scholarly journals Methodology and criteria for setting national health research priorities in Bhutan: a workshop report

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 38-43
Author(s):  
Debbie L. Humphries ◽  
Hannah Ingber ◽  
Mongal Singh Gurung ◽  
Kaveh Khoshnood
Keyword(s):  
National Health ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Research Capacity ◽  
Priority Setting Process ◽  
Research Priority ◽  
Research Activities ◽  
Setting Process ◽  
Medical University

The Bhutanese health system is committed to providing health services for all citizens and is interested in strengthening the country’s health research capacity. The objectives of this workshop were to understand the range of health research activities in Bhutan; to formulate a prioritized research agenda for the Ministry of Health (MoH); to share challenges, gaps and opportunities in health research; and to provide insights for future prioritization exercises. The MoH partnered with Khesar Gyalpo University of Medical University of Bhutan and USA-based facilitators to develop and pilot a methodology for health research priority setting.  The Bhutan priority setting process was adapted from the Combined Approach Matrix and the Essential National Health Research methods.  The methodology proved successful in the systematic creation of a list of health research priorities. Future priority setting processes will build on this workshop, continuing to refine and strengthen the priority setting process in Bhutan. 

scholarly journals Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE)

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Allison Tong ◽  
Anneliese Synnot ◽  
Sally Crowe ◽  
Sophie Hill ◽  
Andrea Matus ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Priority Setting ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Reporting Guideline ◽  
Limited Resources ◽  
Research Topics ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
Research Priority ◽  
Setting Process ◽  
Health Research Priority Setting

Abstract Background Research priority setting with stakeholders can help direct the limited resources for health research toward priority areas of need. Ensuring transparency of the priority setting process can strengthen legitimacy and credibility for influencing the research agenda. This study aims to develop a reporting guideline for priority setting of health research. Methods We searched electronic databases and relevant websites for sources (frameworks, guidelines, or models for conducting, appraising, reporting or evaluating health research priority setting, and reviews (including systematic reviews)), and primary studies of research priority setting to July 2019. We inductively developed a list of reporting items and piloted the preliminary guideline with a diverse range of 30 priority setting studies from the records retrieved. Results From 21,556 records, we included 26 sources for the candidate REPRISE framework and 455 primary research studies. The REporting guideline for PRIority SEtting of health research (REPRISE) has 31 reporting items that cover 10 domains: context and scope, governance and team, framework for priority setting, stakeholders/participants, identification and collection of priorities, prioritization of research topics, output, evaluation and feedback, translation and implementation, and funding and conflict of interest. Each reporting item includes a descriptor and examples. Conclusions The REPRISE guideline can facilitate comprehensive reporting of studies of research priority setting. Improved transparency in research priority setting may strengthen the acceptability and implementation of the research priorities identified, so that efforts and funding are invested in generating evidence that is of importance to all stakeholders. Trial registration Not applicable.

scholarly journals Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allison Tong ◽  
Anneliese Synnot ◽  
Sally Crowe ◽  
Sophie Hill ◽  
Andrea Matus ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Priority Setting ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Reporting Guideline ◽  
Limited Resources ◽  
Research Topics ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
Research Priority ◽  
Setting Process ◽  
Health Research Priority Setting

Abstract Background Research priority setting with stakeholders can help direct the limited resources for health research toward priority areas of need. Ensuring transparency of the priority setting process can strengthen legitimacy and credibility for influencing the research agenda. This study aims to develop a reporting guideline for priority setting of health research. Methods We searched electronic databases and relevant websites for sources (frameworks, guidelines, or models for conducting, appraising, reporting or evaluating health research priority setting, and reviews (including systematic reviews)), and primary studies of research priority setting to July 2019. We inductively developed a list of reporting items and piloted the preliminary guideline with a diverse range of 30 priority setting studies from the records retrieved. Results From 21556 records, we included 26 sources for the candidate REPRISE framework and 455 primary research studies. The REporting guideline for PRIority SEtting of health research(REPRISE) has 31 reporting items that cover 10 domains: context and scope, governance and team, framework for priority setting, stakeholders/participants, identification and collection of priorities, prioritization of research topics, output, evaluation and feedback, translation and implementation, and funding and conflict of interest. Each reporting item includes a descriptor and examples. Conclusions The REPRISE guideline can facilitate comprehensive reporting of studies of research priority setting. Improved transparency in research priority setting may strengthen the acceptability and implementation of the research priorities identified, so that efforts and funding are invested in generating evidence that is of importance to all stakeholders.

