.png)
Event Schedule
TEST
Speakers:
.jpg)
Speakers:
Chair
Speakers:
.png)
.jpg)
Margaret Kaseje – Tropical Institute of Community Health and Development, Kenya: Read case study
Emmanuel Makundi – National Institute for Medical Research, Tanzania: Read case study
Daphne Joyce Maza - Science Research Specialist I, Philippine Council for Health Research and Development: Read case study
Wim Pinxten – Hasselt University, Belgium: Read case study
Sualeha Siddiq – Sindh Institute of Urology and Transplantation, Pakistan: Read case study
Ivan Sisa – Universidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ, Ecuador: Read case study
Benedict Weobong – University of Ghana, Ghana: Read case study |
Chair
Speakers:
Session summary:
Research priority setting at the national level has marked influence in not only the research interest domain in which priorities are being set, but also in the wider ecosystem. It is often a marker of macro level policies or values. Consequently, it is operationalised in a contested space. Stakeholder engagement, and the process being seen as fair, legitimate, and just are crucial. Understanding the failure or success of national level priority setting is also complex. In this session we have three different speakers presenting three case studies about national level research priority setting exercises – Suzanne Kiwanuka from Uganda, Ramón Ponce Testino from Peru and Sibongile Kaphaizi from Malawi.
Suzanne Kiwanuka – Makerere University, Uganda: Read Case Study
Ramon Ponce – Pontifical Catholic University of Perú, Peru: Read case study
Sibongile Kaphaizi – Ministry of Health Research Department, Malawi: Read case study |
11:25 am - 11:45 am: Plenary discussion
11:45 am - 12:30 pm: Breakout group discussion
Discussion questions:
1. How important and what level of context is useful in setting the scope of a national level research priority setting exercise?
2. What are the elements and aspects of justice as an ethical issue in health research priority setting (including distributive justice, procedural justice, compensatory justice)? How can it be improved?
Chairs
Speakers:
Session summary:
It is widely recognised that marginalised voices often do not have the presence and influence in research prioritisation that we would hope and expect they would be afforded by from researchers and funders. Even when voices are engaged, they may need amplification to truly influence in the context of the status quo, power dynamics and real or perceived hierarchies. And even where amplification occurs, it often entails the voices of those who experience marginalisation being reinterpreted by researchers and funders.
Dr Zelalam Mengistu has described the significant effort that has been made to engage such marginalised voices, using the JLA approach. This has required time and commitment and iterative engagement at multiple levels, to achieve tractable engagement with those whose voices are to be heard. While also using an adapted form of the JLA approach, Dr. Jaya Singh Kshatri, reports on the difficulty of achieving consensus across this wide range of stakeholders, where the views of marginalised voices are very different from other stakeholders, such as healthcare professionals.
Both also have an underlying theme around leadership—namely who should lead research priority-setting exercises involving marginalised voices, providing a deep ethical challenge for research prioritisation.
Jaya Singh Kshatri – Indian Council of Medical Research, India: Read case study
Zelalem Gashaw – University of Global Health Equity, Rwanda: Read case study |
2:25pm - 2:45 pm: Plenary discussion
2:45 pm - 3:20 pm: Breakout group discussion
Discussion questions:
1. What is owed to participants with marginalised voices in terms of being heard in research priority setting processes?
2. Can the research priority setting process be more than an [academic] participatory exercise, and used as an opportunity to give value back to the community or to individuals?
3. How should the scope of research priority-setting processes be determined and by whom?
Chairs
Speakers:
|
Panel Discussion based on the following questions :
|
4:35 pm - 4:55 pm: Plenary discussion
4:55 pm - 5:30 pm: Breakout group discussion
Discussion questions:
- How should funders take account of national priorities when designing international grants programs?
- What one insight from this meeting would you want health researcher funders to take on board?
