Effectiveness of capacity building interventions relevant to public health practice: a systematic review

Kara Decorby-Watson,Heather Manson,Samiya Abdi,Kim Bergeron,Gloria Mensah,Benjamin Rempel

doi:10.1186/s12889-018-5591-6

Abstract

BackgroundThis systematic review assessed the effectiveness of capacity building interventions relevant to public health practice. The aim is to inform and improve capacity building interventions.MethodsFour strategies were used: 1) electronic database searching; 2) reference lists of included papers; 3) key informant consultation; and 4) grey literature searching. Inclusion (e.g., published in English) and exclusion criteria (e.g., non-English language papers published earlier than 2005) are outlined with included papers focusing on capacity building, learning plans, or professional development plans within public health and related settings, such as non-governmental organizations, government, or community-based organizations relating to public health or healthcare. Outcomes of interest included changes in knowledge, skill or confidence (self-efficacy), changes in practice (application or intent), and perceived support or supportive environments, with outcomes reported at the individual, organizational or systems level(s). Quality assessment of all included papers was completed.ResultsFourteen papers were included in this review. These papers reported on six intervention types: 1) internet-based instruction, 2) training and workshops, 3) technical assistance, 4) education using self-directed learning, 5) communities of practice, and 6) multi-strategy interventions. The available literature showed improvements in one or more capacity-building outcomes of interest, mainly in terms of individual-level outcomes. The available literature was moderate in quality and showed a range of methodological issues.ConclusionsThere is evidence to inform capacity building programming and how interventions can be selected to optimize impact. Organizations should carefully consider methods for analysis of capacity building interventions offered; specifically, through which mechanisms, to whom, and for which purpose. Capacity-building interventions can enhance knowledge, skill, self-efficacy (including confidence), changes in practice or policies, behaviour change, application, and system-level capacity. However in applying available evidence, organizations should consider the outcomes of highest priority, selecting intervention(s) effective for the outcome(s) of interest. Examples are given for selecting intervention(s) to match priorities and context, knowing effectiveness evidence is only one consideration in decision making. Future evaluations should: extend beyond the individual level, assess outcomes at organizational and systems levels, include objective measures of effect, assess baseline conditions, and evaluate features most critical to the success of interventions.

Highlights

This systematic review assessed the effectiveness of capacity building interventions relevant to public health practice
Inclusion and exclusion criteria Articles and reports were included if they were published in English over the last 11 years, were about capacity building interventions such as learning plans, or professional development plans within public health or related settings, offered summary-level evidence, synthesis-level research or primary studies that included evaluations of capacity building interventions, and included outcome data related to effectiveness which could be organized and analyzed according to intervention type
Tools were selected for systematic review quality appraisal, quantitative studies, qualitative studies, and mixed methods designs

Summary

Introduction

This systematic review assessed the effectiveness of capacity building interventions relevant to public health practice. Fast-paced globalization of health challenges the capacity of the public health field to adopt evidence, and to adapt it locally to keep pace with public health events [1, 2]. Self assessments of public health competency by agency workers and their supervisors consistently show gaps between mastery and what is needed for effective practice [6]. These gaps are documented in areas corresponding to key competencies, including the use of evidence in decision making (e.g., economic evaluation, communicating with policymakers, evaluation designs, and adapting interventions) [7]

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion