Capacity building for implementation research: a methodology for advancing health research and practice

Phyllis Dako-Gyeke,Mercy Ackumey,Edwin Afari,Samuel Dery,Justice Nonvignon,Moses Aikins,Emmanuel Asampong,Patricia Akweongo,Pascal Launois,Kwabena Opoku-Mensah

doi:10.1186/s12961-020-00568-y

Phyllis Dako-Gyeke, Mercy Ackumey + Show 8 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-00568-y

Copy DOI

Abstract

BackgroundImplementation 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsFrom 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.ConclusionThe 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.

Highlights

IntroductionThere are several capacity-building initiatives focusing either on mentorship, the development of key competencies and reporting guidelines, or on training on ethical issues [1,2,3,4,5,6]
Introduction to Implementation research (IR)Methods in IREthics and Quality Management in IRStakeholder and Community Engagement in IRDissemination and Scale-Up in IRDescription Unit 1: Concepts in IR Scope of IR and its relevance Unit 2: Needs assessment for IR ▪ IR problem and strategy identification ▪ Theories and frameworks in IR Unit 1: Formulating IR problems, questions and objectives Unit 2: Common research approaches in IR ▪ Quantitative methods ▪ Qualitative methods ▪ Mixed methods Unit 1: Ethics in IR Key ethical principles in public health Ethical issues in IR Unit 2: Quality management IR Quality assurance Quality management, etc
Identified processes used in developing an implementation research (IR) training module for low- and middle-income countries using a multi-disciplinary team

Summary

Introduction

There are several capacity-building initiatives focusing either on mentorship, the development of key competencies and reporting guidelines, or on training on ethical issues [1,2,3,4,5,6] These attempts are noteworthy, several have been developed for high-income settings, with very limited attention to the contextual and health system peculiarities in lowand middle-income (LMICs) countries [7]. Many areas of science (e.g. basic research) do not require engagement from stakeholders, IR necessarily calls for engagement with practitioners [9] This attempt is to enhance practitioner readiness and to maximise the likelihood that research informs practice and for the needs of practitioners related to required evidence, available resources and means for sustainability to be taken into consideration [9].

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion