Exploring individual and demographic characteristics and their relation to CHNRI Criteria from an international public stakeholder group: an analysis using random intercept and logistic regression modelling
Open Access
- 15 February 2019
- journal article
- research article
- Published by International Society of Global Health in Journal of Global Health
- Vol. 9 (1), 010701
- https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.09.010701
Abstract
Introduction The Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method for health research prioritisation relies on stakeholders weighting criteria used to assess research options. These weights in turn impact on the final scores and ranks assigned to research options. Three quarters of CHNRI studies published to date have not involved stakeholders in criteria weighting. Of those that have, few incorporated members of the public into stakeholder groups. Those that have compared different stakeholder groups, such as donors, researchers, or policy makers, showed that different groups place different values upon CHNRI criteria. When choosing the composition of a stakeholder group, it may be important to understand factors that may influence weighting. Drawing upon a group of international public stakeholders, this study explores some of the effects of individual and demographic characteristics has on the weights assigned to the most commonly used CHNRI criteria, with the aim of informing future researchers on avoiding future biases. Methods Individual and demographic information and 5-point Liken scale responses to questions about the importance of 15 CHNRI criteria were collected from 1031 "Turkers" (Amazon Mechanical Turk workers) via Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT), which is an online crowdsourcing platform. Thirteen of the fifteen criteria were analysed using random-intercept models and the remaining two were analysed through logistic regression. Results Self-reported health status explained most of the variability in participants' responses across criteria (11/15 criteria), followed by being female (10/15), ethnicity (9/15), employment (8/15), and religion (7/15). Differences across criteria indicate that when choosing stakeholder groups, researchers need to consider these factors to minimise bias. Conclusion Researchers should collect and report more detailed information from stakeholders, including individual and demographic characteristics, and ensure participation from both genders, multiple ethnicities, religious beliefs, and people with differing health statuses to be transparent regarding possible biases in health research prioritisation. Our analyses indicate that these factors do influence the relative importance of these values, even when the data appears fairly homogeneous.Keywords
This publication has 13 references indexed in Scilit:
- Setting health research priorities using the CHNRI method: II. Involving researchersJournal of Global Health, 2016
- Setting health research priorities using the CHNRI method: III. Involving stakeholdersJournal of Global Health, 2016
- Setting global research priorities for integrated community case management (iCCM): Results from a CHNRI (Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative) exerciseJournal of Global Health, 2014
- Using Mechanical Turk to Study Clinical PopulationsClinical Psychological Science, 2013
- Research Options for Controlling Zoonotic Disease in India, 2010–2015PLOS ONE, 2011
- A checklist for health research priority setting: nine common themes of good practiceHealth Research Policy and Systems, 2010
- Setting priorities for global mental health researchBulletin of the World Health Organization, 2009
- Setting Priorities in Global Child Health Research Investments: Guidelines for Implementation of the CHNRI MethodCroatian Medical Journal, 2008
- Setting priorities in global child health research investments: addressing values of stakeholders.2007
- Setting Priorities in Child Health Research Investments for South AfricaPLoS Medicine, 2007