Health research priority setting in Zambia: a stock taking of approaches conducted from 1998 to 2015

What are the research priorities for strengthening public health emergency preparedness and response in Africa?

BACKGROUND

Research evidence is needed to strengthen capacities in emergency preparedness and response (EPR). However, the absence of a clear research agenda limits the optimal use of research evidence. This paper reports on the prioritization of research questions and topics that could contribute to evidence-informed strengthening of EPR capacities in the African region.

METHODS

The priority-setting consisted of desk review and stakeholder consultation workshop. Twenty-nine people participated in the workshop, including representatives from WHO regional office and EPR focal points in Africa, representatives of research institutions, and partners from Science for Africa Foundation, United Nations Children's Fund and Africa Center for Disease Control. Modified Delphi technique was used to systematically arrive at specific and cross-cutting research priorities in the three broad areas of the EPR, which are program Implementation, Clinical and Epidemiology. The research questions/topics were ranked on five-point Likert scale (1 = very low to 5 = very high) based on seven agreed-on criteria. Research priority score was calculated for each question as the mean of the criteria scores.

RESULTS

A total of 123 research questions comprising, 29 on Epidemiology, 22 on Clinical, 23 on program Implementation, and 49 on cross-cutting issues were ranked. The top ten research priorities were: knowledge and skills of healthcare workers in detecting and responding effectively to disease outbreaks; quality of data (accuracy, timeliness, completeness) for epidemic prone diseases; determinants of vaccine hesitancy; determinants of infection transmission among health care workers during PHE; effective measures for protecting health workers from highly infectious pathogens in PHE; strategies to improve the effectiveness of contact tracing for epidemic prone diseases; effectiveness of current case definitions as screening tools for epidemic and pandemic prone diseases; measures to strengthen national and sub-national laboratory capacity for timely disease confirmation within the Integrated Diseases Surveillance and Response framework; factors affecting prompt data sharing on epidemic-prone diseases; and effective strategies for appropriate community participation in EPR.

CONCLUSIONS

The collaborative multi-stakeholder workshop produced a starting list of priority research questions and topics for strengthening EPR capacities in Africa. Action needs to be taken to continuously update the research agenda and support member States to contextualize the research priorities and commission research for timely generation and uptake of evidence.

Research priority setting in plastic and reconstructive surgery: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The health research agenda has historically been led by researchers; however, their priorities may not necessarily align with those of patients, caregivers and clinicians. Research priority setting initiatives identify and prioritise topics which lack evidence. This is particularly important in plastic surgery, a speciality lacking high-quality evidence to definitively answer many common clinical questions. Research priorities direct research activity and funding, so their selection process must be representative and transparent. This review appraised all priority setting initiatives in plastic surgery using the reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE).

METHODS

OVID Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and the James Lind Alliance (JLA) repository were searched (inception - 11/06/21) using search terms for 'research priority setting' and 'plastic and reconstructive surgery'. Dual-author screening and data extraction were conducted, according to PRISMA.

RESULTS

Of 3899 de-duplicated citations, 17 were included. Most studies were conducted in national (14/17), high-income (16/17) settings. More priority setting initiatives focussed on burns (6/17) and hand surgery (4/17) than other subspecialties. The JLA (5/17) and qualitative (5/17) approaches were most used for prioritisation, followed by Delphi techniques (3/17), other surveys (3/17) and mixed methods (1/17). A minority included patient (8/17) or multi-disciplinary (8/17) stakeholders. Few reported strategies for implementing research priorities (6/17) or measuring their impact (2/17).

CONCLUSIONS

Stakeholders from lower-income countries are underrepresented in priority setting initiatives for plastic surgery, despite the global burden of disease. Future studies should recruit more patient and multidisciplinary stakeholders, to achieve meaningful consensus. Clear implementation strategies are needed to maximise impact.

