Prevention of child wasting: Results of a Child Health & Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) prioritisation exercise.

BACKGROUND: An estimated 49.5 million children under five years of age are wasted. There is a lack of robust studies on effective interventions to prevent wasting. The aim of this study was to identify and prioritise the main outstanding research questions in relation to wasting prevention to inform future research agendas.
METHOD: A research prioritisation exercise was conducted following the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative method. Identified research gaps were compiled from multiple sources, categorised into themes and streamlined into forty research questions by an expert group. A survey was then widely circulated to assess research questions according to four criteria. An overall research priority score was calculated to rank questions.
FINDINGS: The prioritised questions have a strong focus on interventions. The importance of the early stages of life in determining later experiences of wasting was highlighted. Other important themes included the identification of at-risk infants and young children early in the progression of wasting and the roles of existing interventions and the health system in prevention. DISCUSSION: These results indicate consensus to support more research on the pathways to wasting encompassing the in-utero environment, on the early period of infancy and on the process of wasting and its early identification. They also reinforce how little is known about impactful interventions for the prevention of wasting.
CONCLUSION: This exercise provides a five-year investment case for research that could most effectively improve on-the-ground programmes to prevent child wasting and inform supportive policy change.

Introduction

There are an estimated 49.5 million wasted children under five years of age [1]. The decline in the global prevalence of wasting has been slow, from 7.9% in 2012 to 7.3% in 2018; just 37 (19%) out of 194 countries are on track to achieve the World Health Assembly (WHA) 2025 target of maintaining prevalence of wasting below 5.0% [2]. World hunger appears to be on the rise after a prolonged decline [3]. Although wasting is commonly considered an acute condition due to its relatively rapid onset and resolution compared to other manifestations of undernutrition such as stunting, the contributing factors and effects can be long term [4]. A recent analysis of the WHA targets highlighted the lack of robust studies on effective interventions to prevent wasting and a strong tendency in the global nutrition community to focus on stunting prevention and wasting treatment rather than wasting prevention [5].

Failure to address wasting has significant consequences both for individual children and communities. Of all forms of malnutrition, it has the highest short-term case fatality rate [6, 7]. This is especially true in its most severe form or when combined with stunting. Severely wasted children aged 6 to 59 months are 9 to 12 times more likely to die than their healthy counterparts [8, 9]. Wasting is also a problem earlier in life [10], although similar estimates of its contribution to mortality are not available for infants under six months. Also important are long-term sequelae including developmental/cognitive deficits [11] and increased risk of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in later life [12-14]. Immune dysfunction is both a cause and a consequence of malnutrition, contributing directly to the mortality and morbidity associated with wasting [15, 16]. There is also emerging evidence that wasting is a ‘harbinger of stunting’, whereby linear growth is impaired by episodes of wasting [17]. Thus, lack of progress in tackling wasting may also affect progress towards the WHA stunting target [14, 17–19]. Although remarkable improvements have been made over the last two decades in treating severe wasting, an understanding of the fundamental risk factors, mechanisms and pathophysiological changes contributing to the condition’s development remains limited. This knowledge gap critically hampers the ability to prevent wasting in the first place [20].

Recognising the limitations in understanding, as outlined above, and appreciating the limited time and resources available to tackle a globally important public health condition, the aim of this study was to identify and prioritise the main outstanding research questions/gaps in relation to wasting prevention.

Methods

This research prioritisation (RP) exercise followed the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method, described in detail elsewhere [21, 22], developed to assist stakeholders in prioritising health research investments. The method involves identifying and listing a large number of possible research options within a well-defined context, based around a "4D" framework, by which research questions are grouped into four themes: Description, Delivery, Development and Discovery. In this case, ‘Description’ includes research to assess the burden of wasting and its determinants; ‘Delivery’ encompasses research to prevent wasting, using already available interventions; ‘Development’ describes research to improve existing interventions to better prevent wasting; and ‘Discovery’ includes research that may lead to innovations/ completely new interventions. Using these four themes ensures consideration of a wide breadth of possible research options. The method then allows for a systematic, transparent and structured means for experts to score these possible research options against predefined and relevant criteria. The result is a prioritised list of research questions that can be used by international agencies, donors, national governments and policy-makers to stimulate dialogue and inform investments in research in the subject area [21].

