health security. US$567.1 million (2.4%) was invested in supporting these activities at the global level. If responses to individual health emergencies are included, 7.5% of total DAH (US$1.7B) was for health security. We found a correlation between DAH for HSS and maternal mortality rates, and we interpret this as evidence that HSS aid generally flowed to countries with greater need.

Conclusions: Achieving UHC by 2030 will require greater investments in system-wide HSS and proactive health emergency preparedness. It may be appropriate for donors to more prominently consider country needs and global functions when investing in health security and HSS.

Health policy and systems research publications in Latin America warrant the launching of a new specialised regional journal

Background

Scientific journals play a critical role in research validation and dissemination and are increasingly vocal about the identification of research priorities and the targeting of research results to key audiences. No new journals specialising in health policy and systems research (HPSR) and focusing in the developing world or in a specific developing world region have been established since the early 1980s. This paper compares the growth of publications on HPSR across Latin America and the world and explores the potential, feasibility and challenges of innovative publication strategies.

Methods

A bibliometric analysis was undertaken using HPSR MeSH terms with journals indexed in Medline. A survey was undertaken among 2500 authors publishing on HPSR in Latin America (LA) through an online survey, with a 13.1% response rate. Aggregate indicators were constructed and validated, and two-way ANOVA tests were performed on key variables.

Results

HPSR publications on LA observed an average annual growth of 27.5% from the years 2000 to 2018, as against 11.4% worldwide and yet a lag on papers published per capita. A total of 48 journals with an Impact Factor publish HPSR on LA, of which 5 non-specialised journals are published in the region and are ranked in the bottom quintile of Impact Factor. While the majority of HPSR papers worldwide is published in specialised HPSR journals, in LA this is the minority. Very few researchers from LA sit in the Editorial Board of international journals. Researchers highly support strengthening quality HPSR publications through publishing in open access, on-line journals with a focus on the LA region and with peer reviewers specialized on the region. Researchers would support a new open access journal specializing in the LA region and in HPSR, publishing in English. Open access up-front costs and disincentives while waiting for an Impact Factor can be overcome.

Conclusion

Researchers publishing on HPSR in LA widely support the launching of a new specialised journal for the region with a vigorous editorial policy focusing on regional and country priorities. Strategies should be in place to support English-language publishing and to develop a community of practice around the publication process. In the first years, special issues should be promoted through a priority-setting process to attract prominent authors, develop the audience and attain an Impact Factor.

Inequalities in global health inequalities research: A 50-year bibliometric analysis (1966-2015)

BACKGROUND

Increasing evidence shows that health inequalities exist between and within countries, and emphasis has been placed on strengthening the production and use of the global health inequalities research, so as to improve capacities to act. Yet, a comprehensive overview of this evidence base is still needed, to determine what is known about the global and historical scientific production on health inequalities to date, how is it distributed in terms of country income groups and world regions, how has it changed over time, and what international collaboration dynamics exist.

METHODS

A comprehensive bibliometric analysis of the global scientific production on health inequalities, from 1966 to 2015, was conducted using Scopus database. The historical and global evolution of the study of health inequalities was considered, and through joinpoint regression analysis and visualisation network maps, the preceding questions were examined.

FINDINGS

159 countries (via authorship affiliation) contributed to this scientific production, three times as many countries than previously found. Scientific output on health inequalities has exponentially grown over the last five decades, with several marked shift points, and a visible country-income group affiliation gradient in the initiation and consistent publication frequency. Higher income countries, especially Anglo-Saxon and European countries, disproportionately dominate first and co-authorship, and are at the core of the global collaborative research networks, with the Global South on the periphery. However, several country anomalies exist that suggest that the causes of these research inequalities, and potential underlying dependencies, run deeper than simply differences in country income and language.

CONCLUSIONS

Whilst the global evidence base has expanded, Global North-South research gaps exist, persist and, in some cases, are widening. Greater understanding of the structural determinants of these research inequalities and national research capacities is needed, to further strengthen the evidence base, and support the long term agenda for global health equity.

Institutional capacity to generate and use evidence in LMICs: current state and opportunities for HPSR

BACKGROUND

Evidence-informed decision-making for health is far from the norm, particularly in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Health policy and systems research (HPSR) has an important role in providing the context-sensitive and -relevant evidence that is needed. However, there remain significant challenges both on the supply side, in terms of capacity for generation of policy-relevant knowledge such as HPSR, and on the demand side in terms of the demand for and use of evidence for policy decisions. This paper brings together elements from both sides to analyse institutional capacity for the generation of HPSR and the use of evidence (including HPSR) more broadly in LMICs.

METHODS

The paper uses literature review methods and two survey instruments (directed at research institutions and Ministries of Health, respectively) to explore the types of institutional support required to enhance the generation and use of evidence.

RESULTS

Findings from the survey of research institutions identified the absence of core funding, the lack of definitional clarity and academic incentive structures for HPSR as significant constraints. On the other hand, the survey of Ministries of Health identified a lack of locally relevant evidence, poor presentation of research findings and low institutional prioritisation of evidence use as significant constraints to evidence uptake. In contrast, improved communication between researchers and decision-makers and increased availability of relevant evidence were identified as facilitators of evidence uptake.

CONCLUSION

The findings make a case for institutional arrangements in research that provide support for career development, collaboration and cross-learning for researchers, as well as the setting up of institutional arrangements and processes to incentivise the use of evidence among Ministries of Health and other decision-making institutions. The paper ends with a series of recommendations to build institutional capacity in HPSR through engaging multiple stakeholders in identifying and maintaining incentive structures, improving research (including HPSR) training, and developing stronger tools for synthesising non-traditional forms of local, policy-relevant evidence such as grey literature. Addressing challenges on both the supply and demand side can build institutional capacity in the research and policy worlds and support the enhanced uptake of high quality evidence in policy decisions.