Research priority setting related to older adults: a scoping review to inform the Cochrane-Campbell Global Ageing Partnership work programme

OBJECTIVE

To explore and map the findings of prior research priority-setting initiatives related to improving the health and well-being of older adults.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

Searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AgeLine, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases from January 2014 to 26 April 2021, and the James Lind Alliance top 10 priorities.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included primary studies reporting research priorities gathered from stakeholders that focused on ageing or the health of older adults (≥60 years). There were no restrictions by setting, but language was limited to English and French.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We used a modified Reporting Guideline for Priority Setting of Health Research (REPRISE) guideline to assess the transparency of the reported methods. Population-intervention-control-outcome (PICO) priorities were categorised according to their associated International Classification of Health Interventions (ICHI) and International Classification of Functioning (ICF) outcomes. Broad research topics were categorised thematically.

RESULTS

Sixty-four studies met our inclusion criteria. The studies gathered opinions from various stakeholder groups, including clinicians (n=56 studies) and older adults (n=35), and caregivers (n=24), with 75% of the initiatives involving multiple groups. None of the included priority-setting initiatives reported gathering opinions from stakeholders located in low-income or middle-income countries. Of the priorities extracted, 272 were identified as broad research topics, while 217 were identified as PICO priorities. PICO priorities that involved clinical outcomes (n=165 priorities) and interventions concerning health-related behaviours (n=59) were identified most often. Broad research topics on health services and systems were identified most often (n=60). Across all these included studies, the reporting of six REPRISE elements was deemed to be critically low.

CONCLUSION

Future priority setting initiatives should focus on documenting a more detailed methodology with all initiatives eliciting opinions from caregivers and older adults to ensure priorities reflect the opinions of all key stakeholder groups.

Approaches to prioritising primary health research: a scoping review

Objective

To systematically identify and describe approaches to prioritise primary research topics in any health-related area.

Methods

We searched Medline and CINAHL databases and Google Scholar. Teams of two reviewers screened studies and extracted data in duplicate and independently. We synthesised the information across the included approaches by developing common categorisation of relevant concepts.

Results

Of 44 392 citations, 30 articles reporting on 25 approaches were included, addressing the following fields: health in general (n=9), clinical (n=10), health policy and systems (n=10), public health (n=6) and health service research (n=5) (10 addressed more than 1 field). The approaches proposed the following aspects to be addressed in the prioritisation process: situation analysis/ environmental scan, methods for generation of initial list of topics, use of prioritisation criteria, stakeholder engagement, ranking process/technique, dissemination and implementation, revision and appeal mechanism, and monitoring and evaluation. Twenty-two approaches proposed involving stakeholders in the priority setting process. The most commonly proposed stakeholder category was ‘researchers/academia’ (n=17, 77%) followed by ‘healthcare providers’ (n=16, 73%). Fifteen of the approaches proposed a list of criteria for determining research priorities. We developed a common framework of 28 prioritisation criteria clustered into nine domains. The criterion most frequently mentioned by the identified approaches was ‘health burden’ (n=12, 80%), followed by ‘availability of resources’ (n=11, 73%).

Conclusion

We identified and described 25 prioritisation approaches for primary research topics in any health-related area. Findings highlight the need for greater participation of potential users (eg, policy-makers and the general public) and incorporation of equity as part of the prioritisation process. Findings can guide the work of researchers, policy-makers and funders seeking to conduct or fund primary health research. More importantly, the findings should be used to enhance a more coordinated approach to prioritising health research to inform decision making at all levels.

What do we know about evidence-informed priority setting processes to set population-level health-research agendas: an overview of reviews

BACKGROUND

This overview aimed to synthesize existing systematic reviews to produce a draft framework of evidence-informed health priority setting that supports countries in identifying appropriate steps and methods when developing and implementing national research agendas.

MAIN BODY

We searched Ovid MEDLINE® and the WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing from 2010 to 2020 for critical or systematic reviews that evaluated research priority setting exercises. We adapted the AMSTAR checklist to assess the quality of included reviews and used adapted frameworks for data extraction and analysis. The search resulted in 2395 titles, of which 31 were included. Populations included in the reviews typically involved patients, families and carers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and research funders. The topics covered in the reviews varied from specific diseases or conditions, approaches for healthcare practice or research priority setting methods itself. All the included systematic reviews were of low or critically low quality. The studies were thematically grouped based on their main focus: identifying and engaging with stakeholders; methods; context; and health area.

