Background While the evidence base for cash transfer programming (CTP) in humanitarian contexts is more established for food security, it is very limited for health and nutrition. The aim of this study was to develop a research agenda on CTP for health and nutrition in humanitarian settings. Methods This exercise adopted a qualitative descriptive approach using four stages over a 13-month period (October 2016 to November 2017). Data was collected using two methods: an online survey and face-to-face group session. The advisory group was asked to judge questions based on four criteria (answerability/feasibility, fills important knowledge gap, maximum potential for improving health or nutrition outcomes, effect on equity) using a 5-point scale. Content analysis was used to identify and rank research categories. Results One hundred eighty-nine research questions were developed in the consultation stage ( n =?40 online survey; n =?30 group session), which were categorised into nine overarching research areas (with 22 sub-categories): modalities (41% of the identified questions), followed by outcomes and impact (31%), intermediate outcomes (27%), initial considerations (19%), effectiveness (19%), pathways (14%), methodologies and indicators (13%), types of diseases or health issues (6%), and context (5%). Triangulation with other evidence reviews confirmed the need for further research in these areas. Conclusions Nine overarching and ranked categories for research on CTP for health and nutrition in humanitarian contexts, validated by existing reviews, are proposed by this study. The research agenda, with examples of questions, could serve as guidance for researchers, policy-makers, implementers, and funders when selecting which of the many gaps in the current evidence base on this topic to start addressing first.
展开▼
机译：背景技术虽然人道主义背景下的现金转移规划（CTP）的证据基础，但为粮食安全更具资格，而且对健康和营养有限。本研究的目的是在人道主义环境中制定关于CTP的CTP研究议程。方法采用13个月（2016年10月至2017年11月）采用了四个阶段的定性描述性方法。使用两种方法收集数据：在线调查和面对面组会话。要求咨询小组根据四项标准判断问题（可靠性/可行性，填补重要知识差距，改善健康或营养成果，对公平影响的最大潜力）使用5分尺度。内容分析用于识别和排名研究类别。结果咨询阶段开发了一百八十九个研究问题（n = 40在线调查; n =？30组会议），分为九个总体研究领域（22个子类别）：方式（41％）确定的问题），其次是结果和影响（31％），中间结果（27％），初次考虑（19％），有效性（19％），途径（14％），方法和指标（13％），疾病或健康问题的类型（6％）和上下文（5％）。三角测量与其他证据评论评论确认了这些领域进一步研究的必要性。结论本研究提出了九个对人道主义背景下的卫生和营养的CTP研究中的九个总体和排名的类别。研究议程与问题的例子，可以作为研究人员，政策制定者，实施者和资助者的指导，选择当前证据基础上的许多差距中的哪些差距首先开始寻址。
展开▼
