Research for better health: the Panamanian priority-setting experience and the need for a new process

The bibliometric landscape of infectious disease research in Panama (1990-2019)

Background

This work aims to analyze the landscape of scientific publications on subjects related to One Health and infectious diseases in Panama. The research questions are: How does the One Health research landscape look like in Panama? Are historical research efforts aligned with the One Health concept? What infectious diseases have received more attention from the local scientific community since 1990?

Methods

Boolean searches on the Web of Science, SCOPUS and PubMed were undertaken to evaluate the main trends of publications related to One Health and infectious disease research in the country of Panama, between 1990 and 2019.

Results

4546 publications were identified since 1990, including 3564 peer-reviewed articles interconnected with One Health related descriptors, and 211 articles focused particularly on infectious diseases. A pattern of exponential growth in the number of publications with various contributions from Panamanian institutions was observed. The rate of multidisciplinary research was moderate, whereas those of interinstitutional and intersectoral research ranged from low to very low. Research efforts have centered largely on protozoan, neglected and arthropod-borne diseases with a strong emphasis on malaria, Chagas and leishmaniasis.

Conclusion

Panama has scientific capabilities on One Health to tackle future infectious disease threats, but the official collaboration schemes and strategic investment to develop further competencies need to be conciliated with modern times, aka the pandemics era. The main proposition here, addressed to the government of Panama, is to launch a One Health regional center to promote multidisciplinary, interinstitutional and intersectoral research activities in Panama and beyond.

Global occupational health research methods education

Occupational and Public Health Research has been developed gradually over the last century, unfortunately not to the same levels in all continental parts of the globe. The aim is to supply an open modular educational program in Occupational- and Public Health research methodology for research of the risk indicators for the prevention of workers' health and safety globally. The modular educational program in research methodology is based on the Humboldtian university model with unity of research and teaching. Research data for the students comes from the research part of the “Maritime Education and Research Network” for all types of industries. The modules constitute the basic education in occupational health science research methodology. The proposal for Master of Science for medical doctor's specialization in occupational medicine with an emphasis on research includes 3 theoretical and a clinical module. The huge difference in research methodology globally indicates inequity in relation to the UN17 goals that need to be taken hand on. Global collaboration in teaching health research methodology is needed to reach the goals of equity in health science education. The aim is to reduce the inequity in global health by strengthening the education in health science research methodology.•

Open access educational program for health science research methodology to reach the UN17 goals.

•

The modules constitute the education in research methodology for Public- and Occupational health.

•

Global education in health research methodology is needed to eliminate the inequity in global health.

Factoring civil society actors into health policy processes in low- and middle-income countries: a review of research articles, 2007-16

Civil society actors have substantially increased their participation in global and national health policymaking processes since the 1970s. Civil society roles in shaping such significant global health milestones as the Doha Declaration on Intellectual Property Rights, the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and the recently adopted United Nations Sustainable Development Goals are well documented, but knowledge of civil society actor influence on health policy processes in low- and middle-income countries remains fragmented. This study analyses 24 peer-reviewed research articles published between 2007 and 2016 to identify factors affecting civil society influence in the pre-implementation stages of the policy process. The articles reviewed span 13 health issues and more than 50 countries in four regions of the world. This body of work focuses on civil society as represented by formal groups, primarily domestic and to some extent international non-governmental organizations, but also social movements, professional associations and faith-based organizations, among others. The studies document several actor-centred and contextual factors that affect civil society actor power, commonly across stages of the policy process. Crucially, civil society actors were challenged to impact the process in countries that lacked participative norms and governing structures. When repressive conditions existed, regime changes and donors sometimes helped to open doors to participation. The power of civil society actors was enhanced when they joined strong epistemic networks and broader coalitions of stakeholders, were resourced, and framed issues in ways that resonated with national policies and political priorities. The synthesis offers guidance to practitioners on factors to consider in strategy development and points to several issues for further investigation by health policy analysis scholars, including the implications of issue (non)adoption by civil society actors and contestation dynamics among those with differing perspectives.

