An analysis of research priority-setting at the World Health Organization - how mapping to a standard template allows for comparison between research priority-setting approaches.
Health Res Policy Syst 2018;
16:116. [PMID:
30486845 PMCID:
PMC6264050 DOI:
10.1186/s12961-018-0391-0]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/16/2018] [Accepted: 11/01/2018] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Background
A review of research priorities completed by WHO technical units was undertaken. Results of the mapping were recorded in a database that was used to generate analysis and compare research priorities and the different methodological approaches used in their development.
Methods
A total of 116 documents were reviewed for this study. The documents were published between 2002 and 2017 by the technical programmes of WHO headquarters and deposited in the institutional repository, IRIS. Research priorities were extracted from documents into a standard template and mapped to a five-category research cycle type framework defined in the WHO Strategy on Research for Health covering research to describe the research problem, identifying the cause and risk factors, developing solutions and new interventions, understanding the barriers to implementation, and evaluation of the impact of response. Details of the research priority methods were recorded. A database with user interface was created using Microsoft Excel 2010.
Results
A total of 2145 research priorities were extracted from the 116 documents meeting the inclusion criteria. The priorities specifically address 73 diseases/health topics. The document types were 26% Report, 22% WHO Guideline, 26% Research Prioritisation publication and 11% Meeting Notes. The most widely reported method used to identify priorities was expert consultation. Expert consultation was used to identify 86% of the priorities categorised here, with 26% (561) reporting it as the sole method; 52% (1111) explicitly listed a literature review as contributing to the identification of priorities. When the 2145 priorities were categorised across the research cycle framework, the largest portion (43%) addressed implementation challenges. The database is published here under an open access licence.
Conclusion
Comparing research priorities between diseases/health topics requires standardisation and the research cycle type framework is one approach that can be applied across all the health topics found in public health. There is great variation in the use of research priority-setting methodology at WHO Headquarters. Therefore, a standard reporting approach, linked to established good practice, should be an area for future development by the WHO Global Health R&D Observatory. The database reported here can also be used to quickly access and analyse the research priorities for a specific health topic or to compare across a range of health topics.
Electronic supplementary material
The online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-018-0391-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse