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

Bridging genomics' greatest challenge: The diversity gap

Achieving diverse representation in biomedical data is critical for healthcare equity. Failure to do so perpetuates health disparities and exacerbates biases that may harm patients with underrepresented ancestral backgrounds. We present a quantitative assessment of representation in datasets used across human genomics, including genome-wide association studies (GWASs), pharmacogenomics, clinical trials, and direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing. We suggest that relative proportions of ancestries represented in datasets, compared to the global census population, provide insufficient representation of global ancestral genetic diversity. Some populations have greater proportional representation in data relative to their population size and the genomic diversity present in their ancestral haplotypes. As insights from genomics become increasingly integrated into evidence-based medicine, strategic inclusion and effective mechanisms to ensure representation of global genomic diversity in datasets are imperative.

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.

Anatomy education in low-resourced countries: What are challenges and effective and affordable educational strategies? A qualitative study

PURPOSE

With limited means, resource-deprived countries must find ways to organize education to meet standards. Few reports exist about anatomical education in LLMICs. This study explores how anatomy teaching is sustained in countries with few resources and which affordable educational strategies are applied to uphold quality.

METHODS

A mixed-methods study with anatomy teachers from public medical schools in low or lower-middle income countries (LLMICs) in Africa, Asia, Europe, and Latin-American was performed through survey via email combined with semi-structured online interview with teachers, exploring survey results at a deeper level.

RESULTS

LLMICs available to be surveyed, 13 and 8 were found to respond to a written survey and oral interview invitation, face significant teaching challenges, primarily due to lack of funds. These are faculty shortages (low salaries and high student-to-teacher ratio) and inadequate infrastructure (internet, electricity, poor classroom conditions). Solutions were associated with didactic strategies (social media, e-learning, image-based learning, applied anatomy), expanding teaching capacity with less qualified and part-time faculty, student-organized education, and self-financing (teaching resources subsidized by teachers and students). Which was triking was teacher commitment despite difficult circumstances. Teachers propose better faculty management, increased anatomy staff recruitment, and collaboration with other institutions.

CONCLUSIONS

Anatomical education in LLMIC is forced to adapt to the socio-economic context, rather than to trends in medical education worldwide. These adaptations are supported mainly by the teachers 'commitment.'

Exploring Health Research Priority Setting in a South African Province: A Nominal Group Technique Approach

In August 2022, the Free State Provincial Health Research Committee used the online nominal group technique (NGT) for Health Research Priority Setting (HRPS) for the Free State Department of Health (FSDoH) and the research community, considering various stakeholders' perspectives. This paper explores and describes the identified health research priorities. It also assesses their alignment with the National Health Research Strategy. Additionally, it provides an opinion on the feasibility of using the online NGT for collaborative co-creation of provincial-level health research priorities. Most of the identified health research priorities resonate with the national health research priorities identified by the National Health Research Committee. However, research to "strengthen surveillance" was uniquely perceived to be a priority by the participants in the Free State HRPS exercise. A plausible reason for this might be their heightened awareness of the vital role optimal surveillance systems play in coordinating intersectoral responses to pandemics, particularly considering the serious challenges emerging during the initial stages of the COVID-19 outbreak.

A systematic review of binge drinking interventions and bias assessment among college students and young adults in high-income countries

Alcohol is the number one substance used by young people and people of college age. Binge drinking (BD) in this age group is considered one of the most important global health issues, as much harm accrues from it and even lives are lost. This study aimed to review the interventions to curb BD or encourage responsible drinking among college students and young adults. MEDLINE (PubMed), ERIC and APA PsycINFO were searched. The selected articles were published in English and had to evaluate a BD reduction program through a randomized control trial (RCT) among college students or young adults between the ages of 17-24 years. The exclusion criteria included research not published in English, systematic review articles, qualitative studies, designs other than RCTs and discussion articles on college students drinking with no findings. The three reviewers independently screened and extracted the data using the PRISMA guidelines. The overall quality of the studies was assessed. Then, 10 of the 12 interventions studied were found to be successful in reducing BD among college students, though the effect sizes were small to medium. A minority of the studies used behavior change theories. Effective interventions for reducing BD among college students and young adults should include robust behavior change theories, longer follow-up time and the operationalization of multiple outcomes. Process evaluation is needed to be conducted in these studies.

One step at a time. Shaping consensus on research priorities and terminology in telehealth in musculoskeletal pain: an international modified e-Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Telehealth has emerged as an alternative model for treatment delivery and has become an important component of health service delivery. However, there is inconsistency in the use of terminologies and a lack of research priorities in telehealth in musculoskeletal pain. The purpose of this international, multidisciplinary expert panel assembled in a modified three-round e-Delphi survey is to achieve a consensus on research priorities and for the standard terminology for musculoskeletal pain telehealth practice.

METHODS

In this international modified e-Delphi survey, we invited an expert panel consisting of researchers, clinicians, consumer representatives, industry partners, healthcare managers, and policymakers to participate in a three-round e-Delphi. Expert panels were identified through the Expertscape website, PubMed database, social media, and a snowball approach. In Round 1, potential research priorities and terminologies were presented to panel members. Panel members rated the agreement of each research priority on a 5-point Likert scale and an 11-point numerical scale, and each terminology on a 5-point Likert scale for the "telehealth in musculoskeletal pain " field over rounds. At least 80% of the panel members were required to agree to be deemed a consensus. We analyzed the data descriptively and assessed the stability of the results using the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test.

RESULTS

We performed an international e-Delphi survey from February to August 2022. Of 694 invited people, 160 panel members participated in the first round, 133 in the second round (83% retention), and 134 in the third round (84% retention). Most of the panel members were researchers 76 (47%), clinicians 57 (36%), and consumer representatives 9 (6%) of both genders especially from Brazil 31 (19%), India 22 (14%), and Australia 19 (12%) in the first round. The panel identified fourteen telehealth research priorities spanned topics including the development of strategies using information and communication technology, telehealth implementation services, the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of telehealth interventions, equity of telehealth interventions, qualitative research and eHealth literacy in musculoskeletal pain conditions from an initial list of 20 research priorities. The consensus was reached for "digital health" and "telehealth" as standard terminologies from an initial list of 37 terminologies.

CONCLUSION

An international, multidisciplinary expert consensus recommends that future research should consider the 14 research priorities for telehealth musculoskeletal pain reached. Additionally, the terms digital health and telehealth as the most appropriate terminologies to be used in musculoskeletal telehealth research.

REGISTER

Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/tqmz2/ ).

Research prioritisation on prevention and management of preterm birth in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) with a special focus on Bangladesh using the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method

Background

Fifteen million babies are born preterm globally each year, with 81% occurring in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Preterm birth complications are the leading cause of newborn deaths and significantly impact health, quality of life, and costs of health services. Improving outcomes for newborns and their families requires prioritising research for developing practical, scalable solutions, especially in low-resource settings such as Bangladesh. We aimed to identify research priorities related to preventing and managing preterm birth in LMICs for 2021-2030, with a special focus on Bangladesh.

