Best research for best health: Summary of responses to the consultation on a new national health research strategy

2005 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
National Health ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Research Strategy

scholarly journals From fringe to centre-stage: experiences of mainstreaming health equity in a health research collaboration

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Porroche-Escudero ◽  
Jennie Popay ◽  
Fiona Ward ◽  
Saiqa Ahmed ◽  
Dorkas Akeju ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Equity ◽  
Health Inequalities ◽  
National Health ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Determinants Of Health ◽  
Gender Mainstreaming ◽  
Health Improvement ◽  
Structural Determinants ◽  
Applied Health Research

Abstract Background Action to address the structural determinants of health inequalities is prioritized in high-level initiatives such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and many national health strategies. Yet, the focus of much local policy and practice is on behaviour change. Research shows that whilst lifestyle approaches can improve population health, at best they fail to reduce health inequalities because they fail to address upstream structural determinants of behaviour and health outcomes. In health research, most efforts have been directed at three streams of work: understanding causal pathways; evaluating the equity impact of national policy; and developing and evaluating lifestyle/behavioural approaches to health improvement. As a result, there is a dearth of research on effective interventions to reduce health inequalities that can be developed and implemented at a local level. Objective To describe an initiative that aimed to mainstream a focus on health equity in a large-scale research collaboration in the United Kingdom and to assess the impact on organizational culture, research processes and individual research practice. Methods The study used multiple qualitative methods including semi-structured interviews, focus groups and workshops (n = 131 respondents including Public Advisers, university, National Health Service (NHS), and local and document review. Results utilizing Extended Normalization Process Theory (ENPT) and gender mainstreaming theory, the evaluation illuminated (i) the processes developed by Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care North West Coast to integrate ways of thinking and acting to tackle the upstream social determinants of health inequities (i.e. to mainstream a health equity focus) and (ii) the factors that promoted or frustrated these efforts. Conclusions Findings highlight the role of contextual factors and processes aimed at developing and implementing a robust strategy for mainstreaming health equity as building blocks for transformative change in applied health research.

scholarly journals Research productivity of staff in NHS mental health trusts: comparison using the Leiden method

2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex J. Mitchell ◽  
John Gill
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
National Health Service ◽  
Health Service ◽  
National Health ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Research Productivity ◽  
Social Care ◽  
Clinical Implications ◽  
Clinical Services ◽  
Health And Social Care

Aims and methodTo examine research productivity of staff working across 57 National Health Service (NHS) mental health trusts in England. We examined research productivity between 2010 and 2012, including funded portfolio studies and all research (funded and unfunded).ResultsAcross 57 trusts there were 1297 National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) studies in 2011/2012, involving 46140 participants and in the same year staff in these trusts published 1334 articles (an average of only 23.4 per trust per annum). After correcting for trust size and budget, the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust was the most productive. In terms of funded portfolio studies, Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust as well as South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust and Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust had the strongest performance in 2011/2012.Clinical implicationsTrusts should aim to capitalise on valuable staff resources and expertise and better support and encourage research in the NHS to help improve clinical services.

scholarly journals Governance of Health Research in Four Eastern and Southern African Countries

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pamela A Juma ◽  
Catherine M Jones ◽  
Rhona Mijumbi-Dave ◽  
Clare Wenham ◽  
Tiny Masupe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Human Resource ◽  
National Health ◽  
Health Research ◽  
National Level ◽  
Research Governance ◽  
African Countries ◽  
Human Resource Capacity ◽  
Research Systems ◽  
Governance Institutions ◽  
Health Research Systems

Abstract Background: Health research governance is an essential function of national health research systems. Yet many African countries have not developed strong health research governance structures and processes. This paper presents a comparative analysis of national health research governance in Botswana, Kenya, Uganda, and Zambia where health sciences research production is well established relative to some others in the region, and continues to grow. It aims to examine progress made and challenges faced in strengthening health research governance in these countries.Methods: We collected data through document review and key informant interviews with a total of 80 participants including decision-makers, researchers, and funders across stakeholder institutions in the four countries. Data on health research governance were thematically coded for policies, legislation, regulation, and institutions and analyzed comparatively across the four national health research systems.Results: All countries were found to be moving from using a research governance framework set by national science, technology and innovation policies to one that is more anchored in health research structures and policies within the health sectors. Kenya and Zambia have adopted health research legislation and policies, while Botswana and Uganda are in the process of developing the same. National level health research coordination and regulation is still hampered by inadequate financial and human resource capacities, which present a challenge for building strong health research governance institutions.Conclusion: Building health research governance as a key pillar of national health research systems involve developing stronger governance institutions, strengthening health research legislation, increasing financing for governance processes, and improving human resource capacity in health research governance and management.

