Search

Background: At the turn of the 90s, studies showed that health research contributed little to health and development in low- and middle-income countries because it was oriented towards international priorities and dominated by researchers from the North. A new approach to North-South collaboration was required that would support demand-driven and locally led research in the South. The aim of this study was to analyse the development and functioning of a programme for demand-driven and locally led research in Ghana that was supported by a North-South collaboration.Methods: For this mixed-method case study, we combined document analysis, key informant interviews and observation of programme events.Results: The development of the research programme started with constructing a sponsorship constellation in the Netherlands. After highlighting the problems with traditional research collaboration, an advisory council formulated a vision for a more equal and effective approach to North-South collaboration. Together with Ghanaian partners, this vision was turned into a proposal for a Ghanaian-led programme for demand-driven and locally led research, which was funded by the Netherlands government. Research priority setting showed that the Ghanaian research needs were very different from the priorities of foreign funders and researchers. After a slow start, the number of locally submitted proposals increased from 13 in 2001 to 94 in 2005, revealing the existence of a substantial, but partly latent reservoir of research capacity. In total, 79 studies were funded. An impact evaluation showed that the results of the majority of the studies were used to contribute to action. Despite its success, the research programme came to an end in 2008 after the sponsorship constellation in the Netherlands fell apart.Conclusion: Our study shows that realising a programme for demand-driven and locally led research in the South provides an effective approach to North-South collaboration in which results are used and local capacities and institutions are strengthened. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Facilitating and enhancing interaction between stakeholders involved in the policymaking process to stimulate collaboration and use of evidence, is important to foster the development of effective Health Enhancing Physical Activity (HEPA) policies. Performing an analysis of real-world policymaking processes will help reveal the complexity of a network of stakeholders. Therefore, the main objectives were to unravel the stakeholder network in the policy process by conducting three systems analyses, and to increase insight into the similarities and differences in the policy processes of these European country cases.Methods: A systems analysis of the local HEPA policymaking process was performed in three European countries involved in the 'REsearch into POlicy to enhance Physical Activity' (REPOPA) project, resulting in three schematic models showing the main stakeholders and their relationships. The models were used to compare the systems, focusing on implications with respect to collaboration and use of evidence in local HEPA policymaking. Policy documents and relevant webpages were examined and main stakeholders were interviewed.Results: The systems analysis in each country identified the main stakeholders involved and their position and relations in the policymaking process. The Netherlands and Denmark were the most similar and both differed most from Romania, especially at the level of accountability of the local public authorities for local HEPA policymaking. The categories of driving forces underlying the relations between stakeholders were formal relations, informal interaction and knowledge exchange.Conclusions: A systems analysis providing detailed descriptions of positions and relations in the stakeholder network in local level HEPA policymaking is rather unique in this area. The analyses are useful when a need arises for increased interaction, collaboration and use of knowledge between stakeholders in the local HEPA network, as they provide an overview of the stakeholders involved and their mutual relations. This information can be an important starting point to enhance the uptake of evidence and build more effective public health policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Increased health research capacity is needed in low- and middle-income countries to respond to local health challenges. Technology-aided teaching approaches, such as blended learning (BL), can stimulate international education collaborations and connect skilled scientists who can jointly contribute to the efforts to address local shortages of high-level research capacity. The African Regional Capacity Development for Health Systems and Services Research (ARCADE HSSR) was a European Union-funded project implemented from 2011 to 2015. The project consortium partners worked together to expand access to research training and to build the research capacity of post-graduate students. This paper presents a case study of the first course in the project, which focused on a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies and was delivered in 2013 through collaboration by universities in Uganda, Sweden and South Africa.Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods case study involving student course evaluations, participant observation, interviews with teaching faculty and student feedback collected through group discussion. Quantitative data were analysed using frequencies, and qualitative data using thematic analysis.Results: A traditional face-to-face course was adapted for BL using a mixture of online resources and materials, synchronous online interaction between students and teachers across different countries complemented by face-to-face meetings, and in-class interaction between students and tutors. Synchronous online discussions led by Makerere University were the central learning technique in the course. The learners appreciated the BL design and reported that they were highly motivated and actively engaged throughout the course. The teams implementing the course were small, with individual faculty members and staff members carrying out many extra responsibilities; yet, some necessary competencies for course design were not available.Conclusions: BL is a feasible approach to simultaneously draw globally available skills into cross-national, high-level skills training in multiple countries. This method can overcome access barriers to research methods courses and can offer engaging formats and personalised learning experiences. BL enables teaching and learning from experts and peers across the globe with minimal disruption to students' daily schedules. Transforming a face-to-face course into a blended course that fulfils its full potential requires concerted effort and dedicated technological and pedagogical support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research capacity building and its impact on policy and international research partnership is increasingly seen as important. High income and low- and middle-income countries frequently engage in research collaborations. These can have a positive impact on research capacity building, provided such partnerships are long-term collaborations with a unified aim, but they can also have challenges. What are these challenges, which often result in a short term/ non viable collaboration? Does such collaboration results in capacity building? What are the requirements to make any collaboration sustainable? This study aimed to answer these and other research questions through examining an international collaboration in one multi-country research capacity building project ARCADE RSDH (Asian Regional Capacity Development for Research on Social Determinants of Health).Method: A qualitative study was conducted that focused on the reasons for the collaboration, collaboration patterns involved, processes of exchanging information, barriers faced and perceived growth in research capacity. In-depth interviews were conducted with the principal investigators (n = 12), research assistants (n = 2) and a scientific coordinator (n = 1) of the collaborating institutes. Data were analysed using thematic framework analysis.Results: The initial contact between institutes was through previous collaborations. The collaboration was affected by the organisational structure of the partner institutes, political influences and the collaboration design. Communication was usually conducted online, which was affected by differences in time and language and inefficient infrastructure. Limited funding resulted in restricted engagement by some partners.Conclusion: This study explored work in a large, North-South collaboration project focusing on building research capacity in partner institutes. The project helped strengthen research capacity, though differences in organization types, existing research capacity, culture, time, and language acted as obstacles to the success of the project. Managing these differences requires preplanned strategies to develop functional communication channels among the partners, maintaining transparency, and sharing the rewards and benefits at all stages of collaboration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To allow research organisations to co-ordinate activity to the benefit of national and international funding strategies requires assessment of the funding landscape; this, in turn, relies on a consistent approach for comparing expenditure on research. Here, we discuss the impact and benefits of the United Kingdom's Health Research Classification System (HRCS) in national landscaping analysis of health research and the pros and cons of performing large-scale funding analyses.Methods: The first United Kingdom health research analysis (2004/2005) brought together the 11 largest public and charity funders of health research to develop the HRCS and use this categorisation to examine United Kingdom health research. The analysis was revisited in 2009/2010 and again in 2014. The most recent quinquennial analysis in 2014 compiled data from 64 United Kingdom research organisations, accounting for 91% of all public/charitable health research funding in the United Kingdom. The three analyses summarise the United Kingdom's health research expenditure in 2004/2005, 2009/2010 and 2014, and can be used to identify changes in research activity and disease focus over this 10 year period.Results: The 2004/2005 analysis provided a baseline for future reporting and evidence for a United Kingdom Government review that recommended the co-ordination of United Kingdom health research should be strengthened to accelerate the translation of basic research into clinical and economic benefits. Through the second and third analyses, we observed strategic prioritisation of certain health research activities and disease areas, with a strong trend toward increased funding for more translational research, and increases in specific areas such as research on prevention.Conclusions: The use of HRCS in the United Kingdom to analyse the research landscape has provided benefit both to individual participatory funders and in coordinating initiatives at a national level. A modest amount of data for each project is sufficient for a nationwide assessment of health research funding, but achieving coverage of the United Kingdom portfolio relies on sourcing these details from a large number of individual funding agencies. The effort needed to compile this data could be minimised if funders routinely shared or published this information in a standard and accessible way. The United Kingdom approach to landscaping analyses could be readily adapted to suit other groups or nations, and global availability of research funding data would support better national and international coordination of 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]

