METHODS: Research impact of universal access and quality healthcare projects funded by the National Institutes of Health Malaysia were assessed based on the modified Payback Framework, addressing categories of informing policy, knowledge production, and benefits to health and health sector. For the HRPS process, the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative methodology was adapted and adopted, with the incorporation of stakeholder values using weights and monetary allocation survey. Workshop discussions and interviews with stakeholders and research groups were conducted to identify research gaps, with the use of conceptual frameworks to guide the search.
RESULTS: Seventeen ongoing and 50 completed projects were identified for research funding impact analysis. Overall, research fund allocation differed from stakeholders' expectation. For research impact, 48 out of 50 completed projects (96.0%) contributed to some form of policy-making efforts. Almost all completed projects resulted in outputs that contributed to knowledge production and were expected to lead to health and health sector benefits. The HRPS process led to the identification of research priority areas that stemmed from ongoing and new issues identified for universal access and quality healthcare.
CONCLUSION: The concerted efforts of evaluation of research funding impact, prioritisation, dissemination and policy-maker involvement were valuable for optimal health research resource utilisation in a resource constrained developing country. Embedding impact evaluation into a priority setting process and funding research based on national needs could facilitate health research investment to reach its potential.
METHODS: Data from the National Health and Morbidity Survey 2018, a nation-wide, cross-sectional survey using a two-stage stratified sampling design, were analyzed. A representative sample of individuals aged ≥60 years identified through national sampling frames throughout Malaysia was included. Face-to-face interviews were conducted using validated questionnaires on activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental ADL (IADL). Social support was measured using the Duke Social Support Index.
RESULTS: The overall prevalence of the presence of any limitations in ADL and IADL was 17.0% and 42.9% respectively. Overall prevalence of the older persons with low to fair social support was 30.8% and high to very high social support was 69.2%. Logistic regression analysis identified the following factors as being associated with limitations in ADL and IADL: being female, of older age, having a monthly income