Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32948215›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2020

An analysis of the strategic plan development processes of major public organisations funding health research in nine high-income countries worldwide.

Cristina Morciano, Maria Cristina Errico, Carla Faralli, Luisa Minghetti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. The scholarly and practice profile of respiratory therapists in Canada: A cross-sectional survey.Canadian journal of respiratory therapy : CJRT = Revue canadienne de la therapie respiratoire : RCTR · 2024
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Stakeholder identified research priorities for early intervention in psychosis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  7. Automated Workflow for Usability Audits in the PHR Realm.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

4 authors.

Cristina MorcianoResearch Coordination and Support Service, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Viale Regina Elena, 299, 00161, Rome, Italy. cristina.morciano@iss.it.
Maria Cristina ErricoResearch Coordination and Support Service, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Viale Regina Elena, 299, 00161, Rome, Italy.
Carla FaralliNational Centre for Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy.
Luisa MinghettiResearch Coordination and Support Service, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Viale Regina Elena, 299, 00161, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere have been claims that health research is not satisfactorily addressing healthcare challenges. A specific area of concern is the adequacy of the mechanisms used to plan investments in health research. However, the way organisations within countries devise research agendas has not been systematically reviewed. This study seeks to understand the legal basis, the actors and the processes involved in setting research agendas in major public health research funding organisations.

methodsWe reviewed information relating to the formulation of strategic plans by 11 public funders in nine high-income countries worldwide. Information was collected from official websites and strategic plan documents in English, French, Italian and Spanish between January 2019 and December 2019, by means of a conceptual framework and information abstraction form.

resultsWe found that the formulation of a strategic plan is a common and well-established practice in shaping research agendas across international settings. Most of the organisations studied are legally required to present a multi-year strategic plan. In some cases, legal provisions may set rules for actors and processes and may establish areas of research and/or types of research to be funded. Commonly, the decision-making process involves both internal and external stakeholders, with the latter being generally government officials and experts, and few examples of the participation of civil society. The process also varies across organisations depending on whether there is a formal requirement to align to strategic priorities developed by an overarching entity at national level. We also found that, while actors and their interactions were traceable, information, sources of information, criteria and the mechanisms/tools used to shape decisions were made less explicit.

conclusionsA complex picture emerges in which multiple interactive entities appear to shape research plans. Given the complexity of the influences of different parties and factors, the governance of the health research sector would benefit from a traceable and standardised knowledge-based process of health research strategic planning. This would provide an opportunity to demonstrate responsible budget stewardship and, more importantly, to make efforts to remain responsive to healthcare challenges, research gaps and opportunities.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CarePublic HealthDeveloped CountriesHumansItalyHealth researchHealth research systemResearch planResearch priority-setting

Identifiers

PMID32948215
PMCPMC7501611

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.