National workshop for health research prioritization in Jordan

Abstract BackgroundThe Saudi Vision 2030 project recognized the integral role of health research in transforming, modernizing and governing the healthcare system, as well as improving health. The nature of health research prioritization is context-specific, and there is an obligation to effectively allocate resources to initiatives that will achieve the greatest impact, which is discussed in this paper.MethodsThe best practice for health research prioritization depends on the existing needs and context. The e-Delphi technique was conducted via an online self-administered questionnaire that covered health research topics, topics related to Vision 2030, as well as collaborative research. Criteria used for scoring the selected topics were: appropriateness, relevance, feasibility, urgency, collaboration and impact of research outcome. Research domains were prioritized by ranking the weighted mean aggregate score and all topics of the top five ranked domains, along with the aggregate scores of the answers of those in leadership positions were pooled together, validated, verified, summarized, refined and then classified into themes. ResultsThe participants included those from a full range of health specialties and subspecialties (46.5% physicians, 39% health specialists, 10% pharmacists and 3.6% dentists), and the study achieved balanced regional participation and covered a wide spectrum of qualification and professional levels. In total there were 2252 participants and 98% belonged to MoH. Of those from the MoH, 134 were leaders (85 Headquarters policy makers and 49 regional decision makers), while the rest were made up from individuals from 16 Health Affairs Directorates spanning 75 hospitals and specialized health centers, 24 primary health care centers , 2 healthcare clusters, in addition to five medical cities. Community involvement was represented by 26 organizations. Approximately half of stakeholders contributed to scientific research, while 24% had previous publications, and only 6% had a direct influence in health policymaking. The study deliverables were listed into three agendas:1. Health System Research Priority Themes: Service Delivery, Workforce, Information Systems, Access to Essential Medicines, Financing, Governance & Leadership and Disaster Response. 2. Diseases and Health Problems Themes: Non-Communicable and Communicable Diseases, Trauma, Public Health, Dental Health, Environmental Health, Pilgrims’ Health, Women’s Health, Child & Geriatric Health, Biomedical Technology, Radiology and Physical Technology.3. National and International Collaborative Research Themes: Major research areas impacted by COVID-19, Public Health, ‎ Healthcare Access, Medical Care & Universal Health Coverage, Value-based Healthcare, Health System Financing and Economics, Health Information and Communication Technology, Health System Governance, Health Workforce Development and Health System Preparedness and Response to Emergency.Conclusion Adequate description of the stakeholders and the methodology can strengthen legitimacy, credibility and maximize the impact of the priority setting process. Involvement of policymakers, researchers and funding organizations increases the opportunity of translation into actual research, supports redesigning the research landscape and ensures uptake of results and integration.

Download Full-text

Applying Knowledge Management in Generating and Using Evidence in Health Research Priority Setting (HRPS)

Acta Medica Philippina ◽

10.47895/amp.v53i3.160 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 53 (3) ◽

Author(s):

Ma. Rowena H. Alcido ◽

Joseph V. Oraño ◽

Lester Sam A. Geroy

Keyword(s):

Knowledge Management ◽

Priority Setting ◽

Health Research ◽

Research Agenda ◽

National Level ◽

The Philippines ◽

Situational Analysis ◽

Research Prioritization ◽

Research Priority ◽

Health Research Priority Setting

Background. Current international recommendations in generating and using evidence in Health Research Priority Setting (HRPS) include the use of systematic reviews, and systematic or scientific situational analysis. In the Philippines, the Philippine National Health Research System’s (PNHRS) National Guidelines for Health Research Prioritization recommends the use of either a Combined Approach Matrix (CAM) or situational analysis in generating and using evidence for HRPS. At present, there is a lack of a gold standard in generating and utilizing evidence in HRPS. Objective. The primary objective of this paper is to document a practical yet alternative/innovative approach on how evidence was generated and utilized in the process of HRPS as observed in the development of the National Unified Health Research Agenda (NUHRA) in the Philippines. Specifically, it identifies the types of knowledge products produced and their role in the process of health research agenda setting; how evidence was used and managed in the course of NUHRA development; and, the lessons learned from the experience. Methods. This case study is descriptive of the experience of generating and utilizing evidence for HRPS in the Philippines. The study utilized primary and secondary data. Knowledge Management (KM) was used as a lens to describe the process of generating and managing information for the NUHRA. Document analysis was used in comparing and aligning data with the integrated KM framework. Results. Pre-selected data were captured and created; shared and disseminated; and subsequently acquired and applied voluntarily by stakeholders during the process of HRPS. Relevant data was presented into various information products designed with a specific stakeholder in mind. Technical papers were developed to cater to national level stakeholders and focused on broad, nationally-relevant issues. Regional situational analysis reports focused on regional and local data and were designed for regional stakeholders to use during the development of Regional Unified Health Research Agenda (RUHRA). Infographics were developed to present the findings of the technical papers creatively and concisely and the NUHRA methodology and were presented to both national and regional stakeholders. The RUHRAs and the NUHRA were the outputs of the health research prioritization activities and will be made available through local and national channels of the PNHRS. Recommendations. Opportunities for formalization and institutionalization of knowledge management for generating and using evidence in HRPS may be explored to address health information fragmentation across the health research system.

Download Full-text