Dataset Information

Using a rapid environmental scan methodology to map country-level global health research expertise in Canada.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Many countries are currently rethinking their global health research funding priorities. When resources are limited, it is important to understand and use information about existing research strengths to inform research strategies and investments and to drive impact. This study describes a method to rapidly assess a country's global health research expertise and applies this method in the Canadian context. METHODS:We developed a three-pronged rapid environmental scan to evaluate Canadian global health research expertise that focused on research funding inputs, research activities and research outputs. We assessed research funding inputs from Canada's national health research funding agency and identified the 30 Canadian universities that received the most global health research funding. We systematically searched university websites and secondary databases to identify research activities, including research centres, research chairs and research training programmes. To evaluate research outputs, we searched PubMed to identify global health research publications by Canadian university-affiliated researchers. We used these three perspectives to develop a more nuanced understanding of Canadian strengths in global health research from different perspectives. RESULTS:Canada's main global health research funder, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, invested a total of $314?M from 2000 to 2016 on global health research grants. This investment has contributed to Canada's wealth of global health research expertise, including 12 training programmes, 27 Canada Research Chairs, 6 research centres and 30 WHO Collaborating Centres across 27 universities. Research activities were concentrated in Canada's biggest cities and most commonly focused on health equity and globalisation issues. Canadian-affiliated researchers have contributed to a research output of 822 unique publications on PubMed. There is an opportunity to build global health expertise in regions not already concentrated with research activity, focusing on transnational risks and neglected conditions research. CONCLUSIONS:Our three-pronged approach allowed us to rapidly identify clear geographic and substantive areas of strength in Canadian global health research, including urban regions and research focused on health equity and globalisation topics. This information can be used to support research policy directives, including to inform a Canadian global health research strategy, and to allow relevant academic institutions and funding organisations to make more strategic decisions regarding their future investments.

SUBMITTER: Nagi R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7146898 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Using a rapid environmental scan methodology to map country-level global health research expertise in Canada.

Nagi Ranjana R Rogers Van Katwyk Susan S Hoffman Steven J SJ

Health research policy and systems 20200409 1

<h4>Background</h4>Many countries are currently rethinking their global health research funding priorities. When resources are limited, it is important to understand and use information about existing research strengths to inform research strategies and investments and to drive impact. This study describes a method to rapidly assess a country's global health research expertise and applies this method in the Canadian context.<h4>Methods</h4>We developed a three-pronged rapid environmental scan to ...[more]

PMID: 32272941

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo identify, characterise and map the existing knowledge about programmes that provide immunisation support to Canadians and barriers and facilitators to their delivery.DesignScoping review and environmental scan.IntroductionVaccine hesitancy may be associated with unmet support needs of individuals. Immunisation support programmes that provide multicomponent approaches can improve vaccine confidence and equitable access.Inclusion criteriaCanadian programmes that focus on providing information about immunisation for the general public, but excluding articles targeting health professionals. The primary concept involves mapping the characteristics of programmes and our secondary concept examines barriers and facilitators to programme delivery.MethodsThe Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology guided this review, reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. A search strategy was developed and translated for six databases in November 2021 (updated October 2022). Unpublished literature was identified through the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health Grey Matters checklist and other relevant sources. Stakeholders (n=124) from Canadian regional health authorities were also contacted by email for publicly accessible information. Two independent raters screened and extracted data from identified material. Results are presented in tabular form.ResultsThe search strategy and environmental scan resulted in 15 287 sources. A total of 161 full-text sources were reviewed after applying eligibility criteria, resulting in 50 articles. Programmes were delivered in multiple Canadian provinces, focusing on various vaccine types. All programmes aimed to increase vaccine uptake and were mostly provided in person. Multidisciplinary delivery teams based on collaborations among multiple entities were credited as a facilitator to programme delivery across settings. Limitations on programme resources, attitudes of programme staff and participants, and systems organisation were identified as barriers to delivery.ConclusionsThis review highlighted characteristics of immunisation support programmes across various settings and described multiple facilitators and barriers. These findings can inform future interventions that aim to support Canadians in making decisions about immunisation.

