Health Research Policy and Systems最新文献

Introduction: Despite the global promotion of evidence-informed health policy-making, translating research into actionable policy remains a challenge across settings. While global frameworks have provided guidance, adaptation to local contexts remains limited. This study aimed to co-develop a practical, context-specific, stakeholder-informed research-to-policy (R2P) framework for Indonesia.

Methods: A multilevel qualitative study (May 2024-May 2025) combined a narrative literature review, expert consultations, and cognitive debriefing interviews. Literature searches in the WHO Library and PubMed, supplemented by reference list screening were conducted to explore barriers, enablers, and steps in evidence translation. Consultations involved researchers, policy-makers (national and subnational), and civil society to capture multi-stakeholder perspectives. A follow-up round of cognitive debriefing was conducted to refine the draft framework and guidance. All sessions were transcribed and analysed thematically using the Steps for Coding and Theorization (SCAT) approach. Findings were mapped against factors identified in the WHO EIDM framework on evidence uptake to inform the development of the final R2P framework.

Results: Seventeen participants contributed to framework co-development. The literature confirmed the absence of a formal R2P framework in Indonesia. Barriers included weak infrastructure, fragmented governance, low research capacity outside major centres, limited dissemination, and misalignment between research outputs and policy needs. Enablers included political commitment, knowledge-to-policy units, policy-relevant outputs, and collaborative relationships. For early researchers, policy-maker engagement, knowledge brokering, and institutional capacity building emerged as key needs. The resulting R2P framework comprises two interlinked domains: evidence generation and the policy process, highlighting continuous, multidirectional collaboration among academia, policy-makers, and communities.

Conclusions: The co-developed R2P framework offers a practical pathway to strengthen trust, accelerate translation, and promote inclusive, evidence-informed health policies. While tailored to Indonesia, its principles of early engagement, coproduction, contextual adaptation, and institutional capacity-building may be adapted across diverse health system settings.

Background: Ghana's vaccine research ecosystem has evolved substantially alongside national and global immunisation efforts. However, the extent and distribution of research activity across the full vaccine development continuum have not been systematically synthesised. This review maps peer-reviewed publications and institutional reports across a nine-stage vaccine development framework from 1977 to 2025, comparing patterns between the pre-pandemic (2000-2020) and post-pandemic (2021-2025) periods.

Main body: Before 2020, vaccine-related research in Ghana was concentrated predominantly in downstream domains, including disease surveillance, programme implementation, and Phase II-III clinical trials, with notable contributions to malaria and pneumococcal vaccine development. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, publication output increased more than fivefold and diversified into emerging areas such as genomic surveillance, regulatory science, behavioural research, and digital health systems, accompanied by stronger leadership from domestic institutions. Despite this expansion, engagement in upstream domains, including discovery science, preclinical development, Phase I clinical trials, and local vaccine manufacturing, remains limited, reflecting persistent structural and infrastructure constraints.

Conclusions: Ghana has transitioned from a primarily implementation-focused setting to an increasingly active contributor to multidisciplinary vaccine evidence. Sustained investment in upstream research infrastructure, early-phase clinical trial capacity, sustainable financing mechanisms and behavioural intervention research will be essential to strengthen national vaccine sovereignty. The Ghanaian experience offers transferable lessons for other low- and middle-income countries seeking to build resilient and locally driven vaccine research ecosystems.

Background: Cancer health disparities remain a challenge in the USA. To address these disparities, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) launched the Comprehensive Program to Advance Cancer Health (CPACH) in 2001, funding multi-institutional partnerships to strengthen research infrastructure, create training pathways and engage communities. While evaluations of CPACH partnerships often assess single components such as education or community engagement, less is known about their long-term, systemic impact.

