Setting health research priorities using the CHNRI method: II. Involving researchers

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.

Setting research priorities for global pandemic preparedness: An international consensus and comparison with ChatGPT's output

Background

In this priority-setting exercise, we sought to identify leading research priorities needed for strengthening future pandemic preparedness and response across countries.

Methods

The International Society of Global Health (ISoGH) used the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method to identify research priorities for future pandemic preparedness. Eighty experts in global health, translational and clinical research identified 163 research ideas, of which 42 experts then scored based on five pre-defined criteria. We calculated intermediate criterion-specific scores and overall research priority scores from the mean of individual scores for each research idea. We used a bootstrap (n = 1000) to compute the 95% confidence intervals.

Results

Key priorities included strengthening health systems, rapid vaccine and treatment production, improving international cooperation, and enhancing surveillance efficiency. Other priorities included learning from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, managing supply chains, identifying planning gaps, and promoting equitable interventions. We compared this CHNRI-based outcome with the 14 research priorities generated and ranked by ChatGPT, encountering both striking similarities and clear differences.

Conclusions

Priority setting processes based on human crowdsourcing - such as the CHNRI method - and the output provided by ChatGPT are both valuable, as they complement and strengthen each other. The priorities identified by ChatGPT were more grounded in theory, while those identified by CHNRI were guided by recent practical experiences. Addressing these priorities, along with improvements in health planning, equitable community-based interventions, and the capacity of primary health care, is vital for better pandemic preparedness and response in many settings.

Russian Biodiversity Collections: A Professional Opinion Survey

Biodiversity collections are important vehicles for protecting endangered wildlife in situations of adverse anthropogenic influence. In Russia, there are currently a number of institution- and museum-based biological collections, but there are no nation-wide centres of biodiversity collections. In this paper, we report on the results of our survey of 324 bioconservation, big-data, and ecology specialists from different regions of Russia in regard to the necessity to create several large national biodiversity centres of wildlife protection. The survey revealed specific goals that have to be fulfilled during the development of these centres for the protection and restoration of endangered wildlife species. The top three problems/tasks (topics) are the following: (1) the necessity to create large national centres for different types of specimens; (2) the full sequencing and creation of different "omic" (genomic, proteomic, transcriptomic, etc.) databases; (3) full digitisation of a biodiversity collection/centre. These goals may constitute a guideline for the future of biodiversity collections in Russia that would be targeted at protecting and restoring endangered species. With the due network service level, the translation of the website into English, and permission from the regulator (Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Russian Federation), it can also become an international project.

Bridging the gap: Using CHNRI to align migration health research priorities in India with local expertise and global perspectives

Background

Migration and health are increasingly recognised as a global public health priority, but concerns have been raised on the skewed nature of current research and the potential disconnect between health needs and policy and governance responses. The Migration Health South Asia (MiHSA) network led the first systematic research priority-setting exercise for India, aligned with the global call to develop a clearly defined migration health research agenda that will inform research investments and guide migrant-responsive policies by the year 2030.

Methods

We adapted the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method for this priority setting exercise for migration health. Guided by advisory groups established at international and country levels, we sought research topics from 51 experts from diverse disciplines and sectors across India. We consolidated 223 responses into 59 research topics across five themes and scored them against five predefined criteria: answerability, effectiveness, feasibility, impact, and effect on equity. We then calculated research priority scores (RPS) and average expert agreement (AEA) each research topic and theme.

Results

A third of the 59 research topics were on migrants' health and health care access, 12 on social determinants of migrants' health, 10 on policies, law and migration health governance, eight on health systems' responsiveness, and five on migration health discourse. Three of the top five priority topics pertained to migrants' health care access. The policies, law, and governance theme had the highest overall RPS score.

Conclusions

There is a noticeable gap between research priorities identified by experts at the country-level and the current research focus and priorities set globally. This disconnect between the global and local perspectives in migration health scholarship hinders the development of context-specific and suitable policy agendas for improving migrants' health. Our co-developed agenda emphasises the need to prioritise research on the capacity of existing systems and policies so as to make them more migration-aware and responsive to migrants' health needs.

Health research prioritization in Somalia: setting the agenda for context specific knowledge to advance universal health coverage

Introduction

Despite recognition that health research is an imperative to progress toward universal health coverage, resources for health research are limited. Yet, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, more than 85% of the resources available for health research are spent on answering less relevant research questions. This misalignment is partially due to absence of locally determined health research priorities. In this study, we identified health research priorities which, if implemented, can inform local interventions required to accelerate progress toward universal health coverage in Somalia.

Methods

We adapted the child health and nutrition research initiative method for research priority setting and applied it in 4 major phases: (1) establishment of an exercise management team, (2) a web-based survey among 84 respondents to identify health research questions; (3) categorization of identified health research questions; and (4) a workshop with 42 participants to score and rank the identified health research questions. Ethical approval was received from ethics review committee of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (Ref:26524) and the Somali Research and Development Institute (Ref: EA0143).

Results

Two hundred and thirty-one unique health research questions were identified and categorized under health systems, services and social determinants (77), communicable diseases (54), non-communicable diseases (41) and reproductive, maternal, new-born, child, adolescent health and nutrition (59). A priority score ranging from 1 to 9 was assigned to each of the questions. For each category, a list of 10 questions with the highest priority scores was developed. Across the four categories, an overall list of 10 questions with the highest priority scores was also developed. These related to bottlenecks to accessing essential health services, use of evidence in decision making, antimicrobial resistance, distribution and risk factors for non-communicable diseases, post-traumatic stress disorder and factors associated with low antenatal care attendance among others.

