Suppr超能文献

评估低收入国家的卫生研究重点制定:以赞比亚的卫生研究重点制定为例

Evaluating health research priority-setting in low-income countries: a case study of health research priority-setting in Zambia.

机构信息

Department of Health, Aging and society, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

McMaster University, 30 Huntingwood Avenue, Dundas, ON, Canada.

出版信息

Health Res Policy Syst. 2018 Nov 7;16(1):105. doi: 10.1186/s12961-018-0384-z.

Abstract

UNLABELLED

Priority-setting (PS) for health research presents an opportunity for the relevant stakeholders to identify and create a list of priorities that reflects the country's knowledge needs. Zambia has conducted several health research prioritisation exercises that have never been evaluated. Evaluation would facilitate gleaning of lessons of good practices that can be shared as well as the identification of areas of improvement. This paper describes and evaluates health research PS in Zambia from the perspectives of key stakeholders using an internationally validated evaluation framework.

METHODS

This was a qualitative study based on 28 in-depth interviews with stakeholders who had participated in the PS exercises. An interview guide was employed. Data were analysed using NVIVO 10. Emerging themes were, in turn, compared to the framework parameters.

RESULTS

Respondents reported that, while the Zambian political, economic, social and cultural context was conducive, there was a lack of co-ordination of funding sources, partners and research priorities. Although participatory, the process lacked community involvement, dissemination strategies and appeals mechanisms. Limited funding hampered implementation, monitoring and evaluation. Research was largely driven by the research funders.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there is apparent commitment to health research in Zambia, health research PS is limited by lack of funding, and consistently used explicit and fair processes. The designated national research organisation and the availability of tools that have been validated and pilot tested within Zambia provide an opportunity for focused capacity strengthening for systematic prioritisation, monitoring and evaluation. The utility of the evaluation framework in Zambia could indicate potential usefulness in similar low-income countries.

摘要

未加标签

健康研究的优先排序(PS)为相关利益攸关方提供了一个机会,以确定并创建一份反映国家知识需求的优先事项清单。赞比亚已经进行了几次健康研究优先排序活动,但从未进行过评估。评估将有助于汲取良好实践的经验教训,并确定需要改进的领域。本文从利益攸关方的角度描述和评估了赞比亚的健康研究 PS,使用了国际上经过验证的评估框架。

方法

这是一项基于对参与 PS 活动的利益攸关方进行的 28 次深入访谈的定性研究。采用访谈指南。使用 NVIVO 10 对数据进行分析。新兴主题依次与框架参数进行比较。

结果

受访者报告称,尽管赞比亚的政治、经济、社会和文化环境有利,但资金来源、合作伙伴和研究优先事项缺乏协调。虽然参与度很高,但该过程缺乏社区参与、传播策略和呼吁机制。有限的资金阻碍了实施、监测和评估。研究主要由研究资助者推动。

结论

尽管赞比亚显然致力于健康研究,但健康研究 PS 受到资金短缺的限制,并且始终使用明确和公平的流程。指定的国家研究组织和在赞比亚内部经过验证和试点测试的工具的可用性为有针对性地加强系统优先排序、监测和评估提供了机会。该评估框架在赞比亚的实用性表明它在类似的低收入国家可能具有潜在的用途。

相似文献

2
Stakeholder involvement in health research priority setting in low income countries: the case of Zambia.
Res Involv Engagem. 2018 Nov 5;4:41. doi: 10.1186/s40900-018-0121-3. eCollection 2018.
9
Successful priority setting in low and middle income countries: a framework for evaluation.
Health Care Anal. 2010 Jun;18(2):129-47. doi: 10.1007/s10728-009-0115-2. Epub 2009 Mar 14.

引用本文的文献

2
Exploring Health Research Priority Setting in a South African Province: A Nominal Group Technique Approach.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2024 Jun 30;21(7):861. doi: 10.3390/ijerph21070861.
3
Prioritisation processes for programme implementation and evaluation in public health: A scoping review.
Front Public Health. 2023 Mar 27;11:1106163. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1106163. eCollection 2023.
4
Health research knowledge translation into policy in Zambia: policy-maker and researcher perspectives.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2021 Mar 24;19(1):42. doi: 10.1186/s12961-020-00650-5.
5
Stakeholder involvement in health research priority setting in low income countries: the case of Zambia.
Res Involv Engagem. 2018 Nov 5;4:41. doi: 10.1186/s40900-018-0121-3. eCollection 2018.

本文引用的文献

2
Social franchising: whatever happened to old-fashioned notions of evidence-based practice?
Lancet Glob Health. 2018 Feb;6(2):e130-e131. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(17)30501-6. Epub 2017 Dec 20.
3
Health research priority setting in Zambia: a stock taking of approaches conducted from 1998 to 2015.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2016 Sep 23;14(1):72. doi: 10.1186/s12961-016-0142-z.
4
National health research systems in the WHO African Region: current status and the way forward.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2015 Oct 30;13:61. doi: 10.1186/s12961-015-0054-3.
5
6
How are health research priorities set in low and middle income countries? A systematic review of published reports.
PLoS One. 2014 Oct 2;9(9):e108787. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0108787. eCollection 2014.
8
A checklist for health research priority setting: nine common themes of good practice.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2010 Dec 15;8:36. doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-8-36.
10
Successful priority setting in low and middle income countries: a framework for evaluation.
Health Care Anal. 2010 Jun;18(2):129-47. doi: 10.1007/s10728-009-0115-2. Epub 2009 Mar 14.

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