How are health research priorities set in low and middle income countries? A systematic review of published reports.
<h4>Background</h4>Priority setting is increasingly recognised as essential for directing finite resources to support research that maximizes public health benefits and drives health equity. Priority setting processes have been undertaken in a number of low- and middle-income country (LM...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2014-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS ONE |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0108787 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850076508536700928 |
|---|---|
| author | Skye McGregor Klara J Henderson John M Kaldor |
| author_facet | Skye McGregor Klara J Henderson John M Kaldor |
| author_sort | Skye McGregor |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <h4>Background</h4>Priority setting is increasingly recognised as essential for directing finite resources to support research that maximizes public health benefits and drives health equity. Priority setting processes have been undertaken in a number of low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings, using a variety of methods. We undertook a critical review of reports of these processes.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>We searched electronic databases and online for peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed literature. We found 91 initiatives that met inclusion criteria. The majority took place at the global level (46%). For regional or national initiatives, most focused on Sub Saharan Africa (49%), followed by East Asia and Pacific (20%) and Latin America and the Caribbean (18%). A quarter of initiatives aimed to cover all areas of health research, with a further 20% covering communicable diseases. The most frequently used process was a conference or workshop to determine priorities (24%), followed by the Child Health and Nutrition Initiative (CHNRI) method (18%). The majority were initiated by an international organization or collaboration (46%). Researchers and government were the most frequently represented stakeholders. There was limited evidence of any implementation or follow-up strategies. Challenges in priority setting included engagement with stakeholders, data availability, and capacity constraints.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Health research priority setting (HRPS) has been undertaken in a variety of LMIC settings. While not consistently used, the application of established methods provides a means of identifying health research priorities in a repeatable and transparent manner. In the absence of published information on implementation or evaluation, it is not possible to assess what the impact and effectiveness of health research priority setting may have been. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-a46a622c01b14114bd381e57ca8d861b |
| institution | DOAJ |
| issn | 1932-6203 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2014-01-01 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PLoS ONE |
| spelling | doaj-art-a46a622c01b14114bd381e57ca8d861b2025-08-20T02:46:01ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032014-01-0199e10878710.1371/journal.pone.0108787How are health research priorities set in low and middle income countries? A systematic review of published reports.Skye McGregorKlara J HendersonJohn M Kaldor<h4>Background</h4>Priority setting is increasingly recognised as essential for directing finite resources to support research that maximizes public health benefits and drives health equity. Priority setting processes have been undertaken in a number of low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings, using a variety of methods. We undertook a critical review of reports of these processes.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>We searched electronic databases and online for peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed literature. We found 91 initiatives that met inclusion criteria. The majority took place at the global level (46%). For regional or national initiatives, most focused on Sub Saharan Africa (49%), followed by East Asia and Pacific (20%) and Latin America and the Caribbean (18%). A quarter of initiatives aimed to cover all areas of health research, with a further 20% covering communicable diseases. The most frequently used process was a conference or workshop to determine priorities (24%), followed by the Child Health and Nutrition Initiative (CHNRI) method (18%). The majority were initiated by an international organization or collaboration (46%). Researchers and government were the most frequently represented stakeholders. There was limited evidence of any implementation or follow-up strategies. Challenges in priority setting included engagement with stakeholders, data availability, and capacity constraints.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Health research priority setting (HRPS) has been undertaken in a variety of LMIC settings. While not consistently used, the application of established methods provides a means of identifying health research priorities in a repeatable and transparent manner. In the absence of published information on implementation or evaluation, it is not possible to assess what the impact and effectiveness of health research priority setting may have been.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0108787 |
| spellingShingle | Skye McGregor Klara J Henderson John M Kaldor How are health research priorities set in low and middle income countries? A systematic review of published reports. PLoS ONE |
| title | How are health research priorities set in low and middle income countries? A systematic review of published reports. |
| title_full | How are health research priorities set in low and middle income countries? A systematic review of published reports. |
| title_fullStr | How are health research priorities set in low and middle income countries? A systematic review of published reports. |
| title_full_unstemmed | How are health research priorities set in low and middle income countries? A systematic review of published reports. |
| title_short | How are health research priorities set in low and middle income countries? A systematic review of published reports. |
| title_sort | how are health research priorities set in low and middle income countries a systematic review of published reports |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0108787 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT skyemcgregor howarehealthresearchprioritiessetinlowandmiddleincomecountriesasystematicreviewofpublishedreports AT klarajhenderson howarehealthresearchprioritiessetinlowandmiddleincomecountriesasystematicreviewofpublishedreports AT johnmkaldor howarehealthresearchprioritiessetinlowandmiddleincomecountriesasystematicreviewofpublishedreports |