Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28686749›Full record

ArticleJournal of global health2017

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.

Narendra K Arora, Archisman Mohapatra, Hema S Gopalan, Kerri Wazny, Vasantha Thavaraj, Reeta Rasaily, Manoj K Das, Meenu Maheshwari, Rajiv Bahl, Shamim A Qazi and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of global health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Narendra K AroraThe INCLEN Trust International, New Delhi, India.
Archisman MohapatraThe INCLEN Trust International, New Delhi, India.
Hema S GopalanThe INCLEN Trust International, New Delhi, India.
Kerri WaznyCentre for Global Health Research, Usher Institute for Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Vasantha ThavarajThe Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi, India.
Reeta RasailyThe Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi, India.
Manoj K DasThe INCLEN Trust International, New Delhi, India.
Meenu MaheshwariThe INCLEN Trust International, New Delhi, India.
Rajiv BahlWorld Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Shamim A QaziWorld Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Robert E BlackJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Igor RudanCentre for Global Health Research, Usher Institute for Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth 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.

methodsCHNRI 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.

conclusionsThe 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.

Indexed as

Child HealthInfant HealthMaternal HealthNutritional SciencesChildFemaleHumansIndiaInfant, NewbornPregnancyResearch

Identifiers

PMID28686749
PMCPMC5481897

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.