Yoshida Sachiyo
Department of Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
J Glob Health. 2016 Jun;6(1):010507. doi: 10.7189/jogh.06.010507.
Health research is difficult to prioritize, because the number of possible competing ideas for research is large, the outcome of research is inherently uncertain, and the impact of research is difficult to predict and measure. A systematic and transparent process to assist policy makers and research funding agencies in making investment decisions is a permanent need.
To obtain a better understanding of the landscape of approaches, tools and methods used to prioritize health research, I conducted a methodical review using the PubMed database for the period 2001-2014.
A total of 165 relevant studies were identified, in which health research prioritization was conducted. They most frequently used the CHNRI method (26%), followed by the Delphi method (24%), James Lind Alliance method (8%), the Combined Approach Matrix (CAM) method (2%) and the Essential National Health Research method (<1%). About 3% of studies reported no clear process and provided very little information on how priorities were set. A further 19% used a combination of expert panel interview and focus group discussion ("consultation process") but provided few details, while a further 2% used approaches that were clearly described, but not established as a replicable method. Online surveys that were not accompanied by face-to-face meetings were used in 8% of studies, while 9% used a combination of literature review and questionnaire to scrutinise the research options for prioritization among the participating experts.
The number of priority setting exercises in health research published in PubMed-indexed journals is increasing, especially since 2010. These exercises are being conducted at a variety of levels, ranging from the global level to the level of an individual hospital. With the development of new tools and methods which have a well-defined structure - such as the CHNRI method, James Lind Alliance Method and Combined Approach Matrix - it is likely that the Delphi method and non-replicable consultation processes will gradually be replaced by these emerging tools, which offer more transparency and replicability. It is too early to say whether any single method can address the needs of most exercises conducted at different levels, or if better results may perhaps be achieved through combination of components of several methods.
卫生研究难以确定优先次序,因为可能存在的相互竞争的研究思路数量众多,研究结果本身具有不确定性,而且研究的影响难以预测和衡量。因此,始终需要一个系统且透明的流程来协助政策制定者和研究资助机构做出投资决策。
为了更好地了解用于确定卫生研究优先次序的方法、工具和手段的情况,我利用PubMed数据库对2001年至2014年期间的文献进行了系统综述。
共识别出165项进行了卫生研究优先次序确定的相关研究。其中最常使用的是CHNRI方法(26%),其次是德尔菲法(24%)、詹姆斯·林德联盟方法(8%)、综合方法矩阵(CAM)法(2%)和基本国家卫生研究方法(<1%)。约3%的研究报告称没有明确的流程,且关于如何确定优先次序的信息极少。另有19%的研究使用了专家小组访谈和焦点小组讨论相结合的方式(“咨询过程”),但提供的细节很少,还有2%的研究使用的方法有明确描述,但未被确立为可复制的方法。8%的研究使用了未伴随面对面会议的在线调查,9%的研究使用了文献综述和问卷调查相结合的方式,以在参与的专家中审视用于确定优先次序的研究选项。
在PubMed索引期刊上发表的卫生研究中确定优先次序的活动数量正在增加,尤其是自2010年以来。这些活动在从全球层面到个别医院层面的各种层次上开展。随着具有明确结构的新工具和方法的发展,如CHNRI方法、詹姆斯·林德联盟方法和综合方法矩阵,德尔菲法和不可复制的咨询过程可能会逐渐被这些新兴工具所取代,因为这些新兴工具具有更高的透明度和可复制性。现在判断是否有任何单一方法能够满足不同层面上大多数活动的需求,或者是否通过几种方法的组成部分相结合可能会取得更好的结果,还为时过早。