Identifying research gaps and priorities for African family medicine and primary health care.

No abstract available.

The value of health service-based research to health service organisations: a qualitative study with senior health service executives.

BACKGROUND: Research evidence has demonstrably improved health care practices and patient outcomes. However, systemic translation of evidence into practice is far from optimal. The reasons are complex, but often because research is not well aligned with health service priorities. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences and perspectives of senior health service executives on two issues: (1) the alignment between local research activity and the needs and priorities of their health services, and (2) the extent to which research is or can be integrated as part of usual health care practice. METHODS: In this qualitative study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with senior health leaders from four large health service organisations that are members of Sydney Health Partners (SHP), one of Australia's nationally accredited research translation centres committed to accelerating the translation of research findings into evidence-based health care. The interviews were conducted between November 2022 and January 2023, and were either audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim or recorded in the interviewer field notes. A thematic analysis of the interview data was conducted by two researchers, using the framework method to identify common themes. RESULTS: Seventeen health executives were interviewed, including chief executives, directors of medical services, nursing, allied health, research, and others in executive leadership roles. Responses to issue (1) included themes on re-balancing curiosity- and priority-driven research; providing more support for research activity within health organisations; and helping health professionals and researchers discuss researchable priorities. Responses to issue (2) included identification of elements considered essential for embedding research in health care; and the need to break down silos between research and health care, as well as within health organisations. CONCLUSIONS: Health service leaders value research but want more research that aligns with their needs and priorities. Discussions with researchers about those priorities may need some facilitation. Making research a more integrated part of health care will require strong and broad executive leadership, resources and infrastructure, and investing in capacity- and capability-building across health clinicians, managers and executive staff.

Priorities for health outcomes in glaucoma in an ethnically diverse UK cohort: an observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether patients from minority ethnic groups have different perceptions about the quality-of-life outcomes that matter most to them. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study. SETTING: High volume eye centres serving the most ethnically diverse region in the UK, recruiting from July 2021 to February 2022. PARTICIPANTS: 511 patients with primary open-angle glaucoma and the predisease state of ocular hypertension. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was participants' self-reported priorities for health outcomes. RESULTS: Participants fell into one of four clusters with differing priorities for health outcomes, namely: (1) vision, (2) drop freedom, (3) intraocular pressure and (4) one-time treatment. Ethnicity was the strongest determinant of cluster membership after adjusting for potential confounders. Compared with white patients prioritising vision alone, the OR for black/black British patients was 7.31 (95% CI 3.43 to 15.57, p<0.001) for prioritising drop freedom; 5.95 (2.91 to 12.16, p<0.001) for intraocular pressure; and 2.99 (1.44 to 6.18, p=0.003) for one-time treatment. For Asian/Asian British patients, the OR was 3.17 (1.12 to 8.96, p=0.030) for prioritising intraocular pressure as highly as vision. Other ethnic minority groups also had higher ORs for prioritising health outcomes other than vision alone: 4.50 (1.03 to 19.63, p=0.045) for drop freedom and 5.37 (1.47 to 19.60, p=0.011) for intraocular pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Ethnicity is strongly associated with differing perceptions about the health outcomes that matter. An individualised and ethnically inclusive approach is needed when selecting and evaluating treatments in clinical and research settings.

Identifying priority double-duty actions to tackle the double burden of malnutrition in infants and young children in Peru: Assessment and prioritisation of government actions by national experts.

Multiple forms of malnutrition coexist in infants and young children (IYC) in Peru. The World Health Organization has proposed double-duty actions (DDAs) to simultaneously address undernutrition and overweight/obesity. We assessed current implementation of- and priority for- government-level actions to tackle multiple forms of malnutrition in IYC in Peru. Mapping of current policy activity was undertaken against 47 indicators of good practice for five DDAs (exclusive breastfeeding, complementary feeding, food marketing, maternal nutrition, preschool nutrition; assessed by 27 indicators) and for the enabling policy environment, i.e., 'infrastructure support' (health in all policies, platforms for interactions, financing, monitoring, governance, leadership; assessed by 20 indicators). Interviews with 16 national experts explored views on the level of and barriers to implementation of DDAs and infrastructure support, as well as their prioritisation based on likely impact and feasibility. The level of implementation of actions was categorised into two groups (agenda setting/formulation vs. implementation/evaluation). Mean scores were generated for prioritisation of DDAs and infrastructure support. Deductive qualitative analysis was undertaken to identify barriers that influence policy implementation. Only 5/27 DDA indicators were reported as fully implemented by all national experts (international code that regulates the marketing of breastmilk substitutes, iron supplementation for IYC, micronutrient powders in IYC, iron/folic acid supplementation in pregnant women, paid maternity leave). Only 1/20 infrastructure support indicator (access to nutrition information) was rated as fully implemented by all experts. Barriers to implementing DDAs and infrastructure support included: legal feasibility or lack of regulations, inadequate monitoring/evaluation to ensure enforcement, commercial influences on policymakers, insufficient resources, shifting public health priorities with the COVID-19 pandemic and political instability. The experts prioritised 12 indicators across all five DDAs and eight infrastructure support indicators. Experts highlighted the need to improve implementation of all DDAs and identified ways to strengthen the enabling policy environment.

Trust and 2024 Public Priorities for the CDC and State Health Departments.

This survey study evaluates public health priorities and trust in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and state health departments among US adults after the COVID-19 pandemic.

2023 Undetectable = Untransmittable global policy roundtable report: a multistakeholder perspective on Undetectable = Untransmittable research and policy priorities.

Background Launched in 2016 by Prevention Access Campaign, the 'Undetectable=Untransmittable' (U=U) campaign empowers people living with HIV to live full social, sexual and reproductive lives, dismantle stigma, promote increased treatment access, and advocate for updated HIV guidelines. Methods Key priorities for promoting improvements to community-centred, evidence-informed U=U policy and research were the focus of a half-day global roundtable held in 2023 alongside the 12th International AIDS Society Conference in Brisbane, Australia. After a series of presentations, experts in U=U research, policymaking, advocacy and HIV clinical care participated in facilitated discussions, and detailed notes were taken on issues related to advancing U=U policy and research. Results Expert participants shared that knowledge and trust in U=U remains uneven, and is largely concentrated among people living with HIV, particularly those connected to gay and bisexual networks. It was agreed that there is a need to ensure all members of priority populations are explicitly included in U=U policies that promote U=U. Participants also identified a need for policymakers, healthcare professionals, advocates and researchers to work closely with community-based organisations to ensure the U=U message is relevant, useful, and utilised in the HIV response. Adopting language, such as 'zero risk', was identified as crucial when describing undetectable viral load as an effective HIV prevention strategy. Conclusion U=U can have significant benefits for the mental and physical wellbeing of people living with HIV. There is an urgent need to address the structural barriers to HIV care and treatment access to ensure the full benefits of U=U are realised.

Establishing the Top 10 Research Priorities for Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) Cancer in Canada: A Protocol for a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

Adolescents and young adults (AYAs; 15-39 years) diagnosed with cancer have unique medical and psychosocial needs. These needs could be better addressed through research that is focused on the topics that matter most to them. However, there is currently no patient-oriented research agenda for AYA cancer in Canada. This manuscript describes the early development and project protocol for a priority-setting partnership (PSP) for establishing the top 10 research priorities for AYA cancer in Canada. This project follows the PSP methodology outlined by the James Lind Alliance (JLA) to engage patients, caregivers, and clinicians in research prioritization. The steps of a JLA PSP include establishing a steering group and project partners, gathering uncertainties, data processing and verifying uncertainties, interim priority setting, and a final priority setting workshop. The AYA cancer PSP will result in a top 10 list of research priorities identified by Canadian AYA patients, caregivers, and clinicians that will be published and shared broadly with the research community. The first steering group meeting was held in April 2023, and the project is ongoing. The establishment of a patient-oriented research agenda for AYA cancer will catalyze a long-term and impactful research focus and ultimately improve outcomes for AYA patients with cancer in Canada.

Identification of the needs and priorities of older people and stakeholders in rural and urban areas of Santo Andre, Brazil.

BACKGROUND: There are few data reporting the needs and priorities of older adults in Brazil. This hampers the development and/or implementation of policies aimed at older adults to help them age well. The aim of this study was to understand areas of importance, priorities, enablers and obstacles to healthy ageing as identified by older adults and key stakeholders in both urban and rural environments. METHODS: Two locations were selected, one urban and one rural in the municipality of Santo André, in the metropolitan region of São Paulo (SP). Workshops for older adults (>60 y) and stakeholders were conducted separately in each location. The workshops incorporated an iterative process of discussion, prioritisation and ranking of responses, in roundtable groups and in plenary. Areas of commonality and differences between older adult and stakeholder responses were identified by comparing responses between groups as well as mapping obstacles and enablers to healthy ageing identified by older adults, to the priorities identified by stakeholder groups. The socio-ecologic model was used to categorise responses. RESULTS: There were few shared responses between stakeholders and older adults and little overlap between the top ranked responses of urban and rural groups. With respect to areas of importance, both stakeholder groups ranked policies for older people within their top five reponses. Both older adult groups ranked keeping physically and mentally active, and nurturing spirituality. There was a marked lack of congruence between older adults' obstacles and enablers to healthy ageing and stakeholder priorities, in both urban and rural settings. Most responses were located within the Society domain of the socio-ecologic model, although older adults also responded within the Individual/ Relationships domains, particularly in ranking areas of most importance for healthy ageing. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight substantial differences between older adults and stakeholders with respect to areas of importance, priorities, enablers and obstacles to healthy ageing, and point to the need for more engagement between those in advocacy and policymaking roles and the older people whose needs they serve.

