Dataset Information

Increasing health policy and systems research capacity in low- and middle-income countries: results from a bibliometric analysis.

ABSTRACT: For 20 years, substantial effort has been devoted to catalyse health policy and systems research (HPSR) to support vulnerable populations and resource-constrained regions through increased funding, institutional capacity-building and knowledge production; yet, participation from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is underrepresented in HPSR knowledge production.A bibliometric analysis of HPSR literature was conducted using a high-level keyword search. Health policy and/or health systems literature with a topic relevant to LMICs and whose lead author's affiliation is in an LMIC were included for analysis. The trends in knowledge production from 1990 to 2015 were examined to understand how investment in HPSR benefits those it means to serve.The total number of papers published in PubMed increases each year. HPSR publications represent approximately 10% of these publications, but this percentage is increasing at a greater rate than PubMed publications overall and the discipline is holding this momentum. HPSR publications with topics relevant to LMICs and an LMIC-affiliated lead authors (specifically from low-income countries) are increasing at a greater rate than any other category within the scope of this analysis.While the absolute number of publications remains low, lead authors from an LMIC have participated exponentially in the life and biomedical sciences (PubMed) since the early 2000s. HPSR publications with a topic relevant to LMICs and an LMIC lead author continue to increase at a greater rate than the life and biomedical science topics in general. This correlation is likely due to increased capacity for research within LMICs and the support for publications surrounding large HPSR initiatives. These findings provide strong evidence that continued support is key to the longevity and enhancement of HPSR toward its mandate.

SUBMITTER: English KM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5534120 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Increasing health policy and systems research capacity in low- and middle-income countries: results from a bibliometric analysis.

English Krista M KM Pourbohloul Babak B

Health research policy and systems 20170728 1

<h4>Background</h4>For 20 years, substantial effort has been devoted to catalyse health policy and systems research (HPSR) to support vulnerable populations and resource-constrained regions through increased funding, institutional capacity-building and knowledge production; yet, participation from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is underrepresented in HPSR knowledge production.<h4>Methods</h4>A bibliometric analysis of HPSR literature was conducted using a high-level keyword search. Hea ...[more]

PMID: 28754165

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo identify priority policy issues in access to medicines (ATM) relevant for low- and middle-income countries, to identify research questions that would help address these policy issues, and to prioritize these research questions in a health policy and systems research (HPSR) agenda.MethodsThe study involved i) country- and regional-level priority-setting exercises performed in 17 countries across five regions, with a desk review of relevant grey and published literature combined with mapping and interviews of national and regional stakeholders; ii) interviews with global-level stakeholders; iii) a scoping of published literature; and iv) a consensus building exercise with global stakeholders which resulted in the formulation and ranking of HPSR questions in the field of ATM.ResultsA list of 18 priority policy issues was established following analysis of country-, regional-, and global-level exercises. Eighteen research questions were formulated during the global stakeholders' meeting and ranked according to four ranking criteria (innovation, impact on health and health systems, equity, and lack of research). The top three research questions were: i) In risk protection schemes, which innovations and policies improve equitable access to and appropriate use of medicines, sustainability of the insurance system, and financial impact on the insured? ii) How can stakeholders use the information available in the system, e.g., price, availability, quality, utilization, registration, procurement, in a transparent way towards improving access and use of medicines? and iii) How do policies and other interventions into private markets, such as information, subsidies, price controls, donation, regulatory mechanisms, promotion practices, etc., impact on access to and appropriate use of medicines?ConclusionsOur HPSR agenda adopts a health systems perspective and will guide relevant, innovative research, likely to bear an impact on health, health systems and equity.

Project description:Strengthening research capacity in low- and middle-income countries is one of the most effective ways of advancing their health and development but the complexity and heterogeneity of health research capacity strengthening (RCS) initiatives means it is difficult to evaluate their effectiveness. Our study aimed to enhance understanding about these difficulties and to make recommendations about how to make health RCS evaluations more effective. Through discussions and surveys of health RCS funders, including the ESSENCE on Health Research initiative, we identified themes that were important to health RCS funders and used these to guide a systematic analysis of their evaluation reports. Eighteen reports, produced between 2000 and 2013, representing 12 evaluations, were purposefully selected from 54 reports provided by the funders to provide maximum variety. Text from the reports was extracted independently by two authors against a pre-designed framework. Information about the health RCS approaches, tensions and suggested solutions was re-constructed into a narrative. Throughout the process contacts in the health RCS funder agencies were involved in helping us to validate and interpret our results. The focus of the health RCS evaluations ranged from individuals and institutions to national, regional and global levels. Our analysis identified tensions around how much stakeholders should participate in an evaluation, the appropriate balance between measuring and learning and between a focus on short-term processes vs longer-term impact and sustainability. Suggested solutions to these tensions included early and ongoing stakeholder engagement in planning and evaluating health RCS, modelling of impact pathways and rapid assimilation of lessons learned for continuous improvement of decision making and programming. The use of developmental approaches could improve health RCS evaluations by addressing common tensions and promoting sustainability. Sharing learning about how to do robust and useful health RCS evaluations should happen alongside, not after, health RCS efforts.