5:30 pm: Meeting close
Dinner will take place in the Salon Belle-Epoque of the Hôtel du Grand Lac Excelsior, which is a short walk from Eden Palace au Lac. Participants are invited to make their own way to the Hôtel du Grand Lac Excelsior for dinner at 7pm or to meet in the Eden Palace au Lac reception at 6.30 pm and to walk together to the Hôtel du Grand Lac Excelsior.
Speakers:
Chair
Speakers:
Abhishek Ghosh – Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, India: Read case study
Edward Kusewa – St Paul’s University, Kenya: Read case study
Valérie Luyckx- Dr, University of Zurich: Read case study
Guimel Peralta – Central American Technological University, Honduras: Read case study
Iliana Romero – Colectivo de Salud Mental TLP, Mexico: Read case study
Teguh Sasongko – International Medical University, Malaysia: Read case study |
Chair
Speakers:
Session summary:
It has been argued that states should be primarily responsible for ensuring their population’s health and, in effect, setting their national health research priorities. It is thus important to consider the role and responsibility of governments in setting these priorities. This raises a key ethical question: What are the ethical principles that should guide governments as they engage in health research priority setting? This session considers this question by interrogating two aspects of this role: i) processes through which the priorities are set and ii) the substantive values that should be reflected. The case studies consider the different approaches taken by national governments, as well as how the processes contributed to or detracted from substantive values of health priority setting. Gugulethu Eve Khumalo examines the processes by which a government ensures fair and equitable representation and the translation of priorities into actual research. Lydia Kapiriri discusses the importance of ensuring that national agencies are provided with a) the authority to lead the process and manage different stakeholders, b) appropriate tools and c) resources. Joseph Oraño raises the issue of government stewardship in ensuring 1) clear strategic direction that is communicated effectively and 2) outsourcing research priority setting exercises.
Gugulethu Khumalo – KwaZulu-Natal Department of Health, South Africa: Read case study
Lydia Kapiriri – McMaster University, Canada: Read case study
Joseph Oraño – Alliance for Improving Health Outcomes, Philippines: Read case study |
11:15 am - 11:35 am: Plenary discussion
11:35 am - 12:10 pm: Breakout group discussion
Discussion questions:
1. How should governments address the issue of national and international stakeholders with competing priorities when engaging in national research priority setting?
2. What are the key roles and responsibilities of national health research agencies in setting research priorities and what are the essential tools and skills that such agencies should possess?
3. How can governments democratise research priority setting exercises?
Chair
Speakers:
Session summary:
The overall goal of research priority-setting is to promote health and health equity by focusing limited resources for health-related research (e.g., funding) on the most important research questions. However, there are ethical and practical challenges to achieving this goal, even when researchers and research sponsors are well-intentioned. This panel discusses three cases to describe these challenges and identify possible ways of addressing them. According to John Barugahare (Makerere University), researchers and sponsors may address important health problems in low-resource settings but fail to develop interventions that are feasible to implement in these settings. David Nderitu Wanjeri (Egerton University) discusses why collaborations between researchers in high- and low-resource settings sometimes fail to address research priorities in low-resource settings, even when their stated goal is to promote health and health equity there. Finally, Starlin Vijay Mythri (Makunda Christian Hospital) examines the difficulties of adhering to institutional research priorities when health institutions in low-resource settings enter collaborations with researchers from high-resource settings.
David Wanjeri – Lecturer, Egerton University, Kenya: Read case study
Starlin Mythri – Makunda Christian Leprosy and General Hospital, India: Read case study
John Barugahare – Makerere University, Uganda: Read case study |
2:25 pm - 2:45 pm: Plenary discussion
2:45 pm - 3:20 pm: Breakout group discussion
Discussion questions:
1. What steps should be taken to ensure that the fruits of research can be delivered in low-resource settings?
2. How can power differentials in research priority setting be addressed?
3. What principles should govern collaborations between research groups in high-resource and low-resource settings?
Chairs
|
4:00 pm : Meeting close