Dataset Information

Research priorities in Maternal, Newborn, & Child Health & Nutrition for India: An Indian Council of Medical Research-INCLEN Initiative.

ABSTRACT: In India, research prioritization in Maternal, Newborn, and Child Health and Nutrition (MNCHN) themes has traditionally involved only a handful of experts mostly from major cities. The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR)-INCLEN collaboration undertook a nationwide exercise engaging faculty from 256 institutions to identify top research priorities in the MNCHN themes for 2016-2025. The Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative method of priority setting was adapted. The context of the exercise was defined by a National Steering Group (NSG) and guided by four Thematic Research Subcommittees. Research ideas were pooled from 498 experts located in different parts of India, iteratively consolidated into research options, scored by 893 experts against five pre-defined criteria (answerability, relevance, equity, investment and innovation) and weighed by a larger reference group. Ranked lists of priorities were generated for each of the four themes at national and three subnational (regional) levels [Empowered Action Group & North-Eastern States, Southern and Western States, & Northern States (including West Bengal)]. Research priorities differed between regions and from overall national priorities. Delivery domain of research which included implementation research constituted about 70 per cent of the top ten research options under all four themes. The results were endorsed in the NSG meeting. There was unanimity that the research priorities should be considered by different governmental and non-governmental agencies for investment with prioritization on implementation research and issues cutting across themes.

SUBMITTER: Arora NK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5644295 | biostudies-literature | 2017 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Research priorities in Maternal, Newborn, & Child Health & Nutrition for India: An Indian Council of Medical Research-INCLEN Initiative.

Arora Narendra K NK Swaminathan Soumya S Mohapatra Archisman A Gopalan Hema S HS Katoch Vishwa M VM Bhan Maharaj K MK Rasaily Reeta R Shekhar Chander C Thavaraj Vasantha V Roy Malabika M Das Manoja K MK Wazny Kerri K Kumar Rakesh R Khera Ajay A Bhatla Neerja N Jain Vanita V Laxmaiah Avula A Nair M K C MKC Paul Vinod K VK Ramachandran Prema P Ramji Siddharth S Vaidya Umesh U Verma I C IC Shah Dheeraj D Bahl Rajiv R Qazi Shamim S Rudan Igor I Black Robert E RE

The Indian journal of medical research 20170501 5

In India, research prioritization in Maternal, Newborn, and Child Health and Nutrition (MNCHN) themes has traditionally involved only a handful of experts mostly from major cities. The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR)-INCLEN collaboration undertook a nationwide exercise engaging faculty from 256 institutions to identify top research priorities in the MNCHN themes for 2016-2025. The Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative method of priority setting was adapted. The context of the ...[more]

PMID: 28948951

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMillennium Development Goal 4 (MDGs) mobilised countries to reduce child mortality by two thirds the 1990 rate in 2015. While India did not reach MDG 4, it considerably reduced child mortality in the MDG-era. Efficient and targeted interventions and adequate monitoring are necessary to further progress in improvements to child health. Looking forward to the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG)-era, the Indian Council of Medical Research and The INCLEN Trust International conducted a national research priority setting exercise for maternal, child, newborn health, and maternal and child nutrition. Here, results are reported for child health.MethodsThe Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method for research priority setting was employed. Research ideas were crowd-sourced from a network of child health experts from across India; these were refined and consolidated into research options (ROs) which were scored against five weighted criteria to arrive weighted Research Priority Scores (wRPS). National and regional priority lists were prepared.Results90 experts contributed 596 ideas that were consolidated into 101 research options (ROs). These were scored by 233 experts nationwide. National wRPS for ROs ranged between 0.92 and 0.51. The majority of the top research priorities related to development of cost-effective interventions and their implementation, and impact evaluations, improving data quality; and monitoring of existing programs, or improving the management of morbidities. The research priorities varied between regions, the Economic Action Group and North-Eastern states prioritised questions relating to delivering interventions at community- or household-level, whereas the North-Eastern states and Union Territories prioritised research questions involving managing and measuring malaria, and the Southern and Western states prioritised research questions involving pharmacovigilance of vaccines, impact of newly introduced vaccines, and delivery of vaccines to hard-to-reach populations.ConclusionsResearch priorities varied geographically, according the stage of development of the area and mostly pertained to implementation sciences, which was expected given diversity in epidemiological profiles. Priority setting should help guide investment decisions by national and international agencies, therefore encouraging researchers to focus on priority areas. The ICMR has launched a grants programme for implementation research on maternal and child health to pursue research priorities identified by this exercise.

