Objectives. Stakeholders and stakeholder engagement in agenda setting are not well documented despite its increased recognition. This paper aimed to describe stakeholder engagement in the agenda setting. Specifically, it aimed to (1) describe the process of stakeholder engagement in the development of the NUHRA 2017-2022; (2) describe characteristics of stakeholders involved; and (3) identify lessons learned during the engagement. Methods. Documents pertinent to the agenda setting process, which included profile of participants and feedback on the consultation process were reviewed and analyzed. Key informant interviews were also conducted among selected PCHRD officials and members of the Philippine National Health Research System - Research Agenda Committee. Stakeholder mapping was conducted prior to the engagement to identify potential stakeholders. Consultations were conducted in each region involving different stakeholders. Stakeholders in the consultation process were national government agencies, local government units, academe, public and private health facilities, and non-government organizations (NGOs). Results. The stakeholder with the highest representation was the national government (n=110), while the lowest were public and private health facilities (n=14 each). Interactive discussion of stakeholders with diverse background, is the top item that went well during the consultation and should be retained in the future, and; brainstorming session and presentation were identified item that needs improvement. Conclusion. A diverse and well-represented set of stakeholders is important in an agenda setting to appropriately identify priorities and to improve uptake of the agenda. Stakeholder engagement, however, should not be limited to agenda setting, collaborative work must be sustained in all aspects of the research cycle.

Background and Objective. This paper aims to describe long-term visions for health research in the Philippines. Ambisyon Natin 2040, an overarching vision for a dynamic country by the year 2040, is its main inspiration as this enables innovation and sustainable development. Methods. The health research profile conceptual framework developed by Tugwell et al., (2006) was utilized to structure the articulation of these visions. Review of related literature, reports, and documents and in-depth interviews with key players in health research were conducted. Results. In view of economic and technological developments in the country, it is expected that in 2040, health research priorities shall be more trans-disciplinary and more advanced. Research on health regulation and ethics will continue to be of importance. A more enabling environment for health research is also envisioned, since majority of research funding is expected to come from government, in addition to more research-friendly laws. More innovative platforms will be utilized to disseminate research results. The increasing international exposure and impact of academic work in the Philippines is also envisaged. Conclusion and Recommendations. Health research in the Philippines has been benefitted by a lot of gains and advances in the past years. Thus, to create an enabling health research system in the Philippines by 2040, focusing on innovations in health research, increased number of funding sources, and crafting of better policies on health research should be pursued. Sustaining these gains and advancing health research in our country entail collective effort from different stakeholders, both public and private.

Background. Considering the scope and magnitude of the National Unified Health Research Agenda (NUHRA), the implementation of the agenda requires adequate planning. Reviewing the implementation of the first and second versions of NUHRA, implemented from 2006 to 2010 and from 2011 to 2016 respectively, is thus useful in identifying potential challenges for implementing the current version. Objectives. This article aimed to 1) describe strategies employed in the previous NUHRAs,2) describe uptake of the previous NUHRAs; and 3) identify lessons learned from the implementation of NUHRA 1 and 2. Methods. Review of the NUHRA 1 and 2 evaluation reports and minutes of PNHRS Research Agenda Committee meeting was conducted. Interviews with PCHRD division head and staff and representatives from the academe and regional consortia were also conducted. Results. A total of 96 of the 422 NUHRA 1 priorities were implemented, while 45 of the 56 NUHRA 2 priorities were implemented. While NUHRA 1 implementation was delegated to numerous agencies, dissemination was conducted primarily by PCHRD through launch events and fora. Implementation of the NUHRA 2 was delegated only to the four core agencies of the PNHRS, with each agency employing different strategies for the dissemination of the NUHRA 2. Conclusion. Involvement of agencies beyond the core of PNHRS may be the better direction for implementation of the current NUHRA. Strong support and commitment of the core agencies will be key in the effective implementation of the NUHRA.