Abdul Ghaffar1. 1. Global Forum for Health Research, Geneva, Switzerland. Ghaffara@emro.who.int
Abstract
BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE: Priority setting in health research is a dynamic process. Different organizations and institutes have been working in the field of research priority setting for many years. In 1999 the Global Forum for Health Research presented a research priority setting tool called the Combined Approach Matrix or CAM. Since its development, the CAM has been successfully applied to set research priorities for diseases, conditions and programmes at global, regional and national levels. This paper briefly explains the CAM methodology and how it could be applied in different settings, giving examples and describing challenges encountered in the process of setting research priorities and providing recommendations for further work in this field. METHODS: The construct and design of the CAM is explained along with different steps needed, including planning and organization of a priority-setting exercise and how it could be applied in different settings. RESULTS: The application of the CAM are described by using three examples. The first concerns setting research priorities for a global programme, the second describes application at the country level and the third setting research priorities for diseases. INTERPRETATION & CONCLUSION: Effective application of the CAM in different and diverse environments proves its utility as a tool for setting research priorities. Potential challenges encountered in the process of research priority setting are discussed and some recommendations for further work in this field are provided.
BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE: Priority setting in health research is a dynamic process. Different organizations and institutes have been working in the field of research priority setting for many years. In 1999 the Global Forum for Health Research presented a research priority setting tool called the Combined Approach Matrix or CAM. Since its development, the CAM has been successfully applied to set research priorities for diseases, conditions and programmes at global, regional and national levels. This paper briefly explains the CAM methodology and how it could be applied in different settings, giving examples and describing challenges encountered in the process of setting research priorities and providing recommendations for further work in this field. METHODS: The construct and design of the CAM is explained along with different steps needed, including planning and organization of a priority-setting exercise and how it could be applied in different settings. RESULTS: The application of the CAM are described by using three examples. The first concerns setting research priorities for a global programme, the second describes application at the country level and the third setting research priorities for diseases. INTERPRETATION & CONCLUSION: Effective application of the CAM in different and diverse environments proves its utility as a tool for setting research priorities. Potential challenges encountered in the process of research priority setting are discussed and some recommendations for further work in this field are provided.
Authors: Lalla Aïda Guindo; Monika Wagner; Rob Baltussen; Donna Rindress; Janine van Til; Paul Kind; Mireille M Goetghebeur Journal: Cost Eff Resour Alloc Date: 2012-07-18
Authors: Joy E Lawn; Rajiv Bahl; Staffan Bergstrom; Zulfiqar A Bhutta; Gary L Darmstadt; Matthew Ellis; Mike English; Jennifer J Kurinczuk; Anne C C Lee; Mario Merialdi; Mohamed Mohamed; David Osrin; Robert Pattinson; Vinod Paul; Siddarth Ramji; Ola D Saugstad; Lyn Sibley; Nalini Singhal; Steven N Wall; Dave Woods; John Wyatt; Kit Yee Chan; Igor Rudan Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2011-01-11 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Michelle L Redman-Maclaren; David J Maclaren; Rowena Asugeni; Chillion E Fa'anuabae; Humpress Harrington; Alwin Muse; Richard Speare; Alan R Clough Journal: Int J Equity Health Date: 2010-11-05
Authors: Yanina Balabanova; Andreas Gilsdorf; Silke Buda; Reinhard Burger; Tim Eckmanns; Barbara Gärtner; Uwe Gross; Walter Haas; Osamah Hamouda; Johannes Hübner; Thomas Jänisch; Manfred Kist; Michael H Kramer; Thomas Ledig; Martin Mielke; Matthias Pulz; Klaus Stark; Norbert Suttorp; Uta Ulbrich; Ole Wichmann; Gérard Krause Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-10-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sylvia de Haan; Rose Kingamkono; Neema Tindamanyire; Hassan Mshinda; Harun Makandi; Flora Tibazarwa; Bruno Kubata; Gabriela Montorzi Journal: Health Res Policy Syst Date: 2015-03-12
Authors: Narendra K Arora; Archisman Mohapatra; Hema S Gopalan; Kerri Wazny; Vasantha Thavaraj; Reeta Rasaily; Manoj K Das; Meenu Maheshwari; Rajiv Bahl; Shamim A Qazi; Robert E Black; Igor Rudan Journal: J Glob Health Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 4.413
Authors: Nicole M Rankin; Deborah McGregor; Phyllis N Butow; Kate White; Jane L Phillips; Jane M Young; Sallie A Pearson; Sarah York; Tim Shaw Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2016-08-26 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Katayoun Maleki; Randah R Hamadeh; Jaleh Gholami; Ahmed Mandil; Saima Hamid; Zahid Ahmad Butt; Abdulaziz Bin Saeed; Dalia Y M El Kheir; Mohammed Saleem; Sahar Maqsoud; Najibullah Safi; Ban A Abdul-Majeed; Reza Majdzadeh Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-09-08 Impact factor: 3.240