Research priorities for the management of major trauma: an international priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to determine research priorities for the management of major trauma, representing the shared priorities of patients, their families, carers and healthcare professionals. DESIGN/SETTING: An international research priority-setting partnership. PARTICIPANTS: People who have experienced major trauma, their carers and relatives, and healthcare professionals involved in treating patients after major trauma. The scope included chest, abdominal and pelvic injuries as well as major bleeding, multiple injuries and those that threaten life or limb. METHODS: A multiphase priority-setting exercise was conducted in partnership with the James Lind Alliance over 24 months (November 2021-October 2023). An international survey asked respondents to submit their research uncertainties which were then combined into several indicative questions. The existing evidence was searched to ensure that the questions had not already been sufficiently answered. A second international survey asked respondents to prioritise the research questions. A final shortlist of 19 questions was taken to a stakeholder workshop, where consensus was reached on the top 10 priorities. RESULTS: A total of 1572 uncertainties, submitted by 417 respondents (including 132 patients and carers), were received during the initial survey. These were refined into 53 unique indicative questions, of which all 53 were judged to be true uncertainties after reviewing the existing evidence. 373 people (including 115 patients and carers) responded to the interim prioritisation survey and 19 questions were taken to a final consensus workshop between patients, carers and healthcare professionals. At the final workshop, a consensus was reached for the ranking of the top 10 questions. CONCLUSIONS: The top 10 research priorities for major trauma include patient-centred questions regarding pain relief and prehospital management, multidisciplinary working, novel technologies, rehabilitation and holistic support. These shared priorities will now be used to guide funders and teams wishing to research major trauma around the globe.

Developing a community-responsive research model in the healthcare system: a mixed-method study.

BACKGROUND: Responsiveness to the population's non-clinical needs encompasses various dimensions, including responsive research and an educational outreach plan at the community level. This study aims to develop a community-responsive research model in the healthcare system to ensure the connection between community-identified health priorities and research funds, as well as capacity-building efforts. METHODS: A mixed-methods research study was conducted in three main phases, including a comprehensive literature review, a qualitative analysis of an expert panel's points of view, and the developing of a model using the Equation Modeling (SEM) technique. R software version 3.2.4 was used to conduct statistical analysis, considering a significance level of 0.05. RESULTS: Based on the literature review, 41 responsiveness components were identified from sixteen relevant studies conducted between 2000 and 2022. Ten sub-themes in four major themes, including planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and action, were identified through qualitative content analysis. Standardized coefficients revealed that components such as dissemination of results to all stakeholders, research prioritization aligned with community needs, commitment to implement research findings, and collaborative learning had statistically significant effects on the community-responsive research model. CONCLUSION: It is essential to identify community health priorities by following a community-focused, priority-setting process based on the principles of community engagement to develop a community-responsive research model. Afterward, dissemination of research findings to all stakeholders, commitment to apply the obtained results in the real world, and promotion of shared learning among research partners have been proven to facilitate collaborative investigation and mutual understanding between the community and academic partners.

Explore the practice and barriers of collaborative health policy and system research-priority setting exercise in Ethiopia.

INTRODUCTION: Collaboration is gaining prominence in the priority setting of Health Policy And System Research (HPSR). However, its practice and challenges are not well explored in Ethiopia. Understanding the practice and barriers of collaborative Health Policy and System Research will help design approaches and platforms for setting inclusive and participatory policy and system-level health research topics. This paper explores the practice and barriers of collaborative HPSR-priority setting exercise in Ethiopia. METHODS: This study investigates the practice and barriers of collaborative health policy and system research priority-setting exercises in Ethiopia. Utilizing a mixed-methods approach, we conducted Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) and an online self-administered survey with open-ended questionnaires to capture diverse perspectives from stakeholders involved in the research priority-setting process. Through conventional content analysis, we identified key contents related to current practices, challenges, and opportunities for enhancing collaboration in health policy and system research prioritization. RESULTS: Our findings reveal a complex landscape characterized by varying levels of stakeholder engagement, institutional capacity constraints, and competing priorities within the health research ecosystem. Despite notable efforts to foster collaboration, stakeholders identified persistent challenges such as limited resources, institutional fragmentation, and inadequate coordination mechanisms as barriers to effective priority-setting processes. The implications of our research extend beyond academic discourse, with direct relevance to health policy and system research practice in Ethiopia. By shedding light on the dynamics of collaborative priority-setting exercises, our findings offer valuable insights for policymakers, researchers, and practitioners seeking to enhance the effectiveness and inclusivity of health research prioritization processes. Addressing the identified barriers and leveraging existing strengths in the research ecosystem can contribute to more evidence-informed health policies and programs, ultimately improving health outcomes for Ethiopian populations. CONCLUSIONS: Most institutions do not apply health policy and system research-priority setting to conduct informed decision-making. The barriers explored were weak integration, lack of knowledge, system, and platforms for the priority setting of Health Policy and System Resreach. So, it is recommended to build skills of different actors in the Health Policy and System Research-priority setting exercise and design a system and platform to integrate different stakeholders for collaborative research topics priority setting.