Priority Setting Methodologies in Health Research by klutzfu46


									         Priority Setting Methodologies in Health Research
         A workshop convened by WHO's Cluster on Information, Evidence and Research
        (IER), its Department for Research Policy and Cooperation (RPC) and the Special
                Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR)

                                                 World Health Organization
                                                   Geneva, Switzerland
                                                    April 10-11, 2008

                                                 Summary Report

     1. The explicit and rational setting of priorities for investment in research is
        now accepted as an integral part of any research management process. Setting
        priorities in research can serve to act as a catalyst for public debate, for bringing
        together different stakeholders, and for creating networks. These networks would
        ideally comprise of researchers in the public and private sectors, decision-makers
        in governments, and civil society. Most importantly, the very act of priority
        setting can provide valuable direction for the allocation of public and private
        research funds into areas of strategic importance. It can also serve to strengthen
        the role of national stakeholders as stewards of the national research agenda.
        National research priority setting, if it includes a regional and international
        perspective can also feed into and drive regional and international agendas rather
        than 'respond’ to the agendas suggested by others. Reflecting this, discussions at
        the Intergovernmental Working Group on Public Health, Innovation and
        Intellectual Property have emphasized a need for the development of
        methodologies for identifying gaps in research on diseases that disproportionately
        affect developing countries1.

  Draft global strategy and plan of action on public health, innovation and intellectual property: Priority-setting models for research
and development (A/PHI/IGWG/2/INF.DOC./1), 20 September 2007,;
Draft global strategy and plan of action on public health, innovation and intellectual property: Report by the Secretariat
(A/PHI/IGWG/2/2), 31 July 2007; Draft global strategy and plan of
action on public health, innovation and intellectual property: Progress to date in drafting groups A and B (A/PHI/IGWG/2/conf.Paper
No.1 Rev 1), 14 December 2007,
2. A workshop on Priority Setting Methodologies in Health Research was held at
   the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland from 10th -11th April 2008.
   The overall workshop objective was to develop practical proposals for user-
   friendly methodologies for priority setting in health research for application in
   developing countries. Specifically, the workshop (1) reviewed the main priority
   setting methodologies utilized to date; (2) reviewed and assessed case studies of
   priority setting in various countries and for various topic areas; and (3) developed
   a framework of guiding principles and a practical approach to priority setting by
   bringing together salient elements of existing methodologies. The workshop was
   attended by 22 participants, representing experience with national priority setting
   in 12 countries, joined by experts in priority setting methodologies. Also present
   were 16 WHO staff, representing various technical and research departments. The
   list of participants and agenda are attached in Annex 2.

3. This summary report focuses upon the three core domains for good practices in
   priority setting for research in health identified by the workshop, namely:

       A. Processes for initiating priority setting based upon the principles of
          legitimacy and fairness;

       B. General guiding principles for the application of methods and tools for
          health research priority setting; and

       C. Effective follow up of commitments and outcomes

4. Legitimacy and fairness are the fundamental principles that underlie effective
   priority setting processes. At the core, priority setting involves adjudicating
   between a wide range of values, some of which conflict, including: benefit,
   evidence, cost, efficiency, equity, equality, benefit to a country’s economy,
   severity of disease, prevalence of disease, solidarity, protection of the vulnerable,
   and more. Since the specific value drivers for health research prioritization may
   vary depending upon the context, these prioritization decisions must be made at
   the country level. The elements of legitimate and fair priority setting provide a
   guiding framework for developing a decision making process and methodology.

The Elements of Legitimate and Fair Priority Setting

Legitimacy refers to the moral authority of decision makers. Fairness refers to the
moral acceptability of the decision making process. The elements of legitimate and
fair priority setting are:
    1) Stakeholder involvement – involving the widest range of context-specific
         stakeholders will ensure consideration of the widest range of relevant values.
    2) Publicity – the decision making process should be clearly stated and
         decisions and the reasons for decisions should be broadly publicized.
    3) Revision/Appeals – there should be a mechanism for revising decisions based
         on the input of stakeholders, and there should be a mechanism for dispute
    4) Leadership – leaders are responsible for ensuring that the first three elements
         are met, and are responsible for monitoring, evaluating, and improving the
         decision making.

