Are scientific research outputs aligned with national policy makers’ priorities? A case study of tuberculosis in Cambodia

Abstract

With funding for tuberculosis (TB) research decreasing, and the high global disease burden persisting, there are calls for increased investment in TB research. However, justification of such investments is questionable, when translation of research outputs into policy and health care improvements remains a challenge for TB and other diseases. Using TB in Cambodia as a case study, we investigate how evidence needs of national policy makers are addressed by topics covered in research publications. We first conducted a systematic review to compile all studies on TB in Cambodia published since 2000. We then identified priority areas in which evidence for policy and programme planning are required from the perspective of key national TB control stakeholders. Finally, results from the literature review were analysed in relation to the priority research areas for national policy makers to assess overlap and highlight gaps in evidence. Priority research areas were: TB-HIV co-infection; childhood TB; multidrug resistant TB (MDR-TB); and universal and equitable access to quality diagnosis and treatment. On screening 1687 unique papers retrieved from our literature search, 253 were eligible publications focusing on TB in Cambodia. Of these, only 73 (29%) addressed one of the four priority research areas. Overall, 30 (11%), five (2%), seven (2%) and 37 (14%) studies reported findings relevant to TB-HIV, childhood TB, MDR-TB and access to quality diagnosis and treatment respectively. Our analysis shows that a small proportion of the research outputs in Cambodia address priority areas for informing policy and programme planning. This case study illustrates that there is substantial room for improvement in alignment between research outputs and evidence gaps that national policy makers would like to see addressed; better coordination between researchers, funders and policy makers' on identifying priority research topics may increase the relevance of research findings to health policies and programmes.

Mitigating the impact of COVID-19 on tuberculosis and HIV services: A cross-sectional survey of 669 health professionals in 64 low and middle-income countries

“…To do this, we need to understand the range of impacts of COVID-19 on TB and HIV services, and identify feasible strategies for mitigation. Information from frontline health professionals and researchers is invaluable and often insufficiently incorporated into policy planning or in the formation of research questions [10,11]. In light of this, our study rapidly synthesised information from professionals working in affected countries, in order to identify both how COVID-19 is impacting TB and HIV services in LMIC and their recommendations for minimising disruptions.…”

Progress towards the 2020 milestones of the end TB strategy in Cambodia: estimates of age and sex specific TB incidence and mortality from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

“…Cambodia’s TB strategic plan for 2021 through 2030 includes increasingly early identification of TB cases, providing sustained and equitable access to high quality TB services, and preventing TB transmission through awareness and behavioral communication strategies [ 25 , 26 ]. The national TB program mainly concerns key and vulnerable populations including people living with HIV, elderly people (aged 55 and older), children, and people with diabetes [ 27 , 28 ]. A systematic assessment of TB trends with the inclusion of these key populations may further assist in monitoring Cambodia’s national TB goals and priorities.…”

How can we improve priority-setting for investments in health research? A case study of tuberculosis

“…Furthermore, engagement of policy-makers and users of research in shaping and conducting the studies that are funded is closely related to action of research findings, as demonstrated in a study by Kok et al [23]. In line with this concern, a recent analysis found that TB research conducted in Cambodia aligns poorly with domestic policy-makers’ priorities [24], and our findings may reflect a wider issue related to global agendas for health research being poorly aligned with local needs [25]. Although the recommendation to increase the number of stakeholders involved in prioritisation processes appears straightforward, we acknowledge the challenges in finding a balance between productivity (agreeing on a relatively small list of research priorities in the time available) and inclusion (including all voices and perspectives).…”