Conclusion and recommendations

The developed priority research questions can be used to focus health research and to inform appropriation of health research resources to questions that contribute to generation of local health system knowledge which is required to accelerate progress toward universal health coverage in Somalia. The Somalia national institute of health should set up a consortium for provision of technical and financial support for research addressing the identified priority research questions, establish a mechanism to continuously monitor the extent to which new health interventions in Somalia are informed by knowledge generated through conducting prioritized health research and prioritize interventions aimed at strengthening the broader national health research system for Somalia.

Research prioritisation on prevention and management of preterm birth in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) with a special focus on Bangladesh using the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method

Background

Fifteen million babies are born preterm globally each year, with 81% occurring in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Preterm birth complications are the leading cause of newborn deaths and significantly impact health, quality of life, and costs of health services. Improving outcomes for newborns and their families requires prioritising research for developing practical, scalable solutions, especially in low-resource settings such as Bangladesh. We aimed to identify research priorities related to preventing and managing preterm birth in LMICs for 2021-2030, with a special focus on Bangladesh.

Methods

We adopted the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method to set research priorities for preventing and managing preterm birth. Seventy-six experts submitted 490 research questions online, which we collated into 95 unique questions and sent for scoring to all experts. A hundred and nine experts scored the questions using five pre-selected criteria: answerability, effectiveness, deliverability, maximum potential for burden reduction, and effect on equity. We calculated weighted and unweighted research priority scores and average expert agreement to generate a list of top-ranked research questions for LMICs and Bangladesh.

Results

Health systems and policy research dominated the top 20 identified priorities for LMICs, such as understanding and improving uptake of the facility and community-based Kangaroo Mother Care (KMC), promoting breastfeeding, improving referral and transport networks, evaluating the impact of the use of skilled attendants, quality improvement activities, and exploring barriers to antenatal steroid use. Several of the top 20 questions also focused on screening high-risk women or the general population of women, understanding the causes of preterm birth, or managing preterm babies with illnesses (jaundice, sepsis and retinopathy of prematurity). There was a high overlap between research priorities in LMICs and Bangladesh.

Conclusions

This exercise, aimed at identifying priorities for preterm birth prevention and management research in LMICs, especially in Bangladesh, found research on improving the care of preterm babies to be more important in reducing the burden of preterm birth and accelerating the attainment of Sustainable Development Goal 3 target of newborn deaths, by 2030.

What interventions should we implement in England's mental health services? The mental health implementation network (MHIN) mixed-methods approach to rapid prioritisation

Introduction

Setting mental health priorities helps researchers, policy makers, and service funders improve mental health services. In the context of a national mental health implementation programme in England, this study aims to identify implementable evidence-based interventions in key priority areas to improve mental health service delivery.

Methods

A mixed-methods research design was used for a three step prioritisation approach involving systematic scoping reviews (additional manuscript under development), expert consultations and data triangulation. Groups with diverse expertise, including experts by experience, worked together to improve decision-making quality by promoting more inclusive and comprehensive discussions. A multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) model was used to combine participants' varied opinions, data and judgments about the data's relevance to the issues at hand during a decision conferencing workshop where the priorities were finalised.

Results

The study identified mental health interventions in three mental health priority areas: mental health inequalities, child and adolescent mental health, comorbidities with a focus on integration of mental and physical health services and mental health and substance misuse problems. Key interventions in all the priority areas are outlined. The programme is putting some of these evidence-based interventions into action nationwide in each of these three priority mental health priority areas.

Conclusion

We report an inclusive attempt to ensure that the list of mental health service priorities agrees with perceived needs on the ground and focuses on evidence-based interventions. Other fields of healthcare may also benefit from this methodological approach if they need to make rapid health-prioritisation decisions.

Setting national research priorities for difficult-to-treat depression in the UK between 2021-2026

Background

Difficult-to-treat depression (DTD) presents a substantial health care challenge, with around one-third of people diagnosed with a depressive episode in the UK finding that their symptoms persist following treatment. This study aimed to identify priority research questions (RQs) that could inform the development of new and improved treatments, interventions, and support for people with DTD.

Methods

Using an adapted Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method, this national prioritisation exercise engaged 60 leading researchers and health care professionals in the UK, as well as 25 wider stakeholders with relevant lived experience to produce a ranked list of priority RQs in DTD. The final list of 99 distinct RQs was independently scored by 42 individuals against a list of five criteria: answerability, effectiveness, impact on health, deliverability, and equity.

Results

Highly ranked RQs covered a range of novel and existing treatments. The three highest scoring RQs included evaluation of psychological and pharmacological therapies (eg, behavioural activation, and augmentation therapies), as well as social interventions to reduce loneliness or increase support for people with DTD.

Conclusions

This exercise identified and prioritised 99 RQs that could inform future research and funding decisions over the next five years. The results of this research could improve treatment and support for people affected by DTD. It also serves as an example of ways in which the CHNRI method can be adapted in a collaborative manner to provide a more active role for patients, carers, and health care professionals.

Research priorities to reduce the impact of musculoskeletal disorders: a priority setting exercise with the child health and nutrition research initiative method

Involving research users in setting priorities for research is essential to ensure the outcomes are patient-centred and maximise its value and impact. The Musculoskeletal Disorders Research Advisory Group Versus Arthritis led a research priority setting exercise across musculoskeletal disorders. The Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method of setting research priorities with a range of stakeholders was used, involving four stages and two surveys, to: (1) gather research uncertainties, (2) consolidate these, (3) score uncertainties against importance and impact, and (4) analyse scoring for prioritisation. 213 people responded to the first survey and 285 people to the second, representing clinicians, researchers, and people with musculoskeletal disorders. Key priorities included developing and testing new treatments, better treatment targeting, early diagnosis, prevention, and better understanding and management of pain, with an emphasis on understanding underpinning mechanisms. We present a call to action to researchers and funders to target these priorities.

