Institutional Repository UDD

Priority setting for mental health research in Chile

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Zitko, Pedro
dc.contributor.author Borghero, Francesca
dc.contributor.author Zavala, Cynthia
dc.contributor.author Markkula, Niina
dc.contributor.author Santelices, Emilio
dc.contributor.author Libuy, Nicolás
dc.contributor.author Pemjean, Alfredo
dc.date.accessioned 2018-01-15T12:53:57Z
dc.date.available 2018-01-15T12:53:57Z
dc.date.issued 2017
dc.identifier.citation Int J Ment Health Syst (2017) 11:61
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/11447/1893
dc.identifier.uri http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13033-017-0168-9
dc.description.abstract Background: Scientifc knowledge is a fundamental tool for making informed health policy decisions, but the link between health research and public policy decision-making is often missing. This study aims to identify and prioritize a national set of research gaps in mental health. Methods: A multi-approach method to identify gaps in knowledge was developed, including (1) document analysis and identifcation of possible research questions, (2) interviews to Ministry of Health key informants, (3) focus groups with diferent stakeholders, and (4) a web consultation addressed to academics. The identifed gaps were translated to a standardized format of research questions. Criteria for prioritization were extracted from interviews and focus groups. Then, a team of various professionals applied them for scoring each question research. Findings: Fifty-four people participated in the knowledge gaps identifcation process through an online consultation (n = 23) and focus groups (n = 18). Prioritization criteria identifed were: extent of the knowledge gap, size of the objective population, potential beneft, vulnerability, urgency and applicability. 155 research questions were prioritized, of which 44% were related to evaluation of systems and/or health programs, and 26% to evaluation of interventions, including questions related to cost-efectiveness. 30% of the research questions came from the online consultation, and 36% from key informants. Users groups contributed with 10% of total research questions. Conclusion: A fnal priority setting for mental health research was reached, making available for authorities and research agencies a list of 155 research questions ordered by relevance. The experience documented here could serve to other countries interested in developing a similar process.
dc.format.extent 8
dc.language.iso en_US
dc.publisher BioMed Central
dc.subject Mental health
dc.subject Priority setting
dc.subject Public health policies
dc.subject Mental health research
dc.title Priority setting for mental health research in Chile
dc.type Artículo


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search DSpace


Browse

My Account