Table 3 Comparative analysis according to the criteria of Accountability for Reasonableness (AR) between different health research prioritization processes in Panama, 2006 to 2012
Decision makers | Criteria | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Plan | Committee | Institution (n) | Relevance | Publicity | Review | Reinforcement |
Priority-setting I: | Ad Hoc of 6 researchers | ICGES (5) HN (1) | Present | Not present | Follow-up review, present | Review was not incorporated |
PENCYT 2006–2010 | ||||||
Priority-setting II: | Pluralist participation of 65 actors from the public and private sector, government, academia and ST&I management | MINSA (25), ICGES (13), UP (7), HST (5), COHRED (1), | Present | Not present | Not present | Partially incorporated into PENCYT 2010–2014 |
Inter-sectoral and inter-institutional workshop on policies and priorities in health research | ||||||
SENACYT (1), CSS (1), Comptroller (2), | ||||||
ANAM (1), Private (1), INDICASAT (1), | ||||||
HN (2), MIDA (4), NGO (1) | ||||||
Priority –setting III: | Ad Hoc committee of 13 actors and 3 collaborators | MINSA (4), ICGES (2), CSS (2), | Present | Not present | Present | Not present |
PENCYT 2010-2014 | UP (2), NGO (1) | |||||
STRI (1), HN (1) | ||||||
UP (1), INDICASAT (1), Government (1) | ||||||