Methods

We adopted the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method to set research priorities for preventing and managing preterm birth. Seventy-six experts submitted 490 research questions online, which we collated into 95 unique questions and sent for scoring to all experts. A hundred and nine experts scored the questions using five pre-selected criteria: answerability, effectiveness, deliverability, maximum potential for burden reduction, and effect on equity. We calculated weighted and unweighted research priority scores and average expert agreement to generate a list of top-ranked research questions for LMICs and Bangladesh.

Results

Health systems and policy research dominated the top 20 identified priorities for LMICs, such as understanding and improving uptake of the facility and community-based Kangaroo Mother Care (KMC), promoting breastfeeding, improving referral and transport networks, evaluating the impact of the use of skilled attendants, quality improvement activities, and exploring barriers to antenatal steroid use. Several of the top 20 questions also focused on screening high-risk women or the general population of women, understanding the causes of preterm birth, or managing preterm babies with illnesses (jaundice, sepsis and retinopathy of prematurity). There was a high overlap between research priorities in LMICs and Bangladesh.

Conclusions

This exercise, aimed at identifying priorities for preterm birth prevention and management research in LMICs, especially in Bangladesh, found research on improving the care of preterm babies to be more important in reducing the burden of preterm birth and accelerating the attainment of Sustainable Development Goal 3 target of newborn deaths, by 2030.

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.

A shared agenda for gender and COVID-19 research: priorities based on broadening engagement in science

While the acute and collective crisis from the pandemic is over, an estimated 2.5 million people died from COVID-19 in 2022, tens of millions suffer from long COVID and national economies still reel from multiple deprivations exacerbated by the pandemic. Sex and gender biases deeply mark these evolving experiences of COVID-19, impacting the quality of science and effectiveness of the responses deployed. To galvanise change by strengthening evidence-informed inclusion of sex and gender in COVID-19 practice, we led a virtual collaboration to articulate and prioritise gender and COVID-19 research needs. In addition to standard prioritisation surveys, feminist principles mindful of intersectional power dynamics underpinned how we reviewed research gaps, framed research questions and discussed emergent findings. The collaborative research agenda-setting exercise engaged over 900 participants primarily from low/middle-income countries in varied activities. The top 21 research questions included the importance of the needs of pregnant and lactating women and information systems that enable sex-disaggregated analysis. Gender and intersectional aspects to improving vaccine uptake, access to health services, measures against gender-based violence and integrating gender in health systems were also prioritised. These priorities are shaped by more inclusive ways of working, which are critical for global health as it faces further uncertainties in the aftermath of COVID-19. It remains imperative to address the basics in gender and health (sex-disaggregated data and sex-specific needs) and also advance transformational goals to advance gender justice across health and social policies, including those related to global research.

Priority Research Topics and Patient and Family Needs in a National Sample of Hospice Agencies

CONTEXT

Various contextual factors surrounding hospice care have reinforced the need for scholars to pursue practice-relevant research questions. Although priority-setting is a primary approach to streamline such efforts, research appears yet to have conducted priority-setting with hospice professionals.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the areas of needed research and clinical focus voiced by a national probability sample of US hospice agency representatives.

METHODS

A national probability sample of 600 hospice agencies proportionately stratified by state and profit status was surveyed. At the end of the survey, participants indicated whether or not they were willing to answer two additional open-ended questions. These two questions requested participants' input on areas of needed attention related to (1) research topics and (2) unmet needs for patients and families. Responses were content analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 317 surveys were completed (response rate = 61.8%). Viable responses were recorded by 129 participants responding to at least one item. Content analysis generated the following five categories (and various subcategories): earlier access to hospice, education (outside physicians, patients and families, public), policy barriers to hospice enrollment (hospice eligibility and reimbursement, gaps in insurance coverage), effects of policy restrictions on hospice care (reimbursement for care, pain management, clinician issues), and improving the provision of in-home hospice care (community resources, supports for caregivers, supports for when caregiver assistance is inadequate, needs already are being met).

CONCLUSION

These findings presented by hospice agency representatives reflect directions for research and clinical development. Efforts are needed to cohere professional- and patient-reported areas of needed attention.

Promoting diversity and overcoming publication barriers in Latin American neuroscience and Alzheimer's disease research: A call to action

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a global health issue. Because AD is a condition demanding effective management, its socioeconomic burden is immense and threatens the health systems of both low- and middle-income (LMIC) and high-income (HIC) countries. However, while most of the HICs are increasing their budget for AD research, the situation is different in LMICs, and resources are scarce. In addition, LMIC researchers face significant barriers to publishing in international peer reviewed journals, including funding constraints; language barriers; and in many cases, high article processing charges. In this perspective, we discuss these disparities and propose some actions that could help promote diversity, and ultimately translate into improved AD research capacity in LMICs, especially in Latin American and Caribbean countries.

HIGHLIGHTS

Researchers in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) face increasing difficulties such as financial constraints, language barriers, and article processing charges.Publication fees, in particular, can be a significant barrier in the process of publication and equal access to scientific information.Publication fee equalization initiatives by publishing companies could reduce the scientific inequality that disadvantages researchers in LMICs.

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.

The Impact of Changes regarding Working Circumstances during COVID-19 Pandemic upon Patients Evaluated for Thyroid Dysfunction

We evaluated patients who presented with thyroid dysfunction correlated symptoms that started when the Government took important measures to reduce the spread of COVID-19. These measures have influenced the safety of many people’s jobs. Data were collected from 378 patients that were clinically evaluated at the Endocrinology Department, between September 2020 and January 2021. Their health status modifications were statistically analyzed in correlation with their life and work changes. These changes were induced by measures associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. The lifestyle changes correlated with the COVID-19 pandemic have been present in both categories of patients: euthyroid and dysthyroid patients; 87.50% of euthyroid patients physically felt the pandemic-induced changes in their lives. It resulted in changes in lifestyle and job insecurity has a statistically significant influence (p < 0.01) on their state of health. The presence of life/work changes in men is strongly reflected in their state of health (p = 0.0004). Work instability that occurred as a side effect of the COVID-19 pandemic induced symptoms that made many people believe they have an endocrinology disorder.

Research knowledge transfer to improve the care and support of adolescents with sickle cell disease in Ghana

INTRODUCTION

Effective transfer of research findings to key knowledge users, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, is not always achieved, despite being a shared priority among researchers, funders, healthcare and community stakeholders and decision-makers. A constructivist grounded theory study conducted in 2015-2019 in Ghana that explored sickle cell-related fatigue in adolescence resulted in numerous implications for practice and policy. Peer-reviewed funding was obtained to support disseminating these findings to relevant stakeholders.

METHODS

Key steps in implementing this study dissemination project included: (1) identifying and attracting target stakeholders from healthcare and community organizations; (2) tailoring tools for communication of research findings for the stakeholder groups and (3) designing interactive workshops to facilitate knowledge sharing and uptake.

FINDING

Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, 50 healthcare and community stakeholders participated in the dissemination workshops. The dissemination activities contributed new layers of understanding to the original research findings through discussions. Through the workshops, participants identified culturally valuable and actionable recommendations that they could take forward to improve care and support for young people with sickle cell disease in Ghana. A follow-up 6 months post the workshops indicated some positive knowledge usage and benefits.