scholarly journals Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allison Tong ◽  
Anneliese Synnot ◽  
Sally Crowe ◽  
Sophie Hill ◽  
Andrea Matus ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Priority Setting ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Reporting Guideline ◽  
Limited Resources ◽  
Research Topics ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
Research Priority ◽  
Setting Process ◽  
Health Research Priority Setting

Abstract Background Research priority setting with stakeholders can help direct the limited resources for health research toward priority areas of need. Ensuring transparency of the priority setting process can strengthen legitimacy and credibility for influencing the research agenda. This study aims to develop a reporting guideline for priority setting of health research. Methods We searched electronic databases and relevant websites for sources (frameworks, guidelines, or models for conducting, appraising, reporting or evaluating health research priority setting, and reviews (including systematic reviews)), and primary studies of research priority setting to July 2019. We inductively developed a list of reporting items and piloted the preliminary guideline with a diverse range of 30 priority setting studies from the records retrieved. Results From 21556 records, we included 26 sources for the candidate REPRISE framework and 455 primary research studies. The REporting guideline for PRIority SEtting of health research (REPRISE) has 31 reporting items that cover 10 domains: context and scope, governance and team, framework for priority setting, stakeholders/participants, identification and collection of priorities, prioritization of research topics, output, evaluation and feedback, translation and implementation, and funding and conflict of interest. Each reporting item includes a descriptor and examples. Conclusions The REPRISE guideline can facilitate comprehensive reporting of studies of research priority setting. Improved transparency in research priority setting may strengthen the acceptability and implementation of the research priorities identified, so that efforts and funding are invested in generating evidence that is of importance to all stakeholders.

scholarly journals Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allison Tong ◽  
Anneliese Synnot ◽  
Sally Crowe ◽  
Sophie Hill ◽  
Andrea Matus ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Priority Setting ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Reporting Guideline ◽  
Limited Resources ◽  
Research Topics ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
Research Priority ◽  
Setting Process ◽  
Health Research Priority Setting

Abstract Background Research priority setting with stakeholders can help direct the limited resources for health research toward priority areas of need. Ensuring transparency of the priority setting process can strengthen legitimacy and credibility for influencing the research agenda. This study aims to develop a reporting guideline for priority setting of health research. Methods We searched electronic databases and relevant websites for were searched for sources (frameworks, guidelines, or models for conducting, appraising, reporting or evaluating health research priority setting, and reviews (including systematic reviews)), and primary studies of research priority setting to July 2019. We inductively developed a list of reporting items and piloted the preliminary guideline with a diverse range of 30 priority setting studies from the records retrieved. Results From 21556 records, we included 26 sources for the candidate REPRISE framework and 455 primary research studies. The REporting guideline for PRIority SEtting of health research (REPRISE) has 31 reporting items that cover 10 domains: context and scope, governance and team, framework for priority setting, stakeholders/participants, identification and collection of priorities, prioritization of research topics, output, evaluation and feedback, translation and implementation, and funding and conflict of interest. Each reporting item includes a descriptor and examples. Conclusions The REPRISE guideline can facilitate comprehensive reporting of studies of research priority setting. Improved transparency in research priority setting may strengthen the acceptability and implementation of the research priorities identified, so that efforts and funding are invested in generating evidence that is of importance to all stakeholders.

scholarly journals Health Research Priority Setting in Uganda: A Qualitative Study Describing and Evaluating the Processes

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lydia Kapiriri ◽  
Elizabeth Asege Ekochu ◽  
Harriet Nabudere
Keyword(s):  
Priority Setting ◽  
Health Research ◽  
National Level ◽  
Stakeholder Involvement ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Political Commitment ◽  
Policy Practice ◽  
Research Priority ◽  
National Priority ◽  
Health Research Priority Setting