Guided by this method, the context and scope of this RP exercise was outlined by the core research team and, drawing from recent reviews on the aetiology of wasting [4] and the current state of evidence and thinking on wasting prevention [23] as well as previous related CHNRI exercises [24-26], an initial list of 94 research questions was developed. An expert group (EG) of leading specialists in nutrition, infant and child growth and epidemiology collectively refined and reduced the list to 40 key research questions, organised by the ‘4Ds’. The group agreed that the focus of the RP exercise would be on research that could provide results within a five-year period, for infants and young children 0 to 59 months of age, living in low and middle income countries; would consider wasting as well as other forms of acute malnutrition (e.g. bilateral oedema, low mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) and low weight-for-age); and take a broad view of prevention, i.e. considering preventing any wasting as well as any worsening of its severity (S1 File). The group also selected four criteria from those recommended by the CHNRI process, against which the questions should be judged (Table 1), considering the topic of wasting prevention. A target list of participant profiles for the subsequent prioritisation survey was also drawn up to reflect a broad spread of geography (global, regional, country, sub-national), types of organisations and areas of expertise.

Table 1

Selected criteria.

Answerability	How answerable would this research question be? (e.g. is it feasible to answer within the given context and timeframe? Is it ethical?)
Efficacy	How likely is it that this research would lead to efficacious interventions/approaches/policies? (e.g. is it likely to produce the desired outcome in ideal conditions?)
Deliverability	How likely is it that this research would lead to deliverable impactful interventions/approaches/policies? (e.g. will the intervention/ approach/ policy be affordable, cost-effective, deliverable at scale and achieve required coverage? Is the research generalizable?)
Fills a gap	Will this research question fill a key gap in knowledge that is required to prevent wasting?

A survey was developed using the online tool ‘SurveyMonkey’ (www.surveymonkey.co.uk) with question order randomised by the four “Ds” to ensure a similar response rate for each section of questions. Following a short pilot, corrections and adjustments were made, after which the final survey was made available from November 2018 to February 2019. The survey link was circulated via the EG, the Incidence of Acute Malnutrition group, the Management of At-risk Mothers and Infants (MAMI) group, the Wasting and Stunting (WaSt) group (n = 828), circulation lists from No Wasted Lives [27], the Department for International Development (DFID), Global Nutrition Report–Independent Expert Group, Health Systems groups, International Lipid-Based Nutrient Supplements (iLNS) project lists, Maximising the Quality of Scaling Up Nutrition+ (MQSUN+ subscribers’ list), Leveraging Agriculture for Nutrition in South Asia (LANSA) consortium, cluster coordinator lists (health, WASH, food security), the United Nation’s Children fund (UNICEF) publications sharing list; and the ENN website [28] and social media accounts.

Survey participants were asked to consider future interventions resulting from the stated research questions, and judge how each question might meet each of the four criteria. For each question, participants were required to judge if each of the criteria were met by indicating “Yes” (which was then allocated 1 point), “Undecided” (0.5 points), “No” (0 points), or “Insufficiently informed” (no input). A research priority score (RPS) of 0–100% was calculated for each criterion for each research question; from this, an overall RPS for each question was computed (the mean of the RPS for each criterion). The level of agreement between respondents’ answers was assessed through the average expert agreement (AEA), a proportion of scorers who gave the most common score (mode) for a question divided by the total number of scorers who scored that question, as follows: where q is a question that experts are being asked to evaluate and 4 is the number of answers that can be given.

The AEA is unaffected by responses of ‘undecided’ and is also unaffected by the varying number of scorers per criterion and differences in scorer composition for the different criteria. In AEA computation, all four possible responses (“Yes”, “No”, “Undecided”, or “Insufficiently informed” (no input)) are treated as valid. Therefore, if a substantial proportion of the experts respond as “insufficiently informed”, the AEA will reflect this and reduce the level of overall agreement, rather than increase it.

Ethics

As is standard for CHNRI exercises [24, 25], this project does not require formal ethical committee review. The work does not involve medical research on human subjects, no personal or sensitive data was used and it involved professional participants rather than patients. All participants were invited to participate in the CHNRI exercise through a variety of platforms and by responding to the invitation, they acknowledged their voluntary participation in the exercise and no special informed consent was required. Participants who completed the survey were asked whether they were happy to be part of wasting prevention Working Group Collaborators list; those who answered “yes” are named in the acknowledgment. Furthermore, all input received from participants was encoded and no identifiable information was linked to the participant’s submissions. All data is anonymous and participants were informed that data would be used for publication.

Results

Characteristics of the respondents

In total, 146 individuals participated in the survey, with an average completion rate of 83% (ranging from 5% to 100% of questions, with 34 participants (23%) completing the entire survey, 113 (77%) completing over 80% and 122 (84%) completing over 60%). At least 108 participants responded to each question (ranging from 108 to 131 (S1 Table)) and over half (n = 83, 57%) of the participants were female. Respondents worked at a range of levels including international (n = 88, 60%), national (n = 45, 31%) and sub-national (n = 15, 10%). Most respondents worked in programme implementation with a third working for non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (n = 47, 32%), a fifth for United Nations (UN) agencies (n = 25, 17%) and a small proportion for national governments (n = 7, 5%). Research organisations represented a quarter of respondents (n = 37, 25%). There was representation from all regions of the world, but in particular Africa (n = 50, 34%), Europe (n = 38, 26%) and Asia (n = 34, 23%) (Fig 1).

Fig 1

Respondent's characteristics.

Research priority questions

The top ten research priority questions according to the overall score are presented in Table 2. The AEA in the top ten questions was high (79.5% to 93.1%) and varied from 65.6% to 93.1% overall (see Table 2 and S2 Table), indicating a high level of agreement among respondents. The number of respondents (ranging from 117 to 131 for the top ten questions) was slightly larger the higher the AEA (Table 2). A theme common to the highest priority questions was exploring the importance of the early stages of life (pre-pregnancy, in utero and in the first six months of life) in determining later experiences of wasting (from six months of age upwards) and effective interventions during these critical periods. Specifically, the top two ranked questions focus on infants under six months of age and the extent to which this critical period and interventions targeted at them and their mothers have a bearing on subsequent wasting. Questions ranked three and four relate to the identification of effective approaches, including the potential of existing interventions to detect and support at-risk infants and children to prevent wasting. The remaining priority questions concern how to best identify at-risk infants and young children (Question ranked 5, Question ranked 7); the role of pre-pregnancy and foetal factors in wasting of infants and children (Question ranked 6 Question ranked 10); the role of existing interventions and the health system in preventing wasting (Question ranked 8); and exploring dual impacts on both wasting and stunting that prevention approaches may achieve (Question ranked 9). The ranking of all 40 questions is provided in S2 Table.

Table 2

Top ten research questions according to the overall research priority score (RPS).

Rank	Research question	Group	A	E	D	F	RPS	AEA	N
1	What is the impact of interventions for managing at-risk mothers and infants less than 6 months of age in preventing wasting/acute malnutrition in the >6months old?	Description	97.5	96.7	93.9	95.9	96.0	93.1	122
2	What is the impact of growth failure during the first 6 months of life on experience of wasting/acute malnutrition after 6 months of age?	Description	96.3	88.0	88.9	89.3	90.6	86.4	117
3	How can existing interventions (e.g. growth monitoring, integrated management of childhood illness (IMCI)) better detect and support children (0–59 months) who are failing to thrive/faltering (i.e. those at-risk, not just those already below a z-score threshold)?	Development	91.4	90.1	89.8	87.8	89.7	85.6	131
4	What are effective and cost-effective approaches to target the highest risk infants and children 0–59 months (e.g. children with concurrent wasting/acute malnutrition and stunting, children <24 months, etc.) for interventions (food or non-food) to prevent wasting/acute malnutrition?	Delivery	93.3	89.4	85.4	88.4	89.1	84.7	129
5	What measures (anthropometric or non-anthropometric) or combinations of measures best identify individual infants and children (0–59 months) by age/sex at most risk of death/other adverse outcomes associated with wasting/acute malnutrition?	Description	91.9	89.2	87.4	85.5	88.5	82.8	128
6	What is the role of pre-pregnancy maternal factors (age, health status, nutritional deficits, psychological factors etc.) in determining risk of being born with a low birth weight, low weight-for-length, low mid-upper-arm circumference, premature or small for gestational age?	Description	96.7	87.6	86.4	83.2	88.5	83.2	122
7	What measures (anthropometric or non-anthropometric), or combinations of measures, best identify individual infants and children (6–59 months) by age/sex at most risk of wasting/acute malnutrition?	Description	92.3	88.2	89.0	81.3	87.7	82.0	128
8	What are effective and cost-effective approaches to integrating wasting/acute malnutrition prevention efforts into health systems (i.e. human resource capacity, financing, supplies and supply chain, etc)?	Delivery	86.0	89.9	84.3	89.5	87.4	81.0	128
9	What impact can effective wasting/acute malnutrition prevention interventions/approaches have on levels of stunting (and concurrent wasting and stunting) and vice versa?	Description	89.5	85.5	85.0	87.2	86.8	79.5	125
10	How does being born prematurely and/or with foetal growth restriction impact on wasting/acute malnutrition at birth and throughout the first 5 years of life, by sex?	Description	93.0	81.6	83.8	86.5	86.2	80.2	122

