Search

Background: \ud 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.\ud \ud Methods: \ud 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.\ud \ud Results: \ud 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.\ud \ud Interpretation: \ud 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.

Background:Africa will miss the maternal and neonatal health (MNH) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) targets if the current trajectory is followed. The African Academy of Sciences has formed an expert maternal and newborn health group to discuss actions to improve MNH SDG targets. The team, among other recommendations, chose to implement an MNH research prioritization exercise for Africa covering four grand challenge areas.Methods: The team used the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) research prioritization method to identify research priorities in maternal and newborn health in Africa. From 609 research options, a ranking of the top 46 research questions was achieved. Research priority scores and agreement statistics were calculated, with sub-analysis possible for the regions of East Africa, West Africa and those living out of the continent. Results:The top research priorities generally fell into (i) improving identification of high-risk mothers and newborns, or diagnosis of high-risk conditions in mothers and newborns to improve health outcomes; (ii) improving access to treatment through improving incentives to attract and retain skilled health workers in remote, rural areas, improving emergency transport, and assessing health systems' readiness; and (iii) improving uptake of proven existing interventions such as Kangaroo Mother Care.Conclusions:The research priorities emphasized building interventions that improved access to quality healthcare in the lowest possible units of the provision of MNH interventions. The lists prioritized participation of communities in delivering MNH interventions. The current burden of disease from MNCH in Africa aligns well with the list of priorities listed from this exercise but provides extra insights into current needs by African practitioners.The MNCH Africa expert group believes that the recommendations from this work should be implemented by multisectoral teams as soon as possible to provide adequate lead time for results of the succeeding programmes to be seen before 2030.

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

INTRODUCTION: Despite the method existing for centuries, uses of crowdsourcing have been rising rapidly since the term was coined a decade ago. Crowdsourcing refers to ‘outsourcing’ a problem or task to a large group of people (i.e., a crowd) rapidly and cheaply. Researchers debate over definitions of crowdsourcing, and it is often conflated with mHealth, web 2.0, or data mining. Due to the inexpensive and rapid nature of crowdsourcing, it may be particularly amenable to health research and practice, especially in a global health context, where health systems, human resources, and finances are often scarce. Indeed, one of the dominant methods of health research prioritization uses crowdsourcing, and in particular, wisdom of the crowds. This method, called the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method, employs researchers to generate and rank research options which are scored against pre-set criteria. Their scores are combined with weights for each criterion, set by a larger, diverse group of stakeholders, to create a ranked list of research options. Unfortunately, due to difficulties in defining and assembling a group of stakeholders that would be appropriate to each exercise, 75% of CHNRI exercises to-date did not involve stakeholders, and therefore presented unweighted ranks. METHODS: First, a crowdsourcing was defined through a literature review. Benefits and challenges of crowdsourcing were explored, in addition to ethical issues with crowdsourcing. A second literature review was conducted to explore ways in which crowdsourcing has been already used in health and global health. As crowdsourcing could be a potential solution to data scarcity or act as a platform for intervention in global health settings, but its potential has never been systematically assessed, a CHNRI exercise was conducted to explore potential uses of crowdsourcing in global health and conflict. Experts from both global health and crowdsourcing participated in generation and scoring ideas. This CHNRI exercise was conducted in-line with previously described steps of the CHNRI method for setting health research priorities. As three quarters of CHNRI exercises have not utilized a larger reference group (LRG) of stakeholders, and the public was cited as the most difficult stakeholder group to involve, we conducted a survey using Amazon Mechanical Turk, an online crowdsourcing platform, that involved an international group of predominantly laypersons who, in essence, formed a public stakeholder group, scoring the most common CHNRI criteria using a 5-point Likert scale. The resulting means were converted to weights that can be used in upcoming exercises. Differences in geographic location, and whether the respondents were health stakeholders were assessed through the Fisher exact test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test, respectively. The influence of other demographic characteristics was explored through random-intercept modelling and logistic regression. Finally, an example of a national-level CHNRI exercise, which is the largest CHNRI conducted to-date, exploring research priorities in child health in India is described. RESULTS: A comprehensive definition of crowdsourcing is given, along with its benefits, challenges, and ethical considerations for using crowdsourcing, based on a literature review. An overview of uses of crowdsourcing in health are discussed, and potential challenges and techniques for improving accuracy, such as introducing thresholds, qualifiers, introducing modular tasks and gamification. Crowdsourcing was frequently used as a diagnostics or surveillance tool. The CHNRI method was not identified in the second literature review. In re-weighting the CHNRI criteria using a public stakeholder group, we identified differences in relative importance of the criteria driven by geographic location and health status. When using random-intercept modelling to control for geographic location, we found differences due to health status in many criteria (n = 11), followed by gender (n = 10), ethnicity (n = 9), and religion (n = 8). We used the CHNRI method to explore potential uses of crowdsourcing in global health, and found that the majority of ideas were problem solving or data generation in nature. The top-ranked idea was to use crowdsourcing to generate more timely reports of future epidemics (such as in the case of Ebola), and other ideas relating to using crowdsourcing for the surveillance or control of communicable disease scored highly. Many ideas were related to the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Finally, a national-level exercise to set research priorities in child health in India identified differential priorities for three regions (Empowered Action Group and North Eastern States, Northern States and Union Territories, and the Southern and Western States). The results will be very useful in developing targeted programmes for each region, enabling India to make progress towards SDG 3.2. CONCLUSION: Crowdsourcing has grown exponentially in the past decade. Integrating gamification, machine learning, simplifying tasks and introducing thresholds or trustworthiness scores increases accuracy of results. This research provides recommendations for improvements in the CHNRI method itself, and for crowdsourcing, generally. Crowdsourcing is a rapid, inexpensive tool for research, and thus, is a promising data collection method or intervention for health and global health.

