One hundred years of Ecuadorian biomedical scientific output and its association with the main causes of mortality: a bibliometric study.

Introduction: Historically, low-and middle-income countries have been scarce producers of biomedical research; only 2% of the global scientific output is produced by these countries despite accounting for 92% of the global burden of disease. In addition, few low-and middle-income countries have exhaustively mapped and analyzed their scientific production in health and its association with main local burden of disease. Objective: To evaluate the evolution of biomedical research in Ecuador over the last 100 years and its relationship with the main causes of mortality. Methods: A bibliometric study embedded in a systematic review design was carried out using biomedical publications indexed in Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) during the period 1920-2021. Information from the National Institute of Statistics and Census was used to identify the main causes of mortality. Results: Our search strategy identified 16,697 publications related to biomedicine in Ecuador. Of these 3,225 articles met the criteria for this study. Since 2010, there has been an exponential increase in scientific production in biomedicine. This increase was predominantly based on cross-sectional observational studies (49.67%). During the period analyzed (1920-2021), biomedical production was distributed with 52.43% in clinical research, 37.79% in public health, and 9.77% in basic sciences. The research focus with the highest number of publications was epidemiology and surveillance system of diseases (23.44%). Additionally, private universities are the largest producers of biomedical research compared to public universities, 40.12% vs. 19.60%, respectively. Of the total biomedical research produced, 18.54% is associated with the main causes of mortality, and the Ecuadorian private university is the largest contributor to these studies compared to public universities, 39.97% vs. 16.72%. Conclusion: In one century, Ecuador produced 3,225 articles in biomedicine, according to our criteria. 18.54% of the total produced is aimed at solving the main causes of mortality in the country. Private universities are the leaders in scientific production related to health in Ecuador.

The French ecology of medical care. A nationwide population-based cross sectional study.

PURPOSE: Studies in the United States, Canada, Belgium, and Switzerland showed that the majority of health problems are managed within primary health care; however, the ecology of French medical care has not yet been described. METHODS: Nationwide, population-based, cross sectional study. In 2018, we included data from 576,125 beneficiaries from the General Sample of Beneficiaries database. We analysed the reimbursement of consultations with (i) a general practitioner (GP), (ii) an outpatient doctor other than a GP, (iii) a doctor from a university or non-university hospital; and the reimbursement of (iv) hospitalization in a private establishment, (v) general hospital, and (vi) university hospital. For each criterion, we calculated the average monthly number of reimbursements reported on 1,000 beneficiaries. For categorical variables, we used the χ2 test, and to compare means we used the z test. All tests were 2-tailed with a P-value < 5% considered significant. RESULTS: Each month, on average, 454 (out of 1,000) beneficiaries received at least 1 reimbursement, 235 consulted a GP, 74 consulted other outpatient doctors in ambulatory care and 24 in a hospital, 13 were hospitalized in a public non-university hospital and 10 in the private sector, and 5 were admitted to a university hospital. Independently of age, people consulted GPs twice as much as other specialists. The 13-25-year-old group consulted the least. Women consulted more than men. Individuals covered by complementary universal health insurance had more care. CONCLUSIONS: Our study on reimbursement data confirmed that, like in other countries, in France the majority of health problems are managed within primary health care.

An assessment of the performance of the national health research system in Mauritius.