Project description:Background: A national priority in the United States is to promote patient engagement in cancer genomics research, especially among diverse and understudied populations. Several cancer genomics research programs have emerged to accomplish this priority, yet questions remain about the meaning and methods of patient engagement. This study explored how cancer genomics research programs define engagement and what strategies they use to engage patients across stages in the conduct of research. Methods: An environmental scan was conducted of cancer genomics research programs focused on patient engagement. Research programs were identified and characterized using materials identified from publicly available sources (e.g., websites), a targeted literature review, and interviews with key informants. Descriptive information about the programs and their definitions of engagement, were synthesized using thematic analysis. The engagement strategies were synthesized and mapped to different stages in the conduct of research, including recruitment, consent, data collection, sharing results, and retention. Results: Ten research programs were identified, examples of which include the Cancer Moonshot Biobank, the MyPART Network, NCI-CONNECT, and the Participant Engagement and Cancer Genome Sequencing (PE-CGS) Network. All programs aimed to include understudied or underrepresented populations. Based on publicly available information, four programs explicitly defined engagement. These definitions similarly characterized engagement as being interpersonal, reciprocal, and continuous. Five general strategies of engagement were identified across the programs: 1) digital (such as websites) and 2) non-digital communications (such as radio broadcasts, or printed brochures); 3) partnering with community organizations; 4) providing incentives; and 5) affiliating with non-academic medical centers. Digital communications were the only strategy used across all stages of the conduct of research. Programs tailored these strategies to their study goals, including overcoming barriers to research participation among diverse populations. Conclusion: Programs studying cancer genomics are deeply committed to increasing research participation among diverse populations through patient engagement. Yet, the field needs to reach a consensus on the meaning of patient engagement, develop a taxonomy of patient engagement measures in cancer genomics research, and identify optimal strategies to engage patients in cancer genomics. Addressing these needs could enable patient engagement to fulfill its potential and accelerate the pace of cancer genomic discoveries.

Project description:BackgroundQuality indicators are important tools to measure and ultimately improve the quality of care provided. Performance measurement may be particularly helpful to grow disciplines that are underutilized and cost-effective, such as home dialysis (peritoneal dialysis and home hemodialysis).ObjectiveTo identify and catalog home dialysis quality indicators currently used in Canada, as well as to evaluate these indicators as a starting point for future collaboration and standardization of quality indicators across Canada.DesignAn environmental scan of quality indicators from provincial organizations, quality organizations, and stakeholders.SettingSixteen-member pan-Canadian panel with expertise in both nephrology and quality improvement.PatientsOur environmental scan included indicators relevant to patients on home dialysis.MeasurementsWe classified existing indicators based on the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and Donabedian frameworks.MethodsTo evaluate the indicators, a 6-person subcommittee conducted a modified version of the Delphi consensus technique based on the American College of Physicians/Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality criteria. We shared these consensus ratings with the entire 16-member panel for further examination. We rated items from 1 to 9 on 6 domains (1-3 does not meet criteria to 7-9 meets criteria) as well as a global final rating (1-3 unnecessary to 7-9 necessary) to distinguish high-quality from low-quality indicators.ResultsOverall, we identified 40 quality indicators across 7 provinces, with 22 (55%) rated as "necessary" to distinguish high quality from poor quality care. Ten indicators were measured by more than 1 province, and 5 of these indicators were rated as necessary (home dialysis prevalence, home dialysis incidence, anemia target achievement, rates of peritonitis associated with peritoneal dialysis, and home dialysis attrition). None of these indicators captured the IOM domains of timely, patient-centered, or equitable care.LimitationsThe environmental scan is a nonexhaustive list of quality indicators in Canada. The panel also lacked representation from patients, administrators, and allied health professionals.ConclusionsThese results provide Canadian home dialysis programs with a starting point on how to measure quality of care along with the current gaps. This work is an initial and necessary step toward future collaboration and standardization of quality indicators across Canada, so that home dialysis programs can access a smaller number of highly rated balanced indicators to motivate and support patient-centered quality improvement initiatives.

Dataset Information

Using a rapid environmental scan methodology to map country-level global health research expertise in Canada.

Publications

Using a rapid environmental scan methodology to map country-level global health research expertise in Canada.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets