Setting priorities in child health research investments for South Africa

Co-creating a global shared research agenda on violence against women in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

Despite a large growth in evidence on violence against women (VAW) over the last 25 years, VAW persists, as do gaps in the field's knowledge of how to prevent and respond to it. To ensure that research on VAW in low- and middle-income countries (LIMCs) is addressing the most significant gaps in knowledge, and to prioritise evidence needs to reduce VAW and better support victims/survivors, the Sexual Violence Research Initiative (SVRI) and Equality Institute (EQI) led a process of developing a global shared research agenda (GSRA) on VAW in LMICs.

METHODS

The GSRA was developed through a six-stage adaptation of the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method, which draws on the principle of the 'wisdom of the crowd'. These steps included: a review of the literature on VAW in LMICs and development of domains; the generation of research questions within four domains by an Advisory Group; the consolidation of research questions; scoring of research questions by a Global Expert Group and the Advisory Group according to three criteria (applicability, effectiveness and equity); consultation and validation of the findings with the Advisory Group; and wide dissemination of the findings.

RESULTS

The highest ranked research questions in the GSRA pertain to the domain of Intervention research, with some highly ranked questions also pertaining to the domain of Understanding VAW in its multiple forms. Questions under the other two domains, Improving existing interventions, and Methodological and measurement gaps, were not prioritised as highly by experts. There was strong consistency in top ranked research questions according to experts' characteristics, albeit with some important differences according to experts' gender, occupation and geographical location.

CONCLUSIONS

The GSRA findings suggest that currently the VAW field is shifting towards intervention research after several decades of building evidence on understanding VAW, including prevalence, drivers and impacts of violence. The findings also suggest a strong emphasis on under-served populations, and under-researched forms of VAW. Future priority setting exercises in LMICs that seek to decolonise knowledge should ensure that methodologies, and modalities of engagement, put diverse voices at the centre of engagement. Trial registration Not applicable.

Priorities for Safer In-Person School for Children With Medical Complexity During COVID-19

OBJECTIVES

To establish statewide consensus priorities for safer in-person school for children with medical complexity (CMC) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic using a rapid, replicable, and transparent priority-setting method.

METHODS

We adapted the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative Method, which allows for crowdsourcing ideas from diverse stakeholders and engages technical experts in prioritizing these ideas using predefined scoring criteria. Crowdsourcing surveys solicited ideas from CMC families, school staff, clinicians and administrators through statewide distribution groups/listservs using the prompt: "It is safe for children with complex health issues and those around them (families, teachers, classmates, etc.) to go to school in-person during the COVID-19 pandemic if/when…" Ideas were aggregated and synthesized into a unique list of candidate priorities. Thirty-four experts then scored each candidate priority against 5 criteria (equity, impact on COVID-19, practicality, sustainability, and cost) using a 5-point Likert scale. Scores were weighted and predefined thresholds applied to identify consensus priorities.

RESULTS

From May to June 2021, 460 stakeholders contributed 1166 ideas resulting in 87 candidate priorities. After applying weighted expert scores, 10 consensus CMC-specific priorities exceeded predetermined thresholds. These priorities centered on integrating COVID-19 safety and respiratory action planning into individualized education plans, educating school communities about CMC's unique COVID-19 risks, using medical equipment safely, maintaining curricular flexibility, ensuring masking and vaccination, assigning seats during transportation, and availability of testing and medical staff at school.

CONCLUSIONS

Priorities for CMC, identified by statewide stakeholders, complement and extend existing recommendations. These priorities can guide implementation efforts to support safer in-person education for CMC.

Setting research priorities for sexual, reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health in humanitarian settings

Background

An estimated 70.8 million people are forcibly displaced worldwide, 75% of whom are women and children. Prioritizing a global research agenda to inform guidance, service delivery, access to and quality of services is essential to improve the survival and health of women, children and adolescents in humanitarian settings.

Method

A mixed-methods design was adapted from the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) methodology to solicit priority research questions across the sexual, reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health (SRMNCAH) domains in humanitarian settings. The first step (CHNRI) involved data collection and scoring of perceived priority questions, using a web-based survey over two rounds (first, to generate the questions and secondly, to score them). Over 1000 stakeholders from across the globe were approached; 177 took part in the first survey and 69 took part in the second. These research questions were prioritized by generating a research prioritization score (RPP) across four dimensions: answerability, program feasibility, public health relevance and equity. A Delphi process of 29 experts followed, where the 50 scored and prioritized CHRNI research questions were shortlisted. The top five questions from the CHNRI scored list for each SRMNCAH domain were voted on, rendering a final list per domain.

Results

A total of 280 questions were generated. Generated questions covered sexual and reproductive health (SRH) (n = 90, 32.1%), maternal health (n = 75, 26.8%), newborn health (n = 42, 15.0%), child health (n = 43, 15.4%), and non-SRH aspects of adolescent health (n = 31, 11.1%). A shortlist of the top ten prioritized questions for each domain were generated on the basis of the computed RPPs. During the Delphi process, the prioritized questions, based on the CHNRI process, were further refined. Five questions from the shortlist of each of the SRMNCAH domain were formulated, resulting in 25 priority questions across SRMNCAH. For example, one of the prioritized SRH shortlisted and prioritized research question included: “What are effective strategies to implement good quality comprehensive contraceptive services (long-acting, short-acting and EC) for women and girls in humanitarian settings?”

Conclusion

Data needs, effective intervention strategies and approaches, as well as greater efficiency and quality during delivery of care in humanitarian settings were prioritized. The findings from this research provide guidance for researchers, program implementers, as well as donor agencies on SRMNCAH research priorities in humanitarian settings. A global research agenda could save the lives of those who are at greatest risk and vulnerability as well as increase opportunities for translation and innovation for SRMNCAH in humanitarian settings.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13031-021-00353-w.

Factors that influence the scale up of new interventions in low-income settings: a qualitative case study of the introduction of chlorhexidine cleansing of the umbilical cord in Bangladesh

There is a well-recognized need for empirical study of processes and factors that influence scale up of evidence-based interventions in low-income countries to address the 'know-do' gap. We undertook a qualitative case study of the scale up of chlorhexidine cleansing of the umbilical cord (CHX) in Bangladesh to identify and compare facilitators and barriers for the institutionalization and expansion stages of scale up. Data collection and analysis for this case study were informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the WHO/ExpandNet model of scale up. At the national level, we interviewed 20 stakeholders involved in CHX policy or implementation. At the district level, we conducted interviews with 31 facility-based healthcare providers in five districts and focus group discussions (FGDs) with eight community-based providers and eight programme managers. At the community level, we conducted 7 FGDs with 53 mothers who had a baby within the past year. Expanded interview notes were thematically coded and analysed following an adapted Framework approach. National stakeholders identified external policy and incentives, and the engagement of stakeholders in policy development through the National Technical Working Committee for Newborn Health, as key facilitators for policy and health systems changes. Stakeholders, providers and families perceived the intervention to be simple, safe and effective, and more consistent with family preferences than the prior policy of dry cord care. The major barriers that delayed or decreased the public health impact of the scale up of CHX in Bangladesh's public health system related to commodity production, procurement and distribution. Bangladesh's experience scaling up CHX suggests that scale up should involve early needs assessments and planning for institutionalizing new drugs and commodities into the supply chain. While the five CFIR domains were useful for categorizing barriers and facilitators, additional constructs are needed for common health systems barriers in low-income settings.

Implementation outcomes of the national scale up of chlorhexidine cord cleansing in Bangladesh's public health system

Background

Chlorhexidine (CHX) cleansing of the umbilical cord stump is an evidence-based intervention that reduces newborn infections and is recommended for high-mortality settings. Bangladesh is one of the first countries to adopt and scale up CHX nationally. This study evaluates the implementation outcomes for the CHX scale up in Bangladesh and identifies and describes key milestones and processes for the scale up.

Methods

We adapted the RE-AIM framework for this study, incorporating the WHO/ExpandNet model of Scale Up. Adoption and incorporation milestones were assessed through program documents and interviews with national stakeholders (n = 25). Provider training records served as a measure of reach. Implementation was assessed through a survey of readiness to provide CHX at public facilities (n = 4479) and routine data on the proportion of all live births at public facilities (n = 813 607) that received CHX from December 2016 to November 2017. Six rounds of a rolling household survey with recently-delivered women in four districts (n = 6000 to 8000 per round) measured the effectiveness and maintenance of the scale up in increasing population-level coverage of CHX in those districts.

Results

More than 80 000 providers, supervisors, and managers across all 64 districts received a half-day training on CHX and essential newborn care between July 2015 and September 2016. Seventy-four percent of facilities had at least 70% of maternal and newborn health providers with CHX training, while only 46% had CHX in stock on the day of the assessment. The provision of CHX to newborns delivered at facilities steadily increased from 15 059 newborns (24%) in December 2016 to 71 704 (72%) in November 2017. In the final household survey of four districts, 33% of newborns were reported to receive CHX, and babies delivered at public facilities had 5.04 times greater odds (95% CI = 4.45, 5.72) of receiving CHX than those delivered at home.

Conclusions

The scale up of CHX in Bangladesh achieved sustained national implementation in public health facilities. Institutionalization barriers, such as changes to supply logistics systems, had to be addressed before expansion was achieved. For greater public health impact, implementation must reach deliveries that take place at home and in the private sector.

Exploring individual and demographic characteristics and their relation to CHNRI Criteria from an international public stakeholder group: an analysis using random intercept and logistic regression modelling

INTRODUCTION

The Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method for health research prioritisation relies on stakeholders weighting criteria used to assess research options. These weights in turn impact on the final scores and ranks assigned to research options. Three quarters of CHNRI studies published to date have not involved stakeholders in criteria weighting. Of those that have, few incorporated members of the public into stakeholder groups. Those that have compared different stakeholder groups, such as donors, researchers, or policy makers, showed that different groups place different values upon CHNRI criteria. When choosing the composition of a stakeholder group, it may be important to understand factors that may influence weighting. Drawing upon a group of international public stakeholders, this study explores some of the effects of individual and demographic characteristics has on the weights assigned to the most commonly used CHNRI criteria, with the aim of informing future researchers on avoiding future biases.

METHODS

Individual and demographic information and 5-point Likert scale responses to questions about the importance of 15 CHNRI criteria were collected from 1031 "Turkers" (Amazon Mechanical Turk workers) via Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT), which is an online crowdsourcing platform. Thirteen of the fifteen criteria were analysed using random-intercept models and the remaining two were analysed through logistic regression.

RESULTS

Self-reported health status explained most of the variability in participants' responses across criteria (11/15 criteria), followed by being female (10/15), ethnicity (9/15), employment (8/15), and religion (7/15). Differences across criteria indicate that when choosing stakeholder groups, researchers need to consider these factors to minimise bias.

CONCLUSION

Researchers should collect and report more detailed information from stakeholders, including individual and demographic characteristics, and ensure participation from both genders, multiple ethnicities, religious beliefs, and people with differing health statuses to be transparent regarding possible biases in health research prioritisation. Our analyses indicate that these factors do influence the relative importance of these values, even when the data appears fairly homogeneous.

Setting weights for fifteen CHNRI criteria at the global and regional level using public stakeholders: an Amazon Mechanical Turk study

Introduction

Stakeholder involvement has been described as an indispensable part of health research priority setting. Yet, more than 75% of the exercises using the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) methodology have omitted the step involving stakeholders in priority setting. Those that have used stakeholders have rarely used the public, possibly due to the difficulty of assembling and/or accessing a public stakeholder group. In order to strengthen future exercises using the CHNRI methodology, we have used a public stakeholder group to weight 15 CHNRI criteria, and have explored regional differences or being a health stakeholder is influential, and whether the criteria are collapsible.

Methods

Using Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT), an online crowdsourcing platform, we collected demographic information and conducted a Likert-scale format survey about the importance of the CHNRI criteria from 1051 stakeholders. The Kruskal-Wallis test, with Dunn's test for posthoc comparisons, was used to examine regional differences and Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to analyse differences between stakeholders with health training/background and stakeholders without a health background and by region. A Factor Analysis (FA) was conducted on the criteria to identify the main domains connecting them. Criteria means were converted to weights.

Results

There were regional differences in thirteen of fifteen criteria according to the Kruskal-Wallis test and differences in responses from health stakeholders vs those who were not in eleven of fifteen criteria using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Three components were identified: improve and impact results; implementation and affordability; and, study design and dissemination. A formula is provided to convert means to weights for future studies.

Conclusion

In future CHNRI studies, researchers will need to ensure adequate representation from stakeholders to undue bias of CHNRI results. These results should be used in combination with other stakeholder groups, including government, donors, policy makers, and bilateral agencies. Global and regional stakeholder groups scored CHNRI criteria differently; due to this, researchers should consider which group to use in their CHNRI exercises.

Stakeholder involvement in health research priority setting in low income countries: the case of Zambia

SUMMARY

While there is increasing recognition of the importance of stakeholder involvement in health research priority setting there is a paucity of literature reporting on stakeholder involvement in health research priority setting in low income countries. This paper fills this gap by identifying and discussing the roles and legitimacy of different stakeholders (including the public and patients) involved in the health research priority setting process in Zambia; identifying the barriers to public participation and proposing improvement strategies.We interviewed 28 policy makers and practitioners who had participated in the national level health research priority setting in Zambia. Reported participants in health research priority setting included research users, researchers, research funders and the community/ public. Research funders were thought to have undue influence while the public and patients were not effectively involved. This could be due to the public's lack of education, lack of resources to facilitate public involvement and limited skills to meaningfully engage the public. Participation of people from rural areas, women and young professionals was also limited.While there is a commitment to broad stakeholder involvement in health research priority setting, there's limited public/patient involvement. Public education, availing more resources, and skills to meaningfully engage the public need to be explored. The undue influence of research funders should be mitigated and incentives availed to ensure that they align their research funding with the national priorities. These efforts would strengthen meaningful stakeholder engagement in health research prioritization within Zambia and other similar contexts.

ABSTRACT

Background Stakeholder involvement in health research priority setting contributes to the legitimacy and acceptability of the priorities. Hence legitimate priority setting should involve a broad representation of stakeholders including the public. While there is a growing body of literature on health research prioritization in low income countries, there is a paucity of literature reporting on stakeholder involvement in the process. The objectives of this paper are to; 1) identify the stakeholders who were involved in the health research priority setting process in Zambia; 2) discuss the roles and perceived legitimacy of the stakeholders and analyze the degree to which patients/ public was involved; 3) To discuss some of the barriers to stakeholder participation in Zambia and similar contexts and to propose improvement strategies.Methods This was a qualitative study involving 28 in-depth interviews with stakeholders who had participated in the national level health research priority setting exercises in Zambia. An interview guide was used. Audio recorded interviews were transcribed and analyzed using INVIVO 10. Analysis of the Stakeholders' theme involved identifying the different dimensions of stakeholder involvement as discussed in the interviews.Results Identified stakeholders included; research users, researchers, research funders and the community/ public. We found that health research priority setting involved research users, researchers, research funders and the community/ public. However, research funders were thought to have undue influence while the public and patients were not effectively involved. While the respondents recognized the advantages of involving the public and patients, they were not effectively involved. This could be due to the public's limited understanding of the technicalities of priority setting, lack of resources to facilitate public involvement and limited skills to meaningfully engage the public. Participation from rural areas, women, and young professionals was also limited.Conclusions While there is a commitment to broad stakeholder involvement in health research priority setting, the public is left out. Efforts such as public education, availing more resources, and skills to meaningfully engage the public need to be explored. The undue influence of research funders should be mitigated through their direct involvement in the prioritization process and incentives to ensure that they align their research funding with the national priorities. These efforts would strengthen meaningful stakeholder engagement in health research prioritization within Zambia and other similar contexts.

Bottleneck analysis at district level to illustrate gaps within the district health system in Uganda

Background: Poor quality of care and access to effective and affordable interventions have been attributed to constraints and bottlenecks within and outside the health system. However, there is limited understanding of health system barriers to utilization and delivery of appropriate, high-impact, and cost-effective interventions at the point of service delivery in districts and sub-districts in low-income countries. In this study we illustrate the use of the bottleneck analysis approach, which could be used to identify bottlenecks in service delivery within the district health system.

Methods: A modified Tanahashi model with six determinants for effective coverage was used to determine bottlenecks in service provision for maternal and newborn care. The following interventions provided during antenatal care were used as tracer interventions: use of iron and folic acid, intermittent presumptive treatment for malaria, HIV counseling and testing, and syphilis testing. Data from cross-sectional household and health facility surveys in Mayuge and Namayingo districts in Uganda were used in this study.

Results: Effective coverage and human resource gaps were identified as the biggest bottlenecks in both districts, with coverage ranging from 0% to 66% for effective coverage and from 46% to 58% for availability of health facility staff. Our findings revealed a similar pattern in bottlenecks in both districts for particular interventions although the districts are functionally independent.

Conclusion: The modified Tanahashi model is an analysis tool that can be used to identify bottlenecks to effective coverage within the district health system, for instance, the effective coverage for maternal and newborn care interventions. However, the analysis is highly dependent on the availability of data to populate all six determinants and could benefit from further validation analysis for the causes of bottlenecks identified.

