Dataset Information

Setting weights for fifteen CHNRI criteria at the global and regional level using public stakeholders: an Amazon Mechanical Turk study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Stakeholder involvement has been described as an indispensable part of health research priority setting. Yet, more than 75% of the exercises using the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) methodology have omitted the step involving stakeholders in priority setting. Those that have used stakeholders have rarely used the public, possibly due to the difficulty of assembling and/or accessing a public stakeholder group. In order to strengthen future exercises using the CHNRI methodology, we have used a public stakeholder group to weight 15 CHNRI criteria, and have explored regional differences or being a health stakeholder is influential, and whether the criteria are collapsible.

Methods

Using Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT), an online crowdsourcing platform, we collected demographic information and conducted a Likert-scale format survey about the importance of the CHNRI criteria from 1051 stakeholders. The Kruskal-Wallis test, with Dunn's test for posthoc comparisons, was used to examine regional differences and Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to analyse differences between stakeholders with health training/background and stakeholders without a health background and by region. A Factor Analysis (FA) was conducted on the criteria to identify the main domains connecting them. Criteria means were converted to weights.

Results

There were regional differences in thirteen of fifteen criteria according to the Kruskal-Wallis test and differences in responses from health stakeholders vs those who were not in eleven of fifteen criteria using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Three components were identified: improve and impact results; implementation and affordability; and, study design and dissemination. A formula is provided to convert means to weights for future studies.

Conclusion

In future CHNRI studies, researchers will need to ensure adequate representation from stakeholders to undue bias of CHNRI results. These results should be used in combination with other stakeholder groups, including government, donors, policy makers, and bilateral agencies. Global and regional stakeholder groups scored CHNRI criteria differently; due to this, researchers should consider which group to use in their CHNRI exercises.

SUBMITTER: Wazny K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6445564 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Setting weights for fifteen CHNRI criteria at the global and regional level using public stakeholders: an Amazon Mechanical Turk study.

Wazny Kerri K Ravenscroft John J Chan Kit Yee KY Bassani Diego G DG Anderson Niall N Rudan Igor I

Journal of global health 20190601 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>Stakeholder involvement has been described as an indispensable part of health research priority setting. Yet, more than 75% of the exercises using the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) methodology have omitted the step involving stakeholders in priority setting. Those that have used stakeholders have rarely used the public, possibly due to the difficulty of assembling and/or accessing a public stakeholder group. In order to strengthen future exercises us ...[more]

PMID: 30992986

Similar Datasets

Project description:Internet interventions face significant challenges in recruitment and attrition rates are typically high and problematic. Finding innovative yet scientifically valid avenues for attaining and retaining participants is therefore of considerable importance. The main goal of this study was to compare recruitment process and participants characteristics between two similar randomized control trials of mood management interventions. One of the trials (Bunge et al., 2016) was conducted with participants recruited from Amazon's Mechanical Turk (AMT), and the other trial recruited via Unpaid Internet Resources (UIR). Methods:The AMT sample (Bunge et al., 2016) consisted of 765 adults, and the UIR sample (recruited specifically for this study) consisted of 329 adult US residents. Participants' levels of depression, anxiety, confidence, motivation, and perceived usefulness of the intervention were assessed. The AMT sample was financially compensated whereas the UIR was not. Results:AMT yielded higher recruitment rates per month (p?<?.05). At baseline, the AMT sample reported significantly lower depression and anxiety scores (p?<?.001 and p?<?.005, respectively) and significantly higher mood, motivation, and confidence (all p?<?.001) compared to the UIR sample. AMT participants spent significantly less time on the site (p?<?.05) and were more likely to complete follow-ups than the UIR sample (p?<?.05). Both samples reported a significant increase in their level of confidence and motivation from pre- to post-intervention. AMT participants showed a significant increase in perceived usefulness of the intervention (p?<?.0001), whereas the UIR sample did not (p?=?.1642). Conclusions:By using AMT, researchers can recruit very rapidly and obtain higher retention rates; however, these participants may not be representative of the general online population interested in clinical interventions. Considering that AMT and UIR participants differed in most baseline variables, data from clinical studies resulting from AMT samples should be interpreted with caution.

Project description: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.

Dataset Information

Setting weights for fifteen CHNRI criteria at the global and regional level using public stakeholders: an Amazon Mechanical Turk study.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Setting weights for fifteen CHNRI criteria at the global and regional level using public stakeholders: an Amazon Mechanical Turk study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets