Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Health Research Policy and Systems 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research

Priority-setting in public health research funding organisations: an exploratory qualitative study among five high-profile funders

Authors: Yuri Cartier, Maria I. Creatore, Steven J. Hoffman, Louise Potvin

Published in: Health Research Policy and Systems | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Priority-driven funding streams for population and public health are an important part of the health research landscape and contribute to orienting future scholarship in the field. While research priorities are often made public through targeted calls for research, less is known about how research funding organisations arrive at said priorities. Our objective was to explore how public health research funding organisations develop priorities for strategic extramural research funding programmes.

Methods

Content analysis of published academic and grey literature and key informant interviews for five public and private funders of public health research in the United Kingdom, Australia, the United States and France were performed.

Results

We found important distinctions in how funding organisations processed potential research priorities through four non-sequential phases, namely idea generation, idea analysis, idea socialisation and idea selection. Funders generally involved the public health research community and public health decision-makers in idea generation and socialisation, but other groups of stakeholders (e.g. the public, advocacy organisations) were not as frequently included.

Conclusions

Priority-setting for strategic funding programmes in public health research involves consultation mainly with researchers in the early phase of the process. There is an opportunity for greater breadth of participation and more transparency in priority-setting mechanisms for strategic funding programmes in population and public health research.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Viergever RF, Hendriks TCC. The 10 largest public and philanthropic funders of health research in the world: what they fund and how they distribute their funds. Health Res Policy Syst. 2016;14:12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Viergever RF, Hendriks TCC. The 10 largest public and philanthropic funders of health research in the world: what they fund and how they distribute their funds. Health Res Policy Syst. 2016;14:12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
go back to reference McCarthy M, Conceicao C, Grimaud O, Katreniakova Z, Saliba A, Sammut M, et al. Competitive funding and structures for public health research in European countries. Eur J Pub Health. 2013;23:39–42.CrossRef McCarthy M, Conceicao C, Grimaud O, Katreniakova Z, Saliba A, Sammut M, et al. Competitive funding and structures for public health research in European countries. Eur J Pub Health. 2013;23:39–42.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Guegan EW, Dorling H, Ollerhead L, Westmore M. Mapping public health research across the National Institute for Health Research 2006–2013. BMC Public Health. 2016;16:911.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Guegan EW, Dorling H, Ollerhead L, Westmore M. Mapping public health research across the National Institute for Health Research 2006–2013. BMC Public Health. 2016;16:911.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
go back to reference Dorling H, Cook A, Ollerhead L, Westmore M. The NIHR Public Health Research Programme: responding to local authority research needs in the United Kingdom. Health Res Policy Syst. 2015;13:77.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Dorling H, Cook A, Ollerhead L, Westmore M. The NIHR Public Health Research Programme: responding to local authority research needs in the United Kingdom. Health Res Policy Syst. 2015;13:77.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
go back to reference National Health and Medical Research Council. Report of the Review of Public Health Research Funding in Australia. Nutbeam Committee Report. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2009. National Health and Medical Research Council. Report of the Review of Public Health Research Funding in Australia. Nutbeam Committee Report. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2009.
6.
go back to reference Gross CP, Anderson GF, Powe NR. The relation between funding by the National Institutes of Health and the burden of disease. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:1881–7.CrossRefPubMed Gross CP, Anderson GF, Powe NR. The relation between funding by the National Institutes of Health and the burden of disease. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:1881–7.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference McGregor S, Henderson KJ, Kaldor JM. How are Health Research priorities set in low and middle income countries? A systematic review of published reports. PLoS One. 2014;9:e108787.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral McGregor S, Henderson KJ, Kaldor JM. How are Health Research priorities set in low and middle income countries? A systematic review of published reports. PLoS One. 2014;9:e108787.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
