[Re: https://www.hifa.org/dgroups-rss/steve-hanney-introduction-and-role-impa... ]
Many thanks Neil, in your response on 26 July to my email of 24 July, you wrote:
"A big gap in capacity that we have recognised repeatedly on HIFA is the ability of countries to develop national policy, drawing on international guidance from WHO and taking into account relevant national/local research and context. I would be very interested to learn more from you and others about this process. To what extent is it feasible, and how, especially in LMICs? How can countries be better supported, for example by improving the usability of international guidance or by national policymaking tools and capacity-building?"
Clearly a great deal could be written about this, but I'll briefly reply drawing on my research on both research impact assessment and, including with WHO, on developing and analysing health research systems. When countries, including LMICs, take as comprehensive an approach as possible to building health research systems this can cover functions and components such as developing mechanisms to focus agenda setting on local needs, and building capacity and mechanisms to conduct and use relevant research, including evidence syntheses. In 2013, The World Health Report explicitly focused on health research for the first time. In the Executive Summary, the second and third of three key messages said:
* "All nations should be producers of research as well as consumers. The creativity and skills of researchers should be used to strengthen investigations not only in academic centres but also in public health programmes, close to the supply of and demand for health services.
* "Research for universal health coverage requires national and international backing. To make the best use of limited resources, systems are needed to develop national research agendas, to raise funds, to strengthen research capacity, and to make appropriate and effective use of research findings."
Supporting this view, in a recent updated evidence synthesis, colleagues and I collated considerable evidence suggesting, as had long been assumed, that organisations that are research active are likely to provide improved care. A major reason for this is that organisations/systems that are research active are better able to know about, understand and absorb research findings from wherever they are produced: If health organisations and staff engage in research, does healthcare improve?
If health organisations and staff engage in research, does healthcare improve? Strengthening the evidence base through systematic reviews
Strengthening the evidence base through systematic reviews | Health Research Policy and Systems | Springer Nature Link
<https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12961-024-01187-7>
Best wishes
Steve
HIFA profile: Stephen Hanney is Emeritus/Hon Professor at Health Economics Research Group, Brunel University of London, UK. Professional interests: Assessing the impacts or payback from health research; how best to organise health research systems to maximise impacts; the use of evidence in policymaking. Email address: stephen.hanney AT brunel.ac.uk