Skip to main content

Table 3 The themes proposed by the participants differ in the level of decision making and the ranking in each level

From: Priority-setting in health research in Iran: a qualitative study on barriers and facilitators

sub-themes Macro Meso Micro sub-themes Macro Meso Micro
Priority-setting approaches 1 1 2 Rapid turnover of managers 19 25 16
Stewardship-Inappropriate leadership of research 2 2 1 Centralized decision making 20 33 31
Stakeholders: end users 3 8 3 Stewardship: No standardization 21 7 23
Inefficiency of faculties’ promotion criteria 4 6 12 Stakeholders: Policy makers 22 28 20
Lack of National Innovation System 5 3 4 Considering priority setting as a one-time activity 23 29 21
Limiting research budgets to priorities 6 5 9 Using an automated system 24 30 30
Lack of a efficacious evaluation system 7 13 35 Narrow time limit for priority setting 25 11 15
Scarcity of knowledge about health research priority-setting 8 15 18 Publicizing health research priority-setting results 26 20 19
Lack of evidences about research gaps 9 4 7 Stewardship-Lack of Transparency in other sectors 27 23 33
Stakeholders: ways of engagement 10 10 25 Stakeholders: NGOs 28 14 16
Individual willingness 11 9 17 Ignoring appealing mechanisms 29 26 22
Alignment with high level rule 12 12 24 Stewardship:Absence of a research map (research puzzles) 30 34 14
Generalization 13 22 8 Stakeholders: Funders 31 19 29
Commitment of managers 14 24 6 Meritocracy in management 32 32 13
Defining reliable PS criteria 15 18 5 Role of media 33 27 27
Defining scope of PS 16 21 25 Considering intellectual property 34 35 34
Scientific autonomy 17 15 11 Integration of heath with medical education 35 31 32
No relation with industries 18 17 27     
  1. Numbers are ranks of proposed sub-themes by participants in different levels of decision making