Improving mental and neurological health research in Latin America: a qualitative study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Research evidence is essential to inform policies, interventions and programs, and yet research activities in mental and neurological (MN) health have been largely neglected, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Many challenges have been identified in the production and utilization of research evidence in Latin American countries, and more work is needed to overcome this disadvantageous situation. This study aims to address the situation by identifying initiatives that could improve MN health research activities and implementation of their results in the Latin American region.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Thirty-four MN health actors from 13 Latin American countries were interviewed as part of an initiative by the Global Forum for Health Research and the World Health Organization to explore the status of MN health research in low- and middle-income countries in Africa, Asia and Latin-America.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A variety of recommendations to increase MN health research activities and implementation of their results emerged in the interviews. These included increasing skilled human resources in MN health interventions and research, fostering greater participation of stakeholders in the generation of research topics and projects, and engendering the interest of national and international institutions in important MN health issues and research methodologies. In the view of most participants, government agencies should strive to have research results inform the decision-making process in which they are involved. Thus these agencies would play a key role in facilitating and funding research. Participants also pointed to the importance of academic recognition and financial rewards in attracting professionals to primary and translational research in MN health. In addition, they suggested that institutions should create intramural resources to provide researchers with technical support in designing, carrying out and disseminating research, including resources to improve scientific writing skills.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Fulfillment of these recommendations would increase research production in MN health in Latin American countries. This, in turn, will raise the profile of these health problems, and consequently will underscore the need of continued high-quality and relevant research, thus fostering a virtuous cycle in the decision-making process to improve MN health care.</p

Is peer review useful in assessing research proposals in Indigenous health? A case study

Background: There has been considerable examination and critique of traditional (academic) peer review processes in quality assessment of grant applications. At the same time, the use of traditional research processes in Indigenous research has been questioned. Many grant funding organisations have changed the composition of their peer review panels to reflect these concerns but the question remains do these reforms go far enough? In this project we asked people working in areas associated with Aboriginal health research in a number of capacities, their views on the use of peer review in assessing Indigenous research proposals. Methods: In semi-structured interviews we asked 18 individuals associated with an Australian Indigenous research funding organisation to reflect on their experience with peer review in quality assessment of grant applications. We also invited input from a steering group drawn from a variety of organisations involved in Aboriginal research throughout Australia and directly consulted with three Aboriginal-controlled health organisations. Results: There was consensus amongst all participants that traditional academic peer review is inappropriate for quality assessment in Indigenous research. Many expressed the view that using a competitive grant review system in Aboriginal health was counterintuitive, since good research transfer is based on effective collaboration. The consensus within the group favoured a system which built research in a collaborative manner incorporating a variety of different stakeholders in the process. In this system, one-off peer review was still seen as valuable in the form of a "critical friend" who provided advice as to how to improve the research proposal. Conclusion: Peer review in the traditional mould should be recognised as inappropriate in Aboriginal research. Building research projects relevant to policy and practice in Indigenous health may require a shift to a new way of selecting, funding and conducting research.Jackie Street, Fran Baum and Ian P.S. Anderso

Challenges to reduce the ‘10/90 gap’: mental health research in Latin American and Caribbean countries

Razzouk D, Gallo C, Olifson S, Zorzetto R, Fiestas F, Poletti G, Mazzotti G, Levav I, Mari JJ. Challenges to reduce the ‘10/90 gap’: mental health research in Latin American and Caribbean countries

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

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

Building health research systems to achieve better health

Health research systems can link knowledge generation with practical concerns to improve health and health equity. Interest in health research, and in how health research systems should best be organised, is moving up the agenda of bodies such as the World Health Organisation. Pioneering health research systems, for example those in Canada and the UK, show that progress is possible. However, radical steps are required to achieve this. Such steps should be based on evidence not anecdotes. Health Research Policy and Systems (HARPS) provides a vehicle for the publication of research, and informed opinion, on a range of topics related to the organisation of health research systems and the enormous benefits that can be achieved. Following the Mexico ministerial summit on health research, WHO has been identifying ways in which it could itself improve the use of research evidence. The results from this activity are soon to be published as a series of articles in HARPS. This editorial provides an account of some of these recent key developments in health research systems but places them in the context of a distinguished tradition of debate about the role of science in society. It also identifies some of the main issues on which 'research on health research' has already been conducted and published, in some cases in HARPS. Finding and retaining adequate financial and human resources to conduct health research is a major problem, especially in low and middle income countries where the need is often greatest. Research ethics and agenda-setting that responds to the demands of the public are issues of growing concern. Innovative and collaborative ways are being found to organise the conduct and utilisation of research so as to inform policy, and improve health and health equity. This is crucial, not least to achieve the health-related Millennium Development Goals. But much more progress is needed. The editorial ends by listing a wide range of topics related to the above priorities on which we hope to feature further articles in HARPS and thus contribute to an informed debate on how best to achieve such progress

