Search

Objectives: Research is key to achieving global development goals. Our objectives were to develop and test an evidence-informed process for assessing health research management and support systems (RMSS) in four African universities and for tracking interventions to address capacity gaps., Setting: Four African universities., Participants: 83 university staff and students from 11 cadres., Intervention/methods: A literature-informed 'benchmark' was developed and used to itemise all components of a university's health RMSS. Data on all components were collected during site visits to four African universities using interview guides, document reviews and facilities observation guides. Gaps in RMSS capacity were identified against the benchmark and institutional action plans developed to remedy gaps. Progress against indicators was tracked over 15 months and common challenges and successes identified., Results: Common gaps in operational health research capacity included no accessible research strategy, a lack of research e-tracking capability and inadequate quality checks for proposal submissions and contracts. Feedback indicated that the capacity assessment was comprehensive and generated practical actions, several of which were no-cost. Regular follow-up helped to maintain focus on activities to strengthen health research capacity in the face of challenges., Conclusions: Identification of each institutions' strengths and weaknesses against an evidence-informed benchmark enabled them to identify gaps in in their operational health research systems, to develop prioritised action plans, to justify resource requests to fulfil the plans and to track progress in strengthening RMSS. Use of a standard benchmark, approach and tools enabled comparisons across institutions which has accelerated production of evidence about the science of research capacity strengthening. The tools could be used by institutions seeking to understand their strengths and to address gaps in research capacity. Research capacity gaps that were common to several institutions could be a 'smart' investment for governments and health research funders., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Mentoring experiences and programmes are becoming increasingly recognised as important by those engaged in capacity strengthening in global health research. Using a primarily qualitative study design, we studied three experiences of mentorship and eight mentorship programmes for early career global health researchers based in high-income and low- and middle-income countries. For the latter, we drew upon programme materials, existing unpublished data and more formal mixed-method evaluations, supplemented by individual email questionnaire responses. Research team members wrote stories, and the team assembled and analysed them for key themes. Across the diverse experiences and programmes, key emergent themes included: great mentors inspire others in an inter-generational cascade, mentorship is transformative in personal and professional development and involves reciprocity, and finding the right balance in mentoring relationships and programmes includes responding creatively to failure. Among the challenges encountered were: struggling for more level playing fields for new health researchers globally, changing mindsets in institutions that do not have a culture of mentorship and building collaboration not competition. Mentoring networks spanning institutions and countries using multiple virtual and face-to-face methods are a potential avenue for fostering organisational cultures supporting quality mentorship in global health research.

Deliberative dialogue (DD) is a knowledge translation strategy that can serve to generate rich data and bridge health research with action. An intriguing alternative to other modes of generating data, the purposeful and evidence-informed conversations characteristic of DD generate data inclusive of collective interpretations. These data are thus dialogic, presenting complex challenges for qualitative analysis. In this article, we discuss the nature of data generated through DD, orienting ourselves toward a theoretically grounded approach to analysis. We offer an integrated framework for analysis, balancing analytical strategies of categorizing and connecting with the use of empathetic and suspicious interpretive lenses. In this framework, data generation and analysis occur in concert, alongside engaging participants and synthesizing evidence. An example of application is provided, demonstrating nuances of the framework. We conclude with reflections on the strengths and limitations of the framework, suggesting how it may be relevant in other qualitative health approaches., (© The Author(s) 2015.)

