BackgroundIn recognition of the need for long-term planning for global health research, and to inform future global health research priorities, the United Kingdom Department for International Development (DfID) carried out a public consultation between May and June 2015. The consultation aimed to elicit views on the (1) the long-term future global health research priorities; (2) areas likely to be less important over time; (3) how to improve research uptake in low-income countries; and (4) how to build research capacity in low-income countries.MethodsAn online consultation was used to survey a wide range of participants on global health research priorities. The qualitative data was analysed using a thematic analysis, with frequency of codes in responses tabulated to approximate relative importance of themes and sub-themes.ResultsThe public consultation yielded 421 responses. The survey responses confirmed the growing importance of non-communicable disease as a global health research priority, being placed above infectious diseases. Participants felt that the key area for reducing funding prioritisation was infectious diseases. The involvement of policymakers and other key stakeholders was seen as critical to drive research uptake, as was collaboration and partnership. Several methods to build research capacity in low-income countries were described, including capacity building educational programmes, mentorship programmes and research institution collaboration and partnership.ConclusionsThe outcomes from this consultation survey provide valuable insights into how DfID stakeholders prioritise research. The outcomes from this survey were reviewed alongside other elements of a wider DfID consultation process to help inform long-term research prioritisation of global health research. There are limitations in this approach; the opportunistic nature of the survey’s dissemination means the findings presented may not be representative of the full range of stakeholders or views.

Objectives : The objective of this study is to investigate the feasibility and outcomes of an integrated screening programme for risk factors associated with diabetes and hypertension in a busy HIV treatment clinic in rural Swaziland. Methods: The screening programme identifies patients with risk factors for hypertension and diabetes mellitus (DM). Patients with one or more risk factor also had their blood glucose (BG) tested (random or fasting). High readings for BP or BG were referred for follow-up diagnostic tests at their local community health facility. Results: Four hundred (6.9%) of 5,821 patients screened positive for at least one risk factor, of which most common was high body mass index (BMI) (5.5%), followed by high BP (3.2%), and relative with diabetes (0.7%). Three point six percent of patients with a risk factor had high BG, and a further 10% had a reading indicative of pre-diabetes. There were problems with patient's attendance and information flow to/from the community facilities. Only 3.7% of patients with high BP, and 23% of patients with high BG, were known to have had full follow-up diagnostic tests. Only one patient was confirmed to have DM, and six patients were confirmed to be hypertensive. Conclusions: This programme suggests it is feasible to integrate non-communicable diseases (NCD) screening programmes in low-resource sub-Saharan African HIV treatment services. However the known yield was low, and there were challenges to ensure follow-up diagnosis in the health centres. There is a need to do the confirmatory second test prior to a referral to community facilities for follow-up care. The screening of HIV clinic patients in this population may not be cost-effective, and a higher priority may be the general/outpatient population.