Table 4.
Rank, evaluation criteria scores, research priority scores, and average expert agreement for top ten questions in low-and middle income countries with complete surveys only (n = 11-16; varies by question)
| Rank | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Research question |
Can supportive supervision lead to improved quality of care in the private sector? |
How can the integration of routine child health data from private sector providers (clinical and non-clinical) into national health information systems be improved and sustained? |
What models of supportive supervision for child health service delivery are most cost-effective in the private sector? |
What interventions are most effective in closing the gap between private provider knowledge and implementation of IMCI protocols? |
What can be done to reduce over-prescription of antibiotics when malaria rapid diagnostic testing results are negative and there are no other indications for antibiotic use? |
What factors contribute to private provider adherence to IMCI protocols? |
What are the referral pathways in the private sector and what factors contribute to appropriate referrals to or from private sector providers? |
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? |
How well do private sector providers adhere to IMCI protocols? |
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? |
|
|
Evaluation criteria: | |||||||||||
| Answerability Question 1 Score: Single studies or small number of studies? |
91 |
83 |
81 |
83 |
83 |
85 |
83 |
86 |
88 |
83 |
|
| Answerability Question 2 Score: Measurable outcome indicators? |
90 |
85 |
85 |
85 |
80 |
85 |
81 |
84 |
88 |
88 |
|
| Research Feasibility Priority Score: Feasible to design and conduct study? |
90 |
86 |
83 |
86 |
84 |
88 |
88 |
88 |
89 |
85 |
|
| Sustainability and Equity Question 1 Score: Results in sustainable intervention/ strategy to implement within context of private sector? |
90 |
88 |
88 |
87 |
83 |
84 |
80 |
83 |
78 |
84 |
|
| Sustainability and Equity Question 2 Score: Results in scalable intervention/ strategy to implement within context of private sector? |
90 |
86 |
86 |
86 |
84 |
81 |
80 |
83 |
75 |
81 |
|
| Sustainability and Equity Question 3 Score: Results lead to intervention/strategy that strengthens partnerships between private sector and government? |
89 |
89 |
87 |
81 |
79 |
75 |
84 |
81 |
76 |
80 |
|
| Sustainability and Equity Question 4 Score: Results lead to more equitable outcomes? |
76 |
76 |
76 |
75 |
76 |
74 |
76 |
72 |
76 |
78 |
|
| Importance and Potential Impact Question 1 Score: Results fill an important knowledge gap? |
88 |
89 |
85 |
83 |
88 |
85 |
85 |
83 |
83 |
76 |
|
| Importance and Potential Impact Question 2 Score: Results inform future policy and practice? |
88 |
89 |
86 |
85 |
85 |
84 |
85 |
81 |
85 |
84 |
|
| 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? |
91 |
90 |
81 |
85 |
88 |
84 |
84 |
83 |
84 |
84 |
|
| Importance and Potential Impact Question 4 Score: Will the results from the research help to strengthen quality of care provided by private health providers |
90 |
80 |
85 |
85 |
86 |
88 |
85 |
83 |
84 |
83 |
|
| Research Priority Score (interquartile range) |
88.5 (88.0-90.0) |
85.5 (82.5-88.8) |
83.9 (81.3-86.3) |
83.7 (82.5-86.3) |
83.2 (80.0-85.7) |
82.9 (81.3-85.3) |
82.7 (80.0-85.0) |
82.4 (81.4-83.8) |
82.2 (76.3-87.5) |
82.2 (80.0-83.8) |
|
| Average Expert Agreement | 54 | 51 | 52 | 52 | 45 | 53 | 50 | 44 | 45 | 43 | |
IMCI – Integrated management of childhood illness