Setting research priorities for maternal, newborn, child health and nutrition in India by engaging experts from 256 indigenous institutions contributing over 4000 research ideas: a CHNRI exercise by ICMR and INCLEN

Background

Health research in low– and middle– income countries (LMICs) is often driven by donor priorities rather than by the needs of the countries where the research takes place. This lack of alignment of donor’s priorities with local research need may be one of the reasons why countries fail to achieve set goals for population health and nutrition. India has a high burden of morbidity and mortality in women, children and infants. In order to look forward toward the Sustainable Development Goals, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and the INCLEN Trust International (INCLEN) employed the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative’s (CHNRI) research priority setting method for maternal, neonatal, child health and nutrition with the timeline of 2016–2025. The exercise was the largest to–date use of the CHNRI methodology, both in terms of participants and ideas generated and also expanded on the methodology.

Methods

CHNRI is a crowdsourcing–based exercise that involves using the collective intelligence of a group of stakeholders, usually researchers, to generate and score research options against a set of criteria. This paper reports on a large umbrella CHNRI that was divided into four theme–specific CHNRIs (maternal, newborn, child health and nutrition). A National Steering Group oversaw the exercise and four theme–specific Research Sub–Committees technically supported finalizing the scoring criteria and refinement of research ideas for the respective thematic areas. The exercise engaged participants from 256 institutions across India – 4003 research ideas were generated from 498 experts which were consolidated into 373 research options (maternal health: 122; newborn health: 56; child health: 101; nutrition: 94); 893 experts scored these against five criteria (answerability, relevance, equity, innovation and out–of–box thinking, investment on research). Relative weights to the criteria were assigned by 79 members from the Larger Reference Group. Given India’s diversity, priorities were identified at national and three regional levels: (i) the Empowered Action Group (EAG) and North–Eastern States; (ii) States and Union territories in Northern India (including West Bengal); and (iii) States and Union territories in Southern and Western parts of India.

Conclusions

The exercise leveraged the inherent flexibility of the CHNRI method in multiple ways. It expanded on the CHNRI methodology enabling analyses for identification of research priorities at national and regional levels. However, prioritization of research options are only valuable if they are put to use, and we hope that donors will take advantage of this prioritized list of research options.

Research gaps and emerging priorities in sexual and reproductive health in Africa and the eastern Mediterranean regions

Background

In-country research capacity is key to creating improvements in local implementation of health programs and can help prioritize health issues in a landscape of limited funding. Research prioritization has shown to be particularly useful to help answer strategic and programmatic issues in health care, including sexual and reproductive health (SRH). The purpose of this paper is to present the results of a priority setting exercise that brought together researchers and program managers from the WHO Africa and Eastern Mediterranean regions to identify key SRH issues.

Methods

In June 2015, researchers and program managers from the WHO Africa and Eastern Mediterranean regions met for a three-day meeting to discuss strategies to strengthen research capacity in the regions. A prioritization exercise was carried out to identify key priority areas for research in SRH. The process included five criteria: answerability, effectiveness, deliverability and acceptability, potential impact of the intervention/program to improve reproductive, maternal and newborn health substantially, and equity.

Results

The six main priorities identified include: creation and investment in multipurpose prevention technologies, addressing adolescent violence and early pregnancy (especially in the context of early marriage), improved maternal and newborn emergency care, increased evaluation and improvement of adolescent health interventions including contraception, further focus on family planning uptake and barriers, and improving care for mothers and children during childbirth.

Conclusion

The setting of priorities is the first step in a dynamic process to identify where research funding should be focused to maximize health benefits. The key elements identified in this exercise provides guidance for decision makers to focus action on identified research priorities and goals. Prioritization and identifying/acting on research gaps can have great impact across multiple sectors in the regions for improved reproductive, maternal and children health.

Maternal patterns of antenatal and postnatal depressed mood and the impact on child health at 3-years postpartum

OBJECTIVE

The consequences of maternal depressed mood on children's growth, health, and cognitive and language development are examined over the first 3 years of life.

METHOD

Pregnant women in 24 periurban township neighborhoods in Cape Town, South Africa (N = 1,238 mothers) were randomized by neighborhood to a home visiting intervention or a standard care condition. Reassessments were conducted for 93%-85% of mothers at 2-weeks, 6-, 18-, and 36-months postbirth. Regressions were conducted on measures of children's growth, behavior, language, and cognition to examine the impact of four patterns of depressed mood: antenatal only (n = 154, 13.8%), postnatal only (n = 272, 24.3%), antenatal and postnatal (n = 220, 19.7%), and no depressed mood on any assessment (n = 473, 42.3%).

RESULTS

Patterns of depressed mood were similar across intervention conditions. Depressed mothers were significantly less educated, had lower incomes, were less likely to be employed or to have electricity; were more likely to report problematic drinking of alcohol, experience food insecurity, interpersonal partner violence, and to be HIV seropositive. At 36 months, the pattern of maternal depressed mood over time was significantly associated with children's compromised physical growth, both in weight and height, and more internalizing and externalizing symptoms of behavior problems. Measures of language and cognition were similar across maternal patterns of depressed mood.

CONCLUSIONS

Mothers who report depressed mood face significantly more life challenges, both environmental stressors related to poverty and other problematic behaviors. More proximal, postnatal depressed mood appears to have a larger influence on their children, compared with antenatal depressed mood. (PsycINFO Database Record

The quest for a framework for sustainable and institutionalised priority-setting for health research in a low-resource setting: the case of Zambia

Background

Priority-setting for health research in low-income countries remains a major challenge. While there have been efforts to systematise and improve the processes, most of the initiatives have ended up being a one-off exercise and are yet to be institutionalised. This could, in part, be attributed to the limited capacity for the priority-setting institutions to identify and fund their own research priorities, since most of the priority-setting initiatives are driven by experts. This paper reports findings from a pilot project whose aim was to develop a systematic process to identify components of a locally desirable and feasible health research priority-setting approach and to contribute to capacity strengthening for the Zambia National Health Research Authority.

Methods

Synthesis of the current literature on the approaches to health research prioritisations. The results of the synthesis were presented and discussed with a sample of Zambian researchers and decision-makers who are involved in health research priority-setting. The ultimate aim was for them to explore the different approaches available for guiding health research priority-setting and to identify an approach that would be relevant and feasible to implement and sustain within the Zambian context.

Results

Based on the evidence that was presented, the participants were unable to identify one approach that met the criteria. They identified attributes from the different approaches that they thought would be most appropriate and proposed a process that they deemed feasible within the Zambian context.

Conclusion

While it is easier to implement prioritisation based on one approach that the initiator might be interested in, researchers interested in capacity-building for health research priority-setting organisations should expose the low-income country participants to all approaches. Researchers ought to be aware that sometimes one shoe may not fit all, as in the case of Zambia, instead of choosing one approach, the stakeholders may select desirable attributes from the different approaches and piece together an approach that would be feasible and acceptable within their context. An approach that builds on the decision-makers’ understanding of their contexts and their input to its development would foster local ownership and has a greater potential for sustainability.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-017-0268-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Research Priorities for the Intersection of Alcohol and HIV/AIDS in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Priority Setting Exercise

The harmful use of alcohol is a component cause for more than 200 diseases. The association between alcohol consumption, risk taking behavior and a range of infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS is well established. The prevalence of HIV/AIDS as well as harmful alcohol use in low and middle income countries is high. Alcohol has been identified as a modifiable risk factor in the prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS. The objective of this paper is to define research priorities for the interaction of alcohol and HIV/AIDS in low and middle income countries. The Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) priority setting methodology was applied in order to assess research priorities of the interaction of alcohol and HIV/AIDS. A group of 171 global and local experts in the field of alcohol and or HIV/AIDS related research were identified and invited to generate research questions. This resulted in 205 research questions which have been categorized and refined by senior researchers into 48 research questions to be evaluated using five criteria: answerability, effectiveness, feasibility, applicability and impact, as well as equity. A total of 59 experts participated independently in the voluntary scoring exercise (a 34% response rate). There was substantial consensus among experts on priorities for research on alcohol and HIV. These tended to break down into two categories, those focusing on better understanding the nexus between alcohol and HIV and those directed towards informing practical interventions to reduce the impact of alcohol use on HIV treatment outcomes, which replicates what Bryant (Subst Use Misuse 41:1465–1507, 2006) and Parry et al. (Addiction 108:1–2, 2012) found. Responses from experts were stratified by location in order to determine any differences between groups. On average experts in the LMIC gave higher scores than the HIC experts. Recent research has shown the causal link between alcohol consumption and the incidence of HIV/AIDS including a better understanding of the pathways through which alcohol use affects ARV adherence (and other medications to treat opportunistic infections) and CD4 counts. The results of this process clearly indicated that the important priorities for future research related to the development and assessment of interventions focusing on addressing alcohol and HIV/AIDS, addressing and exploring the impact of HIV risk and comorbid alcohol use, as well as exploring the risk and protective factors in the field of alcohol and HIV/AIDS. The findings from this priority setting exercise could guide international research agenda and make research funding more effective in addressing the research on intersection of alcohol and HIV/AIDS

