↓ Skip to main content

The Palestinian health research system: who orchestrates the system, how and based on what? A qualitative assessment

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Palestinian health research system: who orchestrates the system, how and based on what? A qualitative assessment
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12961-018-0347-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mohammed AlKhaldi, Abdulsalam Alkaiyat, Yehia Abed, Constanze Pfeiffer, Rana Halaseh, Ruba Salah, Manar Idries, Said Abueida, Ibrahim Idries, Ibrahim Jeries, Hamza Meghari, Ali Shaar, Marcel Tanner, Saleem Haj-Yahia

Abstract

In 2011, the WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region committee launched a strategy for scaling up research in the region to address the countries' health needs through formulating and analysing the National Health Research System (HRS). Stewardship comprises three functions, namely governance, policy and priorities, and is a central pillar of this system to ensure a well-organised and functioning HRS. This study aims to examine the perceptions of the HRS performers to understand these functions and to generate insights for system strengthening. The study was carried out in Palestine, targetting three sectors in the health field, including relevant governmental health institutions, schools of public health, and major local and international health agencies. The data were collected through 52 in-depth interviews (IDIs) and 6 focus group discussions (FGDs) with policy-makers, academics, directors, and experts. Participants and institutions were selected purposively based on a set of criteria and peer review. A total of 104 experts participated in the IDIs (52 participants) and FGDs (52 participants in 6 FGDs), highlighting that stewardship functions remain problematic and insufficiently performed, mainly due to a missing health research structural and regulatory framework and dispersed health research work. Despite the limited good practices, the majority of the participants described the Ethical Review and Clearance as weak due to the lack of an agreed-upon national committee and procedural quality and ethics guidelines for non-compliance. A policy or strategy dedicated to health research is lacking. The exercises of research priority-setting appear to be evolving despite the lack of consensus and the low levels of knowledge and experience in research prioritisation. Common gaps, such as weak political will and capacity support, the absence of a national unified regulating body, and the indirect effects of political conditions on strengthening the HRS as well as other sectors, also emerged. The stewardship functions of the Palestinian HRS remain weak along with substantial political, structural, and resources and capacity gaps. The study emphasises the imperative need to initiate strategic efforts led by the MOH and the Palestinian National Institute of Public Health alongside with other players to strengthen a national HRS through improving the stewardship functions. To achieve this, attention and support of decision-makers, involvement, mobilisation and strategic dialogue are indispensable, in order to embark on building a well-regulated and coordinated structure, operational research policy, and prioritisation of essential research.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 38%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Librarian 1 4%
Professor 1 4%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 7 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 6 25%
Social Sciences 4 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 17%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Sports and Recreations 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 6 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 January 2020.
All research outputs
#1,415,403
of 15,606,931 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#247
of 868 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,217
of 278,391 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,606,931 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 868 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 278,391 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them