Assessing the implementation and influence of policies that support research and innovation systems for health: the cases of Mozambique, Senegal, and Tanzania.

BACKGROUND: Without good policies it will be difficult to provide guidance to research and innovation systems. However, policies need to be followed through and implemented to have the desired effect. We studied the policies and strategies in place to support research and innovation systems for health in Mozambique, Senegal, and Tanzania, and looked at the extent to which these policies and strategies have been implemented. METHODS: We reviewed documents and reports and conducted in-depth interviews with 16 key informants representing various actors of the national research for health systems. RESULTS: The results illustrate that there are various policies and strategies governing research and innovation for health in the three countries. However, implementation of these policies and strategies is generally rated as being poor. The reasons highlighted for this include lack of policy coherence, lack of enforcement and accountability mechanisms, and a lack of financing for implementing the policies. These contextual factors seem to be of such importance that even the increased stakeholder involvement and political leadership, as mentioned by the interviewees, cannot guarantee policy implementation. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that due to the contextual realities of the study countries, there is need for greater focus on policy implementation than on developing additional policies. Government institutions should play a central role in all stages of the policy process, and should ensure implementation of defined policies. Strong mechanisms, including financing, that strengthen the position and role of government in policy coordination and the oversight of the policy process will help increase efficient and impactful implementation of research and innovation for health policies.

Setting research priorities across science, technology, and health sectors: the Tanzania experience.

BACKGROUND: Identifying research priorities is key to innovation and economic growth, since it informs decision makers on effectively targeting issues that have the greatest potential public benefit. As such, the process of setting research priorities is of pivotal importance for favouring the science, technology, and innovation (STI)-driven development of low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: We report herein on a major cross-sectoral nationwide research priority setting effort recently carried out in Tanzania by the Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology (COSTECH) in partnership with the Council on Health Research for Development (COHRED) and the NEPAD Agency. The first of its type in the country, the process brought together stakeholders from 42 sub-sectors in science, technology, and health. The cross-sectoral research priority setting process consisted of a 'training-of-trainers' workshop, a demonstration workshop, and seven priority setting workshops delivered to representatives from public and private research and development institutions, universities, non-governmental organizations, and other agencies affiliated to COSTECH. RESULTS: The workshops resulted in ranked listings of research priorities for each sub-sector, totalling approximately 800 priorities. This large number was significantly reduced by an expert panel in order to build a manageable instrument aligned to national development plans that could be used to guide research investments. CONCLUSIONS: The Tanzania experience is an instructive example of the challenges and issues to be faced in when attempting to identify research priority areas and setting an STI research agenda in low- and middle-income countries. As countries increase their investment in research, it is essential to increase investment in research management and governance as well, a key and much needed capacity for countries to make proper use of research investments.

National research for health systems in Latin America and the Caribbean: moving towards the right direction?

BACKGROUND: National Research for Health Systems (NRfHS) in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) have shown growth and consolidation in the last few years. A structured, organized system will facilitate the development and implementation of strategies for research for health to grow and contribute towards people's health and equity. METHODS: We conducted a survey with the health managers from LAC countries that form part of the Ibero-American Ministerial Network for Health Education and Research. RESULTS: From 13 of 18 questionnaires delivered, we obtained information on the NRfHS governance and management structures, the legal and political framework, the research priorities, existing financing schemes, and the main institutional actors. Data on investment in science and technology, scientific production, and on the socio-economic reality of countries were obtained through desk review focused on regional/global data sources to increase comparability. CONCLUSIONS: By comparing the data gathered with a review carried out in 2008, we were able to document the advances in research for health system development in the region, mostly in setting governance, coordination, policies, and regulations, key for better functionality of research for health systems. However, in spite of these advances, growth and consolidation of research for health systems in the region is still uneven.

The emergence and current performance of a health research system: lessons from Guinea Bissau.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how health research systems (HRS) in low-income countries emerge and evolve over time, and how this process relates to their performance. Understanding how HRSs emerge is important for the development of well functioning National Health Research Systems (NHRS). The aim of this study was to assess how the HRS in Guinea Bissau has emerged and evolved over time and how the present system functions. METHODS: We used a qualitative case-study methodology to explore the emergence and current performance of the HRS, using the NHRS framework. We reviewed documents and carried out 39 in-depth interviews, ranging from health research to policy and practice stakeholders. Using an iterative approach, we undertook a thematic analysis of the data. RESULTS: The research practices in Guinea Bissau led to the emergence of a HRS with both local and international links and strong dependencies on international partners and donors. The post-colonial, volatile and resource-dependent context, changes in donor policies, training of local researchers and nature of the research findings influenced how the HRS evolved. Research priorities have mostly been set by 'expatriate' researchers and focused on understanding and reducing child mortality. Research funding is almost exclusively provided by foreign donors and international agencies. The training of Guinean researchers started in the mid-nineties and has since reinforced the links with the health system, broadened the research agenda and enhanced local use of research. While some studies have made an important contribution to global health, the use of research within Guinea Bissau has been constrained by the weak and donor dependent health system, volatile government, top-down policies of international agencies, and the controversial nature of some of the research findings. CONCLUSIONS: In Guinea Bissau a de facto 'system' of research has emerged through research practices and co-evolving national and international research and development dynamics. If the aim of research is to contribute to local decision making, it is essential to modulate the emerged system by setting national research priorities, aligning funding, building national research capacity and linking research to decision making processes. Donors and international agencies can contribute to this process by coordinating their efforts and aligning to national priorities.