Research priority setting for integrated early child development and violence prevention (ECD+) in low and middle income countries: An expert opinion exercise

Child development in low and middle income countries (LMIC) is compromised by multiple risk factors. Reducing children's exposure to harmful events is essential for early childhood development (ECD). In particular, preventing violence against children - a highly prevalent risk factor that negatively affects optimal child development - should be an intervention priority. We used the Child Health and Nutrition Initiative (CHNRI) method for the setting of research priorities in integrated Early Childhood Development and violence prevention programs (ECD+). An expert group was identified and invited to systematically list and score research questions. A total of 186 stakeholders were asked to contribute five research questions each, and contributions were received from 81 respondents. These were subsequently evaluated using a set of five criteria: answerability; effectiveness; feasibility and/or affordability; applicability and impact; and equity. Of the 400 questions generated, a composite group of 50 were scored by 55 respondents. The highest scoring research questions related to the training of Community Health Workers (CHW's) to deliver ECD+ interventions effectively and whether ECD+ interventions could be integrated within existing delivery platforms such as HIV, nutrition or mental health platforms. The priority research questions can direct new research initiatives, mainly in focusing on the effectiveness of an ECD+ approach, as well as on service delivery questions. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic exercise of its kind in the field of ECD+. The findings from this research priority setting exercise can help guide donors and other development actors towards funding priorities for important future research related to ECD and violence prevention.

How Schools Can Promote Healthy Development for Newly Arrived Immigrant and Refugee Adolescents: Research Priorities

BACKGROUND

The US education system must find creative and effective ways to foster the healthy development of the approximately 2 million newly arrived immigrant and refugee adolescents, many of whom contend with language barriers, limited prior education, trauma, and discrimination. We identify research priorities for promoting the school success of these youth.

METHODS

The study used the 4-phase priority-setting method of the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative. In the final stage, 132 researchers, service providers, educators, and policymakers based in the United States were asked to rate the importance of 36 research options.

RESULTS

The highest priority research options (range 1 to 5) were: evaluating newcomer programs (mean = 4.44, SD = 0.55), identifying how family and community stressors affect newly arrived immigrant and refugee adolescents' functioning in school (mean = 4.40, SD = 0.56), identifying teachers' major stressors in working with this population (mean = 4.36, SD = 0.72), and identifying how to engage immigrant and refugee families in their children's education (mean = 4.35, SD = 0.62).

CONCLUSION

These research priorities emphasize the generation of practical knowledge that could translate to immediate, tangible benefits for schools. Funders, schools, and researchers can use these research priorities to guide research for the highest benefit of schools and the newly arrived immigrant and refugee adolescents they serve.

Setting an implementation research agenda for Canadian investments in global maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health: a research prioritization exercise

BACKGROUND

Improving global maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health (MNCAH) is a top development priority in Canada, as shown by the $6.35 billion in pledges toward the Muskoka Initiative since 2010. To guide Canadian research investments, we aimed to systematically identify a set of implementation research priorities for MNCAH in low- and middle-income countries.

METHODS

We adapted the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative method. We scanned the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative literature and extracted research questions pertaining to delivery of interventions, inviting Canadian experts on MNCAH to generate additional questions. The experts scored a combined list of 97 questions against 5 criteria: answerability, feasibility, deliverability, impact and effect on equity. These questions were ranked using a research priority score, and the average expert agreement score was calculated for each question.

RESULTS

The overall research priority score ranged from 40.14 to 89.25, with a median of 71.84. The average expert agreement scores ranged from 0.51 to 0.82, with a median of 0.64. Highly-ranked research questions varied across the life course and focused on improving detection and care-seeking for childhood illnesses, overcoming barriers to intervention uptake and delivery, effectively implementing human resources and mobile technology, and increasing coverage among at-risk populations. Children were the most represented target population and most questions pertained to interventions delivered at the household or community level.

INTERPRETATION

Investing in implementation research is critical to achieving the Sustainable Development Goal of ensuring health and well-being for all. The proposed research agenda is expected to drive action and Canadian research investments to improve MNCAH.

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.

Clinician-identified problems and solutions for delayed diagnosis in primary care: a PRIORITIZE study

BACKGROUND

Delayed diagnosis in primary care is a common, harmful and costly patient safety incident. Its measurement and monitoring are underdeveloped and underutilised. We created and implemented a novel approach to identify problems leading to and solutions for delayed diagnosis in primary care.

METHODS

We developed a novel priority-setting method for patient safety problems and solutions called PRIORITIZE. We invited more than 500 NW London clinicians via an open-ended questionnaire to identify three main problems and solutions relating to delayed diagnosis in primary care. 113 clinicians submitted their suggestions which were thematically grouped and synthesized into a composite list of 33 distinct problems and 27 solutions. A random group of 75 clinicians 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.

RESULTS

The top ranked problems were poor communication between secondary and primary care and the inverse care law, i.e. a mismatch between patients' medical needs and healthcare supply. The highest ranked solutions included: a more rigorous system of communicating abnormal results of investigations to patients, direct hotlines to specialists for GPs to discuss patient problems and better training of primary care clinicians in relevant areas. A priority highlighted throughout the findings is a need to improve communication between clinicians as well as with patients. The highest ranked suggestions had the highest consensus between experts.

CONCLUSIONS

The novel method we have developed is highly feasible, informative and scalable, and merits wider exploration with a view of becoming part of a routine pro-active and preventative system for patient safety assessment. Clinicians proposed a range of concrete suggestions with an emphasis on improving communication among clinicians and with patients and better GP training. In their view, delayed diagnosis can be largely prevented with interventions requiring relatively minor investment. Rankings of identified problems and solutions can serve as an aid to policy makers and commissioners of care in prioritization of scarce healthcare resources.

Using the Nine Common Themes of Good Practice checklist as a tool for evaluating the research priority setting process of a provincial research and program evaluation program

BACKGROUND

Given the context-specific nature of health research prioritization and the obligation to effectively allocate resources to initiatives that will achieve the greatest impact, evaluation of priority setting processes can refine and strengthen such exercises and their outcomes. However, guidance is needed on evaluation tools that can be applied to research priority setting. This paper describes the adaption and application of a conceptual framework to evaluate a research priority setting exercise operating within the public health sector in Ontario, Canada.

METHODS

The Nine Common Themes of Good Practice checklist, described by Viergever et al. (Health Res Policy Syst 8:36, 2010) was used as the conceptual framework to evaluate the research priority setting process developed for the Locally Driven Collaborative Projects (LDCP) program in Ontario, Canada. Multiple data sources were used to inform the evaluation, including a review of selected priority setting approaches, surveys with priority setting participants, document review, and consultation with the program advisory committee.

RESULTS

The evaluation assisted in identifying improvements to six elements of the LDCP priority setting process. The modifications were aimed at improving inclusiveness, information gathering practices, planning for project implementation, and evaluation. In addition, the findings identified that the timing of priority setting activities and level of control over the process were key factors that influenced the ability to effectively implement changes.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings demonstrate the novel adaptation and application of the 'Nine Common Themes of Good Practice checklist' as a tool for evaluating a research priority setting exercise. The tool can guide the development of evaluation questions and enables the assessment of key constructs related to the design and delivery of a research priority setting process.

Transforming Global Health by Improving the Science of Scale-Up

In its report Global Health 2035, the Commission on Investing in Health proposed that health investments can reduce mortality in nearly all low- and middle-income countries to very low levels, thereby averting 10 million deaths per year from 2035 onward. Many of these gains could be achieved through scale-up of existing technologies and health services. A key instrument to close this gap is policy and implementation research (PIR) that aims to produce generalizable evidence on what works to implement successful interventions at scale. Rigorously designed PIR promotes global learning and local accountability. Much greater national and global investments in PIR capacity will be required to enable the scaling of effective approaches and to prevent the recycling of failed ideas. Sample questions for the PIR research agenda include how to close the gap in the delivery of essential services to the poor, which population interventions for non-communicable diseases are most applicable in different contexts, and how to engage non-state actors in equitable provision of health services in the context of universal health coverage.

