Cargando…

An analysis of research priority-setting at the World Health Organization – how mapping to a standard template allows for comparison between research priority-setting approaches

BACKGROUND: A review of research priorities completed by WHO technical units was undertaken. Results of the mapping were recorded in a database that was used to generate analysis and compare research priorities and the different methodological approaches used in their development. METHODS: A total o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Terry, R. F., Charles, E., Purdy, B., Sanford, A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6264050/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30486845
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0391-0
_version_ 1783375406796111872
author Terry, R. F.
Charles, E.
Purdy, B.
Sanford, A.
author_facet Terry, R. F.
Charles, E.
Purdy, B.
Sanford, A.
author_sort Terry, R. F.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: A review of research priorities completed by WHO technical units was undertaken. Results of the mapping were recorded in a database that was used to generate analysis and compare research priorities and the different methodological approaches used in their development. METHODS: A total of 116 documents were reviewed for this study. The documents were published between 2002 and 2017 by the technical programmes of WHO headquarters and deposited in the institutional repository, IRIS. Research priorities were extracted from documents into a standard template and mapped to a five-category research cycle type framework defined in the WHO Strategy on Research for Health covering research to describe the research problem, identifying the cause and risk factors, developing solutions and new interventions, understanding the barriers to implementation, and evaluation of the impact of response. Details of the research priority methods were recorded. A database with user interface was created using Microsoft Excel 2010. RESULTS: A total of 2145 research priorities were extracted from the 116 documents meeting the inclusion criteria. The priorities specifically address 73 diseases/health topics. The document types were 26% Report, 22% WHO Guideline, 26% Research Prioritisation publication and 11% Meeting Notes. The most widely reported method used to identify priorities was expert consultation. Expert consultation was used to identify 86% of the priorities categorised here, with 26% (561) reporting it as the sole method; 52% (1111) explicitly listed a literature review as contributing to the identification of priorities. When the 2145 priorities were categorised across the research cycle framework, the largest portion (43%) addressed implementation challenges. The database is published here under an open access licence. CONCLUSION: Comparing research priorities between diseases/health topics requires standardisation and the research cycle type framework is one approach that can be applied across all the health topics found in public health. There is great variation in the use of research priority-setting methodology at WHO Headquarters. Therefore, a standard reporting approach, linked to established good practice, should be an area for future development by the WHO Global Health R&D Observatory. The database reported here can also be used to quickly access and analyse the research priorities for a specific health topic or to compare across a range of health topics. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-018-0391-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6264050
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62640502018-12-05 An analysis of research priority-setting at the World Health Organization – how mapping to a standard template allows for comparison between research priority-setting approaches Terry, R. F. Charles, E. Purdy, B. Sanford, A. Health Res Policy Syst Research BACKGROUND: A review of research priorities completed by WHO technical units was undertaken. Results of the mapping were recorded in a database that was used to generate analysis and compare research priorities and the different methodological approaches used in their development. METHODS: A total of 116 documents were reviewed for this study. The documents were published between 2002 and 2017 by the technical programmes of WHO headquarters and deposited in the institutional repository, IRIS. Research priorities were extracted from documents into a standard template and mapped to a five-category research cycle type framework defined in the WHO Strategy on Research for Health covering research to describe the research problem, identifying the cause and risk factors, developing solutions and new interventions, understanding the barriers to implementation, and evaluation of the impact of response. Details of the research priority methods were recorded. A database with user interface was created using Microsoft Excel 2010. RESULTS: A total of 2145 research priorities were extracted from the 116 documents meeting the inclusion criteria. The priorities specifically address 73 diseases/health topics. The document types were 26% Report, 22% WHO Guideline, 26% Research Prioritisation publication and 11% Meeting Notes. The most widely reported method used to identify priorities was expert consultation. Expert consultation was used to identify 86% of the priorities categorised here, with 26% (561) reporting it as the sole method; 52% (1111) explicitly listed a literature review as contributing to the identification of priorities. When the 2145 priorities were categorised across the research cycle framework, the largest portion (43%) addressed implementation challenges. The database is published here under an open access licence. CONCLUSION: Comparing research priorities between diseases/health topics requires standardisation and the research cycle type framework is one approach that can be applied across all the health topics found in public health. There is great variation in the use of research priority-setting methodology at WHO Headquarters. Therefore, a standard reporting approach, linked to established good practice, should be an area for future development by the WHO Global Health R&D Observatory. The database reported here can also be used to quickly access and analyse the research priorities for a specific health topic or to compare across a range of health topics. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-018-0391-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-11-29 /pmc/articles/PMC6264050/ /pubmed/30486845 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0391-0 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 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
Terry, R. F.
Charles, E.
Purdy, B.
Sanford, A.
An analysis of research priority-setting at the World Health Organization – how mapping to a standard template allows for comparison between research priority-setting approaches
title An analysis of research priority-setting at the World Health Organization – how mapping to a standard template allows for comparison between research priority-setting approaches
title_full An analysis of research priority-setting at the World Health Organization – how mapping to a standard template allows for comparison between research priority-setting approaches
title_fullStr An analysis of research priority-setting at the World Health Organization – how mapping to a standard template allows for comparison between research priority-setting approaches
title_full_unstemmed An analysis of research priority-setting at the World Health Organization – how mapping to a standard template allows for comparison between research priority-setting approaches
title_short An analysis of research priority-setting at the World Health Organization – how mapping to a standard template allows for comparison between research priority-setting approaches
title_sort analysis of research priority-setting at the world health organization – how mapping to a standard template allows for comparison between research priority-setting approaches
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6264050/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30486845
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0391-0
work_keys_str_mv AT terryrf ananalysisofresearchprioritysettingattheworldhealthorganizationhowmappingtoastandardtemplateallowsforcomparisonbetweenresearchprioritysettingapproaches
AT charlese ananalysisofresearchprioritysettingattheworldhealthorganizationhowmappingtoastandardtemplateallowsforcomparisonbetweenresearchprioritysettingapproaches
AT purdyb ananalysisofresearchprioritysettingattheworldhealthorganizationhowmappingtoastandardtemplateallowsforcomparisonbetweenresearchprioritysettingapproaches
AT sanforda ananalysisofresearchprioritysettingattheworldhealthorganizationhowmappingtoastandardtemplateallowsforcomparisonbetweenresearchprioritysettingapproaches
AT terryrf analysisofresearchprioritysettingattheworldhealthorganizationhowmappingtoastandardtemplateallowsforcomparisonbetweenresearchprioritysettingapproaches
AT charlese analysisofresearchprioritysettingattheworldhealthorganizationhowmappingtoastandardtemplateallowsforcomparisonbetweenresearchprioritysettingapproaches
AT purdyb analysisofresearchprioritysettingattheworldhealthorganizationhowmappingtoastandardtemplateallowsforcomparisonbetweenresearchprioritysettingapproaches
AT sanforda analysisofresearchprioritysettingattheworldhealthorganizationhowmappingtoastandardtemplateallowsforcomparisonbetweenresearchprioritysettingapproaches