dc.contributor.author |
Kapiriri, Lydia |
|
dc.contributor.author |
Ekochu, Elizabeth Asege |
|
dc.contributor.author |
Nabuderere, Harriet |
|
dc.date.accessioned |
2021-05-03T13:49:35Z |
|
dc.date.available |
2021-05-03T13:49:35Z |
|
dc.date.issued |
2020 |
|
dc.identifier.citation |
Kapiriri, L., Ekochu, E. A. & Nabuderere, H. (2020). Health research priority setting in Uganda : a qualitative study describing and evaluating the processes. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-90818/v 1. |
en_US |
dc.identifier.uri |
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12283/697 |
|
dc.description |
Article |
en_US |
dc.description.abstract |
Background: Over the years, several approaches to health research priority setting (HRPS) have been devised and applied in low-incomes countries for national level research prioritization. However, there is often a disconnect between the evidence that health policymakers require for decision-making and the research that receives funding. There is a need for countries to evaluate their prioritization processes to support strategies to translate priority setting into policy practice. While health research priority setting is continuously carried out in Uganda, these processes are rarely reported on the scholarly literature and have not been evaluated. This study aimed to describe and evaluate HRPS in Uganda.
Methods: This was a qualitative case study consisting of document review and key informant interviews with stakeholders who had either directly participated in or had specialized knowledge of HRPS in Uganda.
Results: While Uganda has established and legitimized a National health research organization to set health research priorities, coordinate and provide oversight for health research in the country, several institutions independently conduct their own health research priority setting. The evaluation revealed that while the priority setting processes are often based on systematic approaches and tools and tended to be evidence based, most of the prioritization processes lacked stakeholder involvement and implementation. Moreover, the priorities were not publicized and none had mechanisms for appeals or revisions. In only one case were the priorities implemented.
Conclusions: The availability of strong political commitment and a national priority setting institution is an opportunity for strengthening health research priority setting. There should be increased support for the institution to enable it to carry out its duties. The institution should not only invest in participatory, systematic health research priority setting and implementation but evaluation as well in order for them to identify areas for improvement. |
en_US |
dc.description.sponsorship |
McMaster University,
Busitema University |
en_US |
dc.language.iso |
en |
en_US |
dc.publisher |
Busitema University ; Research Square. |
en_US |
dc.subject |
Health research priority setting |
en_US |
dc.subject |
Evaluation |
en_US |
dc.subject |
Low-income countries |
en_US |
dc.subject |
Uganda |
en_US |
dc.subject |
Health policymakers |
en_US |
dc.title |
Health research priority setting in Uganda : |
en_US |
dc.title.alternative |
a qualitative study describing and evaluating the processes. |
en_US |
dc.type |
Article |
en_US |