Transforming Global Health by Improving the Science of Scale-Up

In its report Global Health 2035, the Commission on Investing in Health proposed that health investments can reduce mortality in nearly all low- and middle-income countries to very low levels, thereby averting 10 million deaths per year from 2035 onward. Many of these gains could be achieved through scale-up of existing technologies and health services. A key instrument to close this gap is policy and implementation research (PIR) that aims to produce generalizable evidence on what works to implement successful interventions at scale. Rigorously designed PIR promotes global learning and local accountability. Much greater national and global investments in PIR capacity will be required to enable the scaling of effective approaches and to prevent the recycling of failed ideas. Sample questions for the PIR research agenda include how to close the gap in the delivery of essential services to the poor, which population interventions for non-communicable diseases are most applicable in different contexts, and how to engage non-state actors in equitable provision of health services in the context of universal health coverage.

Prioritizing the PMTCT implementation research agenda in 3 African countries: INtegrating and Scaling up PMTCT through Implementation REsearch (INSPIRE)

Countries with high HIV prevalence face the challenge of achieving high coverage of antiretroviral drug regimens interventions including for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV (PMTCT). In 2011, the World Health Organization and the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, Canada, launched a joint implementation research (IR) initiative to increase access to effective PMTCT interventions. Here, we describe the process used for prioritizing PMTCT IR questions in Malawi, Nigeria, and Zimbabwe. Policy makers, district health workers, academics, implementing partners, and persons living with HIV were invited to 2-day workshops in each country. Between 42 and 70 representatives attended each workshop. Using the Child Health Nutrition Research Initiative process, stakeholder groups systematically identified programmatic barriers and formulated IR questions that addressed these challenges. IR questions were scored by individual participants according to 6 criteria: (1) answerable by research, (2) likely to reduce pediatric HIV infections, (3) addresses main barriers to scaling-up, (4) innovation and originality, (5) improves equity among underserved populations, and (6) likely value to policy makers. Highest scoring IR questions included health system approaches for integrating and decentralization services, ways of improving retention-in-care, bridging gaps between health facilities and communities, and increasing male partner involvement. The prioritized questions reflect the diversity of health care settings, competing health challenges and local and national context. The differing perspectives of policy makers, researchers, and implementers illustrate the value of inclusive research partnerships. The participatory Child Health Nutrition Research Initiative approach effectively set national PMTCT IR priorities, promoted country ownership, and strategically allocated research resources.

Setting global research priorities for developmental disabilities, including intellectual disabilities and autism

OBJECTIVES

The prevalence of intellectual disabilities (ID) has been estimated at 10.4/1000 worldwide with higher rates among children and adolescents in lower income countries. The objective of this paper is to address research priorities for development disabilities, notably ID and autism, at the global level and to propose the more rational use of scarce funds in addressing this under-investigated area.

METHODS

An expert group was identified and invited to systematically list and score research questions. They applied the priority setting methodology of the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) to generate research questions and to evaluate them using a set of five criteria: answerability, feasibility, applicability and impact, support within the context and equity.

FINDINGS

The results of this process clearly indicated that the important priorities for future research related to the need for effective and efficient approaches to early intervention, empowerment of families supporting a person with developmental disability and to address preventable causes of poor health in people with ID and autism.

CONCLUSIONS

For the public health and other systems to become more effective in delivering appropriate support to persons with developmental disabilities, greater (and more targeted) investment in research is required to produce evidence of what works consistent with international human rights standards.

African stakeholders' views of research options to improve nutritional status in sub-Saharan Africa

BACKGROUND

Setting research priorities for improving nutrition in Africa is currently ad hoc and there is a need to shift the status quo in the light of slow progress in reducing malnutrition. This study explored African stakeholders' views on research priorities in the context of environmental and socio-demographic changes that will impact on nutritional status in Africa in the coming years.

METHODS

Using Multi-Criteria Mapping, quantitative and qualitative data were gathered from 91 stakeholders representing 6 stakeholder groups (health professionals, food Industry, government, civil society, academics and research funders) in Benin, Mozambique, South Africa, Tanzania, Togo and Uganda. Stakeholders appraised six research options (ecological nutrition, nutritional epidemiology, community nutrition interventions, behavioural nutrition, clinical nutrition and molecular nutrition) for how well they could address malnutrition in Africa.

RESULTS

Impact (28.3%), research efficacy (23.6%) and social acceptability (22.4%) were the criteria chosen the most to evaluate the performance of research options. Research on the effectiveness of community interventions was seen as a priority by stakeholders because they were perceived as likely to have an impact relatively quickly, were inexpensive and cost-effective, involved communities and provided direct evidence of what works. Behavioural nutrition research was also highly appraised. Many stakeholders, particularly academics and government were optimistic about the value of ecological nutrition research (the impact of environmental change on nutritional status). Research funders did not share this enthusiasm. Molecular nutrition was least preferred, considered expensive, slow to have an impact and requiring infrastructure. South Africa ranked clinical and molecular nutrition the highest of all countries.

CONCLUSION

Research funders should redirect research funds in Africa towards the priorities identified by giving precedence to develop the evidence for effective community nutrition interventions. Expanding research funding in behavioural and ecological nutrition was also valued and require multi-disciplinary collaborations between nutritionists, social scientists, agricultural and climate change scientists.

Neonatal survival in complex humanitarian emergencies: setting an evidence-based research agenda

BACKGROUND

Over 40% of all deaths among children under 5 are neonatal deaths (0-28 days), and this proportion is increasing. In 2012, 2.9 million newborns died, with 99% occurring in low- and middle-income countries. Many of the countries with the highest neonatal mortality rates globally are currently or have recently been affected by complex humanitarian emergencies. Despite the global burden of neonatal morbidity and mortality and risks inherent in complex emergency situations, research investments are not commensurate to burden and little is known about the epidemiology or best practices for neonatal survival in these settings.

METHODS

We used the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) methodology to prioritize research questions on neonatal health in complex humanitarian emergencies. Experts evaluated 35 questions using four criteria (answerability, feasibility, relevance, equity) with three subcomponents per criterion. Using SAS 9.2, a research prioritization score (RPS) and average expert agreement score (AEA) were calculated for each question.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight experts evaluated all 35 questions. RPS ranged from 0.846 to 0.679 and the AEA ranged from 0.667 to 0.411. The top ten research priorities covered a range of issues but generally fell into two categories- epidemiologic and programmatic components of neonatal health. The highest ranked question in this survey was "What strategies are effective in increasing demand for, and use of skilled attendance?"

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, a diverse group of experts used the CHRNI methodology to systematically identify and determine research priorities for neonatal health and survival in complex humanitarian emergencies. The priorities included the need to better understand the magnitude of the disease burden and interventions to improve neonatal health in complex humanitarian emergencies. The findings from this study will provide guidance to researchers and program implementers in neonatal and complex humanitarian fields to engage on the research priorities needed to save lives most at risk.

Developing a sustainable nutrition research agenda in sub-Saharan Africa--findings from the SUNRAY project

Patrick Kolsteren and colleagues present the findings of a collaborative effort by stakeholders in sub-Saharan Africa to identify priorities for nutrition research. They propose a new approach that stimulates demand from policy makers for research and holds them accountable for incorporating research into policy and practice. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

A global research agenda for family planning: results of an exercise for setting research priorities

OBJECTIVE

To develop a global research agenda that will guide investment in effective interventions to satisfy the large unmet need for modern methods of family planning.

METHODS

In a global survey, experts on contraception were invited to identify and rank the types of research that would be needed--and the knowledge gaps that would have to be filled--to reduce the unmet need for family planning in the next decade. The experts were then asked to score the research on a given topic in terms of the likelihood of its leading to an intervention that would: (i) be deliverable, affordable and sustainable; (ii) substantially reduce the unmet need for contraceptives; (iii) be effective and efficient in improving health systems; (iv) be ethically implemented; and (v) improve equity in the target population. The overall scores were then ranked.

FINDINGS

Most of the topics that received the 15 highest scores fell into three categories: implementation of policies in family planning; the integration of services to address barriers to contraceptive use; and interventions targeted at underserved groups, such as adolescents.

CONCLUSION

Experts on contraception gave top priority ranking to research on improving the implementation and integration of health services and on strengthening the health systems supporting family planning services. The results of the exercise may help decision-makers, researchers and funding agencies to develop a clear and focused approach to satisfying the global need for family planning and reach the target set by the Family Planning 2020 initiative.

An evaluation of the emerging vaccines against influenza in children

BACKGROUND

Influenza is an under-appreciated cause of acute lower respiratory infections (ALRI) in children. It is estimated to cause approximately 20 million new episodes of ALRI in children annually, 97% of these occurring in developing countries. It is also estimated to result in 28000 to 112000 deaths annually in young children. Apart from hospitalisations and deaths, influenza has significant economic consequences. The current egg-based inactivated influenza vaccines have several limitations: annual vaccination, high production costs, and cannot respond adequately to meet the demand during pandemics.

