scholarly journals Research Priorities for the Intersection of Alcohol and HIV/AIDS in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Priority Setting Exercise

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (S2) ◽  
pp. 262-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Gordon ◽  
Mary Jane Rotheram-Borus ◽  
Sarah Skeen ◽  
Charles Perry ◽  
Kendall Bryant ◽  
...  
2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (7) ◽  
pp. 2383-2383 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Gordon ◽  
Mary Jane Rotheram-Borus ◽  
Sarah Skeen ◽  
Charles Parry ◽  
Kendall Bryant ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. e004549
Author(s):  
Cassandra Nemzoff ◽  
Francis Ruiz ◽  
Kalipso Chalkidou ◽  
Abha Mehndiratta ◽  
Lorna Guinness ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
Vol 195 (4) ◽  
pp. 364-365 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ricardo Araya

SummaryThere are huge inequalities in health research within and between countries. It is argued that this may hinder the process of setting and tackling mental health priorities. If this were true, establishing research priorities would be important. However, this is not a simple process and one must be aware of its limitations. Despite a plethora of declarations, funding for mental health research in low- and middle-income countries remains hard to find. In the absence of funding, establishing research priorities is seen by many as an exercise of lesser importance.


2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (Suppl 8) ◽  
pp. e001483 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felicity Goodyear-Smith ◽  
Andrew Bazemore ◽  
Megan Coffman ◽  
Richard Fortier ◽  
Amanda Howe ◽  
...  

IntroductionFinancing of primary healthcare (PHC) is the key to the provision of equitable universal care. We aimed to identify and prioritise the perceived needs of PHC practitioners and researchers for new research in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) about financing of PHC.MethodsThree-round expert panel consultation using web-based surveys of LMIC PHC practitioners, academics and policy-makers sampled from global networks. Iterative literature review conducted in parallel. First round (Pre-Delphi survey) elicited possible research questions to address knowledge gaps about financing. Responses were independently coded, collapsed and synthesised to two lists of questions. Round 2 (Delphi Round 1) invited panellists to rate importance of each question. In Round 3 (Delphi Round 2), panellists ranked questions in order of importance.ResultsA diverse range of PHC practitioners, academics and policy-makers in LMIC representing all global regions identified 479 knowledge gaps as potentially critical to improving PHC financing. Round 2 provided 31 synthesised questions on financing for rating. The top 16 were ranked in Round 3e to produce four prioritised research questions.ConclusionsThis novel exercise created an expansive and prioritised list of critical knowledge gaps in PHC financing research questions. This offers valuable guidance to global supporters of primary care evaluation and implementation, including research funders and academics seeking research priorities. The source and context specificity of this research, informed by LMIC practitioners and academics on a global and local basis, should increase the likelihood of local relevance and eventual success in implementing the findings.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. e0146387 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas M. Harmon ◽  
Kevin A. Fisher ◽  
Margaret G. McGlynn ◽  
John Stover ◽  
Mitchell J. Warren ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine Pitt ◽  
Anna Vassall ◽  
Yot Teerawattananon ◽  
Ulla K. Griffiths ◽  
Lorna Guinness ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document