Educational and economic returns to cognitive ability in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review.

There is growing interest to use early cognitive ability to predict schooling and employment outcomes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Rather than using educational attainment and school enrollment as predictors of future economic growth or of improving an individual's earning potential, mounting evidence suggests that cognitive ability may be a better predictor. The relationship between cognitive ability, education, and employment are essential to predict future development in LMICs. We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of the evidence regarding the relationship between cognitive ability and educational outcomes, and between cognitive ability and economic outcomes across LMICs. We searched peer-reviewed studies since 2000 that quantitatively measured these relationships. Based on an initial search of 3,766 records, we identified 14 studies, including 8 studies that examined the cognition-education link and 8 studies that assessed cognition-employment returns in LMICs. Identified studies showed that higher cognitive ability increased the probability of school enrollment, academic achievement, and educational attainment across LMICs. A meta-analysis of returns to wages from cognitive ability suggested that a standard deviation increase in cognitive test scores was associated with a 4.5% (95% CI 2.6%-9.6%) increase in wages. Investments into early cognitive development could play a critical role in improving educational and economic outcomes in LMICs. Further research should focus particularly in low-income countries with the least evidence, and examine the impact on education and economic outcomes by cognitive domains to provide more robust evidence for policy makers to take action.

Precision Dosing Priority Criteria: Drug, Disease, and Patient Population Variables.

The administered dose of a drug modulates whether patients will experience optimal effectiveness, toxicity including death, or no effect at all. Dosing is particularly important for diseases and/or drugs where the drug can decrease severe morbidity or prolong life. Likewise, dosing is important where the drug can cause death or severe morbidity. Since we believe there are many examples where more precise dosing could benefit patients, it is worthwhile to consider how to prioritize drug-disease targets. One key consideration is the quality of information available from which more precise dosing recommendations can be constructed. When a new more precise dosing scheme is created and differs significantly from the approved label, it is important to consider the level of proof necessary to either change the label and/or change clinical practice. The cost and effort needed to provide this proof should also be considered in prioritizing drug-disease precision dosing targets. Although precision dosing is being promoted and has great promise, it is underutilized in many drugs and disease states. Therefore, we believe it is important to consider how more precise dosing is going to be delivered to high priority patients in a timely manner. If better dosing schemes do not change clinical practice resulting in better patient outcomes, then what is the use? This review paper discusses variables to consider when prioritizing precision dosing candidates while highlighting key examples of precision dosing that have been successfully used to improve patient care.