Project description:Action is urgently needed to curb the rising rates of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and reduce the resulting social and economic burdens. There is global evidence about the most cost-effective interventions for addressing the main NCD risk factors such as tobacco use, unhealthy diets, physical inactivity, and alcohol misuse. However, it is unknown how much research is focused on informing the local adoption and implementation of these interventions.To assess the degree of research activity on NCD priority interventions in LMICs by using bibliometric analysis to quantify the number of relevant peer-reviewed scientific publications.A multidisciplinary, multi-lingual journal database was searched for articles on NCD priority interventions. The interventions examined emphasise population-wide, policy, regulation, and legislation approaches. The publication timeframe searched was the year 2000-2011. Of the 11,211 articles yielded, 525 met the inclusion criteria.Over the 12-year period, the number of articles published increased overall but differed substantially between regions: Latin America & Caribbean had the highest (127) and Middle East & North Africa had the lowest (11). Of the risk factor groups, 'tobacco control' led in publications, with 'healthy diets and physical activity' and 'reducing harmful alcohol use' in second and third place. Though half the publications had a first author from a high-income country institutional affiliation, developing country authorship had increased in recent years.While rising global attention to NCDs has likely produced an increase in peer-reviewed publications on NCDs in LMICs, publication rates directly related to cost-effective interventions are still very low, suggesting either limited local research activity or limited opportunities for LMIC researchers to publish on these issues. More research is needed on high-priority interventions and research funders should re-examine if intervention research is enough of a funding priority.

Project description:ObjectivesLow-income and lower middle-income countries (LLMICs) bear a disproportionate burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). WHO has repeatedly called for more research on poverty and NCDs in these settings, but the current situation remains unquantified. We aimed to assess research output on poverty and NCD risk factors from these countries in relation to upper middle-income and high-income countries.DesignBibliometric analysis of primary research published between 1 January 1990 and 4 May 2017. We searched 13 databases, combining terms for poverty and NCD behavioural risk factors (tobacco, alcohol, diet and physical activity). Independent dual review was used to screen titles, abstracts and full papers. Two-tailed t-testing and multiple linear regression analyses were used to compare differences in means.Outcomes(1) Proportion of lead authors affiliated with institutions based in high and upper middle-income countries vs LLMICs. (2) Mean number of citations for publications from each region. (3) Mean journal impact factor for studies from each region.ResultsNinety-one (67%) of the 136 included studies were led by scientists affiliated with LLMIC-based institutions. These authors represented 17/83 LLMICs (20%), and their studies garnered 4.8 fewer citations per paper than studies led by high-income and upper middle-income-affiliated authors; however, this finding was non-significant (P=0.67). Papers led by authors based in high-income and upper middle-income countries were published in journals with a mean impact factor 3.1 points higher than those from LLMICs (4.9 vs 1.7) adjusting for year of publication and number of citations (P<0.001).ConclusionsMost poverty and NCD risk factor research is led by authors from a small number of LLMICs. These studies are being published in relatively low-impact journals, and the vast majority of LLMICs are not producing any research in this area that is vital to their social and economic development. The paucity of domestic evidence must be addressed to inform global policy.

