Committee Reports
The PNHRS Committee reports were designed to answer the questions: Where are we now? (The PNHRS from 2006-2008) and Where we are going? (The PNHRS from 2009-2011).
The Structure and Organization Monitoring and Evaluation (SOME) Committee report focused on the PNHRS Strategic Goals Nos. 2 (To ensure that investments in health research yield the most benefit) and 3 (To promote good governance in research towards high performing and ethical health research organizations). It stressed the representation and role of the Committee, the resources which include the sharing and planning for the Regional Health Research and Development Consortia (RHRDC), as well as reviving all regional health research consortia and getting the involvement of the local government units to strengthen the RHRDC's capacities and structure.
The Committee's cross-cutting concern focused on the definition of the roles of the four core agencies, namely the Department of Science and Technology (DOST), the Department of Health (DOH), the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), and the University of the Philippines-National Institutes of Health (UP-NIH); the monitoring and evaluation criteria; and the definition of a researcher.
The Capacity Building Committee report focused on the PNHRS Strategic Goal No. 3 (To promote good governance in research towards high performing and ethical health research organizations) in which the Committee stressed on the consensus about the training needs for capacity building, comparable competencies, and the collaboration in journal accreditation, resource requirements and research agenda. The Committee's activities focused on advocacy, instrumentation and research, training, and establishment of international linkages.
Cross-cutting concerns involve the establishment of a database between committees, creation of modules in ethics, research management, resource mobilization and research utilization, research fundings, the RHRDCs, and the strengthening of its structure.
The Resource Mobilization Committee report centered on the costing concerns and budget for health research stressing to work closely with the PNHRS Bill funders and see through its passage within the 14th Congress; the status of health research in the Philippines in which it was said that the country needs to develop a niche as a research outsourcing hub to be able to attract funds from international organizations; and manualization where the experiences of the researchers will be published in a manual to disseminate information to the public.
Its cross-cutting concern involves the organizations' need to be transparent in their research expenditures, organizations' involvement with the PNHRS Registry, developing the country to become a niche of research outsourcing, the research communities' need to recognize and access research resources, the need to capacitate researchers on research conceptualization and proposal development, and proposal development and research article writing.
The Research Management Committee report was on logistics, leadership, and law (PNHRS Bill). Logistics is about the process on how to bring the researchers to the funders and how to make sure that the research is done by the researchers. It was emphasized that leadership and perspective is needed to be able to establish a good System. The PNHRS Bill sets a common language in terms of what health research system means, and with this common language a mindset change is needed among those involved in health research.
The Committee's cross-cutting concerns include the funding for the National Unified Health Research Agenda (NUHRA)'s advocacy, promotion, and research and development implementation, the PNHRS Information Management System, and the development of the organizational functions of the PNHRS Committees.
The report of the Research Utilization Committee centered on positioning research utilization and laymanization of research in the global, “glocal”, local, and online market, as well as the people that are relevant to research. The Committee focused on practices that will lead to new business models for research governance and translation, such as change management, accountability mechanisms and the like.
Cross-cutting concerns of the Committee include low research productivity, inadequate research career paths, the research agenda must anticipate utilization, the grassroots needs should be shape-searched for research-based solutions, and the lack of PNHRS Committee output utilization.
The Ethics Committee report centered on the advisory board, accreditation, aspiration and advocacy of ethics in health research. The Committee recommends a more balanced participation among the agency and a clearer policy-making process within the PNHRS; and a permanent item/arrangement for the management of the database, clarification of the relationship and functions of the National Ethics Committee (NEC), and the possibility of a national ethics advisory board that will advise the national leadership on ethical issues.
Their cross-cutting concerns involve the development of the regional consortia-formation of the regional ethics board, and their capacity building activities.
Cross-Cutting Themes
Facilitator of the workshop, Prof. Patricia L. Lontoc of the Asian Institute of Management (AIM), identified three major cross-cutting themes that emerged in the session, namely: 1.) the administrative issue, 2.) the resources, and 3.) the public-private partnership.
The administrative issue lies in the role of the institution in the System and the leadership that the consortia can contribute to the process. In terms of resources, the need to balance three factors, which are the requirements, policies and needs of the communities, is vital. Public-private partnership is important as well in sustaining and strengthening the system.
Vision 2011
According to Dr. Jaime Galvez-Tan, Resource Mobilization and Steering Committee Chair, the issues which needs focus are related to commitments, the communities, the Committees, the National Unified Health Research Agenda (NUHRA), and information dissemination at the level of stakeholders in various ways.
The two main targets of the PNHRS Strategic Planning included the PNHRS support staff and its six Committees.
All stakeholders should be harnessed having a shared vision, objectives, strategies, outcomes and impact. Dr. Galvez-Tan said that promotion, particularly in the regions, needs to be done, and that a time line is much needed for the better governance of the System. He also suggested that the Committees should be able to process the results of the workshop in November so that actions will be done by December.
Dr. Jaime C. Montoya, Executive Director of the Philippine Council for Health Research and Development (PCHRD) of the Department of Science and Technology (DOST), suggested that Committee meetings be done quarterly to be able to closely monitor the plans for the System.
The 2008 PNHRS Strategic Planning was held at the Mahogany Hall in the Holiday Inn, Clark, Pampanga aiming to formulate a Strategic Map for the PNHRS from 2009-2011.