Project description:BackgroundAn estimated 70.8 million people are forcibly displaced worldwide, 75% of whom are women and children. Prioritizing a global research agenda to inform guidance, service delivery, access to and quality of services is essential to improve the survival and health of women, children and adolescents in humanitarian settings.MethodA mixed-methods design was adapted from the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) methodology to solicit priority research questions across the sexual, reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health (SRMNCAH) domains in humanitarian settings. The first step (CHNRI) involved data collection and scoring of perceived priority questions, using a web-based survey over two rounds (first, to generate the questions and secondly, to score them). Over 1000 stakeholders from across the globe were approached; 177 took part in the first survey and 69 took part in the second. These research questions were prioritized by generating a research prioritization score (RPP) across four dimensions: answerability, program feasibility, public health relevance and equity. A Delphi process of 29 experts followed, where the 50 scored and prioritized CHRNI research questions were shortlisted. The top five questions from the CHNRI scored list for each SRMNCAH domain were voted on, rendering a final list per domain.ResultsA total of 280 questions were generated. Generated questions covered sexual and reproductive health (SRH) (n = 90, 32.1%), maternal health (n = 75, 26.8%), newborn health (n = 42, 15.0%), child health (n = 43, 15.4%), and non-SRH aspects of adolescent health (n = 31, 11.1%). A shortlist of the top ten prioritized questions for each domain were generated on the basis of the computed RPPs. During the Delphi process, the prioritized questions, based on the CHNRI process, were further refined. Five questions from the shortlist of each of the SRMNCAH domain were formulated, resulting in 25 priority questions across SRMNCAH. For example, one of the prioritized SRH shortlisted and prioritized research question included: "What are effective strategies to implement good quality comprehensive contraceptive services (long-acting, short-acting and EC) for women and girls in humanitarian settings?"ConclusionData needs, effective intervention strategies and approaches, as well as greater efficiency and quality during delivery of care in humanitarian settings were prioritized. The findings from this research provide guidance for researchers, program implementers, as well as donor agencies on SRMNCAH research priorities in humanitarian settings. A global research agenda could save the lives of those who are at greatest risk and vulnerability as well as increase opportunities for translation and innovation for SRMNCAH in humanitarian settings.

Project description:AimsTo systematically identify global research gaps and resource priorities for integrated community case management (iCCM).MethodsAn iCCM Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) Advisory Group, in collaboration with the Community Case Management Operational Research Group (CCM ORG) identified experts to participate in a CHNRI research priority setting exercise. These experts generated and systematically ranked research questions for iCCM. Research questions were ranked using a "Research Priority Score" (RPS) and the "Average Expert Agreement" (AEA) was calculated for every question. Our groups of experts were comprised of both individuals working in Ministries of Health or Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and individuals working in high-income countries (HICs) in academia or NGO headquarters. A Spearman's Rho was calculated to determine the correlation between the two groups' research questions' ranks.ResultsThe overall RPS ranged from 64.58 to 89.31, with a median score of 81.43. AEA scores ranged from 0.54 to 0.86. Research questions involving increasing the uptake of iCCM services, research questions concerning the motivation, retention, training and supervision of Community Health Workers (CHWs) and concerning adding additional responsibilities including counselling for infant and young child feeding (IYCF) and treatment of severe acute malnutrition (SAM) ranked highly. There was weak to moderate, statistically significant, correlation between scores by representatives of high-income countries and those working in-country or regionally (Spearman's ρ = 0.35034, P < 0.01).ConclusionsOperational research to determine optimal training, supervision and modes of motivation and retention for the CHW is vital for improving iCCM, globally, as is research to motivate caregivers to take advantage of iCCM services. Experts working in-country or regionally in LMICs prioritized different research questions than those working in organization headquarters in HICs. Further exploration is needed to determine the nature of this divergence.

