Centre for Global Health Research, Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Moray House School of Education, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
J Glob Health. 2019 Jun;9(1):010702. doi: 10.7189/jogh.09.010702.
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.
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.
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.
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.
利益攸关方的参与已被描述为卫生研究优先事项制定不可或缺的一部分。然而，使用儿童健康与营养研究倡议（CHNRI）方法的研究中，超过 75%的研究省略了利益攸关方参与优先事项制定的步骤。那些使用利益攸关方的研究很少使用公众，可能是因为很难召集和/或获得公众利益攸关方群体。为了加强未来使用 CHNRI 方法的研究，我们使用公众利益攸关方对 15 项 CHNRI 标准进行了加权，并探讨了区域差异或作为卫生利益攸关方是否具有影响力，以及这些标准是否可以合并。
我们使用在线众包平台亚马逊机械土耳其（AMT），从 1051 名利益攸关方那里收集人口统计学信息，并对 CHNRI 标准的重要性进行了李克特量表格式的调查。采用 Kruskal-Wallis 检验，并用 Dunn 检验进行事后比较，来检验区域差异，采用 Wilcoxon 秩和检验分析有卫生培训/背景的利益攸关方与没有卫生背景的利益攸关方以及按区域之间的差异。对标准进行因子分析（FA），以确定连接它们的主要领域。将标准的平均值转换为权重。
根据 Kruskal-Wallis 检验，在 15 项标准中有 13 项存在区域差异，在 15 项标准中有 11 项标准来自卫生利益攸关方的回应与非卫生利益攸关方的回应存在差异，采用 Wilcoxon 秩和检验。确定了三个组成部分：改善和影响结果；实施和负担能力；以及研究设计和传播。提供了一个公式，可将平均值转换为权重，用于未来的研究。
在未来的 CHNRI 研究中，研究人员需要确保利益攸关方有足够的代表性，以避免 CHNRI 结果出现偏差。这些结果应与其他利益攸关方群体（包括政府、捐助者、政策制定者和双边机构）一起使用。全球和区域利益攸关方群体对 CHNRI 标准的评分不同；因此，研究人员应考虑在其 CHNRI 研究中使用哪个群体。
