scholarly journals Editorial – Reducing health inequities requires a new national health research agenda

2009 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 163-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fran Baum
Keyword(s):  
National Health ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
Health Inequities

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

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (sup2) ◽  
pp. 1777000 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dirk R. Essink ◽  
Kethmany Ratsavong ◽  
Esmee Bally ◽  
Jessica Fraser ◽  
Sengdavy Xaypadith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
National Health ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
Lao Pdr ◽  
Research Needs

scholarly journals Operationalizing the Development of the National Unified Health Research Agenda 2017-2022

2019 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Miguel Manuel C. Dorotan ◽  
Rafael Deo F. Estanislao ◽  
Reneepearl Kim P. Sales ◽  
Maria Angeli C. Magdaraog ◽  
Lester Sam A. Geroy
Keyword(s):  
National Health ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Operations Management ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
Project Planning ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Situational Analysis ◽  
Research Priority

Introduction. The National Unified Health Research Agenda is a major document whose creation by the Philippine National Health Research Systems is mandated by Philippine Law. Multiple frameworks, methods, and approaches for the development of a health research agenda exists. Available literature on research priority setting have mostly focused on its methods, results, or implementation. There are limited studies on the operations management of conducting a national health research priority-setting exercise. Objectives. This paper aims to describe the operational components utilized to develop the NUHRA 2017-2022 and provide lessons learned for future research priority setting endeavors. Methods. This paper identified and categorized the operational components to develop the NUHRA 2017-2022 using the Enabler Criterion of the European Foundation for Quality Management’s (EFQM) Excellence Model. Results. Operationalizing the development of a national health research agenda requires the harmonization of multiple components. Having region-based staff involved in the production of a regional situational analysis improved its context and accuracy. The workload for each cluster team must be considered and anticipated by the management. Stakeholder engagement requires political, diplomatic, advocacy, marketing, management, and technical skills. The process requires building relationships with various institutions. In a largescale project, management processes must be in place to effectively track and monitor its progress. Conclusion. Operations and management are usually a neglected area in research and development projects. In a bottoms-up research priority-setting approach, iteration and flexibility is needed which requires a lot of management skills and insight. Duration of the project, planning, resources available, and quality of outputs have a strong interconnected relationship.

scholarly journals Swaziland National Health Research Agenda: The Formulation Process

10.3823/2518 ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joses Muthuri Kirigia ◽  
Martin O. Ota ◽  
Babazile Shongwe
Keyword(s):  
National Health ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Communicable Diseases ◽  
Research Gaps ◽  
Draft Report ◽  
Main Research ◽  
Research Areas ◽  
Research Themes

Background: The objectives of this article are to describe the process followed in development of the Swaziland’s national health research agenda (NHRA); and to provide an overview of the health research priorities that emerged from that process.Discussion: Swaziland followed a fourteen step process to develop it’s NHRA, namely: search and review of the existing health research priority setting guidelines; situation analysis included review of Swaziland’s socio-economic indicators; identification of research stakeholders; identification of the preliminary main broad research themes; development of questionnaire on ranking of main research themes; workshops with each of the eight stakeholders; ranking of major health themes and identification of sub-themes; identification of research gaps under each sub-theme and main research areas; scoring of research areas; research areas were grouped by sub-themes and ranked; collating research areas ranked as number one in each sub-theme; providing content to the agenda; preparation of the zero NHRA draft report; preparation of the first NHRA draft report taking into account critical inputs from stakeholders; and stakeholder’s final validation of the NHRA draft report. The paper provides an overview of communicable diseases, non-communicable diseases, sexual and reproductive health, injuries and health system research gaps under four categories of research: situation (burden and determinants); improvement of existing interventions; effectiveness of interventions; and feasibility of developing new capacities (tools and products).Conclusion: The National Health Research Department, with the support of the National Health Research Review Board, will be responsible for dissemination, preparation of rolling annual action plans to secure government funds for implementation of NHRA, promoting adherence among stakeholders, establishing a registry of R4H, establishing a knowledge translation platform, building of public-private-partnerships for research, mobilization of external resources, coordination and monitoring of the implementation of the NHRA. KeywordsSwaziland, National Health Research Agenda, Health Research Priorities, Research Stakeholders, Research Gaps

scholarly journals From fringe to centre-stage: experiences of mainstreaming health equity in a health research collaboration

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Porroche-Escudero ◽  
Jennie Popay ◽  
Fiona Ward ◽  
Saiqa Ahmed ◽  
Dorkas Akeju ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Equity ◽  
Health Inequalities ◽  
National Health ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Determinants Of Health ◽  
Gender Mainstreaming ◽  
Health Improvement ◽  
Structural Determinants ◽  
Applied Health Research

Abstract Background Action to address the structural determinants of health inequalities is prioritized in high-level initiatives such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and many national health strategies. Yet, the focus of much local policy and practice is on behaviour change. Research shows that whilst lifestyle approaches can improve population health, at best they fail to reduce health inequalities because they fail to address upstream structural determinants of behaviour and health outcomes. In health research, most efforts have been directed at three streams of work: understanding causal pathways; evaluating the equity impact of national policy; and developing and evaluating lifestyle/behavioural approaches to health improvement. As a result, there is a dearth of research on effective interventions to reduce health inequalities that can be developed and implemented at a local level. Objective To describe an initiative that aimed to mainstream a focus on health equity in a large-scale research collaboration in the United Kingdom and to assess the impact on organizational culture, research processes and individual research practice. Methods The study used multiple qualitative methods including semi-structured interviews, focus groups and workshops (n = 131 respondents including Public Advisers, university, National Health Service (NHS), and local and document review. Results utilizing Extended Normalization Process Theory (ENPT) and gender mainstreaming theory, the evaluation illuminated (i) the processes developed by Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care North West Coast to integrate ways of thinking and acting to tackle the upstream social determinants of health inequities (i.e. to mainstream a health equity focus) and (ii) the factors that promoted or frustrated these efforts. Conclusions Findings highlight the role of contextual factors and processes aimed at developing and implementing a robust strategy for mainstreaming health equity as building blocks for transformative change in applied health research.

scholarly journals Research productivity of staff in NHS mental health trusts: comparison using the Leiden method

2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex J. Mitchell ◽  
John Gill
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
National Health Service ◽  
Health Service ◽  
National Health ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Research Productivity ◽  
Social Care ◽  
Clinical Implications ◽  
Clinical Services ◽  
Health And Social Care

Aims and methodTo examine research productivity of staff working across 57 National Health Service (NHS) mental health trusts in England. We examined research productivity between 2010 and 2012, including funded portfolio studies and all research (funded and unfunded).ResultsAcross 57 trusts there were 1297 National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) studies in 2011/2012, involving 46140 participants and in the same year staff in these trusts published 1334 articles (an average of only 23.4 per trust per annum). After correcting for trust size and budget, the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust was the most productive. In terms of funded portfolio studies, Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust as well as South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust and Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust had the strongest performance in 2011/2012.Clinical implicationsTrusts should aim to capitalise on valuable staff resources and expertise and better support and encourage research in the NHS to help improve clinical services.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document