BACKGROUND: The goal of universal health coverage (UHC) is that every individual has access to high-quality health services without running the consequences of financial hardship. The World health report 2013 "Research for universal health coverage" states a performant National Health Research Systems (NHRS) can contribute by providing solutions to challenges encountered in advancing towards UHC by 2030. Pang et al. define a NHRS as the people, institutions, and activities whose primary aim is to generate and promote utilization of high-quality knowledge that can be used to promote, restore, and/or maintain the health status of populations. The WHO Regional Committee for Africa (RC) adopted a resolution in 2015 urging member states to strengthen their NHRS to facilitate production and utilization of evidence in policy development, planning, product development, innovation, and decision-making. This study aimed to calculate NHRS barometer scores for Mauritius in 2020, identify the gaps in NHRS performance, and recommend interventions for boosting the Mauritius NHRS in the pursuit of UHC. METHODS: The study used a cross-sectional survey design. A semi-structured NHRS questionnaire was administered and complemented with a review of documents archived in pertinent Mauritius Government Ministries, universities, research-oriented departments, and non-governmental organizations websites. The African NHRS barometer developed in 2016 for countries to monitor the RC resolution implementation was applied. The barometer consists of four NHRS functions (leadership and governance, developing and sustaining resources, producing and utilizing research, financing research for health [R4H]), and 17 sub-functions, e.g., existence of a national policy on research for health (R4H), presence of a Mauritius Research and Innovation Council (MRIC), existence of knowledge translation platform. RESULTS: In 2020, Mauritius had an overall average NHRS barometer score of 60.84%. The four NHRS functions average indices were 50.0% for leadership and governance, 77.0% for developing and sustaining resources, 52.0% for producing and utilizing R4H, and 58.2% for financing R4H. CONCLUSION: The performance of NHRS could be improved through the development of a national R4H policy, strategic plan, prioritized agenda, and national multi-stakeholder health research management forum. Furthermore, increased funding for the NHRS may nurture the human resources for health research capacities, hence the number of pertinent publications and health innovations.

What the policy and stewardship landscape of a national health research system looks like in a developing country like Iran: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The health research system (HRS) is an important national priority that requires a systematic and functional approach. Evaluating the HRS of Iran as a developing country and identifying its challenges reveals the stewardship-related role in how the whole system is operating well. This study aims to assess the HRS in terms of stewardship functions and highlight the enhancement points. METHODS: This study was carried out between March 2020 and April 2021 using a systematic review and meta-synthesis of evidence to examine the Iranian HRS stewardship challenges and interview 32 stakeholders, using a critical case sampling and snowballing approach which included both semi-structured and in-depth interviews. The interviewees were selected based on criteria covering policy-makers, managers, research bodies and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in health research-related fields like higher education, research, technology, innovation and science. All data were analysed using content analysis to determine eight main groups of findings under three levels: macro, meso, and micro. RESULTS: Analysis of the findings identified eight main themes. The most critical challenges were the lack of an integrated leadership model and a shared vision among different HRS stakeholders. Their scope and activities were often contradictory, and their role was not clarified in a predetermined big picture. The other challenges were legislation, priority-setting, monitoring and evaluation, networking, and using evidence as a decision support base. CONCLUSIONS: Stewardship functions are not appropriately performed and are considered the root causes of many other HRS challenges in Iran. Formulating a clear shared vision and a work scope for HRS actors is critical, along with integrating all efforts towards a unified strategy that assists in addressing many challenges of HRS, including developing strategic plans and future-oriented and systematic research, and evaluating performance. Policy-makers and senior managers need to embrace and use evidence, and effective networking and communication mechanisms among stakeholders need to be enhanced. An effective HRS can be achieved by redesigning the processes, regulations and rules to promote transparency and accountability within a well-organized and systematic framework.

Policy options for strengthening evidence-informed health policy-making in Iran: overall SASHA project findings.

BACKGROUND: The institutionalization of evidence-informed health policy-making (EIHP) is complex and complicated. It is complex because it has many players and is complicated because its institutionalization will require many changes that will be challenging to make. Like many other issues, strengthening EIHP needs a road map, which should consider challenges and address them through effective, harmonized and contextualized strategies. This study aims to develop a road map for enhancing EIHP in Iran based on steps of planning. METHODS: This study consisted of three phases: (1) identifying barriers to EIHP, (2) recognizing interventions and (3) measuring the use of evidence in Iran's health policy-making. A set of activities was established for conducting these, including foresight, systematic review and policy dialogue, to identify the current and potential barriers for the first phase. For the second phase, an evidence synthesis was performed through a scoping review, by searching the websites of benchmark institutions which had good examples of EIHP practices in order to extract and identify interventions, and through eight policy dialogues and two broad opinion polls to contextualize the list of interventions. Simultaneously, two qualitative-quantitative studies were conducted to design and use a tool for assessing EIHP in the third phase. RESULTS: We identified 97 barriers to EIHP and categorized them into three groups, including 35 barriers on the "generation of evidence" (push side), 41 on the "use of evidence" (pull side) and 21 on the "interaction between these two" (exchange side). The list of 41 interventions identified through evidence synthesis and eight policy dialogues was reduced to 32 interventions after two expert opinion polling rounds. These interventions were classified into four main strategies for strengthening (1) the education and training system (6 interventions), (2) the incentives programmes (7 interventions), (3) the structure of policy support organizations (4 interventions) and (4) the enabling processes to support EIHP (15 interventions). CONCLUSION: The policy options developed in the study provide a comprehensive framework to chart a path for strengthening the country's EIHP considering both global practices and the context of Iran. It is recommended that operational plans be prepared for road map interventions, and the necessary resources provided for their implementation. The implementation of the road map will require attention to the principles of good governance, with a focus on transparency and accountability. Video abstract.

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.

A decade of Ecuador´s efforts to raise its health research output: a bibliometric analysis.

Background: Over the past decade, the political movement called 'Revolución Ciudadana' implemented a variety of policies and interventions (P&I) in Ecuador to improve higher education and strengthen local research capacity. We refer specifically to the 'Mandato 14' and the Higher Education Law (LOES, Spanish acronym) launched in 2008 and 2010, respectively. Objective: To assess the impact of these P&I (Mandato 14/LOES) on the production of health sciences-related articles (HSRA), and the relationship of these HSRA with the country's health priorities. Methods: A Scopus search was performed to retrieve HSRA published from 1999 to 2017. Bivariate analysis was used to assess variation between the period I (1999-2008) and period II (2009-2017). Further, we examined the association between the top 10 causes of mortality and the total HSRA output. Results: The final study sample consisted of 2784 articles. After 2008, Ecuadorian production of HSRA increased steadily from 671 to 2133 publications (p<.001). Overall (1999-2017), the most common study design was cross-sectional (32.3%), the primary research focus was in the clinical-surgical area (49.3%), and the academic institutions were the primary drivers of scientific production during period II (56.9% vs. 29.5%, p<.001). Further, we found a decrease in the production of randomized controlled trials (6.7% vs. 1.8%, p<.001). Only 9% of research production involved the primary causes of mortality, and the proportion has remained unchanged over time (8.2% vs. 9.3%, p>.05). Conclusions: Ecuadorian HSRA output increased significantly after 2008. This larger volume of scientific output could be the result to the Mandato 14/LOES implemented in the last decade. However, a low percentage of HSRA are dedicated to addressing the country's health priorities. Proper planning, execution and monitoring of national health research agendas would reduce the mismatch between health burden and the HSRA output in Ecuador and other low-and middle-income countries.

A vision to strengthen resources and capacity of the Palestinian health research system: a qualitative assessment.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization has proposed a global strategy to build a robust Health Research System Resources and Infrastructural Capacity (HRSRIC). Despite the growing research productivity, HRSRIC in Palestine has rarely been investigated. AIMS: To analyse perceptions of health research system performers to understand the status of HRSRIC, identify its gaps, and propose policy solutions to strengthen HRSRIC. METHODS: This qualitative study targeted 3 health sectors: government, academia, and local and international organizations. Fifty-two in-depth interviews and 6 focus group discussions were conducted with key informants who were selected purposively. Data were analysed using MAXQDA 12. RESULTS: Despite the availability of competent personnel, the overall HRSRIC, such as human and financial resources, and facilities, forms a central challenge. HR financing is limited, unsustainable, and flows from external and individual sources. The public and private funds are largely in shortage with resources misallocation and donors' conditionality. HR quality is moderate while knowledge transfer and translation are not well conceptualized and inappropriately performed. Lack of governance, coordination, HRSRIC strategy, resource allocation, systematic and reliable data, evidence-informed culture, and environmental impacts are the main common gaps. CONCLUSIONS: The overall status of HRSRIC in Palestine is still lacking and major challenges persist where the pace of strengthening efforts is steady. There is an emphasis that strengthening HRSRIC is an imperative step and real investment opportunity for building a successful health research system. Political commitment, consolidated leadership structure, operational capacity building strengthening strategy, resources mobilization, and sovereignty are key requirements.

Knowledge production in Iranian social determinants of health research centers: Toward health equity.

Background: As the partner country of the WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health (SDH), Iran has expanded the knowledge based on the social determinants of health- as one of commission recommendations- by establishing SDH research centers to collect evidence and design responses to the existing health equity gap. Considering the importance of the role assigned to these research centers, this study aimed to present the knowledge production of SDH research centers and determine their status in Iran's health research system (HRS). Methods: In this cross sectional study, research performance of SDH research centers was assessed based on international research indicators and compared with national medical research centers and HRS knowledge production. Then, SDH research centers were scored and ranked based on the research indicators. Results: Out of 37 approved SDH research centers, the knowledge performance of 33 research centers was reviewed. The total number of academic members was 334. The number of these centers' indexed published articles and the proportion of published articles per academic member have been doubled from 483 and 1.44 in 2015 to 984 and 2.94 in 2017. In this period, the number of citations of the past 5-year publications was 4355 according to Scopus database. The proportions of these centers' high-quality publication (Q1) and international collaborations per published articles were 14.8 and 8.25. In ranking, the first to third ranks were occupied by SDH research centers of Kermanshah, Kurdistan, and Qazvin Universities of Medical Sciences. Conclusion: Although knowledge production seems desirable in mentioned research centers, it is essential to create a virtual research network to increase intersectoral collaboration and develop strategies to solve the puzzle of gathering evidence on the social determinants affecting health inequities.

An analysis of the strategic plan development processes of major public organisations funding health research in nine high-income countries worldwide.

BACKGROUND: There have been claims that health research is not satisfactorily addressing healthcare challenges. A specific area of concern is the adequacy of the mechanisms used to plan investments in health research. However, the way organisations within countries devise research agendas has not been systematically reviewed. This study seeks to understand the legal basis, the actors and the processes involved in setting research agendas in major public health research funding organisations. METHODS: We reviewed information relating to the formulation of strategic plans by 11 public funders in nine high-income countries worldwide. Information was collected from official websites and strategic plan documents in English, French, Italian and Spanish between January 2019 and December 2019, by means of a conceptual framework and information abstraction form. RESULTS: We found that the formulation of a strategic plan is a common and well-established practice in shaping research agendas across international settings. Most of the organisations studied are legally required to present a multi-year strategic plan. In some cases, legal provisions may set rules for actors and processes and may establish areas of research and/or types of research to be funded. Commonly, the decision-making process involves both internal and external stakeholders, with the latter being generally government officials and experts, and few examples of the participation of civil society. The process also varies across organisations depending on whether there is a formal requirement to align to strategic priorities developed by an overarching entity at national level. We also found that, while actors and their interactions were traceable, information, sources of information, criteria and the mechanisms/tools used to shape decisions were made less explicit. CONCLUSIONS: A complex picture emerges in which multiple interactive entities appear to shape research plans. Given the complexity of the influences of different parties and factors, the governance of the health research sector would benefit from a traceable and standardised knowledge-based process of health research strategic planning. This would provide an opportunity to demonstrate responsible budget stewardship and, more importantly, to make efforts to remain responsive to healthcare challenges, research gaps and opportunities.