Trends of public health research output from India during 2001-2008

BACKGROUND: An understanding of how public health research output from India is changing in relation to the disease burden and public health priorities is required in order to inform relevant research development. We therefore studied the trends in the public health research output from India during 2001-2008 that was readily available in the public domain. METHODS: The scope and type of the published research from India in 2007 that was included in the PubMed database was assessed and compared with a previous similar assessment for 2002. Papers were classified based on the review of abstracts and original public health research papers were assessed in detail. Impact factors for the journals were used to compute quality-adjusted research output. The websites of governmental organizations, academic and research institutions and international organizations were searched in order to identify and review reports on original public health research produced in India from 2001 to 2008. The reports were classified based on the topics covered and quality and their trends over time were assessed. RESULTS: The number of original health research papers from India in PubMed doubled from 4494 in 2002 to 9066 in 2007. This included a 3.1-fold increase in public health research papers, but these comprised only 5% of the total papers in 2007. Within public health, the increase was lowest for the health system and policy category. Several major causes of disease burden in India continued to be underrepresented in the quality-adjusted public health research output in 2007. The number of papers evaluating population health interventions increased from 2002 to 2007, but there were none on the leading non-communicable causes of disease burden or on road traffic injuries. The number of identified original public health research reports increased by 64.7% from 204 in 2001-2004 to 336 in 2005-2008. The proportion of reports on reproductive and child health was very high but decreased slightly from 38.7% of the total in 2001-2004 to 31.5% in 2005-2008 (P = 0.09); those on the leading chronic non-communicable conditions and injuries increased from 6.4% to 13.4% (P = 0.01) but this was still much lower than their contribution to the disease burden. Health system/policy issues were the topic in 27.4% reports but health information issues were covered in a miniscule 0.6% reports. The proportion of reports that were evaluations increased slightly from 26% in 2001-2004 to 31.5% in 2005-2008, with this proportion being higher among the reports commissioned by international organizations (P < 0.001). The proportion of reports commissioned by Indian governmental organizations alone, or in collaboration with international organizations, doubled from 2001-2004 to 2005-2008 (P < 0.001). Only 25% of the total 540 reports had a quality score of adequate or better. The quality of reports produced by collaborations between Indian and international organizations was higher than those produced by Indian or international organizations alone (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This is the first analysis from India that includes research reports in addition to published papers. It provides the most up-to-date understanding of public health research output from India. The increase in available public health research output and the increase in commissioning of this research by Indian governmental organizations are encouraging. However, the distribution of research topics and the quality of research reports continue to be unsatisfactory. It is necessary for health policy to address these continuing deficits in public health research in order to reduce the very large disease burden in India.13 page(s

Fulfillment of the Brazilian Agenda of Priorities in Health Research

This commentary describes how the Brazilian Ministry of Health's (MoH) research support policy fulfilled the National Agenda of Priorities in Health Research (NAPHR). In 2003, the MoH started a democratic process in order to establish a priority agenda in health research involving investigators, health managers and community leaders. The Agenda was launched in 2004 and is guiding budget allocations in an attempt to reduce the gap between scientific knowledge and health practice and activities, aiming to contribute to improving Brazilian quality of life. Many strategies were developed, for instance: Cooperation Agreements between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Science and Technology; the decentralization of research support at state levels with the participation of local Health Secretariats and Science and Technology Institutions; Health Technology Assessment; innovation in neglected diseases; research networks and multicenter studies in adult, women's and children's health; cardiovascular risk in adolescents; clinical research and stem cell therapy. The budget allocated by the Ministry of Health and partners was expressive: US$419 million to support almost 3,600 projects. The three sub-agenda with the higher proportion of resources were "industrial health complex", "clinical research" and "communicable diseases", which are considered strategic for innovation and national development. The Southeast region conducted 40.5% of all projects and detained 59.7% of the resources, attributable to the concentration of the most traditional health research institutes and universities in the states of São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. The second most granted region was the Northeast, which reflects the result of a governmental policy to integrate and modernize this densely populated area and the poorest region in the country. Although Brazil began the design and implementation of the NAPHR in 2003, it has done so in accordance with the 'good practice principles' recently published: inclusive process, information gathering, careful planning and funding policy, transparency and internal evaluation (an external independent evaluation is underway). The effort in guiding the health research policy has achieved and legitimated an unprecedented developmental spurt to support strategic health research. We believe this experience is valuable and applicable to other countries, but different settings and local political circumstances will determine the best course of action to follow

European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP): the path towards a true partnership

European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP) was founded in 2003 by the European Parliament and Council. It is a partnership of 14 European Union (EU) member states, Norway, Switzerland, and Developing Countries, formed to fund acceleration of new clinical trial interventions to fight the human immunodeficiency virus and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS), malaria and tuberculosis (TB) in the sub-Saharan African region. EDCTP seeks to be synergistic with other funding bodies supporting research on these diseases. EDCTP promotes collaborative research supported by multiple funding agencies and harnesses networking expertise across different African and European countries. EDCTP is different from other similar initiatives. The organisation of EDCTP blends important aspects of partnership that includes ownership, sustainability and responds to demand-driven research. The Developing Countries Coordinating Committee (DCCC); a team of independent scientists and representatives of regional health bodies from sub-Saharan Africa provides advice to the partnership. Thus EDCTP reflects a true partnership and the active involvement and contribution of these African scientists ensures joint ownership of the EDCTP programme with European counterparts. The following have been the major achievements of the EDCTP initiative since its formation in 2003; i) increase in the number of participating African countries from two to 26 in 2008 ii) the cumulative amount of funds spent on EDCTP projects has reached 150 m euros, iii) the cumulative number of clinical trials approved has reached 40 and iv) there has been a significant increase number and diversity in capacity building activities. While we recognise that EDCTP faced enormous challenges in its first few years of existence, the strong involvement of African scientists and its new initiatives such as unconditional funding to regional networks of excellence in sub-Saharan Africa is envisaged to lead to a sustainable programme. Current data shows that the number of projects supported by EDCTP is increasing. DCCC proposes that this success story of true partnership should be used as model by partners involved in the fight against other infectious diseases of public health importance in the region