Health Research Priority Agenda for Ministry of Health, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from 2020 to 2025

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

Method

The current study applied e-Delphi technique via online self-administered questionnaire was distributing to headquarter, and 16 health affairs directorates spanning 75 hospitals and specialized health centers, 24 primary health-care centers, 2 health-care clusters, and 5 medical cities. In addition, community involvement was represented by 26 organizations: 7 universities, 9 scientific health associations, 5 charitable associations, and 5 key Saudi health partner organizations. Research field’s prioritization was performed by ranking weighed mean aggregate score via application of the combined consensus and metrics-based approach. Then the top five research topics were analyzed, verified, refined and classified into specific health research themes.

Results

The study included 2252 participants and attained a 90% response rate. The study deliverables were listed into two research priority domains: health system research priorities (1st agenda) and diseases and health problems priorities (2nd agenda). Overall, the types of the top five research priorities in the first agenda included service delivery (40.9%), health workforce (14.4%), governance and leadership (13.0%) ,preparedness and response to disasters and emergency (10.2%), health information systems (9.3%), access to essential medicines products and vaccines (6.97%), and financing (5.1%). On the other hand, the top five research priority areas in the second agenda were non-communicable diseases (16.9%), child and neonatal health (15.9%), medications (13.6%), women health (10.4%), dental health (10.4%). furthermore, biomedical and radiology technology and devices (5.6%), communicable diseases (3.7%), nutrition (3.2%), trauma and general management (3.2%), innovative approaches (2.4%), emergency management (2.7%), physical therapy and rehabilitation (2.3%), public health (2.3%), holistic approaches to health and wellness, behavior and lifestyle (1.5%), environmental health (0.6%),pilgrims’ health (0.6%), geriatric health (0.3%), and family medicine (0.3%).

Conclusion

Adequate description of the stakeholders and methodology can strengthen legitimacy and credibility and maximize the impact of the priority-setting process. Involvement of policymakers, researchers and funding organizations increases the opportunity of translation into actual research, supports redesigning the research landscape and ensures uptake of results and integration.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s44197-022-00061-5.

Related collections

Most cited references 25

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Best Practices for Developing and Validating Scales for Health, Social, and Behavioral Research: A Primer

Godfred O Boateng, Torsten Neilands, Edward A. Frongillo … (2018)

Scale development and validation are critical to much of the work in the health, social, and behavioral sciences. However, the constellation of techniques required for scale development and evaluation can be onerous, jargon-filled, unfamiliar, and resource-intensive. Further, it is often not a part of graduate training. Therefore, our goal was to concisely review the process of scale development in as straightforward a manner as possible, both to facilitate the development of new, valid, and reliable scales, and to help improve existing ones. To do this, we have created a primer for best practices for scale development in measuring complex phenomena. This is not a systematic review, but rather the amalgamation of technical literature and lessons learned from our experiences spent creating or adapting a number of scales over the past several decades. We identified three phases that span nine steps. In the first phase, items are generated and the validity of their content is assessed. In the second phase, the scale is constructed. Steps in scale construction include pre-testing the questions, administering the survey, reducing the number of items, and understanding how many factors the scale captures. In the third phase, scale evaluation, the number of dimensions is tested, reliability is tested, and validity is assessed. We have also added examples of best practices to each step. In sum, this primer will equip both scientists and practitioners to understand the ontology and methodology of scale development and validation, thereby facilitating the advancement of our understanding of a range of health, social, and behavioral outcomes.

0 comments Cited 781 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Setting priorities in global child health research investments: guidelines for implementation of CHNRI method.

Igor Rudan, Jennifer L Gibson, Shanthi Ameratunga … (2008)

This article provides detailed guidelines for the implementation of systematic method for setting priorities in health research investments that was recently developed by Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI). The target audience for the proposed method are international agencies, large research funding donors, and national governments and policy-makers. The process has the following steps: (i) selecting the managers of the process; (ii) specifying the context and risk management preferences; (iii) discussing criteria for setting health research priorities; (iv) choosing a limited set of the most useful and important criteria; (v) developing means to assess the likelihood that proposed health research options will satisfy the selected criteria; (vi) systematic listing of a large number of proposed health research options; (vii) pre-scoring check of all competing health research options; (viii) scoring of health research options using the chosen set of criteria; (ix) calculating intermediate scores for each health research option; (x) obtaining further input from the stakeholders; (xi) adjusting intermediate scores taking into account the values of stakeholders; (xii) calculating overall priority scores and assigning ranks; (xiii) performing an analysis of agreement between the scorers; (xiv) linking computed research priority scores with investment decisions; (xv) feedback and revision. The CHNRI method is a flexible process that enables prioritizing health research investments at any level: institutional, regional, national, international, or global.