A = answerability; E = efficacy; D = deliverability; F = fills a gap; RPS = overall research priority score; AEA = average expert agreement; N = number of respondents

The questions prioritised have a strong focus on interventions. Two of the ‘Description’ questions that ranked in the top ten (ranked 1 and 9) are on the impact of existing interventions, while two others (ranked 5 and 7) relate to ways to target individuals or the timing of interventions. Along with the three ‘Delivery’ and ‘Development’ questions, over half of the top ten questions related to current interventions that need to be evaluated or possibly improved.

Seven of the top ten priority questions fell under the ‘Description’ theme (research to assess the burden of wasting and its determinants). Only two questions in the top ten came under ‘Delivery’ (research to assist in the optimising of the nutrition status of the population through existing delivery models) and one under ‘Development’ (research to improve interventions that already exist). Questions from the ‘Delivery’ and ‘Development’ groups that ranked in the top ten related to the integration of wasting prevention efforts into existing routine programmes (ranked third overall) and health systems (ranked eighth overall) and the need to target interventions to those most at risk (ranked fourth overall). There was also interest in examining models of community engagement, the use of food-based compared to product-based approaches and the benefit of nutrition-sensitive versus nutrition-specific approaches.

No ‘Discovery’ questions (research leading to innovation/ new health interventions) were ranked within the top 10 (Table 3) and the AEA was lowest of all in this group of questions (mean and median of 70% and 69% respectively compared to a AEA mean and median of 79%). The first Discovery question, “What programmatic or project-based innovations (across all sectors / multi-sectoral) have led to prevention of wasting/acute malnutrition in a given context?” is ranked 20 out of 40 and the second Discovery question, ranked 28, relates to the impact of multiple uses and management of water resources on wasting (see the ranking of questions by Ds in S2 Table).

Table 3

Research questions by the ‘4Ds’: Description, Delivery, Development and Discovery.

Question groups (4Ds)	QuestionsN	Questions in top tenN	Proportion in top 10(%)
Description	18	7	39
Delivery	7	2	29
Development	4	1	25
Discovery	11	0	0

Many questions ranked last had a physiological focus which could be due to the fact they were too clinical for respondent’s interests. Questions related to context (for example, questions around governance, policies, institutions, environment and systems strengthening) scored lower than questions focusing on wasted individuals and their mothers.

Discussion

This RP exercise aimed to fill a critical gap by generating consensus around research questions that could enable the international and national communities to move forward with effective wasting prevention strategies. Results point to the need for research to establish 1) whether interventions targeting pre-birth and initial weight loss in early infancy and childhood can reduce the subsequent risk of wasting and 2) interventions that can better identify and target those most at risk of death. The results also highlight the need to determine how existing service delivery systems can be better harnessed by integrating wasting prevention approaches within them. These findings accord with the “first thousand days” initiatives [29] and the growing global evidence on the need to prevent and catch wasting early to both maximise survival and prevent deleterious effects impairing a child’s ability to thrive [16]. It is also consistent with recent evidence on the need to link nutrition with neonatal care [30, 31], the high burden of wasting in early infancy [32], the strong association between foetal growth restriction and subsequent wasting on persistent wasting [33] and the risk that an episode of wasting can lead to subsequent episodes [34, 35]. The geographical and organisational spread of respondents [24-26] implies that the results represent broad expert consensus of global priority areas. The high level of agreement in the ranking of the research questions, in the top ten especially, gives confidence in the identified priorities.

A high proportion of prioritised questions fell in the ‘Description’ group, reflecting the fundamental gap in the basic understanding of wasting, its causes and how to identify those at most risk [4]. The results therefore echo the earlier conclusion that progress has been made in the treatment of wasting (and therefore the mortality associated with wasting), but current understanding of its aetiology remains limited [4, 20]. A recent review of countries where wasting levels have remained high despite numerous interventions highlights the limited understanding of the pathways to wasting and, therefore, the optimal points at which to intervene and prevent it [33]. A high number of priority questions also focussed on the improvement and/or measurement of the impact of current interventions. This gap in knowledge on what works to prevent wasting was also highlighted in a recent report that concluded that many interventions may have an effect, but that this effect is not currently measured [23].

Although some of the discovery questions were very topical (e.g. question 36 on the physiological factors that could explain the multiplicative effect of wasting and stunting on mortality and question 30 on the effect of the microbiome and environmental enteric dysfunction on wasting prevention), none of them were ranked highly. This may be due to the more controversial nature of innovative questions. It also demonstrates that the participants assigned more value to practical research questions with more immediate operational effect, rather than questions that could take longer to answer and operationalise. The specified context of a five-year timeframe may have influenced this. The lower AEA in the ‘Discovery’ questions also suggests more variation in the prioritisation of these questions, possibly due to their more specialised nature.

The last ten prioritised research questions having a more physiological focus could reflect the characteristics and background of the respondents, as the majority of respondents were on the more technical operations and implementation side of nutrition programmes. Questions focused on context and political economy (governance, policies, institutions, environment, and health systems strengthening) also scored lower than research questions on wasted children and their mothers, which may reflect the CHNRI process and the people involved, or it could be because these are more challenging to answer and require more innovative, context specific and community-based approaches to address.

This study had several strengths. It used a validated approach usually associated with good reproducibility [36]. It had good geographical coverage and most respondents were on the frontline of the fight against wasting. It was a systematic, transparent and structured process that provides five-year investment priorities for research that could effectively inform policy change and related on–the-ground practice.

There are also, however, limitations. While the CHRNI process is widely used, useful and practical, it also risks simplifying complex problems and only represents those who respond. It is unknown how representative these are of a wider population of stakeholders. In particular, selection biases can occur.

Firstly, bias may have arisen from the initial selection of questions. The list of possible research questions could never be exhaustive, due to the extremely broad area of research covered. Nevertheless, care was taken to ensure the broadest spectrum of questions possible by gathering them from a wide range of sources, including recent related review [4, 23] and other RP exercises [24, 37]. For practical reasons this list had to be consolidated further, so as not to deter respondents by requiring them to complete a very lengthy survey. While the authors made effort to ensure a breadth of expertise in the group that advised on the re-wording and honing down of the original 94 questions to 40, an emphasis on more medicalised/interventionist approaches to addressing wasting in the questions selected is noted, with less emphasis on the wider social, economic and environmental determinants, or political economy of nutrition. A broader group of experts such as economists and social scientists may have led to a broader spectrum of questions included.

Bias may also have been introduced in the self-selection of respondents. Due to the online nature of the survey and invitations by email using existing mailing lists, only those with reliable internet access engaged in global platforms and networks were likely to participate, resulting in further selection bias. This may be reflected in the higher representation of academics and NGO and UN staff among respondents rather than government representatives and those working at sub-national levels. The high agreement rate in the results may also demonstrate a narrow base of respondents. However, the survey captured a broad range of experts working in nutrition programming and policy and no critical missing groups were identified. Furthermore, the very nature of a RP exercise gathers the opinions of individuals who are engaged and interested in the topic area, which is one of the strengths of the process. There is also an underrepresentation of respondents from Latin American countries, however, this probably reflects the fact that wasting is not commonly acknowledged as a substantial problem in that region.

Conclusion

Wasting is a critical public health problem. While some progress has been made in the reduction of stunting, the prevalence and burden of wasting has barely changed from 2011 levels.

This RP exercise highlights knowledge gaps that have limited the ability of international and national actors to prevent wasting and achieve related global nutrition targets. These results indicate consensus to support more research on the pathways to wasting encompassing the in-utero environment, the early period of infancy and a focus on the process and identification of wasting (rather than the state of being wasted). They also reinforce how little is known about impactful interventions for the prevention of wasting and underline the need for research and evaluation to move beyond a focus on single forms of undernutrition, ensuring that there is equal attention given to wasting, as to other forms of malnutrition, wherever it is present. This CHNRI provides a five-year investment case for research that could most effectively inform policy change and which is closely related on-the-ground practice. Donors, international and national organisations, governments and research institutions can use these results to inform more coherent research investments in this critically important area.

Wasting Prevention Research Prioritisation–Scope, Definitions and Context.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Research questions ranking according to the overall research priority score (RPS).

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Research questions ranking by Ds according to the overall research priority score (RPS).

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

11 Sep 2019

PONE-D-19-20975

Prevention of child wasting: results of a Child Health & Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) prioritization exercise

PLOS ONE

Dear Miss Frison,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process (see attached as summary comments with suggestions).

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Oct 26 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Zulfiqar A. Bhutta, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

1. In your Methods section, please provide additional information about the participant recruitment method and the demographic details of your participants. Please ensure you have provided sufficient details to replicate the analyses such as: a) the recruitment date range (month and year), and b) a description of any inclusion/exclusion criteria that were applied to participant recruitment ( both for the group which refined the list to 40 items, and for the group who subsequently participated in the prioritisation survey).

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Very clear and complete research priorization exercise. Be sure to mention the limitation that preference surveys are opinions, and not directives.

Reviewer #2: In addition to comments on the paper uploaded, in the supplementary table, I would recommend removing the 'number' column completely and moving the rank to the left hand side.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Kerri Wazny

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: CHNRI for Wasting Paper = Comments.docx

Click here for additional data file.

Submitted filename: CHNRI for Wasting Paper Comments.docx

Click here for additional data file.

22 Oct 2019

Emergency Nutrition Network

32 Leopold St

Oxford, OX4 1TW

United Kingdom

22nd October 2019

PLoS One

Carlyle House

Carlyle Road

Cambridge, CB4 3DN

United Kingdom

Dear PLoS One Editors,

RE: The prevention of child wasting: Results of a Child Health & Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) prioritisation exercise

Thank you for reviewing our paper. We are grateful to you and the reviewers for your time and inputs. We have addressed the reviewer’s comments and sincerely hope that it will now meet your standards for publication. We appreciate the opportunity to be considered by your journal since we strongly believe that the paper:

Focuses on prevention of wasting which is of great public health importance.

Presents novel results from a Child Health & Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) prioritization exercise that fill a critical gap.

Highlights knowledge gaps that have limited our ability to prevent wasting and achieve related global nutrition targets.

Provides a five-year investment case for research that could most effectively inform policy change and related on–the-ground practice.

Please find attached our revised manuscript - and below details of our changes.

Thank you in advance.

Yours sincerely,

Severine Frison (corresponding author on behalf of co-authors)

This paper fills an important knowledge gap on research priorities to prevent wasting in children.

I have some suggestions and comments on the paper, described below:

I like how the DDDD was put into the context of wasting for the reader – this makes it more accessible.

Our response: Many thanks for the positive feedback

The authors describe randomising each research option with the DDDD categories to limit the bias that these categories and the order of appearance of questions have on the scores. Were the DDDD categories themselves randomised? If not, which categories were presented first? What impact might this have had on scoring?

Our response: The 4Ds were randomised but not the questions within each D. Out of the 18 questions from the description group (the largest D group), the questions ranked highest in terms of RPS and AEA are question 17 and 14 which indicates there was not a bias towards questions presented early on within the category.

The AEA formula provided is incorrect. There are 4 questions, not 12 (the formula used is for a 4 criteria exercise, with 3 sub-questions per criteria). The correct formula is below. Additionally, below it should say: 4 is the number of possible scores for each research option across criteria.’

AEA= 1/4 X ∑_(q=1)^4▒□((N(number of scorers with most frequent)/(N(number of scorers)))

Our response: Many thanks for picking that up. Fortunately, this mistake is not reflected in our analysis which uses the correct formula as indicated by the reviewer. We have changed the formula in the text accordingly to match.

On ethics, while CHNRI did not traditionally require ethics, ethics board are getting stricter and this is not always the case. One better way to justify not going through ethics is to have respondents be co-authors (with group authorship), thereby not having them be participants in the traditional sense, and arguing that it is akin to an organisational strengthening exercise

Our response: Thank you for the suggestion. All participants were asked if they would be happy to be added as group collaborators and the group was added.

It would be helpful to state in your summary of participants how quickly they were aborted (e.g. since only 35% of the surveys were completed, were 60% aborted after completing one question? Or were they mostly complete?). You could also define 80% or more as a complete (enough) survey, and say 35% had 100% completeness, but X% had completeness for the purposes of analysis. And exclude any which were very incomplete (from analysis and summary of participants). This may require a more substantial edit, and could change the results depending on the cut-off you use for a ‘complete’ survey.

Our response: Many thanks for this comment. We realise this was unclear. Whilst only 34 out of 146 respondents completed 100% of questions, 113 completed over 80% and 122 completed over 60% of questions. Only a very small number (5) completed 10% or less of the survey questions. Furthermore, over 100 participants responded to each question (from 108 to 131) with slightly more participants for the top 10 questions (from 117 to 131). These numbers have been added to the result section. We hope this brings clarification.

It’s worth noting that the range of AEA is very high for CHNRI. You discuss this in relation to people belonging to similar groups, etc., but is there any relationship between the rank and AEA and the number of scorers per each RQ and the AEA?

Our response: The higher the AEA in our results, the larger the number of respondents. This probably reflects the fact that the top ranked questions were easier to agree on/”vote for”. More information has been added on number of participants in the result section (see answer to comment 5). There was no relationship between the number of respondents and the rank or between the number of respondents and the level of agreement

As a preference, I’d move the rank column to the left of the RQ column (so the RQs are numbered on the left in the table)

Our response: This had been changed.

There appears to be a large number of scorers for the top 10 RQs. Is this because more people scored the highest ranked RQs? Could this be due to the DDDD randomisation (e.g. certain categories being presented first), given only 35% of respondents answered the entire survey? May be useful to discuss this.

Our response: The Ds were randomised to make sure different categories were presented first for each participant. As mentioned above, there were over 100 participants (min 108 max 131) for each question so we do not feel this had a substantial impact on the ranking.

I think graphing the AEA is less useful than discussing surprising results – e.g., where there any surprising results within criteria for the top 10? Bottom 10? Any places where RQs seemed to score low across the board? Some that scored high that was a surprise? Anything that’s supported by context?

Our response: Thanks for your comment. We have deleted the figure that did add much and instead highlighted one surprising result: although some discovery questions were very topical, they were ranked low. We discussed top 10 question and the 10 last questions. No other surprising results were observed.

There were minor typos throughout the paper. It would be beneficial to have a close read to find and fix these, prior to publication, as I know PLoS does not provide copy-editing. Examples of typos found include:

Differences in font/font size in some places in the paper

Incorrect use of ‘;’

Some spaces missing, particularly before a citation

On pg. 11, survey participants (e.g. not surveys) and later, participants should be plural

On pg. 18, ‘selection biases can occur’ should be followed by a period not colon

Some typos in acknowledgements section

Our response: Many thanks for pointing these typos out. We have made corrections accordingly.

Submitted filename: CHNRI for Wasting prevention_Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

9 Jan 2020

The prevention of child wasting: Results of a Child Health & Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) prioritisation exercise

PONE-D-19-20975R1

Dear Dr. Frison,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Bruno Masquelier, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: Thank you for making the edits suggested, I think the paper is great. There are still a few minor typos, if you have the opportunity to do a final proof read.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: Yes: Kerri Wazny

5 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-20975R1

Prevention of child wasting: results of a Child Health & Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) prioritisation exercise

Dear Dr. Frison:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Bruno Masquelier

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE