An internal health systems research portfolio assessment of a low-income country research institution

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In order to determine the type and amount of health systems research being conducted within ICDDR,B (also known as the Centre), a leading research institution in Bangladesh, an internal review of all on-going research protocols was conducted in September 2007.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A review of all ongoing research protocols within the Centre was conducted. The names of the investigators and the institutional divisions of the protocols were removed in order to decrease the amount of reviewer bias. The building blocks of the World Health Organization's "Framework for Action" on health systems was used to categorize the protocols considered to be health systems research projects. Several additional items were collected, e.g. the highest level of education completed by the Principal Investigator. A total dollar value was placed on the health systems research portfolio of the institution based on the budgets of the selected protocols.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>As of September 2007 16 out of 118 (13.5%) reviewed protocols were considered to be health systems research projects. Results of the six building blocks of the health system categorization demonstrated that a majority of these protocols involved elements of health services delivery. There was very little engagement in more downstream systems and policy research that involved leadership and governance of the health system. Eleven of the HSR studies were local in scope, while there was only one study that has a multinational focus. The Centre's total dollar value for the health systems research project portfolio added up to US$ 3,723,331.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This internal review can serve as a snap shot of on-going activities, and as a baseline for future assessments against which to monitor progress in the area of health systems research. Further, it can serve as a model for other institutions striving to assess and develop health systems research programmes and capacity.</p

Towards enhancing national capacity for evidence informed policy and practice in falls management: a role for a "Translation Task Group"?

There has been a growing interest over recent years, both within Australia and overseas, in enhancing the translation of research into policy and practice. As one mechanism to improve the dissemination and uptake of falls research into policy and practice and to foster the development of policy-appropriate research, a Falls Translation Task Group has formed to facilitate linkage and exchange. There has been a growing interest over recent years, both within Australia and overseas, in enhancing the translation of research into policy and practice. As one mechanism to improve the dissemination and uptake of falls research into policy and practice and to foster the development of policy-appropriate research, a Falls Translation Task Group was formed as part of an NHMRC Population Health Capacity Building grant. This paper reports on the group\u27s first initiative to address issues around the research to policy and practice interface, and identifies a continuing role for such a group. MethodA one day forum brought together falls researchers and decision-makers from across the nation to facilitate linkage and exchange. Observations of the day\u27s proceedings were made by the authors. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire at the commencement of the forum (to ascertain expectations) and at its completion (to evaluate the event). Observer notes and the questionnaire responses form the basis of analysis. Results: Both researchers and decision-makers have a desire to bridge the gap between research and policy and practice. Significant barriers to research uptake were highlighted and included both health system barriers (for example, a lack of financial and human resources) as well as evidence barriers (such as insufficient economic data and implementation research). Solutions to some of these barriers included the identification of clinical champions within the health sector to enhance evidence uptake, and the sourcing of alternative funding to support implementation research and encourage partnerships between researchers, decision-makers and other stakeholders. Conclusion: Participants sought opportunities for ongoing networking and collaboration. Two activities have been identified as priorities: establishing a policy-sensitive research agenda and partnering researchers and decision-makers in the process; and establishing a National Translation Task Group with a broad membership

A review of selected research priority setting processes at national level in low and middle income countries: towards fair and legitimate priority setting

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It is estimated that more than $130 billion is invested globally into health research each year. Increasingly, there is a need to set priorities in health research investments in a fair and legitimate way, using a sound and transparent methodology. In this paper we review selected priority setting processes at national level in low and middle income countries. We outline a set of criteria to assess the process of research priority setting and use these to describe and evaluate priority setting exercises that have taken place at country level. Based on these insights, recommendations are made regarding the constituents of a good priority setting process.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Data were gathered from presentations at a meeting held at the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2008 and a web-based search. Based on this literature review a number of criteria were developed to evaluate the priority setting processes.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Across the countries surveyed there was a relative lack of genuine stakeholder engagement; countries varied markedly in the extent to which the priority setting processes were documented; none of the countries surveyed had a systematic or operational appeals process for outlined priorities; and in all countries (except South Africa) the priorities that were outlined described broad disease categories rather than specific research questions.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Country level priority setting processes differed significantly in terms of the methods used. We argue that priority setting processes must have in-built mechanisms for publicizing results, effective procedures to enforce decisions as well as processes to ensure that the revision of priorities happens in practice.</p

