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

Q2 Multidisciplinary AAS Open Research Pub Date : 2021-02-12 eCollection Date: 2020-01-01 DOI:10.12688/aasopenres.13116.3
Marta Vicente-Crespo, Ojo Agunbiade, John Eyers, Margaret Thorogood, Sharon Fonn
{"title":"Institutionalizing research capacity strengthening in LMICs: A systematic review and meta-synthesis.","authors":"Marta Vicente-Crespo, Ojo Agunbiade, John Eyers, Margaret Thorogood, Sharon Fonn","doi":"10.12688/aasopenres.13116.3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background</b>: 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. <b>Methods</b>: 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. <b>Results</b>: 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. <b>Conclusions</b>: 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":34179,"journal":{"name":"AAS Open Research","volume":"3 ","pages":"43"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7653640.3/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AAS Open Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12688/aasopenres.13116.3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Multidisciplinary","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
加强LMIC研究能力的制度化:系统综述和荟萃综合。
背景:缺乏关于确保中低收入国家机构加强研究能力干预措施可持续性的有效战略的证据。这篇系统综述确定了描述研究能力建设项目的出版物,并指出了这些项目的效果、背景以及其中采用的机制、过程和社会参与者。方法:检索2011-2018年期间的在线数据库。纳入标准是:出版物1)描述了干预措施;2) 在LMIC中实施;3) 基于或与大学工作人员或博士后有关;4) 旨在提高研究能力;5) 旨在实现体制层面的变革。两名评审员连续几轮筛选标题、摘要和全文,第三名评审员解决了分歧。两个人使用数据提取工具提取了每个全文的数据,该工具涵盖了与我们的问题相关的数据。结果:共发现4052篇引文,纳入19篇论文,涉及14项干预措施。只有三项干预措施提到使用概念框架来制定其方法,没有一项干预措施描述使用变革理论来评估结果。所述最频繁的投入是一些正式培训方法、促进有利于研究的环境和建立研究支持系统。报告了一系列成果,最常见的是出版物数量和拥有博士学位的工作人员比例的增加。在讨论成功因素时,这归因于严格的实施方法、充足的资金和当地的支持。那些提到可持续性的人将其与资金的可用性和当地的购买联系起来。由于缺乏一个共同的词汇和报告结果的框架,很难对各项举措进行比较。结论:符合纳入标准的干预措施数量减少表明,应该对项目进行良好的描述、系统评估,并公布研究结果,以便加强研究能力的社区能够吸取重要教训。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
AAS Open Research
AAS Open Research Multidisciplinary-Multidisciplinary
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
Delays in initiating rabies post-exposure prophylaxis among dog bite victims in Wakiso and Kampala districts, Uganda. Stigma-directed services (Stig2Health) to improve 'linkage to care' for people living with HIV in rural Tanzania: study protocol for a nested pre-post implementation study within the Kilombero and Ulanga Antiretroviral Cohort. Case studies from the experience of early career researchers in East Africa in building community engagement in research. Small area estimation for South African resource distribution and policy impacts during COVID-19 Building community and public engagement in research – the experience of early career researchers in East Africa
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1