19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-018-0347-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          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.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Knowledge for better health: a conceptual framework and foundation for health research systems.

            Health research generates knowledge that can be utilized to improve health system performance and, ultimately, health and health equity. We propose a conceptual framework for health research systems (HRSs) that defines their boundaries, components, goals, and functions. The framework adopts a systems perspective towards HRSs and serves as a foundation for constructing a practical approach to describe and analyse HRSs. The analysis of HRSs should, in turn, provide a better understanding of how research contributes to gains in health and health equity. In this framework, the intrinsic goals of the HRS are the advancement of scientific knowledge and the utilization of knowledge to improve health and health equity. Its four principal functions are stewardship, financing, creating and sustaining resources, and producing and using research. The framework, as it is applied in consultation with countries, will provide countries and donor agencies with relevant inputs to policies and strategies for strengthening HRSs and using knowledge for better health.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              How Are Health Research Priorities Set in Low and Middle Income Countries? A Systematic Review of Published Reports

              Background Priority setting is increasingly recognised as essential for directing finite resources to support research that maximizes public health benefits and drives health equity. Priority setting processes have been undertaken in a number of low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings, using a variety of methods. We undertook a critical review of reports of these processes. Methods and Findings We searched electronic databases and online for peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed literature. We found 91 initiatives that met inclusion criteria. The majority took place at the global level (46%). For regional or national initiatives, most focused on Sub Saharan Africa (49%), followed by East Asia and Pacific (20%) and Latin America and the Caribbean (18%). A quarter of initiatives aimed to cover all areas of health research, with a further 20% covering communicable diseases. The most frequently used process was a conference or workshop to determine priorities (24%), followed by the Child Health and Nutrition Initiative (CHNRI) method (18%). The majority were initiated by an international organization or collaboration (46%). Researchers and government were the most frequently represented stakeholders. There was limited evidence of any implementation or follow-up strategies. Challenges in priority setting included engagement with stakeholders, data availability, and capacity constraints. Conclusions Health research priority setting (HRPS) has been undertaken in a variety of LMIC settings. While not consistently used, the application of established methods provides a means of identifying health research priorities in a repeatable and transparent manner. In the absence of published information on implementation or evaluation, it is not possible to assess what the impact and effectiveness of health research priority setting may have been.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                moh.khaldi83@gmail.com
                Journal
                Health Res Policy Syst
                Health Res Policy Syst
                Health Research Policy and Systems
                BioMed Central (London )
                1478-4505
                31 July 2018
                31 July 2018
                2018
                : 16
                : 69
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0587 0574, GRID grid.416786.a, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, ; Socinstr. 57, 4002 Basel, Switzerland
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1937 0642, GRID grid.6612.3, University of Basel, ; Petersplatz 1, 4003 Basel, Switzerland
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2298 706X, GRID grid.16662.35, Faculty of Public Health, , Al Quds University, ; Jerusalem, Palestine
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2193 314X, GRID grid.8756.c, Cardiovascular Institute, , Glasgow University, ; Glasgow, United Kingdom
                [5 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0631 5695, GRID grid.11942.3f, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, , Najah National University, ; Nablus, Palestine
                [6 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7603, GRID grid.5337.2, School of Clinical Sciences, , Bristol University, ; Bristol, United Kingdom
                [7 ]ISNI 0000000121901201, GRID grid.83440.3b, University College London UCL, ; London, United Kingdom
                [8 ]United Nations Population Fund, Jerusalem, Palestine
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1224-8102
                Article
                347
                10.1186/s12961-018-0347-4
                6069718
                30064510
                ba12f939-6f02-4f78-b138-96d716121658
                © 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.

                History
                : 13 January 2018
                : 12 July 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: the Swiss Federation through the Swiss Government Excellence Scholarships for Foreign Scholars
                Funded by: the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute (Swiss TPH)
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Health & Social care
                health experts,health research system,palestine,stewardship
                Health & Social care
                health experts, health research system, palestine, stewardship

                Comments

                Comment on this article