CONCLUSION

Our overview of reviews has reconfirmed aspects of existing frameworks, but has also identified new concepts for countries to consider while developing their national research agendas. We propose a preliminary framework for consideration that highlights four key phases: (1) preparatory, (2) priority setting, (3) follow-up phase and (4) sustainability phase, which have thirteen sub-domains to consider.

Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE)

BACKGROUND

Research priority setting with stakeholders can help direct the limited resources for health research toward priority areas of need. Ensuring transparency of the priority setting process can strengthen legitimacy and credibility for influencing the research agenda. This study aims to develop a reporting guideline for priority setting of health research.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases and relevant websites for sources (frameworks, guidelines, or models for conducting, appraising, reporting or evaluating health research priority setting, and reviews (including systematic reviews)), and primary studies of research priority setting to July 2019. We inductively developed a list of reporting items and piloted the preliminary guideline with a diverse range of 30 priority setting studies from the records retrieved.

RESULTS

From 21,556 records, we included 26 sources for the candidate REPRISE framework and 455 primary research studies. The REporting guideline for PRIority SEtting of health research (REPRISE) has 31 reporting items that cover 10 domains: context and scope, governance and team, framework for priority setting, stakeholders/participants, identification and collection of priorities, prioritization of research topics, output, evaluation and feedback, translation and implementation, and funding and conflict of interest. Each reporting item includes a descriptor and examples.

CONCLUSIONS

The REPRISE guideline can facilitate comprehensive reporting of studies of research priority setting. Improved transparency in research priority setting may strengthen the acceptability and implementation of the research priorities identified, so that efforts and funding are invested in generating evidence that is of importance to all stakeholders.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable.

Implementation science in resource-poor countries and communities

Background

Implementation science in resource-poor countries and communities is arguably more important than implementation science in resource-rich settings, because resource poverty requires novel solutions to ensure that research results are translated into routine practice and benefit the largest possible number of people.

Methods

We reviewed the role of resources in the extant implementation science frameworks and literature. We analyzed opportunities for implementation science in resource-poor countries and communities, as well as threats to the realization of these opportunities.

Results

Many of the frameworks that provide theoretical guidance for implementation science view resources as contextual factors that are important to (i) predict the feasibility of implementation of research results in routine practice, (ii) explain implementation success and failure, (iii) adapt novel evidence-based practices to local constraints, and (iv) design the implementation process to account for local constraints. Implementation science for resource-poor settings shifts this view from “resources as context” to “resources as primary research object.” We find a growing body of implementation research aiming to discover and test novel approaches to generate resources for the delivery of evidence-based practice in routine care, including approaches to create higher-skilled health workers—through tele-education and telemedicine, freeing up higher-skilled health workers—through task-shifting and new technologies and models of care, and increasing laboratory capacity through new technologies and the availability of medicines through supply chain innovations. In contrast, only few studies have investigated approaches to change the behavior and utilization of healthcare resources in resource-poor settings. We identify three specific opportunities for implementation science in resource-poor settings. First, intervention and methods innovations thrive under constraints. Second, reverse innovation transferring novel approaches from resource-poor to research-rich settings will gain in importance. Third, policy makers in resource-poor countries tend to be open for close collaboration with scientists in implementation research projects aimed at informing national and local policy.

Conclusions

Implementation science in resource-poor countries and communities offers important opportunities for future discoveries and reverse innovation. To harness this potential, funders need to strongly support research projects in resource-poor settings, as well as the training of the next generation of implementation scientists working on new ways to create healthcare resources where they lack most and to ensure that those resources are utilized to deliver care that is based on the latest research results.

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

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.

Stakeholder involvement in health research priority setting in low income countries: the case of Zambia

SUMMARY

While there is increasing recognition of the importance of stakeholder involvement in health research priority setting there is a paucity of literature reporting on stakeholder involvement in health research priority setting in low income countries. This paper fills this gap by identifying and discussing the roles and legitimacy of different stakeholders (including the public and patients) involved in the health research priority setting process in Zambia; identifying the barriers to public participation and proposing improvement strategies.We interviewed 28 policy makers and practitioners who had participated in the national level health research priority setting in Zambia. Reported participants in health research priority setting included research users, researchers, research funders and the community/ public. Research funders were thought to have undue influence while the public and patients were not effectively involved. This could be due to the public's lack of education, lack of resources to facilitate public involvement and limited skills to meaningfully engage the public. Participation of people from rural areas, women and young professionals was also limited.While there is a commitment to broad stakeholder involvement in health research priority setting, there's limited public/patient involvement. Public education, availing more resources, and skills to meaningfully engage the public need to be explored. The undue influence of research funders should be mitigated and incentives availed to ensure that they align their research funding with the national priorities. These efforts would strengthen meaningful stakeholder engagement in health research prioritization within Zambia and other similar contexts.

