Setting health research priorities using the CHNRI method: IV. Key conceptual advances

Rudan, Igor

doi:10.7189/jogh.06.010501

Cited by 62 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The method aimed to carefully define the context for health research priority setting. The components of the context were: (i) the health issue on which the research is focused; (ii) the affected population that would benefit from the investments in health research; (iii) the timeframe within which the impact of supported research was expected (eg, short, medium or long term); (iv) the style of investment (eg, risk aversive or risk–seeking); and (v) the expected returns from investment (eg, burden reduction, patents, or various forms of public recognition) [6–8]. …”

Section: The Chnri Methods For Setting Health Research Prioritiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…CHNRI’s “standard” set of criteria followed a simple conceptual framework that demonstrated how the process of health research generates new knowledge. The five suggested criteria were (i) answerability, (ii) effectiveness, (iii) deliverability, (iv) the potential for a substantial reduction of disease burden and (v) the impact on equity [6–8]. …”

Section: The Chnri Methods For Setting Health Research Prioritiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The final output of the CHNRI process is a list that ranks up to 200 research ideas/questions by their scores against several transparent priority–setting criteria [7]. This serves to reveal strengths and weaknesses of all submitted research questions to the research community, judged by a subset of this community using several key criteria for prioritization [8]. …”

Section: The Chnri Methods For Setting Health Research Prioritiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Rudan

Yoshida

Chan³

et al. 2017

Journal of Global Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundSeveral 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsInitially, 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).ConclusionsThe 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.

show abstract

Section: The Chnri Methods For Setting Health Research Prioritiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Chnri Methods For Setting Health Research Prioritiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Chnri Methods For Setting Health Research Prioritiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Rudan

Yoshida

Chan³

et al. 2017

Journal of Global Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This research prioritisation (RP) exercise followed the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method, described in detail elsewhere [21,22], developed to assist stakeholders in prioritising health research investments. The method involves identifying and listing a large number of possible research options within a well-defined context, based around a "4D" framework, by which research questions are grouped into four themes: Description, Delivery, Development and Discovery.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevention of child wasting: Results of a Child Health & Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) prioritisation exercise

Frison

Angood²,

Khara³

et al. 2020

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background An estimated 49.5 million children under five years of age are wasted. There is a lack of robust studies on effective interventions to prevent wasting. The aim of this study was to identify and prioritise the main outstanding research questions in relation to wasting prevention to inform future research agendas. Method A research prioritisation exercise was conducted following the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative method. Identified research gaps were compiled from multiple sources, categorised into themes and streamlined into forty research questions by an expert group. A survey was then widely circulated to assess research questions according to four criteria. An overall research priority score was calculated to rank questions.

show abstract

“…Advice of the AG was to consider the relationship between CTP for health and/or nutrition in all types of humanitarian settings in LMICs and limit research ideas to the next 5 years. There was an agreement to use a similar methodological approach to the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) (Rudan et al 2006;Rudan et al 2008), described as a common and comprehensive way to develop health research priorities at the global level (Viergever et al 2010;Rudan 2016) and previously used in the humanitarian field (Tol et al 2011;Morof et al 2014;Prudhon et al 2016). …”

Section: October-november 2017mentioning

confidence: 99%

Research agenda-setting on cash programming for health and nutrition in humanitarian settings

Woodward¹,

Griekspoor

Doocy

et al. 2018

Int J Humanitarian Action

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: While the evidence base for cash transfer programming (CTP) in humanitarian contexts is more established for food security, it is very limited for health and nutrition. The aim of this study was to develop a research agenda on CTP for health and nutrition in humanitarian settings. Methods: This exercise adopted a qualitative descriptive approach using four stages over a 13-month period (October 2016 to November 2017). Data was collected using two methods: an online survey and face-to-face group session. The advisory group was asked to judge questions based on four criteria (answerability/feasibility, fills important knowledge gap, maximum potential for improving health or nutrition outcomes, effect on equity) using a 5-point scale. Content analysis was used to identify and rank research categories. Results: One hundred eighty-nine research questions were developed in the consultation stage (n = 40 online survey; n = 30 group session), which were categorised into nine overarching research areas (with 22 sub-categories): modalities (41% of the identified questions), followed by outcomes and impact (31%), intermediate outcomes (27%) , initial considerations (19%), effectiveness (19%), pathways (14%), methodologies and indicators (13%), types of diseases or health issues (6%), and context (5%). Triangulation with other evidence reviews confirmed the need for further research in these areas. Conclusions: Nine overarching and ranked categories for research on CTP for health and nutrition in humanitarian contexts, validated by existing reviews, are proposed by this study. The research agenda, with examples of questions, could serve as guidance for researchers, policy-makers, implementers, and funders when selecting which of the many gaps in the current evidence base on this topic to start addressing first.

show abstract

Setting health research priorities using the CHNRI method: IV. Key conceptual advances

Cited by 62 publications

References 13 publications

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

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

Prevention of child wasting: Results of a Child Health & Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) prioritisation exercise

Research agenda-setting on cash programming for health and nutrition in humanitarian settings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About