CONCLUSION

This dissemination project provided a unique opportunity for researchers and stakeholders to share in the interpretation of research findings and to strategically plan recommendations to improve SCD-focused care and support for young people in Ghana. Further research dissemination should continue to be grounded in locally generated knowledge, include systematic, long-term evaluation of dissemination outcomes and be adequately financed.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Public involvement in this study was critical to the research dissemination project. The Sickle Cell Association of Ghana (Kumasi chapter) actively supported the project's development, organization and facilitation. Parent members of the Association, the Association's executive members and volunteers, and the health professionals involved in sickle cell care at the Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital participated in the project workshops. They contributed to the knowledge transfer and uptake.

Role of hemogram-derived ratios in predicting intensive care unit admission in COVID-19 patients: a multicenter study

Purpose

As hyperinflammation is recognized as a driver of severe COVID-19 disease, checking markers of inflammation is gaining more attention. Our study aimed to evaluate the utility of cost-effective hemogram-derived ratios in predicting intensive care unit (ICU) admission in COVID-19 patients.

Methods

This multicenter retrospective study included hospitalized COVID-19 patients from four dedicated COVID-19 hospitals in Sylhet, Bangladesh. Data on demographics, clinical characteristics, laboratory parameters and survival outcomes were analyzed. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify the significance of each hemogram-derived ratio in predicting ICU admission.

Results

Of 442 included patients, 98 (22.17%) required ICU admission. At the time of admission, patients requiring ICU had a higher neutrophil count and lower lymphocyte and platelet counts than patients not requiring ICU. Peripheral capillary oxygen saturation at admission was significantly lower in those who subsequently required ICU admission. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, derived neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, neutrophil-to-platelet ratio, and systemic immune-inflammation index were significant predictors of ICU admission.

Conclusion

Hemogram-derived ratios can be an effective tool in facilitating the early categorization of at-risk patients, enabling timely measures to be taken early in the disease course.

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.

Substance, use in relation to COVID-19: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

We conducted a scoping review focused on various forms of substance use amid the pandemic, looking at both the impact of substance use on COVID-19 infection, severity, and vaccine uptake, as well as the impact that COVID-19 has had on substance use treatment and rates.

METHODS

A scoping review, compiling both peer-reviewed and grey literature, focusing on substance use and COVID-19 was conducted on September 15, 2020 and again in April 15, 2021 to capture any new studies. Three bibliographic databases (Web of Science Core Collection, Embase, PubMed) and several preprint servers (EuropePMC, bioRxiv, medRxiv, F1000, PeerJ Preprints, PsyArXiv, Research Square) were searched. We included English language original studies only.

RESULTS

Of 1564 articles screened in the abstract and title screening phase, we included 111 research studies (peer-reviewed: 98, grey literature: 13) that met inclusion criteria. There was limited research on substance use other than those involving tobacco or alcohol. We noted that individuals engaging in substance use had increased risk for COVID-19 severity, and Black Americans with COVID-19 and who engaged in substance use had worse outcomes than white Americans. There were issues with treatment provision earlier in the pandemic, but increased use of telehealth as the pandemic progressed. COVID-19 anxiety was associated with increased substance use.

CONCLUSIONS

Our scoping review of studies to date during COVID-19 uncovered notable research gaps namely the need for research efforts on vaccines, COVID-19 concerns such as anxiety and worry, and low- to middle-income countries (LMICs) and under-researched topics within substance use, and to explore the use of qualitative techniques and interventions where appropriate. We also noted that clinicians can screen and treat individuals exhibiting substance use to mitigate effects of the pandemic.

FUNDING

Study was funded by the Institution for Social and Policy Studies, Yale University and The Horowitz Foundation for Social Policy. DH was funded by a NIDA grant (R01DA048860). The funding body had no role in the design, analysis, or interpretation of the data in the study.

Adolescent mental health research in Tanzania: a study protocol for a priority setting exercise and the development of an interinstitutional capacity strengthening programme

INTRODUCTION

Poor adolescent mental health is a barrier to achieving several sustainable development goals in Tanzania, where adolescent mental health infrastructure is weak. This is compounded by a lack of community and policy maker awareness or understanding of its burden, causes and solutions. Research addressing these knowledge gaps is urgently needed. However, capacity for adolescent mental health research in Tanzania remains limited. The existence of a National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR), with a nationwide mandate for research conduct and oversight, presents an opportunity to catalyse activity in this neglected area. Rigorous research priority setting, which includes key stakeholders, can promote efficient use of limited resources and improve both quality and uptake of research by ensuring that it meets the needs of target populations and policy makers. We present a protocol for such a research priority setting study and how it informs the design of an interinstitutional adolescent mental health research capacity strengthening strategy in Tanzania.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

From May 2021, this 6 month mixed-methods study will adapt and merge the James Lind Alliance approach and validated capacity strengthening methodologies to identify priorities for research and research capacity strengthening in adolescent mental health in Tanzania. Specifically, it will use online questionnaires, face-to-face interviews, focus groups, scoping reviews and a consensus meeting to consult expert and adolescent stakeholders. Key evidence-informed priorities will be collaboratively ranked and documented and an integrated strategy to address capacity gaps will be designed to align with the nationwide infrastructure and overall strategy of NIMR.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

National and institutional review board approvals were sought and granted from the National Health Research Ethics Committee of the NIMR Medical Research Coordinating Committee (Tanzania) and the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine (United Kingdom). Results will be disseminated through a national workshop involving all stakeholders, through ongoing collaborations and published commentaries, reviews, policy briefs, webinars and social media.

A roadmap to increase diversity in genomic studies

Two decades ago, the sequence of the first human genome was published. Since then, advances in genome technologies have resulted in whole-genome sequencing and microarray-based genotyping of millions of human genomes. However, genetic and genomic studies are predominantly based on populations of European ancestry. As a result, the potential benefits of genomic research-including better understanding of disease etiology, early detection and diagnosis, rational drug design and improved clinical care-may elude the many underrepresented populations. Here, we describe factors that have contributed to the imbalance in representation of different populations and, leveraging our experiences in setting up genomic studies in diverse global populations, we propose a roadmap to enhancing inclusion and ensuring equal health benefits of genomics advances. Our Perspective highlights the importance of sincere, concerted global efforts toward genomic equity to ensure the benefits of genomic medicine are accessible to all.

Shifting From Tokenism to Meaningful Adolescent Participation in Research for Obesity Prevention: A Systematic Scoping Review

Background: Traditionally, adolescent participation in research has been tokenistic. Adolescents are rarely afforded the opportunity to influence decision-making in research designed to prevent obesity. Engaging adolescents in meaningful decision-making may enhance research translation. This review aimed to analyze the current modes and nature of adolescent participation in obesity prevention research decision-making. Methods: A systematic scoping review was conducted using Arksey and O'Malley's six-stage framework. Six major databases were searched for peer-reviewed primary research studies with adolescent participation related to obesity, physical activity, and diet. Modes of adolescent participation were categorized based on the Lansdown-UNICEF conceptual framework for measuring outcomes of adolescent participation. The framework outlines three modes of meaningful participation: (i) consultative, which involves taking opinions and needs into consideration; (ii) collaborative, where adolescents are partners in the decision-making process; and (iii) adolescent-led participation where adolescents have the capacity to influence the process and outcomes. The degree of involvement in research cycles was classified based on the National Health and Medical Research Council consumer engagement framework. Five stages of the research cycle were determined: identify, design and develop, conduct, analyze and disseminate. Results: In total, 126 papers describing 71 unique studies were identified. Of these, 69% (49/71) took place in the USA, and 85% (52/61) were conducted in minority or underserved communities, while males were more likely to be under-represented. In 49% (35/71) of studies, participation was consultative and 9% (6/71) of studies involved an adolescent-led approach. Furthermore, 87% (62/71) of studies incorporated adolescent participation in one or more of the research cycle's formative phases, which involve eliciting views, opinions and idea generation. Only 11% of studies engaged adolescents in all five stages of the research cycle where adolescents could have more influence over the research process. Conclusion: Meaningful adolescent participation in the obesity prevention research cycle is limited. Empowering and mobilizing equal partnership with adolescents should be at the forefront of all adolescent-related obesity prevention research.

