Health Research Capacity Strengthening Research Articles

Networking among young global health researchers through an intensive training approach: a mixed methods exploratory study

BackgroundNetworks are increasingly regarded as essential in health research aimed at influencing practice and policies. Less research has focused on the role networking can play in researchers’ careers and its broader impacts on capacity strengthening in health research. We used the Canadian Coalition for Global Health Research (CCGHR) annual Summer Institute for New Global Health Researchers (SIs) as an opportunity to explore networking among new global health researchers.MethodsA mixed-methods exploratory study was conducted among SI alumni and facilitators who had participated in at least one SI between 2004 and 2010. Alumni and facilitators completed an online short questionnaire, and a subset participated in an in-depth interview. Thematic analysis of the qualitative data was triangulated with quantitative results and CCGHR reports on SIs. Synthesis occurred through the development of a process model relevant to networking through the SIs.ResultsThrough networking at the SIs, participants experienced decreased isolation and strengthened working relationships. Participants accessed new knowledge, opportunities, and resources through networking during the SI. Post-SI, participants reported ongoing contact and collaboration, although most participants desired more opportunities for interaction. They made suggestions for structural supports to networking among new global health researchers.ConclusionsNetworking at the SI contributed positively to opportunities for individuals, and contributed to the formation of a network of global health researchers. Intentional inclusion of networking in health research capacity strengthening initiatives, with supportive resources and infrastructure could create dynamic, sustainable networks accessible to global health researchers around the world.

Strategies to promote better research on oral health in Africa: A Delphi consensus study.

Background:Research on oral health contributes to improved health outcomes; it is an indispensable tool in health policy. But how to fill the gaps in research oral health and to strengthen its capacity is the question. The main objective of the present study is to identify the current status of oral health research and potential strategies, thereby strengthening the research infrastructure and capacity. Delphi consultation, in the perspective of assisting decision-makers to identify strategies to promote better research on oral health in Africa, was initiated.Design and Methods:The panels of 30 experts were asked to complete the questionnaire with 42 items into four groups by web survey. Each indicator statement was considered to be in consensus if the expert's opinion rating was of “A or B” for more than 75% in a scale of seven categories. Quantitative analysis was made from the answers of Delphi round.Results:There was a strong consensus about three items concerning the role of oral health research, the development of research policy for oral health going through an effective governance of research institutes, migration of researchers and fund raising.Conclusion:This study shows strong many dispersal opinions by experts, but highlights the need for to improve the effectiveness of oral health research capacity strengthening activities. Africa's researchers, policy makers and partners will have to give special attention to ensuring that knowledge generated from oral health research is acted on to improve health for all.

Frameworks for evaluating health research capacity strengthening: a qualitative study

BackgroundHealth research capacity strengthening (RCS) projects are often complex and hard to evaluate. In order to inform health RCS evaluation efforts, we aimed to describe and compare key characteristics of existing health RCS evaluation frameworks: their process of development, purpose, target users, structure, content and coverage of important evaluation issues. A secondary objective was to explore what use had been made of the ESSENCE framework, which attempts to address one such issue: harmonising the evaluation requirements of different funders.MethodsWe identified and analysed health RCS evaluation frameworks published by seven funding agencies between 2004 and 2012, using a mixed methods approach involving structured qualitative analyses of documents, a stakeholder survey and consultations with key contacts in health RCS funding agencies.ResultsThe frameworks were intended for use predominantly by the organisations themselves, and most were oriented primarily towards funders’ internal organisational performance requirements. The frameworks made limited reference to theories that specifically concern RCS. Generic devices, such as logical frameworks, were typically used to document activities, outputs and outcomes, but with little emphasis on exploring underlying assumptions or contextual constraints. Usage of the ESSENCE framework appeared limited.ConclusionsWe believe that there is scope for improving frameworks through the incorporation of more accessible information about how to do evaluation in practice; greater involvement of stakeholders, following evaluation capacity building principles; greater emphasis on explaining underlying rationales of frameworks; and structuring frameworks so that they separate generic and project-specific aspects of health RCS evaluation. The third and fourth of these improvements might assist harmonisation.

Rethinking health research capacity strengthening

Health research capacity strengthening (HRCS) is a strategy implemented worldwide to improve the ability of developing countries to tackle the persistent and disproportionate burdens of disease they face. Drawing on a review of existing HRCS literature and our experiences over the course of an HRCS project in Vietnam, we summarise major challenges to the HRCS enterprise at the interpersonal, institutional and macro levels. While over the course of several decades of HRCS initiatives many of these challenges have been well documented, we highlight several considerations that remain underarticulated. We advance critical considerations of the HRCS enterprise by discussing (1) how the organisation of US public health funding shapes the ecology of knowledge production in low- and middle-income country contexts, (2) the barriers US researchers face to effectively collaborate in capacity strengthening for research-to-policy translation, and (3) the potential for unintentional negative consequences if HRCS efforts are not sufficiently reflexive about the limitations of dominant paradigms in public health research and intervention.

Impact of Health Research Capacity Strengthening in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: The Case of WHO/TDR Programmes

BackgroundMeasuring the impact of capacity strengthening support is a priority for the international development community. Several frameworks exist for monitoring and evaluating funding results and modalities. Based on its long history of support, we report on the impact of individual and institutional capacity strengthening programmes conducted by the UNICEF/UNDP/World Bank/WHO Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR) and on the factors that influenced the outcome of its Research Capacity Strengthening (RCS) activities.Methodology and Principal FindingsA mix of qualitative and quantitative methods (questionnaires and in-depth interviews) was applied to a selected group of 128 individual and 20 institutional capacity development grant recipients that completed their training/projects between 2000 and 2008. A semi-structured interview was also conducted on site with scientists from four institutions. Most of the grantees, both individual and institutional, reported beneficial results from the grant. However, glaring inequities stemming from gender imbalances and a language bias towards English were identified. The study showed that skills improvement through training contributed to better formulation of research proposals, but not necessarily to improved project implementation or communication of results. Appreciation of the institutional grants' impact varied among recipient countries. The least developed countries saw the programmes as essential for supporting basic infrastructure and activities. Advanced developing countries perceived the research grants as complementary to available resources, and particularly suitable for junior researchers who were not yet able to compete for major international grants.ConclusionThe study highlights the need for a more equitable process to improve the effectiveness of health research capacity strengthening activities. Support should be tailored to the existing research capacity in disease endemic countries and should focus on strengthening national health research systems, particularly in the least developing countries. The engagement of stakeholders at country level would facilitate the design of more specific and comprehensive strategies based on local needs.

Research capacity strengthening: donor approaches to improving and assessing its impact in low‐ and middle‐income countries

Increasing attention, and a concomitant increase in funds, is being devoted to the strengthening of research capacity for health within low- and middle-income countries. Yet approaches to research capacity strengthening (RCS) are still new, and there is much debate about how to strengthen something that is so difficult to define, let alone measure. This paper aims to inform our understanding of how research capacity is being strengthened, and how we might consider the effectiveness of these initiatives. It does this by examining (a) understandings of and approaches to RCS, and (b) different ways in which RCS is monitored and evaluated. The study included a literature review, internet search, and analysis of the web pages and available documents for six donor organizations key to health RCS. E-mail and telephone discussions were conducted with experts in the area of health RCS, as well as semi-structured telephone interviews with representatives from the six identified organizations. The study found that understandings of and approaches to RCS are wide ranging. We are at the early stages of knowing how best to identify, target and affect the many factors that are important for stronger research capacity. Furthermore, as RCS initiatives become more wide-ranging and complex, they become more difficult to monitor and evaluate. Donors are struggling with many challenges associated with tracking RCS initiatives. There is no consensus on the best methods or tools to use. There is a clear need for improved strategies and the development of a tried and tested framework for RCS tracking.

Capacity development for health research in Africa: experiences managing the African Doctoral Dissertation Research Fellowship Program

Africa's progress depends on her capacity to generate, adapt, and use scientific knowledge to meet regional health and development needs. Yet, Africa's higher education institutions that are mandated to foster this capacity lack adequate resources to generate and apply knowledge, raising the need for innovative approaches to enhance research capacity. In this paper, we describe a newly-developed program to support PhD research in health and population sciences at African universities, the African Doctoral Dissertation Research Fellowship (ADDRF) Program. We also share our experiences implementing the program. As health research capacity-strengthening in Africa continues to attract attention and as the need for such programs to be African-led is emphasized, our experiences in developing and implementing the ADDRF offer invaluable lessons to other institutions undertaking similar initiatives.

10 best resources for … health research capacity strengthening

Health research capacity strengthening (RCS) is widely recognized as a major unmet need, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (Lansang and Dennis 2006). It has been high on both national and international agendas for the past 20 years, as evidenced by a steady stream of peer-reviewed and grey literature, training tools, programmes, grants, workshops, task forces and conferences. Defined as ‘. . . the ongoing process of empowering individuals, institutions, organizations and nations to define and prioritize problems systematically, to develop and scientifically evaluate appropriate solutions, and share and apply the knowledge generated’ (Lansang and Dennis 2004), RCS encompasses a broad and complex spectrum of activities, including training programmes, tools and grants. In addition, anyone embarking on an RCS programme needs to address broader issues of which and whose capacities to strengthen, to do what, in which context and with which purpose.