Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Health Research Policy and Systems 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research

Health research priority setting in Zambia: a stock taking of approaches conducted from 1998 to 2015

Authors: Pascalina Chanda-Kapata, William Ngosa, Busiku Hamainza, Lydia Kapiriri

Published in: Health Research Policy and Systems | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Priority setting in health research is an emerging field. In Zambia, like many other African countries, various priority setting activities have been undertaken with a view to identify research activities to which the available resources can be targeted while at the same time maximising the health impact for resource allocation to support evidence-based decision-making. The aim of this paper is to document the key elements of the various priority setting activities that have been conducted since 1998, identifying the key lessons and providing recommendations to improve the process.

Methods

A comprehensive review of the previous priority setting activities and processes in Zambia was conducted. Both published and unpublished reports were reviewed in order to identify any research priority setting processes that have been undertaken in Zambia. We developed a framework, based on the priority setting literature, to guide our abstraction and synthesis of the literature.

Result

The earliest record of priority setting was conducted in 1998. Various priority setting approaches have been implemented in Zambia; ranging from externally driven, once-off activities to locally (in country) initiated comprehensive processes. However, there has been no systematic national process for priority setting. These priority setting processes in Zambia were characterised by limited stakeholder buy-in of the resulting national research or programmatic research agenda. Most striking was the lack of linkages between the different initiatives. There seems to have been no conscious recognition and building on previous priority-setting experiences of previous initiatives.

