卫生研究与病毒:加强系统,拯救生命。

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Stephen Robert Hanney, Bahareh Yazdizadeh
{"title":"卫生研究与病毒:加强系统,拯救生命。","authors":"Stephen Robert Hanney, Bahareh Yazdizadeh","doi":"10.1186/s12961-025-01354-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>For this Commentary, we selected papers from those in this journal's Thematic Series on health research systems' pandemic response. The calling notice for papers suggested possible use of a WHO framework for analysing health research systems (HRSs). Whilst it was not widely used in the reported studies, it did provide the basis for the two main, overlapping, topics for analysis in this Commentary. These, in turn, informed the selection criteria for papers. First, we selected papers that described the contributions made towards meeting the needs for pandemic-related research in at least one area we could classify as being one of the nine components of a HRS, and did so in at least one jurisdiction. Second, we identified papers that could contribute to an analysis of how comprehensive HRSs facilitated progress in meeting the needs for pandemic-related research.Using the selection criteria, we included 13 papers in the Commentary covering research in 22 named countries, and many others unnamed. For the first topic, we found that for each of the nine components, we could identify at least two of the included papers, usually more, as having in some ways analysed the contributions made towards meeting the needs for pandemic-related research. Examples included, for coordination, the first HRS component, a paper describing a pandemic preparedness program in Australia. For other HRS components, some papers analysed prioritization systems in the United Kingdom and Iran, and another, research ethics governance across Central American countries. For the finance component, a US paper covered Operation Warp Speed's substantial funding. Papers showed existing capacity for conducting trials contributed to rapid progress on new drugs and vaccines in Brazil, the United Kingdom and the United States. Included papers showed how capacity was mobilized for knowledge production and how evidence, often locally produced, was used in many countries across the income range. Papers cited studies showing pandemic research had saved millions of lives through vaccines and repurposed drugs. For the second topic, evidence suggested that where there was a comprehensive HRS, especially with an overall strategy, considerable progress was made.The Commentary's added value lies in it extracting, collating and organizing data from the 13 papers to facilitate analysis of HRSs. Collectively, the papers provide evidence about the benefits of strengthening HRSs, and challenges (including resource waste) when HRSs were not well developed. This can justify a recommendation to give serious consideration to WHO's call in 2013 for a comprehensive approach to developing health research systems as fully as possible, in as many countries as possible. This could be particularly important before any future pandemics.</p>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":"23 1","pages":"95"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12291350/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Health research versus the virus: strengthening systems, saving lives.\",\"authors\":\"Stephen Robert Hanney, Bahareh Yazdizadeh\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12961-025-01354-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>For this Commentary, we selected papers from those in this journal's Thematic Series on health research systems' pandemic response. The calling notice for papers suggested possible use of a WHO framework for analysing health research systems (HRSs). Whilst it was not widely used in the reported studies, it did provide the basis for the two main, overlapping, topics for analysis in this Commentary. These, in turn, informed the selection criteria for papers. First, we selected papers that described the contributions made towards meeting the needs for pandemic-related research in at least one area we could classify as being one of the nine components of a HRS, and did so in at least one jurisdiction. Second, we identified papers that could contribute to an analysis of how comprehensive HRSs facilitated progress in meeting the needs for pandemic-related research.Using the selection criteria, we included 13 papers in the Commentary covering research in 22 named countries, and many others unnamed. For the first topic, we found that for each of the nine components, we could identify at least two of the included papers, usually more, as having in some ways analysed the contributions made towards meeting the needs for pandemic-related research. Examples included, for coordination, the first HRS component, a paper describing a pandemic preparedness program in Australia. For other HRS components, some papers analysed prioritization systems in the United Kingdom and Iran, and another, research ethics governance across Central American countries. For the finance component, a US paper covered Operation Warp Speed's substantial funding. Papers showed existing capacity for conducting trials contributed to rapid progress on new drugs and vaccines in Brazil, the United Kingdom and the United States. Included papers showed how capacity was mobilized for knowledge production and how evidence, often locally produced, was used in many countries across the income range. Papers cited studies showing pandemic research had saved millions of lives through vaccines and repurposed drugs. For the second topic, evidence suggested that where there was a comprehensive HRS, especially with an overall strategy, considerable progress was made.The Commentary's added value lies in it extracting, collating and organizing data from the 13 papers to facilitate analysis of HRSs. Collectively, the papers provide evidence about the benefits of strengthening HRSs, and challenges (including resource waste) when HRSs were not well developed. This can justify a recommendation to give serious consideration to WHO's call in 2013 for a comprehensive approach to developing health research systems as fully as possible, in as many countries as possible. This could be particularly important before any future pandemics.