菲律宾分析卫生政策和系统研究组织能力的概念框架。

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Health policy and planning Pub Date : 2024-09-10 DOI:10.1093/heapol/czae062
Harvy Joy Liwanag, Ferlie Rose Ann Famaloan, Katherine Ann Reyes, Reiner Lorenzo Tamayo, Lynn Daryl Villamater, Renee Lynn Cabañero-Gasgonia, Annika Frahsa, Pio Justin Asuncion
{"title":"菲律宾分析卫生政策和系统研究组织能力的概念框架。","authors":"Harvy Joy Liwanag, Ferlie Rose Ann Famaloan, Katherine Ann Reyes, Reiner Lorenzo Tamayo, Lynn Daryl Villamater, Renee Lynn Cabañero-Gasgonia, Annika Frahsa, Pio Justin Asuncion","doi":"10.1093/heapol/czae062","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Organizations that perform Health Policy and Systems Research (HPSR) need robust capacities, but it remains unclear what these organizations should look like in practice. We sought to define 'HPSRIs' (pronounced as 'hip-srees', i.e. 'Health Policy and Systems Research Institutions') as organizational models and developed a conceptual framework for assessing their capacities based on a set of attributes. We implemented a multi-method study in the Philippines that comprised: a qualitative analysis of perspectives from 33 stakeholders in the HPSR ecosystem on the functions, strengths and challenges of HPSRIs; a workshop with 17 multi-sectoral representatives who collectively developed a conceptual framework for assessing organizational capacities for HPSRIs based on organizational attributes; and a survey instrument development process that determined indicators for assessing these attributes. We defined HPSRIs to be formally constituted organizations (or institutions) with the minimum essential function of research. Beyond the research function, our framework outlined eight organizational attributes of well-performing HPSRIs that were grouped into four domains, namely: 'research expertise' (1) excellent research, (2) capacity-building driven; 'leadership and management' (3) efficient administration, (4) financially sustainable; 'policy translation' (5) policy orientation, (6) effective communication; and 'networking' (7) participatory approach, (8) convening influence. We developed a self-assessment instrument around these attributes that HPSRIs could use to inform their respective organizational development and collectively discuss their shared challenges. In addition to developing the framework, the workshop also analysed the positionality of HPSRIs and their interactions with other institutional actors in the HPSR ecosystem, and recommends the importance of enhancing these interactions and assigning responsibility to a national/regional authority that will foster the community of HPSRIs. When tailored to their context, HPSRIs that function at the nexus of research, management, policy and networks help achieve the main purpose of HPSR, which is to 'achieve collective health goals and contribute to policy outcomes'.</p>","PeriodicalId":12926,"journal":{"name":"Health policy and planning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11384115/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A conceptual framework from the Philippines to analyse organizational capacities for health policy and systems research.\",\"authors\":\"Harvy Joy Liwanag, Ferlie Rose Ann Famaloan, Katherine Ann Reyes, Reiner Lorenzo Tamayo, Lynn Daryl Villamater, Renee Lynn Cabañero-Gasgonia, Annika Frahsa, Pio Justin Asuncion\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/heapol/czae062\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Organizations that perform Health Policy and Systems Research (HPSR) need robust capacities, but it remains unclear what these organizations should look like in practice. We sought to define 'HPSRIs' (pronounced as 'hip-srees', i.e. 'Health Policy and Systems Research Institutions') as organizational models and developed a conceptual framework for assessing their capacities based on a set of attributes. We implemented a multi-method study in the Philippines that comprised: a qualitative analysis of perspectives from 33 stakeholders in the HPSR ecosystem on the functions, strengths and challenges of HPSRIs; a workshop with 17 multi-sectoral representatives who collectively developed a conceptual framework for assessing organizational capacities for HPSRIs based on organizational attributes; and a survey instrument development process that determined indicators for assessing these attributes. We defined HPSRIs to be formally constituted organizations (or institutions) with the minimum essential function of research. Beyond the research function, our framework outlined eight organizational attributes of well-performing HPSRIs that were grouped into four domains, namely: 'research expertise' (1) excellent research, (2) capacity-building driven; 'leadership and management' (3) efficient administration, (4) financially sustainable; 'policy translation' (5) policy orientation, (6) effective communication; and 'networking' (7) participatory approach, (8) convening influence. We developed a self-assessment instrument around these attributes that HPSRIs could use to inform their respective organizational development and collectively discuss their shared challenges. In addition to developing the framework, the workshop also analysed the positionality of HPSRIs and their interactions with other institutional actors in the HPSR ecosystem, and recommends the importance of enhancing these interactions and assigning responsibility to a national/regional authority that will foster the community of HPSRIs. When tailored to their context, HPSRIs that function at the nexus of research, management, policy and networks help achieve the main purpose of HPSR, which is to 'achieve collective health goals and contribute to policy outcomes'.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12926,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health policy and planning\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11384115/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health policy and planning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czae062\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health policy and planning","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czae062","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

