Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25275315›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2014

How are health research priorities set in low and middle income countries? A systematic review of published reports.

Skye McGregor, Klara J Henderson, John M Kaldor

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 85 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
85citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

85 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Exploring Health Research Priority Setting in a South African Province: A Nominal Group Technique Approach.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

25 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Skye McGregorThe Kirby Institute, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Klara J HendersonThe Kirby Institute, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
John M KaldorThe Kirby Institute, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPriority setting is increasingly recognised as essential for directing finite resources to support research that maximizes public health benefits and drives health equity. Priority setting processes have been undertaken in a number of low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings, using a variety of methods. We undertook a critical review of reports of these processes. METHODS AND

findingsWe searched electronic databases and online for peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed literature. We found 91 initiatives that met inclusion criteria. The majority took place at the global level (46%). For regional or national initiatives, most focused on Sub Saharan Africa (49%), followed by East Asia and Pacific (20%) and Latin America and the Caribbean (18%). A quarter of initiatives aimed to cover all areas of health research, with a further 20% covering communicable diseases. The most frequently used process was a conference or workshop to determine priorities (24%), followed by the Child Health and Nutrition Initiative (CHNRI) method (18%). The majority were initiated by an international organization or collaboration (46%). Researchers and government were the most frequently represented stakeholders. There was limited evidence of any implementation or follow-up strategies. Challenges in priority setting included engagement with stakeholders, data availability, and capacity constraints.

conclusionsHealth research priority setting (HRPS) has been undertaken in a variety of LMIC settings. While not consistently used, the application of established methods provides a means of identifying health research priorities in a repeatable and transparent manner. In the absence of published information on implementation or evaluation, it is not possible to assess what the impact and effectiveness of health research priority setting may have been.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesHealth PrioritiesHealth Services ResearchIncomePublicationsResearch ReportHumansPeer Review, Health Care

Identifiers

PMID25275315
PMCPMC4183511

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.