Conclusion

There were gaps in the priority setting processes, stakeholder engagement and application of a defined criterion. There is a need for a priority setting framework coupled with local capacity developed across a range of stakeholders.
Literature
3.
go back to reference Chigozie JU, Ezeoha AE, Ndukwe DC, Oyibo PG, Onwe F, Aulakh BK. Research priority setting for health policy and health systems strengthening in Nigeria: the policymakers and stakeholders perspective and involvement. Pan Afr Med J. 2013;6:10. Chigozie JU, Ezeoha AE, Ndukwe DC, Oyibo PG, Onwe F, Aulakh BK. Research priority setting for health policy and health systems strengthening in Nigeria: the policymakers and stakeholders perspective and involvement. Pan Afr Med J. 2013;6:10.
7.
go back to reference Nuyens Y. Setting priorities for health research: lessons from low and middle income countries. Bull World Health Organ. 2006;85:4. Nuyens Y. Setting priorities for health research: lessons from low and middle income countries. Bull World Health Organ. 2006;85:4.
8.
go back to reference Chanda-Kapata P, Campbell S, Zarowsky C. Developing a national health research system: participatory approaches to legislative, institutional and networking dimensions in Zambia. Health Res Policy Syst. 2012;10(1):17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Chanda-Kapata P, Campbell S, Zarowsky C. Developing a national health research system: participatory approaches to legislative, institutional and networking dimensions in Zambia. Health Res Policy Syst. 2012;10(1):17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
go back to reference National Assembly. National Health Research Act No. 2. Lusaka: Zambia Government Printers; 2013. National Assembly. National Health Research Act No. 2. Lusaka: Zambia Government Printers; 2013.
11.
go back to reference Republic of Zambia Ministry of Health. National Health Research Policy. Lusaka: Ministry of Health; 2010. Republic of Zambia Ministry of Health. National Health Research Policy. Lusaka: Ministry of Health; 2010.
13.
go back to reference Kapiriri L, Tomlinson M, Gibson J, Chopra M, El Arifeen S, Black RE, et al. Setting priorities in global child health research: Addressing the value of stakeholders. Croat Med J. 2007;48:618–27.PubMedPubMedCentral Kapiriri L, Tomlinson M, Gibson J, Chopra M, El Arifeen S, Black RE, et al. Setting priorities in global child health research: Addressing the value of stakeholders. Croat Med J. 2007;48:618–27.PubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference Republic of Zambia Ministry of Health. Zambia National Health Strategic Plan 2011–2015. Lusaka: Ministry of Health; 2011. Republic of Zambia Ministry of Health. Zambia National Health Strategic Plan 2011–2015. Lusaka: Ministry of Health; 2011.
18.
go back to reference Ministry of Health. Priority Research Areas Report. MOH; 2011. Ministry of Health. Priority Research Areas Report. MOH; 2011.
19.
go back to reference Ministry of Health. Research Registry. MOH; 2011. Ministry of Health. Research Registry. MOH; 2011.
20.
go back to reference CHAI, MOH, MCDCH, IDinsight. Antiretroviral Clinic Decongestion through Multi Month Refill Provision. A cluster randomised difference in difference study in Lusaka District, Zambia. Boston: CHAI; 2015. CHAI, MOH, MCDCH, IDinsight. Antiretroviral Clinic Decongestion through Multi Month Refill Provision. A cluster randomised difference in difference study in Lusaka District, Zambia. Boston: CHAI; 2015.
21.
go back to reference CHAI, MOH, MCDCH, IDinsight. Evaluating the cost effectiveness of mama kits for increasing facility deliveries. Evidence from a 3DE evaluation in rural Chadiza and Serenje Districts, Zambia. Boston: CHAI; 2015. CHAI, MOH, MCDCH, IDinsight. Evaluating the cost effectiveness of mama kits for increasing facility deliveries. Evidence from a 3DE evaluation in rural Chadiza and Serenje Districts, Zambia. Boston: CHAI; 2015.
22.
go back to reference CHAI, MOH, MCDCH, IDinsight. Measuring the impact of reinforced integration of infant HIV testing and immunization services. Evidence from a 3DE evaluation in Southern Province. Boston: CHAI; 2015. CHAI, MOH, MCDCH, IDinsight. Measuring the impact of reinforced integration of infant HIV testing and immunization services. Evidence from a 3DE evaluation in Southern Province. Boston: CHAI; 2015.
23.
go back to reference CHAI, MOH, MCDCH, IDinsight. Assessing the feasibility and cost effectiveness of community fixed point bednet distribution. Evidence from a 3DE Evaluation in Rufunsa District. Bostin: CHAI; 2015. CHAI, MOH, MCDCH, IDinsight. Assessing the feasibility and cost effectiveness of community fixed point bednet distribution. Evidence from a 3DE Evaluation in Rufunsa District. Bostin: CHAI; 2015.
24.
go back to reference Bryant J, Fisher SR, Walsh J, Stewart J. Health research priority setting in selected high income countries: a narrative review of methods used and recommendations for future practice. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2014;12:23.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Bryant J, Fisher SR, Walsh J, Stewart J. Health research priority setting in selected high income countries: a narrative review of methods used and recommendations for future practice. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2014;12:23.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
go back to reference Rudan I, Gibson JL, Ameratunga S, El Arifeen S, Bhutta ZA, Black M, et al. Setting priorities in global child health research investments: guidelines for implementation of CHNRI method. Croat Med J. 2008;49(6):720–33.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Rudan I, Gibson JL, Ameratunga S, El Arifeen S, Bhutta ZA, Black M, et al. Setting priorities in global child health research investments: guidelines for implementation of CHNRI method. Croat Med J. 2008;49(6):720–33.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
go back to reference Ministry of Health. MNCH Priority Setting Case – Zambia. Lusaka: MOH; 2011. Ministry of Health. MNCH Priority Setting Case – Zambia. Lusaka: MOH; 2011.
28.
go back to reference Byskov J, Marchal B, Maluka S, Zulu JM, Bukachi SA, Hurtig AK, et al. The accountability for reasonableness approach to guide priority setting in health systems within limited resources-findings from action research at district level in Kenya, Tanzania, and Zambia. Health Res Policy Syst. 2014;12:49. doi:10.1186/1478-4505-12-49.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Byskov J, Marchal B, Maluka S, Zulu JM, Bukachi SA, Hurtig AK, et al. The accountability for reasonableness approach to guide priority setting in health systems within limited resources-findings from action research at district level in Kenya, Tanzania, and Zambia. Health Res Policy Syst. 2014;12:49. doi:10.​1186/​1478-4505-12-49.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
go back to reference Ministry of Health. National Health Accounts. Lusaka: MOH; 2009. Ministry of Health. National Health Accounts. Lusaka: MOH; 2009.
Metadata
Title
Health research priority setting in Zambia: a stock taking of approaches conducted from 1998 to 2015
Authors
Pascalina Chanda-Kapata
William Ngosa
Busiku Hamainza
Lydia Kapiriri
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1478-4505
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-016-0142-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Health Research Policy and Systems 1/2015 Go to the issue