Table 2.
Top 23 research questions according to their achieved research priority score, with average expert agreement related to each question
| Rank | Research Question | Criterion 1: Answerability | Criterion 2: Effectiveness | Criterion 3: Deliverability | Criterion 4: Impact | Criterion 5: Effect on equity | RPS | AEA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
How can interventions and packages to reduce neonatal mortality be expanded to include ECD and stimulation interventions? |
0.96 |
0.88 |
0.95 |
0.95 |
0.93 |
93.52 |
0.90 |
| 2 |
How does the integration of ECD and MNCAH&N interventions affect human resource requirements and capacity development in resource–poor settings? |
0.94 |
0.86 |
0.91 |
0.94 |
0.94 |
91.77 |
0.86 |
| 3 |
How can integrated interventions be tailored to vulnerable refugee and migrant populations to protect against poor ECD and MNCAH&N outcomes? |
0.94 |
0.83 |
0.84 |
0.95 |
0.97 |
90.81 |
0.87 |
| 4 |
What are the benefits, if any, of linking ECD programs with microcredit or conditional cash transfer programs? |
0.94 |
0.88 |
0.79 |
0.93 |
1.00 |
90.69 |
0.85 |
| 5 |
How can sensory stimulation best be integrated with nutrition interventions for small for gestational age infants to significantly improve their developmental outcomes over the long–term? |
0.97 |
0.87 |
0.83 |
0.93 |
0.90 |
90.04 |
0.84 |
| 6 |
Do responsive feeding interventions promote children’s cognitive and socio–emotional development? |
0.95 |
0.84 |
0.95 |
0.87 |
0.89 |
89.96 |
0.81 |
| 7 |
What is the most effective approach for implementing integrated ECD and MNCAH&N interventions aimed at adolescent girls? |
0.95 |
0.81 |
0.88 |
0.94 |
0.88 |
89.01 |
0.82 |
| 8 |
What are the key elements required in the design of effective national ECD workforce development and retention strategies across diverse socio–economic and cultural contexts? |
0.83 |
0.88 |
0.82 |
0.93 |
0.97 |
88.31 |
0.81 |
| 9 |
What are potential barriers to scale up of integrated MNCAH&N and ECD interventions in low and middle–income countries? |
0.89 |
0.79 |
0.95 |
0.88 |
0.89 |
87.82 |
0.82 |
| 10 |
For children who have endured either nutritional or cognitive deprivation in the first 1000 d from conception, is it possible to improve ECD outcomes with or without affecting linear growth? |
0.90 |
0.79 |
0.88 |
0.91 |
0.91 |
87.73 |
0.79 |
| 11 |
What is the feasibility of integrating ECD interventions into the responsibilities of community health workers, and what specific interventions should be prioritized? |
0.87 |
0.87 |
0.82 |
0.89 |
0.93 |
87.68 |
0.82 |
| 12 |
What are effective approaches for supporting parents of young children (under 6 y) to adopt integrated practices that promote child nutrition, health and development? |
0.84 |
0.86 |
0.82 |
0.93 |
0.92 |
87.39 |
0.77 |
| 13 |
What are the parameters for assessing the quality of integrated ECD and MNCAH&N programs? |
0.88 |
0.85 |
0.92 |
0.88 |
0.83 |
87.32 |
0.80 |
| 14 |
Does the promotion of high quality, timely complementary feeding in ECD and MCHN activities actually translate into improved practice? |
0.94 |
0.86 |
0.82 |
0.85 |
0.89 |
87.13 |
0.77 |
| 15 |
How can mobile phones and/or media be most effectively utilized as a delivery platform for integrated ECD and MNCAH&N interventions? |
0.92 |
0.82 |
0.90 |
0.89 |
0.82 |
86.82 |
0.80 |
| 16 |
Who is the most feasible and acceptable delivery agent of integrated interventions in low resource community–based settings? |
0.82 |
0.82 |
0.90 |
0.90 |
0.90 |
86.72 |
0.80 |
| 17 |
Develop and validate measures of quality and coverage of integrated ECD and nutrition interventions in early infancy and childhood. |
0.92 |
0.83 |
0.88 |
0.89 |
0.81 |
86.70 |
0.82 |
| 18 |
Where are the gaps in financing programs that aim to integrate and support ECD and MNCAH&N? |
0.91 |
0.84 |
0.77 |
0.86 |
0.92 |
85.98 |
0.78 |
| 19 |
How can maternal health interventions to improve postpartum depression be most effectively integrated with ECD programs? |
0.95 |
0.88 |
0.83 |
0.86 |
0.78 |
85.78 |
0.76 |
| 20 |
How can intervention strategies on the prevention of violence against mothers and children be most effectively integrated with ECD programs? |
0.92 |
0.79 |
0.86 |
0.89 |
0.82 |
85.51 |
0.78 |
| 21 |
What are the critical windows along the continuum of care in which MNCAH&N and ECD interventions can most effectively and feasibly be integrated? |
0.75 |
0.95 |
0.78 |
0.94 |
0.86 |
85.42 |
0.80 |
| 22 |
What is the feasibility and cost–effectiveness of different models of scaling up integrated ECD and MNCAH&N interventions in resource–limited settings? |
0.86 |
0.78 |
0.78 |
0.95 |
0.90 |
85.32 |
0.77 |
| 23 | What is the impact of integrating intervention strategies on the prevention of violence against mothers and children with ECD programs? | 0.92 | 0.84 | 0.77 | 0.88 | 0.85 | 85.07 | 0.75 |
*RPS – research priority score; AEA – average expert agreement; ECD – early childhood development; MNCAH&N – maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health & nutrition