Research Priority Setting for Integrated Early Child Development and Violence Prevention (ECD+) in Low and Middle Income Countries: An Expert Opinion Exercise

Tomlinson et al. (2017) full text summary PDF

For which topic were research priorities identified?

integrated early child development and violence prevention

In which location was the research priority setting conducted?


Why was it conducted at all?

Child development in low and middle income countries (LMIC) is compromised by multiple risk factors. Reducing children's exposure to harmful events is essential for early childhood development (ECD). In particular, preventing violence against children - a highly prevalent risk factor that negatively affects optimal child development - should be an intervention priority.

What was the objective?

to set research priorities in integrated Early Childhood Development and violence prevention programs (ECD+)

What was the outcome?

a ranking list of 25 research questions

How long did the research prioritization take?

No information provided.

Which methods were used to identify research priorities?

CHNRI approach

How were the priorities for research identified exactly?

Step 1: defining context and time frame, outlining framework. Step 2: determining research criteria and experts: identifying criteria against which research options were assessed, identifying experts. Step 3: collecting research questions: experts were asked to generate five research questions. Step 4: scoring: final list of 50 questions, experts were asked to score each question, questions then organized into set of thematic goals, top two-three research questions for each thematic goal selected

Which stakeholders took part?

Researchers, policymakers, representatives from civil society and NGOs, healthcare providers. Step 3: 81 participants. Step 4: 55 participants.

How were stakeholders recruited?

The management group compiled a list of the names of researchers, policy makers, and representatives from civil society and NGO’s who formed the technical working group. This was done using professional networks of the six management group members and identifying key authors from the literature.1 A broad search of PubMed using the terms ECD, and ECD and violence prevention, as well as snowball sampling yielded a list of 186 possible members for the technical working group.

Were stakeholders actively involved or did they just participate?

Stakeholders were mere participants of the research prioritization process; they were not actively involved in the process.