scholarly journals Institutionalizing research capacity strengthening in LMICs: A systematic review and meta-synthesis

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 43
Author(s):  
Marta Vicente-Crespo ◽  
Ojo Agunbiade ◽  
John Eyers ◽  
Margaret Thorogood ◽  
Sharon Fonn
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Full Text ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Research Capacity ◽  
Theory Of Change ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Effect Change ◽  
Capacity Strengthening ◽  
Research Capacity Strengthening

Background: Evidence on effective strategies to ensure sustainability of research capacity strengthening interventions in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) institutions is lacking. This systematic review identified publications describing research capacity building programs and noted their effect, their contexts, and the mechanisms, processes and social actors employed in them. Methods: We searched online databases for the period 2011-2018. Inclusion criteria were that the publications 1) described the intervention; 2) were implemented in LMICs; 3) were based in, or relevant to, university staff or post docs; 4) aimed to improve research capacity; 5) aimed to effect change at the institutional level. Two reviewers screened titles, abstracts and full text in consecutive rounds, a third resolved disagreements. Two people extracted the data of each full text using a data extraction tool covering data relevant to our question. Results: In total 4052 citations were identified and 19 papers were included, which referred to 14 interventions. Only three interventions mentioned using a conceptual framework to develop their approach and none described using a theory of change to assess outcomes. The most frequent inputs described were some method of formal training, promotion of a research-conducive environment and establishment of research support systems. A range of outcomes were reported, most frequently an increased number of publications and proportion of staff with PhDs. When factors of success were discussed, this was attributed to a rigorous approach to implementation, adequate funding, and local buy-in. Those who mentioned sustainability linked it to availability of funds and local buy-in. The lack of a common lexicon and a framework against which to report outcomes made comparison between initiatives difficult. Conclusions: The reduced number of interventions that met the inclusion criteria suggests that programs should be well-described, evaluated systematically, and findings published so that the research capacity strengthening community can extract important lessons.

scholarly journals Institutionalizing research capacity strengthening in LMICs: A systematic review and meta-synthesis

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 43
Author(s):  
Marta Vicente-Crespo ◽  
Ojo Agunbiade ◽  
John Eyers ◽  
Margaret Thorogood ◽  
Sharon Fonn
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Full Text ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Research Capacity ◽  
Theory Of Change ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Effect Change ◽  
Capacity Strengthening ◽  
Research Capacity Strengthening

Background: Evidence on effective strategies to ensure sustainability of research capacity strengthening interventions in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) institutions is lacking. This systematic review identified publications describing research capacity building programs and noted their effect, their contexts, and the mechanisms, processes and social actors employed in them. Methods: We searched online databases for the period 2011-2018. Inclusion criteria were that the publications 1) described the intervention; 2) were implemented in LMICs; 3) were based in, or relevant to, university staff or post docs; 4) aimed to improve research capacity; 5) aimed to effect change at the institutional level. Two reviewers screened titles, abstracts and full text in consecutive rounds, a third resolved disagreements. Two people extracted the data of each full text using a data extraction tool covering data relevant to our question. Results: In total 4052 citations were identified and 19 papers were included, which referred to 14 interventions. Only three interventions mentioned using a conceptual framework to develop their approach and none described using a theory of change to assess outcomes. The most frequent inputs described were some method of formal training, promotion of a research-conducive environment and establishment of research support systems. A range of outcomes were reported, most frequently an increased number of publications and proportion of staff with PhDs. When factors of success were discussed, this was attributed to a rigorous approach to implementation, adequate funding, and local buy-in. Those who mentioned sustainability linked it to availability of funds and local buy-in. The lack of a common lexicon and a framework against which to report outcomes made comparison between initiatives difficult. Conclusions: The reduced number of interventions that met the inclusion criteria suggests that programs should be well-described, evaluated systematically, and findings published so that the research capacity strengthening community can extract important lessons.

scholarly journals Institutionalizing research capacity strengthening in LMICs: A systematic review and meta-synthesis

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 43
Author(s):  
Marta Vicente-Crespo ◽  
Ojo Agunbiade ◽  
John Eyers ◽  
Margaret Thorogood ◽  
Sharon Fonn
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Full Text ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Research Capacity ◽  
Theory Of Change ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Effect Change ◽  
Capacity Strengthening ◽  
Research Capacity Strengthening

