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

What more can be done? Prioritizing the most promising antenatal interventions to improve birth weight

BACKGROUND

Low birth weight (LBW) is associated with neonatal mortality and sequelae of lifelong health problems; prioritizing the most promising antenatal interventions may guide resource allocation and improve health outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to identify the most promising interventions that are not yet included in the policy recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO) but could complement antenatal care and reduce the prevalence of LBW and related adverse birth outcomes in low- and middle-income settings.

METHODS

We utilized an adapted Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) prioritization method.

RESULTS

In addition to procedures already recommended by WHO for the prevention of LBW, we identified six promising antenatal interventions that are not currently recommended by WHO with an indication for LBW prevention, namely: (1) provision of multiple micronutrients; (2) low-dose aspirin; (3) high-dose calcium; (4) prophylactic cervical cerclage; (5) psychosocial support for smoking cessation; and (6) other psychosocial support for targeted populations and settings. We also identified seven interventions for further implementation research and six interventions for efficacy research.

CONCLUSION

These promising interventions, coupled with increasing coverage of currently recommended antenatal care, could accelerate progress toward the global target of a 30% reduction in the number of LBW infants born in 2025 compared to 2006-10.

Application of the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) methodology to prioritize research to enable the implementation of Ending Cholera: A global roadmap to 2030

BACKGROUND

The "Ending Cholera: A Global Roadmap to 2030" (Roadmap) was launched in October 2017. Following its launch, it became clear that additional evidence is needed to assist countries in controlling cholera and that a prioritized list of research questions is required to focus the limited resources to address the issues most relevant to the implementation of the Roadmap.

METHODS

A comprehensive list of research questions was developed based on inputs from the Working Groups of the Global Taskforce for Cholera Control and other experts. The Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative methodology was adapted to identify the relevant assessment criteria and assign weights to each criterion. The assessment criteria were applied to each research question by cholera experts to derive a score based on which they were prioritized.

FINDINGS

The consultation process involved 177 experts and stakeholders representing different constituencies and geographies with research priority scores ranging from 88·8 to 65·7% and resulted in the prioritization of the top 20 research questions across all Roadmap pillars, the top five research questions for each Roadmap pillar, and three discovery research questions. This resulted in 32 non-duplicative research questions that considers both immediate and long-term Roadmap goals.

INTERPRETATION

The transparent, inclusive, and rigorous process to develop a Research Agenda is aimed to secure broad buy-in and serve as a guide for funding agencies and researchers to focus their efforts to fill the evidence gaps plaguing cholera-endemic countries.

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.

"Rehabilitation Research Framework for Patients With COVID-19" Defined by Cochrane Rehabilitation and the World Health Organization Rehabilitation Programme

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in a surge of research activity. Since its outset, efforts have been made to guide the rapid generation of research in medicine. There are gaps in some areas of rehabilitation research for patients with COVID-19. The development of a specific research framework might serve to help monitor the status of research (mapping), shape and strengthen research by pointing to under-investigated areas, and promote rehabilitation research in this context. This article introduces and discusses the COVID-19 Rehabilitation Research Framework (CRRF) and presents the methodology used for its development. The questions have been developed among the World Health Organization (WHO) Rehabilitation Programme, Cochrane Rehabilitation, and the experts of its Rehabilitation-COVID-19 Evidence-based Response Action International Multiprofessional Steering Committee. The framework is divided into 2 parts and includes 20 questions organized in 4 groups: epidemiology, and evidence at the micro- (individual), meso- (health services), and macro- (health systems) levels. The CRRF offers a comprehensive view of the research areas relevant to COVID-19 and rehabilitation that are necessary to inform best practice and ensure rehabilitation services and health systems can best serve the population with COVID-19. The collaboration between Cochrane Rehabilitation and the WHO Rehabilitation Programme in establishing the CRRF brought together perspectives from the health systems, health management, and clinical evidence. The authors encourage researchers to use the CRRF when planning studies on rehabilitation in the context of COVID-19.

Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: Systematic review and co-design pilot

Background

Numerous frameworks for supporting, evaluating and reporting patient and public involvement in research exist. The literature is diverse and theoretically heterogeneous.

Objectives

To identify and synthesize published frameworks, consider whether and how these have been used, and apply design principles to improve usability.

Search strategy

Keyword search of six databases; hand search of eight journals; ancestry and snowball search; requests to experts.

Inclusion criteria

Published, systematic approaches (frameworks) designed to support, evaluate or report on patient or public involvement in health‐related research.

Data extraction and synthesis

Data were extracted on provenance; collaborators and sponsors; theoretical basis; lay input; intended user(s) and use(s); topics covered; examples of use; critiques; and updates. We used the Canadian Centre for Excellence on Partnerships with Patients and Public (CEPPP) evaluation tool and hermeneutic methodology to grade and synthesize the frameworks. In five co‐design workshops, we tested evidence‐based resources based on the review findings.

Results

Our final data set consisted of 65 frameworks, most of which scored highly on the CEPPP tool. They had different provenances, intended purposes, strengths and limitations. We grouped them into five categories: power‐focused; priority‐setting; study‐focused; report‐focused; and partnership‐focused. Frameworks were used mainly by the groups who developed them. The empirical component of our study generated a structured format and evidence‐based facilitator notes for a “build your own framework” co‐design workshop.

Conclusion

The plethora of frameworks combined with evidence of limited transferability suggests that a single, off‐the‐shelf framework may be less useful than a menu of evidence‐based resources which stakeholders can use to co‐design their own frameworks.

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.