0 comments Cited 132 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

The burden of disease in Saudi Arabia 1990–2017: results from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017

(2020)

Summary Background Availability of data to assess the population health and provision and quality of health care in Saudi Arabia has been lacking. In 2010, Saudi Arabia began a major investment and transformation programme in the health-care sector. Here we assess the impact of this investment era on mortality, health loss, risk factors, and health-care services in the country. Methods We used results of the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2017 to describe the levels and temporal patterns in deaths, health loss, risk factors, and health-care access and quality in the Saudi Arabian population during 1990–2010 (before the health-care investments and reform) and 2010–17 (during health-care investments and reform). We also compared patterns in health outcomes between these periods with those in the north Africa and the Middle East GBD region and the Gulf Cooperation Council countries. Findings Age-standardised mortality in Saudi Arabia decreased from 1990 to 2010 (annualised rate of change of −0·58%), and this decrease was further accelerated from 2010 to 2017 (–2·20%). The north Africa and the Middle East GBD region also had decreases in mortality during these periods, but for 2010–17 the decrease was not as low as in Saudi Arabia (–1·29%). Transport injuries decreased from third ranked cause of disability-adjusted life-years in 2010 to fifth ranked cause in 2017 in Saudi Arabia, below cardiovascular diseases (ranked first) and musculoskeletal disorders (ranked second). Years lived with disability (YLDs) due to mental disorders, substance use disorders, neoplasms, and neurological disorders consistently increased over the periods 1990–2010 and 2010–17. Between 1990 and 2017, attributable YLDs due to metabolic, behavioural, and environmental or occupational risk factors remained almost unchanged in Saudi Arabia, with high body-mass index, high fasting plasma glucose concentration, and drug use increasing across all age groups. Health-care Access and Quality (HAQ) Index levels increased in Saudi Arabia during this period with similar patterns to the rest of the Gulf Cooperation Council countries and the north Africa and the Middle East GBD region. Interpretation Decreases in mortality continued at greater rates in Saudi Arabia during the period of 2010–17 than in 1990–2010. HAQ Index levels have also improved. Public health policy makers in Saudi Arabia need to increase efforts to address preventable risk factors that are major contributors to the burden of ill health and disability. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

0 comments Cited 76 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Maha Alosaimi:

ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6493-2494

malotaibi43@moh.gov.sa

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): J Epidemiol Glob Health

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): J Epidemiol Glob Health

Title: Journal of Epidemiology and Global Health

Publisher: Springer Netherlands (Dordrecht )

ISSN (Print): 2210-6006

ISSN (Electronic): 2210-6014

Publication date (Electronic): 4 October 2022

Publication date PMC-release: 4 October 2022

Pages: 1-17

Affiliations

[1 ]GRID grid.415696.9, ISNI 0000 0004 0573 9824, General Directorate of Research and Studies, , Ministry of Health, ; Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

[2 ]Health Sector Transformation Program, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Author information

Maha Alosaimi http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6493-2494

Article

Publisher ID: 61

DOI: 10.1007/s44197-022-00061-5

PMC ID: 9531642

SO-VID: 27a4cc6f-7ae3-4e28-9d04-056c2e51b896

License:

Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

History

Date received : 17 May 2022

Date accepted : 30 August 2022

Funding

Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100019223, Ministry of Health – Kingdom of Saudi Arabia;

Health Research Priority Agenda for Ministry of Health, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from 2020 to 2025

Read this article at

Abstract

Method

Results

Conclusion

Supplementary Information

Related collections

Sex and gender-sensitive medicine

Most cited references 25

Best Practices for Developing and Validating Scales for Health, Social, and Behavioral Research: A Primer

Setting priorities in global child health research investments: guidelines for implementation of CHNRI method.

The burden of disease in Saudi Arabia 1990–2017: results from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Author information

Article

History

Funding

Categories

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 100

Cited by 4

Most referenced authors 518