Cargando…
Priority setting for mental health research in Chile
BACKGROUND: Scientific knowledge is a fundamental tool for making informed health policy decisions, but the link between health research and public policy decision-making is often missing. This study aims to identify and prioritize a national set of research gaps in mental health. METHODS: A multi-a...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5625763/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29026439 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13033-017-0168-9 |
_version_ | 1783268448502022144 |
---|---|
author | Zitko, Pedro Borghero, Francesca Zavala, Cynthia Markkula, Niina Santelices, Emilio Libuy, Nicolás Pemjean, Alfredo |
author_facet | Zitko, Pedro Borghero, Francesca Zavala, Cynthia Markkula, Niina Santelices, Emilio Libuy, Nicolás Pemjean, Alfredo |
author_sort | Zitko, Pedro |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Scientific knowledge is a fundamental tool for making informed health policy decisions, but the link between health research and public policy decision-making is often missing. This study aims to identify and prioritize a national set of research gaps in mental health. METHODS: A multi-approach method to identify gaps in knowledge was developed, including (1) document analysis and identification of possible research questions, (2) interviews to Ministry of Health key informants, (3) focus groups with different stakeholders, and (4) a web consultation addressed to academics. The identified gaps were translated to a standardized format of research questions. Criteria for prioritization were extracted from interviews and focus groups. Then, a team of various professionals applied them for scoring each question research. FINDINGS: Fifty-four people participated in the knowledge gaps identification process through an online consultation (n = 23) and focus groups (n = 18). Prioritization criteria identified were: extent of the knowledge gap, size of the objective population, potential benefit, vulnerability, urgency and applicability. 155 research questions were prioritized, of which 44% were related to evaluation of systems and/or health programs, and 26% to evaluation of interventions, including questions related to cost-effectiveness. 30% of the research questions came from the online consultation, and 36% from key informants. Users groups contributed with 10% of total research questions. CONCLUSION: A final priority setting for mental health research was reached, making available for authorities and research agencies a list of 155 research questions ordered by relevance. The experience documented here could serve to other countries interested in developing a similar process. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13033-017-0168-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5625763 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-56257632017-10-12 Priority setting for mental health research in Chile Zitko, Pedro Borghero, Francesca Zavala, Cynthia Markkula, Niina Santelices, Emilio Libuy, Nicolás Pemjean, Alfredo Int J Ment Health Syst Research BACKGROUND: Scientific knowledge is a fundamental tool for making informed health policy decisions, but the link between health research and public policy decision-making is often missing. This study aims to identify and prioritize a national set of research gaps in mental health. METHODS: A multi-approach method to identify gaps in knowledge was developed, including (1) document analysis and identification of possible research questions, (2) interviews to Ministry of Health key informants, (3) focus groups with different stakeholders, and (4) a web consultation addressed to academics. The identified gaps were translated to a standardized format of research questions. Criteria for prioritization were extracted from interviews and focus groups. Then, a team of various professionals applied them for scoring each question research. FINDINGS: Fifty-four people participated in the knowledge gaps identification process through an online consultation (n = 23) and focus groups (n = 18). Prioritization criteria identified were: extent of the knowledge gap, size of the objective population, potential benefit, vulnerability, urgency and applicability. 155 research questions were prioritized, of which 44% were related to evaluation of systems and/or health programs, and 26% to evaluation of interventions, including questions related to cost-effectiveness. 30% of the research questions came from the online consultation, and 36% from key informants. Users groups contributed with 10% of total research questions. CONCLUSION: A final priority setting for mental health research was reached, making available for authorities and research agencies a list of 155 research questions ordered by relevance. The experience documented here could serve to other countries interested in developing a similar process. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13033-017-0168-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-10-02 /pmc/articles/PMC5625763/ /pubmed/29026439 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13033-017-0168-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Zitko, Pedro Borghero, Francesca Zavala, Cynthia Markkula, Niina Santelices, Emilio Libuy, Nicolás Pemjean, Alfredo Priority setting for mental health research in Chile |
title | Priority setting for mental health research in Chile |
title_full | Priority setting for mental health research in Chile |
title_fullStr | Priority setting for mental health research in Chile |
title_full_unstemmed | Priority setting for mental health research in Chile |
title_short | Priority setting for mental health research in Chile |
title_sort | priority setting for mental health research in chile |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5625763/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29026439 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13033-017-0168-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT zitkopedro prioritysettingformentalhealthresearchinchile AT borgherofrancesca prioritysettingformentalhealthresearchinchile AT zavalacynthia prioritysettingformentalhealthresearchinchile AT markkulaniina prioritysettingformentalhealthresearchinchile AT santelicesemilio prioritysettingformentalhealthresearchinchile AT libuynicolas prioritysettingformentalhealthresearchinchile AT pemjeanalfredo prioritysettingformentalhealthresearchinchile |