Search

High-quality, use-oriented, and well-communicated research can improve social outcomes in low- and middle-income countries and, by doing so, accelerate development progress. We provide a meta-analysis of research supported by Canada's International Development Research Centre. We use a large and unique data set that comprises 170 research studies undertaken over the period 2010-2015. The research examined spans multiple disciplines of the social and natural sciences and was conducted across the globe, with the majority in Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Middle East. The evaluative framework we use--"Research Quality Plus", "RQ+"--incorporates argumentation espoused in the "Leiden Manifesto." As such, this article presents a case study of doing research evaluation differently and what the results can look like for research policymakers. Our analysis suggests that contrary to conventional wisdom, there is no clear trade-off between the rigor and the utility of research and that research capacity-strengthening effort is positively correlated with the scientific merit of a project. We conclude that those located closest to a development challenge are generally those best positioned to innovate a solution. The results present novel evidence for those supporting, using, and doing research for development.

Background: Scaling in health and social services (HSS) aims to increase the intended impact of proven effective interventions. Patient and public involvement (PPI) is critical for ensuring that scaling beneficiaries' interests are served. We aimed to identify PPI strategies and their characteristics in the science and practice of scaling in HSS. Methods: In this scoping review, we included any scaling initiative in HSS that used PPI strategies and reported PPI methods and outcomes. We searched electronic databases (e.g., Medline) from inception to 5 February 2024, and grey literature (e.g., Google). Paired reviewers independently selected and extracted eligible reports. A narrative synthesis was performed and we used the PRISMA for Scoping Reviews and the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2). Findings: We included 110 unique reports out of 24,579 records. In the past 5 years, the evidence on PPI in scaling has increased faster than in any previous period. We found 236 mutually nonexclusive PPI strategies among 120 scaling initiatives. Twenty‐four initiatives did not target a specific country; but most of those that did so (n = 96) occurred in higher‐income countries (n = 51). Community‐based primary health care was the most frequent level of care (n = 103). Mostly, patients and the public were involved throughout all scaling phases (n = 46) and throughout the continuum of collaboration (n = 45); the most frequently reported ethical lens regarding the rationale for PPI was consequentialist‐utilitarian (n = 96). Few papers reported PPI recruitment processes (n = 31) or incentives used (n = 18). PPI strategies occurred mostly in direct care (n = 88). Patient and public education was the PPI strategy most reported (n = 31), followed by population consultations (n = 30). Conclusions: PPI in scaling is increasing in HSS. Further investigation is needed to better document the PPI experience in scaling and ensure that it occurs in a meaningful and equitable way. Patient and Public Contribution: Two patients were involved in this review. They shared decisions on review questions, data collection instruments, protocol design, and findings dissemination. Review Registration: Open Science Framework on 19 August 2020 (https://osf.io/zqpx7/). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) has defined knowledge translation (KT) as a dynamic and iterative process that includes the synthesis, dissemination, exchange, and ethically-sound application of knowledge to improve the health of Canadians, provide more effective health services and products, and strengthen the healthcare system. CIHR, the national health research funding agency in Canada, has undertaken to advance this concept through direct research funding opportunities in KT. Because CIHR is recognized within Canada and internationally for leading and funding the advancement of KT science and practice, it is essential and timely to evaluate this intervention, and specifically, these funding opportunities. Design The study will employ a novel method of participatory, utilization-focused evaluation inspired by the principles of integrated KT. It will use a mixed methods approach, drawing on both quantitative and qualitative data, and will elicit participation from CIHR funded researchers, knowledge users, KT experts, as well as other health research funding agencies. Lines of inquiry will include an international environmental scan, document/data reviews, in-depth interviews, targeted surveys, case studies, and an expert review panel. The study will investigate how efficiently and effectively the CIHR model of KT funding programs operates, what immediate outcomes these funding mechanisms have produced, and what impact these programs have had on the broader state of health research, health research uptake, and health improvement. Discussion The protocol and results of this evaluation will be of interest to those engaged in the theory, practice, and evaluation of KT. The dissemination of the study protocol and results to both practitioners and theorists will help to fill a gap in knowledge in three areas: the role of a public research funding agency in facilitating KT, the outcomes and impacts KT funding interventions, and how KT can best be evaluated.

High-quality, use-oriented, and well-communicated research can improve social outcomes in low- and middle-income countries and, by doing so, accelerate development progress. We provide a meta-analysis of research supported by Canada's International Development Research Centre. We use a large and unique data set that comprises 170 research studies undertaken over the period 2010–2015. The research examined spans multiple disciplines of the social and natural sciences and was conducted across the globe, with the majority in Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Middle East. The evaluative framework we use— Research Quality Plus, RQ+ —incorporates argumentation espoused in the Leiden Manifesto. As such, this article presents a case study of doing research evaluation differently and what the results can look like for research policymakers. Our analysis suggests that contrary to conventional wisdom, there is no clear trade-off between the rigor and the utility of research and that research capacity-strengthening effort is positively correlated with the scientific merit of a project. We conclude that those located closest to a development challenge are generally those best positioned to innovate a solution. The results present novel evidence for those supporting, using, and doing research for development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation is the property of University of Toronto Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)