Transitional care for patients with acute stroke-A priority-setting project

Background

The scope of this priority‐setting process is communication and collaboration in transitional care for patients with acute stroke. Actively involving persons with stroke and their family caregivers is important both in transitional care and when setting priorities for research. Established priority‐setting methods are time‐consuming and require extensive resources. They are therefore not feasible in small‐scale research. This article describes a pragmatic priority‐setting process to identify a prioritized top 10 list of research needs regarding transitional care for patients with acute stroke.

Methods

A pragmatic priority‐setting approach inspired by the James Lind Alliance was developed. It involves establishing a user group, identifying the research needs through an online survey, analysing and checking the research needs against systematic reviews, culminating in an online prioritization of the top 10 list.

Results

The process was completed in 7 months. A total of 122 patients, family caregivers, health personnel and caseworkers submitted 484 research needs, and 19 users prioritized the top 10 list. The list includes the categories ‘patients and caregivers’ needs and health literacy’, ‘health personnel's common understanding’, ‘information flow between health personnel and patients and caregivers’, ‘available interventions and follow‐up of patients and caregivers’, ‘interaction and collaboration between health personnel and caseworkers across hospital and primary healthcare’ and ‘disabilities after stroke’.

Conclusion

This paper outlines a pragmatic approach to identifying and prioritizing users' research needs that was completed in 7 months. The top 10 list resulting from this priority setting process can guide future research relating to communication and collaboration during the transition from hospital to the community for patients with stroke.

Patient and Public Contribution

Members of three stroke organizations participated in the advisory group. They gave feedback on the scope and the process, distributed the surveys and prioritized the top 10 list. Persons with stroke and their caregivers submitted research needs in the survey.

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

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused disruptions to the functioning of societies and their health systems. Prior to the pandemic, health systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) were particularly stretched and vulnerable. The International Society of Global Health (ISoGH) sought to systematically identify priorities for health research that would have the potential to reduce the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in LMICs.

Methods

The Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method was used to identify COVID-19-related research priorities. All ISoGH members were invited to participate. Seventy-nine experts in clinical, translational, and population research contributed 192 research questions for consideration. Fifty-two experts then scored those questions based on five pre-defined criteria that were selected for this exercise: 1) feasibility and answerability; 2) potential for burden reduction; 3) potential for a paradigm shift; 4) potential for translation and implementation; and 5) impact on equity.

Results

Among the top 10 research priorities, research questions related to vaccination were prominent: health care system access barriers to equitable uptake of COVID-19 vaccination (ranked 1st), determinants of vaccine hesitancy (4th), development and evaluation of effective interventions to decrease vaccine hesitancy (5th), and vaccination impacts on vulnerable population/s (6th). Health care delivery questions also ranked highly, including: effective strategies to manage COVID-19 globally and in LMICs (2nd) and integrating health care for COVID-19 with other essential health services in LMICs (3rd). Additionally, the assessment of COVID-19 patients’ needs in rural areas of LMICs was ranked 7th, and studying the leading socioeconomic determinants and consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in LMICs using multi-faceted approaches was ranked 8th. The remaining questions in the top 10 were: clarifying paediatric case-fatality rates (CFR) in LMICs and identifying effective strategies for community engagement against COVID-19 in different LMIC contexts.

Interpretation

Health policy and systems research to inform COVID-19 vaccine uptake and equitable access to care are urgently needed, especially for rural, vulnerable, and/or marginalised populations. This research should occur in parallel with studies that will identify approaches to minimise vaccine hesitancy and effectively integrate care for COVID-19 with other essential health services in LMICs. ISoGH calls on the funders of health research in LMICs to consider the urgency and priority of this research during the COVID-19 pandemic and support studies that could make a positive difference for the populations of LMICs.

Setting research priorities to achieve long-term national road safety goals in Iran

Background

Road traffic crashes (RTCs) and its associated injuries are one of the most important public health problems in the world. In Iran, RTCs rank second in terms of mortality. To address this issue, there is a need for research-based interventions. Prioritizing researches using a variety of approaches and frameworks to determine the most effective interventions is a key nodal point in the RTCs' research policy planning cycle. Thus, this study aims to generate and prioritize research questions in the field of RTCs in Iran.

Methods

By adapting the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method, this study engaged 25 prominent Iranian academic leaders having role in setting Iran’s long-term road safety goals, a group of research funders, and policymakers. The experts' proposed research questions were independently scored on a set of criteria: feasibility, impact on health, impact on the economy, capacity building, and equity. Following the prioritization of Research Questions (RQs), they were all classified using the 5 Pillar frameworks.

Results

In total, 145 Research Questions were systematically scored by experts against five criteria. Iran's top 20 road traffic safety priorities were established. The RQs related to “road safety management” and “road and infrastructure” achieved a high frequency.

Conclusions

The top 20 research questions in the area of RTCs in Iran were determined by experts. The majority of these RQs were related to “road safety management”. The results of this study may contribute to the optimal use of resources in achieving long-term goals in the prevention and control of road traffic crashes and its related injuries. Considering these RQs as research investment options will improve the current status of Road Traffic Injuries (RTIs) at a national level and further advance toward compliance with international goals. If these research priorities are addressed, and their findings are implemented, we can anticipate a significant reduction in the number of crashes, injuries, and deaths.

