Search

In May 2013, the WHO Member States requested the WHO to establish a Global Observatory on Health Research and Development (R&D), as part of a strategic work-plan to promote innovation, build capacity, improve access, and mobilize resources to address diseases that disproportionately affect the world's poorest countries. The rationale for establishing a Global Observatory on Health R&D is to provide a mechanism to monitor and analyse health R&D resource flows, product pipelines, and research outputs, aiming to contribute to the identification of gaps to inform priority-setting for new R&D investments to be operationalized through a new global financing and coordination mechanism for health R&D and utilized by all stakeholders informing health research policy decisions in countries, civil society, and the private sector. As one of the mechanisms to achieve the goals of the Global Observatory on Health R&D, the WHO is launching a Call for Papers to be published as a Thematic Series in Health Research Policy and Systems to contribute state-of-the-art knowledge and innovative approaches to analyse, interpret, and report on health R&D information. Further, to serve as a key resource to inform the future WHO-convened coordination mechanism, which will be utilized to generate evidence-informed priorities for new R&D investments to be financed through a proposed new global financing and coordination mechanism for health R&D. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The translation of research into healthcare practice relies on effective communication between disciplines, however strategies to address the gap between information sharing and knowledge transfer are still under exploration. Communities of Practice (CoP) are informal networks of stakeholders with shared knowledge or endeavour and present an opportunity to address this gap beyond disciplinary boundaries. However, the evidence-base supporting their development, implementation and efficacy in health is not well described. This review explores the evidence underpinning the use of CoP in health research and translation. Methods: A scoping review was undertaken using Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework. A comprehensive search of health databases and grey literature was performed using keywords and controlled vocabulary. Studies were not restricted by date or research method. Results: A total of 1355 potentially relevant articles were identified through the global search strategy. Following screening, six articles were retained for analysis. Included studies were published between 2002 and 2013 in the United Kingdom (n = 3), Canada (n = 2) and Italy (n = 1). Three papers reported primary research; one used a quantitative methodology, one a qualitative, and one a descriptive evaluation approach. The three remaining papers explored seminal and evolving theories of CoP in the context of knowledge transfer and translation to the health sector. Conclusions: A paucity of evidence exists regarding the development and efficacy of CoP in health research and translation. Further empirical research is required to determine if communities of practice can enhance the translation of research into clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Addressing the upstream social determinants of health (e.g. built environment, education) can reduce the burden of non-communicable diseases. To do so effectively often requires system-wide collaboration. However, collaborating across multiple sectors, organizations and disciplines within a complex system can be challenging. ActEarly was a public health research consortium that aimed to improve child health by building an interdisciplinary, cross-city partnership to develop and/or evaluate upstream interventions, increase research capacity and improve collaboration between researchers, local authorities and communities. This paper explores ActEarly's experiences of navigating complexity to identify mechanisms that supported its implementation and proposes recommendations for future intersectoral and interdisciplinary population health research collaborations. Methods: We conducted a longitudinal qualitative study of ActEarly, integrating findings from inductive documentary analysis of internal documents (mainly meetings minutes and reports) (n = 114) and interviews (n = 70) with 45 consortium members at three different timepoints (2018, 2021, 2023). Participants worked across different organizations, cities, roles and levels of seniority in the consortium. Findings: Clarity, Unity, Flexibility and Feasibility were seen as the key mechanisms required to support ActEarly's implementation. Clear aims, governance structures and communication were necessary to manage the uncertainty of the complex system. A unified approach, characterized by strong relationships, having a shared vision and communal access to resources supported effective collaboration. Flexibility was required to adjust to different ways of working, respond to wider system events and manage the consortium. Establishing feasible aims that responded to the limitations of the system, the available resources and research infrastructure was required for teams to deliver the work. Conclusions: Implementing multi-faceted programmes in a complex system can be challenging. We recommend that future whole-systems consortia seeking to improve population health build Clarity, Unity, Flexibility and Feasibility into their programmes, noting the complex interrelationships between these factors. Iterative reflections from all parties should support delivery amidst the uncertainty that comes with running a population health research collaboration, and strong leadership and governance should play a key role in ensuring that these are built into foundations the programme. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health research is important for the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. However, there are many challenges facing health research, including securing sufficient funds, building capacity, producing research findings and using both local and global evidence, and avoiding waste. A WHO initiative addressed these challenges by developing a conceptual framework with four functions to guide the development of national health research systems. Despite some progress, more is needed before health research systems can meet their full potential of improving health systems. The WHO Regional Office for Europe commissioned an evidence synthesis of the systems-level literature. This Opinion piece considers its findings before reflecting on the vast additional literature available on the range of specific health research system functions related to the various challenges. Finally, it considers who should lead research system strengthening.Main Text: The evidence synthesis identifies two main approaches for strengthening national health research systems, namely implementing comprehensive and coherent strategies and participation in partnerships. The literature describing these approaches at the systems level also provides data on ways to strengthen each of the four functions of governance, securing financing, capacity-building, and production and use of research. Countries effectively implementing strategies include England, Ireland and Rwanda, whereas West Africa experienced effective partnerships. Recommended policy approaches for system strengthening are context specific. The vast literature on each function and the ever-growing evidence-base are illustrated by considering papers in just one key journal, Health Research Policy and Systems, and analysing the contribution of two national studies. A review of the functions of the Iranian system identifies over 200 relevant and mostly national records; an analysis of the creation of the English National Institute for Health Research describes the key leadership role played by the health department. Furthermore, WHO is playing leadership roles in helping coordinate partnerships within and across health research systems that have been attempting to tackle the COVID-19 crisis.Conclusions: The evidence synthesis provides a firm basis for decision-making by policy-makers and research leaders looking to strengthen national health research systems within their own national context. It identifies five crucial policy approaches - conducting situation analysis, sustaining a comprehensive strategy, engaging stakeholders, evaluating impacts on health systems, and partnership participation. The vast and ever-growing additional literature could provide further perspectives, including on crucial leadership roles for health ministries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2016, England's National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) celebrated its tenth anniversary as an innovative national health research system with a focus on meeting patients' needs. This provides a good opportunity to reflect on how the creation of the NIHR has greatly enhanced important work, started in 1991, to develop a health research system in England that is embedded in the National Health Service.In 2004, WHO identified a range of functions that a national health research system should undertake to improve the health of populations. Health Research Policy and Systems (HRPS) has taken particular interest in the pioneering developments in the English health research system, where the comprehensive approach has covered most, if not all, of the functions identified by WHO. Furthermore, several significant recent developments in thinking about health research are relevant for the NIHR and have informed accounts of its achievements. These include recognition of the need to combat waste in health research, which had been identified as a global problem in successive papers in the Lancet, and an increasing emphasis on demonstrating impact. Here, pioneering evaluation of United Kingdom research, conducted through the impact case studies of the Research Excellence Framework, is particularly important. Analyses informed by these and other approaches identified many aspects of NIHR's progress in combating waste, building and sustaining research capacity, creating centres of research excellence linked to leading healthcare institutions, developing research networks, involving patients and others in identifying research needs, and producing and adopting research findings that are improving health outcomes.The NIHR's overall success, and an analysis of the remaining problems, might have lessons for other systems, notwithstanding important advances in many countries, as described in papers in HRPS and elsewhere. WHO's recently established Global Observatory for Health Research and Development provides an opportunity to promote some of these lessons. To inform its work, the Observatory is sponsoring a thematic series of papers in HRPS focusing on health research issues such as funding flows, priority setting, capacity building, utilisation and equity. While important papers on these have been published, this series is still open to new submissions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health research partnership approaches have grown in popularity over the past decade, but the systematic evaluation of their outcomes and impacts has not kept equal pace. Identifying partnership assessment tools and key partnership characteristics is needed to advance partnerships, partnership measurement, and the assessment of their outcomes and impacts through systematic study. Objective: To locate and identify globally available tools for assessing the outcomes and impacts of health research partnerships. Methods: We searched four electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL + , PsychINFO) with an a priori strategy from inception to June 2021, without limits. We screened studies independently and in duplicate, keeping only those involving a health research partnership and the development, use and/or assessment of tools to evaluate partnership outcomes and impacts. Reviewer disagreements were resolved by consensus. Study, tool and partnership characteristics, and emerging research questions, gaps and key recommendations were synthesized using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Results: We screened 36 027 de-duplicated citations, reviewed 2784 papers in full text, and kept 166 studies and three companion reports. Most studies originated in North America and were published in English after 2015. Most of the 205 tools we identified were questionnaires and surveys targeting researchers, patients and public/community members. While tools were comprehensive and usable, most were designed for single use and lacked validity or reliability evidence. Challenges associated with the interchange and definition of terms (i.e., outcomes, impacts, tool type) were common and may obscure partnership measurement and comparison. Very few of the tools identified in this study overlapped with tools identified by other, similar reviews. Partnership tool development, refinement and evaluation, including tool measurement and optimization, are key areas for future tools-related research. Conclusion: This large scoping review identified numerous, single-use tools that require further development and testing to improve their psychometric and scientific qualities. The review also confirmed that the health partnership research domain and its measurement tools are still nascent and actively evolving. Dedicated efforts and resources are required to better understand health research partnerships, partnership optimization and partnership measurement and evaluation using valid, reliable and practical tools that meet partners' needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To identify and assess the globally available valid, reliable and acceptable tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts. Methods: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus and PsycINFO from origin to 2 June 2021, without limits, using an a priori strategy and registered protocol. We screened citations independently and in duplicate, resolving discrepancies by consensus and retaining studies involving health research partnerships, the development, use and/or assessment of tools to evaluate partnership outcomes and impacts, and reporting empirical psychometric evidence. Study, tool, psychometric and pragmatic characteristics were abstracted using a hybrid approach, then synthesized using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Study quality was assessed using the quality of survey studies in psychology (Q-SSP) checklist. Results: From 56 123 total citations, we screened 36 027 citations, assessed 2784 full-text papers, abstracted data from 48 studies and one companion report, and identified 58 tools. Most tools comprised surveys, questionnaires and scales. Studies used cross-sectional or mixed-method/embedded survey designs and employed quantitative and mixed methods. Both studies and tools were conceptually well grounded, focusing mainly on outcomes, then process, and less frequently on impact measurement. Multiple forms of empirical validity and reliability evidence was present for most tools; however, psychometric characteristics were inconsistently assessed and reported. We identified a subset of studies (22) and accompanying tools distinguished by their empirical psychometric, pragmatic and study quality characteristics. While our review demonstrated psychometric and pragmatic improvements over previous reviews, challenges related to health research partnership assessment and the nascency of partnership science persist. Conclusion: This systematic review identified multiple tools demonstrating empirical psychometric evidence, pragmatic strength and moderate study quality. Increased attention to psychometric and pragmatic requirements in tool development, testing and reporting is key to advancing health research partnership assessment and partnership science. PROSPERO CRD42021137932 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Strong Global South (GS) health research leadership, itself both dependent on and a requisite for strong health research systems, is essential to generate locally relevant research and ensure that evidence is translated into policy and practice. Strong GS health research systems and leadership are important for health development and in turn for strong health systems. However, many GS countries struggle to produce research and to improve performance on widely used research metrics measuring productivity and reflecting leadership. Drawing on literature from a rapid review, this viewpoint paper considers the barriers to GS health research leadership and proposes strategies to address these challenges. Findings: GS researchers and institutions face numerous barriers that undermine health research leadership potential. Barriers internal to the GS include researcher-level barriers such as insufficient mentorship, limited financial incentives and time constraints. Institutional barriers include limited availability of resources, restrictive and poorly developed research infrastructures, weak collaboration and obstructive policies and procedures. Structural barriers include political will, politicization of research and political instability. External barriers relate to the nature and extent of Global North (GN) activities and systems and include allocation and distribution of funding and resources, characteristics and focus of GN-GS research collaborations, and publication and information dissemination challenges. Conclusions: Strengthening GS health research leadership requires acknowledgement of the many barriers, and adoption of mitigating measures by a range of actors at the institutional, national, regional and global levels. Particularly important are leadership capacity development integrating researcher, institutional and systems initiatives; new GN–GS partnership models emphasizing capacity exchange and shared leadership; supporting GS research communities to set, own and drive their research agendas; addressing biases against GS researchers; ensuring that GS institutions address their internal challenges; enhancing South–South collaborations; diversifying research funding flow to the GS; and learning from models that work. The time has come for a firm commitment to improving localization of research leadership, supported by adequate funding flow, to ensure strong and sustainable research systems and leadership in and from the GS. Just as the humanitarian donor and aid community adopted the Grand Bargain commitment to improve funding flow through local and national responders in times of crisis, we strongly urge the global health research community to adopt a Grand Bargain for research leadership. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: User involvement in research has rapidly increased and is often a precondition to obtain research funding. Benefits such as effectiveness and increased relevance of research are described in the literature, but the evidence to support this is weak. Little is known about ageing and health researchers' experiences and perspectives towards user involvement in research, and their attitudes towards user involvement compared to the attitudes of the users involved are largely unknown. To examine researchers' experiences and perspectives of user involvement in research on ageing and health, and to compare their attitudes towards user involvement to the attitudes of older adults in the general population.Methods: A panel study survey was used to elicit responses from researchers in ageing and health as well as from older adults (aged 60 years and older). The researcher sample (N = 64) completed the survey online, while the older adult sample (N = 881) could choose among three different options to complete the survey (online, paper format, telephone). A professional survey company collected the data. Descriptive statistics, exploratory comparisons and descriptive qualitative content analysis were used to analyse the data.Results: More than half (58%) of the researchers had previous experience of involving different categories of users in a wide range of research activities. The most frequent motivation for involving users was to ensure that the research produced is relevant to the target population. A majority (86%) reported benefits, and more than half (59%) described challenges. Differences in attitudes were found between researchers and older adults in the general population.Conclusions: Ageing and health researchers involve users in their research to improve quality and ensure relevance, but there is no consensus among them whether users should be involved in publicly funded research. While several challenges were identified, training, institutional support and resources from funders could alleviate many of these. Findings reveal significant differences in attitudes between older adults in the general population and researchers. Further research with comparable larger samples is needed to confirm and understand the possible consequences such controversy might have and how to solve them. IRRID (International Registered Report Identifier): RR2-10.2196/17759. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Knowledge translation (KT) is a dynamic and iterative process that includes synthesis, dissemination, exchange and ethically sound application of knowledge to yield beneficial outcomes for society. Effective KT requires researchers to play an active role in promoting evidence uptake. This paper presents a systematised review of evidence on low- and middle-income country (LMIC) researchers' KT capacity, practice and interventions for enhancing their KT practice (support) with the aim of identifying gaps and informing future research and interventions.Methods: An electronic search for peer-reviewed publications focusing on LMIC researchers' KT capacity, practice and support across all academic fields, authored in English and from the earliest records available to February 2019, was conducted using PubMed and Scopus. Selected studies were appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, data pertaining to publication characteristics and study design extracted, and an a priori thematic analysis of reported research findings completed.Results: The search resulted in 334 screened articles, of which 66 met the inclusion criteria. Most (n = 43) of the articles presented original research findings, 22 were commentaries and 1 was a structured review; 47 articles reported on researchers' KT practice, 12 assessed the KT capacity of researchers or academic/research institutions and 9 reported on KT support for researchers. More than half (59%) of the articles focused on sub-Saharan Africa and the majority (91%) on health research. Most of the primary studies used the case study design (41%). The findings suggest that LMIC researchers rarely conduct KT and face a range of barriers at individual and institutional levels that limit their KT practice, including inadequate KT knowledge and skills, particularly for communicating research and interacting with research end-users, insufficient funding, and inadequate institutional guidelines, structures and incentives promoting KT practice. Furthermore, the evidence-base on effective interventions for enhancing LMIC researchers' KT practice is insufficient and largely of weak quality.Conclusions: More high-quality research on researchers' KT capacity, practice and effective KT capacity strengthening interventions is needed. Study designs that extend beyond case studies and descriptive studies are recommended, including better designed evaluation studies, e.g. use of realist approaches, pragmatic trials, impact evaluations, implementation research and participatory action research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Among the many barriers to evidence use in decision-making, weak capacity for evidence use has attracted a lot of focus in the last decade. The study aims to inform and enrich ongoing and future efforts to strengthen capacity for evidence use by presenting and discussing the experiences and lessons of a project implemented in Kenya and Malawi to strengthen individual and institutional capacity for evidence use within the ministries of health (MoHs).Methods: This paper draws on the internal and external evaluations of a 3-year project funded by the United Kingdom's Department for International Development, the Strengthening Capacity to Use Research Evidence in Health Policy (SECURE Health). To strengthen individual capacity, the project implemented a training and mentorship programme for 60 mid-level policy-makers in the two MoHs. To strengthen institutional capacity, the project conducted sustained advocacy with top leaders to strengthen structures that enable evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM), supported Kenya to develop research-for-health policies and priorities, supported Malawi to review the implementation of its health research agenda, developed EIDM guidelines for both MoHs, and supported bi-annual evidence dialogues to improve interactions and raise the profile of evidence. Internal evaluation included baseline and endline surveys (93 baseline and 92 endline interviews), 60 in-depth interviews, and intervention-specific evaluations (pre-post tests for training workshops, feedback forms for policy dialogues and tracking effects of advocacy efforts). The external evaluation was implemented alongside project implementation, conducting three annual evaluations.Results: The results show that training and mentorship programmes in EIDM were effective in improving competencies of civil servants. However, such programmes need to train a critical mass to be effective in enhancing EIDM practice at the MoHs. On strengthening institutional capacity for EIDM, while the project achieved some success, it did not realise long-lasting effects because of its limited time of implementation and limited focus on sustained political economy analysis, which meant that the intervention was negatively affected by frequently changing interests within the MoHs.Conclusions: Although training and mentorship are effective in improving EIDM competencies, they need to be incorporated in existing pre-service and in-service training programmes for sustainability. Strengthening institutional capacity for evidence use is complex and needs sustained political commitment and long-term investments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How can nations organise research investments to obtain the best bundle of knowledge and the maximum level of improved health, spread as equitably as possible? This question was the central focus of a major initiative from WHO led by Prof Tikki Pang, which resulted in a range of developments, including the publication of a conceptual framework for national health research systems - Knowledge for better health - in 2003, and in the founding of the journal Health Research Policy and Systems (HARPS). As Editors-in-Chief of the journal since 2006, we mark our retirement by tracking both the progress of the journal and the development of national health research systems. HARPS has maintained its focus on a range of central themes that are key components of a national health research system in any country. These include building capacity to conduct and use health research, identifying appropriate priorities, securing funds and allocating them accountably, producing scientifically valid research outputs, promoting the use of research in polices and practice in order to improve health, and monitoring and evaluating the health research system. Some of the themes covered in HARPS are now receiving increased attention and, for example, with the assessment of research impact and development of knowledge translation platforms, the journal has covered their progress throughout that expansion of interest. In addition, there is increasing recognition of new imperatives, including the importance of promoting gender equality in health research if benefits are to be maximised. In this Editorial, we outline some of the diverse and developing perspectives considered within each theme, as well as considering how they are held together by the growing desire to build effective health research systems in all countries.From 2003 until mid-June 2017, HARPS published 590 articles on the above and related themes, with authors being located in 76 countries. We present quantitative data tracing the journal's growth and the increasing external recognition of its role. We thank the many colleagues who have kindly contributed to the journal's success, and finish on an exciting note by welcoming the new Editors-in-Chief who will take HARPS forward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The 2004 Mexico Declaration, and subsequent World Health Assembly resolutions, proposed a concerted support for the global development of health policy and systems research (HPSR). This included coordination across partners and advocates for the field of HPSR to monitor the development of the field, while promoting decision-making power and implementing responsibilities in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).Methods: We used a network science approach to examine the structural properties of the HPSR co-authorship network across country economic groups in the PubMed citation database from 1990 to 2015. This analysis summarises the evolution of the publication, co-authorship and citation networks within HPSR.Results: This method allows identification of several features otherwise not apparent. The co-authorship network has evolved steadily from 1990 to 2015 in terms of number of publications, but more importantly, in terms of co-authorship network connectedness. Our analysis suggests that, despite growth in the contribution from low-income countries to HPSR literature, co-authorship remains highly localised. Lower middle-income countries have made progress toward global connectivity through diversified collaboration with various institutions and regions. Global connectivity of the upper middle-income countries (UpperMICs) are almost on par with high-income countries (HICs), indicating the transition of this group of countries toward becoming major contributors to the field.Conclusions: Network analysis allows examination of the connectedness among the HSPR community. Initially (early 1990s), research groups operated almost exclusively independently and, despite the topic being specifically on health policy in LMICs, HICs provided lead authorship. Since the early 1990s, the network has evolved significantly. In the full set analysis (1990-2015), for the first time in HPSR history, more than half of the authors are connected and lead authorship from UpperMICs is on par with that of HICs. This demonstrates the shift in participation and influence toward regions which HPSR primarily serves. Understanding these interactions can highlight the current strengths and future opportunities for identifying new strategies to enhance collaboration and support capacity-building efforts for HPSR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: With massive investment in health-related research, above and beyond investments in the management and delivery of healthcare and public health services, there has been increasing focus on the impact of health research to explore and explain the consequences of these investments and inform strategic planning. Relevance is reflected by increased attention to the usability and impact of health research, with research funders increasingly engaging in relevance assessment as an input to decision processes. Yet, it is unclear whether relevance is a synonym for or predictor of impact, a necessary condition or stage in achieving it, or a distinct aim of the research enterprise. The main aim of this paper is to improve our understanding of research relevance, with specific objectives to (1) unpack research relevance from both theoretical and practical perspectives, and (2) outline key considerations for its assessment.Approach: Our approach involved the scholarly strategy of review and reflection. We prepared a draft paper based on an exploratory review of literature from various fields, and gained from detailed and insightful analysis and critique at a roundtable discussion with a group of key health research stakeholders. We also solicited review and feedback from a small sample of expert reviewers.Conclusions: Research relevance seems increasingly important in justifying research investments and guiding strategic research planning. However, consideration of relevance has been largely tacit in the health research community, often depending on unexplained interpretations of value, fit and potential for impact. While research relevance seems a necessary condition for impact - a process or component of efforts to make rigorous research usable - ultimately, relevance stands apart from research impact. Careful and explicit consideration of research relevance is vital to gauge the overall value and impact of a wide range of individual and collective research efforts and investments. To improve understanding, this paper outlines four key considerations, including how research relevance assessments (1) orientate to, capture and compare research versus non-research sources, (2) consider both instrumental versus non-instrumental uses of research, (3) accommodate dynamic temporal-shifting perspectives on research, and (4) align with an intersubjective understanding of relevance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research) is a methodological approach to systematically and transparently assess how much confidence decision makers can place in individual review findings from qualitative evidence syntheses. The number of reviews applying GRADE-CERQual is rapidly expanding in guideline and other decision-making contexts. The objectives of this evaluation were, firstly, to describe the uptake of GRADE-CERQual in qualitative evidence synthesis by review authors and, secondly, to assess both reporting of and fidelity to the approach. Methods: The evaluation had two parts. Part 1 was a citation analysis and descriptive overview of the literature citing GRADE-CERQual. Authors worked together to code and chart the citations, first by title and abstract and second by full text. Part 2 was an assessment and analysis of fidelity to, and reporting of, the GRADE-CERQual approach in included reviews. We developed fidelity and reporting questions and answers based on the most recent guidance for GRADE-CERQual and then used NVivo12 to document assessments in a spreadsheet and code full-text PDF articles for any concerns that had been identified. Our assessments were exported to Excel and we applied count formulae to explore patterns in the data. We employed a qualitative content analysis approach in NVivo12 to sub-coding all the data illustrating concerns for each reporting and fidelity criteria. Results: 233 studies have applied the GRADE-CERQual approach, with most (n = 225, 96.5%) in the field of health research. Many studies (n = 97/233, 41.6%) were excluded from full fidelity and reporting assessment because they demonstrated a serious misapplication of GRADE-CERQual, for example interpreting it as a quality appraisal tool for primary studies or reviews. For the remaining studies that applied GRADE-CERQual to assess confidence in review findings, the main areas of reporting concern involved terminology, labelling and completeness. Fidelity concerns were identified in more than half of all studies assessed. Conclusions: GRADE-CERQual is being used widely within qualitative evidence syntheses and there are common reporting and fidelity issues. Most of these are avoidable and we highlight these as gaps in knowledge and guidance for applying the GRADE-CERQual approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background In the last few decades, health systems research (HSR) has garnered much attention with a rapid increase in the related literature. This study aims to review and evaluate the global progress in HSR and assess the current quantitative trends. Methods Based on data from the Web of Science database, scientometric methods and knowledge visualization techniques were applied to evaluate global scientific production and develop trends of HSR from 1900 to 2012. Results HSR has increased rapidly over the past 20 years. Currently, there are 28,787 research articles published in 3,674 journals that are listed in 140 Web of Science subject categories. The research in this field has mainly focused on public, environmental and occupational health (6,178, 21.46%), health care sciences and services (5,840, 20.29%), and general and internal medicine (3,783, 13.14%). The top 10 journals had published 2,969 (10.31%) articles and received 5,229 local citations and 40,271 global citations. The top 20 authors together contributed 628 papers, which accounted for a 2.18% share in the cumulative worldwide publications. The most productive author was McKee, from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, with 48 articles. In addition, USA and American institutions ranked the first in health system research productivity, with high citation times, followed by the UK and Canada. Conclusions HSR is an interdisciplinary area. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries showed they are the leading nations in HSR. Meanwhile, American and Canadian institutions and the World Health Organization play a dominant role in the production, collaboration, and citation of high quality articles. Moreover, health policy and analysis research, health systems and sub-systems research, healthcare and services research, health, epidemiology and economics of communicable and non-communicable diseases, primary care research, health economics and health costs, and pharmacy of hospital have been identified as the mainstream topics in HSR fields. These findings will provide evidence of the current status and trends in HSR all over the world, as well as clues to the impact of this popular topic; thus, helping scientific researchers and policy makers understand the panorama of HSR and predict the dynamic directions of research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Implementation research is increasingly being recognised as an important discipline seeking to maximise the benefits of evidence-based interventions. Although capacity-building efforts are ongoing, there has been limited attention on the contextual and health system peculiarities in low- and middle-income countries. Moreover, given the challenges encountered during the implementation of health interventions, the field of implementation research requires a creative attempt to build expertise for health researchers and practitioners simultaneously. With support from the Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases, we have developed an implementation research short course that targets both researchers and practitioners. This paper seeks to explain the course development processes and report on training evaluations, highlighting its relevance for inter-institutional and inter-regional capacity strengthening.Methods: The development of the implementation research course curriculum was categorised into four phases, namely the formation of a core curriculum development team, course content development, internal reviews and pilot, and external reviews and evaluations. Five modules were developed covering Introduction to implementation research, Methods in implementation research, Ethics and quality management in implementation research, Community and stakeholder engagement, and Dissemination in implementation research. Course evaluations were conducted using developed tools measuring participants' reactions and learning.Results: From 2016 to 2018, the IR curriculum has been used to train a total of 165 researchers and practitioners predominantly from African countries, the majority of whom are males (57%) and researchers/academics (79.4%). Participants generally gave positive ratings (e.g. integration of concepts) for their reactions to the training. Under 'learnings', participants indicated improvement in their knowledge in areas such as identification of implementation research problems and questions.Conclusion: The approach for training both researchers and practitioners offers a dynamic opportunity for the acquisition and sharing of knowledge for both categories of learners. This approach was crucial in demonstrating a key characteristic of implementation research (e.g. multidisciplinary) practically evident during the training sessions. Using such a model to effectively train participants from various low- and middle-income countries shows the opportunities this training curriculum offers as a capacity-building tool. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Global health research is essential for development. A major issue is the inequitable distribution of research efforts and funds directed towards populations suffering the world's greatest health problems. This imbalance is fostering major attempts at redirecting research to the health problems of low and middle income countries. Following the creation of the Coalition for Global Health Research - Canada (CGHRC) in 2001, the Canadian Society for International Health (CSIH) decided to review the role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in global health research. This paper highlights some of the prevalent thinking and is intended to encourage new thinking on how NGOs can further this role. Approach: This paper was prepared by members of the Research Committee of the CSIH, with input from other members of the Society. Persons working in various international NGOs participated in individual interviews or group discussions on their involvement in different types of research activities. Case studies illustrate the roles of NGOs in global health research, their perceived strengths and weaknesses, and the constraints and opportunities to build capacity and develop partnerships for research. Highlights: NGOs are contributing at all stages of the research cycle, fostering the relevance and effectiveness of the research, priority setting, and knowledge translation to action. They have a key role in stewardship (promoting and advocating for relevant global health research), resource mobilization for research, the generation, utilization and management of knowledge, and capacity development. Yet, typically, the involvement of NGOs in research is downstream from knowledge production and it usually takes the form of a partnership with universities or dedicated research agencies. Conclusion: There is a need to more effectively include NGOs in all aspects of health research in order to maximize the potential benefits of research. NGOs, moreover, can and should play an instrumental role in coalitions for global health research, such as the CGHRC. With a renewed sense of purpose and a common goal, NGOs and their partners intend to make strong and lasting inroads into reducing the disease burden of the world's most affected populations through effective research action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Growing interest in public involvement in health research has led to organisational and policy change. Additionally, an emerging body of policy-oriented scholarship has begun to identify the organisational and network arrangements that shape public involvement activity. Such developments suggest the need to clearly conceptualise and characterise public involvement in health research in terms of governance.Methods: We drew on an established health research system framework to analyse governance functions related to public involvement, adapting scoping review methods to identify evidence from a corpus of journal papers and policy reports. We drew on the logics of aggregation and top down configuration, using a qualitative interpretive approach to combine and link findings from different studies into framework categories.Results: We identified a total of 32 scholarly papers and 13 policy reports (n = 45 included papers) with relevance to governance for public involvement. Included papers were broadly consonant in identifying the need for activity to specify and support public involvement across all four governance functions of stewardship, financing, creating and sustaining resources, and research production and use. However, different visions for public involvement, and the activity required to implement it and achieve impact, were particularly evident with respect to the stewardship function, which seeks to set overall directions for research while addressing the potentially competing demands of a system's many constituents.Conclusions: A governance perspective has considerable value for public involvement in health research systems, supporting efforts to coordinate and institutionalise the burgeoning public involvement enterprise. Furthermore, it highlights challenges for what is, ultimately, a highly political intervention, suggesting that diverse publics must be both involved within health research systems and enrolled as governors of them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: National health research for development (R4D) platforms in lower income countries (LICs) are few. The Health Research Capacity Strengthening Initiative (HRCSI, 2008-2013) was a national systems-strengthening programme in Malawi involved in national priority setting, decision-making on funding, and health research actor mobilization.Methods: We adopted a retrospective mixed-methods evaluation approach, starting with information gleaned from reports (HRCSI and Malawian) and databases (HRCSI). A framework of a health research system (actors and components) guided report review and interview guide development. From a list of 173 individuals involved in HRCSI, 30 interviewees were selected within categories of stakeholders. Interviews were conducted face-to-face or via telephone/Skype over 1 month, documented with extensive notes. Analysis of emerging themes was iterative among co-evaluators, with synthesis according to the implementation stage.Results: Major HRCSI outputs included (1) National research priority-setting: through the production of themed background papers by Malawian health researchers and broad consultation, HRCSI led the development of a National Health Research Agenda (2012-2016), widely regarded as one of HRCSI's foremost achievements. (2) Institutional research capacity: there was an overwhelming view that HRCSI had produced a step-change in the number of high calibre scientists in Malawi and in fostering research interest among young Malawians, providing support for around 56 MSc and PhD students, and over 400 undergraduate health-related projects. (3) Knowledge sharing: HRCSI supported research dissemination through national and institutional meetings by sponsoring attendance at conferences and through close relationships with individuals in the print media for disseminating information. (4) Sustainability: From 2011-2013, HRCSI significantly improved research systems, processes and leadership in Malawi, but further strengthening was needed for HRCSI to be effectively integrated into government structures and sustained long-term. Overall, HRCSI carried out many components relevant to a national health research system coordinating platform, and became competent at managing over half of 12 areas of performance for research councils. Debate about its location and challenges to sustainability remain open questions.Conclusions: More experimentation in the setting-up of national health R4D platforms to promote country 'ownership' is needed, accompanied by evaluation processes that facilitate learning and knowledge exchange of better practices among key actors in health R4D systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health research driven by the healthcare demands of the population can provide an informative evidence base to support decision-making processes on health policies, programmes, and practices. This paper surveyed the production of scientific research concerning health in Angola, specifically to access the publication rate over time, the main research topics and scientific fields, and the contribution of Angolan researchers and institutions. Methods: The study focused on data collected in a retrospective literature search in Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde (BVS) as of June 8, 2014, with the keyword "Angola" and on content information in correspondent publications deposited in PubMed. Results: BVS generated 1,029 hits, 74.6 % of which were deposited in PubMed where 301 abstracts were described. From 1979 to 2003, there were 62 publications and in 2004-2013 the quantity increased four-fold (n = 232); malaria was the most frequent topic (n = 42). Angola was the country with the largest number of publications, taking into account the primary affiliation of the first author (n = 45). Universities, institutes, or research centres accounted for 65 % of the publications and in descending order Portugal, Brazil, and the United States of America occupied the three first positions. Epidemiology was by far the most frequent field of research (n = 165). Conclusions: The number of publications has increased steadily over the past 10 years, with predominance on malaria topics. Angola was the country with the largest number of major affiliations of the first author, but the contribution of Angolan institutions was relatively low, indicating a need to reinforce academic research institutions in the country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Strengthening health research capacity in low- and middle-income countries remains a major policy goal. The Health Research Capacity Strengthening (HRCS) Global Learning (HGL) program of work documented experiences of HRCS across sub-Saharan Africa. Methods: We reviewed findings from HGL case studies and reflective papers regarding the dynamics of HRCS. Analysis was structured with respect to common challenges in such work, identified through a multi-dimensional scaling analysis of responses from 37 participants at the concluding symposium of the program of work. Results: Symposium participants identified 10 distinct clusters of challenges: engaging researchers, policymakers, and donors; securing trust and cooperation; finding common interest; securing long-term funding; establishing sustainable models of capacity strengthening; ensuring Southern ownership; accommodating local health system priorities and constraints; addressing disincentives for academic engagement; establishing and retaining research teams; and sustaining mentorship and institutional support. Analysis links these challenges to three key and potentially competing drivers of the political economy of health research: an enduring model of independent researchers and research leaders, the globalization of knowledge and the linked mobility of (elite) individuals, and institutionalization of research within universities and research centres and, increasingly, national research and development agendas. Conclusions: We identify tensions between efforts to embrace the global 'Community of Science' and the promotion and protection of national and institutional agendas in an unequal global health research environment. A nuanced understanding of the dynamics and implications of the uneven global health research landscape is required, along with a willingness to explore pragmatic models that seek to balance these competing drivers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the last decade, Makerere University College of Health Sciences (MakCHS) has taken strides in research and training to improve healthcare through collaborative training and research programs. However, there is limited data on the trends of MakCHS faculty contributions to research and on faculty growth to take leading roles in health research. This paper reviews MakCHS faculty research publications over 15.5 years and outlines possible strategies to enhance faculty research outputs.Methods: We used a mixed methods approach. A systematic review of research publications by faculty at MakCHS (PubMed and Google Scholar from January 1, 2000, to June 30, 2015) to quantify the number of research articles, areas researched, authorship contribution by MakCHS faculty, source of funding, as well as affiliated local and international collaborations. Graphs were used to shown trends in publications and leadership of authorship by faculty. Annual individual faculty research productivity was presented as publication per capita. Qualitative data on high priority needs to improve research outputs was collected through focus group discussions (FGDs) with faculty members, and analysed manually into emerging themes.Results: Of 298 faculty at MakCHS at 2015, 89 (30%) were female and 229 (77%) were junior and mid-level faculty (senior lecturer and below). The PubMed and Google Scholar searches yielded 6927 published articles, of which 3399 (49%) full-text articles were downloaded for analysis, 426/3825 (11%) available as titles/abstracts only, and 598/4423 (14%) were excluded. Only 614 articles were published in 2014, giving a publication per capita of 2.1 for any authorship, and 0.3 for first and last authorship positions. MakCHS faculty increasingly contributed as first, second, third, and last authors. Up to 57% of research was in infectious diseases, followed by non-communicable diseases (20%) and non-communicable maternal child health (11%). Priority needs to improve research outputs, as expressed by faculty, were (1) an institutionally led faculty career development program, (2) skills building in research methods and scientific writing, (3) protected time for research related activities, (4) opportunities for collaborative research, and (5) use of individual development plans.Conclusion: Faculty research productivity was low and dominated by infectious diseases and non-communicable disease research. There is a need for structured institutional support to optimise faculty research outputs. Only with increased research productivity will MakCHS and other academic institutions be able to make a significant contribution in addressing national health challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There are increasing expectations for researchers and knowledge users in the health system to use a research partnership approach, such as integrated knowledge translation, to increase the relevance and use of research findings in health practice, programmes and policies. However, little is known about how health research trainees engage in research partnership approaches such as IKT. In response, the purpose of this scoping review was to map and characterize the evidence related to using an IKT or other research partnership approach from the perspective of health research trainees in thesis and/or postdoctoral work. Methods: We conducted this scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and Arksey and O'Malley's framework. We searched the following databases in June 2020: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO. We also searched sources of unpublished studies and grey literature. We reported our findings in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. Results: We included 74 records that described trainees' experiences using an IKT or other research partnership approach to health research. The majority of studies involved collaboration with knowledge users in the research question development, recruitment and data collection stages of the research process. Intersecting barriers to IKT or other research partnerships at the individual, interpersonal and organizational levels