Search

Background: The Consortium for Advanced Research Training in Africa (CARTA) aims to transform higher education in Africa. One of its main thrusts is supporting promising university faculty (fellows) to obtain high quality doctoral training. CARTA offers fellows robust support which includes funding of their attendance at Joint Advanced Seminars (JASes) throughout the doctoral training period. An evaluation is critical in improving program outcomes. In this study; we, CARTA fellows who attended the fourth JAS in 2018, appraised the CARTA program from our perspective, specifically focusing on the organization of the program and its influence on the fellows' individual and institutional development., Methods: Exploratory Qualitative Study Design was used and data was obtained from three focus group discussions among the fellows in March 2018. The data were analyzed using thematic approach within the framework of good practice elements in doctoral training-Formal Research Training, Activities Driven by Doctoral Candidates, Career Development as well as Concepts and Structures., Results: In all, 21 fellows from six African countries participated and all had been in the CARTA program for at least three years. The fellowship has increased fellows research skills and expanded our research capacities. This tremendously improved the quality of our doctoral research and it was also evident in our research outputs, including the number of peer-reviewed publications. The CARTA experience inculcated a multidisciplinary approach to our research and enabled significant improvement in our organizational, teaching, and leadership skills. All these were achieved through the well-organized structures of CARTA and these have transformed us to change agents who are already taking on research and administrative responsibilities in our various home institutions. Unfortunately, during the long break between the second and the third JAS, there was a gap in communication between CARTA and her fellows, which resulted in some transient loss of focus by a few fellows., Conclusion: The CARTA model which builds the research capacity of doctoral fellows through robust support, including intermittent strategic Joint Advanced Seminars has had effective and transformative impacts on our doctoral odyssey. However, there is a need to maintain the momentum through continuous communication between CARTA and the fellows all through this journey., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: All authors are fellows of the Consortium for Advanced Training in Africa (CARTA) and their doctoral studies were supported by CARTA. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Background: In 2011, South Africa committed to promoting exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) for six months for all mothers, regardless of HIV status, in line with World Health Organization recommendations. This was a marked shift from earlier policies, and with it, average EBF rates increased from less than 10% in 2011 to 32% by 2016., Objectives: The aim of this mixed-methods systematic review was to describe EBF practices in South Africa and their multi-level influences over four policy periods., Methods: We applied PRISMA guidelines according to a published protocol (Prospero: CRD42014010512). We searched seven databases [Africa-Wide, PubMed, Popline, PsychINFO, CINAHL, Global Health, and The Cochrane Library] and conducted hand searches for eligible articles (all study designs, conducted in South Africa and published between 1980-2018). The quality of articles was assessed using published tools, as appropriate. Separate policy analysis was conducted to delineate four distinct policy periods. We compared EBF rates by these periods. Then, applying a three-level ecological framework, we analysed EBF influences concurrently by method. Finally, the findings were synthesized to compare breastfeeding influences by policy period, maintaining an ecological framework., Results: From an initial sample of 20,226 articles, 72 unique articles were reviewed, three of which contributed to both quantitative and qualitative analysis. Despite the large sample, several provinces were poorly represented (if at all) and many studies were assessed as low to moderate quality. Despite these limitations, our historical lens enabled us to explore why South African progress on increasing EBF practices has been slow. The review reflects a context that increasingly supports EBF, but falls short in accounting for family, community, and workplace influences. The findings also highlight the unintended damage caused by rapidly adopting and introducing global guidelines to an unsupported health workforce., Conclusions: From a South African perspective, we identified geographic and methodological biases, as well as gaps in our understanding and potential explanations of inequities in EBF. Our recommendations relate to policy, programming, and research to inform changes that would be required to further improve EBF practice rates in South Africa. While our review is South Africa-specific, our findings have broader implications for investing in multi-level interventions and limiting how often infant feeding guidelines are changed., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.