Adolescent mental health research in Tanzania: a study protocol for a priority setting exercise and the development of an interinstitutional capacity strengthening programme

INTRODUCTION

Poor adolescent mental health is a barrier to achieving several sustainable development goals in Tanzania, where adolescent mental health infrastructure is weak. This is compounded by a lack of community and policy maker awareness or understanding of its burden, causes and solutions. Research addressing these knowledge gaps is urgently needed. However, capacity for adolescent mental health research in Tanzania remains limited. The existence of a National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR), with a nationwide mandate for research conduct and oversight, presents an opportunity to catalyse activity in this neglected area. Rigorous research priority setting, which includes key stakeholders, can promote efficient use of limited resources and improve both quality and uptake of research by ensuring that it meets the needs of target populations and policy makers. We present a protocol for such a research priority setting study and how it informs the design of an interinstitutional adolescent mental health research capacity strengthening strategy in Tanzania.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

From May 2021, this 6 month mixed-methods study will adapt and merge the James Lind Alliance approach and validated capacity strengthening methodologies to identify priorities for research and research capacity strengthening in adolescent mental health in Tanzania. Specifically, it will use online questionnaires, face-to-face interviews, focus groups, scoping reviews and a consensus meeting to consult expert and adolescent stakeholders. Key evidence-informed priorities will be collaboratively ranked and documented and an integrated strategy to address capacity gaps will be designed to align with the nationwide infrastructure and overall strategy of NIMR.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

National and institutional review board approvals were sought and granted from the National Health Research Ethics Committee of the NIMR Medical Research Coordinating Committee (Tanzania) and the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine (United Kingdom). Results will be disseminated through a national workshop involving all stakeholders, through ongoing collaborations and published commentaries, reviews, policy briefs, webinars and social media.

Research priorities to address the global burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the next decade

Background

The global prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has increased markedly in recent decades. Given the scarcity of resources available to address global health challenges and respiratory medicine being relatively under-invested in, it is important to define research priorities for COPD globally. In this paper, we aim to identify a ranked set of COPD research priorities that need to be addressed in the next 10 years to substantially reduce the global impact of COPD.

Methods

We adapted the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) methodology to identify global COPD research priorities.

Results

62 experts contributed 230 research ideas, which were scored by 34 researchers according to six pre-defined criteria: answerability, effectiveness, feasibility, deliverability, burden reduction, and equity. The top-ranked research priority was the need for new effective strategies to support smoking cessation. Of the top 20 overall research priorities, six were focused on feasible and cost-effective pulmonary rehabilitation delivery and access, particularly in primary/community care and low-resource settings. Three of the top 10 overall priorities called for research on improved screening and accurate diagnostic methods for COPD in low-resource primary care settings. Further ideas that drew support involved a better understanding of risk factors for COPD, development of effective training programmes for health workers and physicians in low resource settings, and evaluation of novel interventions to encourage physical activity.

Conclusions

The experts agreed that the most pressing feasible research questions to address in the next decade for COPD reduction were on prevention, diagnosis and rehabilitation of COPD, especially in low resource settings. The largest gains should be expected in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) settings, as the large majority of COPD deaths occur in those settings. Research priorities identified by this systematic international process should inform and motivate policymakers, funders, and researchers to support and conduct research to reduce the global burden of COPD.

Setting global research priorities for private sector child health service delivery: Results from a CHNRI exercise

Background

The private health sector is an important source of sick child care, yet evidence gaps persist in best practices for integrated management of private sector child health services. Further, there is no prioritized research agenda to address these gaps. We used a Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) process to identify priority research questions in response to these evidence gaps. CHNRI is a consultative approach that entails prioritizing research questions by evaluating them against standardized criteria.

Methods

We engaged geographically and occupationally diverse experts in the private health sector and child health. Eighty-nine experts agreed to participate and provided 150 priority research questions. We consolidated submitted questions to reduce duplication into a final list of 50. We asked participants to complete an online survey to rank each question against 11 pre-determined criteria in four categories: (i) answerability, (ii) research feasibility, (iii) sustainability/equity, and (iv) importance/potential impact. Statistical data analysis was conducted in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary NC, USA). We weighted all 11 evaluation criteria equally to calculate the research priority score and average expert agreement for each question. We disaggregated results by location in high-income vs low- and middle-income countries.

Results

Forty-nine participants (55.1%) completed the online survey, including 33 high-income and 16 low- and middle-income country respondents. The top, prioritized research question asks whether accreditation or regulation of private clinical and non-clinical sources of care would improve integrated management of childhood illness services. Four of the top ten research priorities were related to adherence to case management protocols. Other top research priorities were related to training and supportive supervision, digital health, and infant and newborn care. Research priorities among high-income and low- and middle-income country respondents were highly correlated.

Conclusion

To our knowledge, this is the first systematic exercise conducted to define research priorities for the management of childhood illness in the private sector. The research priorities put forth in this CHNRI exercise aim to stimulate interest from policy makers, program managers, researchers, and donors to respond to and help close evidence gaps hindering the acceleration of reductions in child mortality through private sector approaches.

A clinical research priority setting study for issues related to the use of methamphetamine and emerging drugs of concern in Australia

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to gather a range of opinions, including those of affected people (consumers, concerned others) to identify clinical research priorities for methamphetamine and emerging drugs of concern in Australia, to guide the work of the National Centre for Clinical Research on Emerging Drugs (NCCRED).

METHODS

A priority setting study was conducted (February-March 2019) in four phases: online stakeholder survey, thematic analysis of responses, rapid literature review, expert panel ranking of priorities against predetermined criteria.

