Fulltext

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

Song P 1 , Adeloye D 2 , Acharya Y 3 , Bojude DA 4 , Ali S 5 , Alibudbud R 6 Show all authors , Bastien S 7 , Becerra-Posada F 8 , Berecki M 9 , Bodomo A 10 , Borrescio-Higa F 11 , Buchtova M 12 , Campbell H 13 , Chan KY 13 , Cheema S 14 , Chopra M 15 , Cipta DA 16 , Castro LD 17 , Ganasegeran K 18 , Gebre T 19 , Glasnović A 20 , Graham CJ 21 , Igwesi-Chidobe C 22 , Iversen PO 23 , Jadoon B 24 , Lanza G 25 , Macdonald C 13 , Park C 26 , Islam MM 27 , Mshelia S 28 , Nair H 13 , Ng ZX 29 , Htay MNN 30 , Akinyemi KO 31 , Parisi M 32 , Patel S 33 , Peprah P 34 , Polasek O 35 , Riha R 36 , Rotarou ES 37 , Sacks E 38 , Sharov K 39 , Stankov S 40 , Supriyatiningsih W 41 , Sutan R 42 , Tomlinson M 43 , Tsai AC 44 , Tsimpida D 45 , Vento S 46 , Glasnović JV 47 , Vokey LBV 13 , Wang L 48 , Wazny K 49 , Xu J 50 , Yoshida S 51 , Zhang Y 52 , Cao J 1 , Zhu Y 53 , Sheikh A 54 , Rudan I 13 , International Society of Global Health (ISoGH)

Affiliations 

  • 1 School of Public Health and Women's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, China
  • 2 School of Health & Life Sciences, Teesside University, UK
  • 3 Department of Health Policy and Administration, The Pennsylvania State University, USA
  • 4 Gombe State University, Gombe, Nigeria
  • 5 Department of Medicine, Ziauddin Medical University, Karachi, Pakistan
  • 6 Department of Sociology and Behavioral Sciences, De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines
  • 7 Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway
  • 8 Public Health Development Organization, El Paso, USA
  • 9 School of Medicine, University of Zagreb, Croatia
  • 10 African Studies, University of Vienna, Austria
  • 11 Universidad Adolfo Ibañez, Santiago, Chile
  • 12 Olomouc University Social Health Institute, Palacký University, Olomouc, Czechia
  • 13 Centre for Global Health, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, UK
  • 14 Weill Cornell Medicine - Qatar, Doha, Qatar
  • 15 The World Bank, Washington, USA
  • 16 Universitas Pelita Harapan, Jakarta, Indonesia
  • 17 National Institute of Psychiatry Ramón de la Fuente Muñiz, Mexico City, Mexico
  • 18 Seberang Jaya Hospital, Ministry of Health, Malaysia
  • 19 The Task force for Global Health, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
  • 20 Croatian Institute for Brain Research, Zagreb University School of Medicine, Zagreb, Croatia
  • 21 Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
  • 22 University of Bradford, UK
  • 23 Department of Nutrition, University of Oslo, Norway
  • 24 Egyptian Representative, Committee of Fellows of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Oxford, UK, and Royal Berkshire Hospital, NHS, UK
  • 25 Oasi Research Institute-IRCCS, Troina, Italy
  • 26 Department of Public Health and Recreation, San José State University, San Jose, California, USA
  • 27 University of Dhaka, Bangladesh
  • 28 Jos University Teaching Hospital, Nigeria
  • 29 School of Biosciences, Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Nottingham Malaysia, Semenyih, Malaysia
  • 30 Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Manipal University College Malaysia, Melaka, Malaysia
  • 31 Lagos State University, Ojo, Lagos, Nigeria
  • 32 Clemson University, USA
  • 33 Editor, Journal of Global Health Reports, Washington, USA
  • 34 Social Policy Research Centre/Centre for Primary Health Care and Equity, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
  • 35 Croatian Science Foundation, Zagreb, Croatia
  • 36 Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, University of Edinburgh, UK
  • 37 Universidad San Sebastián, Santiago, Chile
  • 38 Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, USA
  • 39 Koltzov Institute of Developmental Biology of Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
  • 40 Pasteur Institute, Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia
  • 41 Children and Mother Health Movement Action, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
  • 42 Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
  • 43 Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa
  • 44 Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, USA
  • 45 Department of Public Health, Policy and Systems, The University of Liverpool, UK
  • 46 University of Puthisastra, Phnom Penh, Cambodia
  • 47 Department of Hematology, Dubrava University Hospital, Zagreb, Croatia
  • 48 Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangzhou, China
  • 49 Children's Investment Fund Foundation, London, UK
  • 50 School of Health Humanities, Peking University, Beijing, China
  • 51 World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
  • 52 Capital Institute of Pediatrics, Beijing, China
  • 53 School of Information Science and Technology, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, China
  • 54 Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, UK
J Glob Health, 2024 Feb 16;14:04054.
PMID: 38386716 DOI: 10.7189/jogh.14.04054

Abstract

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.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

MeSH terms
Similar publications