Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31673352›Full record

ArticleJournal of global health2019

Global research priorities to accelerate programming to improve early childhood development in the sustainable development era: a CHNRI exercise.

Mark Tomlinson, Gary L Darmstadt, Aisha K Yousafzai, Bernadette Daelmans, Pia Britto, Sarah L Gordon, Elizabeth Tablante, Tarun Dua

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of global health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Effects of Two Early Parenting Programmes on Child Aggression and Risk for Violence in Brazil: a Randomised Controlled Trial.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2024
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

8 authors.

Mark TomlinsonInstitute for Life Course Health Research, Department of Global Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.
Gary L DarmstadtDepartment of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Aisha K YousafzaiDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Bernadette DaelmansWorld Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Pia BrittoEarly Childhood Development Unit, UNICEF, New York, New York, USA.
Sarah L GordonInstitute for Life Course Health Research, Department of Global Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.
Elizabeth TablanteCollege of Human Ecology, Cornell University, New York, New York, USA.
Tarun DuaWorld Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundApproximately 250 million children under the age of five in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) will not achieve their developmental potential due to poverty and stunting alone. Investments in programming to improve early childhood development (ECD) have the potential to disrupt the cycle of poverty and therefore should be prioritised. Support for ECD has increased in recent years. Nevertheless, donors and policies continue to neglect ECD, in part from lack of evidence to guide policy makers and donors about where they should focus policies and programmes. Identification and investment in research is needed to overcome these constraints and in order to achieve high quality implementation of programmes to improve ECD.

methodsThe Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) priority setting methodology was applied in order to assess research priorities for improving ECD. A group of 348 global and local experts in ECD-related research were identified and invited to generate research questions. This resulted in 406 research questions which were categorised and refined by study investigators into 54 research questions across six thematic goals which were evaluated using five criteria: answerability, effectiveness, feasibility, impact, and effect on equity. Research options were ranked by their final research priority score multiplied by 100.

resultsThe top three research priority options from the LMIC experts came from the third thematic goal of improving the impact of interventions, whereas the top three research priority options from high-income country experts came from different goals: improving the integration of interventions, increasing the understanding of health economics and social protection strategies, and improving the impact of interventions.

conclusionThe results of this process highlight that priorities for future research should focus on the need for services and support to parents to provide nurturing care, and the training of health workers and non-specialists in implementation of interventions to improve ECD. Three of the six thematic goals of the present priority setting centred on interventions (ie, improving impact, implementation of interventions and improving the integration of interventions). In order to achieve higher coverage through sustainable interventions to improve ECD with equitable reach, interventions should be integrated and not be sector driven.

Indexed as

Child DevelopmentGlobal HealthResearchChild, PreschoolHumansInfantSustainable Development

Identifiers

PMID31673352
PMCPMC6815874

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.