STUDY TYPE: Mixed methods.
METHODS: A desk review was conducted relating to HPSR funding, followed by in-depth interviews. Eight countries and areas were selected to represent characteristics of different health systems. Literature reviews included an analysis of available data relating to HPSR funding and national research and development (R&D) budgets, between 2010 and 2019 (inclusive). In-depth interviews were conducted with 23 stakeholders using an approved interview guide, to assess the attitudes of HPSR funding decision makers towards HPSR, determinants for HPSR and health research funding decisions, and proposals to strengthen HPSR funding and output.
RESULTS: There are four main characteristics of HPSR funding in the WPRO: 1) a general absence of studies on HPSR funding and its determinants; 2) no universally accepted understanding of HPSR; 3) an absence of granular health research funding data in general and for HPSR in particular; and 4) HPSR funding is generally perceived to be minimal. In-depth interviews show that HPSR has different interpretations and emphases across WPRO countries, leading to a fragmented landscape where decision makers generally favour biomedical or clinical research. Participants indicate that political involvement increases overall research funding, especially if there is a clear connection between funders, producers and HPSR users. Suggestions from participants to strengthen HPSR include: appropriately using central agencies to generate demand and raise HPSR as a national priority; adopting interdisciplinary HPSR; and building HPSR capacity and organisational structures.
CONCLUSIONS: HPSR in the Western Pacific region is generally not well funded, with biomedical and public health research often perceived as a higher priority. Although funding is a crucial component of the quality, quantity and relevance of HPSR outputs, HPSR practitioners and organisations must also generate demand for HPSR, build capacity for increasing the quantity and quality of HPSR outputs, and build pathways to translate HPSR outputs into real-world policies.
METHODS: This study was designed and conducted in three stages, including needs assessment, development of the package and analysis of acceptance among 33 older adults aged 60 years and over in rural communities, and 14 health staff members at rural health clinics. Subjects completed a questionnaire including sociodemographic factors and acceptance evaluation of the nutrition education package with respect to content, graphics and design. Data were analysed descriptively using numbers and percentages.
RESULTS: A nutrition education package comprising a booklet, flipchart and placemats was developed. A total of 42.4% of the older adults expressed that the sentences in the flipchart needed to be simplified and medical terms explained. Terminology (60%), illustrations (20%) and nutrition recommendations (20%) were the aspects that prevented elderly subjects from fully understanding the booklet. Information on the placemats was easily understood by subjects.
CONCLUSIONS: A well accepted nutrition education package for promoting healthy ageing and reducing risk of chronic diseases was developed that incorporated modifications based on feedback from older adult subjects and health clinic staff in a rural area. It is a tool that can effectively be used for health education in this population.
METHODS: Our literature search of peer-reviewed English language primary source articles published between 1991 and 2018 was conducted across six databases (Embase, PubMed, Web of Sciences, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Academic Search Complete) and Google Scholar, yielding 3844 articles. After duplicate removal, we independently screened 3413 studies to determine whether they met inclusion criteria. Seventy-six studies were identified for inclusion in this review. Data were extracted on study characteristics, content, and findings.
FINDINGS: Seventy-six studies met the inclusion criteria. The most represented subgroups were Chinese (n = 74), Japanese (n = 60), and Filipino (n = 60), while Indonesian (n = 1), Malaysian (n = 1), and Burmese (n = 1) were included in only one or two studies. Several Asian American subgroups listed in the 2010 U.S. Census were not represented in any of the studies. Overall, the most studied health conditions were cancer (n = 29), diabetes (n = 13), maternal and infant health (n = 10), and cardiovascular disease (n = 9). Studies showed that health outcomes varied greatly across subgroups.
CONCLUSIONS: More research is required to focus on smaller-sized subgroup populations to obtain accurate results and address health disparities for all groups.