Health research priorities in Pakistan: A Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) exercise.

Background: The National Health Vision of Pakistan 2016-2025 is to provide affordable health services through a resilient and responsive health system for achieving health-related Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and universal health coverage (UHC) targets. Through this study, we wanted to identify the research priorities at the national level that would help to provide the necessary evidence for achieving this vision through essential package of health services (EPHS). Methods: We followed World Health Organization (WHO) guidance for undertaking research priority-setting exercises and the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) methodology in conducting this national exercise. The proposed research options for the next three to five years were identified in five thematic research areas: communicable diseases; non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and injuries; reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health (RMNCAH); mental health; and health systems and services. We assessed these research options against five priority-setting criteria: feasibility, public health importance, sustainability, equity, and community involvement. Results: Forty-three experts proposed 272 research ideas, which were consolidated into a list of 155 research options and sent back to the experts for scoring. The top 10 research priorities in each of the five research areas were identified based on the weighted research priority scores (wRPS) rankings. Tuberculosis and antimicrobial resistance; NCD screening and prevention; maternal and neonatal mortality; mental health of children, adolescents, and youth; and human resource management were the issues that were most frequently reflected in the list of research priorities. Most research priorities aimed to identify barriers to the implementation of interventions. Conclusions: Through this exercise, we identified the top 50 national health research priorities, which also have a strong correlation with EPHS interventions. To realise the findings of this exercise, funding agencies should establish funding mechanisms to support the undertaking of the identified research priorities, and academic researchers should actually utilise them in future studies. Such activities could hopefully contribute to achieving the national health goals.

Two decades of research capacity strengthening and reciprocal learning on sexual and reproductive health in East Africa - a point of (no) return.

As the world is facing challenges such as pandemics, climate change, conflicts, and changing political landscapes, the need to secure access to safe and high-quality abortion care is more urgent than ever. On 27th of June 2023, the Swedish government decided to cut funding resources available for developmental research, which has played a fundamental role in the advancement of sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) globally, including abortion care. Withdrawal of this funding not only threatens the fulfilment of the United Nations sustainable development goals (SDGS) - target 3.7 on ensuring universal access to SRHR and target 5 on gender equality - but also jeopardises two decades of research capacity strengthening. In this article, we describe how the partnerships that we have built over the course of two decades have amounted to numerous publications, doctoral graduates, and important advancements within the field of SRHR in East Africa and beyond.

Main findings: The two-decade long collaboration between Sweden and East Africa, funded by the Swedish government, has resulted in important partnerships, research findings, and advancements within sexual and reproductive health and rights in East Africa.Added knowledge: The Swedish government is now cutting funding for development research, which jeopardises the progress made so far.Global health impact for policy and action: Governments need to prioritise women's sexual and reproductive health and rights.

Diabetes Research Matters: A Three-Round Priority-Setting Survey Consultation with Adults Living with Diabetes and Family Members in Australia.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify the health and quality-of-life research priorities of Australians with diabetes or family members. METHODS: Through an iterative, three-step, online survey process we (1) qualitatively generated research topics (long list) in response to one question "What research is needed to support people with diabetes to live a better life?"; (2) determined the most important research questions (short list); and (3) ranked research questions in order of importance (priorities). We aimed to recruit N = 800 participants, with approximate equal representation of diabetes type and family members. RESULTS: Participants (N = 661) were adults (aged 18+ years) in Australia with a self-reporting diagnosis of diabetes (type 1, n = 302; type 2, n = 204; prior/current gestational, n = 58; less common types, n = 22, or a family member, n = 75). Retention rates for Surveys 2 and 3 were 47% (n = 295) and 50% (n = 316), respectively. From 1549 open-text responses, 25 topics and 125 research questions were identified thematically. Research priorities differed by cohort, resulting in specific lists developed and ranked by each cohort. The top-ranked research question for the type 1 diabetes cohort was "How can diabetes technology be improved …?" and for the type 2 diabetes cohort: "How can insulin resistance be reversed …?". One question was common to the final lists of all cohorts: "What are the causes or triggers of diabetes?" Within cohorts, the top priorities were perceived as being of similar importance. CONCLUSIONS: The research priorities differ substantially by diabetes type and for family members. These findings should inform funding bodies and researchers, to align future research and its communication with community needs.

How to grow a team in clinical education research.

The Incubator for Clinical Education Research (ClinEdR) is a UK-wide network, established with support from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), to lead initiatives to build capacity in the field. Our lived experiences as members of the NIHR ClinEdR Incubator and wider literature are woven into this 'How to …' paper, which outlines what to consider as you seek to grow and develop a ClinEdR team. This paper sets out pragmatic steps to grow an effective ClinEdR team that has a wider impact and mutual benefits for its members and their institution(s). Growing a ClinEdR team requires more than a dynamic character to bring people together. In our view, you can grow a ClinEdR team with other people through a structured, well-thought-out approach, in which its members develop through collaborative work to achieve a shared objective.