Road traffic crashes have been an increasing threat to the wellbeing of road users worldwide; an unacceptably high number of people die or become disabled from them. While high-income countries have successfully implemented effective interventions to help reduce the burden of road traffic injuries (RTIs) in their countries, low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have not yet achieved similar results. Both scientific research and capacity development have proven to be useful for preventing RTIs in high-income countries. In 1999, a group of leading researchers from different countries decided to join efforts to help promote research on RTIs and develop the capacity of professionals from LMICs. This translated into the creation of the Road Traffic Injuries Research Network (RTIRN) - a partnership of over 1,100 road safety professionals from 114 countries collaborating to facilitate reductions in the burden of RTIs in LMICs by identifying and promoting effective, evidenced-based interventions and supporting research capacity building in road safety research in LMICs. This article presents the work that RTIRN has done over more than a decade, including production of a dozen scientific papers, support of nearly 100 researchers, training of nearly 1,000 people and 35 scholarships granted to researchers from LMICs to attend world conferences, as well as lessons learnt and future challenges to maximize its work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Network partnerships between public health and third sector organisations are being used to address the complexities of population level social determinants of health and health equity. An understanding of how these networks use research and knowledge is crucial to effective network design and outcome evaluation. There is, however, a gap in the literature regarding how public health networks use research and knowledge. The purpose of this paper is to report on the qualitative findings from a larger study that explored (1) the experiences of public health networks with using research and knowledge, and (2) the perceived benefits of using research and knowledge.Methods: A multiple case study approach framed this study. Focus group data were collected from participants through a purposive sample of four public health networks. Data were analyzed using Framework Analysis and Nvivo software supported data management. Each network had the opportunity to participate in data interpretation.Results: All networks used published research studies and other types of knowledge to accomplish their work, although in each network research and knowledge played different but complementary roles. Neither research nor other types of knowledge were privileged, and an approach that blended varied knowledge types was typically used. Network experiences with research and knowledge produced individual and collective benefits. A novel finding was that research and knowledge were both important in shaping network function.Conclusions: This study shifts the focus in the current literature from public health departments to the community setting where public health collaborates with a broader spectrum of actors to ameliorate health inequities. Both formal research and informal knowledge were found to be important for collaborative public health networks. Examining the benefits of research and knowledge use within public health networks may help us to better understand the relationships among process (the collaborative use of research and knowledge), structure (networks) and outcomes (benefits). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research performance assessments have proliferated, but research indicators for use amongst clinicians in poorly resourced countries have been ill-defined. The aims of the present paper were to determine a set of indicators as determined by clinician participants from the Pacific Islands and a panel of research experts for use in the performance assessment of clinicians.Methods: Two focus group discussions, one for nurses and one for doctors, were used to obtain the views of 28 Pacific Island clinicians of the BRRACAP Study about what the research indicators should be. A modified Delphi survey was used to obtain a consensus amongst 19 research experts, with Pacific Island research experience, as to what the indicators should be and then to rank these in terms of importance. A survey of the participants obtained data on the research tasks/actions performed 20 months after the initial research workshop. A resultant tool comprising of 21 indicators was used to assess the performance of 18 Pacific participants.Results: The Pacific Island clinicians determined that research was important and that performance should be measured. They identified research indicators that could be used in their settings and ranked their importance using a points system. The panel of experts identified implementation of research findings, collaborations and actual change in practice as more important, with bibliometric measurements low down in the scale. Although only 64% of the 28 BRRACAP Study participants returned the questionnaire, 39% of those performed