During the overlap period between response and recovery activities, the authors were all working in the health sector at the national level supporting coordination and strategic planning with government and partners and at the field level implementing response activities and revisiting the medium- and long-term programming approach to recovery. It is from this perspective, combined with data from existing documents such as plans, reports and policies, that we highlight the need to define a period of transition from response to recovery of the health sector as it may have important implications on the health system functioning as a whole.

BACKGROUND: Current international recommendations in generating and using evidence in Health Research Priority Setting (HRPS) include the use of systematic reviews, and systematic or scientific situational analysis. In the Philippines, the Philippine National Health Research System's (PNHRS) National Guidelines for Health Research Prioritization recommends the use of either a Combined Approach Matrix (CAM) or situational analysis in generating and using evidence for HRPS. At present, there is a lack of a gold standard in generating and utilizing evidence in HRPS.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this paper is to document a practical yet alternative/innovative approach on how evidence was generated and utilized in the process of HRPS as observed in the development of the National Unified Health Research Agenda (NUHRA) in the Philippines. Specifically, it identifies the types of knowledge products produced and their role in the process of health research agenda setting; how evidence was used and managed in the course of NUHRA development; and, the lessons learned from the experience.

METHODS: This case study is descriptive of the experience of generating and utilizing evidence for HRPS in the Philippines. The study utilized primary and secondary data. Knowledge Management (KM) was used as a lens to describe the process of generating and managing information for the NUHRA. Document analysis was used in comparing and aligning data with the integrated KM framework.

RESULTS: Pre-selected data were captured and created; shared and disseminated; and subsequently acquired and applied voluntarily by stakeholders during the process of HRPS. Relevant data was presented into various information products designed with a specific stakeholder in mind. Technical papers were developed to cater to national level stakeholders and focused on broad, nationally-relevant issues. Regional situational analysis reports focused on regional and local data and were designed for regional stakeholders to use during the development of Regional Unified Health Research Agenda (RUHRA). Infographics were developed to present the findings of the technical papers creatively and concisely and the NUHRA methodology and were presented to both national and regional stakeholders. The RUHRAs and the NUHRA were the outputs of the health research prioritization activities and will be made available through local and national channels of the PNHRS.

RECOMMENDATIONS: Opportunities for formalization and institutionalization of knowledge management for generating and using evidence in HRPS may be explored to address health information fragmentation across the health research system.

Health Information Systems ; Knowledge Management

BACKGROUND: Social dynamics, specifically personalities, power dynamics, and emotions, have been shown to influence the methods, outputs, and quality of multi-stakeholder processes, especially the development of a national health research agenda.

OBJECTIVE AND METHODS: Using a case analysis approach utilizing related conceptual frameworks, the paper determined how personalities, power dynamics, and emotions affected the research priority-setting exercise, identified lessons learned, and recommended how to effectively manage these social dynamics in consultations. Data gathering methods were participant observation and process documentation, results of which were codified and analyzed.

RESULTS: Dominant personalities, stakeholders with power, and stakeholders that openly expressed dissatisfaction were most likely to attempt to change the methods and final outputs of the consultation, with varying level of success. Other dominant personalities used their power constructively for a smooth flow of generating and agreeing on ideas.

CONCLUSION: In this case, social dynamics was shown to heavily influence the decision-making process, thus underlining its importance in organizing multisectoral representation. Effectively managing social dynamics may thus have to consider building trust and respect between participants, mediating discussions, reaching a mutually beneficial solution, and establishing and implementing mutually agreed house rules. The significant role of facilitators in developing a climate for truly inclusive participation must also be recognized.

Power (psychology) ; Expressed Emotion ; Consensus ; Personality ; Emotions