What do we know about evidence-informed priority setting processes to set population-level health-research agendas: an overview of reviews

BACKGROUND

This overview aimed to synthesize existing systematic reviews to produce a draft framework of evidence-informed health priority setting that supports countries in identifying appropriate steps and methods when developing and implementing national research agendas.

MAIN BODY

We searched Ovid MEDLINE® and the WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing from 2010 to 2020 for critical or systematic reviews that evaluated research priority setting exercises. We adapted the AMSTAR checklist to assess the quality of included reviews and used adapted frameworks for data extraction and analysis. The search resulted in 2395 titles, of which 31 were included. Populations included in the reviews typically involved patients, families and carers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and research funders. The topics covered in the reviews varied from specific diseases or conditions, approaches for healthcare practice or research priority setting methods itself. All the included systematic reviews were of low or critically low quality. The studies were thematically grouped based on their main focus: identifying and engaging with stakeholders; methods; context; and health area.

CONCLUSION

Our overview of reviews has reconfirmed aspects of existing frameworks, but has also identified new concepts for countries to consider while developing their national research agendas. We propose a preliminary framework for consideration that highlights four key phases: (1) preparatory, (2) priority setting, (3) follow-up phase and (4) sustainability phase, which have thirteen sub-domains to consider.

OUP accepted manuscript

Priority setting and health system governance are critical for optimising healthcare interventions and determining how best to allocate limited resources. The COVID-19 pandemic has buttressed the need for these especially now that vaccines are available to curb the spread of the disease. In many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), vaccine coverage remains low, due in large part to sub-optimal priority setting and health system governance which has led to inequities in access and has fuelled vaccine hesitancy. An analysis of the situation in Nigeria identified key issues that have affected the health system response to COVID-19 and impeded timely access to the vaccine. These include weak vaccine procurement strategies, limited evidence on strategies for prioritising recipients and approaches for rolling out mass vaccination programmes for the entire population, lack of a communication strategy to reduce the incidence of vaccine hesitancy and failures to proactively address vaccine hesitancy through the implementation of vaccination programmes. Nigeria and other many other LMICs are still facing the prospect of subsequent and potentially worsening waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Without effective priority setting, there is a risk that the country will not accelerate vaccine rollout quickly enough to achieve high coverage rates that will ensure herd immunity. In the context of existing weaknesses in health system governance, there is an urgent need to strengthen priority settings in Nigeria and identify and implement context-specific solutions that can improve vaccine coverage for the population.

COVID-19: Origin, epidemiology, virology, pathogenesis, and treatment

COVID-19 (or Coronavirus Disease) originated in China (Hubei provenance, Wuhan city). The first recorded illness occurred in December 2019. It has affected all parts of the world, and the WHO designated the COVID-19 disease, caused by the new Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, a pandemic on March 11, 2020. Some debatable speculations indicate that it is a man-made virus, intentionally synthesized in the laboratory but was unintentionally emancipated from a laboratory of Wuhan, China. The primitive theory suggested the spread from the Hunan seafood market of China probably from an animal source. However, this theory is not fully supported. COVID-19 infection has a varying range of signs and symptoms from low fever, dry cough to lower respiratory tract infection, breathing difficulties, pulmonary edema, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), metabolic acidosis, sepsis, coagulation, lymphopenia, hypoxemia, multiorgan failure, and eventually, mortality. In patients with comorbidity such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, stroke, and kidney disease, fatality rate is higher. Young and elderly people are more likely to experience unfavorable outcomes due to poor immunity. There have been several treatment methods explored to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic, including medications, interferon, vaccines, oligonucleotides, peptides, and monoclonal and immunomodulatory antibodies, among other things. The World Health Organization has recommended preventive measures like washing hands, using face masks, sanitizers, and maintaining a safe distance to prevent the spread of the pandemic. One of the promising alternatives is the vaccine. One must take all preventive measures in the pandemic until it becomes feeble.

Field Epidemiology and Public Health Research Priorities in the Eastern Mediterranean Region: Delphi Technique

Research is essential for evidence-based decision making. This study aimed to identify research priorities in the areas of field epidemiology and public health in the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR) from the perspectives of public health professionals. A Delphi technique, using online survey, was employed to reach 168 public health professionals who have experience in the EMR countries. The study took place between November 2019 and January 2020. Consensus on the research priorities was reached after two-round online questionnaires. A list of top 10 field epidemiology and public health research priorities in the EMR was developed. Of those priorities, four fell under health in emergency, war and armed conflict, two under communicable diseases, two under immunization, one under digital health, and one under sexual, reproductive, and adolescent health. Availability, adequacy, and quality of health services in crisis settings were scored as a top priority (mean = 4.4, rank 1), followed by use of technology to improve the collection, documentation, and analysis of health data (mean = 4.28, rank 2), and capacity of countries in the region to respond to emergencies (mean = 4.25, rank 3). This study was conducted prior to COVID-19 pandemic and, thus, it did not capture COVID-19 research as a priority area. Nevertheless, identified priorities under communicable diseases including outbreak investigation of infectious diseases, epidemics and challenges related to communicable diseases in the EMR were still notable. In conclusion, the field epidemiology and public health research priorities identified in this study through a systematic inclusive process could be useful to make informed decisions and gear the research efforts to improve the health of people in the EMR.

Research priority setting in obesity: a systematic review

AIM

Obesity research priority setting, if conducted to a high standard, can help promote policy-relevant and efficient research. Therefore, there is a need to identify existing research priority setting studies conducted in the topic area of obesity and to determine the extent to which they followed good practice principles for research priority setting.

METHOD

Studies examining research priority setting in obesity were identified through searching the MEDLINE, PBSC, CINAHL, PsycINFO databases and the grey literature. The nine common themes of good practice in research priority setting were used as a methodological framework to evaluate the processes of the included studies. These were context, use of a comprehensive approach, inclusiveness, information gathering, planning for implementation, criteria, methods for deciding on priorities, evaluation and transparency.

RESULTS

Thirteen articles reporting research prioritisation exercises conducted in different areas of obesity research were included. All studies reported engaging with various stakeholders such as policy makers, researchers and healthcare professionals. Public involvement was included in six studies. Methods of research prioritisation commonly included both Delphi and nominal group techniques and surveys. None of the 13 studies fulfilled all nine of the good practice criteria for research priority setting, with the most common limitations including not using a comprehensive approach and lack of inclusivity and evaluating on their processes.

CONCLUSION

There is a need for research priority setting studies in obesity to involve the public and to evaluate their exercises to ensure they are of high quality.