RESULTS

Forty-seven respondents completed the survey, including people identifying as one or more of: researcher (53%, n = 25), clinician (45%; n = 21), family/friend/caregiver of someone who uses methamphetamine/emerging drugs (15%, n = 7) and consumer of methamphetamine/emerging drugs (13%, n = 6). Expert panel, evidence-informed top-ranked clinical research priorities for methamphetamine were: strategies to overcome barriers to intervention uptake, pilot medication trials for adults seeking treatment, and communication strategies regarding evidence-based treatments. For emerging drugs of concern, top-ranked priorities were: piloting community-located drug checking, feasibility of social media/other opportunities to alert consumers of emerging risks, GHB overdose and withdrawal management, and impacts of an early warning information system on reducing harms.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate feasibility of a structured, collaborative clinical research priority setting process. Results have informed the establishment of NCCRED; using the identified priorities to guide seed funding, fellowships/scholarships and research programs. Broader uptake of this methodology by policymakers/research funders would assist to embed areas of concern identified by affected communities and other stakeholders in research prioritisation.

A systematic review to identify research priority setting in Black and minority ethnic health and evaluate their processes

BACKGROUND

Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities suffer from disproportionately poorer health than the general population. This issue has been recently exemplified by the large numbers of infection rates and deaths caused by covid-19 in BAME populations. Future research has the potential to improve health outcomes for these groups. High quality research priority setting is crucial to effectively consider the needs of the most vulnerable groups of the population.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review is to identify existing research priority studies conducted for BAME health and to determine the extent to which they followed good practice principles for research priority setting.

METHOD

Included studies were identified by searching Medline, Cinnahl, PsychINFO, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, as well as searches in grey literature. Search terms included "research priority setting", "research prioritisation", "research agenda", "Black and minority ethnic", "ethnic group". Studies were included if they identified or elicited research priorities for BAME health and if they outlined a process of conducting a research prioritisation exercise. A checklist of Nine Common Themes of Good Practice in research priority setting was used as a methodological framework to evaluate the research priority processes of each study.

RESULTS

Out of 1514 citations initially obtained, 17 studies were included in the final synthesis. Topic areas for their research prioritisation exercise included suicide prevention, knee surgery, mental health, preterm birth, and child obesity. Public and patient involvement was included in eleven studies. Methods of research prioritisation included workshops, Delphi techniques, surveys, focus groups and interviews. The quality of empirical evidence was diverse. None of the exercises followed all good practice principles as outlined in the checklist. Areas that were lacking in particular were: the lack of a comprehensive approach to guide the process; limited use of criteria to guide discussion around priorities; unequal or no representation from ethnic minorities, and poor evaluation of their own processes.

CONCLUSIONS

Research priority setting practices were found to mostly not follow good practice guidelines which aim to ensure rigour in priority setting activities and support the inclusion of BAME communities in establishing the research agenda. Research is unlikely to deliver useful findings that can support relevant research and positive change for BAME communities unless they fulfil areas of good practice such as inclusivity of key stakeholders' input, planning for implementation of identified priorities, criteria for deciding on priorities, and evaluation of their processes in research priority setting.

Identifying the research priorities of healthcare professionals in UK vascular surgery: modified Delphi approach

Background

The Vascular Research Collaborative was established to develop a national research strategy for patients with vascular disease in the UK. This project aimed to establish national research priorities in this patient group.

Methods

A modified Delphi approach, an established method for reaching a consensus opinion among a group of experts in a particular field, was used to survey national multidisciplinary vascular clinical specialists. Two rounds of online surveys were conducted involving the membership of the Vascular Society, Society of Vascular Nurses, Society for Vascular Technology, and the Rouleaux Club (vascular surgical trainees). The first round invited any suggestions for vascular research topics. A steering group then collated and rationalized the suggestions, categorizing them by consensus into pathological topics and research categories, and amalgamating the various questions relating to the same fundamental issue into a single question. The second round involved recirculating these questions to the same participants for priority scoring.

Results

Round 1 resulted in 1231 suggested research questions from 481 respondents. Steering group collation and rationalization resulted in 83 questions for ranking in round 2. The second round resulted in a hierarchical list of vascular research priorities. The highest scoring priorities addressed topics related to critical lower-limb ischaemia, diabetic foot disease, amputation, wound healing, carotid plaque morphology, and service organization/delivery.

Conclusion

It is anticipated that these results will drive the UK national vascular research agenda for the next 5–10 years. It will facilitate focused development and funding of new research projects in current clinical areas of unmet need where potential impact is greatest.

Priorities of patients, caregivers and health-care professionals for health research - A systematic review

Background

Based on subjective experience, patients can identify research priorities important for health services research. A systematic method for priority setting has been developed by the James Lind Alliance.

Objective

This article reviews the literature on the research priorities of patients, caregivers and health‐care professionals and presents the prioritized research themes and prioritization methods used.

Search strategy

Three electronic databases were searched on 22 May 2018. The search was not limited to any time period or language.

Inclusion criteria

The included studies reported the identification and prioritization of research priorities involving patients, relatives and caregivers. Each included paper addressed a specific ICD‐coded health problem, and at least one‐third of the sample involved in the prioritization process was affected by the health problem.

Data extraction and synthesis

The 10 top‐ranked research priorities were included in the thematic analysis. With an inductive approach, a system of identified themes and subthemes was developed from the research priorities. Each research priority was assigned to one research theme.

Main results

The priority lists of 34 publications involving 331 research priorities were included. Nine main themes represent the content of the research priorities. The most frequently represented main themes are ‘Treatment’, ‘Patients’ and ‘Health condition’. The distribution of the research priorities varied depending on the health conditions and prioritization methods.

Discussion and conclusions

This review provides a comprehensive overview of the overarching research themes in research priorities of affected individuals. The results can guide future patient‐oriented research.

The implementation of prioritization exercises in the development and update of health practice guidelines: A scoping review

Background

The development of trustworthy guidelines requires substantial investment of resources and time. This highlights the need to prioritize topics for guideline development and update.

Objective

To systematically identify and describe prioritization exercises that have been conducted for the purpose of the de novo development, update or adaptation of health practice guidelines.

Methods

We searched Medline and CINAHL electronic databases from inception to July 2019, supplemented by hand-searching Google Scholar and the reference lists of relevant studies. We included studies describing prioritization exercises that have been conducted during the de novo development, update or adaptation of guidelines addressing clinical, public health or health systems topics. Two reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to complete study selection and data extraction. We consolidated findings in a semi-quantitative and narrative way.

Results

Out of 33,339 identified citations, twelve studies met the eligibility criteria. All included studies focused on prioritizing topics; none on questions or outcomes. While three exercises focused on updating guidelines, nine were on de novo development. All included studies addressed clinical topics. We adopted a framework that categorizes prioritization into 11 steps clustered in three phases (pre-prioritization, prioritization and post-prioritization). Four studies covered more than half of the 11 prioritization steps across the three phases. The most frequently reported steps for generating initial list of topics were stakeholders’ input (n = 8) and literature review (n = 7). The application of criteria to determine research priorities was used in eight studies. We used and updated a common framework of 22 prioritization criteria, clustered in 6 domains. The most frequently reported criteria related to the health burden of disease (n = 9) and potential impact of the intervention on health outcomes (n = 5). All the studies involved health care providers in the prioritization exercises. Only one study involved patients. There was a variation in the number and type of the prioritization exercises’ outputs.

Conclusions

This review included 12 prioritization exercises that addressed different aspects of priority setting for guideline development and update that can guide the work of researchers, funders, and other stakeholders seeking to prioritize guideline topics.

Setting Global Research Priorities in Pediatric and Adolescent HIV Using the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) Methodology

Background:

WHO and the Collaborative Initiative for Paediatric HIV Education and Research (CIPHER) of the International AIDS Society (IAS) led a collaborative process to set global prioritized research agendas, aiming to focusing future research, funding, and stakeholder's efforts. This study describes the methodology used to establish the research agendas.

Methods:

The Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative methodology was adapted in parallel exercises on pediatric and adolescent HIV. After definition of scope by an expert working group, priority questions were collected from stakeholders through an online survey. Submitted questions were coded, analyzed, and collated. The same respondents were asked to score the collated lists through a second online survey. The top 10 ranked questions per thematic area (testing, treatment, and service delivery) were reviewed and priority themes developed with consideration of existing policy, systematic reviews, and planned, ongoing, and recently published research.

Results:

A total of 375 respondents submitted 1735 priority research questions. The majority of respondents were from Africa; 55% self-identified as researchers. The final collated lists included 51 and 61 research questions for pediatric and adolescent HIV, respectively. The response rate for the second survey was 48%. The final research agendas include 5 priority research themes per area, discussed in 2 separate publications.

Conclusions:

To date, this is the largest example of the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative method in pediatric and adolescent HIV in terms of stakeholders reached, and the first to incorporate top thematic areas based on current evidence. Its impact on improving outcomes for these populations will require strong political and financial commitment.

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.

Agreeing on global research priorities for medication safety: an international prioritisation exercise

Objectives

Medication errors continue to contribute substantially to global morbidity and mortality. In the context of the recent launch of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Third Global Patient Safety Challenge: Medication Without Harm, we sought to establish agreement on research priorities for medication safety.

Methods

We undertook a consensus prioritisation exercise using an approach developed by the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative. Based on a combination of productivity and citations, we identified leading researchers in patient and medication safety and invited them to participate. We also extended the invitation to a further pool of experts from the WHO Global Patient Safety Network. All experts independently generated research ideas, which they then independently scored based on the criteria of: answerability, effectiveness, innovativeness, implementation, burden reduction and equity. An overall Research Priority Score and Average Expert Agreement were calculated for each research question.

Findings

131 experts submitted 333 research ideas, and 42 experts then scored the proposed research questions. The top prioritised research areas were: (1) deploying and scaling technology to enhance medication safety; (2) developing guidelines and standard operating procedures for high-risk patients, medications and contexts; (3) score-based approaches to predicting high-risk patients and situations; (4) interventions to increase patient medication literacy; (5) focused training courses for health professionals; and (6) universally applicable pictograms to avoid medication-related harm. Whilst there was a focus on promoting patient education and involvement across resource settings, priorities identified in high-resource settings centred on the optimisation of existing systems through technology. In low- and middle-resource settings, priorities focused on identifying systemic issues contributing to high-risk situations.

Conclusions

WHO now plans to work with global, regional and national research funding agencies to catalyse the investment needed to enable teams to pursue these research priorities in medication safety across high-, middle- and low-resource country settings.

Setting Policy Priorities for Front-of-Pack Health Claims and Symbols in the European Union: Expert Consensus Built by Using a Delphi Method

Despite the fact that front-of-pack nutrition labels such as health claims and symbols have received growing attention in consumer behavior research, comprehensive conclusions could not yet be drawn to develop concrete policy actions, owing to the complexity of the subject and a constantly changing market environment. In this study, evidence-based policy recommendations and communication guidelines have been derived from the findings of the EU FP7 project CLYMBOL ("Role of health-related CLaims and sYMBOLs in consumer behavior", Grant Agreement 311963), and have been evaluated and prioritized by European stakeholders using a three-round Delphi method. A moderate level of consensus was achieved and results suggest that policy priority should focus on ways to improve consumer motivation and interest in healthy eating. Consumers' interest in healthy eating could be increased by adopting appropriate communication strategies such as using innovative ways to communicate the importance of healthy eating, which may aim to change the possible negative association between healthiness and tastiness. The highest-rated finding was related to consumers' favorable attitude towards health claims with shorter and less complex messages and health symbols with a visible endorsement. Meanwhile, there was a clear consensus that health claims need to be scientifically substantiated and credible but phrased without using overly complex scientific wordings, in order to be meaningful for consumers. Furthermore, stakeholders from academia and industry believe that consumer awareness about existing health claims should be increased. The identified policy recommendations and communication guidelines stem from recent empirical evidence and provide useful insights that guide future policy development aligning consumer protection issues as well as public health and food marketing communication interests.

