Global Developments in Priority Setting in Health.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Countries around the world are experiencing an ever-increasing need to make choices in investments in health and healthcare. This makes it incumbent upon them to have formal processes in place to optimize the legitimacy of eventual decisions. There is now growing experience among countries of the implementation of stakeholder participation, and a developing convergence of methods to support decision-makers within health authorities in making tough decisions when faced with the stark reality of limited resources. We call for further interaction among health authorities, and the research community to develop best practices in order to confront the difficult choices that need to be made.
Project description:BackgroundMethodological research into the design, conduct, analysis and reporting of trials is essential to optimise the process. UK specialists in the field have established a set of top priorities in aid of this research. These priorities, however, may not be reflected in the needs of similar research in low- to middle-income countries (LMICs) with different healthcare provision, resources and research infrastructure. The aim of the study was to identify the top priorities for methodological research in LMICs to inform further research and ultimately to improve clinical trials in these regions.MethodsAn online, two-round survey was conducted from December 2016 to April 2017 amongst researchers and methodologists working on trials in LMICs. The first round required participants to suggest between three and six topics which they felt were priorities for trial methodological research in LMICs. The second round invited participants to grade the importance of a compulsory list of topics suggested by four or more individuals, and an optional list of the remaining topics.FindingsRounds 1 and 2 were completed by 412 and 314 participants, respectively. A wide spread of years of experience, discipline, current country of residence, origin of trials training and area of involvement in trials was reported. The topics deemed most important for methodological research were: choosing appropriate outcomes to measure and training of research staff.ConclusionBy presenting these top priorities we have the foundations of a global health trials methodological research agenda which we hope will foster future research in specific areas in order to increase and improve trials in LMICs.
Project description:BACKGROUND:The Health Product Profile Directory (HPPD) is an online database describing 8-10 key characteristics (such as target population, measures of efficacy and dosage) of product profiles for medicines, vaccines, diagnostics and other products that are intended to be accessed by populations in low- and middle-income countries. The HPPD was developed by TDR on behalf of WHO and launched on 15 May 2019. METHODS:The contents of the HPPD were downloaded into an Excel™ spreadsheet via the open access interface and analysed to identify the number of health product profiles by type, disease, year of publication, status, author organization and safety information. RESULTS:The HPPD contains summaries of 215 health product profiles published between 2008 and May 2019, 117 (54%) of which provide a hyperlink to the detailed publication from which the summary was extracted, and the remaining 98 provide an email contact for further information. A total of 55 target disease or health conditions are covered, with 210 profiles describing a product with an infectious disease as the target. Only 5 product profiles in the HPPD describe a product for a non-communicable disease. Four diseases account for 40% of product profiles in the HPPD; these are tuberculosis (33 profiles, 15%), malaria (31 profiles, 14%), HIV (13 profiles, 6%) and Chagas (10 profiles, 5%). CONCLUSION:The HPPD provides a new tool to inform priority-setting in global health - it includes all product profiles authored by WHO (n = 51). There is a need to standardise nomenclature to more clearly distinguish between strategic publications (describing research and development (R&D) priorities or preferred characteristics) compared to target product profiles to guide a specific candidate product undergoing R&D. It is recommended that all profiles published in the HPPD define more clearly what affordability means in the context where the product is intended to be used and all profiles should include a statement of safety. Combining the analysis from HPPD to a mapping of funds available for R&D and those products in the R&D pipeline would create a better overview of global health priorities and how they are supported. Such analysis and increased transparency should take us a step closer to measuring and improving coordination of efforts in global health R&D.
