Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by The Working Group on Priority Setting,
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by The Working Group on Priority Setting,
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Health Policy and Planning; 15(2): 130-136
© Oxford University Press 2000

Priority setting for health research: lessons from developing countries

The Working Group on Priority Setting*

Council on Health Research for Development (COHRED), Geneva, Switzerland

Research resources for addressing health problems of developing countries remain disproportionately low compared with the tremendous disease burdens borne by these countries. There is a need to focus these scarce resources on research that will optimize health benefits and lead to equity. This paper reviews processes and methods that have been used for setting research priorities. Past and current processes have focused on expert-driven research agenda, emphasizing scientific autonomy and global analyses. Methods for setting priorities have focused on the metrics of disease burdens, while less attention has been placed on who sets priorities and how choices are made.

The paper proposes a strategy of priority setting, based on lessons learned from essential national health research (ENHR) approaches attempted in several developing countries. With equity in health and development as its goal, the proposed model is demand-driven, and involves multi-dimensional inputs and multiple stakeholders. Various steps of the process are discussed: getting participants involved; gathering evidence and information; determining criteria for priority setting; and implementation and evaluation. The paper concludes with a discussion of the gap between national research priorities and the research agenda set at regional and global levels, an issue that needs to be satisfactorily addressed in the future.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br. J. PsychiatryHome page
P. Sharan, C. Gallo, O. Gureje, E. Lamberte, J. J. Mari, G. Mazzotti, V. Patel, L. Swartz, S. Olifson, I. Levav, et al.
Mental health research priorities in low- and middle-income countries of Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean
The British Journal of Psychiatry, October 1, 2009; 195(4): 354 - 363.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Scand J Public HealthHome page
C. Ijsselmuiden and M. Jacobs
Health Research for Development: Making health research work ... for everyone
Scand J Public Health, October 1, 2005; 33(5): 329 - 333.
[PDF]

Home page
 BMJHome page
Working Group on Women and Child Health, F Dabis, J Orne-Gliemann, F Perez, V Leroy, M L Newell, A Coutsoudis, and H Coovadia
Improving child health: the role of research
BMJ, June 15, 2002; 324(7351): 1444 - 1447.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.