scholarly journals Setting the European environment and health research agenda - Research gaps

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Huss ◽  
F. Matthies-Wiesler ◽  
R. Vermeulen ◽  
A. Peters
2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Huss ◽  
F. Matthies-Wiesler ◽  
R. Vemeulen ◽  
A. Peters

10.3823/2518 ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joses Muthuri Kirigia ◽  
Martin O. Ota ◽  
Babazile Shongwe

Background: The objectives of this article are to describe the process followed in development of the Swaziland’s national health research agenda (NHRA); and to provide an overview of the health research priorities that emerged from that process.Discussion: Swaziland followed a fourteen step process to develop it’s NHRA, namely: search and review of the existing health research priority setting guidelines; situation analysis included review of Swaziland’s socio-economic indicators; identification of research stakeholders; identification of the preliminary main broad research themes; development of questionnaire on ranking of main research themes; workshops with each of the eight stakeholders; ranking of major health themes and identification of sub-themes; identification of research gaps under each sub-theme and main research areas; scoring of research areas; research areas were grouped by sub-themes and ranked; collating research areas ranked as number one in each sub-theme; providing content to the agenda; preparation of the zero NHRA draft report; preparation of the first NHRA draft report taking into account critical inputs from stakeholders; and stakeholder’s final validation of the NHRA draft report. The paper provides an overview of communicable diseases, non-communicable diseases, sexual and reproductive health, injuries and health system research gaps under four categories of research: situation (burden and determinants); improvement of existing interventions; effectiveness of interventions; and feasibility of developing new capacities (tools and products).Conclusion: The National Health Research Department, with the support of the National Health Research Review Board, will be responsible for dissemination, preparation of rolling annual action plans to secure government funds for implementation of NHRA, promoting adherence among stakeholders, establishing a registry of R4H, establishing a knowledge translation platform, building of public-private-partnerships for research, mobilization of external resources, coordination and monitoring of the implementation of the NHRA. KeywordsSwaziland, National Health Research Agenda, Health Research Priorities, Research Stakeholders, Research Gaps


2007 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 351-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mahsa M. Yazdy ◽  
Margaret A. Honein ◽  
Sonja A. Rasmussen ◽  
Jaime L. Frias

The National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted a workshop in January 2006, entitled “Prioritizing a Research Agenda for Orofacial Clefts.” The goals of the meeting were to review existing research on orofacial clefts (OFCs), identify gaps in knowledge that need additional public health research, and develop a prioritized research agenda that can help guide future public health research. Experts in the field of epidemiology, public health, genetics, psychology, speech pathology, dentistry, and health economics participated to create the research agenda. Research gaps identified by the participants for additional public health research included: the roles of maternal nutrition, obesity, and diabetes in the etiology of OFCs; psychosocial outcomes for children with OFCs; the quality of life for families and children with OFCs; and the health care costs of OFCs. To create the research agenda, the participants prioritized the research gaps by public health importance, feasibility, and outcomes of interest. This report summarizes the workshop.


PLoS Medicine ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. e1001115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Piroska Östlin ◽  
Ted Schrecker ◽  
Ritu Sadana ◽  
Josiane Bonnefoy ◽  
Lucy Gilson ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alejandra M. Libunao ◽  
Reneepearl Kim P. Sales ◽  
Jaifred Christian F. Lopez ◽  
Ma. Rowena H. Alcido ◽  
Lester Sam A. Geroy ◽  
...  

Background. Social dynamics, specifically personalities, power dynamics, and emotions, have been shown to influence the methods, outputs, and quality of multi-stakeholder processes, especially the development of a national health research agenda. Objective and Methods. Using a case analysis approach utilizing related conceptual frameworks, the paper determined how personalities, power dynamics, and emotions affected the research priority-setting exercise, identified lessons learned, and recommended how to effectively manage these social dynamics in consultations. Data gathering methods were participant observation and process documentation, results of which were codified and analyzed. Results. Dominant personalities, stakeholders with power, and stakeholders that openly expressed dissatisfaction were most likely to attempt to change the methods and final outputs of the consultation, with varying level of success. Other dominant personalities used their power constructively for a smooth flow of generating and agreeing on ideas. Conclusion. In this case, social dynamics was shown to heavily influence the decision-making process, thus underlining its importance in organizing multisectoral representation. Effectively managing social dynamics may thus have to consider building trust and respect between participants, mediating discussions, reaching a mutually beneficial solution, and establishing and implementing mutually agreed house rules. The significant role of facilitators in developing a climate for truly inclusive participation must also be recognized.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document