Mapping stakeholders of the Palestinian Health Research System: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing international and regional interest in Health Research Systems (HRSs) in light of a global strategy for HRS stakeholders' (HRSSHs) active involvement. HRSSHs in Palestine have rarely been investigated with regard to uncertainties. AIMS: This study aimed to analyse perceptions of HRSSHs in order to understand their roles and involvement, identify gaps, and offer policy solutions for stakeholders' engagement in the Palestinian HRS. METHODS: This qualitative study targeted three local Palestinian health sectors, government, academia, and local and international agencies. Data were collected through 52 in-depth interviews (IDIs) and 6 focus group discussions (FGDs) and then analysed using MAXQDA 12 software. Participants and institutions were selected purposively based on a set of criteria and peer review. RESULTS: The overall HRS stakeholders' roles were unsatisfactory, with low involvement from society, the private sector, local and international sectors. The role of academia and the Ministry of Health is vital but observed moderate in health research while that of international agencies is weak due to conflicting agendas and lack of a guiding body. Most universities have poor representation in public decision-making and scarcity in health research potential and capacity. Interest-power imbalance among stakeholders is reported where political, organizational, and technical shortfalls were indicative of weak roles and low involvement, along with a lack of health research culture, structure, resources, defined roles, and network. CONCLUSIONS: Tackling the inadequate roles, interests' disparity, and poor involvement of HRSSHs is imperative for HRS strengthening. Redefining HRSSHs' roles and involving all stakeholders is key through strategic dialogue, consolidated leadership, and resource mobilization.

'All the stars were aligned'? The origins of England's National Institute for Health Research.

BACKGROUND: In 2006, the research and development (R&D) activity of England's national healthcare system, the National Health Service, was reformed. A National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) was established within the Department of Health, the first body to manage this activity as an integrated system, unlocking significant increases in government funding. This article investigates how the NIHR came to be set up, and why it took the form it did. Our goal was a better understanding of 'how we got here'. METHODS: We conducted oral history interviews with 38 key witnesses, held a witness seminar, and examined published and unpublished documents. RESULTS: We conclude that the most important forces shaping the origin of NIHR were the growing impact of evidence-based medicine on service policies, the growth of New Public Management ways of thinking, economic policies favouring investment in health R&D and buoyant public funding for healthcare. We note the strong two-way interaction between the health research system and the healthcare system - while beneficial for the use of research, challenges for healthcare (such as stop-go funding) could also produce challenges for health research. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding how and why England came to have a centralised health service research system alongside a long-established funder of biomedical research (the Medical Research Council) helps us interpret the significance of the English health research experience for other countries and helps English policy-makers better understand their present options. Learning lessons from the features of the English health research system calls for an understanding of the processes which shaped it. Firstly, the publicly funded, nationally organised character of healthcare promoted government interest in evidence-based medicine, made research prioritisation simpler and helped promote the implementation of findings. Secondly, the essential role of leadership by a group who valued research for its health impact ensured that new management methods (such as metrics and competitive tendering) were harnessed to patient benefit, rather than as an end in themselves. A policy window of government willingness to invest in R&D for wider economic goals and buoyant funding of the health system were also effectively exploited.

The Palestinian health research system: who orchestrates the system, how and based on what? A qualitative assessment.

