Priority-setting in public health research funding organisations: an exploratory qualitative study among five high-profile funders

The headache research priorities: Research goals from the American Headache Society and an international multistakeholder expert group

OBJECTIVE

To identify and disseminate research priorities for the headache field that should be areas of research focus during the next 10 years.

BACKGROUND

Establishing research priorities helps focus and synergize the work of headache investigators, allowing them to reach the most important research goals more efficiently and completely.

METHODS

The Headache Research Priorities organizing and executive committees and working group chairs led a multistakeholder and international group of experts to develop headache research priorities. The research priorities were developed and reviewed by clinicians, scientists, people with headache, representatives from headache organizations, health-care industry representatives, and the public. Priorities were revised and finalized after receiving feedback from members of the research priorities working groups and after a public comment period.

RESULTS

Twenty-five research priorities across eight categories were identified: human models, animal models, pathophysiology, diagnosis and management, treatment, inequities and disparities, research workforce development, and quality of life. The priorities address research models and methods, development and optimization of outcome measures and endpoints, pain and non-pain symptoms of primary and secondary headaches, investigations into mechanisms underlying headache attacks and chronification of headache disorders, treatment optimization, research workforce recruitment, development, expansion, and support, and inequities and disparities in the headache field. The priorities are focused enough that they help to guide headache research and broad enough that they are widely applicable to multiple headache types and various research methods.

CONCLUSIONS

These research priorities serve as guidance for headache investigators when planning their research studies and as benchmarks by which the headache field can measure its progress over time. These priorities will need updating as research goals are met and new priorities arise.

A Structured Approach to Involve Stakeholders in Prioritising Topics for Systematic Reviews in Public Health

Objectives

This study aimed to develop and apply a structured approach for prioritising topics for systematic reviews in public health, framed according to the readily applicable PICO format, which encourages the involvement of stakeholders' preferences in a transparent matter.

Methods

We developed a multi-stage process, consisting of a scoping and two Delphi stages with web-based surveys and invited public health stakeholders in Switzerland to participate: First, respondents specified topics for different public health domains, which were reformulated in a PICO format by content analysis. Second, respondents rated the topics using five stakeholder-refined assessment criteria. Overall rankings were calculated to assess differences between stakeholder groups and rating criteria.

Results

In total, 215 respondents suggested 728 topics altogether. The response rate in the two Delphi stages was 91.6% and 77.6%, respectively. Most top-rated review topics focused on the effectiveness of interventions providing education to different target groups, followed by interventions to increase access to specific healthcare services.

Conclusion

Our approach encourages involvement of stakeholders in identifying priorities for systematic reviews and highlights disparities between stakeholders and between individual criteria.

Cultivating Relationships as a Community-Based Recruitment Strategy in Transdisciplinary Aging Research: Lessons From an Academic-Community Partnership

Participation of Black American older adults in community-engaged research remains challenging in health sciences. The objectives of this study were to describe the specific efforts, successes, and challenges in recruiting Black American older adults in research led by the Health and Wellness in Aging Across the Lifespan core, part of the Virginia Commonwealth University Institute for Inclusion, Inquiry, and Innovation (iCubed). We conducted a cross-case analysis of 6 community-engaged research projects using the community-engaged research continuum model. Successful recruitment strategies comprised a multifaceted approach to community-based collaboration, including a wellness program with a long standing relationship with the community, engaging key stakeholders and a community advisory board, and building a community-based coalition of stakeholders. Posting flyers and modest monetary compensation remain standard recruitment strategies. The cross-case analysis offered critical lessons on the community's nature and level of engagement in research. Relationship building based on trust and respect is essential to solving complex aging issues in the community.

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.

A Quantitative Framework to Identify and Prioritize Opportunities in Biomedical Product Innovation: A Proof-of-Concept Study

Importance

Prioritization and funding for health initiatives, including biomedical innovation, may not consistently target unmet public health needs.

Objective

To (1) develop a quantitative, databased framework to identify and prioritize opportunities for biomedical product innovation investments based on a multicriteria decision-making model (MCDM) that includes comprehensive measures of public health burden and health care costs, and (2) pilot test the model.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) convened public and private experts to develop a model, select measures, and complete a longitudinal pilot study to identify and prioritize opportunities for investment in biomedical product innovations that have the greatest public health benefit. Cross-sectional and longitudinal data (2012-2019) for 13 pilot medical disorders were obtained from the Institute for Health Metrics Global Burden of Disease database (IHME GBD) and the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS).

Main Outcome Measures

The main outcome measure was an overall gap score reflecting high public health burden (composite measure of mortality, prevalence, years lived with disability, and health disparities), or high health care costs (composite measure of total, public, and out-of-pocket health spending) relative to low biomedical innovation. Sixteen innovation metrics were selected to reflect the pipeline of biomedical products from research and development to market approval. A higher score indicates a greater gap. Normalized composite scores were calculated for public health burden, cost, and innovation investment using the MCDM Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution method.