were reported, including lack of skills in partnership research, competing priorities and trainees' "outsider" status. We also identified studies that evaluated their IKT approach and reported impacts on partnership formation, such as valuing different perspectives, and enhanced relevance of research. Conclusion: Our review provides insights for trainees interested in IKT or other research partnership approaches and offers guidance on how to apply an IKT approach to their research. The review findings can serve as a basis for future reviews and primary research focused on IKT principles, strategies and evaluation. The findings can also inform IKT training efforts such as guideline development and academic programme development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To increase the uptake of research evidence in practice, responsive research services have been developed within universities that broker access to academic expertise for practitioners and decision-makers. However, there has been little examination of the process of knowledge brokering within these services. This paper reflects on this process within the AskFuse service, which was launched in June 2013 by Fuse, the Centre for Translational Research in Public Health, in North East England. The paper outlines the challenges and opportunities faced by both academics and health practitioners collaborating through the service.Methods: The authors reflected on conversations between the AskFuse Research Manager and policy and practice partners accessing the service between June 2013 and March 2017. Summary notes of these conversations, including emails and documents relating to over 240 enquiries, have been analysed using an auto-ethnographic approach.Findings: We identified five challenges to knowledge brokering in an institutional service, namely length of brokerage time required, limits to collaboration, lack of resources, brokering research in a changing system, and multiple types of knowledge.Conclusions: To understand and overcome some of the identified challenges, we employ Goffman's dramaturgical perspective and argue for making better use of the distinction between front and back stages in the knowledge brokering process. We emphasise the importance of back stages for defusing destructive information that could discredit collaborative performances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The freelance economy has seen rapid growth worldwide in recent years and the Philippines is not an exception. Freelance workers are becoming increasingly common in healthcare and research. Early career researchers carry out most of scientific research and can play a critical role in advancing public health by bringing new perspectives and diversity to the field. Existing literature has mostly focused on the experiences of early career researchers in an institutional academic setting. This study aimed to understand the experiences of freelance early career researchers in the health policy and systems space in the Philippines. Methods: This qualitative study collected data from 18 to 22 March 2022 through virtual interview and focus group discussions. Themes and codes were created based on the topic guide developed. New themes and codes were generated as they emerged. Two researchers coded the data using both a priori and emergent codes. Any coding conflicts were resolved through discussions until intercoder agreement was reached. Interpretation and conclusions from the data were developed by 2 researchers with consideration for its context and relationship between themes. Results: Fifteen current and former freelance researchers participated in the study. Most are female, under 35 years old, and with an undergraduate degree as the highest educational attainment. The findings highlight insights and challenges faced by early career researchers in aspects of: (1) work arrangement, (2) tasks, (3) expectations from senior researchers, (4) development in the health policy and systems field, (5) relationship with peers, and (6) motivations for continuing to work as a freelance health policy and systems researcher. Conclusion: This study reveals the challenges freelance early career researchers face, highlighting the need for enhanced support and recognition amidst rapidly evolving workforce demands and complex health dilemmas. Recommendations include structured mentorship, professional development, innovative funding models, and the establishment of a supportive network. Advocacy for policies ensuring freelancer inclusion in the economy and policy-making is crucial. Future research should investigate their experiences further, including their roles, transitions, and the impacts of funding trends, to foster their development and integration into public health research and policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Priority setting in health research is an emerging field. In Zambia, like many other African countries, various priority setting activities have been undertaken with a view to identify research activities to which the available resources can be targeted while at the same time maximising the health impact for resource allocation to support evidence-based decision-making. The aim of this paper is to document the key elements of the various priority setting activities that have been conducted since 1998, identifying the key lessons and providing recommendations to improve the process. Methods: A comprehensive review of the previous priority setting activities and processes in Zambia was conducted. Both published and unpublished reports were reviewed in order to identify any research priority setting processes that have been undertaken in Zambia. We developed a framework, based on the priority setting literature, to guide our abstraction and synthesis of the literature. Result: The earliest record of priority setting was conducted in 1998. Various priority setting approaches have been implemented in Zambia; ranging from externally driven, once-off activities to locally (in country) initiated comprehensive processes. However, there has been no systematic national process for priority setting. These priority setting processes in Zambia were characterised by limited stakeholder buy-in of the resulting national research or programmatic research agenda. Most striking was the lack of linkages between the different initiatives. There seems to have been no conscious recognition and building on previous priority-setting experiences of previous initiatives. Conclusion: There were gaps in the priority setting processes, stakeholder engagement and application of a defined criterion. There is a need for a priority setting framework coupled with local capacity developed across a range of stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Community engagement, incorporating elements of the broader concepts of public and stakeholder engagement, is increasingly promoted globally, including for health research conducted in developing countries. In sub-Saharan Africa, community engagement needs and challenges are arguably intensified for studies involving gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men, where male same-sex sexual interactions are often highly stigmatised and even illegal. This paper contextualises, describes and interprets the discussions and outcomes of an international meeting held at the Kenya Medical Research Institute-Wellcome Trust in Kilifi, Kenya, in November 2013, to critically examine the experiences with community engagement for studies involving men who have sex with men.Discussion: We discuss the ethically charged nature of the language used for men who have sex with men, and of working with 'representatives' of these communities, as well as the complementarity and tensions between a broadly public health approach to community engagement, and a more rights based approach. We highlight the importance of researchers carefully considering which communities to engage with, and the goals, activities, and indicators of success and potential challenges for each. We suggest that, given the unintended harms that can emerge from community engagement (including through labelling, breaches in confidentiality, increased visibility and stigma, and threats to safety), representatives of same-sex populations should be consulted from the earliest possible stage, and that engagement activities should be continuously revised in response to unfolding realities. Engagement should also include less vocal and visible men who have sex with men, and members of other communities with influence on the research, and on research participants and their families and friends. Broader ethics support, advice and research into studies involving men who have sex with men is needed to ensure that ethical challenges - including but not limited to those related to community engagement - are identified and addressed. Underlying challenges and dilemmas linked to stigma and discrimination of men who have sex with men in Africa raise special responsibilities for researchers. Community engagement is an important way of identifying responses to these challenges and responsibilities but itself presents important ethical challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The West African Health Organization (WAHO) implemented a research development program in West Africa during 2009-2013 using the Knowledge for Better Health Research Capacity Development Framework, developed by Pang et al. (Bull World Health Organ 81(11):815-820, 2003), on strategies used to improve the research environment. The framework has the following components: stewardship, financing, sustainable resourcing and research utilization. This paper describes how WAHO implemented this research development program in the West African region to help improve the research environment and lessons learnt.Methods: This is a retrospective review of the regional research development program using a triangulation of activity reports, an independent evaluation and the authors' experiences with stakeholders. This program was designed to address gaps along the components of the framework and to improve partnership. The activities, results and challenges are summarised for each component of the framework. The independent evaluation was conducted using over 180 semi-structured interviews of key stakeholders in the West African region and activity reports. WAHO and major stakeholders validated these findings during a regional meeting.Results: All 15 ECOWAS countries benefited from this regional research development program. WAHO provided technical and financial support to eight countries to develop their policies, priorities and plans for research development to improve their research governance. WAHO, along with other technical and financial partners, organised many capacity-strengthening trainings in health systems research methodology, resource mobilization, ethical oversight and on HRWeb, a research information management platform. WAHO helped launch a regional network of health research institutions to improve collaboration between regional participating institutions. Further, WAHO developed strategic research partnerships and mobilised additional funding to support the program. The program supported 24 health research projects. High staff turnover, weak institutional capacities and ineffective collaboration were some of the challenges encountered during program activity implementation.Conclusion: The regional collaborative approach to health research development using this framework was effective given the challenges in the West African region. The achievements particularly with improved research partnerships and funding helped strengthen local health research environments. This highlights WAHO's role and the common experiences in the West African region in improving health research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Given the context-specific nature of health research prioritization and the obligation to effectively allocate resources to initiatives that will achieve the greatest impact, evaluation of priority setting processes can refine and strengthen such exercises and their outcomes. However, guidance is needed on evaluation tools that can be applied to research priority setting. This paper describes the adaption and application of a conceptual framework to evaluate a research priority setting exercise operating within the public health sector in Ontario, Canada.Methods: The Nine Common Themes of Good Practice checklist, described by Viergever et al. (Health Res Policy Syst 8:36, 2010) was used as the conceptual framework to evaluate the research priority setting process developed for the Locally Driven Collaborative Projects (LDCP) program in Ontario, Canada. Multiple data sources were used to inform the evaluation, including a review of selected priority setting approaches, surveys with priority setting participants, document review, and consultation with the program advisory committee.Results: The evaluation assisted in identifying improvements to six elements of the LDCP priority setting process. The modifications were aimed at improving inclusiveness, information gathering practices, planning for project implementation, and evaluation. In addition, the findings identified that the timing of priority setting activities and level of control over the process were key factors that influenced the ability to effectively implement changes.Conclusions: The findings demonstrate the novel adaptation and application of the 'Nine Common Themes of Good Practice checklist' as a tool for evaluating a research priority setting exercise. The tool can guide the development of evaluation questions and enables the assessment of key constructs related to the design and delivery of a research priority setting process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Setting priorities is important in health research given the limited resources available