INTRODUCTION: There is uncertainty in the prevalence of chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) in military veterans. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to elucidate this issue, and examine potential effect modifiers of CNCP prevalence. Additionally, chronic pain is a pervasive and debilitating condition that disproportionately affects military veterans. We recently completed a qualitative study of Canadian veterans living with chronic pain to identify their research priorities; however, the generalizability of our findings was uncertain. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science were searched from 2013 to January 21, 2021, for observational studies reporting “chronic pain” or pain ≥ 3 months in military veterans. The random-effects meta-analysis was used for pooling data, the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach was used for rating quality of evidence, and the Instrument to Assess the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses was used to rate credibility of the subgroup analyses. Furthermore, from January to March 2021, we emailed a 45-item cross-sectional survey to a list of Canadian veterans that asked about the relative importance of 20 research priorities regarding chronic pain. We explored for statistical significance between male and female responses for any item in which the proportion of endorsement showed a ≥10% difference. RESULTS: 41 observational studies with 5,550,375 military veterans were included. The overall pooled CNCP prevalence is 34% (95% confidence interval (CI) 25% to 45%). However, significant subgroup effect was found for type of prevalence measure (generic or specific) among military veterans (test of interaction p=0.007, moderate subgroup credibility): the pooled generic CNCP prevalence of 43%, 95% CI 29% to 57% (Low-certainty evidence) vs. the pooled specific type of CNCP prevalence of 14%, 95% CI 6.7% to 23% (Moderate-certainty evidence). A multivariable meta-regression model adjusted for proportion lost to follow-up found the type of prevalence measure to be the only significant predictor of CNCP prevalence (p < 0.0001). 313 of 699 Canadian military veterans living with chronic pain completed ≥50% of the survey (45% response rate). Respondents were predominantly male (77%) with a median age of 52 (interquartile range [IQR] 44-58). All 20 research priorities listed in the survey were endorsed as very important by ≥52% of respondents, and three received endorsement by ≥85%: (I) optimizing chronic pain management after release from the military; and (II) identifying and (III) treating mental illness among veterans living with chronic pain. Women were more likely than men to endorse research on post-surgical care for chronic pain prevention or research on holistic care for chronic pain. Men were more likely than women to endorse research on physical activity or exercise for chronic pain. Individuals with higher gross income (≥$80,000) were less likely to endorse research into physiotherapy for chronic pain, or chiropractic for chronic pain compared to those with lower gross income. Individuals with greater age are less likely to endorse research on medical cannabis for chronic pain. CONCLUSIONS: The overall prevalence of CNCP is 34% among military veterans. For generic CNCP, the prevalence is 43%; for a given subtype of CNCP, the prevalence is 11%. Methodologically robust studies are required to more precisely determine CNCP prevalence. The most salient research priorities among our respondents were optimizing chronic pain management during service and after discharge from the military, including co-morbid mental illness. Differences in gender, gross income, and age are implicated in the endorsement of therapy-related priorities, which include surgery, physical activity or exercise, chiropractic, and medical cannabis. Our findings provide insight into the research priorities of Canadian military veterans living with chronic pain. These findings should be considered by granting agencies when formulating calls for proposals, and by researchers who wish to undertake research that will address the needs of military veterans living with chronic pain. / Thesis / Master of Science (MSc)

Yes / Global water security presents a complex problem for human societies and will become more acute as the impacts of climate change escalate. Water security connects the practical water and sanitation challenges of households to the dynamics of global hydroclimates and ecosystems in the Anthropocene. To ensure the successful deployment of attention and resources, it is necessary to identify the most pressing questions for water research. Here, we present the results of a scoping exercise conducted across the global water sector. More than 400 respondents submitted an excess of 4,000 potential questions. Drawing on expert analysis, we highlight 100 indicative research questions across six thematic domains: water and sanitation for human settlements; water and sanitation safety risk management; water security and scarcity; hydroclimate-ecosystem-Anthropocene dynamics; multi-level governance; and knowledge production. These questions offer an interdisciplinary and multi-scalar framework for guiding the nature and space of water research for the coming decades.

Research plays a large role in the advancement of any industry. It is particularly important that relevant research is performed in an industry as large and critical as the construction industry. A review of literature shows that historically research has not played a major role in the advancement of the construction industry. The work of this thesis was to explore whether there has been a change in this relationship, or not. This thesis explored whether the construction-related research being done is in alignment with the needs of industry. Comparisons of the rankings of construction research and industry views were done to evaluate their correlation to each other. This evaluation was done through a review of literature of four construction research journals. Articles were gathered and classified in common construction themes. Each research theme was given a ranking based on the quantity of articles classified into common construction themes. The research ranking demonstrated that the most popular research theme was training/ human resources, followed by management/ risks and technology/ innovation. A survey was sent to 259 industry professionals asking them to rank the 22 construction themes. A response rate of 14% was achieved through the survey respondents. Survey respondents determine that the most important research theme is constructability, followed by estimating/ bidding and economics/cost control. Findings demonstrate that there was no correlation between the themes that were popularly researched and what is most important to the construction professionals.

Yes / Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities suffer from disproportionately poorer health than the general population. This issue has been recently exemplified by the large numbers of infection rates and deaths caused by covid-19 in BAME populations. Future research has the potential to improve health outcomes for these groups. High quality research priority setting is crucial to effectively consider the needs of the most vulnerable groups of the population. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify existing research priority studies conducted for BAME health and to determine the extent to which they followed good practice principles for research priority setting. Method: Included studies were identified by searching Medline, Cinnahl, PsychINFO, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, as well as searches in grey literature. Search terms included “research priority setting”, “research prioritisation”, “research agenda”, “Black and minority ethnic”, “ethnic group”. Studies were included if they identified or elicited research priorities for BAME health and if they outlined a process of conducting a research prioritisation exercise. A checklist of Nine Common Themes of Good Practice in research priority setting was used as a methodological framework to evaluate the research priority processes of each study. Results: Out of 1514 citations initially obtained, 17 studies were included in the final synthesis. Topic areas for their research prioritisation exercise included suicide prevention, knee surgery, mental health, preterm birth, and child obesity. Public and patient involvement was included in eleven studies. Methods of research prioritisation included workshops, Delphi techniques, surveys, focus groups and interviews. The quality of empirical evidence was diverse. None of the exercises followed all good practice principles as outlined in the checklist. Areas that were lacking in particular were: the lack of a comprehensive approach to guide the process; limited use of criteria to guide discussion around priorities; unequal or no representation from ethnic minorities, and poor evaluation of their own processes. Conclusions: Research priority setting practices were found to mostly not follow good practice guidelines which aim to ensure rigour in priority setting activities and support the inclusion of BAME communities in establishing the research agenda. Research is unlikely to deliver useful findings that can support relevant research and positive change for BAME communities unless they fulfil areas of good practice such as inclusivity of key stakeholders’ input, planning for implementation of identified priorities, criteria for deciding on priorities, and evaluation of their processes in research priority setting. / This work was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) Yorkshire and Humber in the form of Ph.D. funding to HI [NIHR200166], the UK Prevention Research Partnership (UKPRP) in the form of funding to JW and RM [MR/S037527/1], the NIHR Clinical Research Network in the form of funding to JW, and the NIHR ARC Yorkshire and Humber in the form of funding to RM.

Student Number : 0310496H - MPH research report - Faculty of Health Sciences / This study compares pharmaceutical company research on new medicines in South Africa with the country’s burden of disease and describes the process and criteria that companies use to set their research priorities. A quantitative survey of pharmaceutical companies shows that company research conducted from 2000 to 2003 is moderately associated with the country’s burden of disease estimates for 2000. The degree of association is dependent on which measures of company research and burden of disease are compared, and which comparative statistic is used. A qualitative analysis of company interviews reveals that feasibility of clinical trials, market forces, and environmental factors are core criteria for company research priority setting. The burden of disease, although important, is not a sole criterion, and has considerable limitations. Furthermore, this study reveals the complex nature of health priority setting by pharmaceutical companies and thus can assist policy decision makers in identifying practical strategies to encourage research in diseases of need by pharmaceutical companies.

A atividade de pesquisa em saúde é uma área de interesse e importância para o desenvolvimento de uma sociedade. Ela pode contribuir no processo de redução das desigualdades na saúde. A constituição de agendas de prioridades em pesquisa, enquanto um instrumento técnico-político indutor de financiamentos de pesquisas alinhadas às necessidade sociais e sanitárias, seria uma das estratégias a serem utilizadas na busca dessa redução. O objetivo deste trabalho foi mapear a aplicação dos recursos financeiros aplicados em pesquisa e desenvolvimento em saúde pelo Ministério da Saúde (MS) durante o período 2003-2005, conforme Agenda Nacional de Prioridades de pesquisa em Saúde (ANPPS), estabelecida em 2004. Utilizaram-se os dados procedentes de pesquisa realizada com a finalidade primária de mensurar os fluxos de recursos investidos em P&D/S no país no período, sendo considerados apenas os investimentos oriundos do próprio MS. Foi computado apenas o financiamento direto em pesquisa e efetivamente pago, excluindo-se dispêndios com salários. As pesquisas forma categorizadas segundo as 24 Subagendas da ANPPS por dois pesquisadores, independentemente, com as discordâncias sendo resolvidas por consenso. O volume de recursos aplicados pelo MS no período foi cerca de R$ 409,7 milhões. Em termos da distribuição dos recursos, segundo as Subagendas componentes da ANPPS, os dado apontaram para uma concentração de fomento em cinco Subagendas principais: Doenças Transmissíveis, Complexo produtivo da Saúde, Pesquisa clínica, Assistência farmacêutica e Doenças não transmissíveis. Somadas, elas representaram investimentos da ordem de R$ 324 milhões para o período 2003-2005. Todas as 24 Subagendas receberam algum tipo de financiamento no período, embora alguns tenham sido de pequena monta. No período sob análise, ocorreram os passos iniciais para a construção e institucionalização da Agenda. Dessa maneira, o estudo realizado pode servir para estabelecer um ponto inicial (como um marco zero) para posteriores estudos sobre o potencial indutor deste instrumento, contribuindo para avaliações acerca da aproximação entre os investimentos em P&D/S no país e as necessidades sanitárias da população e, para o desenvolvimento do SUS. / The health research it is a subject of extreme importance for the development of a society. It might help reduction of inequalities in health. The building of research priorities agenda while a political technical instrument that induces the financing of researchers relayed to social and sanitary needs. It could be strategy to be used in order to find a reduction. This paper objective is to examine the Brazilian Ministry of Healths investments in Health Research and Development (R&D/H) between 2003-2005, trying to contrast them with the items of the National health Research Priority Agenda, established in 2004. The data was obtained from a research carried out with the main goal of measure resource invested in R&D/H in the country on the period, being considered only the Ministry of Healths own investments. It was computed directly in research funding, excluding expenditures with salaries. The R&D/H was categorized independently by two researchers based on 24 subdivisions which compose the Agenda. The amount of the resources invested by the Ministry of Health on the period was R$ 409.7 million. On the terms of the distribution of the expenses as well as the agenda components of the ANPPS, the data points to a concentration on five principal sub-agendas: Transmitted disease, Health systems and policies, Clinical Research, Pharmaceutical assistance and non-transmitted diseases. The total of them represents investments of R$ 324 million in 2003-2005 period. It is important to say that in this period, all of the 24 agendas received a kind of financing, although some of them were of a smaller amount. The period of analysis approaches the firsts steps of the building and establishment of the agenda. In this way the realized study, can serve to establish an initial point (the zero point) to later evaluations, in order to influence the potential of this instrument that may contributes to make the financial investments more near from the social and sanitarians real needs of the population, and for the development of Unified National Health System in Brazil SUS.

