Department of Health and Aging, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Department of Diseases Surveillance Control and Research, Ministry of Health, Lusaka, Zambia.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2018 Feb 17;16(1):11. doi: 10.1186/s12961-017-0268-7.
Priority-setting for health research in low-income countries remains a major challenge. While there have been efforts to systematise and improve the processes, most of the initiatives have ended up being a one-off exercise and are yet to be institutionalised. This could, in part, be attributed to the limited capacity for the priority-setting institutions to identify and fund their own research priorities, since most of the priority-setting initiatives are driven by experts. This paper reports findings from a pilot project whose aim was to develop a systematic process to identify components of a locally desirable and feasible health research priority-setting approach and to contribute to capacity strengthening for the Zambia National Health Research Authority.
Synthesis of the current literature on the approaches to health research prioritisations. The results of the synthesis were presented and discussed with a sample of Zambian researchers and decision-makers who are involved in health research priority-setting. The ultimate aim was for them to explore the different approaches available for guiding health research priority-setting and to identify an approach that would be relevant and feasible to implement and sustain within the Zambian context.
Based on the evidence that was presented, the participants were unable to identify one approach that met the criteria. They identified attributes from the different approaches that they thought would be most appropriate and proposed a process that they deemed feasible within the Zambian context.
While it is easier to implement prioritisation based on one approach that the initiator might be interested in, researchers interested in capacity-building for health research priority-setting organisations should expose the low-income country participants to all approaches. Researchers ought to be aware that sometimes one shoe may not fit all, as in the case of Zambia, instead of choosing one approach, the stakeholders may select desirable attributes from the different approaches and piece together an approach that would be feasible and acceptable within their context. An approach that builds on the decision-makers' understanding of their contexts and their input to its development would foster local ownership and has a greater potential for sustainability.
在低收入国家,为卫生研究确定优先事项仍然是一项重大挑战。尽管已经做出努力来使这些过程系统化和改进,但大多数举措都只是一次性的,尚未制度化。部分原因可能是由于确定优先事项的机构确定和资助自己的研究优先事项的能力有限,因为大多数确定优先事项的举措都是由专家推动的。本文报告了一个试点项目的结果,该项目旨在制定一个系统的流程,以确定具有地方可取性和可行性的卫生研究优先事项确定方法的组成部分,并为赞比亚国家卫生研究管理局的能力建设做出贡献。
综合当前有关卫生研究优先事项确定方法的文献。对综合结果进行了介绍,并与参与卫生研究优先事项确定的赞比亚研究人员和决策者进行了讨论。最终目的是让他们探索指导卫生研究优先事项确定的不同方法,并确定一种在赞比亚背景下相关且可行的方法。
根据提出的证据,参与者无法确定一种符合标准的方法。他们从不同的方法中确定了他们认为最合适的属性,并提出了他们认为在赞比亚背景下可行的过程。
虽然基于发起者可能感兴趣的一种方法更容易实施优先事项,但对卫生研究优先事项确定组织的能力建设感兴趣的研究人员应该让低收入国家的参与者接触所有方法。研究人员应该意识到,有时候一只鞋可能不适合所有人,就像在赞比亚的情况一样,利益相关者可能不会选择一种方法,而是从不同的方法中选择可取的属性,并拼凑出一种在其背景下可行且可接受的方法。一种基于决策者对其背景的理解及其对其发展的投入的方法将促进本地所有权,并具有更大的可持续性潜力。