METHODS

We used a modified CHNRI methodology for setting priorities in health research investments. This was done in two stages. In Stage I, we systematically reviewed the literature related to emerging cross-protective vaccines against influenza relevant to several criteria of interest: answerability; cost of development, production and implementation; efficacy and effectiveness; deliverability, affordability and sustainability; maximum potential impact on disease burden reduction; acceptability to the end users and health workers; and effect on equity. In Stage II, we conducted an expert opinion exercise by inviting 20 experts (leading basic scientists, international public health researchers, international policy makers and representatives of pharmaceutical companies). They answered questions from the CHNRI framework and their "collective optimism" towards each criterion was documented on a scale from 0 to 100%.

RESULTS

The experts expressed very high level of optimism for deliverability, impact on equity, and acceptability to health workers and end users. However, they expressed concerns over the criteria of answerability, low development cost, low product cost, low implementation cost, affordability and, to a lesser extent sustainability. In addition they felt that the vaccine would have higher efficacy and impact on disease burden reduction on overall influenza-associated disease rather than specifically influenza-associated pneumonia.

CONCLUSION

Although the landscape of emerging influenza vaccines shows several promising candidates, it is unlikely that the advancements in the newer vaccine technologies will be able to progress through to large scale production in the near future. The combined effects of continued investments in researching new vaccines and improvements of available vaccines will hopefully shorten the time needed to the development of an effective seasonal and pandemic influenza vaccine suitable for large scale production.

Global health research priorities: mobilizing the developing world

The paper focuses on two questions: (i) how to set research priorities in a transparent, systematic, fair and legitimate way?; and (ii) how to mobilize low and middle-income countries to take more ownership in defining their own research policies, rather than merely being passive recipients of international aid for research and development? I propose that the recently developed Child Health and Nutrition Research initiative (CHNRI) methodology is becoming widely accepted as a feasible answer to both those questions. In this paper, I review its numerous applications to date and show how it evolved into a practical and systematic tool that can assist priority setting in health research investments in diverse contexts. The CHNRI methodology also addresses support for different instruments of health research to achieve better balance between fundamental research, translation research and implementation research. The wide application of CHNRI methodology is expected to maximise the potential of health research to reduce disease burden and gradually reduce inequities that exist between support for research on the health problems of the rich and the poor. I believe that this tool will find application within many low and middle-income countries and assist them to pull together their own experts and actively define their priorities for research and development in the coming years.

Developing and costing local strategies to improve maternal and child health: the investment case framework

Eliana Jimenez Soto and colleagues describe the Investment Case framework, a health systems research approach for planning and budgeting, and detail the implementation of the framework in four Asian countries to improve maternal, newborn and child health.

Research priorities for mental health and psychosocial support in humanitarian settings

Wietse Tol and colleagues lay out a a consensus-based research agenda for mental health and psychosocial support in humanitarian settings.

A review of selected research priority setting processes at national level in low and middle income countries: towards fair and legitimate priority setting

Background

It is estimated that more than $130 billion is invested globally into health research each year. Increasingly, there is a need to set priorities in health research investments in a fair and legitimate way, using a sound and transparent methodology. In this paper we review selected priority setting processes at national level in low and middle income countries. We outline a set of criteria to assess the process of research priority setting and use these to describe and evaluate priority setting exercises that have taken place at country level. Based on these insights, recommendations are made regarding the constituents of a good priority setting process.

Methods

Data were gathered from presentations at a meeting held at the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2008 and a web-based search. Based on this literature review a number of criteria were developed to evaluate the priority setting processes.

Results

Across the countries surveyed there was a relative lack of genuine stakeholder engagement; countries varied markedly in the extent to which the priority setting processes were documented; none of the countries surveyed had a systematic or operational appeals process for outlined priorities; and in all countries (except South Africa) the priorities that were outlined described broad disease categories rather than specific research questions.

Conclusions

Country level priority setting processes differed significantly in terms of the methods used. We argue that priority setting processes must have in-built mechanisms for publicizing results, effective procedures to enforce decisions as well as processes to ensure that the revision of priorities happens in practice.

An evaluation of emerging vaccines for childhood meningococcal disease

Background

Meningococcal meningitis is a major cause of disease worldwide, with frequent epidemics particularly affecting an area of sub-Saharan Africa known as the “meningitis belt”. Neisseria meningitidis group A (MenA) is responsible for major epidemics in Africa. Recently W-135 has emerged as an important pathogen. Currently, the strategy for control of such outbreaks is emergency use of meningococcal (MC) polysaccharide vaccines, but these have a limited ability to induce herd immunity and elicit an adequate immune response in infant and young children. In recent times initiatives have been taken to introduce meningococcal conjugate vaccine in these African countries. Currently there are two different types of MC conjugate vaccines at late stages of development covering serogroup A and W-135: a multivalent MC conjugate vaccine against serogroup A,C,Y and W-135; and a monovalent conjugate vaccine against serogroup A. We aimed to perform a structured assessment of these emerging meningococcal vaccines as a means of reducing global meningococal disease burden among children under 5 years of age.

Methods

We used a modified CHNRI methodology for setting priorities in health research investments. This was done in two stages. In the first stage we systematically reviewed the literature related to emerging MC vaccines relevant to 12 criteria of interest. In Stage II, we conducted an expert opinion exercise by inviting 20 experts (leading basic scientists, international public health researchers, international policy makers and representatives of pharmaceutical companies). They answered questions from CHNRI framework and their “collective optimism” towards each criterion was documented on a scale from 0 to 100%.

Results

For MenA conjugate vaccine the experts showed very high level of optimism (~ 90% or more) for 7 out of the 12 criteria. The experts felt that the likelihood of efficacy on meningitis was very high (~ 90%). Deliverability, acceptability to health workers, end users and the effect on equity were all seen as highly likely (~ 90%). In terms of the maximum potential impact on meningitis disease burden, the median potential effectiveness of the vaccines in reduction of overall meningitis mortality was estimated to be 20%; (interquartile range 20-40% and min. 8%, max 50 %). For the multivalent meningococcal vaccines the experts had similar optimism for most of the 12 CHNRI criteria with slightly lower optimism in answerability and low development cost criteria. The main concern was expressed over the cost of product, its affordability and cost of implementation.

Conclusions

With increasing recognition of the burden of meningococcal meningitis, especially during epidemics in Africa, it is vitally important that strategies are taken to reduce the morbidity and mortality attributable to this disease. Improved MC vaccines are a promising investment that could substantially contribute to reduction of child meningitis mortality world-wide.

An evaluation of oxygen systems for treatment of childhood pneumonia

BACKGROUND

Oxygen therapy is recommended for all of the 1.5 - 2.7 million young children who consult health services with hypoxemic pneumonia each year, and the many more with other serious conditions. However, oxygen supplies are intermittent throughout the developing world. Although oxygen is well established as a treatment for hypoxemic pneumonia, quantitative evidence for its effect is lacking. This review aims to assess the utility of oxygen systems as a method for reducing childhood mortality from pneumonia.

METHODS

Aiming to improve priority setting methods, The Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) has developed a common framework to score competing interventions into child health. That framework involves the assessment of 12 different criteria upon which interventions can be compared. This report follows the proposed framework, using a semi-systematic literature review and the results of a structured exercise gathering opinion from experts (leading basic scientists, international public health researchers, international policy makers and representatives of pharmaceutical companies), to assess and score each criterion as their "collective optimism" towards each, on a scale from 0 to 100%.

RESULTS

A rough estimate from an analysis of the literature suggests that global strengthening of oxygen systems could save lives of up to 122,000 children from pneumonia annually. Following 12 CHNRI criteria, the experts expressed very high levels of optimism (over 80%) for answerability, low development cost and low product cost; high levels of optimism (60-80%) for low implementation cost, likelihood of efficacy, deliverability, acceptance to end users and health workers; and moderate levels of optimism (40-60%) for impact on equity, affordability and sustainability. The median estimate of potential effectiveness of oxygen systems to reduce the overall childhood pneumonia mortality was ~20% (interquartile range: 10-35%, min. 0%, max. 50%). However, problems with oxygen systems in terms of affordability, sustainability and impact on equity are noted in both expert opinion scores and on review.

CONCLUSION

Oxygen systems are likely to be an effective intervention in combating childhood mortality from pneumonia. However, a number of gaps in the evidence base exist that should be addressed to complete the investment case and research addressing these issues merit greater funding attention.

