Setting health research priorities using the CHNRI method:III. Involving stakeholders

Setting health research priorities is a complex and value–driven process. The introduction of the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method has made the process of setting research priorities more transparent and inclusive, but much of the process remains in the hands of funders and researchers, as described in the previous two papers in this series. However, the value systems of numerous other important stakeholders, particularly those on the receiving end of health research products, are very rarely addressed in any process of priority setting. Inclusion of a larger and more diverse group of stakeholders in the process would result in a better reflection of the system of values of the broader community, resulting in recommendations that are more legitimate and acceptable

Setting health research priorities using the CHNRI method: V. Quantitative properties of human collective knowledge.

INTRODUCTION: The CHNRI method for setting health research priorities has crowdsourcing as the major component. It uses the collective opinion of a group of experts to generate, assess and prioritize between many competing health research ideas. It is difficult to compare the accuracy of human individual and collective opinions in predicting uncertain future outcomes before the outcomes are known. However, this limitation does not apply to existing knowledge, which is an important component underlying opinion. In this paper, we report several experiments to explore the quantitative properties of human collective knowledge and discuss their relevance to the CHNRI method. METHODS: We conducted a series of experiments in groups of about 160 (range: 122-175) undergraduate Year 2 medical students to compare their collective knowledge to their individual knowledge. We asked them to answer 10 questions on each of the following: (i) an area in which they have a degree of expertise (undergraduate Year 1 medical curriculum); (ii) an area in which they likely have some knowledge (general knowledge); and (iii) an area in which they are not expected to have any knowledge (astronomy). We also presented them with 20 pairs of well-known celebrities and asked them to identify the older person of the pair. In all these experiments our goal was to examine how the collective answer compares to the distribution of students' individual answers. RESULTS: When answering the questions in their own area of expertise, the collective answer (the median) was in the top 20.83% of the most accurate individual responses; in general knowledge, it was in the top 11.93%; and in an area with no expertise, the group answer was in the top 7.02%. However, the collective answer based on mean values fared much worse, ranging from top 75.60% to top 95.91%. Also, when confronted with guessing the older of the two celebrities, the collective response was correct in 18/20 cases (90%), while the 8 most successful individuals among the students had 19/20 correct answers (95%). However, when the system in which the students who were not sure of the correct answer were allowed to either choose an award of half of the point in all such instances, or withdraw from responding, in order to improve the score of the collective, the collective was correct in 19/20 cases (95%), while the 3 most successful individuals were correct in 17/20 cases (85%). CONCLUSIONS: Our experiments showed that the collective knowledge of a group with expertise in the subject should always be very close to the true value. In most cases and under most assumption, the collective knowledge will be more accurate than the knowledge of an "average" individual, but there always seems to be a small group of individuals who manage to out-perform the collective. The accuracy of collective prediction may be enhanced by allowing the individuals with low confidence in their answer to withdraw from answering

Setting health research priorities using the CHNRI method: VII. a review of the first 50 applications of the CHNRI method

Background: Several recent reviews of the methods used to set research priorities have identified the CHNRI method (acronym derived from the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative ) as an approach that clearly became popular and widely used over the past decade. In this paper we review the first 50 examples of application of the CHNRI method, published between 2007 and 2016, and summarize the most important messages that emerged from those experiences.Methods: We conducted a literature review to identify the first 50 examples of application of the CHNRI method in chronological order. We searched Google Scholar, PubMed and so-called grey literature.Results: Initially, between 2007 and 2011, the CHNRI method was mainly used for setting research priorities to address global child health issues, although the first cases of application outside this field (eg, mental health, disabilities and zoonoses) were also recorded. Since 2012 the CHNRI method was used more widely, expanding into the topics such as adolescent health, dementia, national health policy and education. The majority of the exercises were focused on issues that were only relevant to low- and middle-income countries, and national-level applications are on the rise. The first CHNRI-based articles adhered to the five recommended priority-setting criteria, but by 2016 more than two-thirds of all conducted exercises departed from recommendations, modifying the CHNRI method to suit each particular exercise. This was done not only by changing the number of criteria used, but also by introducing some entirely new criteria (eg, low cost , sustainability , acceptability , feasibility , relevance and others).Conclusions: The popularity of the CHNRI method in setting health research priorities can be attributed to several key conceptual advances that have addressed common concerns. The method is systematic in nature, offering an acceptable framework for handling many research questions. It is also transparent and replicable, because it clearly defines the context and priority-setting criteria. It is democratic, as it relies on crowd-sourcing . It is inclusive, fostering ownership of the results by ensuring that various groups invest in the process. It is very flexible and adjustable to many different contexts and needs. Finally, it is simple and relatively inexpensive to conduct, which we believe is one of the main reasons for its uptake by many groups globally, particularly those in low- and middle-income countries

Setting research priorities to reduce mortality and morbidity of childhood diarrhoeal disease in the next 15 years.

Zulfi Bhutta and colleagues lay out research priorities for global child diarrheal disease over the next 15 years, which they developed using the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summar

Research priorities for nutrition of school-aged children and adolescents in low- and middle-income countries.

PURPOSE: A lack of data, intervention studies, policies, and targets for nutrition in school-age children (SAC) and adolescents (5-19 years) is hampering progress towards tackling malnutrition. To stimulate and guide further research, this study generated a list of research priorities. METHODS: Using the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method, a list of 48 research questions was compiled and questions were scored against defined criteria using a stakeholder survey. Questions covered all forms of malnutrition, including micronutrient deficiencies, thinness, stunting, overweight/obesity, and suboptimal dietary quality. The context was defined as research focused on SAC and adolescents, 5 to 19 years old, in low-and middle-income countries, that could achieve measurable results in reducing the prevalence of malnutrition in the next 10 years. RESULTS: Between 85 and 101 stakeholders responded per question. Respondents covered a broad geographical distribution across 38 countries, with the largest proportion focusing on work in East and Southern Africa. Of the research questions ranked in the top ten, half focused on delivery strategies for reaching adolescents and half on improving existing interventions. There were few differences in the ranked order of questions between age groups but those related to in-school children and adolescents had higher expert agreement than those for out-of-school adolescents. The top ranked research question focused on tailoring antenatal and postnatal care for pregnant adolescent girls. CONCLUSION: Nutrition programmes should incorporate implementation research to inform delivery of effective interventions to this age group, starting in schools. Academic research on the development and tailoring of existing nutrition interventions is also needed; specifically, on how to package multisectoral programmes and how to better reach vulnerable and underserved sub- groups, including those out of school

Identification of priorities for improvement of medication safety in primary care: a PRIORITIZE study

Background Medication error is a frequent, harmful and costly patient safety incident. Research to date has mostly focused on medication errors in hospitals. In this study, we aimed to identify the main causes of, and solutions to, medication error in primary care. Methods We used a novel priority-setting method for identifying and ranking patient safety problems and solutions called PRIORITIZE. We invited 500 North West London primary care clinicians to complete an open-ended questionnaire to identify three main problems and solutions relating to medication error in primary care. 113 clinicians submitted responses, which we thematically synthesized into a composite list of 48 distinct problems and 45 solutions. A group of 57 clinicians randomly selected from the initial cohort scored these and an overall ranking was derived. The agreement between the clinicians’ scores was presented using the average expert agreement (AEA). The study was conducted between September 2013 and November 2014. Results The top three problems were incomplete reconciliation of medication during patient ‘hand-overs’, inadequate patient education about their medication use and poor discharge summaries. The highest ranked solutions included development of a standardized discharge summary template, reduction of unnecessary prescribing, and minimisation of polypharmacy. Overall, better communication between the healthcare provider and patient, quality assurance approaches during medication prescribing and monitoring, and patient education on how to use their medication were considered the top priorities. The highest ranked suggestions received the strongest agreement among the clinicians, i.e. the highest AEA score. Conclusions Clinicians identified a range of suggestions for better medication management, quality assurance procedures and patient education. According to clinicians, medication errors can be largely prevented with feasible and affordable interventions. PRIORITIZE is a new, convenient, systematic, and replicable method, and merits further exploration with a view to becoming a part of a routine preventative patient safety monitoring mechanism