  A. Processes for initiating priority setting
  5. ‘Buy-in’ from key stakeholders that hold positions of leadership and influence is
     critical to ensure legitimacy and sustainablity of the process. The overall
     leadership structure may vary between countries, may be designated in law, and
     may involve collaboration between different ministries. The leader/s of the
     priority setting initiative should be respected within the research community, have
     the relevant experience and have credibility amongst constituents. As part of
     ensuring political buy in, space should be created for government leaders (such as,
     for example, the Minister of Health, Minister of Finance, Minister of Science and
     Technology, Prime Minister etc) to suggest priorities and to feel that they are part
     of the priority setting process. A greater number of champions within the political
     arena will ensure that processes are transparent and that changes in any one party
     will not render the entire process vulnerable.

  6. Legitimacy and fairness require a comprehensive communication strategy. This
     should map the context, identify target audiences, frame and portray the initiative,
     be explicit about the process, ensure the use of appropriate language, and identify
     the communication vehicles appropriate for target audiences. Intermittent
     Communication Fora might be useful to communicate decisions, facilitate appeals
     or to communicate important issues. A strategy to advocate and disseminate
     appropriate knowledge – throughout the life of the process - would serve several
     objectives, a few of which are listed here: sharing of information, encouraging
     accountability, supporting a system for tracking, providing a platform for debate
     and attracting the research community.

  7. While the composition of stakeholder groups will be specific to each country,
     possible groups include government, funders, scientists, civil society, NGO’s,

     non-scientist clinicians (physicians and nurses), health managers, academics,
     industry (broadly considered), patients and ethicists. The guiding principle in this
     process is one of inclusivity in order to ensure as wide a participation as possible.
     Ongoing stakeholder deliberation should be encouraged, allowing for equitable
     voice, constructive debate and conflict resolution. Countries have used a variety
     of approaches to include different stakeholders. An approach that commonly
     works well is to establish a small Executive Committee that guides the process
     and decision making, while a larger decision making group (comprised of
     stakeholders) would then be charged with implementing the chosen methodology
     and to make decisions. An Advisory Council comprising a much larger number
     of stakeholders (possibly separated into smaller groups) might also be created in
     order to advise, deliberate, provide viewpoints, and to provide support to the
     smaller decision making groups. The priority setting process that Brazil engaged
     in is instructive in the extent to which stakeholder groups were consulted.

            Brazilian Priority Setting Process – Process of Consultation
The priority research topics were submitted to a public consultation to guarantee that
society should present their perspective about the health research agenda on the
Ministry of Health website. For this process 1937 institutions and individuals were
registered. The results of this public consultation were 239 contributions with 600
comments. Priorities were then debated during a National Conference on Science,
Technology and Innovation on Health with 644 participants (431 conference delegates
and 213 invited guests and observers). Participants were drawn from the education
sector, science and technology sector, health sector, patient associations, professional
associations, community associations, trade unions, health worker unions.

  8. In facilitating the deliberations concerning a large number of difficult issues the
     Chair/Leader will have to seek balance and agreement. Experiences from
     countries that have engaged in priority setting exercises indicate that a number of
     guiding principles may be helpful in ensuring balance. One consideration is to
     intentionally include only individuals with diverse and relevant experiences and
     viewpoints as opposed to including representatives from a variety of societies and
     associations. In the interests of agreement it may be beneficial to have some
     stakeholders as ex officio participants in order that they can contribute their views
     but are not involved in actual decision making. Another useful strategy is the
     establishment of a communication channel with neighboring countries about the
     priority setting process. This serves as a gesture of goodwill, but may also aid the
     priority setting process. This is pertinent in the case of countries without
     comprehensive Burden of Disease data, but where neighboring countries may
     have relevant (similar) data.

9. Leaders should establish a revision process to allow stakeholders to contribute
   new information, interpretations of data, and arguments that may improve the
   quality of decisions.

B. Selection of appropriate tools and methods
10. There are a number of existing tools and methodologies to guide the priority
    setting exercise (Annex 1).

11. In implementing an approach, eight guiding principles should be taken into

      I. The properties of any chosen method should include objectivity,
         transparency, validity, and replicability. In addition, the chosen method
         should have the ability to highlight key issues, inform a value based
         allocation of resources, and provide a written record of the process to ensure
         transparency and maintain historical continuity.

     II. A systematic and thorough mapping of the national context - political,
         environmental, economic and health - as well as a mapping of financial and
         trained human resources will allow for a more realistic priority setting
         process and eventual implementation agenda. The context of the priority
         setting exercise should be defined upfront with as much specificity as
         possible. Examples of some of the critical contextual issues include
         (a) whether the focus is on specific diseases, the health system, and/or the
         socio-economic determinants; (b) what is the target population, e.g., whether
         it is an entire country, a minority, children, or women; and (c) what is the
         time frame within which the research will be conducted and within which
         the priority setting process is predicted to have an impact.

    III. The chosen method must ensure that the priority setting criteria most
         relevant for the specified context are adequately discussed. Consideration of
         criteria used by similar prior priority setting exercises, whether at the
         national or global level, should facilitate this discussion.

    IV. The chosen method should include a process of compiling and using the best
        available information for this exercise. The evidence could be qualitative
        and/or quantitative When possible, the best available experts should be
        engaged to compile evidence to inform the process This would ensure that
        the evidence being used for the priority setting process is reliable and

     V. The method should also chart how the outcomes will inform the research
        investment decisions. Securing and aligning financial resources for the
        priority setting process and for the implementation of the agreed research
        agenda is critical. There should be a mechanism that allows for some

         immediate outcomes while working on medium and long term goals and
         setting aside resources for unforeseen priorities.

    VI. The priority setting exercise should include forward looking projections and
        forecasting in the context of the time frame of the exercise. For example,
        certain public health issues may not feature prominently in the present, but
        may have important implications for the future, and given the research
        timelines, they may require significant resource allocation in the near term.

   VII. Within the scope of the priority setting exercise, attempts should be made to
        ensure a systematic and comprehensive listing of all possible research
        options whether they are related to research on biomedical, health systems,
        social determinants or other cross cutting aspects.

  VIII. The limitation of the chosen method should be considered from the outset.
        Priority setting is an iterative process, where each step of the process, each
        evaluation and feedback loop improves on the earlier one.

    IX. The process has a higher chance of sustainability if there is a built in
        capacity building mechanism. This will allow for continuity, institutional
        memory, and training for the next cadre of priority setting leaders.

C. Measure outcomes

12. Processes that protect the agenda from political, economic and environmental
    shocks while still allowing room for change and adaptation (an “appeal
    mechanism” and a robust feedback loop) are important. This process of revision
    based on appeal must include explicit mechanism for revising decisions based on
    emerging issues or arguments. It should include fora for alternative stakeholder
    viewpoints. Ideally the process should also include a dispute resolution
    mechanism that reduces hostility, is non-adversarial and that avoids ‘winners and
    losers’. There should also be the opportunity for continual updating of decisions
    such as a “rolling 5-year plan” or an annual review.

13. With regard to the monitoring and evaluation of the priority setting process the
    guiding principle should fit in with the framework of legitimacy and fairness. The
    monitoring and evaluation plan should take into consideration the processes,
    outcomes and impacts including the values established by stakeholders. Peer
    review mechanisms and tools need to be developed to support monitoring and
    evaluation, and there needs to be investment in robust health systems, including
    health information systems and national health accounts that can collect reliable
    information for informed decision making. The monitoring and evaluation
    framework should also include a framework that includes stakeholder perceptions
    of the process which identifies strategies for improving the process.

14. The expected outcome of the methodology or tool application needs to be
    explicitly stated from the outset. Is the outcome simply the channeling of
    resources into priority areas, or does it also include measuring actual outcome of
    the channeled resources? Countries should consider a strategy that allows for
    tracking of direct and indirect impacts of resource allocation. Elements may
    include questions around what research has been done, what were the research
    findings, what policy or system changes were influenced by the research, and
    what was the overall effect of the prioritization? In the context of the inclusivity
    that is being highlighted by the priority setting process, accountability is critical
    and including tangible outcomes designed specifically to ensure accountability
    must be included.

15. An effective priority setting process for health research should take into account
    the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. Following the principles of
    harmonization and alignment with regard to a national health policy framework
    will help to facilitate consistency, synergy and effective implementation of
    framework. It will also encourage broader external cooperation by potential
    donors and relevant stakeholders.

16. Workshop participants recommended to:

   •   Advance wider sharing of experiences with different methods and
   •   Establish a Community-of-(Best) Practice facilitated by an expert editorial
       team on the basis of the internal workshop collaborative workspace, in
       addition to the creation of an external website;
   •   Foster capacity building and accelerate priority setting activities at the
       national level; and
   •   Encourage international publications on priority setting processes

Annex 1: Summary of three commonly used research priority setting methods
               Summary                          Strengths                         Weaknesses                  Applications and References
Council on     •   Defines who sets             •     Detailed listing of         •   Discussion and          Country experiences
Health             priorities and how to              priority                        decisions on            •    Philippines
Research and       get participants                   possibilities/options           funding based on        •    South Africa
Development        involved, the potential      •     Involvement of a broad          participants’ own       •    Brazil
(COHRED)           functions, roles and               range of stakeholders           views and               •    Alan B Feranil (2004)
                   responsibilities of          •     Significant engagement          knowledge          
                   various stakeholders,              with experts                •   Identified                   /l
                   information and                                                    interventions and       •    Department of Health, Directorate
                   criteria for setting                                               research questions           Research Coordination and
                   priorities, strategies for                                         are not compiled in          Management (1996)., South
                   implementation and                                                 a truly systematic           Africa
                   indicators for                                                     way                     •    Reinaldo Guimarães, Cuadernos
                   evaluation                                                                                      de Saúde et al. Ministry of Health
               •   Specifies broad                                                                                 (2005). Brasil. ISBN 85-334-
                   research avenues                                                                                0827-3

Combined       •     Systematic                 •    Systematic listing of all    •    Does not, in itself,   •     Diarrhoeal diseases research in
Approach             classification,                 relevant information so           represent an                 India
Matrix               organization and                that decisions made by            algorithm for          •     Pakistan’s National Action Plan
(CAM)                presentation of large           the members of                    making decisions             for noncommunicable disease:
                     body of information             committees based on               on the priorities by         prevention, control and health
               •     Incorporates many               all relevant and                  ranking competing            promotion
                     dimensions                      available information,            investment options,    •     Application of the CAM to a
               •     Recently included               rather than their own             or differentiating           disease: The example of
                     gender and poverty              personal knowledge                the two alternative          schizophrenia
                     dimensions                      and judgment                      research strategies    •     Application of the CAM to a risk
               •     Specifies broad                                                   according to their           factor: The example of indoor air
                     research avenues                                                  priority                     pollution
               •     Identifies gaps in                                           •    Identified             •     Perinatal and neonatal care in
                     knowledge and future                                              interventions and            Pakistan
                     challenges                                                        research questions
                                                                                       are not compiled in
                                                                                       a truly systematic
                                                                                  •    Consensus reached
                                                                                       by panels of
                                                                                       experts and danger
                                                                                       is that decisions
                                                                                       may be driven by
                                                                                       research interest
                                                                                       bias of individual
Child Health   •     Principles of              •    Systematic listing of        •    May be too             •     National level: South Africa
Nutrition            legitimacy and fairness         individual research               specific for some            (Tomlinson et al., PLoS Med,
Research       •     Detailed listing of             questions                                                      2007)
Initiative           individual questions       •    Everything that led to                                   •     Global level (1): Pneumonia,
(CHNRI)                                              the final list of
                                                                                  •    Role of non-                 Diarrhoea, Malaria, Neonatal
               •     Individual questions
                     scored against pre-             priorities is recorded, is        experts limited              conditions, Undernutrition and
                     defined criteria.               repeatable, can be                to selection and             HIV/AIDS with WHO (Rudan et
                     Technical experts               reviewed, can be                  weighting of                 al., Lancet Inf Dis, 2007) Zinc,
                     independently score             challenged and can be             criteria                     Falls injuries (Hyder et al., Acta
                     each research option            revised at any time          •    Consensus                    Paediatrica, 2007; Brown et al.,
               •     Stakeholder input is            based on feedback                                              Public Health Nutr, in press)
                                                                                       building is
                     sought and used to         •    Weights and thresholds                                         Mental health (Chisholm et al.,
                                                     may be revised to
                                                                                       incorporated in              Lancet, 2007)
                     provide relative weight
                     of the criteria                 address the changes in            methods (eg
                                                     a dynamic political,              selection of
                                                     economic, social and              areas of
                                                     cultural environment              research,
                                                                                       weights given to
                                                                                       criteria) but not
                                                                                       formally after
                                                                                       the priorities are

Annex 2: Agenda and List of Participants

    Priority Setting Methodologies in Health Research
                    World Health Organization, Salle C
                          Geneva, Switzerland

                                 April 10-11, 2008

 A workshop convened by WHO's Cluster on Information, Evidence and Research (IER),
its Department for Research, Policy and Cooperation (RPC) and the Special Programme
                 for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR)

1. Overall workshop objective

To develop practical proposals for user-friendly methodologies for priority setting in
health research for application in developing countries. The workshop should result in
contributions to ongoing discussions on priority setting in the WHO Intergovernmental
Working Group on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property (IGWG-PHI).

2. Specific workshop objectives

1. to review the main priority setting methodologies utilized to date
2. to review and assess case studies of priority setting in various settings and countries
   and for various topic areas
3. to develop a framework of guiding principles and a practical methodology for optimal
   methodologies bringing together salient elements of existing methodologies
4. to make an executive summary of workshop conclusions available to Member States
   by end April 2008
5. to initiate the production process for a practical publication on health research priority
   setting for the use by WHO Member States.

3. Key reference documents (Participants are kindly requested to familiarize
themselves with these documents. A number of other workshop resources are
available on the workshop preparatory workspace at

a) Draft global strategy and plan of action on public health, innovation and intellectual
property: Priority-setting models for research and development
(A/PHI/IGWG/2/INF.DOC./1), 20 September 2007

b) Draft global strategy and plan of action on public health, innovation and intellectual
property: Report by the Secretariat (A/PHI/IGWG/2/2), 31 July 2007

c) Draft global strategy and plan of action on public health, innovation and intellectual
property: Progress to date in drafting groups A and B (A/PHI/IGWG/2/conf.Paper No.1
Rev 1), 14 December 2007

4. Expected outcomes


Short conference report with summary of workshop conclusions


Document guiding countries and regions on e.g., "Good practices for priority setting for
health research"


Full WHO-IER publication and/or website on all of the above, including full "tool-kit"

5. Agenda

                                                                 Working time: 8.30 - 17.30
                                                          Coffee/tea breaks: 10.30 and 15.30
                                                                 Lunch break: 13.00 - 14.00

                Priority Setting Methodologies in Health Research

                            World Health Organization, Salle C
                           Geneva, Switzerland, 10-11 April 2008

      Time                            Item                                       Name
10 April 2008                    Review of Existing Methodologies and Case Studies

                                                Introduction and welcome

08.30 - 09.00       ♦ Welcome and opening                        Dr T. Pang, Director, WHO-RPC
                                                                 Dr R.G. Ridley, Director, WHO-TDR

                    ♦ Intergovernmental Working Group on         Dr E. Renganathan, Exec. Secr,
                      Public Health, Innovation and              IGWG-PHI
                      Intellectual Property (IGWG-PHI)

                    ♦ Round of introductions

                    ♦ Overview of the meeting                    Dr C. Lanata, Chairperson

                    Session I: Review and discussion of existing methodologies and presentation of
                    selected country experiences and draft framework

09.00 - 10.30       ♦ Brief overview of existing methodologies   Brief overview and/or presentations
                      and approaches (Participants are kindly    (Speakers are requested to limit their
                      requested to familiarize themselves with   interventions to 5 minutes maximum)
                      existing methodologies through the
                      workshop preparatory workspace)

                       ♦ Combined Approach Matrix (GFHR)         Dr A. Ghaffar, GFHR
                       ♦ Strategic Emphases Matrix (TDR)         Dr R. G. Ridley, WHO-TDR
                       ♦ Priority Medicines for Europe and
                         the World Project Approach              Dr W. Kaplan, Boston University

                    ♦ Child Health and Nutrition              Dr I. Rudan, University of Edinburgh
                        Research Initiative (CHNRI)
                    ♦ Priority Setting as a Management
                      Process (COHRED)                        Dr K. Ijsselmuiden, Dr G. Montorzi,
                    ♦ Priority setting for health systems     COHRED
                      research                                Dr M. Ranson, Consultant, WHO-
                                                              Alliance HPSR
                    ♦ Selected country experiences
                                                              Thailand (Dr Y. Yuthavong)
                                                              Brazil (Dr I. Albuquerque)

10.30 - 11.00                                     Coffee/tea break
11.00 - 11.30   ♦ Key principles for priority setting in      Dr M. Chopra, Medical Research
                  health research                             Council, South Africa

                ♦ Discussion

                    Session II: Generating the interest and gaining legitimacy of a priority setting

11.30 - 13.00   Selected country experiences followed by      Malaysia (Dr M. Hamid)
                discussion focusing on:                       Cameroon (Dr P Ongolo-Zogo)

                Generating the interest and legitimacy of a
                priority setting process
13.00 - 14.00                                       Lunch break

                                    Session III: Ensuring stakeholder participation

14.00 - 15.30   Selected country experiences followed by      Ghana (Dr J. Gyapong)
                discussion focusing on:                       Peru (Dr C. Lanata)
                                                              South Africa, Child Health Research
                Ensuring participation and 'buy-in' from a    (Dr M Tomlinson)
                wide range of stakeholders, in particular     Bangladesh (Dr S. El Arifeen)
                funders, government, researchers, industry    Croatia (Dr I. Rudan)
                and civil society                             India (Prof. N. Ganguly)

15.30 - 16.00   Coffee/tea break

                      Session IV: Selection of an appropriate methodology, methodological steps

16.00 - 17.30   Selected country experiences followed by      Canada (Dr D. Martin)
                discussion focusing on:                       USA (NIH) (Dr M. Miller)
                                                              Industry (Drs Felton and Chandra)
                Selection of an appropriate methodology,
                methodological steps

Friday            Refining the Framework of Key Principles for Optimal Methodologies
11 April 2008

       Time                        Item                                      Name

                   Session V: Key outcomes, including monitoring and evaluation of outcomes

08.30 - 10.30   Selected country experiences followed by
                discussion focusing on:

                Key outcomes, including monitoring and
                evaluation of outcomes

10.30 - 11.00                                    Coffee/tea break

                    Session VI: General overall lessons learned and principles for optimal priority

11.00 - 12.30   ♦ Three working groups on overall lessons
                  learned for optimal priority setting
                  regarding the following

                   ♦ Processes                                 Break-out rooms
                   ♦ Methods                                   Salle C
                   ♦ Outcomes                                  X10

12.30 - 14.00                                      Lunch break

                                 Session VII: Production of short meeting report

14.00 - 15.30   ♦ Plenary feedback from working groups
                ♦ Drafting of workshop summary
15.30 - 16.00                                 Coffee/tea Break

                                   Session VIII: Consolidation and conclusion

16.00 - 17.00   Discussion, Finalization of workshop summary
17.00 - 17.30   Conclusions and next steps

6. List of participants
Prof Zulfiqar BHUTTA*                            Tel.: +92-21-4864721
Professor and Chair Dept. of Paediatrics         Fax: +92-21-4934294
The Aga Khan University                
P.O. Box 3500
Stadium Road
Karachi 74800

Dr Richa CHANDRA                                 Tel.: +1-860-732-5532
Senior Director, Clinical Research and 
Development, Global Research and Development
Infectious Diseases, Pfizer Inc.
50 Pequot Avenue
New London, CT 06320

Dr Mickey CHOPRA                                 Tel.: +27-21-938-0454
Director                                         Fax : +27-21-938-0483
Health Systems Research Unit           
Medical Research Council
P.O. Box 19070
Tygerberg 7505, Cape Town

Dr Shams EL ARIFEEN                             Tel.:  + 880-8-882-3031
Epidemiologist                                  Fax:   + 880 2 882 6050
Centre for Health & Population Research
Cholera Hospital
G.P.O. Box 128
Dhaka 1000

Dr Mark FELTON                                  Tel.:    + 44-20-8422-3434
Medical Director                                Fax:     + 44-20-8966-3674
Diseases of the Developing World      
Greenford Road
Greenford, Middlesex UB6 OHE

Prof Nirmal Kumar GANGULY                       Tel.:   +91 11 2658 9620
Ex-Director General                             Fax:    + 91 11 2658 86 62
Indian Council of Medical Research    
V. Ramalingaswami Bhawan              
Ansari Nagar
P.O. Box 4911
New Delhi - 110 029

Dr Abdul GHAFFAR                                           Tel. :  +41 22 791 1606
Public Health Specialist                                   Fax:    +41 22 791 4394
Global Forum for Health Research                 
c/o WHO
20 Ave Appia
CH 1211 Geneva 27

Dr Stuart GILLESPIE                                        Tel. :    +41 22 791 4925
Director, RENEWAL                                
Coordinator, Platform on Agriculture and Health Research
International Food Policy Research
Avenue Appia 20
1211 Geneva 27

Prof John GYAPONG                                          Tel. :  +233 21 681109, 67932
Specialist Director                                        Fax:    +233 21 226739
Health Research Unit                             
Ghana Health Service
PO Box GP-184

Dr Maimunah A. HAMID                                       Tel.:  +603 22971555
Director                                                   Fax:   +603 22825172
Institute for Health Systems Research            
Ministry of Health
Jalan Rumah Sakit Bangsar
50590 Kuala Lumpur

Prof Carel IJSSELMUIDEN                                    Tel.:   +41 22 591 8905
Director                                                   Fax:    +41 22 591 8910
Council on Health Research for                   
Development (COHRED)
1-5 Route des Morillons
P.O. Box 2100
1211 Geneva 2

Ms Nasreen JESSANI                                          Tel:    +254-20-2713160/61
Programme Officer                                           Fax     +254-20-2711063
IDRC/SDC Research Matters                         
Governance, Equity and Health (GEH)
IDRC Regional Office for Eastern
and Southern Africa
PO Box 62084
00200 Nairobi


Dr Warren KAPLAN                                   Tel. : +1 617 414 1152
Center for International Health and                Fax :  +1 617 414 1261
Boston University School of Public
85E Concord Street
Boston, MA 02118

Dr Claudio LANATA                                  Tel. :   +51 1 349 6023
Senior Researcher and Professor                    Fax No.: +51 1 349 6025
Instituto de Investigación Nutricional   
Avenue La Molina 1885 / PO Box 0191
La Molina, Lima 18

Dr Lindiwe MAKUBALO*                               Tel. : +271 231 20774
National Department of Health            
Health Information, Evaluation and Research
PMB x828
Struben Street, CIVITAS Building
Pretoria 0001

Mr Emmanuel MAKUNDI*                               Tel. : + 255 22 2121400
Social Scientist (Medical Sociology)               Fax :  + 255 22 2120020
Health Systems and Policy Research Department
National Institute for Medical Research
PO Box 9653
Dar es Salaam

Dr Douglas MARTIN                                  Tel. :  +1-416 978 6926
Associate Professor                      
University of Toronto
Joint Centre for Bioethics
88 College Street
Toronto, ON M5G 1L4

Dr Tayyeb I. MASUD*                                Tel. : +1-443-248-7718
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Department of International Health
615, N Wolfe Street
Baltimore, MD 21205

Prof Stephen A. MATLIN*                              Tel. :  +41-22-791-3418
Executive Director                         
Global Forum for Health Research
1-5 route des Morillons
1211 Genève 2

Dr Mark MILLER                              
Associate Director for Research
Director, Division of International Epidemiology
and Population Studies
Fogarty International Center
National Institutes of Health
16 Center Drive
Bethesda, MD 20892

Dr Gabriela MONTORZI                                  Tel:   +41 22 591 89 11
Process Officer                             
1-5 Route des Morillons
1211 Geneva 2
P.O. Box 2100

Dr Itajai OLIVEIRA DE ALBUQUERQUE                    Tel:      +55 (61) 3315-3197
Special Assessor, Departamento de                    Fax:      +55 (61) 3223-0799
Ciência e Tecnologia (Decit) - Department  
of Science and Technology,
Secretaria de Ciência, Tecnologia
e Insumos Estratégicos, Secretariat for Science,
Technology and Strategic Input
Ministério da Saúde - Bloco G, Gabinete 8º Andar
CEP: 70058-900 - Brasília/DF

Dr Pierre ONGOLO ZOGO                                Tel. :   +237 223 4518
Director, Division of Health Operations Research     Fax :    +237 223 4579
Ministry of Public Health                  
PO Box 5604

Dr Viveka PERSSON*                                   Tel. :   +46-8-698 53 79
Research Advisor                                     Fax:     +46-8-698 56 56
Division for Human Sciences for Social Development
Department for Research Cooperation - SAREC
Swedish International Development
Cooperation Agency - Sida
105 25 Stockholm

Dr Silvina RAMOS*                                     Tel :    +54(11) 4865 1707-17
CEDES                                                 Fax:     + 54 (11) 4862 0805
Centro de Estudios De Estado y Sociedad     
Sanchez de Bustamente 27
1173 Buenos Aires

Dr Igor RUDAN                                         Tel :   +44-13165032 18
University of Edinburgh                               Fax:    +44-131-650-69-09
Department of Public Health Sciences        
Teviot Place
Edinburgh EH8 9AG

Dr Shehu SULE*                                         Tel : + 234-9-5238367
Director                                               Fax: + 234-803-3341-523
Planning & Research                          
Federal Ministry of Health

Dr Mark TOMLINSON                                      Tel.: +27-83-3014868
Senior Scientist                                       Fax: +27-21-938-0483
Health Systems Research Unit                 
Medical Research Council
P.O. Box 19070
Tygerberg 7505, Cape Town

Dr Els TORREELE*                                       Tel No : +41- 22-9069230
Senior Project Manager                       
Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative (DNDi)
15 Chemin Louis-Dunant
CH-1202 Geneva

Dr Vijay K. TRIVEDI                                    Tel.: +41-22-9068686
Counsellor                                             Fax: +41-22-068696
Permanent Mission of India to the            
United Nations
9, Rue du Valais
1202 Geneva

Prof Yongyuth YUTHAVONG                                Tel No. :+66-10059293 ex1426
Senior Researcher                                      Fax No. :+66-2-5647000ex1427
National Centre for Genetic Engineering      
and Biotechnology (BIOTEC)
National Science & Technology

Development Agency (NSTDA)
Thailand Science Park
Pathumthani 12120

Dr David ZAPOL*                                  Tel No : (415) 762 4750
FSG Social Impact Advisors             
625 Market Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105

World Health Organization

Workshop planning group

Dr Timothy EVANS*                                 Tel. : 11096
Asst. Director-General                  
Evidence, Policy and Research

Dr Tikki PANGESTU                                 Tel. : 12786/12788
Director, Research Policy and Cooperation

Dr Robert George RIDLEY                           Tel. : 13802/13906
Director, TDR                           

Dr Elil RENGANATHAN                               Tel. : 15508
Executive Secretary, IGWG-PHI           

Dr Ayoade ODUOLA                                  Tel. : 13212/13789
Coordinator, Stewardship, TDR           

Dr Johannes SOMMERFELD                            Tel. : 13954
Scientist, Stewardship, TDR             

Other WHO secretariat

Ms Esther AWIT                                    Tel. 1-2781

Dr Sara BENNETT                                   Tel. : 12840
Scientist, Alliance Health Policy and   
Systems Research

Ms Edith CERTAIN                                  Tel. : 12061
Technical Officer                       

Dr Olivier FONTAINE                               Tel. : 12894
Medical Officer                         
Family and Child Health

Dr Axel KROEGER                                        Tel. : 13398
Consultant TDR                               

Dr Richard LAING                                       Tel. : 14533
Medical Officer, Medicines Policy and        

Dr Itziar LARIZGOITIA*                                 Tel. : 12133
Scientist, Patient Safety, IER-PSP           

Dr Janis LAZDINS-HELDS                                 Tel. : 13818
Coordinator, TDR                             

Ms Julie MACKENZIE                                     Tel : 14537

Dr Shanthi P.B. MENDIS*                                Tel. : 13441
Senior Adviser, NMH-CHP                      

Dr Ulysses PANISSET                                    Tel. : 14215
Scientist, RPC                               

Dr Michael RANSON                                      Tel. : 15425
Consultant, Alliance for Health Policy and   
Systems Research

Dr Ritu SADANA                                         Tel. : 13250
Coordinator ai, Equity Analysis and Research 
Department of Ethics, Equity, Trade and Human Rights

(* Unable to attend)


To top