more than half of the 21 indicators used. Of the 18 Pacific clinicians assessed, 7 (39%) performed 10 or more tasks.Conclusions: A research performance assessment tool was developed using process and output indicators identified by Pacific clinicians and a panel of research experts. The tool, which placed emphasis on process and outputs that were not bibliometric based, proved useful in assessing the performance of Pacific clinicians working in a low-resource setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It is desirable that health researchers have the ability to conduct research on health equity and contribute to the development of their national health system and policymaking processes. However, in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), there is a limited capacity to conduct this type of research due to reasons mostly associated with the status of national (health) research systems. Building sustainable research capacity in LMICs through the triangulation of South-North-South (S-N-S) collaborative networks seems to be an effective way to maximize limited national resources to strengthen these capacities. This article describes how a collaborative project (SDH-Net), funded by the European Commission, has successfully designed a study protocol and a S-N-S collaborative network to effectively support research capacity building in LMICs, specifically in the area of social determinants of health (SDH); this project seeks to elaborate on the vital role of global collaborative networks in strengthening this practice.Methods: The implementation of SDH-Net comprised diverse activities developed in three phases. Phase 1: national level mapping exercises were conducted to assess the needs for SDH capacity building or strengthening in local research systems. Four strategic areas were defined, namely research implementation and system performance, social appropriation of knowledge, institutional and national research infrastructure, and research skills and training/networks. Phase 2: development of tools to address the identified capacity building needs, as well as knowledge management and network strengthening activities. Phase 3: identifying lessons learned in terms of research ethics, and how policies can support the capacity building process in SDH research.Results: The implementation of the protocol has led the network to design innovative tools for strengthening SDH research capacities, under a successful S-N-S collaboration that included national mapping reports, a global open-access learning platform with tools and resources, ethical guidelines for research, policy recommendations, and academic contributions to the global SDH discourse.Conclusions: The effective triangulation of S-N-S partnerships can be of high value in building sustainable research capacity in LMICs. If designed appropriately, these multicultural, multi-institutional, and multidisciplinary collaborations can enable southern and northern academics to contextualize global research according to their national realities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is an increasing interest worldwide to ensure evidence-informed health policymaking as a means to improve health systems performance. There is a need to engage policymakers in collaborative approaches to generate and use knowledge in real world settings. To address this gap, we implemented two interventions based on iterative exchanges between researchers and policymakers/implementers. This article aims to reflect on the implementation and impact of these multi-site evidence-to-policy approaches implemented in low-resource settings.Methods: The first approach was implemented in Mexico and Nicaragua and focused on implementation research facilitated by communities of practice (CoP) among maternal health stakeholders. We conducted a process evaluation of the CoPs and assessed the professionals' abilities to acquire, analyse, adapt and apply research. The second approach, called the Policy BUilding Demand for evidence in Decision making through Interaction and Enhancing Skills (Policy BUDDIES), was implemented in South Africa and Cameroon. The intervention put forth a 'buddying' process to enhance demand and use of systematic reviews by sub-national policymakers. The Policy BUDDIES initiative was assessed using a mixed-methods realist evaluation design.Results: In Mexico, the implementation research supported by CoPs triggered monitoring by local health organizations of the quality of maternal healthcare programs. Health programme personnel involved in CoPs in Mexico and Nicaragua reported improved capacities to identify and use evidence in solving implementation problems. In South Africa, Policy BUDDIES informed a policy framework for medication adherence for chronic diseases, including both HIV and non-communicable diseases. Policymakers engaged in the buddying process reported an enhanced recognition of the value of research, and greater demand for policy-relevant knowledge.Conclusions: The collaborative evidence-to-policy approaches underline the importance of iterations and continuity in the engagement of researchers and policymakers/programme managers, in order to account for swift evolutions in health policy planning and implementation. In developing and supporting evidence-to-policy interventions, due consideration should be given to fit-for-purpose approaches, as different needs in policymaking cycles require adapted processes and knowledge. Greater consideration should be provided to approaches embedding the use of research in real-world policymaking, better suited to the complex adaptive nature of health systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]