Project description:BackgroundA scoping review found that most studies on women's health in multiple sclerosis (MS) focused on pregnancy, fetal/neonatal outcomes and sexual dysfunction. Few studies addressed menopause, contraception, gynecologic cancers/cancer screening. However, the perceived relative importance of these knowledge gaps to people living with MS and other partners is unknown. We engaged a range of partners, including people living with MS, health care providers, researchers, and patient advocacy groups, to set priorities for future research in women's health in MS.MethodsWe employed a three-step global engagement process. First, we identified which broad research topics relevant to women's health in MS were of highest priority using two surveys. Second, we developed specific research questions within these topics using focus groups. Finally, we prioritized the research questions with a third survey.ResultsOverall, 5,266 individuals responded to the initial surveys [n = 1,430 global survey, mean (SD) age 50.0 (12.6), all continents; n = 3,836 North American Research Committee on Multiple Sclerosis survey, mean (SD) age 64.8 (9.6), United States]. Menopause, sexual dysfunction, pregnancy, gynecologic cancer/cancer screening, hormones and parenthood were identified as the most important topics. Focus groups generated 80 potential research questions related to these topics. In the final survey 712 individuals prioritized these questions. The highest priority questions in each research topic were: (i) How do perimenopause and menopause affect disease activity, course, response to disease-modifying treatment and quality of life in MS; (ii) What are the most effective strategies for managing issues around sexual intimacy, including related to low sexual desire, changes in physical function, and MS symptoms; (iii) Are there long-term effects of disease-modifying therapies on the children of persons with MS; (iv) What are the short and long-term effects of disease-modifying drugs on gynecologic cancer risk, particularly for high efficacy disease-modifying drugs and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; (v) Are there hormone related treatments that can stabilize fluctuations in MS symptoms; and (vi) How does MS fatigue impact parenting strategies.ConclusionPriorities for research relating to women's health issues for persons with MS have been delineated using a collaborative process with key partners. Alignment of future research with these priorities should be monitored.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Research priority setting with stakeholders can help direct the limited resources for health research toward priority areas of need. Ensuring transparency of the priority setting process can strengthen legitimacy and credibility for influencing the research agenda. This study aims to develop a reporting guideline for priority setting of health research. METHODS:We searched electronic databases and relevant websites for sources (frameworks, guidelines, or models for conducting, appraising, reporting or evaluating health research priority setting, and reviews (including systematic reviews)), and primary studies of research priority setting to July 2019. We inductively developed a list of reporting items and piloted the preliminary guideline with a diverse range of 30 priority setting studies from the records retrieved. RESULTS:From 21,556 records, we included 26 sources for the candidate REPRISE framework and 455 primary research studies. The REporting guideline for PRIority SEtting of health research (REPRISE) has 31 reporting items that cover 10 domains: context and scope, governance and team, framework for priority setting, stakeholders/participants, identification and collection of priorities, prioritization of research topics, output, evaluation and feedback, translation and implementation, and funding and conflict of interest. Each reporting item includes a descriptor and examples. CONCLUSIONS:The REPRISE guideline can facilitate comprehensive reporting of studies of research priority setting. Improved transparency in research priority setting may strengthen the acceptability and implementation of the research priorities identified, so that efforts and funding are invested in generating evidence that is of importance to all stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Not applicable.
Project description:The coronavirus pandemic outbreak of 2019 highlighted the critical importance of preparedness for current and future public health threats (https://www.mmv.org/mmv-open/global-health-priority-box/about-global-health-priority-box). While the main attention for the past few years has been on COVID-19 research, this focus has reduced global resources on research in other areas, including malaria and neglected tropical diseases (NTDs). Such a shift in focus puts at risk the hard-earned progress in global health achieved over the past two decades (https://www.who.int/news-room/spotlight/10-global-health-issues-to-track-in-2021). To address the urgent need for new drugs to combat drug-resistant malaria, emerging zoonotic diseases, and vector control, Medicines for Malaria Venture (MMV) and Innovative Vector Control Consortium (IVCC) assembled a collection of 240 compounds and, in August 2022, launched the Global Health Priority Box (GHPB). This collection of compounds has confirmed activity against emerging pathogens or vectors and is available free of charge. This valuable tool enables researchers worldwide to build on each other's work and save precious time and resources by providing a starting point for the further development of treatments and insecticides. Furthermore, this open access box aligns with two of the many priorities outlined by the World Health Organization (WHO) (https://www.who.int/news-room/spotlight/10-global-health-issues-to-track-in-2021).
Project description:To promote social justice and equity, global health research should meaningfully engage communities throughout projects: from setting agendas onwards. But communities, especially those that are considered disadvantaged or marginalised, rarely have a say in the priorities of the research projects that aim to help them. So far, there remains limited ethical guidance and resources on how to share power with communities in health research priority-setting. This paper presents an "ethical toolkit" for academic researchers and their community partners to use to design priority-setting processes that meaningfully include the communities impacted by their projects. An empirical reflective equilibrium approach was employed to develop the toolkit. Conceptual work articulated ethical considerations related to sharing power in g0l0o0bal health research priority-setting, developed guidance on how to address them, and created an initial version of the toolkit. Empirical work (51 in-depth interviews, 1 focus group, 2 case studies in India and the Philippines) conducted in 2018 and 2019 then tested those findings against information from global health research practice. The final ethical toolkit is a reflective project planning aid. It consists of 4 worksheets (Worksheet 1- Selecting Partners; Worksheet 2- Deciding to Partner; Worksheet 3- Deciding to Engage with the Wider Community; Worksheet 4- Designing Priority-setting) and a Companion Document detailing how to use them. Reflecting on and discussing the questions in Worksheets 1 to 4 before priority-setting will help deliver priority-setting processes that share power with communities and projects with research topics and questions that more accurately reflect their healthcare and system needs.
Project description:BackgroundCommunities' engagement in priority-setting is a key means for setting research topics and questions of relevance and benefit to them. However, without attention to dynamics of power and diversity, their engagement can be tokenistic. So far, there remains limited ethical guidance on how to share power with communities, particularly those considered disadvantaged and marginalised, in global health research priority-setting. This paper generates a comprehensive, empirically-based "ethical toolkit" to provide such guidance, further strengthening a previously proposed checklist version of the toolkit. The toolkit places community engagement and power-sharing at the heart of priority-setting for global health research projects.MethodsA two part method was used to generate a revised toolkit. Part one was conceptual, consisting of novel analysis of empirical data (previously collected as part of the same overall project) to identify additional concepts relevant to power-sharing between researchers and communities in global health research priority-setting. Part two was empirical, seeking feedback on the initial checklist version of the toolkit in interviews with researchers, ethicists, community engagement practitioners, and community organisation staff.ResultsThe conceptual process identified two additional components of engagement and six additional features that affect who defines, who participates, and who is heard in research priority-setting. New ethical considerations related to sharing power in global health research priority-setting are articulated in relation to those components and features. Interviewees provided suggestions for revising the toolkit's content and language. The implications of these suggestions and the analytic process for the toolkit are described.ConclusionsThe resultant toolkit is a reflective project planning aid for researchers and their community partners to employ before priority-setting is undertaken for global health research projects. It consists of three worksheets (to be completed collectively) and a companion document detailing how to use them. It is more comprehensive than the initial toolkit, as worksheet questions for discussion cover all phases of priority-setting.
Project description:Potential cost-effective barriers in cost-effectiveness studies mean that budgetary impact analyses should also be included in post-2015 Sustainable Development Goal projects says Joshua Salomon and colleagues.
Project description:Vaccines for neuroinfectious diseases are becoming an ever-increasing global health priority, as neurologic manifestations and sequelae from existing and emerging central nervous system infections account for significant worldwide morbidity and mortality. The prevention of neurotropic infections can be achieved through globally coordinated vaccination campaigns, which have successfully eradicated nonzoonotic agents such as the variola viruses and, hopefully soon, poliovirus. This review discusses vaccines that are currently available or under development for zoonotic flaviviruses and alphaviruses, including Japanese and tick-borne encephalitis, yellow fever, West Nile, dengue, Zika, encephalitic equine viruses, and chikungunya. Also discussed are nonzoonotic agents, including measles and human herpesviruses, as well as select bacterial, fungal, and protozoal pathogens. While therapeutic vaccines will be required to treat a multitude of ongoing infections of the nervous system, the ideal vaccination strategy is pre-exposure vaccination, with the ultimate goals of minimizing disease associated with zoonotic viruses and the total eradication of nonzoonotic agents.