Health Systems Research Capacity Research Articles

OC 8586 INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH CAPACITY BUILDING FOR MULTI-DISCIPLINARY HEALTH RESEARCH TO SUPPORT THE HEALTH SYSTEM REBUILDING PHASE IN SIERRA LEONE

BackgroundThe EDCTP-funded project ‘Institutional capacity development for multi-disciplinary health research to support the health system rebuilding phase in Sierra Leone’ (RECAP-SL) created a solid platform on which sustainable research capacity can be built at the College of Medicine and Allied Health Sciences (COMAHS) at the University of Sierra Leone. This in turn will support the much-needed evidence-based health systems reconstruction phase in Sierra Leone and support the evolution of the research landscape at COMAHS.Methods and resultsWe established a research centre at COMAHS and conducted a research needs assessment. This informed the development of short- and long-term action plans to support sustainable institutional research capacity development and enabled the development of a four-year research strategy. These plans also served as a guide for subsequent research partnerships in terms of capacity building efforts to address identified challenges.We also focused on training four research fellows and developed a wider student engagement platform to help cultivate a research culture. The research fellows will support other researchers at COMAHS, thus promoting sustainability of the research centre. Continued professional development opportunities for the fellows are also being actively sought, to develop them up to doctoral level, which addresses one of the gaps identified in the capacity assessment report.ConclusionTo support sustainability, capacity building efforts are being designed to ensure that these gains are maintained over time, with international and national research partners and funders recognising the importance of further developing local research capacity. Through a multi-pronged approach, health systems research capacity has been strengthened in Sierra Leone. This will support the generation of evidence that will inform building sustainable health systems fit for responding cohesively to outbreaks and for delivering services across the country, especially for the most disadvantaged populations.

From local to global: a qualitative review of the multi-leveled impact of a multi-country health research capacity development partnership on maternal health in Sudan.

BackgroundThere is a substantial body of literature on the principles of good partnerships and the rationale for such partnerships in research capacity strengthening. This paper illustrates the long term effects of a multi-country (8 countries) global partnership for health systems research capacity development (Connecting health Research in Africa and Ireland Consortium - ChRAIC) in relation to its contribution to capacity strengthening, public advocacy and policy influence at different levels and its practical achievements in Sudan in addressing access to maternal health services.MethodsThe authors (all members of the global partnership) reflect on the project in one of its’ partner countries, Sudan, over its’ five year duration. This reflection is supported by specific project data collected over the period of the project (2008–2014). The data collected included: (i) 6 monthly and annual donor reports; (ii) a mid-term internal and end of project independent evaluation of the entire project, and; (ii) a Ph.D study conducted by a member of the Sudanese research team.ResultsThe ChRAIC project in Sudan achieved the deliverables set out at the beginning of the project. These included a national knowledge synthesis report on Sudan’s health system; identification of country level health systems research priorities; research capacity assessment and skills training, and; the training and graduation of a Sudanese team member with a Ph.D. Mechanisms established in Sudan to facilitate these achievements included the adoption of culturally sensitive and locally specific research and capacity strengthening methods at district level; the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding at country level between the Ministry of Health, research and academic institutions in Sudan, and; the establishment of country level initiatives and a research unit. The latter being recognized globally through awards and membership in global health forums.ConclusionWe surmise that the ‘network of action’ approach adopted to partnership formation facilitated the benefits gained, but that adopting such an approach is not sufficient. More local and contextual factors influenced the extent of the benefits and the sustainability of the network.

K.6. Round table: Health systems research capacity in Europe: challenges & opportunities to bridge the gaps

There is now compelling evidence that health research and innovation brings many benefits to a country, whether as support for locally appropriate evidence-based health policies or economic growth. Yet, compared to Western Europe, parts of the WHO European Region (former Soviet Union and South-East Europe) lag far behind in developing and sustaining this capacity. This is apparent in many ways. In these countries health research outputs (measured by publications) as well as the number of active researchers and their attendance at EPH conferences are far lower than the rest of the WHO European Region. The aim of this …

K.6. Round table: Health systems research capacity in Europe: challenges & opportunities to bridge the gaps

K.6. Round table: Health systems research capacity in Europe: challenges & opportunities to bridge the gaps

Institutional capacity for health systems research in East and Central African schools of public health: experiences with a capacity assessment tool.

BackgroundDespite significant investments in health systems research (HSR) capacity development, there is a dearth of information regarding how to assess HSR capacity. An alliance of schools of public health (SPHs) in East and Central Africa developed a tool for the self-assessment of HSR capacity with the aim of producing institutional capacity development plans.MethodsBetween June and November 2011, seven SPHs across the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda implemented this co-created tool. The objectives of the institutional assessments were to assess existing capacities for HSR and to develop capacity development plans to address prioritized gaps. A mixed-method approach was employed consisting of document analysis, self-assessment questionnaires, in-depth interviews, and institutional dialogues aimed at capturing individual perceptions of institutional leadership, collective HSR skills, knowledge translation, and faculty incentives to engage in HSR. Implementation strategies for the capacity assessment varied across the SPHs. This paper reports findings from semi-structured interviews with focal persons from each SPH, to reflect on the process used at each SPH to execute the institutional assessments as well as the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the assessment process.ResultsThe assessment tool was robust enough to be utilized in its entirety across all seven SPHs resulting in a thorough HSR capacity assessment and a capacity development plan for each SPH. Successful implementation of the capacity assessment exercises depended on four factors: (i) support from senior leadership and collaborators, (ii) a common understanding of HSR, (iii) adequate human and financial resources for the exercise, and (iv) availability of data. Methods of extracting information from the results of the assessments, however, were tailored to the unique objectives of each SPH.ConclusionsThis institutional HSR capacity assessment tool and the process for its utilization may be valuable for any SPH. The self-assessments, as well as interviews with external stakeholders, provided diverse sources of input and galvanized interest around HSR at multiple levels.