Setting health research priorities using the CHNRI method: VII. A review of the first 50 applications of the CHNRI method

BACKGROUND: Several recent reviews of the methods used to set research priorities have identified the CHNRI method (acronym derived from the "Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative") as an approach that clearly became popular and widely used over the past decade. In this paper we review the first 50 examples of application of the CHNRI method, published between 2007 and 2016, and summarize the most important messages that emerged from those experiences. METHODS: We conducted a literature review to identify the first 50 examples of application of the CHNRI method in chronological order. We searched Google Scholar, PubMed and so-called grey literature. RESULTS: Initially, between 2007 and 2011, the CHNRI method was mainly used for setting research priorities to address global child health issues, although the first cases of application outside this field (eg, mental health, disabilities and zoonoses) were also recorded. Since 2012 the CHNRI method was used more widely, expanding into the topics such as adolescent health, dementia, national health policy and education. The majority of the exercises were focused on issues that were only relevant to low- and middle-income countries, and national-level applications are on the rise. The first CHNRI-based articles adhered to the five recommended priority-setting criteria, but by 2016 more than two-thirds of all conducted exercises departed from recommendations, modifying the CHNRI method to suit each particular exercise. This was done not only by changing the number of criteria used, but also by introducing some entirely new criteria (eg, "low cost", "sustainability", "acceptability", "feasibility", "relevance" and others). CONCLUSIONS: The popularity of the CHNRI method in setting health research priorities can be attributed to several key conceptual advances that have addressed common concerns. The method is systematic in nature, offering an acceptable framework for handling many research questions. It is also transparent and replicable, because it clearly defines the context and priority-setting criteria. It is democratic, as it relies on "crowd-sourcing". It is inclusive, fostering "ownership" of the results by ensuring that various groups invest in the process. It is very flexible and adjustable to many different contexts and needs. Finally, it is simple and relatively inexpensive to conduct, which we believe is one of the main reasons for its uptake by many groups globally, particularly those in low- and middle-income countries

Research priorities to reduce the impact of COVID-19 in low- and middle-income countries

publishedVersio

Research priorities in Maternal, Newborn, & Child Health & Nutrition for India:An Indian Council of Medical Research-INCLEN Initiative

In India, research prioritization in Maternal, Newborn, and Child Health and Nutrition (MNCHN) themes has traditionally involved only a handful of experts mostly from major cities. The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR)-INCLEN collaboration undertook a nationwide exercise engaging faculty from 256 institutions to identify top research priorities in the MNCHN themes for 2016-2025. The Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative method of priority setting was adapted. The context of the exercise was defined by a National Steering Group (NSG) and guided by four Thematic Research Subcommittees. Research ideas were pooled from 498 experts located in different parts of India, iteratively consolidated into research options, scored by 893 experts against five pre-defined criteria (answerability, relevance, equity, investment and innovation) and weighed by a larger reference group. Ranked lists of priorities were generated for each of the four themes at national and three subnational (regional) levels [Empowered Action Group & North-Eastern States, Southern and Western States, & Northern States (including West Bengal)]. Research priorities differed between regions and from overall national priorities. Delivery domain of research which included implementation research constituted about 70 per cent of the top ten research options under all four themes. The results were endorsed in the NSG meeting. There was unanimity that the research priorities should be considered by different governmental and non-governmental agencies for investment with prioritization on implementation research and issues cutting across themes