International Consultation on Long-Term Global Health Research Priorities, Research Capacity and Research Uptake in Developing Countries
For which topic were research priorities identified?
long-term global health
In which location was the research priority setting conducted?
Why was it conducted at all?
In recognition of the need for long-term planning for global health research, and to inform future global health research priorities, the United Kingdom Department for International Development (DfID) carried out a public consultation.
What was the objective?
to elicit views on the the long-term future global health research priorities, areas likely to be less important over time, how to improve research uptake in low-income countries, and how to build research capacity in low-income countries
What was the outcome?
a list of 2 research areas
How long did the research prioritization take?
May 2015 - June 2015
Which methods were used to identify research priorities?
How were the priorities for research identified exactly?
Step 1: survey: participants were asked open-ended questions: "What do you think will be the top three priority areas for global health research for the next 20-50 years? What areas do you think will be less important than today? In your view, what are the best ways to improve research uptake in low-income countries to get research into policy and practice? In your view, what are the best ways to build health research capacity in low-income countries?" Step 2: data processing: content analysis.
Which stakeholders took part?
Researchers, NGOs, international organizations, national government, industry. 421 participants: 43% academia, 23% non-governmental organizations, 13% international organizations, 9% national government and 3% industry.
How were stakeholders recruited?
Participants were recruited to the consultation survey using established health research networks and social media. Links to the online survey were tweeted from the DfID twitter feed, posted on the DfID website, and current DfID research funding recipients were emailed the survey link. All correspondence encouraged wide sharing of the survey link.
Were stakeholders actively involved or did they just participate?
Stakeholders were mere participants of the research prioritization process; they were not actively involved in the process.