ArticleHealth research policy and systems2016
Health research priority setting in Zambia: a stock taking of approaches conducted from 1998 to 2015.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- What are the research priorities for strengthening public health emergency preparedness and response in Africa?Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Article
- Approaches to prioritising primary health research: a scoping review.BMJ global health · 2022Article
- What do we know about evidence-informed priority setting processes to set population-level health-research agendas: an overview of reviews.Bulletin of the National Research Centre · 2022Review
- Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE).BMC medical research methodology · 2019Article
- Implementation science in resource-poor countries and communities.Implementation science : IS · 2018Article
- Evaluating health research priority-setting in low-income countries: a case study of health research priority-setting in Zambia.Health research policy and systems · 2018Article
- The quest for a framework for sustainable and institutionalised priority-setting for health research in a low-resource setting: the case of Zambia.Health research policy and systems · 2018Article
- Stakeholder involvement in health research priority setting in low income countries: the case of Zambia.Research involvement and engagement · 2018Article
- "The way the country has been carved up by researchers": ethics and power in north-south public health research.International journal for equity in health · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPriority setting in health research is an emerging field. In Zambia, like many other African countries, various priority setting activities have been undertaken with a view to identify research activities to which the available resources can be targeted while at the same time maximising the health impact for resource allocation to support evidence-based decision-making. The aim of this paper is to document the key elements of the various priority setting activities that have been conducted since 1998, identifying the key lessons and providing recommendations to improve the process.
methodsA comprehensive review of the previous priority setting activities and processes in Zambia was conducted. Both published and unpublished reports were reviewed in order to identify any research priority setting processes that have been undertaken in Zambia. We developed a framework, based on the priority setting literature, to guide our abstraction and synthesis of the literature.
resultThe earliest record of priority setting was conducted in 1998. Various priority setting approaches have been implemented in Zambia; ranging from externally driven, once-off activities to locally (in country) initiated comprehensive processes. However, there has been no systematic national process for priority setting. These priority setting processes in Zambia were characterised by limited stakeholder buy-in of the resulting national research or programmatic research agenda. Most striking was the lack of linkages between the different initiatives. There seems to have been no conscious recognition and building on previous priority-setting experiences of previous initiatives.
conclusionThere were gaps in the priority setting processes, stakeholder engagement and application of a defined criterion. There is a need for a priority setting framework coupled with local capacity developed across a range of stakeholders.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.