for research. Various guidelines exist to assist in the priority setting process; however, priority setting still faces significant challenges such as the clear ranking of identified priorities. The World Health Organization (WHO) proposed a Disability Adjusted Life Year (DALY)-based model to rank priorities by research area (basic, health systems and biomedical) by dividing the DALYs into 'unavertable with existing interventions', 'avertable with improved efficiency' and 'avertable with existing but non-cost-effective interventions', respectively. However, the model has conceptual flaws and no clear methodology for its construction. Therefore, the aim of this paper was to amend the model to address these flaws, and develop a clear methodology by using tuberculosis in South Africa as a worked example.Methods: An amended model was constructed to represent total DALYs as the product of DALYs per person and absolute burden of disease. These figures were calculated for all countries from WHO datasets. The lowest figures achieved by any country were assumed to represent 'unavertable with existing interventions' if extrapolated to South Africa. The ratio of 'cost per patient treated' (adjusted for purchasing power and outcome weighted) between South Africa and the best country was used to calculate the 'avertable with improved efficiency section'. Finally, 'avertable with existing but non-cost-effective interventions' was calculated using Disease Control Priorities Project efficacy data, and the ratio between the best intervention and South Africa's current intervention, irrespective of cost.Results: The amended model shows that South Africa has a tuberculosis burden of 1,009,837.3 DALYs; 0.009% of DALYs are unavertable with existing interventions and 96.3% of DALYs could be averted with improvements in efficiency. Of the remaining DALYs, a further 56.9% could be averted with existing but non-cost-effective interventions.Conclusions: The amended model was successfully constructed using limited data sources. The generalizability of the data used is the main limitation of the model. More complex formulas are required to deal with such potential confounding variables; however, the results act as starting point for development of a more robust model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research Impact Assessment (RIA) represents one of a suite of policies intended to improve the impact generated from investment in health and medical research (HMR). Positivist indicator-based approaches to RIA are widely implemented but increasingly criticised as theoretically problematic, unfair, and burdensome. This commentary proposes there are useful outcomes that emerge from the process of applying an indicator-based RIA framework, separate from those encapsulated in the metrics themselves. The aim for this commentary is to demonstrate how the act of conducting an indicator-based approach to RIA can serve to optimise the productive gains from the investment in HMR. Prior research found that the issues regarding RIA are less about the choice of indicators/metrics, and more about the discussions prompted and activities incentivised by the process. This insight provides an opportunity to utilise indicator-based methods to purposely optimise the research impact. An indicator-based RIA framework specifically designed to optimise research impacts should: focus on researchers and the research process, rather than institution-level measures; utilise a project level unit of analysis that provides control to researchers and supports collaboration and accountability; provide for prospective implementation of RIA and the prospective orientation of research; establish a line of sight to the ultimate anticipated beneficiaries and impacts; Include process metrics/indicators to acknowledge interim steps on the pathway to final impacts; integrate 'next' users and prioritise the utilisation of research outputs as a critical measure; Integrate and align the incentives for researchers/research projects arising from RIA, with those existing within the prevailing research system; integrate with existing peer-review processes; and, adopt a system-wide approach where incremental improvements in the probability of translation from individual research projects, yields higher impact across the whole funding portfolio. Optimisation of the impacts from HMR investment represents the primary purpose of Research Impact policy. The process of conducting an indicator-based approach to RIA, which engages the researcher during the inception and planning phase, can directly contribute to this goal through improvements in the probability that an individual project will generate interim impacts. The research project funding process represents a promising forum to integrate this approach within the existing research system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health research is increasing in Africa, but most resources are currently chanelled towards infectious diseases and health system development. While infectious diseases remain a heavy burden for some African countries, non-communicable diseases (NCDs) account for more than half of all deaths globally and WHO predicts 27% increase in NCDs in Africa over the next decade. We present findings of a European-Africa consultation on the research agenda for NCDs.Methods: A workshop was held in Yaoundé, Cameroon, organized by the Network for the Coordination and Advancement of Sub-Saharan Africa-European Union Science and Technology Cooperation (CAAST-Net). Drawing on initial presentations, a small expert group from academic, clinical, public-health and administrative positions considered research needs in Africa for cardiovascular disease, cancer and diabetes.Results: Research in Africa can draw from different environmental and genetic characteristics to understand the causes of the disease, while economic and social factors are important in developing relevant strategies for prevention and treatment. The suggested research needs include better methods for description and recording, clinical studies, understanding cultural impacts, prevention strategies, and the integrated organisation of care. Specific fields proposed for research are listed.Conclusions: Our paper contributes to transparency in the process of priority-setting for health research in Africa. Although the European Union Seventh Framework Research Programme prioritises biomedical and clinical research, research for Africa should also address broader social and cultural research and intervention research for greatest impact. Research policy leaders in Africa must engage national governments and international agencies as well as service providers and research communities. None can act effectively alone. Bringing together the different stakeholders, and feeding the results through to the European Union research programme is a valuable contribution of CAAST-Net. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Africa's progress depends on her capacity to generate, adapt, and use scientific knowledge to meet regional health and development needs. Yet, Africa's higher education institutions that are mandated to foster this capacity lack adequate resources to generate and apply knowledge, raising the need for innovative approaches to enhance research capacity. In this paper, we describe a newly-developed program to support PhD research in health and population sciences at African universities, the African Doctoral Dissertation Research Fellowship (ADDRF) Program. We also share our experiences implementing the program. As health research capacity-strengthening in Africa continues to attract attention and as the need for such programs to be African-led is emphasized, our experiences in developing and implementing the ADDRF offer invaluable lessons to other institutions undertaking similar initiatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO), like many other organisations around the world, has recognised the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that health care recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. This is the fifth of a series of 16 reviews that have been prepared as background for advice from the WHO Advisory Committee on Health Research to WHO on how to achieve this. Objective: In this review we address approaches to facilitate sound processes within groups that develop recommendations for health care. Methods: We searched PubMed and three databases of methodological studies for existing systematic reviews and relevant methodological research. We did not conduct systematic reviews ourselves. Our conclusions are based on the available evidence, consideration of what WHO and other organisations are doing and logical arguments. Key question and answer: What should WHO do to ensure appropriate group processes? Various strategies can be adopted to ensure that the group processes in play when panels are developing recommendations are inclusive, so that all voices can be heard and all arguments given fair weight, including • the use of formal consensus development methods, such at the Nominal Group Technique or the Delphi method • the selection of a group leader who is qualified and responsible for facilitating an appropriate group process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic allowed for exceptional decision-making power to be placed in the hands of public health departments. Data and information were widely disseminated in the media and on websites. While the improvement of pandemic management is still a learning curve, the ecosystem perspective – that is, the interconnection of academic health research systems and decision-making spaces – has received little attention. In this commentary, we look at the mechanisms in place, or not, in Canada for ensuring decision-making spheres can "speak" to academic research systems. We look at the thick walls that are still in place between health research systems and decision-making spaces. More precisely, we discuss three organizational flaws that we identified in the evidence-informed decision-making ecosystem of Québec and, more broadly, Canada. We introduce some inspiring measures that other countries have implemented to better link evidence and public health decision-making during health crises. The observed flaws and options are related to the vitality of early information sharing relays, the cross-sectional capacity to issue opinions, and the collection and integration of hard and soft data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Relevant information on health research must be made publicly available in an accurate, timely and accessible manner if evidence is to inform practice and benefit patient care. Failure to publish research information represents a significant waste of research funds. However, recent studies have demonstrated that non-publication and selective or biased reporting remains a significant problem. The role of online publications in rectifying these issues by providing open access to study information is increasingly recognised.Objective: This paper details a novel approach to publishing research information developed by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), a major funder of health research in the United Kingdom. The NIHR has enhanced its Journals Library ( www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk ), providing an online repository of information from research funded through five programmes. We describe how the NIHR Journals Library provides a 'thread' of relevant information for each study, including protocols, participant information sheets, data linkages, final reports, publications and diverse knowledge products. We also discuss the Library as a 'living' resource, one that is updated as each study progresses from inception to completion. Finally, we consider the implications of the Library for the NIHR, other journals and research teams submitting information.Conclusion: Openly publishing information from funded research in the NIHR Journals Library serves as a model of knowledge sharing, maximising return on investment and enhancing the usability and replicability of research findings for different evidence-user communities. The Library also supports wider 'research on research' ambitions, enabling users to interrogate the repository of NIHR-funded studies, enhancing the understanding of research commissioning, design, dissemination and impact. Video abstract: www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H03uxN_iTE . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Priority-setting for health research in low-income countries remains a major challenge. While there have been efforts to systematise and improve the processes, most of the initiatives have ended up being a one-off exercise and are yet to be institutionalised. This could, in part, be attributed to the limited capacity for the priority-setting institutions to identify and fund their own research priorities, since most of the priority-setting initiatives are driven by experts. This paper reports findings from a pilot project whose aim was to develop a systematic process to identify components of a locally desirable and feasible health research priority-setting approach and to contribute to capacity strengthening for the Zambia National Health Research Authority.Methods: Synthesis of the current literature on the approaches to health research prioritisations. The results of the synthesis were presented and discussed with a sample of Zambian researchers and decision-makers who are involved in health research priority-setting. The ultimate aim was for them to explore the different approaches available for guiding health research priority-setting and to identify an approach that would be relevant and feasible to implement and sustain within the Zambian context.Results: Based on the evidence that was presented, the participants were unable to identify one approach that met the criteria. They identified attributes from the different approaches that they thought would be most appropriate and proposed a process that they deemed feasible within the Zambian context.Conclusion: While it is easier to implement prioritisation based on one approach that the initiator might be interested in, researchers interested in capacity-building for health research priority-setting organisations should expose the low-income country participants to all approaches. Researchers ought to be aware that sometimes one shoe may not fit all, as in the case of Zambia, instead of choosing one approach, the stakeholders may select desirable attributes from the different approaches and piece together an approach that would be feasible and acceptable within their context. An approach that builds on the decision-makers' understanding of their contexts and their input to its development would foster local ownership and has a greater potential for sustainability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Collaborative health research, such as integrated knowledge translation (IKT), requires researchers to have specific knowledge and skills in working in partnership with knowledge users. Graduate students are often not provided with the opportunity to learn skills in how to establish collaborative relationships with knowledge users in the health system or communities, despite its importance in research. The objective of this environmental scan is to identify available guidelines for graduate trainees to use an IKT approach in their research. Methods: We conducted an environmental scan with three separate systematic searches to identify guidelines available to support graduate students in engaging in an IKT approach to research: (i) a customized Google search; (ii) a targeted Canadian university website search; and (iii) emails to administrators of graduate studies programmes asking for available guidelines and documents designed for graduate students. Data were extracted using a standardized data extraction tool and analysed using a directed content analysis approach. Due to the minimal results included based on the a priori eligibility criteria, we returned to the excluded records to further review the current state of the environment on trainee support for IKT research. Results: Our search strategy yielded 22 900 items, and after a two-step screening process with strict inclusion criteria three documents met the eligibility criteria. All three documents highlighted the need for an IKT plan for knowledge user involvement throughout the research process. Furthermore, documents emphasized the need for tangible steps to guide graduate students to engage in effective communication with knowledge users. Due to the lack of documents retrieved, we conducted a post hoc content analysis of relevant IKT documents excluded and identified five themes demonstrating increased education and engagement in an IKT approach at an interpersonal and organizational level. Conclusion: We identified three documents providing guidance to trainees using a collaborative approach in their health research. This scan highlighted two key findings including the importance of supporting trainees to engage knowledge users in research and preparing an IKT plan alongside a research plan. Further research is needed to co-design guidelines to support graduate students and trainees in engaging in an IKT approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health policy and systems research (HPSR) has influenced Philippine policies, including tobacco control, mental health, and COVID-19. The Department of Health (DOH) Philippines and Philippine Council for Health Research and Development (PCHRD) launched the Advancing Health through Evidence-Assisted Decisions (AHEAD) with HPSR program in 2017, aiming to build a community of researchers and decision-makers committed to evidence production and utilization. Research systems employ grant management processes for transparency and accountability in research funding, preventing waste, fraud, and misuse of funds. Methods: This study evaluated AHEAD-HPSR's grant management using surveys, interviews, and focus groups to document (1) grant administration processes implemented by DOH and PCHRD, and (2) experiences of grantees, program managers, staff, and policymakers. Data were initially analyzed through the USA Grant Accountability Office's Federal Grant Life Cycle, with new themes created as they emerged. The study identified processes and gaps in the research grant life cycle stages: design/redesign, pre-award, award, implementation, closeout, and research dissemination and utilization. Results: Identification of research areas for the grant are identified using national and departmental research priorities. While Calls for Proposals are posted publicly, researchers that have previously worked with policymakers are contacted directly to submit proposals. The evaluation found that research is delayed by bureaucracies in grant administration, particularly in financial reporting and ethics review processes. Complying with the terminal financial report was identified as the most challenging part of the grant process due to immense auditing requirements. Grantees recommend the simplification of bureaucracy for fund release to enable them to focus on research work. Conclusion: This study contributes to the limited literature on health research grant management in developing countries. Valuable information and recommendations were contributed by stakeholders in this evaluation. These are manifestations of a continuing interest and desire to make health policy and systems research in the Philippines more robust and relevant. It is imperative for the program to continually evolve and build systems most applicable to its multidisciplinary context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Local evidence is important for contextualized knowledge translation. It can be used to adapt global recommendations, to identify future research priorities and inform local policy decisions. However, there are challenges in identifying local evidence in a systematic, comprehensive, and timely manner. There is limited guidance on how to map local evidence and provide it to users in an accessible and user-friendly way. In this study, we address these issues by describing the methods for the development of a centralized database of health research evidence for Cameroon and its applications for research prioritization and decision making. Methods: We searched 10 electronic health databases and hand-searched the archives of non-indexed African and Cameroonian journals. We screened titles, abstracts, and full texts of peer reviewed journal articles published between 1999 and 2019 in English or French that assess health related outcomes in Cameroonian populations. We extracted relevant study characteristics based on a pre-established guide. We developed a coding scheme or taxonomy of content areas so that local evidence is mapped to corresponding domains and subdomains. Pairs of reviewers coded articles independently and resolved discrepancies by consensus. Moreover, we developed guidance on how to search the database, use search results to create evidence maps and conduct knowledge gap analyses. Results: The Cameroon Health Research and Evidence Database (CAMHRED) is a bilingual centralized online portal of local evidence on health in Cameroon from 1999 onwards. It currently includes 4384 studies categorized into content domains and study characteristics (design, setting, year and language of publication). The database is searchable by keywords or through a guided search. Results including abstracts, relevant study characteristics and bibliographic information are available for users to download. Upon request, guidance on how to optimize search results for applications like evidence maps and knowledge gap analyses is also available. Conclusions: CAMHRED (https://camhred.org/) is a systematic, comprehensive, and centralized resource for local evidence about health in Cameroon. It is freely available to stakeholders and provides an additional resource to support their work at various levels in the research process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Co-production is an umbrella term used to describe the process of generating knowledge through partnerships between researchers and those who will use or benefit from research. Multiple advantages of research co-production have been hypothesized, and in some cases documented, in both the academic and practice record. However, there are significant gaps in understanding how to evaluate the quality of co-production. This gap in rigorous evaluation undermines the potential of both co-production and co-producers. Methods: This research tests the relevance and utility of a novel evaluation framework: Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ + 4 Co-Pro). Following a co-production approach ourselves, our team collaborated to develop study objectives, questions, analysis, and results sharing strategies. We used a dyadic field-test design to execute RQ + 4 Co-Pro evaluations amongst 18 independently recruited subject matter experts. We used standardized reporting templates and qualitative interviews to collect data from field-test participants, and thematic assessment and deliberative dialogue for analysis. Main limitations include that field-test participation included only health research projects and health researchers and this will limit perspective included in the study, and, that our own co-production team does not include all potential perspectives that may add value to this work. Results: The field test surfaced strong support for the relevance and utility of RQ + 4 Co-Pro as an evaluation approach and framework. Research participants shared opportunities for fine-tuning language and criteria within the prototype version, but also, for alternative uses and users of RQ + 4 Co-Pro. All research participants suggested RQ + 4 Co-Pro offered an opportunity for improving how co-production is evaluated and advanced. This facilitated our revision and publication herein of a field-tested RQ + 4 Co-Pro Framework and Assessment Instrument. Conclusion: Evaluation is necessary for understanding and improving co-production, and, for ensuring co-production delivers on its promise of better health.. RQ + 4 Co-Pro provides a practical evaluation approach and framework that we invite co-producers and stewards of co-production—including the funders, publishers, and universities who increasingly encourage socially relevant research—to study, adapt, and apply. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The extent to which routinely collected HIV data from Zambia has been used in peer-reviewed published articles remains unexplored. This paper is an analysis of peer-reviewed articles that utilised routinely collected HIV data from Zambia within six programme areas from 2004 to 2014.Methods: Articles on HIV, published in English, listed in the Directory of open access journals, African Journals Online, Google scholar, and PubMed were reviewed. Only articles from peer-reviewed journals, that utilised routinely collected data and included quantitative data analysis methods were included. Multi-country studies involving Zambia and another country, where the specific results for Zambia were not reported, as well as clinical trials and intervention studies that did not take place under routine care conditions were excluded, although community trials which referred patients to the routine clinics were included. Independent extraction was conducted using a predesigned data collection form. Pooled analysis was not possible due to diversity in topics reviewed.Results: A total of 69 articles were extracted for review. Of these, 7 were excluded. From the 62 articles reviewed, 39 focused on HIV treatment and retention in care, 15 addressed prevention of mother-to-child transmission, 4 assessed social behavioural change, and 4 reported on voluntary counselling and testing. In our search, no articles were found on condom programming or voluntary male medical circumcision. The most common outcome measures reported were CD4+ count, clinical failure or mortality. The population analysed was children in 13 articles, women in 16 articles, and both adult men and women in 33 articles.Conclusion: During the 10 year period of review, only 62 articles were published analysing routinely collected HIV data in Zambia. Serious consideration needs to be made to maximise the utility of routinely collected data, and to benefit from the funds and efforts to collect these data. This could be achieved with government support of operational research and publication of findings based on routinely collected Zambian HIV data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Operations research (OR) is a discipline that uses advanced analytical methods (e.g. simulation, optimisation, decision analysis) to better understand complex systems and aid in decision-making. Herein, we present a scoping review of the use of OR to analyse issues in global health, with an emphasis on health equity and research impact. A systematic search of five databases was designed to identify relevant published literature. A global overview of 1099 studies highlights the geographic distribution of OR and common OR methods used. From this collection of literature, a narrative description of the use of OR across four main application areas of global health - health systems and operations, clinical medicine, public health and health innovation - is also presented. The theme of health equity is then explored in detail through a subset of 44 studies. Health equity is a critical element of global health that cuts across all four application areas, and is an issue particularly amenable to analysis through OR. Finally, we present seven select cases of OR analyses that have been implemented or have influenced