Applying knowledge management in generating and using evidence in health research priority setting (HRPS)

@#<p><strong>BACKGROUND:</strong> Current international recommendations in generating and using evidence in Health Research Priority Setting (HRPS) include the use of systematic reviews, and systematic or scientific situational analysis. In the Philippines, the Philippine National Health Research System's (PNHRS) National Guidelines for Health Research Prioritization recommends the use of either a Combined Approach Matrix (CAM) or situational analysis in generating and using evidence for HRPS. At present, there is a lack of a gold standard in generating and utilizing evidence in HRPS.</p><p><strong>OBJECTIVE: </strong>The primary objective of this paper is to document a practical yet alternative/innovative approach on how evidence was generated and utilized in the process of HRPS as observed in the development of the National Unified Health Research Agenda (NUHRA) in the Philippines. Specifically, it identifies the types of knowledge products produced and their role in the process of health research agenda setting; how evidence was used and managed in the course of NUHRA development; and, the lessons learned from the experience.</p><p><strong>METHODS:</strong> This case study is descriptive of the experience of generating and utilizing evidence for HRPS in the Philippines. The study utilized primary and secondary data. Knowledge Management (KM) was used as a lens to describe the process of generating and managing information for the NUHRA. Document analysis was used in comparing and aligning data with the integrated KM framework.</p><p><strong>RESULTS:</strong> Pre-selected data were captured and created; shared and disseminated; and subsequently acquired and applied voluntarily by stakeholders during the process of HRPS. Relevant data was presented into various information products designed with a specific stakeholder in mind. Technical papers were developed to cater to national level stakeholders and focused on broad, nationally-relevant issues. Regional situational analysis reports focused on regional and local data and were designed for regional stakeholders to use during the development of Regional Unified Health Research Agenda (RUHRA). Infographics were developed to present the findings of the technical papers creatively and concisely and the NUHRA methodology and were presented to both national and regional stakeholders. The RUHRAs and the NUHRA were the outputs of the health research prioritization activities and will be made available through local and national channels of the PNHRS.</p><p><strong>RECOMMENDATIONS:</strong> Opportunities for formalization and institutionalization of knowledge management for generating and using evidence in HRPS may be explored to address health information fragmentation across the health research system.</p>

Evaluación del proceso de priorización en salud en Colombia: perspectiva de grupos de investigación ubicados en Bogotá / Evaluating how health is prioritised in Colombia from the point of view of Bogotá-based research groups

Objetivo Evaluar el proceso de priorización de investigaciones en salud llevado a cabo en el país a partir de las metodologías internacionales y desde la perspectiva de los grupos de investigación en salud, categoría A, ubicados en Bogotá. Métodos: A partir de un enfoque cualitativo, se realizaron 14 entrevistas semies­tructuradas a líderes de los grupos seleccionados a través de una muestra propositiva. Con el programa de análisis de información cualitativa Atlas Ti se generaron categorías para comparación. Resultados Cada grupo posee diferentes experiencias en investigación en el campo de la salud. Algunos manifestaron sus propias concepciones sobre la salud y sobre la priorización a partir de sus marcos epistemológicos. Diferentes líderes de los grupos expresaron que hay una fuerte orientación biomédica en los procesos de priorización y de las metodologías utilizadas para tal fin. Un número importante de ellos ha reconocido la importancia de la participación de otros actores sociales en la definición de las prioridades para la investigación en salud, además de los mismos investigadores, dentro de un escenario de dialogo y de concertación. Por último, los líderes entrevistados plantearon algunos cuestionamientos frente a la definición de prioridades y sugirieron la importancia de fomentar un proceso más participativo e incluyente comenzando por los mismos investigadores en salud. Discusión Los hallazgos muestran la enorme heterogeneidad de posiciones frente a la temática de la priorización de investigaciones en salud y las dificultades para alcanzar consensos entre los mismos investigadores.

Objective Assessing how priorities are established in Colombia in line with international methodologies and from the perspective of Bogotá-based Category A health research groups. Methods This study used a qualitative approach; 14 leaders from groups selected via a propositive sample were given semi-structured interviews to obtain a compre­hensive interpretation of priority-setting in Colombia. ATLAS Ti software was used for organising information and producing categories from transcripts. Results Each group had a different research background and came from health research areas such as basic science, clinical science and the wide field of public health. Some talked about their own definitions of health and establishing priorities as related to their own epistemological frameworks. Other leaders stressed that a bio­medical approach still predominated in health research, priority-setting and the inter­national methodologies used for such end. Many recognised the importance of differ­ent social actors (i.e. apart from researchers) becoming involved in defining health research priorities within a scenario emphasising dialogue and coming to agreement. The leaders criticised the national health science and technology system raising questions regarding defining priorities; they stated that dialogue and involvement must be promoted. Discussion These findings revealed enormous heterogeneity regarding prioritising health research as every researcher has a different point of view due to their experi­ence and backgrounds and the difficulties in researchers' reaching consensus.