BACKGROUND: In 2011, the WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region committee launched a strategy for scaling up research in the region to address the countries' health needs through formulating and analysing the National Health Research System (HRS). Stewardship comprises three functions, namely governance, policy and priorities, and is a central pillar of this system to ensure a well-organised and functioning HRS. This study aims to examine the perceptions of the HRS performers to understand these functions and to generate insights for system strengthening. METHODS: The study was carried out in Palestine, targetting three sectors in the health field, including relevant governmental health institutions, schools of public health, and major local and international health agencies. The data were collected through 52 in-depth interviews (IDIs) and 6 focus group discussions (FGDs) with policy-makers, academics, directors, and experts. Participants and institutions were selected purposively based on a set of criteria and peer review. RESULTS: A total of 104 experts participated in the IDIs (52 participants) and FGDs (52 participants in 6 FGDs), highlighting that stewardship functions remain problematic and insufficiently performed, mainly due to a missing health research structural and regulatory framework and dispersed health research work. Despite the limited good practices, the majority of the participants described the Ethical Review and Clearance as weak due to the lack of an agreed-upon national committee and procedural quality and ethics guidelines for non-compliance. A policy or strategy dedicated to health research is lacking. The exercises of research priority-setting appear to be evolving despite the lack of consensus and the low levels of knowledge and experience in research prioritisation. Common gaps, such as weak political will and capacity support, the absence of a national unified regulating body, and the indirect effects of political conditions on strengthening the HRS as well as other sectors, also emerged. CONCLUSIONS: The stewardship functions of the Palestinian HRS remain weak along with substantial political, structural, and resources and capacity gaps. The study emphasises the imperative need to initiate strategic efforts led by the MOH and the Palestinian National Institute of Public Health alongside with other players to strengthen a national HRS through improving the stewardship functions. To achieve this, attention and support of decision-makers, involvement, mobilisation and strategic dialogue are indispensable, in order to embark on building a well-regulated and coordinated structure, operational research policy, and prioritisation of essential research.

Assessing policy-makers', academics' and experts' satisfaction with the performance of the Palestinian health research system: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing demand within international health agencies to ensure health research systems (HRSs) are strengthened and well-functioning to support healthcare systems (HCSs). Understanding HRS performance through system actors is an indispensable move in analysing this system. This study aims to examine policy-makers', academics' and experts' satisfaction with overall HRS performance, while also investigating their perceptions about political will and attention towards health research. Ultimately, we want to identify gaps related to performance and generate insights on how to move forward for HRS performance strengthening. METHODS: This study was carried out in Palestine, targeting three sectors, namely government institutions, public health universities, and major local and international health non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Semi-structured, in-depth interviews (IDIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with participants. The institutions from the three sectors were selected based on stated criteria and peer reviews. Data were translated from Arabic into English, transcribed, content checked by the principal investigator, imported to a software programme (MAXQDA 12), and then coded. Thematic content analysis was used. RESULTS: A total of 104 experts participated in 52 IDIs and 52 experts participated in 6 FGDs. Findings revealed three principal domains. First, the HRS in Palestine is remarkably underperforming, and the majority of experts were unsatisfied. Participants perceived the system as ineffective and inefficient, poorly managed and lacking systematic assessment. Second, the factors behind system underperformance were (1) an unstructured system and the lack of a research culture as well as of a governing body or policies; (2) health research was seen as individualistic, non-development driven and unutilised in policy decisions; and (3) considerably deficient coordination and essential resources. The third finding showed inadequate political support and engagement, which then also related to system underperformance. CONCLUSIONS: The Palestinian HRS is perceived as underperforming by health experts at different levels, where research is not on the leadership agendas. Potential actions should be taken to actively engage the state health decision-makers and inform them of the importance, uses and impacts of performance assessment. Findings urge policy-makers and legislators to build an inclusive and national body of governance with agreed strategies including fundamentally hybrid and aligned performance assessment mechanisms, such as a research observatory platform. In addition, it is recommended to establish a strategic plan to expand professionals' research awareness and abilities, as well as empower the institution's research monitoring and evaluation capacities.

