Transformation of the Algorithm for Prioritising Clinical Trial Development in Kazakhstan Based on Practical Significance.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES International Journal of Health Planning and Management Pub Date : 2025-01-10 DOI:10.1002/hpm.3902
Talgat Nurgozhin, Gulnara Kulkayeva, Margarita Graf, Valentina Tarasova, Adlet Tabarov
{"title":"Transformation of the Algorithm for Prioritising Clinical Trial Development in Kazakhstan Based on Practical Significance.","authors":"Talgat Nurgozhin, Gulnara Kulkayeva, Margarita Graf, Valentina Tarasova, Adlet Tabarov","doi":"10.1002/hpm.3902","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The research relevance is determined by the need for rational use of limited resources in the healthcare sector and the importance of implementing the results of scientific research into medical practice to improve the quality of medical care. The study aims to identify key criteria and develop a system for evaluating clinical trials to prioritise the most promising areas based on their practical applicability in healthcare. The expert evaluation method of 17 research projects in the field of clinical medicine funded by government grants, involving 37 experts, was used to achieve the objective. The experts conducted the assessment using a multi-criteria system, including 4 categories and about 20 individual indicators. The results showed that 58.8% of the projects required a change in the composition of the teams, and in 70.6% of cases, third-party organisations were involved for methodological support. About 41.2% of applications had a solid scientific basis, but the demand for the results of 17.6% of projects decreased due to the COVID-19 pandemic. For 23.5% of projects, the proposed topics were of low public demand. Only 47.1% of the projects demonstrated interest in addressing national health issues. In 17.2% of fundamental projects, assessing the economic efficiency was difficult. In 23.5% of cases, projects could have been financed from other sources. The timeframe of 3 years was assessed as insufficient for 76.5% of highly specialised projects. Based on the analysis, recommendations for improving processes to increase the practical significance of research are formulated. The study contributes to developing an evaluation methodology and improving the efficiency of grant funding in medicine.</p>","PeriodicalId":47637,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Health Planning and Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Health Planning and Management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.3902","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The research relevance is determined by the need for rational use of limited resources in the healthcare sector and the importance of implementing the results of scientific research into medical practice to improve the quality of medical care. The study aims to identify key criteria and develop a system for evaluating clinical trials to prioritise the most promising areas based on their practical applicability in healthcare. The expert evaluation method of 17 research projects in the field of clinical medicine funded by government grants, involving 37 experts, was used to achieve the objective. The experts conducted the assessment using a multi-criteria system, including 4 categories and about 20 individual indicators. The results showed that 58.8% of the projects required a change in the composition of the teams, and in 70.6% of cases, third-party organisations were involved for methodological support. About 41.2% of applications had a solid scientific basis, but the demand for the results of 17.6% of projects decreased due to the COVID-19 pandemic. For 23.5% of projects, the proposed topics were of low public demand. Only 47.1% of the projects demonstrated interest in addressing national health issues. In 17.2% of fundamental projects, assessing the economic efficiency was difficult. In 23.5% of cases, projects could have been financed from other sources. The timeframe of 3 years was assessed as insufficient for 76.5% of highly specialised projects. Based on the analysis, recommendations for improving processes to increase the practical significance of research are formulated. The study contributes to developing an evaluation methodology and improving the efficiency of grant funding in medicine.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于实践意义的哈萨克斯坦临床试验开发优先排序算法转化
研究相关性是由合理利用医疗保健部门有限资源的需要和将科学研究成果落实到医疗实践中以提高医疗质量的重要性决定的。该研究旨在确定关键标准并开发一个评估临床试验的系统,以根据临床试验在医疗保健中的实际适用性优先考虑最有前途的领域。采用专家评价方法对17个政府资助临床医学领域的研究项目进行评价,涉及37名专家。专家们使用多标准系统进行评估,包括4个类别和大约20个单独指标。结果显示,58.8%的项目需要改变团队的组成,70.6%的项目需要第三方组织提供方法支持。约41.2%的申请具有坚实的科学基础,但17.6%的项目因新冠肺炎疫情而对结果的需求下降。在23.5%的项目中,建议的主题是公众不太需要的。只有47.1%的项目表现出对解决国家卫生问题的兴趣。17.2%的基础建设项目经济效益评价困难。23.5%的项目本来可以从其他来源获得资金。据评估,对于76.5%的高度专业化项目来说,三年的时间框架是不够的。在此基础上,提出了改进流程的建议,以提高研究的现实意义。该研究有助于制定评估方法和提高医学资助的效率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
3.70%
发文量
197
期刊介绍: Policy making and implementation, planning and management are widely recognized as central to effective health systems and services and to better health. Globalization, and the economic circumstances facing groups of countries worldwide, meanwhile present a great challenge for health planning and management. The aim of this quarterly journal is to offer a forum for publications which direct attention to major issues in health policy, planning and management. The intention is to maintain a balance between theory and practice, from a variety of disciplines, fields and perspectives. The Journal is explicitly international and multidisciplinary in scope and appeal: articles about policy, planning and management in countries at various stages of political, social, cultural and economic development are welcomed, as are those directed at the different levels (national, regional, local) of the health sector. Manuscripts are invited from a spectrum of different disciplines e.g., (the social sciences, management and medicine) as long as they advance our knowledge and understanding of the health sector. The Journal is therefore global, and eclectic.
期刊最新文献
A Case Report of a Mixed-Methods Assessment of Patient Experiences to Inform Quality Improvement in an Emergency Department in Argentina. Defining Health Management: A Conceptual Foundation for Excellence Through Efficiency, Sustainability and Equity. A Next Available Appointment (NAA) Tool to Better Manage Patient Delay Risk and Patient Scheduling Expectations in Specialist Clinics. Prevalence and Associated Factors of Long-Acting and Permanent Methods (LAPMs) of Family Planning Among Women of Reproductive Age: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Long-Term Care Insurance and Health Inequality: Evidence From China.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1