‘Knowledge for better health’ revisited – the increasing significance of health research systems: a review by departing Editors-in-Chief

Abstract

How can nations organise research investments to obtain the best bundle of knowledge and the maximum level of improved health, spread as equitably as possible? This question was the central focus of a major initiative from WHO led by Prof Tikki Pang, which resulted in a range of developments, including the publication of a conceptual framework for national health research systems – Knowledge for better health – in 2003, and in the founding of the journal Health Research Policy and Systems (HARPS). As Editors-in-Chief of the journal since 2006, we mark our retirement by tracking both the progress of the journal and the development of national health research systems. HARPS has maintained its focus on a range of central themes that are key components of a national health research system in any country. These include building capacity to conduct and use health research, identifying appropriate priorities, securing funds and allocating them accountably, producing scientifically valid research outputs, promoting the use of research in polices and practice in order to improve health, and monitoring and evaluating the health research system. Some of the themes covered in HARPS are now receiving increased attention and, for example, with the assessment of research impact and development of knowledge translation platforms, the journal has covered their progress throughout that expansion of interest. In addition, there is increasing recognition of new imperatives, including the importance of promoting gender equality in health research if benefits are to be maximised. In this Editorial, we outline some of the diverse and developing perspectives considered within each theme, as well as considering how they are held together by the growing desire to build effective health research systems in all countries.From 2003 until mid-June 2017, HARPS published 590 articles on the above and related themes, with authors being located in 76 countries. We present quantitative data tracing the journal’s growth and the increasing external recognition of its role. We thank the many colleagues who have kindly contributed to the journal’s success, and finish on an exciting note by welcoming the new Editors-in-Chief who will take HARPS forward.

Investigating the process of evidence-informed health policymaking in Bangladesh: a systematic review

“…The decision to include studies published after the year 2000 was made after an initial search using the Medline database identified no literature surrounding EIPM in Bangladesh, with the exception of an opinion piece discussing the reduction of cholera in Bangladesh in the 1980s. Furthermore, heightened attention surrounding the importance of health policy research for LMICs occurred in 2003 with the publication of ‘Knowledge for a Better World’ (Pang et al , 2003; Hanney and González-Block, 2017). Leading to a rise in scholarly interest in the topic.…”

“…Debate around the issue of evidence and policy is widespread and a range of models proposed to understand the interface of evidence and policy have been designed to highlight the differing social, economic and political processes involved with the diffusion of evidence into policy (Bowen and Zwi, 2005). Heightened attention to the issue occurred with the formation of the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research in 1999 and later in 2003 the World Health Organization released a report called ‘Knowledge for better health—a conceptual framework and foundation for health research systems’ (Pang et al , 2003; Hanney and González-Block, 2017). Following this the World Health Assembly passed a resolution based on the ‘Mexico Statement on Health Research’.…”

How to strengthen a health research system: WHO’s review, whose literature and who is providing leadership?

“…In terms of further reviews of the literature on specific functions or components, HARPS would probably be a key source. In the summer of 2017, an analysis by the retiring editors of the papers published in the journal from its inception in 2002 identified many papers that had been published on each of the functions or components of a health research system [63]. While this editors' analysis was included in the HEN review because it organised its discussion of the papers at the systems level, the individual papers in it were, in general, only included in the HEN review if they, too, adopted a systems approach at the national or partnership level, or were also cited in a report such as the World Health Report 2013 [1].…”

“…To further inform this current Opinion piece, a quick 'hand-search' was conducted of the papers published in HARPS in the 30 months since the previous analysis in mid-2017 [63]. This again identified a wide range of papers on specific components, especially priority-setting, evaluation of research impacts, capacity-building and the translation of research (or knowledge mobilisation).…”

Building a bright, evidence-informed future: a conversation starter from the incoming editors

“…The progress and achievements of HARPS under Steve Hanney’s and Miguel Angel González Block’s leadership are impressive, with steady increases in publication numbers and impact factor, as well as strong, diverse contributors [ 2 ]. Since its inception, HARPS has been a vehicle and a forum for the dissemination of high quality and timely research on the role of research in strengthening health systems and improving health outcomes.…”