03148nas a2200289   4500000000100000008004100001260003400042653001900076653002200095653003100117653001800148653002500166100001500191700001700206700001300223700001400236700001800250700002600268700001300294700001600307245012400323856007800447300001200525490000700537520230000544022001402844       2024                            d  bOxford University Press (OUP)10aHealth systems10aCapacity building10aorganizational development10aHealth Policy10aresearch translation1 aLiwanag HJ1 aFamaloan FRA1 aReyes KA1 aTamayo RL1 aVillamater LD1 aCabañero-Gasgonia RL1 aFrahsa A1 aAsuncion PJ00aA conceptual framework from the Philippines to analyse organizational capacities for health policy and systems research  uhttps://academic.oup.com/heapol/article-pdf/39/8/878/59069127/czae062.pdf  a878-8890 v393 a<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>
  a1460-2237