Climate for evidence-informed health systems: A print media analysis in 44 low- and middle-income countries that host knowledge-translation platforms

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>We conducted a print media analysis in 44 countries in Africa, the Americas, Asia, and the Eastern Mediterranean in order to understand one dimension of the climate for evidence-informed health systems and to provide a baseline for an evaluation of knowledge-translation platforms. Our focus was whether and how policymakers, stakeholders, and researchers talk in the media about three topics: policy priorities in the health sector, health research evidence, and policy dialogues regarding health issues.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We developed a search strategy consisting of three progressively more delimited phases. For each jurisdiction, we searched <it>Major World Publications </it>in LexisNexis Academic <it>News </it>for articles published in 2007, selected relevant articles using one set of general criteria and three sets of concept-specific criteria, and coded the selected articles to identify common themes. Second raters took part in the analysis of Lebanon and Malaysia to assess inter-rater reliability for article selection and coding.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We identified approximately 5.5 and 5 times more articles describing health research evidence compared to the number of articles describing policy priorities and policy dialogues, respectively. Few articles describing health research evidence discussed systematic reviews (2%) or health systems research (2%), and few of the policy dialogue articles discussed researcher involvement (9%). News coverage of these concepts was highly concentrated in several countries like China and Uganda, while few articles were found for many other jurisdictions. Kappa scores were acceptable and consistently greater than 0.60.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In many countries the print media, at least as captured in a global database, are largely silent about three topics central to evidence-informed health systems. These findings suggest the need for proactive-media engagement strategies.</p

Institutional capacity for health systems research in East and Central Africa schools of public health: enhancing capacity to design and implement teaching programs

BACKGROUND: The role of health systems research (HSR) in informing and guiding national programs and policies has been increasingly recognized. Yet, many universities in sub-Saharan African countries have relatively limited capacity to teach HSR. Seven schools of public health (SPHs) in East and Central Africa undertook an HSR institutional capacity assessment, which included a review of current HSR teaching programs. This study determines the extent to which SPHs are engaged in teaching HSR-relevant courses and assessing their capacities to effectively design and implement HSR curricula whose graduates are equipped to address HSR needs while helping to strengthen public health policy. METHODS: This study used a cross-sectional study design employing both quantitative and qualitative approaches. An organizational profile tool was administered to senior staff across the seven SPHs to assess existing teaching programs. A self-assessment tool included nine questions relevant to teaching capacity for HSR curricula. The analysis triangulates the data, with reflections on the responses from within and across the seven SPHs. Proportions and average of values from the Likert scale are compared to determine strengths and weaknesses, while themes relevant to the objectives are identified and clustered to elicit in-depth interpretation. RESULTS: None of the SPHs offer an HSR-specific degree program; however, all seven offer courses in the Master of Public Health (MPH) degree that are relevant to HSR. The general MPH curricula partially embrace principles of competency-based education. Different strengths in curricula design and staff interest in HSR at each SPH were exhibited but a number of common constraints were identified, including out-of-date curricula, face-to-face delivery approaches, inadequate staff competencies, and limited access to materials. Opportunities to align health system priorities to teaching programs include existing networks. CONCLUSIONS: Each SPH has key strengths that can be leveraged to design and implement HSR teaching curricula. We propose networking for standardizing HSR curricula competencies, institutionalizing sharing of teaching resources, creating an HSR eLearning platform to expand access, regularly reviewing HSR teaching content to infuse competency-based approaches, and strengthening staff capacity to deliver such curricula.DFI

Exploring health systems research and its influence on policy processes in low income countries