An evaluation of emerging vaccines for childhood pneumococcal pneumonia

BACKGROUND

Pneumonia is the leading cause of child mortality worldwide. Streptococcus pneumoniae (SP) or pneumococcus is estimated to cause 821,000 child deaths each year. It has over 90 serotypes, of which 7 to 13 serotypes are included in current formulations of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines that are efficacious in young children. To further reduce the burden from SP pneumonia, a vaccine is required that could protect children from a greater diversity of serotypes. Two different types of vaccines against pneumococcal pneumonia are currently at varying stages of development: a multivalent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine covering additional SP serotypes; and a conserved common pneumococcal protein antigen (PPA) vaccine offering protection for all serotypes.

METHODS

We used a modified CHNRI methodology for setting priorities in health research investments. This was done in two stages. In Stage I, we systematically reviewed the literature related to emerging SP vaccines relevant to several criteria of interest: answerability; efficacy and effectiveness; cost of development, production and implementation; deliverability, affordability and sustainability; maximum potential for disease burden reduction; acceptability to the end users and health workers; and effect on equity. In Stage II, we conducted an expert opinion exercise by inviting 20 experts (leading basic scientists, international public health researchers, international policy makers and representatives of pharmaceutical companies). The policy makers and industry representatives accepted our invitation on the condition of anonymity, due to sensitive nature of their involvement in such exercises. They answered questions from CHNRI framework and their "collective optimism" towards each criterion was documented on a scale from 0 to 100%.

RESULTS

The experts expressed very high level of optimism (over 80%) that low-cost polysaccharide conjugate SP vaccines would satisfy each of the 9 relevant CHNRI criteria. The median potential effectiveness of conjugate SP vaccines in reduction of overall childhood pneumonia mortality was predicted to be about 25% (interquartile range 20-38%, min. 15%, max 45%). For low cost, cross-protective common protein vaccines for SP the experts expressed concerns over answerability (72%) and the level of development costs (50%), while the scores for all other criteria were over 80%. The median potential effectiveness of common protein vaccines in reduction of overall childhood pneumonia mortality was predicted to be about 30% (interquartile range 26-40%, min. 20%, max 45%).

CONCLUSIONS

Improved SP vaccines are a very promising investment that could substantially contribute to reduction of child mortality world-wide.

An evaluation of the emerging vaccines and immunotherapy against staphylococcal pneumonia in children

Background

Staphylococcus aureus is a commensal of human skin and nares. It is also one of the leading nosocomial pathogens in both developed and developing countries and is responsible for a wide range of life threatening infections, especially in patients who are immunocompromised, post-surgery, undergoing haemodialysis and those who are treated with catheters and ventilators. Over the past two decades, the incidence of nosocomial staphylococcal infections has increased dramatically. Currently there are at least seven vaccine and immunotherapy candidates against S. aureus in the developmental phase targeting both active and passive immunization.

Methods

We used a modified CHNRI methodology for setting priorities in health research investments. This was done in two stages. In Stage I, we systematically reviewed the literature related to emerging vaccines against Staphylococcus aureus relevant to several criteria of interest: answerability; cost of development, production and implementation; efficacy and effectiveness; deliverability, affordability and sustainability; maximum potential impact on disease burden reduction; acceptability to the end users and health workers; and effect on equity. In Stage II, we conducted an expert opinion exercise by inviting 20 experts (leading basic scientists, international public health researchers, international policy makers and representatives of pharmaceutical companies) to participate. The policy makers and industry representatives accepted our invitation on the condition of anonymity, due to sensitive nature of their involvement in such exercises. They answered questions from CHNRI framework and their “collective optimism” towards each criterion was documented on a scale from 0 to 100%.

Results

The panel of experts expressed low levels of optimism (score around or below 50%) on the criteria of answerability, efficacy, maximum disease burden reduction potential, low cost of production, low cost of implementation and affordability; moderate levels of optimism (scores around 60 to 80%) that these vaccines could be developed at a low cost, and thus on the deliverability, sustainability and impact on equity; and high levels of optimism (scores above 80%) regarding acceptable of such a product to both the end-users and health workers. While assessing the candidates for passive immunization against S.aureus, the experts were poorly optimistic regarding low production cost, low implementation cost, efficacy, deliverability, sustainability, affordability and equity; moderately optimistic regarding answerability and acceptability to health workers and end-users. They were of the opinion that these interventions would have only a modest impact (3 to 5%) on the burden of childhood pneumonia. .

Conclusion

In order to provide an effective vaccine against S. aureus, a number of unresolved issues in vaccine development relating to optimal antigenic target identification, criteria for acceptable efficacy, identification of target population, commercial development limitations, optimal timing of immunization strategy, storage, cold chain requirements and cost need to be addressed properly. There is still a great deal unknown about the complex interaction between S. aureus and the human host. However, given the nature of S. aureus and the lessons learned from the recent failure of two emerging vaccines, it is clear that a multi-component vaccine is essential. Combating only one virulence factor is not sufficient in the human host but finding the right combination of factors will be very challenging.

An evaluation of respiratory administration of measles vaccine for prevention of acute lower respiratory infections in children

Background

Measles was responsible for an estimated 100,000 deaths worldwide in 2008. Despite being a vaccine-preventable disease, measles remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality in young children. Although a safe and effective injectable measles vaccine has been available for over 50 years it has not been possible to achieve the uniformly high levels of coverage (required to achieve measles eradication) in most parts of the developing world. Aerosolised measles vaccines are now under development with the hope of challenging the delivery factors currently limiting the coverage of the existing vaccine.

Methods

We used a modified CHNRI methodology for setting priorities in health research investments to assess the strengths and weaknesses of this emerging intervention to decrease the burden of childhood pneumonia. This was done in two stages. In Stage I, we systematically reviewed the literature related to emerging aerosol vaccines against measles relevant to several criteria of interest. Although there are a number of different aerosol vaccine approaches under development, for the purpose of this exercise, all were considered as one intervention. The criteria of interest were: answerability; cost of development, production and implementation; efficacy and effectiveness; deliverability, affordability and sustainability; maximum potential impact on disease burden reduction; acceptability to the end users and health workers; and effect on equity. In Stage II, we conducted an expert opinion exercise by inviting 20 experts (leading basic scientists, international public health researchers, international policy makers and representatives of pharmaceutical companies). The policy makers and industry representatives accepted our invitation on the condition of anonymity, due to the sensitive nature of their involvement in such exercises. They answered questions from the CHNRI framework and their “collective optimism” towards each criterion was documented on a scale from 0 to 100%.

Results

The panel of experts expressed mixed feelings about an aerosol measles vaccine. The group expressed low levels of optimism regarding the criteria of likelihood of efficacy and low cost of development (scores around 50%); moderate levels of optimism regarding answerability, low cost of production, low cost of implementation and affordability (score around 60%); and high levels of optimism regarding deliverability, impact on equity and acceptability to health workers and end-users (scores over 80%). Finally, the experts felt that this intervention will have a modest but nevertheless important impact on reduction of burden of disease due to childhood pneumonia (median: 5%, interquartile range 1-15%, minimum 0%, maximum 45%).

Conclusion

Aerosol measles vaccine is at an advanced stage of development, with evidence of good immunogenicity. This new intervention will be presented as a feasible candidate strategy in the campaign for global elimination of measles. It also presents an unique opportunity to decrease the overall burden of disease due to severe pneumonia in young children.

An evaluation of the emerging interventions against Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV)-associated acute lower respiratory infections in children

Background

Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) is the leading cause of acute lower respiratory infections (ALRI) in children. It is estimated to cause approximately 33.8 million new episodes of ALRI in children annually, 96% of these occurring in developing countries. It is also estimated to result in about 53,000 to 199,000 deaths annually in young children. Currently there are several vaccine and immunoprophylaxis candidates against RSV in the developmental phase targeting active and passive immunization.

Methods

We used a modified CHNRI methodology for setting priorities in health research investments. This was done in two stages. In Stage I, we systematically reviewed the literature related to emerging vaccines against RSV relevant to 12 criteria of interest. In Stage II, we conducted an expert opinion exercise by inviting 20 experts (leading basic scientists, international public health researchers, international policy makers and representatives of pharmaceutical companies). The policy makers and industry representatives accepted our invitation on the condition of anonymity, due to the sensitive nature of their involvement in such exercises. They answered questions from the CHNRI framework and their “collective optimism” towards each criterion was documented on a scale from 0 to 100%.

