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

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.

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.