La diversité génétique des bananiers plantains cultivés dans la zone Ouest de la Région des Plateaux au Togo

Le bananier représente l’une des cultures les plus importantes dans le monde. Au Togo, la culture de bananiers plantains se fait surtout dans la Région des Plateaux à l’Ouest dans de petites exploitations agricoles ; ce qui a entrainé une faible productivité. Cependant, les variétés de bananiers plantains cultivées ne sont pas bien connues. Un inventaire a été entrepris dans le but de dénombrer les variétés de bananiers plantains cultivés grâce à des paramètres agromorphologiques et aussi de montrer l’intérêt que suscite la valorisation de la culture de cette plante. Au terme de cette étude, cinq (5) variétés de bananiers plantains ont été recensées. La variété ‘Apim’ est la plus productive suivie de la variété ‘Abladzo’. Contrairement aux autres, la variété ‘Taévé’ produit 2 régimes par pied au lieu d’un régime. Le cycle végétatif des bananiers plantains varie de 11 à 15 mois sauf pour la variété ‘Apim’ qui est de 18 mois. Des études de propagation rapide doivent être envisagées pour la sélection des variétés hautement performantes et la production massive du plantain pour les populations locales.© 2013 International Formulae Group. All rights reserved.Mots clés : Togo, bananier plantain, diversité génétique

Building health research systems: WHO is generating global perspectives, and who’s celebrating national successes?

In 2016, England’s National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) celebrated its tenth anniversary as an innovative national health research system with a focus on meeting patients’ needs. This provides a good opportunity to reflect on how the creation of the NIHR has greatly enhanced important work, started in 1991, to develop a health research system in England that is embedded in the National Health Service. In 2004, WHO identified a range of functions that a national health research system should undertake to improve the health of populations. Health Research Policy and Systems (HRPS) has taken particular interest in the pioneering developments in the English health research system, where the comprehensive approach has covered most, if not all, of the functions identified by WHO. Furthermore, several significant recent developments in thinking about health research are relevant for the NIHR and have informed accounts of its achievements. These include recognition of the need to combat waste in health research, which had been identified as a global problem in successive papers in the Lancet, and an increasing emphasis on demonstrating impact. Here, pioneering evaluation of United Kingdom research, conducted through the impact case studies of the Research Excellence Framework, is particularly important. Analyses informed by these and other approaches identified many aspects of NIHR’s progress in combating waste, building and sustaining research capacity, creating centres of research excellence linked to leading healthcare institutions, developing research networks, involving patients and others in identifying research needs, and producing and adopting research findings that are improving health outcomes. The NIHR’s overall success, and an analysis of the remaining problems, might have lessons for other systems, notwithstanding important advances in many countries, as described in papers in HRPS and elsewhere. WHO’s recently established Global Observatory for Health Research and Development provides an opportunity to promote some of these lessons. To inform its work, the Observatory is sponsoring a thematic series of papers in HRPS focusing on health research issues such as funding flows, priority setting, capacity building, utilisation and equity. While important papers on these have been published, this series is still open to new submissions

How to strengthen a health research system: WHO's review, whose literature and who is providing leadership?

Background Health research is important for the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. However, there are many challenges facing health research, including securing sufficient funds, building capacity, producing research findings and using both local and global evidence, and avoiding waste. A WHO initiative addressed these challenges by developing a conceptual framework with four functions to guide the development of national health research systems. Despite some progress, more is needed before health research systems can meet their full potential of improving health systems. The WHO Regional Office for Europe commissioned an evidence synthesis of the systems-level literature. This Opinion piece considers its findings before reflecting on the vast additional literature available on the range of specific health research system functions related to the various challenges. Finally, it considers who should lead research system strengthening. Main text The evidence synthesis identifies two main approaches for strengthening national health research systems, namely implementing comprehensive and coherent strategies and participation in partnerships. The literature describing these approaches at the systems level also provides data on ways to strengthen each of the four functions of governance, securing financing, capacity-building, and production and use of research. Countries effectively implementing strategies include England, Ireland and Rwanda, whereas West Africa experienced effective partnerships. Recommended policy approaches for system strengthening are context specific. The vast literature on each function and the ever-growing evidence-base are illustrated by considering papers in just one key journal, Health Research Policy and Systems, and analysing the contribution of two national studies. A review of the functions of the Iranian system identifies over 200 relevant and mostly national records; an analysis of the creation of the English National Institute for Health Research describes the key leadership role played by the health department. Furthermore, WHO is playing leadership roles in helping coordinate partnerships within and across health research systems that have been attempting to tackle the COVID-19 crisis. Conclusions The evidence synthesis provides a firm basis for decision-making by policy-makers and research leaders looking to strengthen national health research systems within their own national context. It identifies five crucial policy approaches — conducting situation analysis, sustaining a comprehensive strategy, engaging stakeholders, evaluating impacts on health systems, and partnership participation. The vast and ever-growing additional literature could provide further perspectives, including on crucial leadership roles for health ministries.Health Evidence Network Evidence Synthesis; NIH