Background
Health research priority setting (HRPS) is essential to optimise the impact of health systems research investment [
1], as the process of setting health research priorities can improve the efficiency of research fund utilisation and reduce duplication [
2]. With this approach, a country could identify the health research needed in a transparent and systematic way [
3], as well as align research initiatives to current needs [
4].
Considerable investment goes into health research yearly, yet the resources required for health research funding far exceed availability. On top of this, Malaysia’s health system continues to face challenges in rising healthcare demands, shift in disease burden from infectious to non-communicable diseases, and in demographic transition [
5]. Ultimately, the national health goal is to improve the health of Malaysia’s population by ensuring universal access and quality healthcare (UAQH), as highlighted in Malaysia’s strategic plans for national development (termed as Malaysia Plan (MP)) [
6].
In Malaysia, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a government agency with a network of research institutes under the Ministry of Health (MOH) Malaysia, funds health research initiatives that are aligned with national health priorities. Within the NIH and MOH, there have been ongoing efforts to address the gap between research, action and policy [
7].
One of the key efforts was the establishment of HRPS in MOH. In 2011, the HRPS for the tenth MP had identified and prioritised health research areas in the following clusters: health systems, healthy lifestyles, empowerment, burden of disease, health technology and sustainable environment. Under health systems research, priorities were categorised into the domains of health financing and economics, governance, health information, human resources for health and service delivery [
7]. These research domains were retained in the HRPS for the eleventh MP in 2017 and were collectively identified as the UAQH cluster [
8].
Despite the establishment of HRPS processes in MOH, the impact and implications of research in supporting informed decision and policy-making are minimally known; only research output data such as the number of reports, publications and presentations produced were collected.
It is recognised that research impact assessment is challenging due to the lack of systematic approaches to evaluate research impact, particularly impact on health policy and practice [
9]. Various frameworks have been developed to overcome this issue [
10], such as the Payback Framework [
11], UK Research Excellence Framework (REF 2014) [
12], and the Becker Medical Library Model [
13]. Among these models, the Payback Framework is one of the most commonly used frameworks [
14]. Developed by the Health Economics Research Group (HERG), the framework defines research impacts into five categories [
11], that they and others subsequently presented as: knowledge production, benefits to future research and research use, informing policy and product development, health and health sector benefits as well as broader economic benefits [
15,
16]. The Payback Framework addresses conceptual issues and is applied to collect, analyse and report data consistently to capture research impacts and outputs, serving as a tool to assist funders and stakeholders to evaluate possible impact from research [
17].
This study aimed to assess the impact of funded prioritised research to improve future HRPS and research fund allocation. We used the Payback Framework [
11] to assess the impact of research projects, adopted the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) methodology [
1] for the identification and determination of research priority areas and used relevant conceptual frameworks for UAQH research gap identification.
Discussion
This study shed light into the impact of UAQH research funded in 2011–2015 in Malaysia. The concentration of funding in HE and SD domains was evident, likely due to the large number of priority areas identified in the HRPS for 10th MP in those domains. Almost all completed projects achieved some measure of policy impact and had outputs for knowledge production. For fund allocation, stakeholders deemed the criteria of answerability and importance to be more valuable than magnitude and affirmed that SD should have a larger share of the pie. The use of multipronged approach of conceptual frameworks, literature search, stakeholder engagement and research gaps review from previous research efforts led to a more comprehensive list of research areas for future funding.
Research funding is driven by many factors, such as the interests of research funders and stakeholders. Often, it is unguided by research priorities, causing most funded research to have little contribution to health systems and policy [
29]. For example, in Mexico, most health research did not contribute to health policies as many projects were funded without priority setting [
30]. The need to set priorities for health research for effective fund utilisation is crucial, in view of the potential for health systems research to contribute towards health system strengthening for universal health coverage and quality healthcare [
31].
The funded amount was not a prominent factor in determining research evidence uptake for MOH policy-making, consistent with the results from Wooding et al. [
15]. Most funded projects achieved some level of policy impact, suggesting that disseminated research on prioritised areas with policy-maker engagement could increase likelihood of research evidence integration into policy. Literature shows that despite significant lag time for translation into policy, policy-maker engagement, needs-led research and dissemination could contribute towards evidence uptake [
9,
32‐
35]. However, we did not compare research impact of prioritised with non-prioritised research.
