Thursday, April 26, 2012
C: Adanech Kidanemariam Hall (Millennium Hall)
OBJECTIVES: Describe the public subsystems of the national health research systems (SNIS) in five Latin American countries (Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay), emphasizing the types of institutional arrangements in place in each country to promote, develop, and sustain their SNIS, as well as explicit or implicit mechanisms for prioritizing health research projects.
METHODS: The bodies responsible for managing the public resources allocated to finance health research projects in the five countries studied were identified. The types of projects financed were then analyzed-using a matrix constructed by area and object of study-, certain characteristics of the principal investigators, and the sums allocated between 2002 and 2006.
RESULTS: Only the countries with greater resources or better developed networks of investigators have formal structures for allocating funds with regular calls for proposals and fixed rules. None of them has explicit comprehensive mechanisms for prioritizing health research. Moreover, the health research priorities in the countries vary widely. In this regard, it is significant that problems such as "nutrition and the environment" or "violence and accidents" receive little attention in most countries. The same holds true for a number of public health issues in some countries. In contrast, the research in the "hard sciences" absorbs up to one-third of the total resources for research.
CONCLUSIONS: Many questions arise about the ability of these countries to adapt and generate new knowledge, as well as the nearly nonexistent research on social, economic, and cultural determinants, or on health services and systems that have a high impact on groups with limited access to health care. Explicit priorities should be set with stakeholders for the health research agenda, and mechanisms should be adopted for monitoring and following up health research financing by subject and area of study.
METHODS: The bodies responsible for managing the public resources allocated to finance health research projects in the five countries studied were identified. The types of projects financed were then analyzed-using a matrix constructed by area and object of study-, certain characteristics of the principal investigators, and the sums allocated between 2002 and 2006.
RESULTS: Only the countries with greater resources or better developed networks of investigators have formal structures for allocating funds with regular calls for proposals and fixed rules. None of them has explicit comprehensive mechanisms for prioritizing health research. Moreover, the health research priorities in the countries vary widely. In this regard, it is significant that problems such as "nutrition and the environment" or "violence and accidents" receive little attention in most countries. The same holds true for a number of public health issues in some countries. In contrast, the research in the "hard sciences" absorbs up to one-third of the total resources for research.
CONCLUSIONS: Many questions arise about the ability of these countries to adapt and generate new knowledge, as well as the nearly nonexistent research on social, economic, and cultural determinants, or on health services and systems that have a high impact on groups with limited access to health care. Explicit priorities should be set with stakeholders for the health research agenda, and mechanisms should be adopted for monitoring and following up health research financing by subject and area of study.
Learning Objectives: 1) Recognise how the institutional structure provides some stability to the public participation in research funding 2) Analyze social priorities in health research of public agencies in 5 countries in Latin America. 3) Discuss about the degree of importance attributed to health research in Latin America, led finally to propose a more ambitious agenda on the definition of priorities which may be coordinated with the research funding system and the health care provider .