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

Peige Song, Davies Adeloye, Yubraj Acharya, Danladi Adamu Bojude, Sajjad Ali, Rowalt Alibudbud, Sheri Bastien, Francisco Becerra-Posada, Monika Berecki, Adams Bodomo, Florencia Borrescio-Higa, Marie Buchtova, Harry Campbell, Kit Yee Chan, Sohaila Cheema, Mickey Chopra, Darien Alfa Cipta, Lina Diaz Castro, Kurubaran Ganasegeran, Teshome GebreAnton Glasnović, Christopher J. Graham, Chinonso Igwesi-Chidobe, Per Ole Iversen, Bismeen Jadoon, Giuseppe Lanza, Calum Macdonald, Chulwoo Park, Mohammad Mainul Islam, Suleiman Mshelia, Harish Nair, Zhi Xiang Ng, Mila Nu Nu Htay, Kabiru Olusegun Akinyemi, Michelle Parisi, Smruti Patel, Prince Peprah, Ozren Polasek, Renata Riha, Elena S. Rotarou, Emma Sacks, Konstantin Sharov, Srdjan Stankov, Wenang Supriyatiningsih, Rosnah Sutan, Mark Tomlinson, Alexander C. Tsai, Dialechti Tsimpida, Sandro Vento, Josipa Vlasac Glasnović, Laura B. Vokey, Liang Wang, Kerri Wazny, Jingyi Xu, Sachiyo Yoshida, Yanfeng Zhang, Jin Cao, Yajie Zhu, Sir Aziz Sheikh, Igor Rudan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

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.

Original languageEnglish
Article number04054
JournalJournal of global health
Volume14
DOIs
StatePublished - 2024
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Setting research priorities for global pandemic preparedness: An international consensus and comparison with ChatGPT’s output'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this