Results

Among the 13 conditions tested in the pilot study, diabetes (0.61), osteoarthritis (0.46), and drug-use disorders (0.39) had the highest overall gap score reflecting high public health burden, or high health care costs relative to low biomedical innovation in these medical disorders. Chronic kidney disease (0.05), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (0.09), and cirrhosis and other liver diseases (0.10) had the least amount of biomedical product innovation despite similar public health burden and health care cost scores.

Conclusions

In this cross-sectional pilot study, we developed and implemented a data-driven, proof-of-concept model that can help identify, quantify, and prioritize opportunities for biomedical product innovation. Quantifying the relative alignment between biomedical product innovation, public health burden, and health care cost may help identify and prioritize investments that can have the greatest public health benefit.

Fondazione Telethon and Unione Italiana Lotta alla Distrofia Muscolare, a successful partnership for neuromuscular healthcare research of value for patients

In 2001, Fondazione Telethon and the Italian muscular dystrophy patient organisation Unione Italiana Lotta alla Distrofia Muscolare joined their efforts to design and launch a call for grant applications specifically dedicated to clinical projects in the field of neuromuscular disorders. This strategic initiative, run regularly over the years and still ongoing, aims at supporting research with impact on the daily life of people with a neuromuscular condition and is centred on macro-priorities identified by the patient organisation. It is investigator-driven, and all proposals are peer-reviewed for quality and feasibility. Over the years, this funding program contributed to strengthening the activities of the Italian neuromuscular clinical network, reaching many achievements in healthcare research. Moreover, it has been an enabling factor for innovative therapy experimentation at international level and prepared the clinical ground to make therapies available to Italian patients. The ultimate scope of healthcare research is to ameliorate the delivery of care. In this paper, the achievements of the funded studies are analysed also from this viewpoint, to ascertain to which extent they have fulfilled the original goals established by the patient organisation. The evidence presented indicates that this has been a highly fruitful program. Factors that contributed to its success, lessons learned, challenges, and issues that remain to be addressed are discussed to provide practical examples of an experience that could inspire also other organizations active in the field of rare disease research.

Using a rapid environmental scan methodology to map country-level global health research expertise in Canada

Background

Many countries are currently rethinking their global health research funding priorities. When resources are limited, it is important to understand and use information about existing research strengths to inform research strategies and investments and to drive impact. This study describes a method to rapidly assess a country’s global health research expertise and applies this method in the Canadian context.

Methods

We developed a three-pronged rapid environmental scan to evaluate Canadian global health research expertise that focused on research funding inputs, research activities and research outputs. We assessed research funding inputs from Canada’s national health research funding agency and identified the 30 Canadian universities that received the most global health research funding. We systematically searched university websites and secondary databases to identify research activities, including research centres, research chairs and research training programmes. To evaluate research outputs, we searched PubMed to identify global health research publications by Canadian university-affiliated researchers. We used these three perspectives to develop a more nuanced understanding of Canadian strengths in global health research from different perspectives.

Results

Canada’s main global health research funder, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, invested a total of $314 M from 2000 to 2016 on global health research grants. This investment has contributed to Canada’s wealth of global health research expertise, including 12 training programmes, 27 Canada Research Chairs, 6 research centres and 30 WHO Collaborating Centres across 27 universities. Research activities were concentrated in Canada’s biggest cities and most commonly focused on health equity and globalisation issues. Canadian-affiliated researchers have contributed to a research output of 822 unique publications on PubMed. There is an opportunity to build global health expertise in regions not already concentrated with research activity, focusing on transnational risks and neglected conditions research.

Conclusions

Our three-pronged approach allowed us to rapidly identify clear geographic and substantive areas of strength in Canadian global health research, including urban regions and research focused on health equity and globalisation topics. This information can be used to support research policy directives, including to inform a Canadian global health research strategy, and to allow relevant academic institutions and funding organisations to make more strategic decisions regarding their future investments.

Systematic analysis of global health research funding in Canada, 2000-2016

OBJECTIVES

Considering recent shifts in global funding landscapes, this study analyzes Canada's long-term global health research funding trends in the hope of informing a new Canadian global health research strategy. Examining past investments can help prioritize limited future resources to either build on Canada's existing strengths or fill gaps where needed, while simultaneously informing the investments of research funders in other countries.

METHODS

Administrative data were analyzed covering all 1584 global health research grants awarded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) to 927 unique principal investigators from 2000 to 2016, totalling C$341 million. Existing metadata associated with each grant was supplemented by additional qualitative coding. Descriptive time-series analyses of global health research grant data were conducted using various measures related to each grant's recipient (e.g., province, university, sex, distribution) and subject matter (e.g., research theme, area, focus).