Project description:BackgroundSelf-help group (SHG) interventions have been widely studied in low and middle income countries. However, there is little data on specific impacts of health layering, or adding health education modules upon existing SHGs which were formed primarily for economic empowerment. We examined three SHG interventions from 2012-2017 in Bihar, India to test the hypothesis that health-layering of SHGs would lead to improved health-related behaviours of women in SHGs.MethodsA model for health layering of SHGs - Parivartan - was developed by the non-governmental organisation (NGO), Project Concern International, in 64 blocks of eight districts. Layering included health modules, community events and review mechanisms. The health layering model was adapted for use with government-led SHGs, called JEEViKA+HL, in 37 other blocks of Bihar. Scale-up of government-led SHGs without health layering (JEEViKA) occurred contemporaneously in 433 other blocks, providing a natural comparison group. Using Community-based Household Surveys (CHS, rounds 6-9) by CARE India, 62 reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health and nutrition (RMNCHN) and sanitation indicators were examined for SHGs with health layering (Pavivartan SHGs and JEEViKA+HL SHGs) compared to those without. We calculated mean, standard deviation and odds ratios of indicators using surveymeans and survey logistic regression.ResultsIn 2014, 64% of indicators were significantly higher in Parivartan members compared to non-members residing in the same blocks. During scale up, from 2015-17, half (50%) of indicators had significantly higher odds in health layered SHG members (Parivartan or JEEViKA+HL) in 101 blocks compared to SHG members without health layering (JEEViKA) in 433 blocks.ConclusionsHealth layering of SHGs was demonstrated by an NGO-led model (Parivartan), adapted and scaled up by a government model (JEEViKA+HL), and associated with significant improvements in health compared to non-health-layered SHGs (JEEViKA). These results strengthen the evidence base for further layering of health onto the SHG platform for scale-level health change.Study registrationClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02726230.

Project description:BackgroundExisting health and nutrition services present potential platforms for scaling up delivery of early childhood development (ECD) interventions within sensitive windows across the life course, especially in the first 1000 days from conception to age 2 years. However, there is insufficient knowledge on how to optimize implementation for such strategies in an integrated manner. In light of this knowledge gap, we aimed to systematically identify a set of integrated implementation research priorities for health, nutrition and early child development within the 2015 to 2030 timeframe of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).MethodsWe applied the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative method, and consulted a diverse group of global health experts to develop and score 57 research questions against five criteria: answerability, effectiveness, deliverability, impact, and effect on equity. These questions were ranked using a research priority score, and the average expert agreement score was calculated for each question.FindingsThe research priority scores ranged from 61.01 to 93.52, with a median of 82.87. The average expert agreement scores ranged from 0.50 to 0.90, with a median of 0.75. The top-ranked research question were: i) "How can interventions and packages to reduce neonatal mortality be expanded to include ECD and stimulation interventions?"; ii) "How does the integration of ECD and MNCAH&N interventions affect human resource requirements and capacity development in resource-poor settings?"; and iii) "How can integrated interventions be tailored to vulnerable refugee and migrant populations to protect against poor ECD and MNCAH&N outcomes?". Most highly-ranked research priorities varied across the life course and highlighted key aspects of scaling up coverage of integrated interventions in resource-limited settings, including: workforce and capacity development, cost-effectiveness and strategies to reduce financial barriers, and quality assessment of programs.ConclusionsInvesting in ECD is critical to achieving several of the SDGs, including SDG 2 on ending all forms of malnutrition, SDG 3 on ensuring health and well-being for all, and SDG 4 on ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education and promotion of life-long learning opportunities for all. The generated research agenda is expected to drive action and investment on priority approaches to integrating ECD interventions within existing health and nutrition services.

