Suppr超能文献

对全球九个高收入国家中为健康研究提供资金的主要公共组织的战略计划制定过程进行的分析。

An analysis of the strategic plan development processes of major public organisations funding health research in nine high-income countries worldwide.

作者信息

Morciano Cristina, Errico Maria Cristina, Faralli Carla, Minghetti Luisa

机构信息

Research Coordination and Support Service, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Viale Regina Elena, 299, 00161, Rome, Italy.

National Centre for Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy.

出版信息

Health Res Policy Syst. 2020 Sep 18;18(1):106. doi: 10.1186/s12961-020-00620-x.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

There have been claims that health research is not satisfactorily addressing healthcare challenges. A specific area of concern is the adequacy of the mechanisms used to plan investments in health research. However, the way organisations within countries devise research agendas has not been systematically reviewed. This study seeks to understand the legal basis, the actors and the processes involved in setting research agendas in major public health research funding organisations.

METHODS

We reviewed information relating to the formulation of strategic plans by 11 public funders in nine high-income countries worldwide. Information was collected from official websites and strategic plan documents in English, French, Italian and Spanish between January 2019 and December 2019, by means of a conceptual framework and information abstraction form.

RESULTS

We found that the formulation of a strategic plan is a common and well-established practice in shaping research agendas across international settings. Most of the organisations studied are legally required to present a multi-year strategic plan. In some cases, legal provisions may set rules for actors and processes and may establish areas of research and/or types of research to be funded. Commonly, the decision-making process involves both internal and external stakeholders, with the latter being generally government officials and experts, and few examples of the participation of civil society. The process also varies across organisations depending on whether there is a formal requirement to align to strategic priorities developed by an overarching entity at national level. We also found that, while actors and their interactions were traceable, information, sources of information, criteria and the mechanisms/tools used to shape decisions were made less explicit.

CONCLUSIONS

A complex picture emerges in which multiple interactive entities appear to shape research plans. Given the complexity of the influences of different parties and factors, the governance of the health research sector would benefit from a traceable and standardised knowledge-based process of health research strategic planning. This would provide an opportunity to demonstrate responsible budget stewardship and, more importantly, to make efforts to remain responsive to healthcare challenges, research gaps and opportunities.

摘要

背景

有人声称健康研究未能令人满意地应对医疗保健挑战。一个特别令人担忧的领域是用于规划健康研究投资的机制是否充足。然而,各国国内组织制定研究议程的方式尚未得到系统审查。本研究旨在了解主要公共卫生研究资助组织制定研究议程所涉及的法律依据、行为主体和流程。

方法

我们审查了全球九个高收入国家11个公共资助者制定战略计划的相关信息。2019年1月至2019年12月期间,通过概念框架和信息提取表,从英文、法文、意大利文和西班牙文的官方网站及战略计划文件中收集信息。

结果

我们发现,制定战略计划是在国际范围内塑造研究议程的常见且既定的做法。大多数研究的组织在法律上被要求提交多年期战略计划。在某些情况下,法律规定可能会为行为主体和流程设定规则,并可能确定要资助的研究领域和/或研究类型。通常,决策过程涉及内部和外部利益相关者,后者一般是政府官员和专家,民间社会参与的例子很少。该过程在不同组织之间也有所不同,这取决于是否有正式要求与国家层面总体实体制定的战略重点保持一致。我们还发现,虽然行为主体及其互动是可追溯的,但用于形成决策的信息、信息来源、标准以及机制/工具却不太明确。

结论

呈现出一幅复杂的图景,其中多个相互作用的实体似乎在塑造研究计划。鉴于不同各方和因素影响的复杂性,健康研究部门的治理将受益于可追溯且标准化的基于知识的健康研究战略规划过程。这将提供一个展示负责任的预算管理的机会,更重要的是,努力保持对医疗保健挑战、研究差距和机遇的响应能力。

相似文献

3
Health policy and systems research agendas in developing countries.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2004 Aug 5;2(1):6. doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-2-6.
4
Decoupling the use and meaning of strategic plans in public healthcare.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2013 Jan 4;13:5. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-5.
5
A research roadmap for complementary and alternative medicine - what we need to know by 2020.
Forsch Komplementmed. 2014;21(2):e1-16. doi: 10.1159/000360744. Epub 2014 Mar 24.
8
Critical Care Network in the State of Qatar.
Qatar Med J. 2019 Nov 7;2019(2):2. doi: 10.5339/qmj.2019.qccc.2. eCollection 2019.
10
Primary Care Research Team Assessment (PCRTA): development and evaluation.
Occas Pap R Coll Gen Pract. 2002 Feb(81):iii-vi, 1-72.

引用本文的文献

1
Characterizing Research Hotspots and Trends in Simulation-Based Training in Obstetrics and Gynecology 1961-2024: A Bibliometric Analysis.
J Multidiscip Healthc. 2025 Jun 24;18:3633-3645. doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S528286. eCollection 2025.
2
The scholarly and practice profile of respiratory therapists in Canada: A cross-sectional survey.
Can J Respir Ther. 2024 Aug 30;60:122-139. doi: 10.29390/001c.122345. eCollection 2024.
7
Stakeholder identified research priorities for early intervention in psychosis.
Health Expect. 2022 Dec;25(6):2960-2970. doi: 10.1111/hex.13604. Epub 2022 Sep 21.
8
Automated Workflow for Usability Audits in the PHR Realm.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Jul 22;19(15):8947. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19158947.

本文引用的文献

2
United Kingdom health research analyses and the benefits of shared data.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2016 Jun 24;14(1):48. doi: 10.1186/s12961-016-0116-1.
4
Towards deep inclusion for equity-oriented health research priority-setting: A working model.
Soc Sci Med. 2016 Feb;151:215-24. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.01.018. Epub 2016 Jan 13.
5
Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research: who's listening?
Lancet. 2016 Apr 9;387(10027):1573-1586. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00307-4. Epub 2015 Sep 27.
7
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
How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set.
Lancet. 2014 Jan 11;383(9912):156-65. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62229-1. Epub 2014 Jan 8.
10
An equity lens can ensure an equity-oriented approach to agenda setting and priority setting of Cochrane Reviews.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 May;66(5):511-21. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.11.013. Epub 2013 Mar 9.

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