Dataset Information

Using research priority-setting to guide bridging the implementation gap in countries - a case study of the Uganda newborn research priorities in the SDG era.

ABSTRACT:

Background

One of the greatest challenges that countries face regarding the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) targets for child health regard the actions required to improve neonatal health; these interventions have to be informed by evidence. In view of the persisting high numbers of newborn deaths in Uganda, we aimed to define a locally contextualised national research agenda for newborn health to guide national investments towards SDG targets.

Methods

We adopted a systematic approach for priority-setting adapted from the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative. We identified and listed local newborn researchers and experts in Uganda by reviewing the PubMed database, through a snowballing technique, and engaged the Ministry of Health. Participants were requested to generate at least three research questions. The collated questions were sent to the same expert group to be rated using five criteria, including answerability, scalability, impact, generalisability and speed.

Findings

Of the 300 researchers and stakeholders contacted, 104 responded (36%) and generated 304 questions. These questions were collated and duplicates removed giving a condensed list of 41 research questions. These questions were then rated by 82 experts. Of the top 15 research questions, 86.7% (13/15) were in the service delivery and 6.7% (1/15) in the development domain, while only 6.7% (1/15) was in the group 'other'. None of the leading 15 questions was in the discovery domain. Strategies to improve quality of intrapartum care featured high in the responses, while research around care for premature babies was not a perceived focus of research.

Conclusions

The focus of improved evidence to guide and innovate service delivery, foremost intrapartum care, reflects the importance of this area as accelerated improvement is likely to yield fast and sustained survival gains in the neonatal period and beyond in Uganda. We recommend that other countries adapt a similar approach in defining priority reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health areas for investment in order to accelerate progress towards achieving the SDGs.

SUBMITTER: Waiswa P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6544968 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe double burden of infectious diseases coupled with noncommunicable diseases poses unique challenges for priority setting and for achieving equitable action to address the major causes of disease burden in health systems already impacted by limited resources. Noncommunicable disease control is an important global health and development priority. However, there are challenges for translating this global priority into local priorities and action. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of national, sub-national and global factors on priority setting for noncommunicable disease control in Uganda and examine the extent to which priority setting was successful.MethodsA mixed methods design that used the Kapiriri & Martin framework for evaluating priority setting in low income countries. The evaluation period was 2005-2015. Data collection included a document review (policy documents (n?=?19); meeting minutes (n?=?28)), media analysis (n?=?114) and stakeholder interviews (n?=?9). Data were analysed according to the Kapiriri & Martin (2010) framework.ResultsPriority setting for noncommunicable diseases was not entirely fair nor successful. While there were explicit processes that incorporated relevant criteria, evidence and wide stakeholder involvement, these criteria were not used systematically or consistently in the contemplation of noncommunicable diseases. There were insufficient resources for noncommunicable diseases, despite being a priority area. There were weaknesses in the priority setting institutions, and insufficient mechanisms to ensure accountability for decision-making. Priority setting was influenced by the priorities of major stakeholders (i.e. development assistance partners) which were not always aligned with national priorities. There were major delays in the implementation of noncommunicable disease-related priorities and in many cases, a failure to implement.ConclusionsThis evaluation revealed the challenges that low income countries are grappling with in prioritizing noncommunicable diseases in the context of a double disease burden with limited resources. Strengthening local capacity for priority setting would help to support the development of sustainable and implementable noncommunicable disease-related priorities. Global support (i.e. aid) to low income countries for noncommunicable diseases must also catch up to align with NCDs as a global health priority.

Project description:A recent Lancet commission called for more research on palliative care in low- and middle-income (LMIC) countries such as Colombia. A research priority setting approach has been recommended by The Global Forum for Health Research to address the huge gap in research output between LMIC and high-income countries, with influential health service bodies recommending the active involvement of non-research expert stakeholders in establishing research priorities to address service user needs. Priority setting partnership (PSP) following the four stages of the James Lind Alliance methodology; establishing the partnership, identifying evidence uncertainties, refining questions and uncertainties, and prioritization. Data from MS forms were analysed using descriptive statistics. A total of 33 stakeholders attended an online PSP workshop and completed the Mentimeter exercise in Microsoft Teams. A total of 48 attended the subsequent in person prioritisation exercise in urban Bogota (n = 22) and rural Popayan (n = 25). The stakeholders were a diverse group of health professionals (physicians, medical students, nurses, dentists, physiotherapists, nutritionist, occupational and speech therapists), financial and administrative staff and patients with life-limiting illness and caregivers. Top research priorities included patient and caregiver needs, service provider education and training, and better integration of palliative care with cancer and non-cancer services. The key challenges included a lack of interest in palliative care research, along with funding, time and resource constraints. Key solutions included collaboration across disciplines and settings, highlighting benefits of palliative research to help secure adequate resources, and multicentre, mixed method research, with patient involvement from the research development stage. The findings of this PSP should be disseminated among palliative care associations worldwide to inform international multicentre studies, and among governmental and nongovernmental organisations that promote research in Colombia. A focus on patient and family caregiver palliative care needs in Colombia should be prioritised.