Methods: We conducted a qualitative study of the Meharry-Vanderbilt-TSU Cancer Partnership (MVTCP), the longest continuously funded CPACH site. In total, 43 interest holders, including faculty, students, and community advisory board members, participated in semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using an iterative inductive-deductive approach, guided by the health systems science framework and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

Results: The analysis revealed four impacts: increased funding/financial ROI, institutional collaboration, educational and career advancement, and community outreach, education and engagement. These impacts were supported by each institution's capacities, personnel, and collaborative activities, which together generated multilevel change.

Conclusions: The MVTCP demonstrates how multi-institutional partnerships can create synergistic impacts that extend beyond traditional research metrics, producing systemic change in institutions, careers, and communities. Policy and practice should prioritize sustained investment in collaborative models that integrate mentorship and community engagement as structural expectations to improve cancer health for all.

Background: Building research capacity in health settings is essential for improving the relevance and application of health research. Rigorous evaluation of research capacity in health settings optimizes the development, implementation and improvement of such initiatives. Cooke's 2005 framework was the earliest peer-reviewed framework to evaluate research capacity in health settings. While subsequent frameworks exist, it is not clear how they were developed and are used in practice. This review investigates the development, composition and utilization of peer-reviewed frameworks designed to evaluate research capacity in health settings.

Methods: This two-phased methodological review was informed by the JBI scoping review methodology. Phase 1 involved a systematic search of seven databases on 1 May 2025 to identify peer-reviewed frameworks for evaluating research capacity. Phase 2 involved a forward citation search of included frameworks using Google Scholar, finalized on 18 September 2025, to identify the number and nature of citing studies. Data extraction and narrative synthesis were informed by the review aims.

Results: Phase 1 database searches yielded 2581 unique citations, of which 8 met the inclusion criteria. An additional framework was identified through citation searching, totalling 9 frameworks. The frameworks were developed via retrospective processes (reviews of literature and local data) or prospective methods (engagement workshops). Several were informed by earlier frameworks. Frameworks typically comprised an overarching structure, substructural components and a series of outcome indicators. Framework authors defined research capacity building in nuanced ways. Phase 2 forward citation searching of the nine frameworks revealed 881 citations. Of these, 37 citing articles met the inclusion criteria. Most (31/37) citing studies utilized Cooke's 2005 framework. Frameworks were largely used to inform data collection and analysis, and most citing authors only used only some framework components. Limitations and strengths of the frameworks related to the development process and practical application were identified by framework and citing authors.

Conclusions: This review facilitated new insights into the development, characteristics and utilization of frameworks to evaluate research capacity building in health settings. There are nine peer-reviewed, published frameworks, several informed by and expanding on earlier frameworks, which is essential for advancing the evaluation of research capacity in health settings.

Background: In Ontario, Black people make up approximately 5% of the population and routinely account for over 20% of new HIV diagnoses. The A/C Study, a community-led cross-sectional study among Black Canadians, was designed to examine the factors that augment HIV risk and vulnerability for Black communities and inform policy and practice in Ontario, Canada, regarding HIV prevention and care for Black people. Knowledge translation (KT) was integrated throughout the research process as a core component of the study.

Methods: Adhering to the principles of self-determination and autonomy in community-based participatory research, this study was led by Black researchers and was guided by an integrated knowledge translation (IKT) approach. The research team developed a KT plan including: (1) push activities to disseminate the study findings, (2) pull activities to help interested stakeholders "pull" information about the research and (3) linkage and exchange activities. Community members played an integral role in all aspects of the research, including KT activities, and contributed to the study's design and implementation and to the interpretation of findings. Significant efforts were made to build partnerships and trust with stakeholders and community members to support study implementation.

Outputs: The KT outputs include a community report and fact sheets available in English and French. There were also numerous community presentations, six conference abstracts and several multimedia and digital products. Community members co-led a World Café to share research findings and generate qualitative data to better understand the survey results and a research summit to develop an action plan for moving forward. Seven peer-reviewed manuscripts have been published with several more manuscripts in progress. Study data are available upon request to interested stakeholders.

Conclusion: Through active community involvement and engagement, the A/C Study generated a range of KT products. The information has been presented in various settings and formats to prioritize community audiences and support culturally appropriate and responsive knowledge sharing. These KT efforts underscore the importance of community involvement and partnership at all stages of the research process. The experiences, strengths and challenges of the IKT approach provide a case study of implementation in an equity-focused context.

Background: Evidence-based policymaking (EBPM) improves the quality of decision-making and ensures that necessary policies reach the populations who need them. Although EBPM-promoting factors have been conceptually explored, interventions that comprehensively address these factors remain under-investigated. Through qualitative research, we previously identified 25 factors that promote EBPM. Thus, this study aimed to (1) evaluate the perceived effectiveness of factors that promote EBPM and (2) assess the perceived effectiveness of interventions designed to address these factors.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in Japan among three stakeholder groups: policymakers, researchers and knowledge brokers (KBs). Participants assessed the perceived effectiveness of the 25 factors and 75 corresponding intervention strategies. The mean scores were calculated for each factor, and the proportion of respondents who considered each intervention effective within its respective factor was determined.

Results: Of the 154 invited participants, 55 completed the survey, including policymakers (n = 15), researchers (n = 25) and KBs (n = 15). The highest-rated factor was "organizing and disseminating leverageable evidence and data" (mean = 4.53), which included the intervention "development of data infrastructure easily utilizable by researchers while ensuring personal information protection", selected as effective by 78.2% of the respondents. The second highest-rated factor was "enhancing the knowledge and skills of policymakers and researchers in policymaking processes, EBPM, and research" (mean = 4.37). Within this factor, two interventions shared the highest selection rate (72.3%): "establishment of an in-ministry training system enabling policymakers to acquire essential skills regardless of department" and "development and provision of EBPM-related educational content for professional organizations (academic societies) and policymakers".

Conclusions: This study identified the perceived effectiveness of 25 EBPM-promoting factors and 75 related interventions in the Japanese policymaking context on the basis of input from policymakers, researchers and KBs. These findings provide a foundation for the implementation of strategies by outlining practical interventions. The descriptive trends in perceived effectiveness across stakeholders suggest that implementation should reflect each group's priorities, roles and constraints. This study contributes to EBPM literature by systematically linking factors with interventions and demonstrating how stakeholder perspectives differ, thereby strengthening the basis for promoting EBPM in practice.

Research coproduction is no longer a subordinate approach; it is reshaping how health research is conceived, conducted and applied. Integrated knowledge translation (IKT), the Canadian term for coproduction, champions researchers and knowledge users in producing research that is relevant and actionable. In 2018, the Integrated Knowledge Translation Research Network (IKTRN) launched its first concept paper series, emphasizing methodological foundations. In 2024, a second call invited deeper theoretical engagement, resulting in this collection, which addresses structural and relational dimensions of coproduction. Across the 17 papers in this series, 3 themes dominate: power, partnership strategies and infrastructure. Several papers interrogate power in research relationships, noting conceptual inconsistencies and proposing strategies such as reflexivity, culturally responsive approaches and inclusive language to mitigate inequities. Others examine partnership management, emphasizing trust as a dynamic process and recommending actions, such as continuous communication, to strengthen engagement with Indigenous communities, migrants and ethnically diverse populations. A third theme addresses infrastructure, highlighting the need for resources, leadership and tailored training to sustain coproduction, particularly for trainees. Collectively, these contributions signal an evolution from methodological concerns towards systemic considerations of equity and sustainability. They underscore that coproduction is not merely a set of techniques, but a structural and relational endeavour requiring institutional commitment and adequate resourcing. This collection invites researchers, funders and policy-makers to reflect on their roles in advancing these priorities.