Understanding the concept and importance of the health research system in Palestine: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The importance of a health research system (HRS), namely an instrument for developing and enabling health systems, is increasing, particularly in developing countries. Assessing the perceptions of system performers is a necessary part of system analysis, which seeks to recognize a system's strengths and limitations aiming towards improvement. This study assesses the perceptions of policy-makers, academicians and experts regarding the HRS concept and its importance to generate insights for system strengthening. In Palestine, HRS is just emerging, helping to address the many public health-related challenges faced by the country. METHODS: The study was implemented from January until July 2016, targeting three sectors, namely relevant government institutions, schools of public health, and major local and international health agencies. Data was collected through 52 in-depth interviews and six focus group discussions (FGDs) with policy-makers, academics, directors and experts. Participants and institutions were selected based on stated criteria and peer review. Data were translated, transcribed, checked and then imported to a software program (MAXQDA 12) for thematic and content analysis. RESULTS: A total of 104 experts participated, wherein 52 were interviewed and 52 participated in the six FGDs. The HRS concept, as defined by WHO, was conceptualized differently among participants with unclear delineations between various components. Inconsistencies appeared when participants attempted to conceptualize HRS in broader contexts, though HRS goals and functions were sufficiently delineated. The majority of participants agreed that HRS correlates with notions of 'improvement' and recognized HRS 'as a significant gain'. Neglect of HRS was perceived as a big loss. CONCLUSIONS: The study revealed that the level of understanding of HRS among health experts in Palestine is inadequate and not sufficiently conceptualized for its application. Findings also underlined the need to establish a central governance coordination body that promotes HRS understanding, awareness and culture as an enabler for HRS strengthening.

Towards fair and effective North-South collaboration: realising a programme for demand-driven and locally led research.

BACKGROUND: At the turn of the 90s, studies showed that health research contributed little to health and development in low- and middle-income countries because it was oriented towards international priorities and dominated by researchers from the North. A new approach to North-South collaboration was required that would support demand-driven and locally led research in the South. The aim of this study was to analyse the development and functioning of a programme for demand-driven and locally led research in Ghana that was supported by a North-South collaboration. METHODS: For this mixed-method case study, we combined document analysis, key informant interviews and observation of programme events. RESULTS: The development of the research programme started with constructing a sponsorship constellation in the Netherlands. After highlighting the problems with traditional research collaboration, an advisory council formulated a vision for a more equal and effective approach to North-South collaboration. Together with Ghanaian partners, this vision was turned into a proposal for a Ghanaian-led programme for demand-driven and locally led research, which was funded by the Netherlands government. Research priority setting showed that the Ghanaian research needs were very different from the priorities of foreign funders and researchers. After a slow start, the number of locally submitted proposals increased from 13 in 2001 to 94 in 2005, revealing the existence of a substantial, but partly latent reservoir of research capacity. In total, 79 studies were funded. An impact evaluation showed that the results of the majority of the studies were used to contribute to action. Despite its success, the research programme came to an end in 2008 after the sponsorship constellation in the Netherlands fell apart. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that realising a programme for demand-driven and locally led research in the South provides an effective approach to North-South collaboration in which results are used and local capacities and institutions are strengthened.

Evaluation of regional project to strengthen national health research systems in four countries in West Africa: lessons learned.

BACKGROUND: Since the Commission on Health Research for Development (COHRED) published its flagship report, more attention has been focused on strengthening national health research systems (NHRS). This paper evaluates the contribution of a regional project that used a participatory approach to strengthen NHRS in four post-conflict West African countries - Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Mali. METHODS: The data from the situation analysis conducted at the start of the project was compared to data from the project's final evaluation, using a hybrid conceptual framework built around four key areas identified through the analysis of existing frameworks. The four areas are governance and management, capacities, funding, and dissemination/use of research findings. RESULTS: The project helped improve the countries' governance and management mechanisms without strengthening the entire NHRS. In the four countries, at least one policy, plan or research agenda was developed. One country put in place a national health research ethics committee, while all four countries could adopt a research information management system. The participatory approach and support from the West African Health Organisation and COHRED were all determining factors. CONCLUSION: The lessons learned from this project show that the fragile context of these countries requires long-term engagement and that support from a regional institution is needed to address existing challenges and successfully strengthen the entire NHRS.

