Woodward Aniek, Sondorp Egbert, Witter Sophie, Martineau Tim
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2016 Jul 21;14(1):51. doi: 10.1186/s12961-016-0124-1.
There is increasing interest amongst donors in investing in the health sectors of fragile and conflict-affected states, although there is limited research evidence and research funding to support this. Agreeing priority areas is therefore critical. This paper describes an 18-month process to develop a consultative research agenda and questions for health systems research, providing reflections on the process as well as its output.
After a scoping review had been conducted, primary data was collected from August 2014 to September 2015. Data was collected using a mixture of methods, including an online survey (n = 61), two face-to-face group sessions (one with 11 participants; one with 17), email consultation (n = 18), a webinar (n = 65), and feedback via LinkedIn. Two steering committees of purposively selected experts guided the research process - a core steering committee (n = 10) and broad steering committee (n = 20). The process moved from developing broad topics and lists of research needs to grouping and honing them down into a smaller, prioritised agenda, with specific research questions associated to each topic.
An initial list of 146 topics was honed down to 25 research needs through this process, grouped thematically under transition and sustainability, resilience and fragility, gender and equity, accessibility, capacity building, actors and accountability, community, healthcare delivery, health workforce, and health financing. They were not ranked, as all health system areas are interdependent. The research agenda forms a starting point for local contextualisation and is not definitive.
A wide range of stakeholders participated in the different stages of this exercise, which produced a useful starting point for health systems research agenda setting in fragile and conflict-affected states. The process of engagement may have been as valuable for building a community of researchers as the product. It is now important to drive forward the research agenda. Without both a higher profile and deeper focus for this area, there is a real risk that fragile and conflict-affected states will continue to fall behind in global health and development goals.
尽管支持在脆弱和受冲突影响国家的卫生部门投资的研究证据和研究资金有限,但捐助者对这方面的投资兴趣日益浓厚。因此,确定优先领域至关重要。本文描述了一个为期18个月的过程,以制定卫生系统研究的协商性研究议程和问题,对该过程及其产出进行反思。
在进行范围审查之后,于2014年8月至2015年9月收集了原始数据。采用多种方法收集数据,包括在线调查(n = 61)、两次面对面小组会议(一次有11名参与者;一次有17名)、电子邮件咨询(n = 18)、网络研讨会(n = 65)以及通过领英的反馈。两个经过有目的挑选的专家指导委员会指导了研究过程——一个核心指导委员会(n = 10)和一个广泛指导委员会(n = 20)。该过程从确定广泛的主题和研究需求清单开始,逐步将它们分组并提炼成一个更小的、优先排序的议程,每个主题都有与之相关的具体研究问题。
通过这个过程,最初的146个主题清单被提炼为25项研究需求,并按照过渡与可持续性、恢复力与脆弱性、性别与公平、可及性、能力建设、行为者与问责制、社区、医疗服务提供、卫生人力和卫生筹资等主题进行了分组。由于所有卫生系统领域都是相互依存的,因此没有对它们进行排名。该研究议程构成了根据当地情况进行调整的起点,并非最终定论。
众多利益相关者参与了这项工作的不同阶段,这为脆弱和受冲突影响国家的卫生系统研究议程设定提供了一个有用的起点。参与过程对于建立研究人员群体可能与研究成果一样有价值。现在推动研究议程很重要。如果该领域没有更高的关注度和更深入的聚焦,那么脆弱和受冲突影响国家在全球卫生和发展目标方面继续落后的风险很大。