scholarly journals Comparability in Cross-National Health Research Using Insurance Claims Data: The Cases of Germany and The Netherlands

2019 ◽  
Vol 82 (S 01) ◽  
pp. S83-S90
Author(s):  
Rok Hrzic ◽  
Timo Clemens ◽  
Daan Westra ◽  
Helmut Brand
Keyword(s):  
Health Insurance ◽  
Data Processing ◽  
National Health ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Claims Data ◽  
National Level ◽  
Insurance Claims ◽  
Insurance Claims Data ◽  
Health Insurance Claims ◽  
Cross National

Abstract Objective Comparison is a key method in learning about what works in health and healthcare. We discuss the importance of comparability in cross-national health research using health insurance claims data, develop a framework to systematically asses these threats and apply it to the German (DaTraV) and Dutch (Vektis) national-level insurance claims datasets. Methods We propose a framework of threats to the comparability of health insurance claims databases, which includes three domains: (1) representation of populations compared, (2) data sources and data processing and (3) database contents and availability for research purposes. We apply the framework to analyze the comparability of DaTraV and Vektis databases using publicly available information (organization’s websites, scientific publications) and our experiences from an interregional project on rare diseases (EMRaDi). Results Both databases were created for the same purpose (morbidity-based risk adjustment) and use the same underlying sources of data. Differences in population representation and uncertainty about data processing procedures represent potential sources of incomparability. Access for research purposes is feasible in both databases but may be subject to long processing time. Conclusions We find important threats to the comparability of the Dutch and German national insurance claims databases and by extension to validity of any comparative health studies that rely on them. Standard adjustment techniques, making more information available about data collection and processing procedures and adding more diagnosis-related descriptors offer ways to overcome the identified threats to comparability.

Our Pathway To A Successful Non-Medical Research Strategy – A Culture Shift Five Years On

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 2-2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anju Jaggi ◽  
Anthony Gilbert ◽  
Mindy Cairns ◽  
Rachel Dalton
Keyword(s):  
Health Research ◽  
Research Training ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Quality Care ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Research Strategy ◽  
Professional Staff ◽  
Research Activity ◽  
Strategic Objective ◽  
Research Programmes

Background/Aims There is increasing evidence that research-active healthcare provider organisations provide better quality care, increased treatment options and improved clinical outcomes. Delivering evidence based clinical care and a high academic profile was identified as a key strategic objective at a tertiary orthopaedic hospital in the UK. Methods In 2013, the organisation appointed a Director of Therapies and a Consultant physiotherapist with protected time to develop a therapies research strategy. Focus groups were held across the directorate (140 staff across all pay bands and grades including non-professional staff) to identify current research activity, barriers and enablers to developing a research active department. Data were analysed thematically and findings used to inform a 5-year research strategy. Results Five key actions were identified: (1) identifying research programmes in clinical teams; (2) research as a key team objective; (3) provide appropriate research training and education; (4) identify talent and research champions; (5) develop external collaborations with appropriate academic and commercial partners. In 2014, a commercial grant was successful and a therapies research coordinator was appointed to support staff training and research processes. In 2016, a 2-year grant received from the hospital charity supported this ongoing role alongside funding with a higher education institute to provide methodological support, writing skills and grant applications. To date, this has resulted in six peer-reviewed articles and further external funding. Novice researchers have been supported resulting in a National Institute for Health Research PhD fellowship and two National Institute for Health Research internships to build capability. Clinical teams have identified research programmes to maximise resources and time. Of the total number of registered projects, 41% of were submitted to national/international scientific conferences compared to only 16% in 2014. Conclusions The key to a successful research strategy in a clinical setting requires clear strategic support, leadership, talent spotting and training. However, dedicated resources and investment is required for delivery of projects to publications.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document