For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
22
views
34
references
 Top references
cited by
9
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      514
      similar
       All similar
      • 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.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          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

          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.

          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

          Roderik F. Viergever, Sylvie Olifson, Abdul Ghaffar … (2010)
          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.
          Article 0 comments Cited 193 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

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

            Adnan A. Hyder, William J. Simon, Ritu Sadana … (2002)
            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.
            Article 0 comments Cited 91 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              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

              Skye McGregor, Klara Henderson, John Kaldor (2014)
              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.
              Article 0 comments Cited 70 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Health Res Policy Syst
                Title: Health research policy and systems
                Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
                ISSN (Electronic): 1478-4505
                ISSN (Print): 1478-4505
                Publication date (Electronic): Jul 31 2018
                Volume: 16
                Issue: 1
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Socinstr. 57, 4002, Basel, Switzerland. moh.khaldi83@gmail.com.
                [2 ] University of Basel, Petersplatz 1, 4003, Basel, Switzerland. moh.khaldi83@gmail.com.
                [3 ] Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Najah National University, Nablus, Palestine. moh.khaldi83@gmail.com.
                [4 ] Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Socinstr. 57, 4002, Basel, Switzerland.
                [5 ] University of Basel, Petersplatz 1, 4003, Basel, Switzerland.
                [6 ] Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Najah National University, Nablus, Palestine.
                [7 ] Faculty of Public Health, Al Quds University, Jerusalem, Palestine.
                [8 ] University College London UCL, London, United Kingdom.
                [9 ] United Nations Population Fund, Jerusalem, Palestine.
                [10 ] Cardiovascular Institute, Glasgow University, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
                [11 ] School of Clinical Sciences, Bristol University, Bristol, United Kingdom.
                Article
                Publisher Item ID: 10.1186/s12961-018-0347-4
                DOI: 10.1186/s12961-018-0347-4
                PMC ID: 6069718
                PubMed ID: 30064510
                SO-VID: ba12f939-6f02-4f78-b138-96d716121658
                History

                Keywords: Health research system,Palestine,Health experts,Stewardship
                Data availability:
                Keywords: Health research system, Palestine, Health experts, Stewardship

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content514

                See all similar

                Cited by9

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors290

                See all reference authors