Interventions to Mitigate COVID-19 Misinformation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The duration and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic depends largely on individual and societal actions which are influenced by the quality and salience of the information to which they are exposed. Unfortunately, COVID-19 misinformation has proliferated. Despite growing attempts to mitigate COVID-19 misinformation, there is still uncertainty regarding the best way to ameliorate the impact of COVID-19 misinformation. To address this gap, the current study uses a meta-analysis to evaluate the relative impact of interventions designed to mitigate COVID-19-related misinformation. We searched multiple databases and gray literature from January 2020 to September 2021. The primary outcome was COVID-19 misinformation belief. We examined study quality and meta-analysis was used to pool data with similar interventions and outcomes. 16 studies were analyzed in the meta-analysis, including data from 33378 individuals. The mean effect size of interventions to mitigate COVID-19 misinformation was positive, but not statistically significant [d = 2.018, 95% CI (-0.14, 4.18), p = .065, k = 16]. We found evidence of publication bias. Interventions were more effective in cases where participants were involved with the topic, and where text-only mitigation was used. The limited focus on non-U.S. studies and marginalized populations is concerning given the greater COVID-19 mortality burden on vulnerable communities globally. The findings of this meta-analysis describe the current state of the literature and prescribe specific recommendations to better address the proliferation of COVID-19 misinformation, providing insights helpful to mitigating pandemic outcomes.

Involving stakeholders in research priority setting: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

This scoping review provides a thorough analysis of how stakeholders have so far been involved in research priority setting. The review describes, synthesizes, and evaluates research priority setting projects not only for the field of health-as previous reviews have done-but does so on a much broader scale for any research area.

METHODS

A comprehensive electronic literature search was conducted in the databases PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Reflecting the importance of grey literature, Google Scholar and relevant websites were also screened for eligible publications. A computational approach was then used for the study selection. The final screening for inclusion was done manually.

RESULTS

The scoping review encompasses 731 research priority setting projects published until the end of 2020. Overall, the projects were conducted within the realm of 50 subject areas ranging from agriculture and environment over health to social work and technology. Key learnings include that nearly all priority setting projects aimed to identify research priorities for the field of health (93%), particularly for nursing and care, cancer, pediatrics, and mental, behavioral and neurodevelopmental disorders. Only 6% of the projects were not health-related and 1% identified research priorities at the interface between health and a non-health area. Over time, 30 different stakeholder groups took part in research priority setting. The stakeholders most frequently asked to identify research priorities were doctors, patients, academics/researchers, nurses, allied healthcare professionals, family members, friends, and carers. Nearly two thirds of all projects have been conducted in Europe and North America. Overall, only 9% of the projects emphasized the importance of stakeholders in their goals and rationales and actively involved them. In around a quarter of the projects, stakeholders deliberated on their research priorities throughout the entire process.

CONCLUSION

By mapping out the complex landscape of stakeholder involvement in research priority setting, this review guides future efforts to involve stakeholders effectively, inclusively, and transparently, which in turn may increase the overall value of research for society. As a practical addition to this review, the first worldwide research priority setting database was created: https://ois.lbg.ac.at/en/project-database . The database contains all the projects analyzed for this review and is constantly updated with the latest published research priority setting projects.

Improving Food Systems: A Participatory Consultation Exercise to Determine Priority Research and Action Areas in Viet Nam

With increased burden of malnutrition on global health, there is a need to set clear and transparent priorities for action in food systems at a global and local level. While priority settings methods are available for several adjacent domains, such as nutrition and health policies, setting priorities for food system research has not been documented and streamlined. The challenges involve food systems' multisector, multi-stakeholder and multi-outcome nature. Where data exists, it is not easy to aggregate data from across food system dimensions and stakeholders to make an informed analysis of the overall picture of the food system, as well as current and potential food system trade-offs to inform research and policy. Once research priorities are set, they risk staying on paper and never make their ways to concrete outputs and outcomes. In this paper, we documented and assessed the inclusive process of setting research priorities for a local food system, taking Vietnamese food systems as a case study. From this exercise, we examined how priority setting for food systems research could learn from and improve upon earlier priority setting research practices in other domains. We discussed the lessons for research and policies in local food systems, such as the need for a concrete follow-up plan accompanying the priority setting process.

Trends in National-Level Governance and Implementation of the Philippines' Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Law from 2014 to 2020

National-level implementation of the Philippines’ Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Law has been fragmented and programmatic and centered on family planning rather than multisectoral and holistic. Establishing a common narrative can secure the buy-in of different sectors and open policy solutions to address the structural determinants of reproductive health.

In 2012, the Philippines passed the Responsible Parenthood and Family Planning Law, a landmark legislation billed as a multisectoral and rights-based approach to further sustainable human development. This article is part of the first comprehensive evaluation of the implementation of the law by national-level actors. This evaluation is intended to assess the progress of implementers in the conduct of mandates, roles, and responsibilities described in the law and its implementing guidelines. Interviews with key national government officials and data from official documents and literature revealed 3 major trends in governance and implementation from 2014 to 2020. First, despite being a multisectoral policy, performance was siloed within individual units of implementing agencies, with limited interagency coordination. Second, although the law explicitly called for interventions to invest in human capital and address socioeconomic disparities for sustainable human development, performance focused on biomedical and health interventions, particularly in the area of family planning. Third, national-level governance for reproductive health interventions concentrated on programmatic and operational concerns. Overall, this case in the Philippines illustrates that fragmented implementation has contributed to the slow improvement of reproductive health outcomes. This study highlights the challenges of governance and multisectoral coordination to implement multidimensional interventions in a low- and middle-income country, and it provides potential areas for political and administrative reform in reproductive health governance in the Philippines. By creating a common narrative and onboarding multiple sectors, officials can better identify and address structural determinants with holistic policy solutions to improve reproductive health outcomes.

Shifting research priorities in maternal and child health in the COVID-19 pandemic era in India: A renewed focus on systems strengthening

BACKGROUND

The remarkable progress seen in maternal and child health (MCH) in India over the past two decades has been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to undertake a rapid assessment to identify key priorities for public health research in MCH in India within the context and aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

A web-based survey was developed to identify top research priorities in MCH. It consisted of 26 questions on six broad domains: vaccine preventable diseases, outbreak preparedness, primary healthcare integration, maternal health, neonatal health, and infectious diseases. Key stakeholders were invited to participate between September and November 2020. Participants assigned importance on a 5-point Likert scale, and assigned overall ranks to each sub-domain research priority. Descriptive statistics were used to examine Likert scale responses, and a ranking analysis was done to obtain an "average ranking score" and identify the top research priority under each domain.

