Search results

Objectives: Over the last 2 decades, the World Health Organization (WHO) has proposed a global strategy and initiatives to establish a Health Research System (HRS) focusing on Health Research Quality and Standardization (HRQS), Health Research Knowledge Transfer and Dissemination (HRKTD), and Health Research Translation and Utilization into Health Care Decisions and Policies (HRTUDP). Despite the increase in health research productivity over the past several decades, HRS Capacity (HRSC) in Palestine and in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region has rarely been objectively evaluated. This study aims at eliciting the perceptions of HRS performers in Palestine in order to understand the status of HRSC, identify gaps, and generate policies and solutions capable of strengthening HRSC in Palestine. Methods: Key informants from three sectors, namely government, academia, and local and international organizations, were selected purposively based on different sampling methods: criterion, critical case, snowball, and homogeneous sampling. Fifty-two in-depth interviews with key informants and a total of fifty-two individuals, participating in six focus groups, were conducted by the principal investigator in Palestine. Data were analyzed by using MAXQDA 12. Results: The overall pattern of the Palestinian HRSC is relatively weak. The key findings revealed that while HR productivity in Palestine is improving, HRQS is at an average level and quality guidelines are not followed due to paucity of understanding, policies, and resources. HRKTD is a central challenge with both a dearth of conceptualization of translational science and inadequate implementation. The factors related to inadequate HRKTD include lack of awareness on the part of the researchers, inadequate regulatory frameworks and mechanisms for both communication and collaboration between and among researchers and policy-makers and clinicians, and lack of availability of, and credibility in, systematized and reliable HR data. Despite the limited knowledge ...

The COVID-19 pandemic is considerably the biggest global health challenge of this modern era. Spreading across all regions of the world, this corona virus disease has disrupted even some of the most advanced economies and healthcare systems. With an increasing global death toll and no near end in sight, questions on the efficacy of global response mechanisms, including the role and relevancy of global health institutions, have emerged. Using a reflexive content analytic approach, this study sheds light on some of these questions, underscoring the disconnect between science, policymaking, and society. Global health funding approaches; politicization of the pandemic, including political blame gaming; mistrust of government and other institutions; and a lack of robust accountability measures are some of the pandemic response obstacles. However, COVID-19 has also presented an opportunity for a collaboration that may potentially solidify global solidarity. A pandemic response built on strategic global health diplomacy, vaccine diplomacy, and science diplomacy can spur both political and economic benefits, advancing development, health security, and justice. The virus thrives and flourishes in face of political divisions and lack of cooperation. While the current global crisis has exacerbated the existing social injustices in societies, national unity and global solidarity is essential to winning the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: In 2011, the WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region committee launched a strategy for scaling up research in the region to address the countries' health needs through formulating and analysing the National Health Research System (HRS). Stewardship comprises three functions, namely governance, policy and priorities, and is a central pillar of this system to ensure a well-organised and functioning HRS. This study aims to examine the perceptions of the HRS performers to understand these functions and to generate insights for system strengthening. Methods: The study was carried out in Palestine, targetting three sectors in the health field, including relevant governmental health institutions, schools of public health, and major local and international health agencies. The data were collected through 52 in-depth interviews (IDIs) and 6 focus group discussions (FGDs) with policy-makers, academics, directors, and experts. Participants and institutions were selected purposively based on a set of criteria and peer review. Results: A total of 104 experts participated in the IDIs (52 participants) and FGDs (52 participants in 6 FGDs), highlighting that stewardship functions remain problematic and insufficiently performed, mainly due to a missing health research structural and regulatory framework and dispersed health research work. Despite the limited good practices, the majority of the participants described the Ethical Review and Clearance as weak due to the lack of an agreed-upon national committee and procedural quality and ethics guidelines for non-compliance. A policy or strategy dedicated to health research is lacking. The exercises of research priority-setting appear to be evolving despite the lack of consensus and the low levels of knowledge and experience in research prioritisation. Common gaps, such as weak political will and capacity support, the absence of a national unified regulating body, and the indirect effects of political conditions on strengthening the HRS as well as other sectors, also emerged. Conclusions: The stewardship functions of the Palestinian HRS remain weak along with substantial political, structural, and resources and capacity gaps. The study emphasises the imperative need to initiate strategic efforts led by the MOH and the Palestinian National Institute of Public Health alongside with other players to strengthen a national HRS through improving the stewardship functions. To achieve this, attention and support of decision-makers, involvement, mobilisation and strategic dialogue are indispensable, in order to embark on building a well-regulated and coordinated structure, operational research policy, and prioritisation of essential research.