A atividade de pesquisa em saúde é uma área de interesse e importância para o desenvolvimento de uma sociedade. Ela pode contribuir no processo de redução das desigualdades na saúde. A constituição de agendas de prioridades em pesquisa, enquanto um instrumento técnico-político indutor de financiamentos de pesquisas alinhadas às necessidade sociais e sanitárias, seria uma das estratégias a serem utilizadas na busca dessa redução. O objetivo deste trabalho foi mapear a aplicação dos recursos financeiros aplicados em pesquisa e desenvolvimento em saúde pelo Ministério da Saúde (MS) durante o período 2003-2005, conforme Agenda Nacional de Prioridades de pesquisa em Saúde (ANPPS), estabelecida em 2004. Utilizaram-se os dados procedentes de pesquisa realizada com a finalidade primária de mensurar os fluxos de recursos investidos em P&D/S no país no período, sendo considerados apenas os investimentos oriundos do próprio MS. Foi computado apenas o financiamento direto em pesquisa e efetivamente pago, excluindo-se dispêndios com salários. As pesquisas forma categorizadas segundo as 24 Subagendas da ANPPS por dois pesquisadores, independentemente, com as discordâncias sendo resolvidas por consenso. O volume de recursos aplicados pelo MS no período foi cerca de R$ 409,7 milhões. Em termos da distribuição dos recursos, segundo as Subagendas componentes da ANPPS, os dado apontaram para uma concentração de fomento em cinco Subagendas principais: Doenças Transmissíveis, Complexo produtivo da Saúde, Pesquisa clínica, Assistência farmacêutica e Doenças não transmissíveis. Somadas, elas representaram investimentos da ordem de R$ 324 milhões para o período 2003-2005. Todas as 24 Subagendas receberam algum tipo de financiamento no período, embora alguns tenham sido de pequena monta. No período sob análise, ocorreram os passos iniciais para a construção e institucionalização da Agenda. Dessa maneira, o estudo realizado pode servir para estabelecer um ponto inicial (como um marco zero) para posteriores estudos sobre o potencial indutor deste instrumento, contribuindo para avaliações acerca da aproximação entre os investimentos em P&D/S no país e as necessidades sanitárias da população e, para o desenvolvimento do SUS. / The health research it is a subject of extreme importance for the development of a society. It might help reduction of inequalities in health. The building of research priorities agenda while a political technical instrument that induces the financing of researchers relayed to social and sanitary needs. It could be strategy to be used in order to find a reduction. This paper objective is to examine the Brazilian Ministry of Healths investments in Health Research and Development (R&D/H) between 2003-2005, trying to contrast them with the items of the National health Research Priority Agenda, established in 2004. The data was obtained from a research carried out with the main goal of measure resource invested in R&D/H in the country on the period, being considered only the Ministry of Healths own investments. It was computed directly in research funding, excluding expenditures with salaries. The R&D/H was categorized independently by two researchers based on 24 subdivisions which compose the Agenda. The amount of the resources invested by the Ministry of Health on the period was R$ 409.7 million. On the terms of the distribution of the expenses as well as the agenda components of the ANPPS, the data points to a concentration on five principal sub-agendas: Transmitted disease, Health systems and policies, Clinical Research, Pharmaceutical assistance and non-transmitted diseases. The total of them represents investments of R$ 324 million in 2003-2005 period. It is important to say that in this period, all of the 24 agendas received a kind of financing, although some of them were of a smaller amount. The period of analysis approaches the firsts steps of the building and establishment of the agenda. In this way the realized study, can serve to establish an initial point (the zero point) to later evaluations, in order to influence the potential of this instrument that may contributes to make the financial investments more near from the social and sanitarians real needs of the population, and for the development of Unified National Health System in Brazil SUS.