Project description:BackgroundMany international statements have urged researchers, policy-makers and health care providers to collaborate in efforts to bridge the gaps between research, policy and practice in low- and middle-income countries. We surveyed researchers in 10 countries about their involvement in such efforts.MethodsWe surveyed 308 researchers who conducted research on one of four clinical areas relevant to the Millennium Development Goals (prevention of malaria, care of women seeking contraception, care of children with diarrhea and care of patients with tuberculosis) in each of 10 low- and middle-income countries (China, Ghana, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Laos, Mexico, Pakistan, Senegal and Tanzania). We focused on their engagement in three promising bridging activities and examined system-level, organizational and individual correlates of these activities.ResultsLess than half of the researchers surveyed reported that they engaged in one or more of the three promising bridging activities: 27% provided systematic reviews of the research literature to their target audiences, 40% provided access to a searchable database of research products on their topic, and 43% established or maintained long-term partnerships related to their topic with representatives of the target audience. Three factors emerged as statistically significant predictors of respondents' engagement in these activities: the existence of structures and processes to link researchers and their target audiences predicted both the provision of access to a database (odds ratio [OR] 2.62, 95% CI 1.30-5.27) and the establishment or maintenance of partnerships (OR 2.65, 95% CI 1.25-5.64); stability in their contacts predicted the provision of systematic reviews (OR 2.88, 95% CI 1.35-6.13); and having managers and public (government) policy-makers among their target audiences predicted the provision of both systematic reviews (OR 4.57, 95% CI 1.78-11.72) and access to a database (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.20-5.43).InterpretationOur findings suggest potential areas for improvement in light of the bridging strategies targeted at health care providers that have been found to be effective in some contexts and the factors that appear to increase the prospects for using research in policy-making.

Project description:BackgroundGaps continue to exist between research-based evidence and clinical practice. We surveyed health care providers in 10 low- and middle-income countries about their use of research-based evidence and examined factors that may facilitate or impede such use.MethodsWe surveyed 1499 health care providers practising in one of four areas relevant to the Millennium Development Goals (prevention of malaria, care of women seeking contraception, care of children with diarrhea and care of patients with tuberculosis) in each of China, Ghana, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Laos, Mexico, Pakistan, Senegal and Tanzania.ResultsThe proportion of respondents who reported that research was likely to change their clinical practice if performed and published in their own country (84.6% and 86.0% respectively) was higher than the proportion who reported the same about research and publications from their region (66.4% and 63.1%) or from high-income countries (55.8% and 55.5%). Respondents who were most likely to report that the use of research-based evidence led to changes in their practice included those who reported using clinical practice guidelines in paper format (odds ratio [OR] 1.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-2.28), using scientific journals from their own country in paper format (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.26-2.28), viewing the quality of research performed in their country as above average or excellent (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.16-3.22); trusting systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.08-2.35); and having easy access to the Internet (OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.19-3.02).InterpretationLocally conducted or published research has played an important role in changing the professional practice of health care providers surveyed in low- and middle-income countries. Increased investments in local research, or at least in locally adapted publications of research-based evidence from other settings, are therefore needed. Although access to the Internet was viewed as a significant factor in whether research-based evidence led to concrete changes in practice, few respondents reported having easy access to the Internet. Therefore, efforts to improve Internet access in clinical settings need to be accelerated.

Project description:Between August 2012 and April 2013 the Career Development Fellowship programme of the Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (World Health Organization) underwent an external evaluation to assess its past performance and determine recommendations for future programme development and continuous performance improvement. The programme provides a year-long training experience for qualified researchers from low and middle income countries at pharmaceutical companies or product development partnerships. Independent evaluators from the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute and the Barcelona Institute for Global Health used a results-based methodology to review the programme. Data were gathered through document review, surveys, and interviews with a range of programme participants. The final evaluation report found the Career Development Fellowship to be relevant to organizers' and programme objectives, efficient in its operations, and effective in its training scheme, which was found to address needs and gaps for both fellows and their home institutions. Evaluators found that the programme has the potential for impact and sustainability beyond the programme period, especially with the successful reintegration of fellows into their home institutions, through which newly-developed skills can be shared at the institutional level. Recommendations included the development of a scheme to support the re-integration of fellows into their home institutions post-fellowship and to seek partnerships to facilitate the scaling-up of the programme. The impact of the Professional Membership Scheme, an online professional development tool launched through the programme, beyond the scope of the Career Development Fellowship programme itself to other applications, has been identified as a positive unintended outcome. The results of this evaluation may be of interest for other efforts in the field of research capacity strengthening in LMICs or, generally, to other professional development schemes of a similar structure.

Dataset Information

Increasing health policy and systems research capacity in low- and middle-income countries: results from a bibliometric analysis.

Publications

Increasing health policy and systems research capacity in low- and middle-income countries: results from a bibliometric analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets