Setting health research priorities using the CHNRI method: IV. Key conceptual advances

INTRODUCTION: Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) started as an initiative of the Global Forum for Health Research in Geneva, Switzerland. Its aim was to develop a method that could assist priority setting in health research investments. The first version of the CHNRI method was published in 2007–2008. The aim of this paper was to summarize the history of the development of the CHNRI method and its key conceptual advances. METHODS: The guiding principle of the CHNRI method is to expose the potential of many competing health research ideas to reduce disease burden and inequities that exist in the population in a feasible and cost–effective way. RESULTS: The CHNRI method introduced three key conceptual advances that led to its increased popularity in comparison to other priority–setting methods and processes. First, it proposed a systematic approach to listing a large number of possible research ideas, using the “4D” framework (description, delivery, development and discovery research) and a well–defined “depth” of proposed research ideas (research instruments, avenues, options and questions). Second, it proposed a systematic approach for discriminating between many proposed research ideas based on a well–defined context and criteria. The five “standard” components of the context are the population of interest, the disease burden of interest, geographic limits, time scale and the preferred style of investing with respect to risk. The five “standard” criteria proposed for prioritization between research ideas are answerability, effectiveness, deliverability, maximum potential for disease burden reduction and the effect on equity. However, both the context and the criteria can be flexibly changed to meet the specific needs of each priority–setting exercise. Third, it facilitated consensus development through measuring collective optimism on each component of each research idea among a larger group of experts using a simple scoring system. This enabled the use of the knowledge of many experts in the field, “visualising” their collective opinion and presenting the list of many research ideas with their ranks, based on an intuitive score that ranges between 0 and 100. CONCLUSIONS: Two recent reviews showed that the CHNRI method, an approach essentially based on “crowdsourcing”, has become the dominant approach to setting health research priorities in the global biomedical literature over the past decade. With more than 50 published examples of implementation to date, it is now widely used in many international organisations for collective decision–making on health research priorities. The applications have been helpful in promoting better balance between investments in fundamental research, translation research and implementation research.