Setting research priorities for global pandemic preparedness: An international consensus and comparison with ChatGPT's output.

Background: In this priority-setting exercise, we sought to identify leading research priorities needed for strengthening future pandemic preparedness and response across countries. Methods: The International Society of Global Health (ISoGH) used the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method to identify research priorities for future pandemic preparedness. Eighty experts in global health, translational and clinical research identified 163 research ideas, of which 42 experts then scored based on five pre-defined criteria. We calculated intermediate criterion-specific scores and overall research priority scores from the mean of individual scores for each research idea. We used a bootstrap (n = 1000) to compute the 95% confidence intervals. Results: Key priorities included strengthening health systems, rapid vaccine and treatment production, improving international cooperation, and enhancing surveillance efficiency. Other priorities included learning from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, managing supply chains, identifying planning gaps, and promoting equitable interventions. We compared this CHNRI-based outcome with the 14 research priorities generated and ranked by ChatGPT, encountering both striking similarities and clear differences. Conclusions: Priority setting processes based on human crowdsourcing - such as the CHNRI method - and the output provided by ChatGPT are both valuable, as they complement and strengthen each other. The priorities identified by ChatGPT were more grounded in theory, while those identified by CHNRI were guided by recent practical experiences. Addressing these priorities, along with improvements in health planning, equitable community-based interventions, and the capacity of primary health care, is vital for better pandemic preparedness and response in many settings.

Research priorities to reduce the impact of COVID-19 in low- and middle-income countries.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused disruptions to the functioning of societies and their health systems. Prior to the pandemic, health systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) were particularly stretched and vulnerable. The International Society of Global Health (ISoGH) sought to systematically identify priorities for health research that would have the potential to reduce the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in LMICs. Methods: The Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method was used to identify COVID-19-related research priorities. All ISoGH members were invited to participate. Seventy-nine experts in clinical, translational, and population research contributed 192 research questions for consideration. Fifty-two experts then scored those questions based on five pre-defined criteria that were selected for this exercise: 1) feasibility and answerability; 2) potential for burden reduction; 3) potential for a paradigm shift; 4) potential for translation and implementation; and 5) impact on equity. Results: Among the top 10 research priorities, research questions related to vaccination were prominent: health care system access barriers to equitable uptake of COVID-19 vaccination (ranked 1st), determinants of vaccine hesitancy (4th), development and evaluation of effective interventions to decrease vaccine hesitancy (5th), and vaccination impacts on vulnerable population/s (6th). Health care delivery questions also ranked highly, including: effective strategies to manage COVID-19 globally and in LMICs (2nd) and integrating health care for COVID-19 with other essential health services in LMICs (3rd). Additionally, the assessment of COVID-19 patients' needs in rural areas of LMICs was ranked 7th, and studying the leading socioeconomic determinants and consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in LMICs using multi-faceted approaches was ranked 8th. The remaining questions in the top 10 were: clarifying paediatric case-fatality rates (CFR) in LMICs and identifying effective strategies for community engagement against COVID-19 in different LMIC contexts. Interpretation: Health policy and systems research to inform COVID-19 vaccine uptake and equitable access to care are urgently needed, especially for rural, vulnerable, and/or marginalised populations. This research should occur in parallel with studies that will identify approaches to minimise vaccine hesitancy and effectively integrate care for COVID-19 with other essential health services in LMICs. ISoGH calls on the funders of health research in LMICs to consider the urgency and priority of this research during the COVID-19 pandemic and support studies that could make a positive difference for the populations of LMICs.

Qualitative evidence syntheses: Assessing the relative contributions of multi-context and single-context reviews.

AIMS: To examine the strengths and weaknesses of multi-context (international) qualitative evidence syntheses in comparison with single-context (typically single-country) reviews. We compare a multi-country synthesis with single-context syntheses on facility-based delivery in Nigeria and Kenya. DESIGN: Discussion paper. BACKGROUND: Qualitative evidence increasingly contributes to decision-making. International organizations commission multi-context reviews of qualitative evidence to gain a comprehensive picture of similarities and differences across comparable (e.g., low- and middle-income) countries. Such syntheses privilege breadth over contextual detail, risking inappropriate interpretation and application of review findings. Decision-makers value single-context syntheses that account for the contexts of their populations and health services. We explore how findings from multi- and single-context syntheses contribute against a conceptual framework (adequacy, coherence, methodological limitations and relevance) that underpins the GRADE Confidence in Evidence of Reviews of Qualitative Evidence approach. DATA SOURCES: Included studies and findings from a multi-context qualitative evidence synthesis (2001-2013) and two single-context syntheses (Nigeria, 2006-2017; and Kenya, 2002-2016; subsequently updated and revised). FINDINGS: Single-context reviews contribute cultural, ethnic and religious nuances and specific health system factors (e.g., use of a voucher system). Multi-context reviews contribute to universal health concerns and to generic health system concerns (e.g., access and availability). IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Nurse decision-makers require relevant, timely and context-sensitive evidence to inform clinical and managerial decision-making. This discussion paper informs future commissioning and use of multi- and single-context qualitative evidence syntheses. CONCLUSION: Multi- and single-context syntheses fulfil complementary functions. Single-context syntheses add nuances not identifiable in the remit and timescales of a multi-context review. Impact This study offers a unique comparison between multi-context and single country (Nigeria and Kenya) qualitative syntheses exploring facility-based birth. Clear strengths and weaknesses were identified to inform commissioning and application of future syntheses. Characteristics can inform the commissioning of single- and multi-context nursing-oriented reviews across the world.