Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30404639›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2018

Evaluating health research priority-setting in low-income countries: a case study of health research priority-setting in Zambia.

Lydia Kapiriri, Corinne Schuster-Wallace, Pascalina Chanda-Kapata

Abstract readEvaluation Study
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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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.

Lydia KapiririDepartment of Health, Aging and society, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, Canada. kapirir@mcmaster.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1237-6369
Corinne Schuster-WallaceMcMaster University, 30 Huntingwood Avenue, Dundas, ON, Canada.
Pascalina Chanda-KapataDepartment of Diseases Surveillance Control and Research, Ministry of Health, Lusaka, Zambia.

Funding

Canadian Institute for health Research (CA) grant # 111263
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Priority-setting (PS) for health research presents an opportunity for the relevant stakeholders to identify and create a list of priorities that reflects the country's knowledge needs. Zambia has conducted several health research prioritisation exercises that have never been evaluated. Evaluation would facilitate gleaning of lessons of good practices that can be shared as well as the identification of areas of improvement. This paper describes and evaluates health research PS in Zambia from the perspectives of key stakeholders using an internationally validated evaluation framework.

methodsThis was a qualitative study based on 28 in-depth interviews with stakeholders who had participated in the PS exercises. An interview guide was employed. Data were analysed using NVIVO 10. Emerging themes were, in turn, compared to the framework parameters.

resultsRespondents reported that, while the Zambian political, economic, social and cultural context was conducive, there was a lack of co-ordination of funding sources, partners and research priorities. Although participatory, the process lacked community involvement, dissemination strategies and appeals mechanisms. Limited funding hampered implementation, monitoring and evaluation. Research was largely driven by the research funders.

conclusionsAlthough there is apparent commitment to health research in Zambia, health research PS is limited by lack of funding, and consistently used explicit and fair processes. The designated national research organisation and the availability of tools that have been validated and pilot tested within Zambia provide an opportunity for focused capacity strengthening for systematic prioritisation, monitoring and evaluation. The utility of the evaluation framework in Zambia could indicate potential usefulness in similar low-income countries.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchDeveloping CountriesHealth PlanningCapacity BuildingCommunity ParticipationCooperative BehaviorFinancing, OrganizedHealth PrioritiesHealth ServicesHumansOrganizationsQualitative ResearchStakeholder ParticipationSurveys and QuestionnairesZambiaEvaluationHealth research priority-settingLow-income countriesStakeholder engagement

Identifiers

PMID30404639
PMCPMC6223066

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.