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

BACKGROUND: Priority setting in health research is an emerging field. In Zambia, like many other African countries, various priority setting activities have been undertaken with a view to identify research activities to which the available resources can be targeted while at the same time maximising the health impact for resource allocation to support evidence-based decision-making. The aim of this paper is to document the key elements of the various priority setting activities that have been conducted since 1998, identifying the key lessons and providing recommendations to improve the process. METHODS: A comprehensive review of the previous priority setting activities and processes in Zambia was conducted. Both published and unpublished reports were reviewed in order to identify any research priority setting processes that have been undertaken in Zambia. We developed a framework, based on the priority setting literature, to guide our abstraction and synthesis of the literature. RESULT: The earliest record of priority setting was conducted in 1998. Various priority setting approaches have been implemented in Zambia; ranging from externally driven, once-off activities to locally (in country) initiated comprehensive processes. However, there has been no systematic national process for priority setting. These priority setting processes in Zambia were characterised by limited stakeholder buy-in of the resulting national research or programmatic research agenda. Most striking was the lack of linkages between the different initiatives. There seems to have been no conscious recognition and building on previous priority-setting experiences of previous initiatives. CONCLUSION: There were gaps in the priority setting processes, stakeholder engagement and application of a defined criterion. There is a need for a priority setting framework coupled with local capacity developed across a range of stakeholders.

An assessment of health research impact in Iran.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, Iran has made significant developments in the field of health sciences. However, the question is whether this considerable increase has affected public health. The research budget has always been negligible and unsustainable in developing countries. Hence, using the Payback Framework, we conducted this study to evaluate the impact of health research in Iran. METHODS: By using a cross-sectional method and two-stage stratified cluster sampling, the projects were randomly selected from six medical universities. A questionnaire was designed according to the Payback Framework and completed by the principle investigators of the randomly selected projects. RESULTS: The response rate was 70.4%. Ten point twenty-four percent (10.24%) of the studies had been ordered by a knowledge user organization. The average number of articles published in journals per project was 0.96, and half of the studies had no articles published in Scopus. The results of 12% of the studies had been used in systematic review articles and the same proportion had been utilized in clinical or public health guidelines. The results of 5.3% of the studies had been implemented in the Health Ministry's policymaking. 62% of the studies were expected to affect health directly, 38% of them had been implemented, and among the latter 60% had achieved the expected results. Concerning the economic impacts, the most common expected impact was the reduction of 'days of work missed because of illness or disability' and impact on personal and health system costs. About 36% of these studies had been implemented, and 61% had achieved the expected impact. CONCLUSION: In most aspects, the status of research impact needs improvement. A comparison of Iran's ranking of knowledge creation and knowledge impact in the Global Innovation Index confirms these findings. The most important problems identified were, not conducting research based on national needs, and the lack of implementation of research results.

The Role of Medical Research Centers in Health Research System Promotion in I.R. of Iran: 2001-2014.

BACKGROUND: Research centers, defined as organized research units having research as their primary mission, are positioned as an organizational solution to tighten the knowledge to do gap in health research system (HRS). Therefore, this study aims to explore the roles of medical research centers (MRCs) in promoting HRS. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we reviewed the evaluation results of research performance of MRCs from 2001 to 2014. Data of evaluation indicators (in knowledge production and capacity building domains) were gathered and finally compared for these years. RESULTS: In the mentioned period, the number of medical research centers has grown by more than 11 folds. In the domain of knowledge production, the total number of published articles and published articles in ISI, Web of Science per researcher rose from 0.5 and 0.05 to about 3.5 and 1.2, respectively. The number of indexed articles in scientific international databases has increased more than 66 times and the total number of citations of MRCs' articles has increased to more than 80000. In the domain of capacity building, the trend of workshops and held congresses is ascending. CONCLUSION: MRCs are well empowered in knowledge production in national HRS.