RESULTS

Amongst the 84 respondents from across 15 Indian states, 37% were public-health researchers, 25% healthcare providers, 20% academic faculty and 13% were policy makers. Most respondents considered conducting systems strengthening research as extremely important. The highest ranked research priorities were strengthening the public sector workforce (vaccine preventable diseases), enhancing public-health surveillance networks (outbreak preparedness), nutrition support through community workers (primary care integration), encouraging at least 4-8 antenatal visits (maternal health), neonatal resuscitation to reduce birth asphyxia (neonatal health) and screening and treatment of tuberculosis (infectious diseases). Common themes identified through open-ended questions primarily included systems strengthening priorities across domains.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall focus for research priorities in MCH in India during the COVID-19 pandemic is on strengthening existing services and service delivery, rather than novel research. Our results highlight pivotal steps within the roadmap for advancing and sustaining maternal and child health gains during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

National multisectoral governance challenges of implementing the Philippines' Reproductive Health Law

In recognition of the role of reproductive health in individual and national development, the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health (RPRH) Law of 2012 was passed in the Philippines after 30 years of opposition and debate. Seven years later, this article examined the cohesiveness of national multi-sectoral governance among state and non-state actors and identified challenges in coordination as part of the first comprehensive evaluation of the landmark policy. Using a qualitative intrinsic case study design and guided by the World Health Organization's systems checklist for governing health equity as our theoretical perspective, we conducted 20 semi-structured interviews with national implementers from health agencies (n = 11), non-health agencies (n = 6) and non-state actors (n = 3) that included civil society organizations (CSOs). Key themes identified through thematic analysis were supported with document reviews of policy issuances, accomplishment reports and meeting transcripts of the RPRH National Implementation Team (NIT). The study found that despite aspirations for vibrant multi-sectoral coordination, the implementation of the RPRH Law in the Philippines was incohesive. National leaders, particularly the health sector, were neither able to rally non-health sector actors around RPRH nor strategically harness the power of CSOs. Local resource limitations associated with decentralization were exacerbated by paternalistic financing, coordination, and monitoring. The absence of multi-agency plans fostered a culture of siloed opportunism, without consideration to integrated implementation. This case study shows that for neutral policies without conflicts in sector objectives, the interest and buy-in of non-health state actors, even with a national law, cannot be assumed. Moreover, possible conflicts in interests and perspectives between state and civil society actors must be managed in national governance bodies. Overall, there is need for participatory policymaking and health-sector advocacy to set health equity as an intersectoral goal, involving subnational leaders in developing concrete action plans, and strengthening NIT's formal accountability systems.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on chronic diseases care follow-up and current perspectives in low resource settings: a narrative review

Coronavirus is a respiratory disease that spreads globally. The severity and mortality risk of the disease is significant in the elderly, peoples having co-morbidities, and immunosuppressive patients. The outbreak of the pandemic created significant barriers to diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of chronic diseases. Delivering regular and routine comprehensive care for chronic patients was disrupted due to closures of healthcare facilities, lack of public transportation or reductions in services. The purpose of this narrative review was to update how patients with chronic care were affected during the pandemic, healthcare utilization services and available opportunities for better chronic disease management during the pandemic in resources limited settings. Moreover, this review may call to the attention of concerned bodies to make decisions and take measures in the spirit of improving the burden of chronic diseases by forwarding necessary recommendations for possible change and to scale up current intervention programs.

A comprehensive review on global contributions and recognition of pharmacy professionals amidst COVID-19 pandemic: moving from present to future

BACKGROUND

COVID-19, a respiratory tract infection caused by SARS-CoV-2, is a burning question worldwide as it gives rise to a pandemic situation. No specific medications are still recommended for COVID-19; however, healthcare support is crucial for ameliorating the disease condition. Pharmacists are the frontline fighters who are responsible for providing healthcare support to the COVID-19 infected patients around the world. This review endeavored to briefly rationalize the contributions of several pharmacy professionals in diverse fields along with their collaborative efforts and dedication regarding their limitations during the COVID-19 situation and view the prospects of pharmaceutical care services in the post-pandemic period.

MAIN BODY OF THE ABSTRACT

Online databases were utilized to search for scholarly articles and organizational websites, to sum up the information about the contemporary and expanded role of pharmacists. Key articles were retrieved from Google Scholar, PubMed, and Science Direct databases using terms: "COVID-19," "novel coronavirus," "community," "industrial," "hospital," "clinical," "recognition," "obstacles," "collaboration," "SARS-CoV-2," "healthcare," and "outbreak" in combination with "pharmacist." The articles were included from the inception of the pandemic to January 25, 2021. The current review found pharmacist's global contributions and involvements with other professionals to provide healthcare services amidst COVID-19. This included testing of suspects, providing medical information, psycho-social support, debunking myths, mitigating drug shortage events, telemedicine, e-prescription, infection control, and controlling the drug supply chain. In many countries, pharmacists' activities were much appreciated but in some countries, they were not properly acknowledged for their contributions amidst COVID-19 outbreak. They played additional roles such as participating in the antimicrobial stewardship team, improving value-added services, conducting clinical data analysis to suppress the outspread of the SARS-CoV-2.

SHORT CONCLUSION

During the COVID-19 pandemic while the whole world is fighting against an invisible virus, the pharmacists are the earnest hero to serve their responsibilities along with additional activities. They need to be prepared and collaborate with other healthcare professionals further to meet the challenges of post-pandemic circumstances.

Gender inequality and the double burden of disease in low-income and middle-income countries: an ecological study

INTRODUCTION

Many low-income and middle-income countries (LMIC) suffer from a double burden of infectious diseases (ID) and non-communicable diseases (NCD). Previous research suggests that a high rate of gender inequality is associated with a higher ID and NCD burden in LMIC, but it is unknown whether gender inequality is also associated with a double burden of disease. In this ecological study, we explored the association between gender inequality and the double burden of disease in LMIC.

METHODS

For 108 LMIC, we retrieved the Gender Inequality Index (GII, scale 0-1) and calculated the double burden of disease, based on disability-adjusted life-years for a selection of relevant ID and NCD, using WHO data. We performed logistic regression analysis to study the association between gender inequality and the double burden of disease for the total population, and stratified for men and women. We adjusted for income, political stability, type of labour, urbanisation, government health expenditure, health infrastructure and unemployment. Additionally, we conducted linear regression models for the ID and NCD separately.

RESULTS

The GII ranged from 0.13 to 0.83. A total of 37 LMIC had a double burden of disease. Overall, the adjusted OR for double burden of disease was 1.05 per 0.01 increase of GII (95% CI 0.99 to 1.10, p=0.10). For women, there was a borderline significant positive association between gender inequality and double burden of disease (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.11, p=0.06), while there was no association in men (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.04, p=0.75).

CONCLUSION

We found patterns directing towards a positive association between gender inequality and double burden of disease, overall and in women. This finding suggests the need for more attention for structural factors underlying gender inequality to potentially reduce the double burden of disease.

Developing a national health research agenda for Lao PDR: prioritising the research needs of stakeholders

Background

Currently the health research system in Lao PDR is fragmented and largely donor led. Capacity among national public health institutes is limited to select priority research questions for funding.

Objective

The objective of this capacity building and practice-oriented study is to describe the process and outcome of the first National Health Research Agenda for Lao PDR and how the agenda contributes to institutional capacity of the Ministry of Health, in order to contribute to evidence-informed public health policy making.

Method

This activity used a mixed-methods approach. The overall design is based on principles of the interactive Learning and Action approach and consists out of 6 phases: (1) identification of needs, (2) shared analysis and integration, (3) nation-wide prioritization of research domains, (4) exploring specific research questions, (5) prioritization of research avenues, (6) dialogue and planning for action. The process involved interviews with experts in health policy and research (n = 42), telephone-based survey with district, provincial and national health staff (n = 135), a two-round Delphi consultation with experts in health policy and research (n = 33), and a workshop with policymakers, researchers, international organisations and civil society (n = 45) were held to gather data and conduct shared analysis.