Results

In the case of candidate vaccines for active immunization of infants against RSV, the experts expressed very low levels of optimism for low product cost, affordability and low cost of development; moderate levels of optimism regarding the criteria of answerability, likelihood of efficacy, deliverability, sustainability and acceptance to end users for the interventions; and high levels of optimism regarding impact on equity and acceptance to health workers. While considering the candidate vaccines targeting pregnant women, the panel expressed low levels of optimism for low product cost, affordability, answerability and low development cost; moderate levels of optimism for likelihood of efficacy, deliverability, sustainability and impact on equity; high levels of optimism regarding acceptance to end users and health workers. The group also evaluated immunoprophylaxis against RSV using monoclonal antibodies and expressed no optimism towards low product cost; very low levels of optimism regarding deliverability, affordability, sustainability, low implementation cost and impact on equity; moderate levels of optimism against the criteria of answerability, likelihood of efficacy, acceptance to end-users and health workers; and high levels of optimism regarding low development cost. They felt that either of these vaccines would have a high impact on reducing burden of childhood ALRI due to RSV and reduce the overall childhood ALRI burden by a maximum of about 10%.

Conclusion

Although monoclonal antibodies have proven to be effective in providing protection to high-risk infants, their introduction in resource poor settings might be limited by high cost associated with them. Candidate vaccines for active immunization of infants against RSV hold greatest promise. Introduction of a low cost vaccine against RSV would reduce the inequitable distribution of burden due to childhood ALRI and will most likely have a high impact on morbidity and mortality due to severe ALRI.

Setting research priorities to reduce almost one million deaths from birth asphyxia by 2015

Joy Lawn and colleagues used a systematic process developed by the Child Health Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) to define and rank research options to reduce mortality from intrapartum-related neonatal deaths (birth asphyxia) by the year 2015.

Setting implementation research priorities to reduce preterm births and stillbirths at the community level

Asha George and colleagues from the GAPPS group report the implementation research priorities to address prematurity and stillbirths at the community level that resulted from their recent expert consensus exercise.

Evidence-based priority setting for health care and research: tools to support policy in maternal, neonatal, and child health in Africa

As part of a series on maternal, neonatal, and child health in sub-Saharan Africa, Igor Rudan and colleagues discuss various priority-setting tools for health care and research that can help develop evidence-based policy.

Placing emergency care on the global agenda

Emergency care serves a key function within health care systems by providing an entry point to health care and by decreasing morbidity and mortality. Although primarily focused on evaluation and treatment for acute conditions, emergency care also serves as an important locus of provision for preventive care with regard to injuries and disease progression. Despite its important and increasing role, however, emergency care has been frequently overlooked in the discussion of health systems and delivery platforms, particularly in developing countries. Little research has been done in lower- and middle-income countries on the burden of disease reduction attributable to emergency care, whether through injury treatment and prevention, urgent and emergency treatment of acute conditions, or emergency treatment of complications from chronic conditions. There is a critical need for research documenting the role of emergency care services in reducing the global burden of disease. In addition to applying existing methodologies toward this aim, new methodologies should be developed to determine the cost-effectiveness of these interventions and how to effectively cover the costs of and demands for emergency care needs. These analyses could be used to emphasize the public health and clinical importance of emergency care within health systems as policymakers determine health and budgeting priorities in resource-limited settings.

Priority setting and health policy and systems research

Health policy and systems research (HPSR) has been identified as critical to scaling-up interventions to achieve the millennium development goals, but research priority setting exercises often do not address HPSR well. This paper aims to (i) assess current priority setting methods and the extent to which they adequately include HPSR and (ii) draw lessons regarding how HPSR priority setting can be enhanced to promote relevant HPSR, and to strengthen developing country leadership of research agendas.

Priority setting processes can be distinguished by the level at which they occur, their degree of comprehensiveness in terms of the topic addressed, the balance between technical versus interpretive approaches and the stakeholders involved. When HPSR is considered through technical, disease-driven priority setting processes it is systematically under-valued. More successful approaches for considering HPSR are typically nationally-driven, interpretive and engage a range of stakeholders. There is still a need however for better defined approaches to enable research funders to determine the relative weight to assign to disease specific research versus HPSR and other forms of cross-cutting health research.

While country-level research priority setting is key, there is likely to be a continued need for the identification of global research priorities for HPSR. The paper argues that such global priorities can and should be driven by country level priorities.

Research priorities for health of people with disabilities: an expert opinion exercise

International evidence shows that people with disabilities have many unmet health and rehabilitation needs, face barriers in accessing mainstream health-care services, and consequently have poor health. Inadequate specific information is available about the prevalence and patterns of health conditions of people with disabilities, effective interventions, and policy-relevant research about what works to improve health and functioning of people with disabilities. In view of the urgency of the issues at stake and scarcity of resources, research contributing to improvement of health of people with disabilities needs to be prioritised. We invited 82 stakeholders to list and score research options, with the priority-setting method of the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative. 83 research questions were assessed for answerability, applicability, sensitivity, support within the context, and equity. The leading research priority was identification of barriers that people with disabilities have in accessing health services at different levels, and finding the best possible strategies to integrate their needs into primary health-care systems and ensure local delivery. Results showed that addressing specific impairments is secondary to ensuring that health systems provide adequately for all people with disabilities. Our findings are a call for urgent attention to the issue of access to appropriate health care for people with disabilities, especially in low-income and middle-income countries.

Setting priorities for global mental health research

OBJECTIVE

To set investment priorities in global mental health research and to propose a more rational use of funds in this under-resourced and under-investigated area.

METHODS

Members of the Lancet Mental Health Group systematically listed and scored research investment options on four broad classes of disorders: schizophrenia and other major psychotic disorders, major depressive disorder and other common mental disorders, alcohol abuse and other substance abuse disorders, and the broad class of child and adolescent mental disorders. Using the priority-setting approach of the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative, the group listed various research questions and evaluated them using the criteria of answerability, effectiveness, deliverability, equity and potential impact on persisting burden of mental health disorders. Scores were then weighted according to the system of values expressed by a larger group of stakeholders.

FINDINGS

The research questions that scored highest were related to health policy and systems research, where and how to deliver existing cost-effective interventions in a low-resource context, and epidemiological research on the broad categories of child and adolescent mental disorders or those pertaining to alcohol and drug abuse questions. The questions that scored lowest related to the development of new interventions and new drugs or pharmacological agents, vaccines or other technologies.

CONCLUSION

In the context of global mental health and with a time frame of the next 10 years, it would be best to fill critical knowledge gaps by investing in research into health policy and systems, epidemiology and improved delivery of cost-effective interventions.

Directing diarrhoeal disease research towards disease-burden reduction

Despite gains in controlling mortality relating to diarrhoeal disease, the burden of disease remains unacceptably high. To refocus health research to target disease-burden reduction as the goal of research in child health, the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative developed a systematic strategy to rank health research options. This priority-setting exercise included listing of 46 competitive research options in diarrhoeal disease and their critical and quantitative appraisal by 10 experts based on five criteria for research that reflect the ability of the research to be translated into interventions and achieved disease-burden reduction. These criteria included the answerability of the research questions; the efficacy and effectiveness of the intervention resulting from the research; the maximal potential for disease-burden reduction of the interventions derived from the research; the affordability, deliverability, and sustainability of the intervention supported by the research; and the overall effect of the research-derived intervention on equity. Experts scored each research option independently to delineate the best investments for diarrhoeal disease control in the developing world to reduce the burden of disease by 2015. Priority scores obtained for health policy and systems research obtained eight of the top 10 rankings in overall scores, indicating that current investments in health research are significantly different from those estimated to be the most effective in reducing the global burden of diarrhoeal disease by 2015.

Systematic analysis of research underfunding in maternal and perinatal health

BACKGROUND

Little published evidence supports the widely held contention that research in pregnancy is underfunded compared with other disease areas.

OBJECTIVES

To assess absolute and relative government and charitable funding for maternal and perinatal research in the UK and internationally. SEARCH STRATEGY, SELECTION CRITERIA, DATA COLLECTION, AND ANALYSIS: Major research funding bodies and alliances were identified from an Internet search and discussions with opinion leaders/senior investigators. Websites and annual reports were reviewed for details of strategy, research spend, grants awarded, and allocation to maternal and/or perinatal disease using generic and disease-specific search terms.

MAIN RESULTS

Within the imprecision in the data sets, < or =1% of health research spend in the UK was on maternal/perinatal health. Other countries fared better with 1-4% investment, although nonexclusive categorisation may render this an overestimate. In low-resource settings, government funders focused on infectious disease but not maternal and perinatal health despite high relative disease burden, while global philanthropy concentrated on service provision rather than research. Although research expenditure has been deemed as appropriate for 'reproductive health' disease burden in the UK, there are no data on the equity of maternal/perinatal research spend against disease burden, which globally may justify a manyfold increase.

AUTHOR'S CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review of research expenditure and priorities from national and international funding bodies suggests relative underinvestment in maternal/perinatal health. Contributing factors include the low political priority given to women's health, the challenging nature of clinical research in pregnancy, and research capacity dearth as a consequence of chronic underinvestment.