Setting priorities in child health research investments for South Africa

Setting priorities in global child health research investments: guidelines for implementation of CHNRI method

This article provides detailed guidelines for the implementation of systematic method for setting priorities in health research investments that was recently developed by Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI). The target audience for the proposed method are international agencies, large research funding donors, and national governments and policy-makers. The process has the following steps: (i) selecting the managers of the process; (ii) specifying the context and risk management preferences; (iii) discussing criteria for setting health research priorities; (iv) choosing a limited set of the most useful and important criteria; (v) developing means to assess the likelihood that proposed health research options will satisfy the selected criteria; (vi) systematic listing of a large number of proposed health research options; (vii) pre-scoring check of all competing health research options; (viii) scoring of health research options using the chosen set of criteria; (ix) calculating intermediate scores for each health research option; (x) obtaining further input from the stakeholders; (xi) adjusting intermediate scores taking into account the values of stakeholders; (xii) calculating overall priority scores and assigning ranks; (xiii) performing an analysis of agreement between the scorers; (xiv) linking computed research priority scores with investment decisions; (xv) feedback and revision. The CHNRI method is a flexible process that enables prioritizing health research investments at any level: institutional, regional, national, international, or global.

Setting research priorities to reduce global mortality from childhood diarrhoea by 2015

Olivier Fontaine and colleagues applied a priority-setting methodology to identify research priorities aimed at reducing global diarrhea mortality by 2015.

Research priorities to reduce global mortality from newborn infections by 2015

BACKGROUND

Newborn infections are responsible for approximately one-third of the estimated 4.0 million neonatal deaths that occur globally every year. Appropriately targeted research is required to guide investment in effective interventions, especially in low resource settings. Setting global priorities for research to address neonatal infections is essential and urgent.

METHODS

The Department of Child and Adolescent Health and Development of the World Health Organization (WHO/CAH) applied the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) priority-setting methodology to identify and stimulate research most likely to reduce global newborn infection-related mortality by 2015. Technical experts were invited by WHO/CAH to systematically list and then use standard methods to score research questions according to their likelihood to (i) be answered in an ethical way, (ii) lead to (or improve) effective interventions, (iii) be deliverable, affordable, and sustainable, (iv) maximize death burden reduction, and (v) have an equitable effect in the population. The scores were then weighted according to the values provided by a wide group of stakeholders from the global research priority-setting network.

FINDINGS

On a 100-point scale, the final priority scores for 69 research questions ranged from 39 to 83. Most of the 15 research questions that received the highest scores were in the domain of health systems and policy research to address barriers affecting existing cost-effective interventions. The priority questions focused on promotion of home care practices to prevent newborn infections and approaches to increase coverage and quality of management of newborn infections in health facilities as well as in the community. While community-based intervention research is receiving some current investment, rigorous evaluation and cost analysis is almost entirely lacking for research on facility-based interventions and quality improvement.

INTERPRETATION

Given the lack of progress in improving newborn survival despite the existence of effective interventions, it is not surprising that of the top ranked research priorities in this article the majority are in the domain of health systems and policy research. We urge funding agencies and investigators to invest in these research priorities to accelerate reduction of neonatal deaths, particularly those due to infections.

Four million newborn deaths: is the global research agenda evidence-based?

Four million neonates die each year. These deaths are mostly in low-income countries, but neonatal mortality and morbidity are also a priority burden in high-income countries. Epidemiological evidence suggests newborn research would prioritise the poorest families; birth and the first days of life; major causes particularly infections, preterm birth and asphyxia; and include preventive strategies as well as improved care. However research investment is not commensurate to burden, and there is a mismatch with current research priorities. South Asia and sub Saharan Africa, with 75% of the burden, expend around US$20 million per year on newborn research, a fraction of what is spent on a smaller proportion of health problem in rich countries. We propose a research pipeline of description, discovery, development of solutions and delivery of research with scale-up to reach the poorest families. Listing research options and applying quantitative scoring enables systematic, transparent research prioritisation. As well as a research pipeline, a "people pipeline" is required to generate research capacity in low-income countries.

