Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29966530›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2018

Priority-setting in health research in Iran: a qualitative study on barriers and facilitators.

Abbas Badakhshan, Mohammad Arab, Arash Rashidian, Neda Mehrdad, Kazem Zendehdel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Healthcare priority-setting criteria and social values in Iran: an investigation of local evidence.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2023
    Review
  4. Article
  5. A Tool to Reduce the Problems of Iranian Health Researchers.Iranian journal of public health · 2020
    Article
  6. Review
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

5 authors.

Abbas BadakhshanDepartment of Health Management and Economics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences (International campus), ᅟTehran, Iran.
Mohammad ArabDepartment of Health Management and Economics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Arash RashidianDepartment of Health Management and Economics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Neda MehrdadEndocrinology and Metabolism Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Kazem ZendehdelCancer Research Center, Cancer Institute of Iran, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. kzendeh@tums.ac.ir.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPriority-setting is a complicated and time-consuming process; however, if appropriately conducted, it could efficiently divert resources to the most important studies. A considerable body of evidence indicates that priority-setting measures in health research taken so far in Iran have not satisfied decision-makers, policy-makers, funders, communities, or even researchers. This study was designed to explore the flaws of these measures and their deciding factors.

methodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with 23 key participants and used a thematic data-analysis approach to analyse verbatim transcripts and documents. Our interviewees, who were skilful at conducting health research and worked as managers at different levels of the health system, were selected using a purposeful sampling. We asked about their experiences of priority-setting in health and relevant challenges and asked for recommendations. These semi-structured interviews were taped, transcribed and analysed in terms of content and themes using the MAXQDA10 qualitative data-analysis software.

resultsWith regard to priority-setting facilitators and barriers, four themes were extracted, namely managerial factors, structural factors, motivational factors, and process factors. Managers' commitment, consideration of intellectual property, compliance with superordinate rules, and provision of a definition of reliable criteria were among the facilitators. The rapid turnover of managers, inefficiency of criteria for faculty promotion, and disregard of appeal mechanisms were examples of the barriers.

conclusionIt is important to consider appropriate regulations and motivations to provide research priorities and divert scarce resources to them. In addition, it is necessary to improve the knowledge and skills of researchers and research administration offices on priority-setting methods, thereby enhancing priority-oriented research projects.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchDecision MakingHealth PolicyHealth PrioritiesAdministrative PersonnelHealth ResourcesHumansIranMotivationQualitative ResearchResearch PersonnelHealth researchIranmanagementpriority-setting

Identifiers

PMID29966530
PMCPMC6027571

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.