Project description:BackgroundDespite increasing focus on health inequities in low- and middle income countries, significant disparities persist. We analysed impacts of a statewide maternal and child health program among the most compared to the least marginalised women in Bihar, India.MethodsUtilising survey-weighted logistic regression, we estimated programmatic impact using difference-in-difference estimators from Mathematica data collected at the beginning (2012, n = 10 174) and after two years of program implementation (2014, n = 9611). We also examined changes in disparities over time using eight rounds of Community-based Household Surveys (CHS) (2012-2017, n = 48 349) collected by CARE India.ResultsAt baseline for the Mathematica data, least marginalised women generally performed desired health-related behaviours more frequently than the most marginalised. After two years, most disparities persisted. Disparities increased for skilled birth attendant identification [+16.2% (most marginalised) vs +32.6% (least marginalized), P < 0.01) and skin-to-skin care (+14.8% vs +20.4%, P < 0.05), and decreased for immediate breastfeeding (+10.4 vs -4.9, P < 0.01). For the CHS data, odds ratios compared the most to the least marginalised women as referent. Results demonstrated that disparities were most significant for indicators reliant on access to care such as delivery in a facility (OR range: 0.15 to 0.48) or by a qualified doctor (OR range: 0.08 to 0.25), and seeking care for complications (OR range: 0.26 to 0.64).ConclusionsDisparities observed at baseline generally persisted throughout program implementation. The most significant disparities were observed amongst behaviours dependent upon access to care. Changes in disparities largely were due to improvements for the least marginalised women without improvements for the most marginalised. Equity-based assessments of programmatic impacts, including those of universal health approaches, must be undertaken to monitor disparities and to ensure equitable and sustainable benefits for all.Study registrationClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02726230.

Project description:BackgroundThe remarkable progress seen in maternal and child health (MCH) in India over the past two decades has been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to undertake a rapid assessment to identify key priorities for public health research in MCH in India within the context and aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsA web-based survey was developed to identify top research priorities in MCH. It consisted of 26 questions on six broad domains: vaccine preventable diseases, outbreak preparedness, primary healthcare integration, maternal health, neonatal health, and infectious diseases. Key stakeholders were invited to participate between September and November 2020. Participants assigned importance on a 5-point Likert scale, and assigned overall ranks to each sub-domain research priority. Descriptive statistics were used to examine Likert scale responses, and a ranking analysis was done to obtain an "average ranking score" and identify the top research priority under each domain.ResultsAmongst the 84 respondents from across 15 Indian states, 37% were public-health researchers, 25% healthcare providers, 20% academic faculty and 13% were policy makers. Most respondents considered conducting systems strengthening research as extremely important. The highest ranked research priorities were strengthening the public sector workforce (vaccine preventable diseases), enhancing public-health surveillance networks (outbreak preparedness), nutrition support through community workers (primary care integration), encouraging at least 4-8 antenatal visits (maternal health), neonatal resuscitation to reduce birth asphyxia (neonatal health) and screening and treatment of tuberculosis (infectious diseases). Common themes identified through open-ended questions primarily included systems strengthening priorities across domains.ConclusionsThe overall focus for research priorities in MCH in India during the COVID-19 pandemic is on strengthening existing services and service delivery, rather than novel research. Our results highlight pivotal steps within the roadmap for advancing and sustaining maternal and child health gains during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

Dataset Information

Research priorities in Maternal, Newborn, & Child Health & Nutrition for India: An Indian Council of Medical Research-INCLEN Initiative.

Publications

Research priorities in Maternal, Newborn, & Child Health & Nutrition for India: An Indian Council of Medical Research-INCLEN Initiative.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets