BACKGROUND
In 2024, the World Health Organization released a report on Priorities for Research on Hypertension Care Delivery. This article provides its executive summary.
METHODS
The World Health Organization and its technical experts formed a leadership team, developed a scope and objectives, created a thematic framework, developed a survey for each theme, and identified research priorities. The 5 themes included (1) Health care workforce for hypertension care delivery, (2) Service delivery system/models, (3) Patient retention/adherence, (4) Financing the care delivery system, and (5) Research gaps identified in the World Health Organization 2021 Hypertension Guideline. The leadership team received feedback from diverse experts through webinars and online surveys. The final report was peer-reviewed by external experts.
RESULTS
According to postwebinar surveys, we identified 5 to 7 research priorities within each theme, totaling 29 research priorities. The 10 highest priorities were (1) Cost-effectiveness of combination therapy in low/middle-income countries, (2) A system allowing hypertension care closer to home, (3) Health system reform allowing trained community health workers to refill/initiate/titrate antihypertensive medications, (4) Health system reform allowing nurses to diagnose and treat hypertension, (5) Gaps in the medication supply chain, (6) New approaches integrating the management of hypertension and other diseases, (7) Digital approaches for improving medication adherence, (8) Optimal approaches to train health care workers, (9) Approaches to finance hypertension control programs, and (10) Implementation research on task-sharing approaches.
CONCLUSIONS
These research priorities provide guidance to researchers, with immediate implications for substantially improve hypertension care and prevent its sequelae. We urge governments, funding agencies, and organizations to consider supporting these research topics.
The value, speed of completion and robustness of the evidence generated by TB treatment trials could be improved by implementing standards for best practice.
METHODS
A global panel of experts participated in a Delphi process, using a 7-point Likert scale to score and revise draft standards until consensus was reached.
RESULTS
Eleven standards were defined: Standard 1, high quality data on TB regimens are essential to inform clinical and programmatic management; Standard 2, the research questions addressed by TB trials should be relevant to affected communities, who should be included in all trial stages; Standard 3, trials should make every effort to be as inclusive as possible; Standard 4, the most efficient trial designs should be considered to improve the evidence base as quickly and cost effectively as possible, without compromising quality; Standard 5, trial governance should be in line with accepted good clinical practice; Standard 6, trials should investigate and report strategies that promote optimal engagement in care; Standard 7, where possible, TB trials should include pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic components; Standard 8, outcomes should include frequency of disease recurrence and post-treatment sequelae; Standard 9, TB trials should aim to harmonise key outcomes and data structures across studies; Standard 10, TB trials should include biobanking; Standard 11, treatment trials should invest in capacity strengthening of local trial and TB programme staff.
CONCLUSION
These standards should improve the efficiency and effectiveness of evidence generation, as well as the translation of research into policy and practice.
In humanitarian settings, aid agencies are constantly challenged by difficult decisions such as when and how to terminate aid without harming the aid recipients, local institutions, staff members and the organisation. Despite important efforts devoted to responsibly leaving a setting, hurtful exits are still common in contemporary relief aid. Moreover, debates on how humanitarian aid agencies exit are limited, with no previous comprehensive evidence synthesis on the concept of ‘responsible exit’. The objective of this scoping review is to map evidence and knowledge gaps, to identify and describe concepts, theories and existing frameworks related to ‘responsible exit’ of humanitarian aid agencies.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS
Our search uses searches of several bibliographic databases (CAB Direct (including Global Health), Web of Science, PubMed and Google Scholar) as well as manual searches of specific journals and retrieval of grey literature through searches of organisational websites and direct contact with experts and organisations. Reference tracking will be used to identify additional sources. Searches will cover papers available up to the dates of the searches (December 2022 to January 2023), with no date restrictions applied to the literature search. To be included, published or unpublished papers must explicitly discuss the exit of humanitarian aid agencies from humanitarian settings and be accessible. We will exclude all exits related to military, local and governmental humanitarian operations, education, development, employment, and business sectors. Only papers written in English and French will be considered. Three reviewers will conduct the selection process against the predefined criteria. Data will be extracted in an iterative process following pre-established items and the results will be presented in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews Extension for Scoping Reviews flow chart, tables and/or graphs, and descriptive formats.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION
Being a review, conducted on publicly available information, no ethical approval is required. The results will be disseminated through publication in an open access journal, scientific conferences, workshops, and via humanitarian aid agencies to facilitate further research and possible practical translations of generated knowledge.