Background: Health technology assessment (HTA) is recognized as a critical tool for informing health policy decisions and advancing sustainable universal health coverage (UHC). For over a decade, the Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program Foundation (HITAP) has undertaken systematic efforts to strengthen HTA capacity across Asia and Africa. This study reviews HITAP's experience in capacity strengthening to inform strategies for effective international collaboration and capacity-building in low- and middle-income countries.

Methods: A document review of HITAP's capacity-strengthening initiatives from 2010 to mid-2025 was conducted using HITAP's internal documentation. Initiatives were categorized according to the Individual, Node, Network and Environment (INNE) framework and by activity type, with data analyzed descriptively. In addition, key informant interviews (KII) were conducted with key HTA decision-makers from 7 countries who had prior engagement with HITAP, and thematic analysis was applied to the KII data.

Results: A total of 278 HTA capacity-strengthening activities across 25 countries were identified from 2010 to mid-2025. The majority of the initiatives (n = 151) were with countries in Asia, were programmatic (n = 128) instead of ad hoc and involved mostly knowledge sharing (26%) and research and project collaborations (21%). Out of 11 countries in Africa, only 3 had programmatic engagements with HITAP (n = 30), involving mostly advising and mentoring (30%). Analysis of annual activity frequency shows that, in the post-pandemic period (2022 onwards), multi-country engagements have increased as collaborative activities have transitioned to include a larger number of countries within a single event. KII participants reported that these collaborations enhanced awareness and recognition of HTA among key stakeholders including policy-makers, strengthened technical capacity within the Ministry of Health and partner organizations, and generated outputs such as HTA guidelines, publications, dedicated HTA units, a Memorandum of Understanding and institutional or regulatory reforms at all 4 INNE levels.

Conclusions: Collaborations for strengthening capacity for HTA are critical and will shape the next decades as countries strive to achieve and sustain UHC. Contextual approaches, underpinned by a multi-pronged approach, with an emphasis on joint initiatives across countries, are needed to ensure HTA remains relevant and responsive to evolving priorities in the changing international context.

Background: Knowledge Translation (KT) research investigates methods to promote the uptake of research by practitioners, managers and policy-makers. Rooted in decades of interdisciplinary scholarship showing that evidence use is shaped by social sense‑making, institutions and politics, KT has moved beyond a linear "research to policy" model. Yet, persistent gaps between evidence and decision‑making, as well as uneven institutional capacity and fragmented KT research motivated the development of WHO's Global Research Agenda: to prioritize rigorous, context‑sensitive KT research that addresses systemic, governance and practical barriers to sustained evidence‑informed policy-making (EIP).

Methods: From October 2023 to March 2025, a structured five-step approach was undertaken, starting with synthesizing existing evidence on KT strategies and priorities, and complemented by primary data from a global survey. These inputs were used to develop a conceptual framework to organize KT research priority areas. This framework guided a global consultative process, which engaged diverse interest-holders through online consultations and Delphi surveys to jointly identify research gaps, opportunities and priority areas for inclusion in the final research agenda.

Results: The initial step of evidence synthesis identified 120 research areas. Through the global consultative process, these were refined to 19 priority research areas organized into three domains: (1) research on KT/EIP interventions, (2) research on barriers, facilitators and opportunities for KT/EIP and (3) research on KT/EIP methods, standards, measurement, theories and frameworks. Specific research areas include strategies to institutionalize KT, contextual factors influencing evidence uptake and exploring innovative technologies such as Artificial Intelligence.

Conclusions: This study proposes a prioritized research agenda to guide future KT/EIP research and inform funding decisions. The agenda requires sustained engagement with interest-holders to maximize its impact. Future research should validate and refine the priorities, and ensure relevance, utility and effective implementation across diverse settings. The GRA is more than a technical checklist; it is a strategic roadmap for navigating the political and institutional dimensions of evidence use, enabling a shift beyond supply-side fixes toward a relational, politically aware KT/EIP approach. This shift is essential to embed evidence use in routine decision-making, strengthen system resilience and advance health equity through sustained institutional reform.