Robert F Terry

A checklist for health research priority setting: nine common themes of good practice

Health research priority setting processes assist researchers and policymakers in effectively targeting research that has the greatest potential public health benefit. Many different approaches to health research prioritization exist, but there is no agreement on what might constitute best practice. Moreover, because of the many different contexts for which priorities can be set, attempting to produce one best practice is in fact not appropriate, as the optimal approach varies per exercise. Therefore, following a literature review and an analysis of health research priority setting exercises that were organized or coordinated by the World Health Organization since 2005, we propose a checklist for health research priority setting that allows for informed choices on different approaches and outlines nine common themes of good practice. It is intended to provide generic assistance for planning health research prioritization processes. The checklist explains what needs to be clarified in order to establish the context for which priorities are set; it reviews available approaches to health research priority setting; it offers discussions on stakeholder participation and information gathering; it sets out options for use of criteria and different methods for deciding upon priorities; and it emphasizes the importance of well-planned implementation, evaluation and transparency.

Mapping of available health research and development data: what's there, what's missing, and what role is there for a global observatory?

The need to align investments in health research and development (R&D) with public health demands is one of the most pressing global public health challenges. We aim to provide a comprehensive description of available data sources, propose a set of indicators for monitoring the global landscape of health R&D, and present a sample of country indicators on research inputs (investments), processes (clinical trials), and outputs (publications), based on data from international databases. Total global investments in health R&D (both public and private sector) in 2009 reached US

Defining research to improve health systems.

240 billion. Of the US

Research for Universal Health Coverage

214 billion invested in high-income countries, 60% of health R&D investments came from the business sector, 30% from the public sector, and about 10% from other sources (including private non-profit organisations). Only about 1% of all health R&D investments were allocated to neglected diseases in 2010. Diseases of relevance to high-income countries were investigated in clinical trials seven-to-eight-times more often than were diseases whose burden lies mainly in low-income and middle-income countries. This report confirms that substantial gaps in the global landscape of health R&D remain, especially for and in low-income and middle-income countries. Too few investments are targeted towards the health needs of these countries. Better data are needed to improve priority setting and coordination for health R&D, ultimately to ensure that resources are allocated to diseases and regions where they are needed the most. The establishment of a global observatory on health R&D, which is being discussed at WHO, could address the absence of a comprehensive and sustainable mechanism for regular global monitoring of health R&D.

Creating a global observatory for health R&D

Robert Terry and colleagues present working definitions of operational research, implementation research, and health systems research within the context of research to strengthen health systems.

Mapping global health research investments, time for new thinking - A Babel Fish for research data

The 2013 World Health Report argues that universal health coverage cannot be achieved without funding basic and applied health research.

Strengthening research capacity--TDR's evolving experience in low- and middle-income countries.

A global map of health R&D activity would improve the coordination of research and help to match limited resources with public health priorities, such as combating antimicrobial resistance. The challenges of R&D mapping are large because there are few standards for research classification and governance and limited capacity to report on R&D data, especially in low-income countries. Nevertheless, based on developments in semantic classification, and with better reporting of funded research though the Internet, it is now becoming feasible to create a global observatory for health R&D.

Global trends in health research and development expenditures – the challenge of making reliable estimates for international comparison

Today we have an incomplete picture of how much the world is spending on health and disease-related research and development (R&D). As such it is difficult to align, or even begin to coordinate, health R&D investments with international public health priorities.Current efforts to track and map global health research investments are complex, resource-intensive, and caveat-laden. An ideal situation would be for all research funding to be classified using a set of common standards and definitions. However, the adoption of such a standard by everyone is not a realistic, pragmatic or even necessary goal.It is time for new thinking informed by the innovations in automated online translation - e.g. Yahoos Babel Fish. We propose a feasibility study to develop a system that can translate and map the diverse research classification systems into a common standard, allowing the targeting of scarce research investments to where they are needed most.

Applied research for better disease prevention and control.

review the programme’s scientific and technical activities. TDR’s placement within the United Nations system provides close collaboration with country offices of not only the World Health Organization but also of other co-sponsoring agencies UNICEF and UNDP, and with the World Bank. As a consequence, those who are supported by TDR often work closely with disease control programmes as well as other international organizations. Regular reviews of TDR’s research capacity strengthening programmes have helped reorient the strategy as needed, shifting focus from institutional strengthening in the 1980s to human resources strengthening in the 1990s [1], as well as identifying the need to move to a more demand-driven model of national health research systems [4]. Over the years, TDR has continued to support multidisciplinary research, particularly to bring social science research and biomedical research together through different mechanisms [6], and has reinforced this effort through training in implementation research [7] and operations research [8].

Overview of research activities associated with the World Health Organization: results of a survey covering 2006/07

Better estimates of changes in the level and structure of national, regional, and global expenditures on health research and development (R&D) are needed as an important source of information for advancing countries’ health research policies. However, such estimates are difficult to compile and comparison between countries needs careful calibration. We outline the steps that need to be taken to make reliable estimates of trends in countries’ expenditures on health R&D, describe that an ideal approach would involve the use of international sets of deflators and exchange rates that are specific to health R&D activities, and explain which methods should be used given the current absence of such health R&D-specific deflators and exchange rates. Finally, we describe what should be the way forward in improving our ability to make reliable estimates of trends in countries’ health R&D expenditures.