Setting research priorities to achieve long-term health targets in Iran

Background

In 2015, it was estimated that the burden of disease in Iran comprised of 19 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), 74% of which were due to non-communicable diseases (NCDs). The observed leading causes of death were cardiovascular diseases (41.9%), neoplasms (14.9%), and road traffic injuries (7.4%). Even so, the health research investment in Iran continues to remain limited. This study aims to identify national health research priorities in Iran for the next five years to assist the efficient use of resources towards achieving the long-term health targets.

Methods

Adapting the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method, this study engaged 48 prominent Iranian academic leaders in the areas related to Iran’s long-term health targets, a group of research funders and policy makers, and 68 stakeholders from the wider society. 128 proposed research questions were scored independently using a set of five criteria: feasibility, impact on health, impact on economy, capacity building, and equity.

Findings

The top-10 priorities were focused on the research questions relating to: health insurance system reforms to improve equity; integration of NCDs prevention strategy into primary health care; cost-effective population-level interventions for NCDs and road traffic injury prevention; tailoring medical qualifications; epidemiological assessment of NCDs by geographic areas; equality in the distribution of health resources and services; current and future common health problems in Iran’s elderly and strategies to reduce their economic burden; the status of antibiotic resistance in Iran and strategies to promote rational use of antibiotics; the health impacts of water crisis; and research to replace the physician-centered health system with a team-based one.

Conclusions

These findings highlight consensus amongst various prominent Iranian researchers and stakeholders over the research priorities that require investment to generate information and knowledge relevant to the national health targets and policies. The exercise should assist in addressing the knowledge gaps to support both the National General Health Policies by 2025 and the health targets of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals by 2030.

Setting global research priorities for child protection in humanitarian action: Results from an adapted CHNRI exercise

BACKGROUND

Armed conflict, natural disaster, and forced displacement affect millions of children each year. Such humanitarian crises increase the risk of family separation, erode existing support networks, and often result in economic loss, increasing children's vulnerability to violence, exploitation, neglect, and abuse. Research is needed to understand these risks and vulnerabilities and guide donor investment towards the most effective interventions for improving the well-being of children in humanitarian contexts.

METHODS

The Assessment, Measurement & Evidence (AME) Working Group of the Alliance for Child Protection in Humanitarian Action (ACPHA) identified experts to participate in a research priority setting exercise adapted from the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI). Experts individually identified key areas for research investment which were subsequently ranked by participants using a Likert scale. Research Priority Scores (RPS) and Average Expert Agreement (AEA) were calculated for each identified research topic, the top fifteen of which are presented within this paper.

RESULTS

Intervention research, which aims to rigorously evaluate the effectiveness of standard child protection activities in humanitarian settings, ranked highly. Child labor was a key area of sector research with two of the top ten priorities examining the practice. Respondents also prioritized research efforts to understand how best to bridge humanitarian and development efforts for child protection as well as identifying most effective way to build the capacity of local systems in order to sustain child protection gains after a crisis.

CONCLUSIONS

Rigorous, scientific research that assesses the scope of child protection risks, examines the effectiveness of interventions to improve child well-being, and translates evidence to practice is critical. Findings from this research priority setting exercise offer guidance for a global research agenda on child protection in humanitarian settings, encouraging cooperation among donors, implementers, and academics to pursue a coordinated approach to evidence generation.

Research priorities for adolescent health in low- and middle-income countries: A mixed-methods synthesis of two separate exercises

Background

In order to clarify priorities and stimulate research in adolescent health in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), the World Health Organization (WHO) conducted two priority-setting exercises based on the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) methodology related to 1) adolescent sexual and reproductive health and 2) eight areas of adolescent health including communicable diseases prevention and management, injuries and violence, mental health, non-communicable diseases management, nutrition, physical activity, substance use, and health policy. Although the CHNRI methodology has been utilized in over 50 separate research priority setting exercises, none have qualitatively synthesized the ultimate findings across studies. The purpose of this study was to conduct a mixed-method synthesis of two research priority-setting exercises for adolescent health in LMICs based on the CHNRI methodology and to situate the priority questions within the current global health agenda.

Methods

All of the 116 top-ranked questions presented in each exercise were analyzed by two independent reviewers. Word clouds were generated based on keywords from the top-ranked questions. Questions were coded and content analysis was conducted based on type of delivery platform, vulnerable populations, and the Survive, Thrive, and Transform framework from the United Nations Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s, and Adolescents’ Health, 2016-2030.

Findings

Within the 53 top-ranked intervention-related questions that specified a delivery platform, the platforms specified were schools (n = 17), primary care (n = 12), community (n = 11), parenting (n = 6), virtual media (n = 5), and peers (n = 2). Twenty questions specifically focused on vulnerable adolescents, including those living with HIV, tuberculosis, mental illness, or neurodevelopmental disorders; victims of gender-based violence; refugees; young persons who inject drugs; sex workers; slum dwellers; out-of-school youth; and youth in armed conflict. A majority of the top-ranked questions (108/116) aligned with one or a combination of the Survive (n = 39), Thrive (n = 67), and Transform (n = 28) agendas.

Conclusions

This study advances the CHNRI methodology by conducting the first mixed-methods synthesis of multiple research priority-setting exercises by analyzing keywords (using word clouds) and themes (using content analysis).