Results

11 research domains were identified and prioritised: Health-seeking behaviour; Health system research; Health service provision; Mother and child health (MCH); Sexual & reproductive health; Health education; Non-communicable diseases (NCDs); Irrational drug use; Communicable diseases (CDs); Road traffic accidents; Mental health. Within these domains over 200 unique research questions were identified.

Conclusion

Our approach led to a comprehensive, inclusive, public health agenda for Lao PDR to realise better informed health policies. Questions on the agenda are action-oriented, originating in a desire to understand the problem so that immediate improvements can be made. The agenda is used within the MoH as a tool to fund and approve research. 

Medication management and adherence during the COVID-19 pandemic: Perspectives and experiences from low-and middle-income countries

The current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is placing a huge strain on health systems worldwide. Suggested solutions like social distancing and lockdowns in some areas to help contain the spread of the virus may affect special patient populations like those with chronic illnesses who are unable to access healthcare facilities for their routine care and medicines management. Retail pharmacy outlets are the likely facilities for easy access by these patients. The contribution of community pharmacists in these facilities to manage chronic conditions and promote medication adherence during this COVID-19 pandemic will be essential in easing the burden on already strained health systems. This paper highlights the pharmaceutical care practices of community pharmacists for patients with chronic diseases during this pandemic. This would provide support for the call by the WHO to maintain essential services during the pandemic, in order to prevent non-COVID disease burden on healthcare systems particularly in low-and middle-income countries.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Neglected tropical diseases in Brazil: lack of correlation between disease burden, research funding and output

OBJECTIVES

To assess the correlation between the burden of seven priority neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) included in the Brazilian National Agenda of Priorities in Health Research - tuberculosis, Chagas disease, leprosy, malaria, leishmaniasis, dengue and schistosomiasis - and their respective research funding and output.

METHODS

This retrospective review obtained data on disease burden from the Global Burden of Disease Study and funding data from open access sources. Publications were retrieved from Scopus and SciELO, and characterised according to the type of research conducted. Correlation between funding, research output and burden was assessed by comparing the 'expected' and 'observed' values for funding and publications relative to the proportional burden for each disease.

RESULTS

There was an emphasis in basic biomedical research (average 30% of publications) and a shortage of health policy and systems (average 7%) and social sciences research (average 3%). Research output and funding were poorly correlated with disease burden. Tuberculosis, Chagas disease and schistosomiasis accounted for more than 75% of total NTD-related DALYs, but accounted for only 34% of publications. Leprosy, leishmaniasis and malaria, together, received 49% of NTD-related funding despite being responsible for only 9% of DALYs.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis evidenced a lack of correlation between disease burden, research output and government funding for priority NTDs in Brazil. Our findings highlight the importance of monitoring health needs, research investments and outputs to inform policy and optimise the uptake of evidence for action, particularly in developing countries, where resources are scarce and the research capacity is limited. The results contribute to health policy by highlighting the need for improving coordination of scientific activities and public health needs for effective impact.

Neurosurgical Randomized Trials in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

BACKGROUND

The setting of a randomized trial can determine whether its findings are generalizable and can therefore apply to different settings. The contribution of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to neurosurgical randomized trials has not been systematically described before.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic analysis of design characteristics and methodology, funding source, and interventions studied between trials led by and/or conducted in high-income countries (HICs) vs LMICs.

METHODS

From January 2003 to July 2016, English-language trials with >5 patients assessing any one neurosurgical procedure against another procedure, nonsurgical treatment, or no treatment were retrieved from MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. Income classification for each country was assessed using the World Bank Atlas method.

RESULTS

A total of 73.3% of the 397 studies that met inclusion criteria were led by HICs, whereas 26.7% were led by LMICs. Of the 106 LMIC-led studies, 71 were led by China. If China is excluded, only 8.8% were led by LMICs. HIC-led trials enrolled a median of 92 patients vs a median of 65 patients in LMIC-led trials. HIC-led trials enrolled from 7.6 sites vs 1.8 sites in LMIC-led studies. Over half of LMIC-led trials were institutionally funded (54.7%). The majority of both HIC- and LMIC-led trials evaluated spinal neurosurgery, 68% and 71.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

We have established that there is a substantial disparity between HICs and LMICs in the number of published neurosurgical trials. A concerted effort to invest in research capacity building in LMICs is an essential step towards ensuring context- and resource-specific high-quality evidence is generated.

Harnessing inter-disciplinary collaboration to improve emergency care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs): results of research prioritisation setting exercise

BACKGROUND

More than half of deaths in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) result from conditions that could be treated with emergency care - an integral component of universal health coverage (UHC) - through timely access to lifesaving interventions.

METHODS

The World Health Organization (WHO) aims to extend UHC to a further 1 billion people by 2023, yet evidence supporting improved emergency care coverage is lacking. In this article, we explore four phases of a research prioritisation setting (RPS) exercise conducted by researchers and stakeholders from South Africa, Egypt, Nepal, Jamaica, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Colombia, Ethiopia, Iran, Jordan, Malaysia, South Korea and Phillipines, USA and UK as a key step in gathering evidence required by policy makers and practitioners for the strengthening of emergency care systems in limited-resource settings.

RESULTS

The RPS proposed seven priority research questions addressing: identification of context-relevant emergency care indicators, barriers to effective emergency care; accuracy and impact of triage tools; potential quality improvement via registries; characteristics of people seeking emergency care; best practices for staff training and retention; and cost effectiveness of critical care - all within LMICs.

CONCLUSIONS

Convened by WHO and facilitated by the University of Sheffield, the Global Emergency Care Research Network project (GEM-CARN) brought together a coalition of 16 countries to identify research priorities for strengthening emergency care in LMICs. Our article further assesses the quality of the RPS exercise and reviews the current evidence supporting the identified priorities.

Global research priorities for social, behavioural and community engagement interventions for maternal, newborn and child health

Background

Social, behavioural and community engagement (SBCE) interventions are essential for global maternal, newborn and child health (MNCH) strategies. Past efforts to synthesise research on SBCE interventions identified a need for clear priorities to guide future research. WHO led an exercise to identify global research priorities for SBCE interventions to improve MNCH.

Methods

We adapted the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative method and combined quantitative and qualitative methods to determine MNCH SBCE intervention research priorities applicable across different contexts. Using online surveys and meetings, researchers and programme experts proposed up to three research priorities and scored the compiled priorities against four criteria – health and social impact, equity, feasibility, and overall importance. Priorities were then ranked by score. A group of 29 experts finalised the top 10 research priorities for each of maternal, newborn or child health and a cross-cutting area.

Results

A total of 310 experts proposed 867 research priorities, which were consolidated into 444 priorities and scored by 280 experts. Top maternal and newborn health priorities focused on research to improve the delivery of SBCE interventions that strengthen self-care/family care practices and care-seeking behaviour. Child health priorities focused on the delivery of SBCE interventions, emphasising determinants of service utilisation and breastfeeding and nutrition practices. Cross-cutting MNCH priorities highlighted the need for better integration of SBCE into facility-based and community-based health services.