Primary health care: making Alma-Ata a reality

The principles agreed at Alma-Ata 30 years ago apply just as much now as they did then. "Health for all" by the year 2000 was not achieved, and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) for 2015 will not be met in most low-income countries without substantial acceleration of primary health care. Factors have included insufficient political prioritisation of health, structural adjustment policies, poor governance, population growth, inadequate health systems, and scarce research and assessment on primary health care. We propose the following priorities for revitalising primary health care. Health-service infrastructure, including human resources and essential drugs, needs strengthening, and user fees should be removed for primary health-care services to improve use. A continuum of care for maternal, newborn, and child health services, including family planning, is needed. Evidence-based, integrated packages of community and primary curative and preventive care should be adapted to country contexts, assessed, and scaled up. Community participation and community health workers linked to strengthened primary-care facilities and first-referral services are needed. Furthermore, intersectoral action linking health and development is necessary, including that for better water, sanitation, nutrition, food security, and HIV control. Chronic diseases, mental health, and child development should be addressed. Progress should be measured and accountability assured. We prioritise research questions and suggest actions and measures for stakeholders both locally and globally, which are required to revitalise primary health care.

Reducing bias from test misclassification in burden of disease studies: use of test to actual positive ratio--new test parameter

AIM

To address the problem of estimating disease frequency identified by a diagnostic test, which may not represent the actual number of persons with disease in a community, but rather the number of persons who tested positive. Those two values may be very different, their relationship depending on the properties of the diagnostic test applied and true prevalence of the disease in a population.

METHODS

We defined a new test parameter, the ratio of Test to Actual Positives (TAP), which summarizes the properties of the diagnostic test applied and true prevalence of the disease in a population, and propose that is the most useful summary measure of the potential for bias in disease frequency estimates.

RESULTS

A consideration of the relationship between the sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp) of the diagnostic test and the true prevalence of disease in a population can inform study design by highlighting the potential for disease misclassification bias. The effects of a decrease in Sp on the TAP ratio at very low disease prevalence are dramatic, as at 80% Sp (and any Se value including 100%), the measured disease frequency will represent a 25-fold overestimate. At a disease prevalence of 0.10, the Sp needs to be 90% or greater to achieve a TAP ratio of 1.0. However, unlike at lower levels of disease prevalence, the test Se is also an important determinant of the TAP ratio. A TAP ratio of 1.0 can be achieved by a Sp of 95% and intermediate Se (40%-60%); or a Sp of 99% and very high Se (over 90%). This illustrates how a test with poor performance characteristics in a clinical setting can perform well in a disease burden study in a population. In circumstances in which the TAP ratio suggests a potential for a large bias, we suggest correction procedures that limit disease misclassification bias and which are often counter-intuitive. We also illustrate how these methods can improve the power of intervention studies, which define outcomes by use of a diagnostic test.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimal screening test characteristics for use in a population-based survey are likely to be different to those when the test is used in a clinical setting. Calibrating the test a priori to bring the TAP ratio closer to unity deals with the possible large bias in disease burden estimates based on application of diagnostic (screening) test.

Setting priorities for zinc-related health research to reduce children's disease burden worldwide: an application of the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative's research priority-setting method

OBJECTIVE

To make the best use of limited resources for supporting health-related research to reduce child mortality, it is necessary to apply a suitable method to rank competing research options. The Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) developed a new methodology for setting health research priorities. To broaden experience with this priority-setting technique, we applied the method to rank possible research priorities concerning the control of Zn deficiency. Although Zn deficiency is not generally recognized as a direct cause of child mortality, recent research indicates that it predisposes children to an increased incidence and severity of several of the major direct causes of morbidity and mortality.

DESIGN

Leading experts in the field of Zn research in child health were identified and invited to participate in a technical working group (TWG) to establish research priorities. The individuals were chosen to represent a wide range of expertise in Zn nutrition. The seven TWG members submitted a total of ninety research options, which were then consolidated into a final list of thirty-one research options categorized by the type of resulting intervention.

RESULTS

The identified priorities were dominated by research investment options targeting Zn supplementation, and were followed by research on Zn fortification, general aspects of Zn nutrition, dietary modification and other new interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, research options that aim to improve the efficiency of an already existing intervention strategy received higher priority scores. Challenges identified during the implementation of the methodology and suggestions to modify the priority-setting procedures are discussed.

Scale up services for mental disorders: a call for action

We call for the global health community, governments, donors, multilateral agencies, and other mental health stakeholders, such as professional bodies and consumer groups, to scale up the coverage of services for mental disorders in all countries, but especially in low-income and middle-income countries. We argue that a basic, evidence-based package of services for core mental disorders should be scaled up, and that protection of the human rights of people with mental disorders and their families should be strengthened. Three questions are critical to the scaling-up process. What resources are needed? How can progress towards these goals be monitored? What should be the priorities for mental health research? To address these questions, we first estimated that the amount needed to provide services on the necessary scale would be US$2 per person per year in low-income countries and $3-4 in lower middle-income countries, which is modest compared with the requirements for scaling-up of services for other major contributors to the global burden of disease. Second, we identified a series of core and secondary indicators to track the progress that countries make toward achievement of mental health goals; many of these indicators are already routinely monitored in many countries. Third, we did a priority-setting exercise to identify gaps in the evidence base in global mental health for four categories of mental disorders. We show that funding should be given to research that develops and assesses interventions that can be delivered by people who are not mental health professionals, and that assesses how health systems can scale up such interventions across all routine-care settings. We discuss strategies to overcome the five main barriers to scaling-up of services for mental disorders; one major strategy will be sustained advocacy by diverse stakeholders, especially to target multilateral agencies, donors, and governments. This Series has provided the evidence for advocacy. Now we need political will and solidarity, above all from the global health community, to translate this evidence into action. The time to act is now.

Setting priorities in global child health research investments: addressing values of stakeholders

AIM

To identify main groups of stakeholders in the process of health research priority setting and propose strategies for addressing their systems of values.

METHODS

In three separate exercises that took place between March and June 2006 we interviewed three different groups of stakeholders: 1) members of the global research priority setting network; 2) a diverse group of national-level stakeholders from South Africa; and 3) participants at the conference related to international child health held in Washington, DC, USA. Each of the groups was administered different version of the questionnaire in which they were asked to set weights to criteria (and also minimum required thresholds, where applicable) that were a priori defined as relevant to health research priority setting by the consultants of the Child Health and Nutrition Research initiative (CHNRI).

RESULTS

At the global level, the wide and diverse group of respondents placed the greatest importance (weight) to the criterion of maximum potential for disease burden reduction, while the most stringent threshold was placed on the criterion of answerability in an ethical way. Among the stakeholders' representatives attending the international conference, the criterion of deliverability, answerability, and sustainability of health research results was proposed as the most important one. At the national level in South Africa, the greatest weight was placed on the criterion addressing the predicted impact on equity of the proposed health research.

CONCLUSIONS

Involving a large group of stakeholders when setting priorities in health research investments is important because the criteria of relevance to scientists and technical experts, whose knowledge and technical expertise is usually central to the process, may not be appropriate to specific contexts and in accordance with the views and values of those who invest in health research, those who benefit from it, or wider society as a whole.

Setting priorities in global child health research investments: assessment of principles and practice

This article reviews theoretical and practical approaches for setting priorities in global child health research investments. It also provides an overview of previous attempts to develop appropriate tools and methodologies to define priorities in health research investments. A brief review of the most important theoretical concepts that should govern priority setting processes is undertaken, showing how different perspectives, such as medical, economical, legal, ethical, social, political, rational, philosophical, stakeholder driven, and others will necessarily conflict each other in determining priorities. We specially address present research agenda in global child health today and how it relates to United Nation's (UN) Millennium Development Goal 4, which is to reduce child mortality by two-thirds between 1990 and 2015. The outcomes of these former approaches are evaluated and their benefits and shortcomings presented. The case for a new methodology for setting priorities in health research investments is presented, as proposed by Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative, and a need for its implementation in global child health is outlined. A transdisciplinary approach is needed to address all the perspectives from which investments into health research can be seen as priorities. This prioritization requires a process that is transparent, systematic, and that would take into account many perspectives and build on advantages of previous approaches.