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12870,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Research Policy and Systems\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"95\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12291350/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Research Policy and Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-025-01354-4\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Research Policy and Systems","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-025-01354-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在本评论中,我们从该杂志关于卫生研究系统大流行应对的专题系列中选择了论文。论文征集通知建议可能使用世卫组织框架来分析卫生研究系统。虽然它在报告的研究中没有广泛使用,但它确实为本评注中分析的两个主要重叠主题提供了基础。这些,反过来,通知论文的选择标准。首先,我们选择的论文描述了在至少一个我们可以归类为HRS九个组成部分之一的领域为满足大流行相关研究的需要所做的贡献,并且至少在一个司法管辖区这样做。其次,我们确定了有助于分析综合人权报告如何促进在满足大流行相关研究需要方面取得进展的论文。根据选择标准,我们在评论中收录了13篇论文,涵盖了22个指定国家和许多其他未命名的国家的研究。对于第一个专题,我们发现,对于9个组成部分中的每一个,我们可以确定至少有两篇(通常更多)纳入的论文在某种程度上分析了为满足与大流行病有关的研究需要所作的贡献。例如,在协调方面,HRS的第一个组成部分是一份描述澳大利亚流行病防范方案的文件。对于HRS的其他组成部分,一些论文分析了英国和伊朗的优先排序系统,另一些论文分析了中美洲国家的研究伦理治理。在融资部分,一份美国文件涵盖了“曲速行动”的大量资金。论文显示,现有的试验能力促进了巴西、联合王国和美国在新药和疫苗方面的快速进展。所收录的论文显示了如何为知识生产调动能力,以及如何在不同收入范围的许多国家使用往往是当地产生的证据。论文引用的研究表明,大流行研究通过疫苗和重新利用药物挽救了数百万人的生命。关于第二个专题,有证据表明,凡是制定了全面的人力资源调查,特别是制定了总体战略的地方,就会取得相当大的进展。《评论》的附加值在于对13篇论文的数据进行了提取、整理和组织,便于对HRSs进行分析。总的来说,这些论文提供了证据,说明了加强人力资源管理系统的好处,以及在人力资源管理系统不发达的情况下面临的挑战(包括资源浪费)。这就有理由建议认真考虑世卫组织2013年的呼吁,即在尽可能多的国家采取尽可能全面的方法发展卫生研究系统。这在未来任何大流行之前可能尤为重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Health research versus the virus: strengthening systems, saving lives.

For this Commentary, we selected papers from those in this journal's Thematic Series on health research systems' pandemic response. The calling notice for papers suggested possible use of a WHO framework for analysing health research systems (HRSs). Whilst it was not widely used in the reported studies, it did provide the basis for the two main, overlapping, topics for analysis in this Commentary. These, in turn, informed the selection criteria for papers. First, we selected papers that described the contributions made towards meeting the needs for pandemic-related research in at least one area we could classify as being one of the nine components of a HRS, and did so in at least one jurisdiction. Second, we identified papers that could contribute to an analysis of how comprehensive HRSs facilitated progress in meeting the needs for pandemic-related research.Using the selection criteria, we included 13 papers in the Commentary covering research in 22 named countries, and many others unnamed. For the first topic, we found that for each of the nine components, we could identify at least two of the included papers, usually more, as having in some ways analysed the contributions made towards meeting the needs for pandemic-related research. Examples included, for coordination, the first HRS component, a paper describing a pandemic preparedness program in Australia. For other HRS components, some papers analysed prioritization systems in the United Kingdom and Iran, and another, research ethics governance across Central American countries. For the finance component, a US paper covered Operation Warp Speed's substantial funding. Papers showed existing capacity for conducting trials contributed to rapid progress on new drugs and vaccines in Brazil, the United Kingdom and the United States. Included papers showed how capacity was mobilized for knowledge production and how evidence, often locally produced, was used in many countries across the income range. Papers cited studies showing pandemic research had saved millions of lives through vaccines and repurposed drugs. For the second topic, evidence suggested that where there was a comprehensive HRS, especially with an overall strategy, considerable progress was made.The Commentary's added value lies in it extracting, collating and organizing data from the 13 papers to facilitate analysis of HRSs. Collectively, the papers provide evidence about the benefits of strengthening HRSs, and challenges (including resource waste) when HRSs were not well developed. This can justify a recommendation to give serious consideration to WHO's call in 2013 for a comprehensive approach to developing health research systems as fully as possible, in as many countries as possible. This could be particularly important before any future pandemics.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health Research Policy and Systems
Health Research Policy and Systems HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
7.50%
发文量
124
审稿时长
27 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Research Policy and Systems is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal that aims to provide a platform for the global research community to share their views, findings, insights and successes. Health Research Policy and Systems considers manuscripts that investigate the role of evidence-based health policy and health research systems in ensuring the efficient utilization and application of knowledge to improve health and health equity, especially in developing countries. Research is the foundation for improvements in public health. The problem is that people involved in different areas of research, together with managers and administrators in charge of research entities, do not communicate sufficiently with each other.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信