decision-making in global health policy or practice. Based on these cases, we identify three key drivers for success in bridging the gap between OR and global health policy, namely international collaboration with stakeholders, use of contextually appropriate data, and varied communication outlets for research findings. Such cases, however, represent a very small proportion of the literature found.Conclusion: Poor availability of representative and quality data, and a lack of collaboration between those who develop OR models and stakeholders in the contexts where OR analyses are intended to serve, were found to be common challenges for effective OR modelling in global health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: During the last decades, sex and gender biases have been identified in various areas of biomedical and public health research, leading to compromised validity of research findings. As a response, methodological requirements were developed but these are rarely translated into research practice. The aim of this study is to provide good practice examples of sex/gender sensitive health research.Methods: We conducted a systematic search of research articles published in JECH between 2006 and 2014. An instrument was constructed to evaluate sex/gender sensitivity in four stages of the research process (background, study design, statistical analysis, discussion).Results: In total, 37 articles covering diverse topics were included. Thereof, 22 were evaluated as good practice example in at least one stage; two articles achieved highest ratings across all stages. Good examples of the background referred to available knowledge on sex/gender differences and sex/gender informed theoretical frameworks. Related to the study design, good examples calculated sample sizes to be able to detect sex/gender differences, selected sex/gender sensitive outcome/exposure indicators, or chose different cut-off values for male and female participants. Good examples of statistical analyses used interaction terms with sex/gender or different shapes of the estimated relationship for men and women. Examples of good discussions interpreted their findings related to social and biological explanatory models or questioned the statistical methods used to detect sex/gender differences.Conclusions: The identified good practice examples may inspire researchers to critically reflect on the relevance of sex/gender issues of their studies and help them to translate methodological recommendations of sex/gender sensitivity into research practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Success with highly active antiretroviral therapy (ART) for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in developing countries has been attributed to collaborative North–South resource-sharing and capacity-building. Academic research and training programmes have contributed towards policy entrepreneurship in a manner that influenced capacity-building within health systems. However, the documented capacity-building frameworks rarely elucidate how such programmes can be designed and implemented efficiently and sustainably. Method: We implemented the University of Zimbabwe (UZ)–State University of New York at Buffalo (UB) collaborative HIV clinical pharmacology capacity-building programme in Zimbabwe in 1998. We intuitively operationalized the programme around a mnemonic acronym, "RSTUVW", which spells out a supportive framework consisting of "room (space), skills, tools (equipment)", underpinned by a set of core values, "understanding, voice (clout) and will". Subsequent to our two decades of successful collaborative experience, we tested the general validity and applicability of the framework within a prospective programme aimed at expanding the role of health professionals. Results and conclusion: Based on this collaborative North–South research and training capacity-building programme which has been positively validated in Zimbabwe, we propose this novel mnemonic acronym-based framework as an extra tool to guide sustainable capacity-building through collaborative North–South implementation research. Its extended use could also include assessment and evaluation of health systems within resource-constrained settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research capacity-strengthening is recognized as an important component of global health partnership working, and as such merits monitoring and evaluation. Early career researchers are often the recipients of research capacity-strengthening programmes, but there is limited literature regarding their experience. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study as part of an internal evaluation of the capacity-strengthening programme of the international HERA (HEalthcare Responding to violence and Abuse) research group. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with group members, and thematic analysis was undertaken. Results: Eighteen group members participated; nine of these were early career researchers, and nine were other research team members, including mid-career and senior researchers. Key themes were identified which related to their engagement with and experience of a research capacity-strengthening programme. We explored formal/planned elements of our programme: mentoring and supervision; training and other opportunities; funding and resources. Participants also discussed informal/unplanned elements which acted as important facilitators and/or barriers to engaging with research capacity-strengthening: English language; open relationships and communication; connection and disconnection; and diversity. The sustainability of the programme was also discussed. Conclusions: Our study gives voice to the early career researcher experience of engaging with a research capacity-strengthening programme in a global health group. We highlight some important elements that have informed adaptations to our programme and may be relevant for consideration by other global health research capacity-strengthening programmes. Our findings contribute to the growing literature and important discussions around research capacity-strengthening and how this relates to the future directions of global health partnership working. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Complex systems approaches are increasingly used in health promotion and noncommunicable disease prevention research, policy and practice. Questions emerge as to the best ways to take a complex systems approach, specifically with respect to population physical activity (PA). Using an Attributes Model is one way to understand complex systems. We aimed to examine the types of complex systems methods used in current PA research and identify what methods align with a whole system approach as reflected by an Attributes Model. Methods: A scoping review was conducted and two databases were searched. Twenty-five articles were selected and data analysis was based upon the following: the complex systems research methods used, research aims, if participatory methods were used and evidence of discussion regarding attributes of systems. Results: There were three groups of methods used: system mapping, simulation modelling and network analysis. System mapping methods appeared to align best with a whole system approach to PA promotion because they largely aimed to understand complex systems, examined interactions and feedback among variables, and used participatory methods. Most of these articles focused on PA (as opposed to integrated studies). Simulation modelling methods were largely focused on examining complex problems and identifying interventions. These methods did not generally focus on PA or use participatory methods. While network analysis articles focused on examining complex systems and identifying interventions, they did not focus on PA nor use participatory methods. All attributes were discussed in some way in the articles. Attributes were explicitly reported on in terms of findings or were part of discussion and conclusion sections. System mapping methods appear to be well aligned with a whole system approach because these methods addressed all attributes in some way. We did not find this pattern with other methods. Conclusions: Future research using complex systems methods may benefit from applying the Attributes Model in conjunction with system mapping methods. Simulation modelling and network analysis methods are seen as complementary and could be used when system mapping methods identify priorities for further investigation (e.g. what interventions to implement or how densely connected relationships are in systems). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Accurate, consistent assessment of outcomes and impacts is challenging in the health research partnerships domain. Increased focus on tool quality, including conceptual, psychometric and pragmatic characteristics, could improve the quantification, measurement and reporting partnership outcomes and impacts. This cascading review was undertaken as part of a coordinated, multicentre effort to identify, synthesize and assess a vast body of health research partnership literature. Objective: To systematically assess the outcomes and impacts of health research partnerships, relevant terminology and the type/use of theories, models and frameworks (TMF) arising from studies using partnership assessment tools with known conceptual, psychometric and pragmatic characteristics. Methods: Four electronic databases were searched (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus and PsycINFO) from inception to 2 June 2021. We retained studies containing partnership evaluation tools with (1) conceptual foundations (reference to TMF), (2) empirical, quantitative psychometric evidence (evidence of validity and reliability, at minimum) and (3) one or more pragmatic characteristics. Outcomes, impacts, terminology, definitions and TMF type/use were abstracted verbatim from eligible studies using a hybrid (independent abstraction–validation) approach and synthesized using summary statistics (quantitative), inductive thematic analysis and deductive categories (qualitative). Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs (QATSDD). Results: Application of inclusion criteria yielded 37 eligible studies. Study quality scores were high (mean 80%, standard deviation 0.11%) but revealed needed improvements (i.e. methodological, reporting, user involvement in research design). Only 14 (38%) studies reported 48 partnership outcomes and 55 impacts; most were positive effects (43, 90% and 47, 89%, respectively). Most outcomes were positive personal, functional, structural and contextual effects; most impacts were personal, functional and contextual in nature. Most terms described outcomes (39, 89%), and 30 of 44 outcomes/impacts terms were unique, but few were explicitly defined (9, 20%). Terms were complex and mixed on one or more dimensions (e.g. type, temporality, stage, perspective). Most studies made explicit use of study-related TMF (34, 92%). There were 138 unique TMF sources, and these informed tool construct type/choice and hypothesis testing in almost all cases (36, 97%). Conclusion: This study synthesized partnership outcomes and impacts, deconstructed term complexities and evolved our understanding of TMF use in tool development, testing and refinement studies. Renewed attention to basic concepts is necessary to advance partnership measurement and research innovation in the field. Systematic review protocol registration: PROSPERO protocol registration: CRD42021137932 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=137932. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To guide efficient investment of limited health resources in sub-Saharan Africa, local researchers need to be involved in, and guide, health system and policy research. While extensive survey and census data are available to health researchers and program officers in resource-limited countries, local involvement and leadership in research is limited due to inadequate experience, lack of dedicated research time and weak interagency connections, among other challenges. Many research-strengthening initiatives host prolonged fellowships out-of-country, yet their approaches have not been evaluated for effectiveness in involvement and development of local leadership in research. Methods: We developed, implemented and evaluated a multi-month, deliverable-driven, survey analysis training based in Rwanda to strengthen skills of five local research leaders, 15 statisticians, and a PhD candidate. Research leaders applied with a specific research question relevant to country challenges and committed to leading an analysis to publication. Statisticians with prerequisite statistical training and experience with a statistical software applied to participate in class-based trainings and complete an assigned analysis. Both statisticians and research leaders were provided ongoing in-country mentoring for analysis and manuscript writing. Results: Participants reported a high level of skill, knowledge and collaborator development from class-based trainings and out-of-class mentorship that were sustained 1 year later. Five of six manuscripts were authored by multi-institution teams and submitted to international peer-reviewed scientific journals, and three-quarters of the participants mentored others in survey data analysis or conducted an additional survey analysis in the year following the training. Conclusions: Our model was effective in utilizing existing survey data and strengthening skills among full-time working professionals without disrupting ongoing work commitments and using few resources. Critical to our success were a transparent, robust application process and time limited training supplemented by ongoing, in-country mentoring toward manuscript deliverables that were led by Rwanda's health research leaders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]