MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2673164513 · doi:10.7189/jogh.07.011002

Prioritizing research for integrated implementation of early childhood development and maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health and nutrition platforms

2017· article· en· W2673164513 on OpenAlexafffund
Renee Sharma, Michelle F Gaffey, Harold Alderman, Diego G. Bassani, Kimber Bogard, Gary L. Darmstadt, Jai K Das, Joseph E de Graft–Johnson, Jena Hamadani, Susan Horton, Luis Huicho, Julia Hussein, Stephen J. Lye, Rafael Pérez‐Escamilla, Kerrie Proulx, Kofi Marfo, Vanessa Mathews–Hanna, Mireille Mclean, Atıf Rahman, Karlee Silver, Daisy R. Singla, Patrick Webb, Zulfiqar A Bhutta

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Global Health · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteSickKids FoundationUniversity of TorontoUniversity of WaterlooSinai Health SystemHospital for Sick Children
FundersHospital for Sick ChildrenUnited States Agency for International Development
KeywordsPsychological interventionImplementation researchEquity (law)MedicineChild developmentChild mortalityEarly childhoodResource (disambiguation)Environmental healthMedical educationFamily medicineGerontologyPsychologyNursingDevelopmental psychologyComputer sciencePolitical sciencePopulationPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Existing health and nutrition services present potential platforms for scaling up delivery of early childhood development (ECD) interventions within sensitive windows across the life course, especially in the first 1000 days from conception to age 2 years. However, there is insufficient knowledge on how to optimize implementation for such strategies in an integrated manner. In light of this knowledge gap, we aimed to systematically identify a set of integrated implementation research priorities for health, nutrition and early child development within the 2015 to 2030 timeframe of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). METHODS: We applied the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative method, and consulted a diverse group of global health experts to develop and score 57 research questions against five criteria: answerability, effectiveness, deliverability, impact, and effect on equity. These questions were ranked using a research priority score, and the average expert agreement score was calculated for each question. FINDINGS: The research priority scores ranged from 61.01 to 93.52, with a median of 82.87. The average expert agreement scores ranged from 0.50 to 0.90, with a median of 0.75. The top-ranked research question were: i) "How can interventions and packages to reduce neonatal mortality be expanded to include ECD and stimulation interventions?"; ii) "How does the integration of ECD and MNCAH&N interventions affect human resource requirements and capacity development in resource-poor settings?"; and iii) "How can integrated interventions be tailored to vulnerable refugee and migrant populations to protect against poor ECD and MNCAH&N outcomes?". Most highly-ranked research priorities varied across the life course and highlighted key aspects of scaling up coverage of integrated interventions in resource-limited settings, including: workforce and capacity development, cost-effectiveness and strategies to reduce financial barriers, and quality assessment of programs. CONCLUSIONS: Investing in ECD is critical to achieving several of the SDGs, including SDG 2 on ending all forms of malnutrition, SDG 3 on ensuring health and well-being for all, and SDG 4 on ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education and promotion of life-long learning opportunities for all. The generated research agenda is expected to drive action and investment on priority approaches to integrating ECD interventions within existing health and nutrition services.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.631
Threshold uncertainty score0.675

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.375 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Global HealthSame topicChild Nutrition and Water AccessFrench-language works237,207