scholarly journals Global health trials methodological research agenda: results from a priority setting exercise

Trials ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Rosala-Hallas ◽  
Aneel Bhangu ◽  
Jane Blazeby ◽  
Louise Bowman ◽  
Mike Clarke ◽  
...  
Trials ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Catrin Tudur Smith ◽  
Helen Hickey ◽  
Mike Clarke ◽  
Jane Blazeby ◽  
Paula Williamson

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

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e046319
Author(s):  
Jennifer R Evans ◽  
Iris Gordon ◽  
John G Lawrenson ◽  
Roses Parker ◽  
Fiona J Rowe ◽  
...  

IntroductionCochrane Eyes and Vision (CEV) is an international network of individuals working to prepare, maintain and promote access to systematic reviews of interventions to treat, prevent or diagnose eye diseases or vision impairment. CEV plans to undertake a priority setting exercise to identify systematically research questions relevant to our scope, and to formally incorporate input from a wide range of stakeholders to set priorities for new and updated reviews.Methods and analysisThe scope of CEV is broad and our reviews include conditions that are common and have a high global disease burden, for example, cataract and dry eye disease, and conditions that are rare but have a high impact on quality of life and high individual cost such as eye cancer. We plan to focus on conditions prioritised by WHO during the development of the Package of Eye Care Interventions. These conditions were selected based on a combination of data on disease magnitude, healthcare use and expert opinion. We will identify priority review questions systematically by summarising relevant data on research in Eyes and Vision from a range of sources, and compiling a list of 10–15 potential review questions (new and/or updates) for each condition group. We will seek the views of external and internal stakeholders on this list by conducting an online survey. Equity will be a specific consideration.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the ethics committee of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. We will disseminate the findings through Cochrane channels and prepare a summary of the work for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.


2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathias Barra ◽  
Mari Broqvist ◽  
Erik Gustavsson ◽  
Martin Henriksson ◽  
Niklas Juth ◽  
...  

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

Global health is at a crossroads. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development has come with ambitious targets for health and health services worldwide. To reach these targets, many more billions of dollars need to be spent on health. However, development assistance for health has plateaued and domestic funding on health in most countries is growing at rates too low to close the financing gap. National and international decision-makers face tough choices about how scarce health care resources should be spent. Should additional funds be spent on primary prevention of stroke, treating childhood cancer, or expanding treatment for HIV/AIDS? Should health coverage decisions take into account the effects of illness on productivity, household finances, and children’s educational attainment, or should they just focus on health outcomes? Does age matter for priority-setting or should it be ignored? Are health gains far in the future less important than gains in the present? Should higher priority be given to people who are sicker or poorer? This book provides a framework for how to think about evidence-based priority-setting in health. Over 18 chapters, ethicists, philosophers, economists, policymakers, and clinicians from around the world assess the state of current practice in national and global priority-setting, describe new tools and methodologies to address establishing global health priorities, and tackle the most important ethical questions that decision-makers must consider in allocating health resources.


2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 1142-1149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meghan J. Elliott ◽  
Joanna E. M. Sale ◽  
Zahra Goodarzi ◽  
Linda Wilhelm ◽  
Andreas Laupacis ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bridget Pratt

AbstractTo promote social justice and equity, global health research should meaningfully engage communities throughout projects: from setting agendas onwards. But communities, especially those that are considered disadvantaged or marginalised, rarely have a say in the priorities of the research projects that aim to help them. So far, there remains limited ethical guidance and resources on how to share power with communities in health research priority-setting. This paper presents an “ethical toolkit” for academic researchers and their community partners to use to design priority-setting processes that meaningfully include the communities impacted by their projects. An empirical reflective equilibrium approach was employed to develop the toolkit. Conceptual work articulated ethical considerations related to sharing power in g0l0o0bal health research priority-setting, developed guidance on how to address them, and created an initial version of the toolkit. Empirical work (51 in-depth interviews, 1 focus group, 2 case studies in India and the Philippines) conducted in 2018 and 2019 then tested those findings against information from global health research practice. The final ethical toolkit is a reflective project planning aid. It consists of 4 worksheets (Worksheet 1- Selecting Partners; Worksheet 2- Deciding to Partner; Worksheet 3- Deciding to Engage with the Wider Community; Worksheet 4- Designing Priority-setting) and a Companion Document detailing how to use them. Reflecting on and discussing the questions in Worksheets 1 to 4 before priority-setting will help deliver priority-setting processes that share power with communities and projects with research topics and questions that more accurately reflect their healthcare and system needs.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document