Project description:ObjectivesAutosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) is the most common inherited kidney condition, accounting for 7%-10% of patients with kidney failure. Fundamental basic science and clinical research on ADPKD is underway worldwide but no one has yet considered which areas should be prioritised to maximise returns from limited future funding. The Polycystic Kidney Disease Charity began a priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance (JLA) in the UK in 2019-2020 to identify areas of uncertainty in the ADPKD care pathway and allow patients, carers and healthcare professionals to rank the 10 most important questions for research.DesignThe scope covered ADPKD diagnosis and management, identifying new treatments to prevent/slow disease progression and practical, integrated patient support (https://pkdcharity.org.uk/research/for-researchers/adpkd-research-priorities). We used adapted JLA methodology. Initially, an independent information specialist collated uncertainties in ADPKD care from recent consensus conference proceedings and additional literature. These were refined into indicative questions with Steering Group oversight. Finally, the 10 most important questions were established via a survey and online consensus workshop.SettingUK.Participants747 survey respondents (76% patients, 13% carers, 11% healthcare professionals); 23 workshop attendees.Results117 uncertainties in ADPKD care were identified and refined into 35 indicative questions. A shortlist of 17 questions was established through the survey. Workshop participants reached agreement on the top 10 ranking. The top three questions prioritised by patients, carers and healthcare professionals centred around slowing disease progression, identifying persons for early treatment and organising care to improve outcomes.ConclusionsOur shortlist reflects the varied physical, psychological and practical challenges of living with and treating ADPKD, and perceived gaps in knowledge that impair optimal care. We propose that future ADPKD research funding takes these priorities into account to focus on the most important areas and to maximise improvements in ADPKD outcomes.

Project description:It has been suggested that the research priorities of those funding and performing research in transplantation may differ from those of end service users such as patients, carers and healthcare professionals involved in day-to-day care. The Kidney Transplant Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) was established with the aim of involving all stakeholders in prioritising future research in the field.The PSP methodology is as outlined by the James Lind Alliance. An initial survey collected unanswered research questions from patients, carers and clinicians. Duplicate and out-of-scope topics were excluded and the existing literature searched to identify topics answered by current evidence. An interim prioritisation survey asked patients and professionals to score the importance of the remaining questions to create a ranked long-list. These were considered at a final consensus workshop using a modified nominal group technique to agree a final top ten.The initial survey identified 497 questions from 183 respondents, covering all aspects of transplantation from assessment through to long-term follow-up. These were grouped into 90 unanswered "indicative" questions. The interim prioritisation survey received 256 responses (34.8% patients/carers, 10.9% donors and 54.3% professionals), resulting in a ranked list of 25 questions that were considered during the final workshop. Participants agreed a top ten priorities for future research that included optimisation of immunosuppression (improved monitoring, choice of regimen, personalisation), prevention of sensitisation and transplanting the sensitised patient, management of antibody-mediated rejection, long-term risks to live donors, methods of organ preservation, induction of tolerance and bioengineering of organs. There was evidence that patient and carer involvement had a significant impact on shaping the final priorities.The final list of priorities relates to all stages of the transplant process, including access to transplantation, living donation, organ preservation, post-transplant care and management of the failing transplant. This list of priorities will provide an invaluable resource for researchers and funders to direct future activity.

Project description:BackgroundDespite continued investment, Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (MNCH) indicators in low and middle income countries have remained relatively poor. This could, in part, be explained by inadequate resources to adequately address these problems, inappropriate allocation of the available resources, or lack of implementation of the most effective interventions. Systematic priority setting and resource allocation could contribute to alleviating these limitations. There is a paucity of literature that follows through MNCH prioritization processes to implementation, making it difficult for policy makers to understand the impact of their decision-making on population health. The overall objective of this paper was to describe and evaluate priority setting for maternal, newborn and child health interventions in Uganda.MethodsFifty-four key informant interviews and a review of policies and media reports were used to describe priority setting for MNCH in Uganda. Kapiriri and Martin's conceptual framework was used to evaluate priority setting for MNCH.ResultsThere were three main prioritization exercises for maternal, newborn and child health in Uganda. The processes were participatory and were guided by explicit tools, evidence, and criteria, however, the public and the districts were insufficiently involved in the priority setting process. While there were conducive contextual factors including strong political support, implementation was constrained by the presence of competing actors, with varying priorities, an unequal allocation of resources between child health and maternal health interventions, limited financial and human resources, a weak health system and limited institutional capacity.ConclusionsStronger institutional capacity at the Ministry of Health and equitable engagement of key stakeholders in decision-making processes, especially the public, and implementers, would improve understanding, satisfaction and compliance with the priority setting process. Availability of financial and human resources that are appropriately allocated would facilitate the implementation of well-developed policies.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To identify research priorities for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy from individuals with lived experience and healthcare professionals. DESIGN:Prospective surveys and consensus meetings using principles outlined by the James Lind Alliance. SETTING:UK. METHODS:A steering group was established and 'uncertainties' were gathered using an online survey and literature search. An interim online survey ranked long-listed questions and the top 10 research questions were reached by consensus at a final prioritisation workshop. PARTICIPANTS:Women, partners, relatives and friends of those with lived experience of pregnancy hypertension, researchers and healthcare professionals. RESULTS:The initial online survey was answered by 278 participants (180 women with lived experience, 9 partners/relatives/friends, 71 healthcare professionals and 18 researchers). Together with a literature search, this identified 764 questions which were refined into 50 summary questions. All summary questions were presented in an interim prioritisation survey that was answered by 155 participants (87 women with lived experience, 4 partners/relatives/friends, 49 healthcare professionals and 15 researchers). The top 25 highest ranked questions were considered by the final prioritisation workshop. The top 10 uncertainties were identified by consensus and ranked as follows in order of priority: long-term consequences of pregnancy hypertension (for the woman and baby), short-term complications of pregnancy hypertension (for the woman and baby), screening tests for pre-eclampsia, prevention of long-term problems (for the woman and baby), causes of pregnancy hypertension, prevention of recurrent pregnancy hypertension, educational needs of healthcare professionals, diagnosis of pre-eclampsia, management of pregnancy hypertension, provision of support for women and families. CONCLUSIONS:Research priorities shared by those with lived experience of pregnancy hypertension and healthcare professionals have been identified. Researchers should use these to inform the choice of future studies in this area.