Overcoming gaps to advance global health equity: a symposium on new directions for research

<p>Abstract</p> <p>The 20^thanniversary of the groundbreaking report of the Commission on Health Research for Development inspired a Symposium to assess progress made in strengthening essential national health research capacity in developing countries and in global research partnerships. Significant aspects of the health gains achieved in the 20^thcentury can be attributed to the advancement and translation of knowledge, and knowledge continues to occupy center stage amidst growing complexity that characterizes the global health field. The way forward will entail a reinvigoration of research-generated knowledge as a crucial ingredient for global cooperation and global health advances. To do this we will need to overcome daunting gaps, including the divides between domestic and global health, among the disciplines of research (biomedical, clinical, epidemiological, health systems), between clinical and public health approaches, public and private investments, and between knowledge gained and action implemented. Overcoming systematically these obstacles can accelerate progress towards research for equity in health and development.</p

Aid alignment for global health research: the role of HIROs

The lack of a mechanism that aligns financial flows for global health research towards public health priorities limits the impact of health research on health and health equity. Collaborative groups of health research funders appear to be particularly well situated to ameliorate this situation and to initiate discussion on aid alignment for global health research. One such group is the Heads of International Research Organizations (HIROs), which brings together a large number of major government and philanthropic funders of biomedical research. Surprisingly, there is hardly any information publicly available on HIROs' objectives, or on how it aims to achieve more harmonization in the field of research for health. Greater transparency on HIROs' objectives and on its current efforts towards addressing the gap between global health research needs and investments would be desirable, given the enormous potential benefits of more coordination by this group

Stakeholders' Participation in Planning and Priority Setting in the Context of a Decentralised Health Care system: the case of prevention of mother to child Transmission of HIV Programme in Tanzania.

In Tanzania, decentralisation processes and reforms in the health sector aimed at improving planning and accountability in the sector. As a result, districts were given authority to undertake local planning and set priorities as well as allocate resources fairly to promote the health of a population with varied needs. Nevertheless, priority setting in the health care service has remained a challenge. The study assessed the priority setting processes in the planning of the prevention of mother to child transmission of HIV (PMTCT) programme at the district level in Tanzania. This qualitative study was conducted in Mbarali district, south-western Tanzania. The study applied in-depth interviews and focus group discussions in the data collection. Informants included members of the Council Health Management Team, regional PMTCT managers and health facility providers. Two plans were reported where PMTCT activities could be accommodated; the Comprehensive Council Health Plan and the Regional PMTCT Plan that was donor funded. As donors had their own globally defined priorities, it proved difficult for district and regional managers to accommodate locally defined PMTCT priorities in these plans. As a result few of these were funded. Guidelines and main priority areas of the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (MoHSW) also impacted on the ability of the districts and regions to act, undermining the effectiveness of the decentralisation policy in the health sector. The challenges in the priority setting processes revealed within the PMTCT initiative indicate substantial weaknesses in implementing the Tanzania decentralisation policy. There is an urgent need to revive the strategies and aims of the decentralisation policy at all levels of the health care system with a view to improving health service delivery

The utilisation of health research in policy-making: Concepts, examples and methods of assessment

The importance of health research utilisation in policy-making, and of understanding the mechanisms involved, is increasingly recognised. Recent reports calling for more resources to improve health in developing countries, and global pressures for accountability, draw greater attention to research-informed policy-making. Key utilisation issues have been described for at least twenty years, but the growing focus on health research systems creates additional dimensions. The utilisation of health research in policy-making should contribute to policies that may eventually lead to desired outcomes, including health gains. In this article, exploration of these issues is combined with a review of various forms of policy-making. When this is linked to analysis of different types of health research, it assists in building a comprehensive account of the diverse meanings of research utilisation. Previous studies report methods and conceptual frameworks that have been applied, if with varying degrees of success, to record utilisation in policy-making. These studies reveal various examples of research impact within a general picture of underutilisation. Factors potentially enhancing utilisation can be identified by exploration of: priority setting; activities of the health research system at the interface between research and policy-making; and the role of the recipients, or 'receptors', of health research. An interfaces and receptors model provides a framework for analysis. Recommendations about possible methods for assessing health research utilisation follow identification of the purposes of such assessments. Our conclusion is that research utilisation can be better understood, and enhanced, by developing assessment methods informed by conceptual analysis and review of previous studies