The involvement of a wide range of stakeholders in the HRPS process provided insight into the value stakeholders placed on UAQH research. Additionally, it fostered process legitimacy [
3]. Research priorities that correspond to the needs of funders and those who could benefit from research outputs improves the overall credibility and potential health impact [
36]. The HRPS process employed in MOH Malaysia provided a means for effective stakeholder engagement in research priority setting.
The fund allocation survey revealed stakeholders’ preference on research domains, although these differed from the actual fund awarded to each domain. This is in line with the notion that research funding practices are not only influenced by perceptions and research interests, but by other factors such as evidence needs, research gaps and prioritised areas [
29,
37]. The crux is to achieve a balance between research domain importance and equitable research funding.
Research gaps and priority areas identified in the HRPS process were based upon issues in developing and sustaining efforts to improve UAQH in Malaysia. From 2011 to 2015, there was a heavier emphasis on research under SD and it continues to be of high importance, likely due to demand, number of research gaps, and conversely, reflective of capacity strengthening needs in other domains. For example, substantial research gaps continue to exist under the domain of IT as research initiatives are constrained by inadequate IT knowledge, skill, and capacity [
38], as well as budget.
Although priority setting is extremely complex and challenging with the large number of competing research ideas for limited available funding [
39], this initiative shows promising evidence that HRPS undertaken for national health research priorities in a developing country could foster better health system outcomes. The stepwise approach in our methodology was beneficial in generating priorities for distinct health research areas, compared with other priority setting processes in low or middle-income countries that addressed broad areas or specified populations/domains such as child health and mental health [
4,
40]. It is hoped that this experience could prove beneficial for other developing countries.
However, research projects assessed included only those funded by NIH. Excluded were projects with grants from other sources, either local or international, or funded through operational budgets. Additionally, this study specifically assessed projects grouped under the UAQH research cluster, and hence findings may not be applicable for other MOH research funding initiatives such as funding for environmental health, non-communicable diseases or burden of disease [
7]. We did not attempt to identify the economic or capacity building benefits of NIH-funded health research due to data unavailability, but it could form part of a future research for a more holistic measurement of research impact. Policy-maker engagement availability was studied; future exploration into degree of engagement and its benefits would be valuable for funders and applicants to increase impact.
Although response rate was 100% with key project leader involvement, the inherent subjectivity of self-reporting and timing of impact assessment could still affect results. However, Hanney et al. [
32] noted that on average, self-reported data did not seem to over-emphasise impact. This study considered all projects equally, irrespective of methodological quality, project size and impact significance, which limits and complicates efforts to draw lessons from the overall impact assessment [
32]. Despite this, research impact assessment is still essential to build evidence to demonstrate the return on investment of research funds.
We strived for stakeholder inclusivity, similar to other HRPS efforts [
3,
36], but it proved to be a challenge. Resource intensive, time sensitive, contextual and cyclical in nature, research priority setting is difficult yet beneficial for a developing country. Future research could assess the degree of knowledge translation strategies employed, extent of incorporation of national priorities into research agenda and fund allocation. Additionally, evaluation of HRPS process and the extent of achievement of desired outcomes could inform future HRPS initiatives [
36,
41].
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Director-General of Health, Malaysia for permission to publish this paper. The authors also thank all who were involved in the workshops and round-table discussions. We would like to acknowledge the contribution from the following team members of the Health Research Priority Setting for the 11th Malaysia Plan, from the NIH: Ainul Nadziha Mohd Hanafiah, Fathullah Iqbal Ab. Rahim, Mohd Fairuz bin Abdul Razak, Mohd Idris Omar, Mohd. Ridzwan Shahari, Mohd. Shaiful Jefri bin Mohd. Nor Sham, Mohd. Lutfi Fadil Lokman, Mohd. Najib Baharuddin, Nor Haniza Zakaria, Noraziani Khamis, Norazlin Muharam, Noriah Bidin, Nur Amalina Zaimi, Nurul Salwana, Nurul Zawani Zaini, Shakirah Md. Sharif, Sudharshana Mahaletchumy, Suhana Jawahir, Sunita Shanmugam, Zalilah Abdullah, and Zulkarnain Abdul Karim.