Skip to main content
. 2020 Dec 19;10(2):021201. doi: 10.7189/jogh.10.021201

Table 3.

Rank, evaluation criteria scores, research priority scores, and average expert agreement for top ten questions in high income countries with complete surveys only (n = 18-33; varies by question)

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Research question
Does accreditation or regulation of private clinical and non-clinical sources of care improve IMCI diagnosis, treatment, and appropriateness of testing and prescription?
Can tools (eg,flipchart, decision tree, and other job aids) used by private providers/pharmacies/drug shops improve adherence to child health protocols (diarrhea and pneumonia management, malaria treatment, and nutritional screening and counseling?
What is the effectiveness of training private sector medicine vendors (ie, private drug shops, pharmacists, chemists, patent medicine vendors, etc.) to recognize, manage and/or refer sick young infants?
Can government medicine regulatory authorities improve the quality of antimalarial medicines and antibiotics distributed by private drug shops or their equivalent through the use of periodic audits with a portable device to assess drug quality?
Can supportive supervision lead to improved quality of care in the private sector?
What are the key drivers of appropriate and inappropriate antimalarial and antibiotic prescription for children in private-for-profit sources of care by type of provider?
Can the iCCM approach be used in private non-clinical sources of care at scale to provide quality, appropriate, affordable, and accessible care?
What are the referral pathways in the private sector and what factors contribute to appropriate referrals to or from private sector providers?
What is the effect of social franchising with iCCM on access to child health care and outcomes?
What factors contribute to private provider adherence to IMCI protocols?
Evaluation criteria:
Answerability Question 1 Score: Single studies or small number of studies?
76
79
78
79
76
75
69
73
70
77
Answerability Question 2 Score: Measurable outcome indicators?
86
87
85
86
84
81
78
76
77
82
Research Feasibility Priority Score: Feasible to design and conduct study?
80
86
79
83
83
82
78
78
75
80
Sustainability and Equity Question 1 Score: Results in sustainable intervention/ strategy to implement within context of private sector?
85
84
79
79
79
80
77
78
79
78
Sustainability and Equity Question 2 Score: Results in scalable intervention/ strategy to implement within context of private sector?
86
84
76
78
73
77
78
76
79
74
Sustainability and Equity Question 3 Score: Results lead to intervention/strategy that strengthens partnerships between private sector and government?
83
66
75
72
73
70
75
79
72
68
Sustainability and Equity Question 4 Score: Results lead to more equitable outcomes?
73
66
77
71
68
69
79
71
76
66
Importance and Potential Impact Question 1 Score:Results fill an important knowledge gap?
82
74
81
79
77
81
79
82
80
77
Importance and Potential Impact Question 2 Score: Results inform future policy and practice?
84
78
82
79
81
78
81
79
79
77
Importance and Potential Impact Question 3 Score: Results relevant to at least one aspect of private sector across range of low- and middle-income countries?
83
81
81
80
78
76
79
78
77
79
Importance and Potential Impact Question 4 Score: Will the results from the research help to strengthen quality of care provided by private health providers
85
88
80
82
85
85
79
78
75
83
Research Priority Score (interquartile range)
82.1 (80.0-85.0)
79.4 (74.2-85.6)
79.4 (76.7-81.3)
79.0 (78.1-81.9)
77.9 (73.1-82.6)
77.8 (74.8-81.3)
77.5 (76.9-79.4)
77.1 (75.8-78.8)
76.5 (75.3-79.4)
76.5 (74.4-80.0)
Average Expert Agreement 55 53 41 50 46 50 43 41 47 47

IMCI – integrated management of childhood illness, iCCM – integrated community case management