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

Abstract

BackgroundPriority 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 FindingsWe 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.ConclusionsHealth 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.

Setting health research priorities using the CHNRI method: IV. Key conceptual advances

“…For anyone interested in setting health research priorities at any level, I recommend several comprehensive reviews of the principles, methods, approaches and tools [3,[7][8][9][10][11]. Based on those readings, it should become apparent that the CHNRI method proposed its own definition of health research.…”

“…Two recent reviews showed that the CHNRI method has become the dominant approach to setting health research priorities in the global biomedical literature over the past decade [9,10]. Its applications have been helpful in promoting better balance between investments in fundamental research, translation research and implementation research.…”

Setting research priorities for maternal, newborn, child health and nutrition in India by engaging experts from 256 indigenous institutions contributing over 4000 research ideas: a CHNRI exercise by ICMR and INCLEN

“…Stakeholder engagement, and data and capacity constraints frequently impeded the process for setting priorities, more so in the LMICs [16]. The current exercise, through systematic inclusion of diverse range of national stakeholders in a LMIC setting, identified priorities for maternal, neonatal and child health and nutrition at national and sub–national (regional) levels.…”

Análisis bibliométrico de la producción científica sobre las agendas nacionales de investigación en el Perú 2011-2014

“…Una estrategia para lograrlo es que la investigación en salud esté orientada por prioridades de investigación consensuadas e identificadas de manera participativa entre los principales actores del sistema nacional de investigación (3) . En ausencia de prioridades, existe la posibilidad que, en estos países, la investigación pueda responder a necesidades de los financiadores o de los intereses propios de los investigadores, muchas veces diferentes a las necesidades del país (4,5) .…”