MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412707578 · doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2024-018578

Setting health systems research priorities for Afghanistan: an application of the child health and nutrition research initiative (CHNRI) methodology to set a roadmap to 2030

2025· article· en· W4412707578 on OpenAlexafffund
Sama El Baz, Emily C Keats, Hana Tasic, Robert E. Black, David H. Peters, Najibullah Safi, Hannah Tappis, Kerri Wazny, Nadia Akseer

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Global Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLegal, Health, Environmental and COVID-19 Challenges
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityNiagara Health System
FundersChildren's Investment Fund FoundationJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthYork UniversityBill and Melinda Gates FoundationJohns Hopkins UniversityWorld Bank Group
KeywordsSet (abstract data type)Child healthPublic healthPolitical scienceMedicineManagement scienceEnvironmental healthComputer scienceNursingFamily medicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Afghanistan's health system has faced considerable challenges since the Taliban takeover in 2021, leaving the population vulnerable to an increased risk of morbidity and mortality. Research to illuminate the current functioning of the health system and approaches for strengthening its key components is critically needed to address imminent and evolving health needs of the Afghan people. METHODS: approach has yet to be developed. Using the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative methodology, this study identifies the top 20 health systems' research priorities among experienced Afghanistan health researchers. Priorities were also considered when disaggregating data by subgroups, such as Afghan versus non-Afghan respondents and those from low- and middle-income versus high-income settings. RESULTS: A total of 303 researchers were invited to score the research questions; 86 responded to the scoring survey and 55 completed it (60% were of Afghan origin). The highest priority questions were relatively diverse in terms of topic area, with questions spanning system-level factors, healthcare quality, community-based healthcare, improvements in the pharmaceutical sector, epidemiological trends, health management information systems and surveillance, access to care and approaches to improving service delivery in Afghanistan, among many others. 'Delivery'-focused and 'development'-focused questions were prioritised, demonstrating that participants assigned greater importance to more practical research questions that would explore features of and approaches to improving existing health system structures within the current Afghan context. Results were consistent across subgroups. CONCLUSION: This research prioritisation exercise fills a gap by generating consensus and establishing a research agenda for strengthening Afghanistan's health system.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.878
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.290
GPT teacher head0.583
Teacher spread0.293 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Global HealthSame topicLegal, Health, Environmental and COVID-19 ChallengesFrench-language works237,207