Background: Evidence on effective strategies to ensure sustainability of research capacity strengthening interventions in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) institutions is lacking. This systematic review identified publications describing research capacity building programs and noted their effect, their contexts, and the mechanisms, processes and social actors employed in them. Methods: We searched online databases for the period 2011-2018. Inclusion criteria were that the publications 1) described the intervention; 2) were implemented in LMICs; 3) were based in, or relevant to, university staff or post docs; 4) aimed to improve research capacity; 5) aimed to effect change at the institutional level. Two reviewers screened titles, abstracts and full text in consecutive rounds, a third resolved disagreements. Two people extracted the data of each full text using a data extraction tool covering data relevant to our question. Results: In total 4052 citations were identified and 19 papers were included, which referred to 14 interventions. Only three interventions mentioned using a conceptual framework to develop their approach and none described using a theory of change to assess outcomes. The most frequent inputs described were some method of formal training, promotion of a research-conducive environment and establishment of research support systems. A range of outcomes were reported, most frequently an increased number of publications and proportion of staff with PhDs. When factors of success were discussed, this was attributed to a rigorous approach to implementation, adequate funding, and local buy-in. Those who mentioned sustainability linked it to availability of funds and local buy-in. The lack of a common lexicon and a framework against which to report outcomes made comparison between initiatives difficult. Conclusions: The reduced number of interventions that met the inclusion criteria suggests that programs should be well-described, evaluated systematically, and findings published so that the research capacity strengthening community can extract important lessons.

Towards diaspora-driven research capacity strengthening in low- and middle-income countries: results from India and Nepal

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 221-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Varshini Varadaraj ◽  
Anju Ranjit ◽  
Joseph Nwadiuko ◽  
Joseph Canner ◽  
Marie Diener-West ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research Capacity ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Capacity Strengthening ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Research Capacity Strengthening ◽  
Low And Middle Income

scholarly journals Measuring the outcome and impact of research capacity strengthening initiatives: A review of indicators used or described in the published and grey literature

F1000Research ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 517 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin Pulford ◽  
Natasha Price ◽  
Jessica Amegee Quach ◽  
Imelda Bates
Keyword(s):  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Research Capacity ◽  
Research Management ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Capacity Strengthening ◽  
Impact Indicators ◽  
Research Capacity Strengthening ◽  
New Research

Background: Development partners and research councils are increasingly investing in research capacity strengthening initiatives in low- and middle-income countries to support sustainable research systems. However, there are few reported evaluations of research capacity strengthening initiatives and no agreed evaluation metrics. Methods: To advance progress towards a standardised set of outcome and impact indicators, this paper presents a structured review of research capacity strengthening indicators described in the published and grey literature. Results: We identified a total of 668 indicators of which 40% measured output, 59.5% outcome and 0.5% impact. Only 1% of outcome and impact indicators met all four quality criteria applied. A majority (63%) of reported outcome indicators clustered in four focal areas, including: research management and support (97/400), the attainment and application of new research skills and knowledge (62/400), research collaboration (53/400), and knowledge transfer (39/400). Conclusions: Whilst this review identified few examples of quality research capacity strengthening indicators, it has identified priority focal areas in which outcome and impact indicators could be developed as well as a small set of ‘candidate’ indicators that could form the basis of development efforts.

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

2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (10) ◽  
pp. e1351 ◽  
Author(s):  
Happiness Minja ◽  
Christian Nsanzabana ◽  
Christine Maure ◽  
Axel Hoffmann ◽  
Susan Rumisha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Research ◽  
Research Capacity ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Capacity Strengthening ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Research Capacity Strengthening ◽  
Low And Middle Income

scholarly journals A scoping review of non-communicable disease research capacity strengthening initiatives in low and middle-income countries

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tilahun Nigatu Haregu ◽  
Allison Byrnes ◽  
Kavita Singh ◽  
Thirunavukkarasu Sathish ◽  
Naanki Pasricha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Communicable Disease ◽  
Research Capacity ◽  
System Level ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Capacity Strengthening ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Research Capacity Strengthening ◽  
Low And Middle Income

Abstract Introduction As the epidemic of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) is rapidly developing in low and middle-income countries (LMICs), the importance of local research capacity and the role of contextually relevant research in informing policy and practice is of paramount importance. In this regard, initiatives in research capacity strengthening (RCS) are very important. The aim of this study was to review and summarize NCD research capacity strengthening strategies that have been undertaken in LMICs. Methods Using both systematic and other literature search, we identified and reviewed NCD-RCS initiatives that have been implemented in LMICs and reported since 2000. Information was extracted from published papers and websites related to these initiatives using a semi-structured checklist. We extracted information on program design, stakeholders involved, and countries of focus, program duration, targeted researchers, disease focus, skill/capacity areas involved and sources of funding. The extracted information was refined through further review and then underwent a textual narrative synthesis. Results We identified a number of different strategies used by research capacity strengthening programs and in the majority of initiatives, a combination of approaches was utilized. Capacity strengthening and training approaches were variously adapted locally and tailored to fit with the identified needs of the targeted researchers and health professionals. Most initiatives focused on individual level capacity and not system level capacity, although some undoubtedly benefited the research and health systems of LMICs. For most initiatives, mid-term and long-term outcomes were not evaluated. Though these initiatives might have enhanced research capacity in the immediate term, the sustainability of the results in the long-term remains unknown. Conclusion Most of NCD-RCS initiatives in LMICs focused on building individual capacity and only a few focused explicitly on institutional level capacity strengthening. Though many of the initiatives appear to have had promising short-term outcomes, evidence on their long-term impact and sustainability is lacking.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document