Health Research Profile to assess the capacity of low and middle income countries for equity-oriented research

BACKGROUND: The Commission on Health Research for Development concluded that "for the most vulnerable people, the benefits of research offer a potential for change that has gone largely untapped." This project was designed to assess low and middle income country capacity and commitment for equity-oriented research. METHODS: A multi-disciplinary team with coordinators from each of four regions (Asia, Latin America, Africa and Central and Eastern Europe) developed a questionnaire through consensus meetings using a mini-Delphi technique. Indicators were selected based on their quality, validity, comprehensiveness, feasibility and relevance to equity. Indicators represented five categories that form the Health Research Profile (HRP): 1) Research priorities; 2) Resources (amount spent on research); 3) Production of knowledge (capacity); 4) Packaging of knowledge and 5) Evidence of research impact on policy and equity. We surveyed three countries from each region. RESULTS: Most countries reported explicit national health research priorities. Of these, half included specific research priorities to address inequities in health. Data on financing were lacking for most countries due to inadequate centralized collection of this information. The five main components of HRP showed a gradient where countries scoring lower on the Human Development Index (HDI) had a lower capacity to conduct research to meet local health research needs. Packaging such as peer-reviewed journals and policy forums were reported by two thirds of the countries. Seven out of 12 countries demonstrated impact of health research on policies and reported engagement of stakeholders in this process. CONCLUSION: Only one out of 12 countries indicated there was research on all fronts of the equity debate. Knowledge sharing and management is needed to strengthen within-country capacity for research and implementation to reduce inequities in health. We recommend that all countries (and external agencies) should invest more in building a certain minimum level of national capacity for equity-oriented research

Status of national health research systems in ten countries of the WHO African Region

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Committee for Africa, in 1998, passed a resolution (AFR/RC48/R4) which urged its Member States in the Region to develop national research policies and strategies and to build national health research capacities, particularly through resource allocation, training of senior officials, strengthening of research institutions and establishment of coordination mechanisms. The purpose of this study was to take stock of some aspects of national resources for health research in the countries of the Region; identify current constraints facing national health research systems; and propose the way forward. METHODS: A questionnaire was prepared and sent by pouch to all the 46 Member States in the WHO African Region through the WHO Country Representatives for facilitation and follow up. The health research focal person in each of the countries Ministry of Health (in consultation with other relevant health research bodies in the country) bore the responsibility for completing the questionnaire. The data were entered and analysed in Excel spreadsheet. RESULTS: The key findings were as follows: the response rate was 21.7% (10/46); three countries had a health research policy; one country reported that it had a law relating to health research; two countries had a strategic health research plan; three countries reported that they had a functional national health research system (NHRS); two countries confirmed the existence of a functional national health research management forum (NHRMF); six countries had a functional ethical review committee (ERC); five countries had a scientific review committee (SRC); five countries reported the existence of health institutions with institutional review committees (IRC); two countries had a health research programme; and three countries had a national health research institute (NHRI) and a faculty of health sciences in the national university that conducted health research. Four out of the ten countries reported that they had a budget line for health research in the Ministry of Health budget document. CONCLUSION: Governments of countries of the African Region, with the support of development partners, private sector and civil society, urgently need to improve the research policy environment by developing health research policies, strategic plans, legislations, programmes and rolling plans with the involvement of all stakeholders, e.g., relevant sectors, research organizations, communities, industry and donors. In a nutshell, development of high-performing national health research systems in the countries of the WHO African Region, though optional, is an imperative. It may be the only way of breaking free from the current vicious cycle of ill-health and poverty

Improving care for people with dementia: development and initial feasibility study for evaluation of life story work in dementia care

