A checklist for health research priority setting: nine common themes of good practice.

Health research priority setting processes assist researchers and policymakers in effectively targeting research that has the greatest potential public health benefit. Many different approaches to health research prioritization exist, but there is no agreement on what might constitute best practice. Moreover, because of the many different contexts for which priorities can be set, attempting to produce one best practice is in fact not appropriate, as the optimal approach varies per exercise. Therefore, following a literature review and an analysis of health research priority setting exercises that were organized or coordinated by the World Health Organization since 2005, we propose a checklist for health research priority setting that allows for informed choices on different approaches and outlines nine common themes of good practice. It is intended to provide generic assistance for planning health research prioritization processes. The checklist explains what needs to be clarified in order to establish the context for which priorities are set; it reviews available approaches to health research priority setting; it offers discussions on stakeholder participation and information gathering; it sets out options for use of criteria and different methods for deciding upon priorities; and it emphasizes the importance of well-planned implementation, evaluation and transparency.

Improving mental and neurological health research in Latin America: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Research evidence is essential to inform policies, interventions and programs, and yet research activities in mental and neurological (MN) health have been largely neglected, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Many challenges have been identified in the production and utilization of research evidence in Latin American countries, and more work is needed to overcome this disadvantageous situation. This study aims to address the situation by identifying initiatives that could improve MN health research activities and implementation of their results in the Latin American region. METHODS: Thirty-four MN health actors from 13 Latin American countries were interviewed as part of an initiative by the Global Forum for Health Research and the World Health Organization to explore the status of MN health research in low- and middle-income countries in Africa, Asia and Latin-America. RESULTS: A variety of recommendations to increase MN health research activities and implementation of their results emerged in the interviews. These included increasing skilled human resources in MN health interventions and research, fostering greater participation of stakeholders in the generation of research topics and projects, and engendering the interest of national and international institutions in important MN health issues and research methodologies. In the view of most participants, government agencies should strive to have research results inform the decision-making process in which they are involved. Thus these agencies would play a key role in facilitating and funding research. Participants also pointed to the importance of academic recognition and financial rewards in attracting professionals to primary and translational research in MN health. In addition, they suggested that institutions should create intramural resources to provide researchers with technical support in designing, carrying out and disseminating research, including resources to improve scientific writing skills. CONCLUSION: Fulfillment of these recommendations would increase research production in MN health in Latin American countries. This, in turn, will raise the profile of these health problems, and consequently will underscore the need of continued high-quality and relevant research, thus fostering a virtuous cycle in the decision-making process to improve MN health care.

Scarcity and inequity of mental health research resources in low-and-middle income countries: a global survey.

OBJECTIVE: To map mental health research capacity and resources in low-and-middle-income countries (LAMIC) for the years 1993-2003. METHOD: Mental health researchers from 114 LAMIC in three continents were identified through their publications in two databases (Medline and PsycInfo) and from local grey literature. A questionnaire was developed and sent to authors to elicit information about researchers' background, available resources and details of up to three recent projects. RESULTS: 4208 researchers from 83 countries were identified through 6340 mental health indexed-publications and 3598 publications from the grey literature. 912 researchers from 52 countries completed the questionnaires. Researchers and publications were concentrated in 10% of the countries. Respondents reported participation in 1847 projects, most of which were devoted to depression and anxiety disorders, substance misuse and psychoses. Epidemiologic studies, social, psychological and clinical research accounted for 80% of all projects. Two-thirds of projects had received external funding, and less than one-third of them were conducted in collaboration with other countries. CONCLUSION: Mental health research capacity is scarce and unequally distributed in LAMIC. Global agencies for health research as well as LAMIC with higher concentrations of researchers and scientific output should play a more decisive role in strengthening the capacity of other LAMIC enhancing South-South partnerships and networks.