Search

Objectives: The study uses a qualitative empirical method to define Health Research for Development. This project explores the perspectives of stakeholders in an international health research partnership operating in Ghana and Tanzania.Methods: We conducted 52 key informant interviews with major stakeholders in an international multicenter partnership between GlaxoSmithKline (GSK, Vaccine Developer) and the global health nonprofit organisation PATH and its Malaria Vaccine Initiative program (PATH/MVI, Funder-Development Partner), (RTS, S) (NCT00866619). The respondents included teams from four clinical research centres (two centres in Ghana and two in Tanzania) and various collaborating partners. This paper analyses responses to the question: What is Health Research for Development?Results: Based on the stakeholders' experience the respondents offered many ways of defining Health Research for Development. The responses fell into four broad themes: i) Equitable Partnerships; ii) System Sustainability; iii) Addressing Local Health Targets, and iv) Regional Commitment to Benefit Sharing.Conclusion: Through defining Health Research for Development six key learning points were generated from the four result themes: 1) Ensure there is local research leadership working with the collaborative partnership, and local healthcare system, to align the project agenda and activities with local research and health priorities; 2) Know the country-specific context - map the social, health, legislative and political setting; 3) Define an explicit development component and plan of action in a research project; 4) Address the barriers and opportunities to sustain system capacity. 5) Support decentralised health system decision-making to facilitate the translation pathway; 6) Govern, monitor and evaluate the development components of health research partnerships. Overall, equity and unity between partners are required to deliver health research for development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In 2012, the World Health Organization (WHO) published recommendations on the use of optimization or "task-shifting" strategies for key, effective maternal and newborn interventions (the OptimizeMNH guidance). When making recommendations about complex health system interventions such as task-shifting, information about the feasibility and acceptability of interventions can be as important as information about their effectiveness. However, these issues are usually not addressed with the same rigour. This paper describes our use of several innovative strategies to broaden the range of evidence used to develop the OptimizeMNH guidance. In this guidance, we systematically included evidence regarding the acceptability and feasibility of relevant task-shifting interventions, primarily using qualitative evidence syntheses and multi-country case study syntheses; we used an approach to assess confidence in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses (the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (GRADE-CERQual) approach); we used a structured evidence-to-decision framework for health systems (the DECIDE framework) to help the guidance panel members move from the different types of evidence to recommendations.Results: The systematic inclusion of a broader range of evidence, and the use of new guideline development tools, had a number of impacts. Firstly, this broader range of evidence provided relevant information about the feasibility and acceptability of interventions considered in the guidance as well as information about key implementation considerations. However, inclusion of this evidence required more time, resources and skills. Secondly, the GRADE-CERQual approach provided a method for indicating to panel members how much confidence they should place in the findings from the qualitative evidence syntheses and so helped panel members to use this qualitative evidence appropriately. Thirdly, the DECIDE framework gave us a structured format in which we could present a large and complex body of evidence to panel members and end users. The framework also prompted the panel to justify their recommendations, giving end users a record of how these decisions were made.Conclusions: By expanding the range of evidence assessed in a guideline process, we increase the amount of time and resources required. Nevertheless, the WHO has assessed the outputs of this process to be valuable and is currently repeating the approach used in OptimizeMNH in other guidance processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is time to move beyond education about qualitative research theory and methods to using them to understand and improve psychiatric practice. There is a good fit between this agenda and current thinking about research use that broadens definitions of evidence beyond the results of experiments. This paper describes a qualitative program evaluation to illustrate what kind of useful knowledge is generated and how it can be created through a clinician-researcher partnership. The linkage and exchange model of effective knowledge translation described involves interaction between clinicians and researchers throughout the research process and results in mutual learning through the planning, disseminating, and application of existing or new qualitative research in decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]