020: SETTING THE MEDIUM-TERM HEALTH POLICY SYSTEMS RESEARCH AGENDA SETTING

• Published in: BMJ open 2015-01, Vol.5 (Suppl 1), p.bmjopen-2015-forum2015abstracts.20
• Main Authors: Constante Alano Caluya, Pura Angela Wee Co, Chua Ho, Beverly Lorraine, Villegas Reyes, Katherine Ann
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• ISSN: 2044-6055
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-forum2015abstracts.20

BackgroundThe Philippines continues its efforts in addressing inequalities in healthcare access and improving health outcomes. In order to do this, the country must also improve its knowledge base through health policy and system researches. The Department of Health's initiative to systematically determine the Medium Term Research Agenda is a purposive effort in identifying research priorities that are needed to fill knowledge gaps relevant to the achievement of universal health care. For 2014–2016, the Health Policy Development and Planning Bureau (HDPBP) and its Research Reference Hub (RRH) employed a more strategic approach to its agenda determination.ObjectivesThe objective of employing a systematic agenda setting was to determine strategic and coherent health policy and system research priorities for the medium-term through a consultative and evidence-based process, informed by the current research situation in this field of study.MethodsThere were three phases to this agenda setting approach. The desk review assembled pertinent information on the research gaps according to health systems thematic grouping following the framework of Shakarishvili et al (2011). The review provided the platform for the second phase of discussion among topic technical experts to guide the identification of research gap priorities. Finally, the shortlist of research topics were vetted in a series of prioritization exercises with members of the RRH and the Secretary of Health, to confirm the list of medium term research agenda.ResultThe process yielded a total of 18 topics divided into four health system components: (1) Health Financing Systems (7 topics), (2) Health Services (3 topics) (3) Governance and Stewardship (4 topics) and, (4) Monitoring and Evaluation (ME)/Health Information Systems (HIS) (4 topics). The exercise was able to draw in key experts from these fields and they were able to provide input on which topics should be prioritized. The succeeding vetting exercise that happened at two levels, the RRH and the Secretary of Health, confirmed the importance of the topics, which were further merged into 11 strategic ones in the context of Universal Health Care.ConclusionA health systems research prioritization process that is guided by the use of evidence is important in order to generate information that address issues in health care access and outcomes. Some important recommendations from this exercise include the: (1) Strengthening the rigor of agenda-setting e