'Knowledge for better health' revisited - the increasing significance of health research systems: a review by departing Editors-in-Chief

How can nations organise research investments to obtain the best bundle of knowledge and the maximum level of improved health, spread as equitably as possible? This question was the central focus of a major initiative from WHO led by Prof Tikki Pang, which resulted in a range of developments, including the publication of a conceptual framework for national health research systems - Knowledge for better health - in 2003, and in the founding of the journal Health Research Policy and Systems (HARPS). As Editors-in-Chief of the journal since 2006, we mark our retirement by tracking both the progress of the journal and the development of national health research systems. HARPS has maintained its focus on a range of central themes that are key components of a national health research system in any country. These include building capacity to conduct and use health research, identifying appropriate priorities, securing funds and allocating them accountably, producing scientifically valid research outputs, promoting the use of research in polices and practice in order to improve health, and monitoring and evaluating the health research system. Some of the themes covered in HARPS are now receiving increased attention and, for example, with the assessment of research impact and development of knowledge translation platforms, the journal has covered their progress throughout that expansion of interest. In addition, there is increasing recognition of new imperatives, including the importance of promoting gender equality in health research if benefits are to be maximised. In this Editorial, we outline some of the diverse and developing perspectives considered within each theme, as well as considering how they are held together by the growing desire to build effective health research systems in all countries.From 2003 until mid-June 2017, HARPS published 590 articles on the above and related themes, with authors being located in 76 countries. We present quantitative data tracing the journal's growth and the increasing external recognition of its role. We thank the many colleagues who have kindly contributed to the journal's success, and finish on an exciting note by welcoming the new Editors-in-Chief who will take HARPS forward.

Towards deep inclusion for equity-oriented health research priority-setting: A working model

Growing consensus that health research funders should align their investments with national research priorities presupposes that such national priorities exist and are just. Arguably, justice requires national health research priority-setting to promote health equity. Such a position is consistent with recommendations made by the World Health Organization and at global ministerial summits that health research should serve to reduce health inequalities between and within countries. Thus far, no specific requirements for equity-oriented research priority-setting have been described to guide policymakers. As a step towards the explication and defence of such requirements, we propose that deep inclusion is a key procedural component of equity-oriented research priority-setting. We offer a model of deep inclusion that was developed by applying concepts from work on deliberative democracy and development ethics. This model consists of three dimensions--breadth, qualitative equality, and high-quality non-elite participation. Deep inclusion is captured not only by who is invited to join a decision-making process but also by how they are involved and by when non-elite stakeholders are involved. To clarify and illustrate the proposed dimensions, we use the sustained example of health systems research. We conclude by reviewing practical challenges to achieving deep inclusion. Despite the existence of barriers to implementation, our model can help policymakers and other stakeholders design more inclusive national health research priority-setting processes and assess these processes' depth of inclusion.

Patients' views on priority setting in neurosurgery: A qualitative study

OBJECT

Accountability for Reasonableness is an ethical framework which has been implemented in various health care systems to improve and evaluate the fairness of priority setting. This framework is grounded on four mandatory conditions: relevance, publicity, appeals, and enforcement. There have been few studies which have evaluated the patient stakeholders' acceptance of this framework; certainly no studies have been done on patients' views on the prioritization system for allocating patients for operating time in a system with pressure on the resource of inpatient beds. The aim of this study is to examine neurosurgical patients' views on the prioritization of patients for operating theater (OT) time on a daily basis at a tertiary and quaternary referral neurosurgery center.

METHODS

Semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with thirty-seven patients, recruited from the neurosurgery clinic at Toronto Western Hospital. Family members and friends who accompanied the patient to their clinic visit were encouraged to contribute to the discussion. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and subjected to thematic analysis using open and axial coding.

RESULTS

Overall, patients are supportive of the concept of a priority-setting system based on fairness, but felt that a few changes would help to improve the fairness of the current system. These changes include lowering the level of priority given to volume-funded cases and providing scheduled surgeries that were previously canceled a higher level of prioritization. Good communication, early notification, and rescheduling canceled surgeries as soon as possible were important factors that directly reflected the patients' confidence level in their doctor, the hospital, and the health care system.

CONCLUSION

This study is the first clinical qualitative study of patients' perspective on a prioritization system used for allocating neurosurgical patients for OT time on a daily basis in a socialized not-for-profit health care system with fixed resources.

Four centuries on from Bacon: progress in building health research systems to improve health systems?

In 1627, Francis Bacon’s New Atlantis described a utopian society in which an embryonic research system contributed to meeting the needs of the society. In this editorial, we use some of the aspirations described in New Atlantis to provide a context within which to consider recent progress in building health research systems to improve health systems and population health. In particular, we reflect on efforts to build research capacity, link research to policy, identify the wider impacts made by the science, and generally build fully functioning research systems to address the needs identified.

In 2014, Health Research Policy and Systems has continued to publish one-off papers and article collections covering a range of these issues in both high income countries and low- and middle-income countries. Analysis of these contributions, in the context of some earlier ones, is brought together to identify achievements, challenges and possible ways forward. We show how 2014 is likely to be a pivotal year in the development of ways to assess the impact of health research on policies, practice, health systems, population health, and economic benefits.

We demonstrate how the increasing focus on health research systems will contribute to realising the hopes expressed in the World Health Report, 2013, namely that all nations would take a systematic approach to evaluating the outputs and applications resulting from their research investment.