AIM: To identify main groups of stakeholders in the process of health research priority setting and propose strategies for addressing their systems of values. METHODS: In three separate exercises that took place between March and June 2006 we interviewed three different groups of stakeholders: 1) members of the global research priority setting network; 2) a diverse group of national-level stakeholders from South Africa; and 3) participants at the conference related to international child health held in Washington, DC, USA. Each of the groups was administered different version of the questionnaire in which they were asked to set weights to criteria (and also minimum required thresholds, where applicable) that were a priori defined as relevant to health research priority setting by the consultants of the Child Health and Nutrition Research initiative (CHNRI). RESULTS: At the global level, the wide and diverse group of respondents placed the greatest importance (weight) to the criterion of maximum potential for disease burden reduction, while the most stringent threshold was placed on the criterion of answerability in an ethical way. Among the stakeholders' representatives attending the international conference, the criterion of deliverability, answerability, and sustainability of health research results was proposed as the most important one. At the national level in South Africa, the greatest weight was placed on the criterion addressing the predicted impact on equity of the proposed health research. CONCLUSIONS: Involving a large group of stakeholders when setting priorities in health research investments is important because the criteria of relevance to scientists and technical experts, whose knowledge and technical expertise is usually central to the process, may not be appropriate to specific contexts and in accordance with the views and values of those who invest in health research, those who benefit from it, or wider society as a whole.
AIM: To identify main groups of stakeholders in the process of health research priority setting and propose strategies for addressing their systems of values. METHODS: In three separate exercises that took place between March and June 2006 we interviewed three different groups of stakeholders: 1) members of the global research priority setting network; 2) a diverse group of national-level stakeholders from South Africa; and 3) participants at the conference related to international child health held in Washington, DC, USA. Each of the groups was administered different version of the questionnaire in which they were asked to set weights to criteria (and also minimum required thresholds, where applicable) that were a priori defined as relevant to health research priority setting by the consultants of the Child Health and Nutrition Research initiative (CHNRI). RESULTS: At the global level, the wide and diverse group of respondents placed the greatest importance (weight) to the criterion of maximum potential for disease burden reduction, while the most stringent threshold was placed on the criterion of answerability in an ethical way. Among the stakeholders' representatives attending the international conference, the criterion of deliverability, answerability, and sustainability of health research results was proposed as the most important one. At the national level in South Africa, the greatest weight was placed on the criterion addressing the predicted impact on equity of the proposed health research. CONCLUSIONS: Involving a large group of stakeholders when setting priorities in health research investments is important because the criteria of relevance to scientists and technical experts, whose knowledge and technical expertise is usually central to the process, may not be appropriate to specific contexts and in accordance with the views and values of those who invest in health research, those who benefit from it, or wider society as a whole.
Authors: Igor Rudan; Mickey Chopra; Lydia Kapiriri; Jennifer Gibson; Mary Ann Lansang; Ilona Carneiro; Shanthi Ameratunga; Alexander C Tsai; Kit Yee Chan; Mark Tomlinson; Sonja Y Hess; Harry Campbell; Shams El Arifeen; Robert E Black Journal: Croat Med J Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 1.351
Authors: Mark Tomlinson; Igor Rudan; Shekhar Saxena; Leslie Swartz; Alexander C Tsai; Vikram Patel Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: Igor Rudan; Jennifer L Gibson; Shanthi Ameratunga; Shams El Arifeen; Zulfiqar A Bhutta; Maureen Black; Robert E Black; Kenneth H Brown; Harry Campbell; Ilona Carneiro; Kit Yee Chan; Daniel Chandramohan; Mickey Chopra; Simon Cousens; Gary L Darmstadt; Julie Meeks Gardner; Sonja Y Hess; Adnan A Hyder; Lydia Kapiriri; Margaret Kosek; Claudio F Lanata; Mary Ann Lansang; Joy Lawn; Mark Tomlinson; Alexander C Tsai; Jayne Webster Journal: Croat Med J Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 1.351
Authors: P Sharan; C Gallo; O Gureje; E Lamberte; J J Mari; G Mazzotti; V Patel; L Swartz; S Olifson; I Levav; A de Francisco; S Saxena Journal: Br J Psychiatry Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 9.319
Authors: Sohni Dean; Igor Rudan; Fernando Althabe; Aimee Webb Girard; Christopher Howson; Ana Langer; Joy Lawn; Mary-Elizabeth Reeve; Katherine C Teela; Mireille Toledano; Chandra-Mouli Venkatraman; José M Belizan; Josip Car; Kit Yee Chan; Subidita Chatterjee; Stanley Chitekwe; Tanya Doherty; France Donnay; Majid Ezzati; Khadija Humayun; Brian Jack; Zohra S Lassi; Reynaldo Martorell; Ysbrand Poortman; Zulfiqar A Bhutta Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2013-09-03 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Margaret Kosek; Claudio F Lanata; Robert E Black; Damian G Walker; John D Snyder; Mohammed Abdus Salam; Dilip Mahalanabis; Olivier Fontaine; Zulfiqar A Bhutta; Shinjini Bhatnagar; Igor Rudan Journal: J Health Popul Nutr Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Rajiv Bahl; Jose Martines; Nita Bhandari; Zrinka Biloglav; Karen Edmond; Sharad Iyengar; Michael Kramer; Joy E Lawn; D S Manandhar; Rintaro Mori; Kathleen M Rasmussen; H P S Sachdev; Nalini Singhal; Mark Tomlinson; Cesar Victora; Anthony F Williams; Kit Yee Chan; Igor Rudan Journal: J Glob Health Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 7.664