Background: Improving dementia care quality is an urgent priority nationally and internationally. Life story work (LSW) is an intervention that aims to improve individual outcomes and care for people with dementia and their carers. LSW gathers information and artefacts about the person, their history and interests, and produces a tangible output: the ‘life story’. Objective: To establish whether or not full evaluation of LSW was feasible. Design: Mixed-methods feasibility study. Methods: In-depth interviews and focus groups explored experiences of LSW and best practice with people with dementia, family members and dementia care staff. A systematic review explored best practice and theories of change for LSW. These stages helped to identify the outcomes and resources to explore in the feasibility study. A representative sample survey of health and social care dementia care providers in England established LSW practice in different settings. A survey of a self-selected sample of family members of people with dementia explored how LSW is experienced. Two small outcome studies (stepped-wedge study in six care homes and pre-test post-test study in inpatient specialist dementia care wards) explored the feasibility of full evaluation of LSW in these settings. Settings: Survey: generalist and specialist care homes; NHS dementia care settings; and community dementia services. Feasibility study: care homes and NHS inpatient dementia care wards. Participants: NHS and social care services, people with dementia, family carers, care home staff and NHS staff. Interventions: LSW. Main outcome measures: Spread of LSW and good practice, quality of life (QoL) for the person with dementia and carers, relationships between people with dementia and family carers, staff attitudes about dementia, staff burnout, resource use and costs. Review methods: Narrative review and synthesis, following Centre for Review and Dissemination guidelines. Results: Good practice in LSW is identifiable, as are theories of change about how it might affect given outcomes. Indicators of best practice were produced. LSW is spreading but practice and use vary between care settings and are not always in line with identified good practice. Two different models of LSW are evident; these are likely to be appropriate at different stages of the dementia journey. The feasibility study showed some positive changes in staff attitudes towards dementia and, for some people with dementia, improvements in QoL. These may be attributable to LSW but these potential benefits require full evaluation. The feasibility work established the likely costs of LSW and highlighted the challenges of future evaluation in care homes and inpatient dementia care settings. Limitations: There was insufficient evidence in the literature to allow estimation of outcome size. We did not carry out planned Markov chain modelling to inform decisions about carrying out future evaluation because of the dearth of outcome data in the literature; low levels of data return for people with dementia in the hospital settings; lack of detected effect for most people with dementia; and questions about implementation in the research settings. Conclusions: LSW is used across different health and social care settings in England, but in different ways, not all of which reflect ‘good practice’. This large, complex study identified a wide range of challenges for future research, but also the possibility that LSW may help to improve care staff attitudes towards dementia and QoL for some people with dementia. Future work: Full evaluation of LSW as an intervention to improve staff attitudes and care is feasible with researchers based in or very close to care settings to ensure high-quality data collection. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme. Keywords

Public health research systems in the European union

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Strengthening health research is an important objective for international health organisations, but there has been less attention to support for health research in Europe. We describe the public-health (population and organisational level) research systems in the 27 European Union countries.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We developed a typology for describing health research structures based on funding streams and strategies. We drew data from internet sources and asked country informants to review these for consistency and completeness. The structures were described as organograms and narratives in country profiles for each of the 27 EU member states. National public-health research structures included public and independent funding organisations, 'mixed' institutions (which receive funds, and both use and allocate them) and provider institutions.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Most health research is funded through ministries of science or science councils (and sometimes foundations), while parliaments and regions may also contribute. National institutes of public health are usually funded by ministries of health. Many national research organisations both determine research programmes and undertake health research, but there is a move towards public-health sciences within the universities, and a transition from internal grants to competitive funding. Of 27 national research strategies, 17 referred to health and 11 to public health themes. Although all countries had strategies for public health itself, we found little coherence in public-health research programmes. The European Commission has country contact points for both EU research and health programmes, but they do not coordinate with national health-research programmes.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Public-health research is broadly distributed across programmes in EU countries. Better understanding of research structures, programmes and results would improve recognition for public health in Europe, and contribute to practice. EU ministries of health should give greater attention to national public-health research strategies and programmes, and the European Union and the World Health Organisation can provide coordination and support.</p