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

Background

Several recent reviews of the methods used to set research priorities have identified the CHNRI method (acronym derived from the “Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative”) as an approach that clearly became popular and widely used over the past decade. In this paper we review the first 50 examples of application of the CHNRI method, published between 2007 and 2016, and summarize the most important messages that emerged from those experiences.

Methods

We conducted a literature review to identify the first 50 examples of application of the CHNRI method in chronological order. We searched Google Scholar, PubMed and so–called grey literature.

Results

Initially, between 2007 and 2011, the CHNRI method was mainly used for setting research priorities to address global child health issues, although the first cases of application outside this field (eg, mental health, disabilities and zoonoses) were also recorded. Since 2012 the CHNRI method was used more widely, expanding into the topics such as adolescent health, dementia, national health policy and education. The majority of the exercises were focused on issues that were only relevant to low– and middle–income countries, and national–level applications are on the rise. The first CHNRI–based articles adhered to the five recommended priority–setting criteria, but by 2016 more than two–thirds of all conducted exercises departed from recommendations, modifying the CHNRI method to suit each particular exercise. This was done not only by changing the number of criteria used, but also by introducing some entirely new criteria (eg, “low cost”, “sustainability”, “acceptability”, “feasibility”, “relevance” and others).

Conclusions

The popularity of the CHNRI method in setting health research priorities can be attributed to several key conceptual advances that have addressed common concerns. The method is systematic in nature, offering an acceptable framework for handling many research questions. It is also transparent and replicable, because it clearly defines the context and priority–setting criteria. It is democratic, as it relies on “crowd–sourcing”. It is inclusive, fostering “ownership” of the results by ensuring that various groups invest in the process. It is very flexible and adjustable to many different contexts and needs. Finally, it is simple and relatively inexpensive to conduct, which we believe is one of the main reasons for its uptake by many groups globally, particularly those in low– and middle–income countries.

Setting research priorities 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.

Road to the Future: Priorities for Child Health Services Research

BACKGROUND

Prior health services research (HSR) agendas for children have been published, but major ones are now over 15 years old and do not reflect augmented understanding of the drivers and determinants of children's health; recent changes in the organization, financing, and delivery of health care; a growing emphasis on population health; and major demographic shifts in the population. A policy-relevant research agenda that integrates knowledge gained over the past 2 decades is essential to guide future child HSR (CHSR). We sought to develop and disseminate a robust, domestically focused, policy-oriented CHSR agenda.

METHODS

The new CHSR agenda was developed through a series of consultations with leaders in CHSR and related fields. After each round of consultation, the authors synthesized the previous experts' guidance to help inform subsequent discussions. The multistep process in generation of the agenda included identification of major policy-relevant research domains and specification of high-value research questions for each domain. Stakeholders represented in the discussions included those with expertise in child and family advocacy, adult health, population health, community development, racial and ethnic disparities, women's health, health economics, and government research funders and programs.

RESULTS

In total, 180 individuals were consulted in developing the research agenda. Six priority domains were identified for future research, including both enduring and emerging emphases: 1) framing children's health issues so that they are compelling to policy-makers; 2) addressing poverty and other social determinants of child health and wellbeing; 3) promoting equity in population health and health care; 4) preventing, diagnosing, and treating high priority health conditions in children; 5) strengthening performance of the health care system; and 6) enhancing the CHSR enterprise. Within these 6 domains, 40 specific topics were identified as the most pertinent for future research. Three overarching and crosscutting themes that affect research across the domains were also noted: the need for syntheses to build on the current, and sometimes extensive, evidence base to avoid duplication; the interrelated nature of the domains, which could lead to synergies in research; and the need for multidisciplinary collaborations in conducting research because research studies will look beyond the health sector.

CONCLUSIONS

The priorities presented in the agenda are policy-oriented and include a greater emphasis on how findings are framed and communicated to support action. We expect that the agenda will be useful for immediate uptake by investigators and research funders.

Identifying research priorities with nurses at a tertiary children's hospital in the United Kingdom

AIM

The objective of this study was to undertake a research priority setting exercise with the aim of maximizing efficiency and impact in research activity undertaken by nurses at one children's tertiary healthcare institution by ensuring the clinical staff directly shaped a coherent, transparent and consensus driven nurse-led research agenda.

BACKGROUND

In Round 1, the research topics of 147 nurses were elicited using a modified nominal group technique as the consensus method. The number of participants in the 24 separate discussions ranged from 3 to 21, generating lists of between 6 and 23 topics. In Round 2, nurses from the clinical areas ranked topics of importance resulting in a set of four to five priorities. In Round 3, the divisional heads of nursing consulted with staff in all of their clinical areas to each finalize their five divisional priorities. The Nursing Research Working Group discussed and refined the divisions' priorities and voted on the final list to agree the top five research priorities for the organization.

RESULTS

A total of 269 research topics were initially generated. Following three rounds of ranking and prioritizing, five priorities were agreed at Divisional level, and from these, the five top organizational priorities were selected. These were (i) understanding and improving all aspects of the patient journey through the hospital system; (ii) play; (iii) staff wellbeing, patient care and productivity; (iv) team work - linking to a more efficient service; and (v) supporting parents/parent pathway.

CONCLUSIONS

Divisional priorities have been disseminated widely to clinical teams to inform a patient-specific nurse-led research agenda. Organizational priorities agreed upon have been disseminated through management structures and processes to ensure engagement at all levels. A subgroup of the Nursing Research Working Group has been delegated to take this work forward so that the agreed priorities continue to contribute towards shaping nurse-led research activity, thereby going some way to inform and embed an evidence-based culture of inquiry.

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.