Stakeholders in the development of the National Unified Health Research Agenda of the Philippines

@#<p><strong>OBJECTIVES:</strong> 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.</p><p><strong>METHODS:</strong> 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).</p><p><strong>RESULTS:</strong> 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.</p><p><strong>CONCLUSION:</strong> 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.</p>

Implementing lessons learned from past versions of the Philippine National Unified Health Research Agenda

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.

Implementing lessons learned from past versions of the Philippine National Unified Health Research Agenda

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.

Mapping the influence of socioeconomic development plans on Philippine Health Research Agenda: A descriptive study

Background@#Understanding and addressing social determinants of health through evidence-based action is a strategy that has been advocated by the World Health Organization as part of its “Health for All” strategy in 1978 and “Health in All Policies“ framework in 2013. It has then been recommended that the research agenda-setting process should be informed by socio-economic development plans with the specific aim of gathering data on social, economic, and cultural conditions that affect health.@*Objective@#This paper reviewed the PDP 2011-2016, PDP 2017-2022, MDGs, and SDGs and identified common directions with the NUHRA 2011-2016 and 2017-2022.@*Methods@#A content analysis of the three identified priorities of the NUHRA vis-a-vis the PDP 2011-2016, the PDP 2017-2022, the MDGs, and the SDGs was done in order to identify harmonization of the priorities of the NUHRAs targets and indicators with those of the other plans and agendas. A gap analysis across all topics was done to identify links and gaps.@*Results@#The results established the common ground between health research priorities and international and national plans. Comparing the number of direct relationships between the NUHRAs, PDPs, MDGs, and SDGs, it was noted that there were more direct links between NUHRA 2017-2022, PDP 2017-2022, and the SDGs compared to NUHRA 2011-2016, PDP 2011-2016, and MDGs. The direct links were mostly found in 1) maternal, newborn and child health, 2) health systems, 3) communicable diseases, 4) water, sanitation, and hygiene, 5) environment, and 6) infrastructure development.@*Conclusion@#The NUHRAs may serve as pathways to achieve the goals stipulated in other socio-economic development plans. The relationships of these to health are complex, nonlinear and often the effects manifest after a long period of time, and as such require rigorous research.