Strengthening research capacity in low- and middle-income countries is one of the most effective ways of advancing their health and development but the complexity and heterogeneity of health research capacity strengthening (RCS) initiatives means it is difficult to evaluate their effectiveness. Our study aimed to enhance understanding about these difficulties and to make recommendations about how to make health RCS evaluations more effective. Through discussions and surveys of health RCS funders, including the ESSENCE on Health Research initiative, we identified themes that were important to health RCS funders and used these to guide a systematic analysis of their evaluation reports. Eighteen reports, produced between 2000 and 2013, representing 12 evaluations, were purposefully selected from 54 reports provided by the funders to provide maximum variety. Text from the reports was extracted independently by two authors against a pre-designed framework. Information about the health RCS approaches, tensions and suggested solutions was re-constructed into a narrative. Throughout the process contacts in the health RCS funder agencies were involved in helping us to validate and interpret our results. The focus of the health RCS evaluations ranged from individuals and institutions to national, regional and global levels. Our analysis identified tensions around how much stakeholders should participate in an evaluation, the appropriate balance between measuring and learning and between a focus on short-term processes vs longer-term impact and sustainability. Suggested solutions to these tensions included early and ongoing stakeholder engagement in planning and evaluating health RCS, modelling of impact pathways and rapid assimilation of lessons learned for continuous improvement of decision making and programming. The use of developmental approaches could improve health RCS evaluations by addressing common tensions and promoting sustainability. Sharing learning about how to do robust and useful health RCS evaluations should happen alongside, not after, health RCS efforts., (Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine © The Author 2014; all rights reserved.)

Background: The monitoring and evaluation of health research capacity strengthening (health RCS) commonly involves documenting activities and outputs using indicators or metrics. We sought to catalogue the types of indicators being used to evaluate health RCS and to assess potential gaps in quality and coverage., Methods: We purposively selected twelve evaluations to maximize diversity in health RCS, funders, countries, and approaches to evaluation. We explored the quality of the indicators and extracted them into a matrix across individual, institutional, and national/regional/network levels, based on a matrix in the ESSENCE Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation framework. We synthesized across potential impact pathways (activities to outputs to outcomes) and iteratively checked our findings with key health RCS evaluation stakeholders., Results: Evaluations varied remarkably in the strengths of their evaluation designs. The validity of indicators and potential biases were documented in a minority of reports. Indicators were primarily of activities, outputs, or outcomes, with little on their inter-relationships. Individual level indicators tended to be more quantitative, comparable, and attentive to equity considerations. Institutional and national-international level indicators were extremely diverse. Although linkage of activities through outputs to outcomes within evaluations was limited, across the evaluations we were able to construct potential pathways of change and assemble corresponding indicators., Conclusions: Opportunities for improving health RCS evaluations include work on indicator measurement properties and development of indicators which better encompass relationships with knowledge users. Greater attention to evaluation design, prospective indicator measurement, and systematic linkage of indicators in keeping with theories of change could provide more robust evidence on outcomes of health RCS.

Background: Despite increasing investment in health research capacity strengthening efforts in low and middle income countries, published evidence to guide the systematic design and monitoring of such interventions is very limited. Systematic processes are important to underpin capacity strengthening interventions because they provide stepwise guidance and allow for continual improvement. Our objective here was to use evidence to inform the design of a replicable but flexible process to guide health research capacity strengthening that could be customized for different contexts, and to provide a framework for planning, collecting information, making decisions, and improving performance., Methods: We used peer-reviewed and grey literature to develop a five-step pathway for designing and evaluating health research capacity strengthening programmes, tested in a variety of contexts in Africa. The five steps are: i) defining the goal of the capacity strengthening effort, ii) describing the optimal capacity needed to achieve the goal, iii) determining the existing capacity gaps compared to the optimum, iv) devising an action plan to fill the gaps and associated indicators of change, and v) adapting the plan and indicators as the programme matures. Our paper describes three contrasting case studies of organisational research capacity strengthening to illustrate how our five-step approach works in practice., Results: Our five-step pathway starts with a clear goal and objectives, making explicit the capacity required to achieve the goal. Strategies for promoting sustainability are agreed with partners and incorporated from the outset. Our pathway for designing capacity strengthening programmes focuses not only on technical, managerial, and financial processes within organisations, but also on the individuals within organisations and the wider system within which organisations are coordinated, financed, and managed., Conclusions: Our five-step approach is flexible enough to generate and utilise ongoing learning. We have tested and critiqued our approach in a variety of organisational settings in the health sector in sub-Saharan Africa, but it needs to be applied and evaluated in other sectors and continents to determine the extent of transferability.