Institutional capacity for health systems research in East and Central African schools of public health: knowledge translation and effective communication.

BackgroundLocal health systems research (HSR) provides policymakers and practitioners with contextual, evidence-based solutions to health problems. However, producers and users of HSR rarely understand the complexities of the context within which each operates, leading to the “know–do” gap. Universities are well placed to conduct knowledge translation (KT) integrating research production with uptake. The HEALTH Alliance Africa Hub, a consortium of seven schools of public health (SPHs) in East and Central Africa, was formed to build capacity in HSR. This paper presents information on the capacity of the various SPHs to conduct KT activities.MethodsIn 2011, each member of the Africa Hub undertook an institutional HSR capacity assessment using a context-adapted and modified self-assessment tool. KT capacity was measured by several indicators including the presence of a KT strategy, an organizational structure to support KT activities, KT skills, and institutional links with stakeholders and media. Respondents rated their opinions on the various indicators using a 5-point Likert scale. Averages across all respondents for each school were calculated. Thereafter, each school held a results validation workshop.ResultsA total of 123 respondents from all seven SPHs participated. Only one school had a clear KT strategy; more commonly, research was disseminated at scientific conferences and workshops. While most respondents perceived their SPH as having strong institutional ties with organizations interested in HSR as well as strong institutional leadership, the organizational structures required to support KT activities were absent. Furthermore, individual researchers indicated that they had little time or skills to conduct KT. Additionally, institutional and individual links with policymakers and media were reported as weak.ConclusionsFew SPHs in Africa have a clear KT strategy. Strengthening the weak KT capacity of the SPHs requires working with institutional leadership to develop KT strategies designed to guide organizational structure and development of networks with both the media and policymakers to improve research uptake.

Mapping research on health systems in Europe: A bibliometric assessment

Europe's health care decision-makers are facing an increasingly complex and rapidly changing landscape. It is crucial that health care problems are addressed with evidence-informed policy and that evidence finding is aimed at those topics most urgent on policy agendas. Research on health systems addresses the macro-level of health care delivery and aims at generating evidence for policy-making. Our aim was to assess the field of health systems research in Europe, primarily based on an analysis of the published literature. Starting from current definitions of health systems, during 2004-09 we identified four thematic areas for research and defined keywords to construct a sensitive literature search limited to European research. The database search resulted in 26,945 hits between 2004-09. Until 2008, the annual number of publications on health systems research increased at an average rate of 5.2%. Most (88%) were in English. The largest producer of research on health systems has been the UK (nearly 10,000 in six years; 37% of the total for Europe), which is also the country most frequently the object of research. In contrast, seven countries had produced no publications. There were modest correlations between a country's research production and its gross domestic product (r = 0.62) but less so with its population size (0.33). The most frequent keywords were 'patients' (49% of all references), 'patient satisfaction' (27%), 'organization and administration' (23%), 'education' (19%) and 'attitude of health personnel' (13%). Closer inspection of a sub-sample of 1000 abstracts revealed that only 24% met our definition of 'health systems research' rather than other fields of health services research. There is a wide-spread need to develop health systems research capacity, in particular in eastern European countries, and to address the effects of health care reform, particularly the effects of privatization and commercialization of health services.

The state of international collaboration for health systems research: what do publications tell?

AimInternational collaboration for health system development has been identified as a critical input to meet pressing global health needs. North-South collaboration has the potential to benefit both parties, while South-South collaboration offers promise to strengthen capacity rapidly and efficiently across developing countries. There is an emerging trend to analyze the fruits of such collaboration. This paper builds on this trend by applying an innovative concept-based bibliometric method to identify the international scope of collaboration within the field of health policy and systems research. Two key questions are addressed: to what extent are papers comparing developing countries as against reporting on single country studies? To what extent are papers in either case being produced by researchers within their respective countries or through North-South or South-South collaboration?MethodsA total of 8,751 papers published in Medline between 1999 and 2003 with data on health systems and policies in developing countries were identified and content-analyzed using an innovative concept-based search technology. A sample of 13% of papers was used to identify the corresponding institution and countries covered. The sampled data was then analyzed by income group.ResultsPapers with an international, cross-country focus account for only 10% of the total. Just over a third of all papers are led by upper middle income country authors, closely followed by authors from high income countries. Just under half of all papers target low income countries. Cross-country papers are led mostly by institutions in high income countries, with 74% of the total. Only seven countries concentrate 60% of the papers led by developing country institutions. Institutions in the United States and the United Kingdom concentrate between them as many as 68% of the papers led by high income countries. Only 11% of all single-country papers and 21% of multi-country studies are the product of South-South collaboration. Health Financing is the topic with the greatest international scope, with 26% of all papers in the topic. Topics such as Costing and Cost Effectiveness, Finance, Sector Analysis and Insurance, regardless of their national or international scope, are led in 38% to 54% of cases by high income authors.ConclusionWhile there is modest health systems research capacity in many developing countries for single country studies, capacity is severely limited for multi-country studies. While North-South collaboration is important, the number of international studies is still very limited to produce the kind of knowledge required to learn from experiences across countries. The fact that lead institutions as well as study countries are concentrated in a handful of mostly middle income countries attests to great disparities in research capacity. However, disparities in research capacity and interest are also evident in the North. It is urgent to build cross-country research capacity including appropriate forms of South-South and North-South collaboration.