Global Health Research Training Research Articles

Research Capacity Training on Environmental Health and Noncommunicable Diseases in the Country of Georgia: Challenges and Lessons Learned during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

COVID-19 presented challenges for global health research training programs. The Clean Air Research and Education (CARE) program, which aims to enhance research capacity related to noncommunicable diseases and environmental health in the country of Georgia, was launched in 2020—as the COVID-19 pandemic began. At its foundation is mentorship and mentored research, alongside formal didactic training, informal training/meetings, and other supports. Current analyses examined CARE’s initial 1.5 years (e.g., program benefits, mentorship relationships) using data from an evaluation survey among trainees and faculty in January 2022. Trainees (100% response rate: n = 12/12; 4 MPH, 8 PhD) and faculty (86.7% response rate: n = 13/15; 7 Georgia-based, 6 United States-based) rated factors related to mentor-mentee relationships highly, particularly mutual consideration of each other’s thoughts, opinions, and perspectives; one major challenge was completing goals planned. Trainees and faculty identified several growth experiences and program benefits (e.g., skills development, expanding professional network) but also identified challenges (e.g., meeting program demands, communication gaps, unclear expectations)—exacerbated by the pandemic. Findings underscore the importance of strong mentorship relationships and that the pandemic negatively impacted communication and clarity of expectations. Given the likely ongoing impact of the pandemic on such programs, program leaders must identify ways to address these challenges.

Comparing quantitative and qualitative verbal and social autopsy tools for under-5 deaths in Uganda: a cross-sectional study

BackgroundUnderstanding biological causes of death and sociocultural factors that influence survival outcomes is crucial to reducing mortality in low-resource settings. Verbal and Social Autopsy instruments (VASAs) query family members about events leading up to an individual's death, resulting in quantitative, categorical data. We aimed to determine the value of a supplemental in-depth interview (known as VASA-QUAL) that generated detailed qualitative data in understanding childhood deaths. MethodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted in Kawaala and Nakulabye in Kampala, Uganda between Feb 6 and March 7, 2020, using 20 village health team members to assist in the identification and recruitment of families within which a children younger than 5 years had died within the preceding 6 months. Family members were interviewed by a trained, local researcher who conducted the quantitative VASA and the VASA-QUAL in-depth interview. Quantitative data were analysed using Stata (v16.0), and qualitative data were transcribed into English and analysed using NVivo (v12.0). Three coders compared quantitative variables from the VASA with qualitative variables from the VASA-QUAL using a rubric of eight key indicators related to symptom recognition, decision making, care seeking, and treatments given, derived from the Pathways to Survival framework. Agreement across sources and new insights from qualitative data were recorded. Findings48 VASAs were conducted, reflecting 48 deaths of children between the ages of 1 month and 3 days to 52 months. Agreement on key indicators ranged from 77% (for illness recognition) to 100% (for following provider referral recommendations). The qualitative component added or clarified information about pediatric illness and care-seeking across all indicators, including information about recognition of illness (96% of cases), care-seeking decisions (81%), whether home care was provided (75%), and choice of outside care (92%). The qualitative interviews frequently included symptoms that were missing or denied in the quantitative VASA, and they often clarified the chronological order of symptoms identified via VASA. Many qualitative interviews described complicated mechanisms of decision making, involving multiple key players, which were not adequately captured in the quantitative survey. InterpretationSupplementing quantitative VASA tools with an in-depth VASA-QUAL interview provided important additional information. Supplemental qualitative interviews are an important tool for understanding the complexity of events leading up to childhood deaths. FundingThe Northern Pacific Global Health Research Training Consortium, Fogarty International Center at the National Institutes of Health.

Expanding Global Health Engagement through Fogarty Fellowship Programs.

Training the next generation of global health researchers is vital for sustainable research partnerships and global health equity. The Fogarty International Center (National Institutes of Health) supports postdoctoral fellows and professional/graduate students in long-term, hands-on mentored research in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We surveyed 627 alumni (58% from the United States, 42% from LMICs) from three sequential Fogarty-sponsored global health research training programs (response rate: N = 257, 41%). Publications in the Index Medicus were used to ascertain scholarly output. Most alumni (63%) reported remaining engaged in LMICs and/or worked in academic/research careers (70%). Since completing their Fogarty fellowship, 144 alumni (56%) had received 438 new grants as principal investigator (PI), co-/multi-PI, or site PI. The 257 responding alumni had 5,318 publications during and since their Fogarty fellowships; 2,083 (39%) listed the Fogarty trainee as the first or senior author. These global health training programs highlight the value of LMIC research experience in nurturing the global health research workforce.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on global health research training and education.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on global health research training and education.

Research Mentorship Crowdsourcing Contest: Toward Global Health Good

As one of the six consortia funded through the NIH Fogarty International Center, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Johns Hopkins University, Morehouse School of Medicine, and Tulane University (UJMT) Fogarty Global Health Fellows Program provides postdoctoral trainees and doctoral students support and training for yearlong research attachments at selected low- and middle-income countries. To understand the current impact of this global health research training opportunity, the UJMT consortium conducted a crowdsourcing contest to gather creative messages to promote and improve the impact of the program in partnership with Social Entrepreneurship to Spur Health. Between January and March 2019, the contest received a total of 47 submissions from 14 countries; 44 were found eligible. After judging, 19 (41.2%) submissions received a mean score of 7 or higher. We examined both textual and descriptive submissions for emergent themes and identified a range of facilitators who can be used to further improve the training programs; examples include exceptional mentorship, acquisition of research skills, career development, personal development, and multisite training opportunities. In conclusion, the crowdsourcing mentorship contest demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of leveraging existing research networks for community engagement and how useful information can be effectively collected to highlight the effectiveness of a program and expand the reach.

