Suppr超能文献

确定并满足澳大利亚原住民健康研究的优先事项及其在原住民健康合作研究中心的应用。

Setting and meeting priorities in Indigenous health research in Australia and its application in the Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal health.

作者信息

Monk Johanna M, Rowley Kevin G, Anderson Ian Ps

机构信息

Onemda VicHealth Koori Health Unit, Centre for Health and Society, Melbourne School of Population Health, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

出版信息

Health Res Policy Syst. 2009 Nov 20;7:25. doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-7-25.

Abstract

Priority setting is about making decisions. Key issues faced during priority setting processes include identifying who makes these decisions, who sets the criteria, and who benefits. The paper reviews the literature and history around priority setting in research, particularly in Aboriginal health research. We explore these issues through a case study of the Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal Health (CRCAH)'s experience in setting and meeting priorities.Historically, researchers have made decisions about what research gets done. Pressures of growing competition for research funds and an increased public interest in research have led to demands that appropriate consultation with stakeholders is conducted and that research is of benefit to the wider society. Within Australian Aboriginal communities, these demands extend to Aboriginal control of research to ensure that Aboriginal priorities are met.In response to these demands, research priorities are usually agreed in consultation with stakeholders at an institutional level and researchers are asked to develop relevant proposals at a project level. The CRCAH's experience in funding rounds was that scientific merit was given more weight than stakeholders' priorities and did not necessarily result in research that met these priorities. After reviewing these processes in 2004, the CRCAH identified a new facilitated development approach. In this revised approach, the setting of institutional priorities is integrated with the development of projects in a way that ensures the research reflects stakeholder priorities.This process puts emphasis on identifying projects that reflect priorities prior to developing the quality of the research, rather than assessing the relevance to priorities and quality concurrently. Part of the CRCAH approach is the employment of Program Managers who ensure that stakeholder priorities are met in the development of research projects. This has enabled researchers and stakeholders to come together to collaboratively develop priority-driven research. Involvement by both groups in project development has been found to be essential in making decisions that will lead to robust and useful research.

摘要

确定优先事项关乎做出决策。在确定优先事项的过程中面临的关键问题包括确定谁来做出这些决策、谁来设定标准以及谁将从中受益。本文回顾了有关研究中确定优先事项的文献和历史,特别是在原住民健康研究方面。我们通过对原住民健康合作研究中心(CRCAH)在确定和实现优先事项方面的经验进行案例研究来探讨这些问题。

从历史上看,研究人员决定进行哪些研究。研究资金竞争日益激烈以及公众对研究的兴趣增加,导致人们要求与利益相关者进行适当协商,并且研究要造福更广泛的社会。在澳大利亚原住民社区,这些要求延伸至原住民对研究的掌控,以确保满足原住民的优先事项。

为回应这些要求,通常会在机构层面与利益相关者协商确定研究优先事项,并要求研究人员在项目层面制定相关提案。CRCAH在资金申请轮次中的经验表明,科学价值比利益相关者的优先事项更受重视,而且这不一定会产生符合这些优先事项的研究。2004年对这些流程进行审查后,CRCAH确定了一种新的促进发展方法。在这种修订后的方法中,机构优先事项的确定与项目开发相结合,以确保研究反映利益相关者的优先事项。

这个过程强调在提高研究质量之前确定反映优先事项的项目,而不是同时评估与优先事项的相关性和质量。CRCAH方法的一部分是聘请项目经理,他们确保在研究项目开发过程中满足利益相关者的优先事项。这使得研究人员和利益相关者能够共同协作开展由优先事项驱动的研究。已发现两组人员参与项目开发对于做出能产生可靠且有用研究的决策至关重要。

相似文献

2
Involving stakeholders in research priority setting: a scoping review.
Res Involv Engagem. 2021 Oct 29;7(1):75. doi: 10.1186/s40900-021-00318-6.
3
Primary Care Research Team Assessment (PCRTA): development and evaluation.
Occas Pap R Coll Gen Pract. 2002 Feb(81):iii-vi, 1-72.
5
Risk management frameworks for human health and environmental risks.
J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2003 Nov-Dec;6(6):569-720. doi: 10.1080/10937400390208608.
10
Patient and public engagement in priority setting: A systematic rapid review of the literature.
PLoS One. 2018 Mar 2;13(3):e0193579. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193579. eCollection 2018.

引用本文的文献

2
The epidemiology of superficial Streptococcal A (impetigo and pharyngitis) infections in Australia: A systematic review.
PLoS One. 2023 Nov 30;18(11):e0288016. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288016. eCollection 2023.
3
Priority setting in cardiovascular research in Iran using standard indigenous methods.
J Res Med Sci. 2022 Dec 23;27:91. doi: 10.4103/jrms.jrms_343_22. eCollection 2022.
4
The Health and Wellbeing of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples around the Globe: Ensuring and Promoting Best Practice in Research.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Dec 27;19(1):261. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19010261.
6
Priority-setting in health research in Iran: a qualitative study on barriers and facilitators.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2018 Jul 2;16(1):57. doi: 10.1186/s12961-018-0313-1.
9
Exploring productivity and collaboration in Australian Indigenous health research, 1995-2008.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2013 Nov 8;11:42. doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-11-42.

本文引用的文献

1
Freedom and need: the evolution of public strategy for biomedical and health research in England.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2008 Jan 29;6:2. doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-6-2.
2
Developing a collaborative research system for Aboriginal health.
Aust N Z J Public Health. 2007 Aug;31(4):372-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-6405.2007.00090.x.
3
Shaping biomedical research priorities: the case of the National Institutes of Health.
Health Care Anal. 1999;7(2):115-29. doi: 10.1023/A:1009401507982.
4
On being a good listener: setting priorities for applied health services research.
Milbank Q. 2003;81(3):363-88. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.t01-1-00060.
5
The utilisation of health research in policy-making: concepts, examples and methods of assessment.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2003 Jan 13;1(1):2. doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-1-2.
7
Setting biomedical research priorities: justice, science, and public participation.
Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2001 Jun;11(2):181-204. doi: 10.1353/ken.2001.0017.
8
Dirty questions: Indigenous health and 'Western research'.
Aust N Z J Public Health. 2001 Jun;25(3):197-202. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-842x.2001.tb00563.x.
9
Consulting about priorities for the NHMRC National Breast Cancer Centre: how good is the nominal group technique.
Aust N Z J Public Health. 1997 Jun;21(3):250-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-842x.1997.tb01695.x.
10
The freedom and the responsibility of investigator-initiated research.
Acad Med. 1994 Jun;69(6):437-40. doi: 10.1097/00001888-199406000-00001.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验