ArticleJournal of global health2025
Setting stakeholder-led research priorities for advancing Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights in Bangladesh using CHNRI method: an icddr,b initiative.
Article in Journal of global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prioritising communicable disease research in Afghanistan: an application of the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) methodology.BMJ global health · 2026Article
- Two decades of the CHNRI method (2006-2025): Tracking its evolution and contribution to the emerging field of ideometrics.Journal of global health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) are essential for individuals' health, well-being, survival, and economic development. A stakeholder-led approach to research prioritisation was essential to guide SRHR-related research in Bangladesh. Accordingly, we conducted a research prioritisation exercise to identify health research priorities related to SRHR in Bangladesh. Methods: We adopted the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method for this study. Five themes - adolescent Health (AH), fertility, gynaecological issues (GI), maternal and neonatal health (MNH), and SRH of key populations (SRHKP) - were selected from the broader field of SRHR. Seventy-six experts submitted 454 research questions (RQs), which were then condensed into 197 unique RQs and distributed to all experts for scoring based on five pre-selected criteria. Weighted and unweighted research priority scores (RPS) and average expert agreement (AEA) were calculated to compile a list of top-ranked RQs. Results: The weighted RPSs for the 197 RQs ranged from 0.944 to 0.623, with a median of 0.848. Among the top 20 list, six RQs belonged to AH, one to Fertility, two to GI, six to MNH, and five to SRHKP. For AH, top ranked RQs included adolescent pregnancy, sexual health education, and mental health. Promoting proper birth spacing among newlywed and underaged married women were top RQs for fertility. GI priorities emphasised early detection of gynaecological cancers, including HPV testing for cervical cancer screening. The MNH research focused on Newborn Stabilizing Units at sub-district hospitals, PPH bundle approaches, and counselling on danger signs to prevent adverse birth outcomes. The top-ranked RQs in SRHKP addressed stigma and discrimination towards key populations (KPs) and their impact on SRH behaviours. There was significant overlap between the top 20 RQs ranked by RPS and AEA. Conclusions: The study emphasises the need for intervention research to address barriers, assess effectiveness, and enhance the uptake of evidence-based and innovative interventions for SRHR in Bangladesh.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.