Background: Networks are increasingly regarded as essential in health research aimed at influencing practice and policies. Less research has focused on the role networking can play in researchers' careers and its broader impacts on capacity strengthening in health research. We used the Canadian Coalition for Global Health Research (CCGHR) annual Summer Institute for New Global Health Researchers (SIs) as an opportunity to explore networking among new global health researchers., Methods: A mixed-methods exploratory study was conducted among SI alumni and facilitators who had participated in at least one SI between 2004 and 2010. Alumni and facilitators completed an online short questionnaire, and a subset participated in an in-depth interview. Thematic analysis of the qualitative data was triangulated with quantitative results and CCGHR reports on SIs. Synthesis occurred through the development of a process model relevant to networking through the SIs., Results: Through networking at the SIs, participants experienced decreased isolation and strengthened working relationships. Participants accessed new knowledge, opportunities, and resources through networking during the SI. Post-SI, participants reported ongoing contact and collaboration, although most participants desired more opportunities for interaction. They made suggestions for structural supports to networking among new global health researchers., Conclusions: Networking at the SI contributed positively to opportunities for individuals, and contributed to the formation of a network of global health researchers. Intentional inclusion of networking in health research capacity strengthening initiatives, with supportive resources and infrastructure could create dynamic, sustainable networks accessible to global health researchers around the world.

In May 2010, Grand Challenges Canada (GCC) was launched with the mandate to identify global challenges in health that could be supported through the Government of Canada's Development Innovations Fund (DIF: $225 million over five years). The GCC offers a potentially excellent mechanism for taking Canada's participation in global health challenges "to a higher level". Recent GCC announcements raise new questions about the emphasis being placed on technological discovery or "catalytic" research. Missing so far are opportunities that the Fund could offer in order to support innovative research addressing i) health systems strengthening, ii) more effective delivery of existing interventions, and iii) policies and programs that address broader social determinants of health. The Canadian Grand Challenges announced to date risk pushing to the sidelines good translational and implementation science and early career-stage scientists addressing important social, environmental and political conditions that affect disease prevalence, progress and treatment; and the many unresolved challenges faced in bringing to scale proven interventions within resource-constrained health systems. We wish to register our concern at the apparent prioritization of biotechnical innovation research and the subordination of the social, environmental, economic and political context in which human health is either protected or eroded.

Transdisciplinary education on sustainability for health has been primarily developed in high-income countries, yet the need in countries with limited research and human resource investments remains urgent. Little empiric documentation of the facilitators and barriers to transdisciplinary learning in such countries has been described. We assessed transdisciplinary learning among students of different disciplines collaborating with an Ecuadorian sustainability for health research project. Six undergraduate students from four different disciplinary backgrounds were incorporated through work-study agreements with provincial university academic supervisors. Learning was fostered and monitored through participant observations by a field supervisor. Students' learning was evaluated through subsequent in-depth interviews and visualization methods. Academic supervisor key informant and co-investigator observations aided triangulation. Qualitative data were analyzed using indicators of transdisciplinary thinking. Principal factors facilitating transdisciplinary learning were interaction with social actors, the integration of work with other disciplines, the use of alternative research techniques and methods, and the constant support of the field supervisor. Inhibiting factors included the existence of rigid academic rules, lack of training of the academic supervisors in diverse research methods, and social pressures to implement unidisciplinary foci. At the end of their link with the project, students had developed both cognitive outcomes and attitudinal values relevant to sustainable development for health. In countries with limited investments in research and human resources development, transdisciplinary approaches with social actors and engaged researchers can sensitize new professionals training in traditional academic contexts to the ecological-social-health problems faced by poor majorities and encourage their subsequent work on sustainability for human health.