scholarly journals The Australian Rural Health Research Collaboration: building collaborative population health research in rural and remote NSW

2011 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 23 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Perkins ◽  
Lesley Barclay ◽  
Kim M. Browne ◽  
Lou-Anne Blunden ◽  
Lyn J. Fragar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rural Health ◽  
Population Health ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Rural And Remote

scholarly journals Assessing and piloting interoperability for population health research

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
F Estupiñán-Romero ◽  
J Gonzalez-García ◽  
E Bernal-Delgado
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Population Health ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Network Architecture ◽  
Digital Health ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Health Data ◽  
Research Network ◽  
Technical Solution ◽  
Privacy And Security

Abstract Issue/problem Interoperability is paramount when reusing health data from multiple data sources and becomes vital when the scope is cross-national. We aimed at piloting interoperability solutions building on three case studies relevant to population health research. Interoperability lies on four pillars; so: a) Legal frame (i.e., compliance with the GDPR, privacy- and security-by-design, and ethical standards); b) Organizational structure (e.g., availability and access to digital health data and governance of health information systems); c) Semantic developments (e.g., existence of metadata, availability of standards, data quality issues, coherence between data models and research purposes); and, d) Technical environment (e.g., how well documented are data processes, which are the dependencies linked to software components or alignment to standards). Results We have developed a federated research network architecture with 10 hubs each from a different country. This architecture has implied: a) the design of the data model that address the research questions; b) developing, distributing and deploying scripts for data extraction, transformation and analysis; and, c) retrieving the shared results for comparison or pooled meta-analysis. Lessons The development of a federated architecture for population health research is a technical solution that allows full compliance with interoperability pillars. The deployment of this type of solution where data remain in house under the governance and legal requirements of the data owners, and scripts for data extraction and analysis are shared across hubs, requires the implementation of capacity building measures. Key messages Population health research will benefit from the development of federated architectures that provide solutions to interoperability challenges. Case studies conducted within InfAct are providing valuable lessons to advance the design of a future pan-European research infrastructure.

scholarly journals The state of health research governance in Africa: what do we know and how can we improve?

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Juliet Nabyonga-Orem ◽  
James Avoka Asamani ◽  
Micheal Makanga
Keyword(s):  
Health Research ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Focal Point ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Dual Role ◽  
Research Governance ◽  
World Health ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Scientific Review

Abstract Background The developments in global health, digital technology, and persistent health systems challenges, coupled with global commitments like attainment of universal health coverage, have elevated the role of health research in low- and middle-income countries. However, there is a need to strengthen health research governance and create a conducive environment that can promote ethics and research integrity and increase public trust in research. Objective To assess whether the necessary structures are in place to ensure health research governance. Methods Employing a cross-sectional survey, we collected data on research governance components from 35 Member States of the World Health Organization (WHO) African Region. Data were analysed using basic descriptive and comparative analysis. Results Eighteen out of 35 countries had legislation to regulate the conduct of health research, while this was lacking in 12 countries. Some legislation was either grossly outdated or too limiting in scope, while some countries had multiple laws. Health research policies and strategies were in place in 16 and 15 countries, respectively, while research priority lists were available in 25 countries. Overlapping mandates of institutions responsible for health research partly explained the lack of strategic documents in some countries. The majority of countries had ethical committees performing a dual role of ethical and scientific review. Research partnership frameworks were available to varying degrees to govern both in-country and north–south research collaboration. Twenty-five countries had a focal point and unit within the ministries of health (MoH) to coordinate research. Conclusion Governance structures must be adaptive to embrace new developments in science. Further, strong coordination is key to ensuring comprehensiveness and complementarity in both research development and generation of evidence. The majority of committees perform a dual role of ethics and scientific review, and these need to ensure representation of relevant expertise. Opportunities that accrue from collaborative research need to be seized through strong MoH leadership and clear partnership frameworks that guide negotiations.

scholarly journals Conducting Population Health Research during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Impacts and Recommendations

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 3320
Author(s):  
Amy R. Villarosa ◽  
Lucie M. Ramjan ◽  
Della Maneze ◽  
Ajesh George
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Data Quality ◽  
Population Health ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Alternative Methods ◽  
Residential Aged Care ◽  
Recruitment Methods ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
The Impact

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in many changes, including restrictions on indoor gatherings and visitation to residential aged care facilities, hospitals and certain communities. Coupled with potential restrictions imposed by health services and academic institutions, these changes may significantly impact the conduct of population health research. However, the continuance of population health research is beneficial for the provision of health services and sometimes imperative. This paper discusses the impact of COVID-19 restrictions on the conduct of population health research. This discussion unveils important ethical considerations, as well as potential impacts on recruitment methods, face-to-face data collection, data quality and validity. In addition, this paper explores potential recruitment and data collection methods that could replace face-to-face methods. The discussion is accompanied by reflections on the challenges experienced by the authors in their own research at an oral health service during the COVID-19 pandemic and alternative methods that were utilised in place of face-to-face methods. This paper concludes that, although COVID-19 presents challenges to the conduct of population health research, there is a range of alternative methods to face-to-face recruitment and data collection. These alternative methods should be considered in light of project aims to ensure data quality is not compromised.

Developing a Guideline of Good Practice in a North–South Health Research Collaboration: A Participatory Approach

2007 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Birgit Jentsch ◽  
Julia Hussein
Keyword(s):  
Health Research ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Good Practice ◽  
International Health ◽  
Participatory Approach ◽  
Colonial History ◽  
Poor Countries ◽  
Research Collaborations ◽  
Open Relationships ◽  
Reference Document

North–South health research collaborations have a colonial history, and a contested presence in which organisations from resource-poor countries depend on collaborations with grant-holding institutions from affluent countries. Despite this sensitive context, there is a remarkable lack of guidance to support North–South health research collaborations in a comprehensive manner. A reference document of practical advice can establish standards from the beginning, thereby promoting equitable and open relationships. This article explains the process and some results of the development of such a document – a Guideline of Good Practice (GGP)– for the international health research collaboration Initiative for Maternal Mortality Programme Assessment (IMMPACT).

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.

Population Health and Social Governance: A Review, an Update, Some Clarifications, and a Response

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. 731-738 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick O’Byrne
Keyword(s):  
Critical Theory ◽  
Population Health ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
Qualitative Health Research ◽  
Social Governance ◽  
Depth Study ◽  
And Control

Critical theory is a paradigm that promotes viewpoints that are alternative and, at times, contrary to mainstream beliefs and dictates. In 2012, I adopted this perspective to review the role of ethnography and surmised that the data which arise from this research approach, which I described as an in-depth study of cultures, can be used to discipline and control these groups. In this edition of Qualitative Health Research, another author has critiqued this position. In this article, I review this critique, reiterate my position, update the data I used for my 2012 article, and highlight how I navigate what I feel is a tension between critical theory and practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document