Abstract Background: Over the years, several approaches to health research priority setting (HRPS) have been devised and applied in low-incomes countries for national level research prioritization. However, there is often a disconnect between the evidence that health policymakers require for decision-making and the research that receives funding. There is a need for countries to evaluate their prioritization processes to support strategies to translate priority setting into policy practice. While health research priority setting is continuously carried out in Uganda, these processes are rarely reported on the scholarly literature and have not been evaluated. This study aimed to describe and evaluate HRPS in Uganda. Methods: This was a qualitative case study consisting of document review and key informant interviews with stakeholders who had either directly participated in or had specialized knowledge of HRPS in Uganda.Results: While Uganda has established and legitimized a National health research organization to set health research priorities, coordinate and provide oversight for health research in the country, several institutions independently conduct their own health research priority setting. The evaluation revealed that while the priority setting processes are often based on systematic approaches and tools and tended to be evidence based, most of the prioritization processes lacked stakeholder involvement and implementation. Moreover, the priorities were not publicized and none had mechanisms for appeals or revisions. In only one case were the priorities implemented.Conclusions: The availability of strong political commitment and a national priority setting institution is an opportunity for strengthening health research priority setting. There should be increased support for the institution to enable it to carry out its duties. The institution should not only invest in participatory, systematic health research priority setting and implementation but evaluation as well in order for them to identify areas for improvement.

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 Sharing power in global health research: an ethical toolkit for designing priority-setting processes that meaningfully include communities

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bridget Pratt
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Reflective Equilibrium ◽  
Empirical Work ◽  
The Philippines ◽  
Project Planning ◽  
Global Health Research ◽  
Research Priority ◽  
Health Research Priority Setting

AbstractTo promote social justice and equity, global health research should meaningfully engage communities throughout projects: from setting agendas onwards. But communities, especially those that are considered disadvantaged or marginalised, rarely have a say in the priorities of the research projects that aim to help them. So far, there remains limited ethical guidance and resources on how to share power with communities in health research priority-setting. This paper presents an “ethical toolkit” for academic researchers and their community partners to use to design priority-setting processes that meaningfully include the communities impacted by their projects. An empirical reflective equilibrium approach was employed to develop the toolkit. Conceptual work articulated ethical considerations related to sharing power in g0l0o0bal health research priority-setting, developed guidance on how to address them, and created an initial version of the toolkit. Empirical work (51 in-depth interviews, 1 focus group, 2 case studies in India and the Philippines) conducted in 2018 and 2019 then tested those findings against information from global health research practice. The final ethical toolkit is a reflective project planning aid. It consists of 4 worksheets (Worksheet 1- Selecting Partners; Worksheet 2- Deciding to Partner; Worksheet 3- Deciding to Engage with the Wider Community; Worksheet 4- Designing Priority-setting) and a Companion Document detailing how to use them. Reflecting on and discussing the questions in Worksheets 1 to 4 before priority-setting will help deliver priority-setting processes that share power with communities and projects with research topics and questions that more accurately reflect their healthcare and system needs.

scholarly journals The kidney cancer research priority-setting partnership: Identifying the top 10 research priorities as defined by patients, caregivers, and expert clinicians

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. 379-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Jones ◽  
Jaimin Bhatt ◽  
Jonathan Avery ◽  
Andreas Laupacis ◽  
Katherine Cowan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Research ◽  
Kidney Cancer ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Research Network ◽  
Cancer Research Network ◽  
Research Priority ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
James Lind Alliance ◽  
Priority Setting Partnership

It is critically important to define disease-specific research priorities to better allocate limited resources. There is growing recognition of the value of involving patients and caregivers, as well as expert clinicians in this process. To our knowledge, this has not been done this way for kidney cancer. Using the transparent and inclusive process established by the James Lind Alliance, the Kidney Cancer Research Network of Canada (KCRNC) sponsored a collaborative consensus-based priority-setting partnership (PSP) to identify research priorities in the management of kidney cancer. The final result was identification of 10 research priorities for kidney cancer, which are discussed in the context of current initiatives and gaps in knowledge. This process provided a systematic and effective way to collaboratively establish research priorities with patients, caregivers, and clinicians, and provides a valuable resource for researchers and funding agencies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document