RESULTS

CIHR's total annual global health research funding increased sharply from $3.6 million in FY2000/2001 to $30.3 million in FY2015/2016, with the largest share of research funding now focused on health equity-representing nearly 50% of CIHR's global health research funding. Past grants have concentrated on infectious disease and public health research. One third of CIHR's global health grant funding went to 20 principal investigators. Only 42.2% of global health research funding came from CIHR's open investigator-driven competitions, with the rest coming from strategic priority-driven competitions.

CONCLUSION

Global health research has seen steady increases in funding from CIHR's open competitions when preceded by investment in strategic competitions, which suggests the level of a national research funding agency's strategic investments in global health research may determine the size of the field in their country. The greatest concentration of past investment lies in health equity research, followed by infectious disease research. Future analyses of research funding would benefit from an internationally accepted keyword classification scheme and more granular administrative data.

A Framework to Prioritise Health Research Proposals for Funding: Integrating Value for Money

When making funding decisions, research organisations largely consider the merits (e.g. scientific rigour and feasibility) of submitted research proposals; yet, there is often little or no reference to their value for money. This may be attributed to the challenges of assessing and integrating value of research into existing research prioritisation processes. We propose a framework that considers both the merits of research and its value for money to guide health research funding decisions. A practical framework is developed based on current processes followed by funding organizations for assessing investigator-initiated research proposals, and analytical methods for evaluating the expected value of research. We apply the analytical methods to estimate the expected return on investment of two real-world grant applications. The framework comprises four sequential steps: (1) initial screening of applications for eligibility and completeness; (2) merit assessment of eligible proposals; (3) estimating the expected value of research for the shortlisted proposals that pass the first two steps and ranking of proposals based on return on investment; and (4) selecting research proposals for funding. We demonstrate how the expected value for money can be efficiently estimated using certain information provided in funding applications. The proposed framework integrates value-for-money assessment into the existing research prioritisation processes. Considering value for money to inform research funding decisions is vital to achieve efficient utilisation of research budgets and maximise returns on research investments.

From public health and demographic research to decision making: An intervention study in Giza Governorate-Egypt

The purpose of the current study was to develop an empirical model that shows how various contextual data are analyzed, interpreted and presented as evidence-based information for decision making and action taking. A Pre-test-Posttest intervention study was conducted at the National Population Council (NPC)-Giza governorate (GG) where all data were collected from all governmental organizations on an annual basis at the district level (19 districts), which include 28 indicators. Composite indices and indicators (n = 9) had been ranked and presented as a matrix that assigned districts into three situations: Best (green zone), prospective (yellow zone) and critical (red zone).

INTERVENTION

Presentation of the "Districts' Enactment Matrix" (DEM) for the year 2014 in GG -Regional Council for Population (RCP) quarterly meetings, headed by the governor and attended by representatives of all ministries. The feedback and recommendation for action taking by participants were reported by the researchers. Evaluation of the intervention was done by comparing DEM 2014 and DEM 2016.

RESULTS

At the governorate level, short-term strategies were used to improve the situation. All the districts in red zone 2014 and two districts in the yellow zone had demonstrated positive changes in their 28 indicators.

CONCLUSION

The DEM model is a simple tool that facilitates communication between researchers and decision-makers that could be applied in different public health and population programs.

Directing research funds to the right research projects: a review of criteria used by research organisations in Australia in prioritising health research projects for funding

OBJECTIVES

Healthcare budgets are limited, and therefore, research funds should be wisely allocated to ensure high-quality, useful and cost-effective research. We aimed to critically review the criteria considered by major Australian organisations in prioritising and selecting health research projects for funding.

METHODS

We reviewed all grant schemes listed on the Australian Competitive Grants Register that were health-related, active in 2017 and with publicly available selection criteria on the funders' websites. Data extracted included scheme name, funding organisation, selection criteria and the relative weight assigned to each criterion. Selection criteria were grouped into five representative domains: relevance, appropriateness, significance, feasibility (including team quality) and cost-effectiveness (ie, value for money).

RESULTS

Thirty-six schemes were included from 158 identified. One-half of the schemes were under the National Health and Medical Research Council. The most commonly used criteria were research team quality and capability (94%), research plan clarity (94%), scientific quality (92%) and research impact (92%). Criteria considered less commonly were existing knowledge (22%), fostering collaboration (22%), research environment (19%), value for money (14%), disease burden (8%) and ethical/moral considerations (3%). In terms of representative domains, relevance was considered in 72% of the schemes, appropriateness in 92%, significance in 94%, feasibility in 100% and cost-effectiveness in 17%. The relative weights for the selection criteria varied across schemes with 5%-30% for relevance, 20%-60% for each appropriateness and significance, 20%-75% for feasibility and 15%-33% for cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

In selecting research projects for funding, Australian research organisations focus largely on research appropriateness, significance and feasibility; however, value for money is most often overlooked. Research funding decisions should include an assessment of value for money in order to maximise return on research investment.