开展卫生政策与系统研究(HPSR)的机构需要强大的能力,但这些机构在实践中应该是什么样的,目前仍不清楚。我们试图将 "HPSRIs"(读作 "hip-srees",即 "卫生政策与系统研究机构")定义为组织模式,并开发了一个概念框架,用于根据一系列属性评估其能力。我们在菲律宾开展了一项采用多种方法的研究,其中包括:对卫生政策与系统研究生态系统中 33 个利益相关者关于卫生政策与系统研究机构的功能、优势和挑战的观点进行定性分析;与 17 位多部门代表举行研讨会,他们共同制定了一个概念框架,用于根据组织属性评估卫生政策与系统研究机构的组织能力;以及制定调查工具,确定评估这些属性的指标。我们将高水平科学研究机构定义为正式组建的组织(或机构),具有最基本的研究职能。除研究职能外,我们的框架还概述了表现良好的高水平科学研究机构的八个组织属性,并将其分为四个领域,即:研究专长:(1) 卓越的研究,(2) 能力建设驱动;领导和管理:(3) 高效的行政管理,(4) 财务可持续;政策转化:(5) 政策导向,(6) 有效沟通;以及网络:(7) 参与式方法,(8) 召集影响力。我们围绕这些属性开发了一个自我评估工具,供高级别政治研究机构用于指导各自的组织发展,并集体讨论共同面临的挑战。除制定框架外,研讨会还分析了 HPSRI 的地位及其与 HPSR 生态系统中其他机构参与者的互动,并建议必须加强这些互动,将责任分配给国家/地区当局,以促进 HPSRI 社区的发展。在研究、管理、政策和网络之间发挥作用的 HPSRIs,如能根据具体情况进行调整,将有助于实现 HPSR 的主要目的,即 "实现集体健康目标并促进政策成果"。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
A conceptual framework from the Philippines to analyse organizational capacities for health policy and systems research.

Organizations that perform Health Policy and Systems Research (HPSR) need robust capacities, but it remains unclear what these organizations should look like in practice. We sought to define 'HPSRIs' (pronounced as 'hip-srees', i.e. 'Health Policy and Systems Research Institutions') as organizational models and developed a conceptual framework for assessing their capacities based on a set of attributes. We implemented a multi-method study in the Philippines that comprised: a qualitative analysis of perspectives from 33 stakeholders in the HPSR ecosystem on the functions, strengths and challenges of HPSRIs; a workshop with 17 multi-sectoral representatives who collectively developed a conceptual framework for assessing organizational capacities for HPSRIs based on organizational attributes; and a survey instrument development process that determined indicators for assessing these attributes. We defined HPSRIs to be formally constituted organizations (or institutions) with the minimum essential function of research. Beyond the research function, our framework outlined eight organizational attributes of well-performing HPSRIs that were grouped into four domains, namely: 'research expertise' (1) excellent research, (2) capacity-building driven; 'leadership and management' (3) efficient administration, (4) financially sustainable; 'policy translation' (5) policy orientation, (6) effective communication; and 'networking' (7) participatory approach, (8) convening influence. We developed a self-assessment instrument around these attributes that HPSRIs could use to inform their respective organizational development and collectively discuss their shared challenges. In addition to developing the framework, the workshop also analysed the positionality of HPSRIs and their interactions with other institutional actors in the HPSR ecosystem, and recommends the importance of enhancing these interactions and assigning responsibility to a national/regional authority that will foster the community of HPSRIs. When tailored to their context, HPSRIs that function at the nexus of research, management, policy and networks help achieve the main purpose of HPSR, which is to 'achieve collective health goals and contribute to policy outcomes'.

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 policy and planning
Health policy and planning 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
3.10%
发文量
98
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Health Policy and Planning publishes health policy and systems research focusing on low- and middle-income countries. Our journal provides an international forum for publishing original and high-quality research that addresses questions pertinent to policy-makers, public health researchers and practitioners. Health Policy and Planning is published 10 times a year.
期刊最新文献
Validity of a visual analogue scale to measure and value the perceived level of sanitation - evidence from Ghana and Mozambique. Care seeking during pregnancy: testing the assumptions behind Service Delivery Reform for Maternal and Newborn Health in rural Kenya. Organizational resilience and primary care nurses' work conditions and wellbeing: a multilevel empirical study in China. Examining sustained sub-national health system development: experience from the Western Cape province, South Africa, 1994-2016. Beliefs of Pentecostal pastors concerning the use of antiretroviral treatment among Pentecostal Christians living with HIV in a suburb of Cape Town-South Africa: a community health systems lens.
×
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