Background: First coined by Howe in 2006, the field of crowdsourcing has grown exponentially. Despite its growth and its transcendence across many fields, the definition of crowdsourcing has still not been agreed upon, and examples are poorly indexed in peer-reviewed literature. Many examples of crowdsourcing have not been scaled-up past the pilot phase. In spite of this, crowdsourcing has great potential, especially in global health where resources are lacking. This narrative review seeks to review both indexed and grey crowdsourcing literature broadly in order to explore the current state of the field.Methods: This is a review of reviews of crowdsourcing. Semantic searches were conducted using Google Scholar rather than indexed databases due to poor indexing of the topic. 996 articles were retrieved, of which 69 were initially identified as being reviews or theoretically-based. 21 of these were found to be irrelevant and 48 articles were reviewed.Results: This narrative review focuses on defining crowdsourcing, taxonomies of crowdsourcing, who constitutes the crowd, research that is amenable to crowdsourcing, regulatory and ethical aspects of crowdsourcing and some notable examples of crowdsourcing.Conclusions: Crowdsourcing has the potential to be hugely promising, especially in global health, due to its ability to collect information rapidly, inexpensively and accurately. Rigorous ethical and regulatory controls are needed to ensure data are collected and analysed appropriately and crowdsourcing should be considered complementary to traditional research methods.

Background: Research on emotional child abuse in sub–Saharan Africa\ud is scarce. Few studies thus far have examined prevalence, risk and\ud protective factors for emotional child abuse or the associations between\ud emotional abuse and girls’ health.\ud Methods: A nationally representative two–stage, cluster–sampled,\ud household survey of females aged 13–24 years (n=1244) on childhood\ud abuse victimisation was conducted. Participants completed interviewer–assisted\ud questionnaires. Associations between emotional abuse and\ud putative risk, and protective factors and health outcomes were analyzed\ud using separate logistic regression models accounting for sampling design.\ud Marginal effects of cumulative risk factors for emotional abuse\ud victimisation were examined.\ud Results: Lifetime prevalence of emotional abuse was 28.5% with 58.3%\ud of these girls reporting many abusive incidents. The most common perpetrators\ud were female (27.8%) and male (16.7%) relatives and, more\ud rarely, biological parents. Risk factors associated with emotional abuse\ud were frequent caregiver changes (odds ratio (OR) 1.42, 95% confidence\ud interval (CI) 1.03–1.970, poverty (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.12–2.03), physical\ud abuse (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.45–2.71) and sexual abuse (OR 2.22,\ud 95% CI 1.57–3.10) victimisation. Being close to one’s mother was a\ud protective factor (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80–0.97). Risk for emotional\ud abuse increased from 13% with no risk factors present to 58.4% –with\ud all four risk factors present. Health outcomes associated with emotional\ud child abuse were suicidal ideation (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.30–2.63) and\ud feeling depressed (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.31–2.71).\ud Conclusions: Girls in Swaziland experience high levels of emotional\ud abuse victimisation. Emotional abuse is associated with economic disadvantage,\ud family factors, other types of abuse victimisation and poor\ud mental health. Therefore, a holistic approach to prevention is needed,\ud incorporating poverty reduction and programmes to improve parent–\ud child relationships, reduce the use of harsh criticism, and change parenting\ud social norms.

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. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12875-016-0552-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.