Conclusions

Achieving global targets for MNCH requires increased investment in SBCE interventions that build capacities of individuals, families and communities as agents of their own health. Findings from this exercise provide guidance to prioritise investments and ensure that they are best directed to achieve global objectives. Stakeholders are encouraged to use these priorities to guide future research investments and to adapt them for country programmes by engaging with national level stakeholders.

COVID-19 pandemic: The role of community pharmacists in chronic kidney disease management supportive care

The COVID-19 pandemic is putting enormous pressure on healthcare systems worldwide and various countries are struggling to flatten the curve to prevent their healthcare system from becoming overwhelmed. Studies have shown that people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at increased risk of COVID-19 infection and mortality. However, the interruption of routine care and support due to the current challenges with healthcare providers, facilities, and essential medicines due to this pandemic is adversely affecting people with CKD. This is because poor management of this disease leads to negative health outcomes. In order to maintain good health, this vulnerable group of patients rely heavily on the extended role of the community pharmacists in chronic disease management. This paper highlights the extended role of the community pharmacists in CKD management supportive care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Measuring the outcome and impact of research capacity strengthening initiatives: A review of indicators used or described in the published and grey literature

Background: Development partners and research councils are increasingly investing in research capacity strengthening initiatives in low- and middle-income countries to support sustainable research systems. However, there are few reported evaluations of research capacity strengthening initiatives and no agreed evaluation metrics. Methods: To advance progress towards a standardised set of outcome and impact indicators, this paper presents a structured review of research capacity strengthening indicators described in the published and grey literature. Results: We identified a total of 668 indicators of which 40% measured output, 59.5% outcome and 0.5% impact. Only 1% of outcome and impact indicators met all four quality criteria applied. A majority (63%) of reported outcome indicators clustered in four focal areas, including: research management and support (97/400), the attainment and application of new research skills and knowledge (62/400), research collaboration (53/400), and knowledge transfer (39/400). Conclusions: Whilst this review identified few examples of quality research capacity strengthening indicators, it has identified priority focal areas in which outcome and impact indicators could be developed as well as a small set of 'candidate' indicators that could form the basis of development efforts.

A common framework of steps and criteria for prioritizing topics for evidence syntheses: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to systematically review the literature for proposed approaches and exercises conducted to prioritize topics or questions for systematic reviews and other types of evidence syntheses in any health-related area.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A systematic review. We searched Medline and CINAHL databases in addition to Cochrane website and Google Scholar. Teams of two reviewers independently screened the studies and extracted data.

RESULTS

We included 31 articles reporting on 29 studies: seven proposed approaches for prioritization and 25 conducted prioritization exercises (three studies did both). The included studies addressed the following fields: clinical (n = 19; 66%), public health (n = 10; 34%), and health policy and systems (n = 8; 28%), with six studies (21%) addressing more than one field. We categorized prioritization into 11 steps clustered in 3 phases (preprioritization, prioritization, and postprioritization). Twenty-eight studies (97%) involved or proposed involving stakeholders in the priority-setting process. These 28 studies referred to twelve stakeholder categories, most frequently to health care providers (n = 24; 86%) and researchers (n = 21; 75%). A common framework of 25 prioritization criteria was derived, clustered in 10 domains.

CONCLUSION

We identified literature that addresses different aspects of prioritizing topics or questions for evidence syntheses, including prioritization steps and criteria. The identified steps and criteria can serve as a menu of options to select from, as judged appropriate to the context.

The implementation of prioritization exercises in the development and update of health practice guidelines: A scoping review

Background

The development of trustworthy guidelines requires substantial investment of resources and time. This highlights the need to prioritize topics for guideline development and update.

Objective

To systematically identify and describe prioritization exercises that have been conducted for the purpose of the de novo development, update or adaptation of health practice guidelines.

Methods

We searched Medline and CINAHL electronic databases from inception to July 2019, supplemented by hand-searching Google Scholar and the reference lists of relevant studies. We included studies describing prioritization exercises that have been conducted during the de novo development, update or adaptation of guidelines addressing clinical, public health or health systems topics. Two reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to complete study selection and data extraction. We consolidated findings in a semi-quantitative and narrative way.

Results

Out of 33,339 identified citations, twelve studies met the eligibility criteria. All included studies focused on prioritizing topics; none on questions or outcomes. While three exercises focused on updating guidelines, nine were on de novo development. All included studies addressed clinical topics. We adopted a framework that categorizes prioritization into 11 steps clustered in three phases (pre-prioritization, prioritization and post-prioritization). Four studies covered more than half of the 11 prioritization steps across the three phases. The most frequently reported steps for generating initial list of topics were stakeholders’ input (n = 8) and literature review (n = 7). The application of criteria to determine research priorities was used in eight studies. We used and updated a common framework of 22 prioritization criteria, clustered in 6 domains. The most frequently reported criteria related to the health burden of disease (n = 9) and potential impact of the intervention on health outcomes (n = 5). All the studies involved health care providers in the prioritization exercises. Only one study involved patients. There was a variation in the number and type of the prioritization exercises’ outputs.

Conclusions

This review included 12 prioritization exercises that addressed different aspects of priority setting for guideline development and update that can guide the work of researchers, funders, and other stakeholders seeking to prioritize guideline topics.

Development of the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework: an overview of systematic reviews of decision criteria for health decision-making

Background

Decision-making in public health and health policy is complex and requires careful deliberation of many and sometimes conflicting normative and technical criteria. Several approaches and tools, such as multi-criteria decision analysis, health technology assessments and evidence-to-decision (EtD) frameworks, have been proposed to guide decision-makers in selecting the criteria most relevant and appropriate for a transparent decision-making process. This study forms part of the development of the WHO-INTEGRATE EtD framework, a framework rooted in global health norms and values as reflected in key documents of the World Health Organization and the United Nations system. The objective of this study was to provide a comprehensive overview of criteria used in or proposed for real-world decision-making processes, including guideline development, health technology assessment, resource allocation and others.

Methods

We conducted an overview of systematic reviews through a combination of systematic literature searches and extensive reference searches. Systematic reviews reporting criteria used for real-world health decision-making by governmental or non-governmental organization on a supranational, national, or programme level were included and their quality assessed through a bespoke critical appraisal tool. The criteria reported in the reviews were extracted, de-duplicated and sorted into first-level (i.e. criteria), second-level (i.e. sub-criteria) and third-level (i.e. decision aspects) categories. First-level categories were developed a priori using a normative approach; second- and third-level categories were developed inductively.

Results

We included 36 systematic reviews providing criteria, of which one met all and another eleven met at least five of the items of our critical appraisal tool. The criteria were subsumed into 8 criteria, 45 sub-criteria and 200 decision aspects. The first-level of the category system comprised the following seven substantive criteria: “Health-related balance of benefits and harms”; “Human and individual rights”; “Acceptability considerations”; “Societal considerations”; “Considerations of equity, equality and fairness”; “Cost and financial considerations”; and “Feasibility and health system considerations”. In addition, we identified an eight criterion “Evidence”.

Conclusion

This overview of systematic reviews provides a comprehensive overview of criteria used or suggested for real-world health decision-making. It also discusses key challenges in the selection of the most appropriate criteria and in seeking to implement a fair decision-making process.