go back to reference Institut de Recherche en Santé Publique Convention constitutive du GIS « Institut de recherche en sante publique » (IReSP) [Constitution of the “Institut de recherche en santé publique (IReSP)” Scientific Interest Group]. Unpublished document, 2007.http://www.iresp.net/. Accessed 14 June 2018. Institut de Recherche en Santé Publique Convention constitutive du GIS « Institut de recherche en sante publique » (IReSP) [Constitution of the “Institut de recherche en santé publique (IReSP)” Scientific Interest Group]. Unpublished document, 2007.http://​www.​iresp.​net/​. Accessed 14 June 2018.
15.
go back to reference Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. From Vision to Action: A Framework of Measures to Mobilize a Culture of Health. Princeton, NJ: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; 2015. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. From Vision to Action: A Framework of Measures to Mobilize a Culture of Health. Princeton, NJ: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; 2015.
18.
go back to reference Madden M, Morley R. Exploring the challenge of health research priority setting in partnership: reflections on the methodology used by the James Lind alliance pressure ulcer priority setting partnership. Res Involv Engagem. 2016;2:12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Madden M, Morley R. Exploring the challenge of health research priority setting in partnership: reflections on the methodology used by the James Lind alliance pressure ulcer priority setting partnership. Res Involv Engagem. 2016;2:12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
go back to reference Sharma T, Choudhury M, Rejón-Parrilla JC, Jonsson P, Garner S. Using HTA and guideline development as a tool for research priority setting the NICE way: reducing research waste by identifying the right research to fund. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e019777. Sharma T, Choudhury M, Rejón-Parrilla JC, Jonsson P, Garner S. Using HTA and guideline development as a tool for research priority setting the NICE way: reducing research waste by identifying the right research to fund. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e019777.
22.
go back to reference Rudan I, Kapiriri L, Tomlinson M, Balliet M, Cohen B, Chopra M. Evidence-based priority setting for health care and research: tools to support policy in maternal, neonatal, and child health in Africa. PLoS Med. 2010;7(7):e1000308.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Rudan I, Kapiriri L, Tomlinson M, Balliet M, Cohen B, Chopra M. Evidence-based priority setting for health care and research: tools to support policy in maternal, neonatal, and child health in Africa. PLoS Med. 2010;7(7):e1000308.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
go back to reference Head MG, Fitchett JR, Nageshwaran V, Kumari N, Hayward A, Atun R. Research investments in global health: a systematic analysis of UK infectious disease research funding and global health metrics, 1997–2013. EBioMedicine. 2016;3:180–90. Head MG, Fitchett JR, Nageshwaran V, Kumari N, Hayward A, Atun R. Research investments in global health: a systematic analysis of UK infectious disease research funding and global health metrics, 1997–2013. EBioMedicine. 2016;3:180–90.
24.
go back to reference Rudan I. Setting health research priorities using the CHNRI method: IV. Key conceptual advances. J Glob Health. 2016;6:10501.CrossRef Rudan I. Setting health research priorities using the CHNRI method: IV. Key conceptual advances. J Glob Health. 2016;6:10501.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Rudan I, Yoshida S, Chan KY, Sridhar D, Wazny K, Nair H, et al. Setting health research priorities using the CHNRI method: VII. A review of the first 50 applications of the CHNRI method. J Glob Health. 2017;7:11004.CrossRef Rudan I, Yoshida S, Chan KY, Sridhar D, Wazny K, Nair H, et al. Setting health research priorities using the CHNRI method: VII. A review of the first 50 applications of the CHNRI method. J Glob Health. 2017;7:11004.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Bryant J, Sanson-Fisher R, 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, Sanson-Fisher R, 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
27.
go back to reference Yoshida S. Approaches, tools and methods used for setting priorities in health research in the 21(st) century. J Glob Health. 2016;6:10507. Yoshida S. Approaches, tools and methods used for setting priorities in health research in the 21(st) century. J Glob Health. 2016;6:10507.
28.
go back to reference Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gülmezoglu AM, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014;383:156–65.CrossRefPubMed Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gülmezoglu AM, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014;383:156–65.CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Viergever RF, Olifson S, Ghaffar A, Terry RF. A checklist for health research priority setting: nine common themes of good practice. Health Res Policy Syst. 2010;8:36.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Viergever RF, Olifson S, Ghaffar A, Terry RF. A checklist for health research priority setting: nine common themes of good practice. Health Res Policy Syst. 2010;8:36.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Priority-setting in public health research funding organisations: an exploratory qualitative study among five high-profile funders
Authors
Yuri Cartier
Maria I. Creatore
Steven J. Hoffman
Louise Potvin
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1478-4505
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0335-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Health Research Policy and Systems 1/2018 Go to the issue