ABSTRACT

Background Stakeholder involvement in health research priority setting contributes to the legitimacy and acceptability of the priorities. Hence legitimate priority setting should involve a broad representation of stakeholders including the public. While there is a growing body of literature on health research prioritization in low income countries, there is a paucity of literature reporting on stakeholder involvement in the process. The objectives of this paper are to; 1) identify the stakeholders who were involved in the health research priority setting process in Zambia; 2) discuss the roles and perceived legitimacy of the stakeholders and analyze the degree to which patients/ public was involved; 3) To discuss some of the barriers to stakeholder participation in Zambia and similar contexts and to propose improvement strategies.Methods This was a qualitative study involving 28 in-depth interviews with stakeholders who had participated in the national level health research priority setting exercises in Zambia. An interview guide was used. Audio recorded interviews were transcribed and analyzed using INVIVO 10. Analysis of the Stakeholders' theme involved identifying the different dimensions of stakeholder involvement as discussed in the interviews.Results Identified stakeholders included; research users, researchers, research funders and the community/ public. We found that health research priority setting involved research users, researchers, research funders and the community/ public. However, research funders were thought to have undue influence while the public and patients were not effectively involved. While the respondents recognized the advantages of involving the public and patients, they were not effectively involved. This could be due to the public's limited understanding of the technicalities of priority setting, lack of resources to facilitate public involvement and limited skills to meaningfully engage the public. Participation from rural areas, women, and young professionals was also limited.Conclusions While there is a commitment to broad stakeholder involvement in health research priority setting, the public is left out. Efforts such as public education, availing more resources, and skills to meaningfully engage the public need to be explored. The undue influence of research funders should be mitigated through their direct involvement in the prioritization process and incentives to ensure that they align their research funding with the national priorities. These efforts would strengthen meaningful stakeholder engagement in health research prioritization within Zambia and other similar contexts.

The quest for a framework for sustainable and institutionalised priority-setting for health research in a low-resource setting: the case of Zambia

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-017-0268-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

"The way the country has been carved up by researchers": ethics and power in north-south public health research

BACKGROUND

Despite the recognition of power as being central to health research collaborations between high income countries and low and middle income countries, there has been insufficient detailed analysis of power within these partnerships. The politics of research in the global south is often considered outside of the remit of research ethics. This article reports on an analysis of power in north-south public health research, using Zambia as a case study.

METHODS

Primary data were collected in 2011/2012, through 53 in-depth interviews with: Zambian researchers (n = 20), Zambian national stakeholders (n = 8) and northern researchers who had been involved in public health research collaborations involving Zambia and the global north (n = 25). Thematic analysis, utilising a situated ethics perspective, was undertaken using Nvivo 10.

RESULTS

Most interviewees perceived roles and relationships to be inequitable with power remaining with the north. Concepts from Bourdieu's theory of Power and Practice highlight new aspects of research ethics: Northern and southern researchers perceive that different habituses exist, north and south - habituses of domination (northern) and subordination (Zambian) in relation to researcher relationships. Bourdieu's hysteresis effect provides a possible explanation for why power differentials continue to exist. In some cases, new opportunities have arisen for Zambian researchers; however, they may not immediately recognise and grasp them. Bourdieu's concept of Capitals offers an explanation of how diverse resources are used to explain these power imbalances, where northern researchers are often in possession of more economic, symbolic and social capital; while Zambian researchers possess more cultural capital.

CONCLUSIONS

Inequities and power imbalances need to be recognised and addressed in research partnerships. A situated ethics approach is central in understanding this relationship in north-south public health research.