The Global Health Research Capacity Strengthening (GHR-CAPS) Program: trainees’ experiences and perspectives

# Introduction This paper aims to contribute to the discussion on how global health research (GHR) mentorship initiatives can best help prepare the next generation of GH researchers. To this end, the authors, a group of emerging researchers, share their experiences and perspectives of participating in the Global Health Research Capacity Strengthening (GHR-CAPS) program, a multidisciplinary GHR training and mentorship program in Quebec, Canada. # Discussion Based on their experiences, what is deemed most beneficial is interfacing with a diverse group of peers, learning and being guided from a community of mentors, actively engaging in research activities, having mentorship specific to GH, and being financially supported, especially through bursaries. Areas were also noted to better guide and support GHR emerging researchers. These included providing more support for navigating career transitions and developing a program of research, and removing geographical restrictions to access financial resources, including bursaries and small grants which can directly support the research of students and junior researchers. Overall, the trainees felt that participation in a mentorship program like GHR-CAPS yields multiple benefits including greater academic productivity, network expansion, increased professional confidence, and enhancement of knowledge and skills. It also provides a sense of belonging to something official and important and gives visibility to trainees' work. # Conclusion There is value-added to have mentorship programs like GHR-CAPS. GHR mentorship is optimized by having multiple sources of support for trainees and by implementing diverse strategies to meet trainees' needs and strengthen their capacity.

Development of an effective mentorship program for preclinical medical student global health research training: An evaluation of a pilot mentorship program

AbstractAs medical student interest in global health soars, so too does the desire by students to do research in international settings. However, very few medical students receive formal training in research skills. Mentorship is a key component of any research endeavour by students. The University of Texas Medical Branch focuses preclinical rotations on value-adding, mentored scholarly projects, developed with host site collaborators. The structure of this program allows preclinical students to engage meaningfully with international partners, who serve as research mentors. Mentorship is critical to successful development, implementation, and dissemination of scholarly projects. This paper describes a qualitative evaluation of a pilot mentorship program, which included semi-structured, one-on-one interviews with mentors and students who participated in the 2015 global health preclinical experience. Overall, mentors and students were satisfied with the mentorship experience. Challenges to mentoring were in...

Development of an effective mentorship program for preclinical medical student global health research training

Development of an effective mentorship program for preclinical medical student global health research training

The National Institutes of Health Fogarty International Center Global Health Scholars and Fellows Program: Collaborating Across Five Consortia to Strengthen Research Training.

As demand for global health research training continues to grow, many universities are striving to meet the needs of trainees in a manner complementary to research priorities of the institutions hosting trainees, while also increasing capacity for conducting research. We provide an overview of the first 4 years of the Global Health Program for Fellows and Scholars, a collaboration of 20 U.S. universities and institutions spread across 36 low- and middle-income countries funded through the National Institutes of Health Fogarty International Center. We highlight many aspects of our program development that may be of interest to other multinational consortia developing global health research training programs.

Impact of Global Health Research Training on Scholarly Productivity: The Fogarty International Clinical Research Scholars and Fellows Program.

In the Fogarty International Clinical Research Scholars and Fellows (FICRS-F) Program, 536 U.S. and international doctoral and postdoctoral health profession students and trainees completed 1-year research training at research centers in low- and middle-income countries. To evaluate the Program's impact, we analyzed data gathered prospectively during the Program, from PubMed, and from a representative survey of alumni. Of 100 randomly selected respondents, 94 returned the survey. Reflecting the sources of funding, human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome was the focus of 47% of the projects, but research in noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) and dual infection/NCD-related topics increased over time. Among the first 1,617 alumni publications, output was associated positively with being an international versus U.S. trainee, a postdoctoral Fellow versus predoctoral Scholar, and accumulation of more years post-training (all P < 0.001). Fellows were first author on a higher proportion of their articles than were Scholars (P < 0.001), and U.S. trainees were more often first author than international trainees (P = 0.04). Survey respondents had submitted 117 grant applications, and 79 (67.5%) had been funded. The FICRS-F Program yielded substantial research productivity in the early post-training years. Research outputs and impact will increase over time as alumni careers mature and they gain research independence and assume leadership positions.

Impact of Global Health Research Training on Career Trajectories: The Fogarty International Clinical Research Scholars and Fellows Program.

From 2004 to 2012, the Fogarty International Clinical Research Scholars/Fellows Program (FICRS-F) provided 1-year research training opportunities for U.S. and international doctoral "Scholars" and postdoctoral "Fellows" at low- and middle-income country (LMIC) centers. We collected data prospectively and then surveyed a representative sample of 100 alumni (94% response), assessing Program impacts on their careers and collaborations. Frequently, collaborations continued beyond the formal training period with U.S.- (63%) and site-based mentors (66%). U.S. Fellows reported the highest post-training focus on research (88 on a 100-point scale), and the highest Program impact on competitiveness for career or training positions and choices of post-training topics and institutions (95 points). Interest in global health research increased markedly during the training period, especially for LMIC trainees, and was sustained post-training. LMIC alumni reported a significantly higher focus on global health and research than did U.S. alumni. Alumni reported that their mentored research training had a substantial impact on their career trajectories.