One alternative health device! A methodological proposal to analyze research projects’ orientation towards national health problems

Figures & data

Figure 1. Stokes’ Pasteur Quadrant. Source: Stokes (1997).

Table 1. Definition of variables for the “consideration about use” axis.

	Scientific production variables	Social participation in science variables
Input	Problem’s nature: it focuses on the definition of research objects, evaluating whether they are closer to theoretical or to practical emphasis. Healthcare applications, feasibility constitutes the principal guidance to understand the level of practical applications (Graham and Tetroe 2007).	Knowledge demand detection: the inclusion of mechanisms that make explicit social knowledge demands in health as an indicator of the orientation of the research project (Arocena and Sutz 2010). National problems call for a clear knowledge demand identification, in which the interests of social groups are at the core of the research project (Natera, Rojas Rajs, and Suárez 2016).
Process	Nature of research: it identifies the type of research that is being proposed in the project. Following the criteria proposed by the Frascati Manual (OECD 2015), this dimension measures whether a project is closer to basic research or to experimental developments.	Consideration of knowledge co-production processes: in a research project for health issues, the inclusion of beneficiaries in the research process is a capability building process that increases the possibility of producing knowledge aligned with their conditions, and even more important: it generates a capability building process in the social groups (Cozzens and Sutz 2014).
Outcome	Perspective of direct benefit: the identification of knowledge beneficiaries of a research project’s outcome is a clear signal of its usability. Therefore, the more specific the level of identification of knowledge beneficiaries, the greater the level of this dimension (Natera et al. 2020).	Social communication of scientific results: the communication strategy developed to diffuse the outcomes of a research project, increases its possibility of impact, increases social awareness of the potential of knowledge production to solve societal problems, and is a source of inspiration for other social groups in need (Rojas-Rajs and Soto 2013; Rojas Rajs and Natera 2019).

Source: authors' elaboration.

Table 2. Definition of variables for the “search for fundamental understanding” axis.

	Scientific production variables	Social participation in science variables
Input	Knowledge requisites: it denotes the kind of knowledge that needs to be integrated into each project; therefore, it refers to disciplinary background of participant researchers’ profile. Being health a complex process, the use of inter or transdisciplinary approaches is preferable as a way to comprehend the characteristics of research on a health problem (Rycroft-Malone et al. 2016)	Participation of heterogeneous actors: as proposed by Gibbons (2000), when dealing with complex problems the articulation of heterogeneous actors is key to include different visions on the research problem. In the case of healthcare activities, the participation of the academic sector, the productive sector, the public sector, the health sector, and civil society organizations is required (Natera et al. 2020).
Process	Knowledge generation process: it refers to the characterization of the ontology of a research object. The closer a research project is to understanding the nature of a health issue, the greater the possibilities of getting multiple directions for future studies and potential strategies to deal with it (Graham et al. 2006).	Consideration of social determination of health: health issues occur in a set of complex processes, that includes historical context, socio-political conditions, geographic determination, and economic structures (Rocha and David 2015). The inclusion of the characteristics of these processes in the research project development, opens the door to fully understand the nature of the problem by developing research contextualized activities.
Outcome	Knowledge progress: it establishes progress in relation to the type of object it could produce. This could imply the generation of new data for a specific purpose, with a concrete and limited contribution, or the creation of new scientific approaches to a health issue, giving rise to new research lines (Natera et al. 2019).	Articulation with health issues: It is desired that research outcomes are closely related to the agenda of social groups in need. The alignment between research outcomes and the agenda of specific (and particularly large) social groups increases the possibility of generating impact on people’s welfare (Rojas Rajs and Natera 2019).

Source: authors' elaboration.

Table 3. A guide for measuring the variables of the “consideration about use” axis.

		Measurement scale
Input	Problem’s nature	(1) Entirely theoretical. Possibilities for healthcare applications are unforeseen or very remote, (2) More theoretical than practical. There are possible healthcare applications but they are not fully accessible or require intermediate complex processes (3) Balance between theoretical and practical. Healthcare applications are feasible, but have to be developed (4) More practical than theoretical. Healthcare applications are clearly attainable, and (5) Entirely practical. Healthcare applications are available.
	Knowledge demand detection	(1) Knowledge demand is based on the interests of the scientific community, (2) Knowledge demand is based on the perception of the scientific community of the public agenda, (3) Knowledge demand is based on the perception of the scientific community of social groups’ issues, (4) Knowledge demand emerges from the interaction with social groups, (5) Knowledge demand attends specific revealed needs of social groups.
Process	Nature of research	(1) Pure basic research, (2) Oriented basic research, (3) Oriented basic research with some scopes of problem solving or practical applications, (4) Applied research to solve problems and/or generate practical applications, (5) Experimental development about new products, processes, materials, equipment, and systems or their improvement.
	Consideration of knowledge co-production processes	(1) Research project does not include beneficiaries’ perceptions, (2) Research projects includes secondary information of beneficiaries’ perceptions, (3) Research project shows interactions with knowledge from beneficiaries, (4) Knowledge beneficiaries have particular tasks in the research project, (5) Knowledge beneficiaries are fully integrated and participating in the research project.
Output	Direct benefit’s perspective	(1) Knowledge beneficiaries are not identified, (2) There are potential knowledge beneficiaries, (3) There are specific knowledge beneficiaries groups, (4) There are specific knowledge beneficiaries groups and there is a knowledge application method, (5) There are specific knowledge beneficiaries groups and there is a method and a specific action plan for knowledge application.
	Social communication of scientific results	(1) Publication of scientific articles and/or scientific books, (2) Publication of articles and books in specialized media for broad audiences, (3) Publication of articles, books or multimedia content in open media, (4) Integrating articles, books, multimedia content in open media with social networks, (5) Setting an interactive communication strategy for broad audiences.

Source: authors' elaboration.

Table 4. A guide for measuring the variables of the “search for fundamental knowledge” axis.

		Measurement scale
Input	Knowledge requisites	(1) Knowledge in one specific area, (2) Knowledge in at least two specific knowledge areas, (3) Multidisciplinary knowledge areas, (4) Interdisciplinary knowledge areas and (5) Transdisciplinary knowledge areas.
	Participation of heterogeneous actors	(1) Only academic actors participate in the research proposal, (2) Academic actors are linked with the productive sector, health sector or public sector, (3) There is an interaction between academic actors, the productive sector, health sector, and government, (4) There is an interaction between academic actors, the productive sector, health sector, public sector, and social groups, (5) Academic actors, the productive sector, health sector, government, and social groups are fully integrated in the project’s development.
Process	Knowledge generation process	(1) Generating specific data about a phenomenon – What is a specific level variable? (2) Specifying phenomenon's analytical dimensions – What should be measured? (3) Determining causal relationships – Why does it happen? (4) Exploring the association of the phenomena with established knowledge – What is it related to? (5) Characterizing and describing the nature of a phenomenon – What is it?
	Consideration of social determination of health	(1) Research project does not include considerations of the social determination of health, (2) Research project considers secondary information of the social determination of health, (3) Research project includes first-hand information on the social determination of health, (4) Research project proposes activities linked to the social determination of health, (5) Research project is structured around the characteristics of the social determination of health.
Output	Knowledge progress	(1) Support: Confirms already existing scientific or technological knowledge, (2) Minor: Explores relations to already existing scientific or technological knowledge, (3) Moderate: Establishing / transforming new data or new standards to already existing scientific or technological knowledge, (4) Significant: Creates a new research line, (5) Extraordinary: Creates a new research area or theme.
	Articulation with health issues	(1) Research outcomes are not related to social groups’ health issues, (2) Research outcomes are related to social groups’ health issues as a secondary objective, (3) Research outcomes are articulated with social groups’ health issues but do not identify any specific social group, (4) Research outcomes are articulated with specific social groups’ health issues, (5) Research outcomes are articulated with health issues that affect large parts of the population.

Source: authors' elaboration.

Stokes, D. E. 1997. “Pasteur’s Quadrant.” Political Science 92 (3): 180. doi:10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2.

 Google Scholar

Graham, I., and J. Tetroe. 2007. “How to Translate Health Research Knowledge into Effective Healthcare Action.” Healthcare Quarterly (Toronto, Ont.) 10 (3): 20–22. doi:10.12927/hcq..18919.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Arocena, R., and J. Sutz. 2010. “Weak Knowledge Demand in the South: Learning Divides and Innovation Policies.” Science and Public Policy 37 (8): 571–582. doi:10.3152/030234210X12767691861137.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Natera, J. M., Rojas Rajs, S., & Suárez, M. (2016). “Tecnología e Innovación para el desarrollo inclusivo en el sector salud.” In Sociedad, desarrollo y políticas públicas, edited by J. M. Corona, 1st ed., 301–329. Mexico: Editorial UAM.

 Google Scholar

OECD. 2015. Frascati Manual 2015: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development, The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239012-en.

 Google Scholar

Cozzens, S., and J. Sutz. 2014. “Innovation in Informal Settings: Reflections and Proposals for a Research Agenda.” Innovation and Development 4 (1): 5–31. doi:10.1080/2157930X.2013.876803.

 Google Scholar

Natera, J., S. Rojas-Rajs, G. Dutrénit, and A. O. Vera-Cruz. 2020. “Knowledge Dialogues for Better Health: Complementarities between Health Innovation Studies and Health Disciplines.” Prometheus 36 (1): 30–50. doi:10.13169/prometheus.36.1.0030

 Google Scholar

Rojas-Rajs, S., and E. J. Soto. 2013. “Comunicación para la salud y estilos de vida saludables.” Interface – Comunicação, Saúde, Educação 17 (46): 587–599. doi:10.1590/S1414-32832013000300008.

 Google Scholar

Rojas Rajs, S., and J. M. Natera. 2019. “Knowledge Mobilization: Contributions for Social Studies in Health.” Revista Ciencias de La Salud 17 (3): 111–131. doi:10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/revsalud/a.8369.

 Google Scholar

Rycroft-Malone, J., C. R. Burton, T. Bucknall, I. D. Graham, A. M. Hutchinson, and D. Stacey. 2016. “Collaboration and Co-Production of Knowledge in Healthcare: Opportunities and Challenges.” Kerman University of Medical Sciences 5 (4): 221–223. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2016.08.

 Google Scholar

Gibbons, M. 2000. “Mode 2 Society and the Emergence of Context-Sensitive Science.” Science and Public Policy 27 (3): 159–163. doi:10.3152/147154300781782011.

 Google Scholar

Graham, I., J. Logan, M. B. Harrison, S. E. Straus, J. Tetroe, W. Caswell, and N. Robinson. 2006. “Lost in Knowledge Map: Time for a Map?” The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions 26 (1): 13–24. doi:10.1002/chp.47.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rocha, P. R., and H. M. S. L. David. 2015. “Determination or Determinants? A Debate Based on the Theory on the Social Production of Health.” Revista Da Escola de Enfermagem Da USP 49: 129–135. doi:10.1590/S0080-623420150000100017.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Natera, J. M., S. Rojas-Rajs, G. Dutrénit, and A. O. Vera-Cruz. 2019. “National Health Problems and Useful Knowledge: Lessons from Public Funding of Diabetes Research in Mexico.” Innovation and Development 9 (2), doi:10.1080/2157930X.2019.1567906.

 Google Scholar