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The interface between research and policymaking in low-income countries is highly complex. The ability of health systems research to influence policy processes in such settings face numerous challenges. Successful analysis of the research-policy interface in these settings requires understanding of contextual factors as well as key influences on the interface. <it>Future Health Systems (FHS): Innovations for Equity </it>is a consortium conducting research in six countries in Asia and Africa. One of the three cross-country research themes of the consortium is analysis of the relationship between research (evidence) and policy making, especially their impact on the poor; insights gained in the initial conceptual phase of FHS activities can inform the global knowledge pool on this subject.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This paper provides a review of the research-policy interface in low-income countries and proposes a conceptual framework, followed by directions for empirical approaches. First, four developmental perspectives are considered: social institutional factors; virtual versus grassroots realities; science-society relationships; and construction of social arrangements. Building on these developmental perspectives three research-policy interface entry points are identified: 1. Recognizing policy as complex processes; 2. Engaging key stakeholders: decision-makers, providers, scientists, and communities; and 3. Enhancing accountability. A conceptual framework with three entry points to the research-policy interface – policy processes; stakeholder interests, values, and power; and accountability – within a context provided by four developmental perspectives is proposed. Potential empirical approaches to the research-policy interface are then reviewed. Finally, the value of such innovative empirical analysis is considered.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The purpose of this paper is to provide the background, conceptual framework, and key research directions for empirical activities focused on the research-policy interface in low income settings. The interface can be strengthened through such analysis leading to potential improvements in population health in low-income settings. Health system development cognizant of the myriad factors at the research-policy interface can form the basis for innovative future health systems.</p

Repurposing NGO data for better research outcomes: A scoping review of the use and secondary analysis of NGO data in health policy and systems research

Background Non-government organisations (NGOs) collect and generate vast amounts of potentially rich data, most of which are not used for research purposes. Secondary analysis of NGO data (their use and analysis in a study for which they were not originally collected) presents an important but largely unrealised opportunity to provide new research insights in critical areas including the evaluation of health policy and programmes. Methods A scoping review of the published literature was performed to identify the extent to which secondary analysis of NGO data has been used in health policy and systems research (HPSR). A tiered analytic approach provided a comprehensive overview and descriptive analyses of the studies which: 1) used data produced or collected by or about NGOs; 2) performed secondary analysis of the NGO data (beyond use of an NGO report as a supporting reference); 3) used NGO-collected clinical data. Results Of the 156 studies which performed secondary analysis of NGO-produced or collected data, 64% (n=100) used NGO-produced reports (e.g. to critique NGO activities and as a contextual reference) and 8% (n=13) analysed NGO-collected clinical data.. Of the studies, 55% investigated service delivery research topics, with 48% undertaken in developing countries and 17% in both developing and developed. NGO-collected clinical data enabled HPSR within marginalised groups (e.g. migrants, people in conflict-affected areas), with some limitations such as inconsistencies and missing data. Conclusion We found evidence that NGO-collected and produced data are most commonly perceived as a source of supporting evidence for HPSR and not as primary source data. However, these data can facilitate research in under-researched marginalised groups and in contexts that are hard to reach by academics, such as conflict-affected areas. NGO–academic collaboration could help address issues of NGO data quality to facilitate their more widespread use in research. Their use could enable relevant and timely research in the areas of health policy, programme evaluation and advocacy to improve health and reduce health inequalities, especially in marginalised groups and developing countries

A checklist for health research priority setting: nine common themes of good practice

Health research priority setting processes assist researchers and policymakers in effectively targeting research that has the greatest potential public health benefit. Many different approaches to health research prioritization exist, but there is no agreement on what might constitute best practice. Moreover, because of the many different contexts for which priorities can be set, attempting to produce one best practice is in fact not appropriate, as the optimal approach varies per exercise. Therefore, following a literature review and an analysis of health research priority setting exercises that were organized or coordinated by the World Health Organization since 2005, we propose a checklist for health research priority setting that allows for informed choices on different approaches and outlines nine common themes of good practice. It is intended to provide generic assistance for planning health research prioritization processes. The checklist explains what needs to be clarified in order to establish the context for which priorities are set; it reviews available approaches to health research priority setting; it offers discussions on stakeholder participation and information gathering; it sets out options for use of criteria and different methods for deciding upon priorities; and it emphasizes the importance of well-planned implementation, evaluation and transparency