Setting global research priorities for private sector child health service delivery: Results from a CHNRI exercise.
Journal
Journal of global health
ISSN: 2047-2986
Titre abrégé: J Glob Health
Pays: Scotland
ID NLM: 101578780
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2020
Dec 2020
Historique:
entrez:
6
1
2021
pubmed:
7
1
2021
medline:
4
8
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
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
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
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
CONCLUSIONS
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33403107
doi: 10.7189/jogh.10.021201
pii: jogh-10-021201
pmc: PMC7750021
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
021201Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 by the Journal of Global Health. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: All authors completed an ICMJE conflicts of interest form, available upon request from the corresponding author. JZ, DH, CC, SB, TS, and AW disclose grants from USAID during the conduct of the study. MB discloses that resources from USAID sponsored the study and that she works for USAID though received no compensation specifically related to this piece of work. All other authors have nothing to disclose.
Références
PLoS One. 2016 Feb 04;11(2):e0148586
pubmed: 26845546
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2018 Aug 15;78 Suppl 1:S3-S9
pubmed: 29994913
BMJ Glob Health. 2019 Nov 19;4(6):e001643
pubmed: 31803507
J Glob Health. 2014 Dec;4(2):020413
pubmed: 25520803
Croat Med J. 2007 Oct;48(5):595-604
pubmed: 17948946
J Glob Health. 2016 Jun;6(1):010503
pubmed: 27350874
J Health Popul Nutr. 2011 Jun;29(3):255-64
pubmed: 21766561
PLoS One. 2018 Aug 22;13(8):e0202570
pubmed: 30133538
J Glob Health. 2016 Jun;6(1):010501
pubmed: 27418959
J Glob Health. 2013 Jun;3(1):010302
pubmed: 23826502
J Glob Health. 2017 Jun;7(1):011004
pubmed: 28685049
Glob Health Sci Pract. 2020 Oct 2;8(3):518-533
pubmed: 33008861
J Glob Health. 2016 Jun;6(1):010101
pubmed: 26955468
J Glob Health. 2016 Jun;6(1):010507
pubmed: 26401271
J Glob Health. 2014 Dec;4(2):020414
pubmed: 25520804
Lancet Infect Dis. 2007 Jan;7(1):56-61
pubmed: 17182344