Explore the vast range of titles available.

Strengthening data quality in the routine health information system is vital for the performance of health service outcomes. However, implementation of the routine interventions to improve data quality in the existing health system has been found inadequate two in Ethiopia. This study was aimed to examine the effect of Augmented Capacity Development Interventions (ACDI) on the performance of data quality in the routine health information system. A arm, parallel group, cluster-randomized control trial was implemented from July 1, 2023 to February 29, 2024. Baseline data were collected from April 1–30, 2023, and end-line data from April 1–30, 2024. The cluster design was employed as it allows for minimizing information contamination. The study included 72 health institution clusters and 304 health workers (154 intervention and 150 control arms). The implemented interventions include training, supportive supervision, mentorship, and recognition. General Linear Mixed Model was applied for analysis. The mean score for data quality perception improved from 2.32 at baseline to 3.13 at end-line (95% CI: 3.05, 3.21; P < .001). The data quality practice has significantly improved after the implementation of the ACDI packages (β = .17; 95% CI: 0.05, 0.30; P = .007), ease of data management (β = .14; 95% CI: 0.07, 0.22; P < .001), information use (β = .15; 95% CI: 0.08, 0.23; P < .001), and the combined effects of encouragement and training (β = .44; 95% CI: 0.23, 0.65; P < .001) were significant predictors of the change in the data quality. The ACDI packages implemented in this study effectively influenced data quality improvement. Key predictors of data quality practices included an encouraging system, ease of data management, written guidelines, supportive supervision, and training. Therefore, the interventions are recommended to be adapted and scaled up. Trial registration ID: PACTR202212472091194.

Teachers need to update their competence profiles for 21st century challenges. Teaching strategies need to change and so do the competences teachers need to develop so as to empower 21st-century learners. The European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators (DigCompEdu) represents a paradigmatic example of this endeavour, taking stock of these needs. Defining the requirements of education professionals by teacher competence frameworks can serve multiple purposes at different levels in education systems. At the micro level, it can support and guide teachers' practice and continuous professional development. At the meso level of local education governance, it can support the development of school institutions as learning organisations, providing common ground for dialogue, collaboration and reflection in professional communities of practice. At the macro level of quality assurance, it can provide reference standards for initial teacher education, and for education professionals' quality along the career continuum. The European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators was designed to align with institutional and contextual requirements in different countries, whilst remaining open to adaptation and updating. It links teachers' and students' digital competence development, and can be linked to institutional capacity building. At the same time, the framework is generic enough to apply to different educational settings and to allow for adaptation as technological possibilities and constraints evolve.

Background Trust is essential for healthy, reciprocal relationships; creating safe environments; engaging in transparent interactions; successfully negotiating power differentials; supporting equity and putting trauma informed approaches into practice. Less is known, however, about the ways that trust-building may be at the forefront of consideration during community capacity building efforts, what trust-building elements are perceived as essential for optimally engaging communities, and what practices might support these efforts. Methods The present study examines an evolving understanding of trust-building over the course of 3 years, from qualitative data derived during interviews with nine agency leads from a large and diverse urban community, who are spearheading community-based partnerships to create more trauma-informed communities and foster resiliency. Results Data reflected fourteen trust-building elements, captured by three themes: 1) Building relationships and engagement (e.g., behavioral practices such as meeting people “ where they are at ” and creating safe spaces ), 2) Embodying core values of trustworthiness (e.g., traits such as being transparent and embodying benevolence ), and 3) Sharing decision-making, championing autonomy, and addressing barriers to trust (e.g., collaborative practices such as creating a shared vision and goals and addressing systemic inequities ). These trust-building elements are presented in the Community Circle of Trust-Building, which provides an accessible, visual format that can facilitate capacity building efforts within organizations and with the broader community; guide the selection of training opportunities that support healthy interpersonal relationships; and aid in the identification of relevant, supporting frameworks (e.g., health equity, trauma-informed practices, inclusive leadership models). Conclusions Community engagement and trust are essential for overall health and well-being, increasing equitable access to resources, and supporting an effective and connected citizenry. These data shed light on opportunities for trust-building and thoughtful engagement among agencies working directly with community members in large urban areas.

Leading academic institutions, governments, and funders of research across the world have spent the last few decades fretting publicly about the need for scientists and research organisations to engage more widely with the public and be open about their research. While a global literature asserts that public communication has changed from a virtue to a duty for scientists in many countries and disciplines, our knowledge about what research institutions are doing and what factors drive their 'going public' is very limited. Here we present the first cross-national study of N = 2,030 research institutes within universities and large scientific organisations in Brazil, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. We find that institutes embrace communication with non-peers and do so through a variety of public events and traditional news media-less so through new media channels-and we find variation across countries and sciences, yet these are less evident than we expected. Country and disciplinary cultures contribute to the level of this communication, as do the resources that institutes make available for the effort; institutes with professionalised staff show higher activity online. Future research should examine whether a real change in the organisational culture is happening or whether this activity and resource allocation is merely a means to increase institutional visibility.

Public health and other community-based practitioners have access to a growing number of evidence-based interventions (EBIs), and yet EBIs continue to be underused. One reason for this underuse is that practitioners often lack the capacity (knowledge, skills, and motivation) to select, adapt, and implement EBIs. Training, technical assistance, and other capacity-building strategies can be effective at increasing EBI adoption and implementation. However, little is known about how to design capacity-building strategies or tailor them to differences in capacity required across varying EBIs and practice contexts. To address this need, we conducted a scoping study of frameworks and theories detailing variations in EBIs or practice contexts and how to tailor capacity-building to address those variations. Using an iterative process, we consolidated constructs and propositions across 24 frameworks and developed a beginning theory to describe salient variations in EBIs (complexity and uncertainty) and practice contexts (decision-making structure, general capacity to innovate, resource and values fit with EBI, and unity vs. polarization of stakeholder support). The theory also includes propositions for tailoring capacity-building strategies to address salient variations. To have wide-reaching and lasting impact, the dissemination of EBIs needs to be coupled with strategies that build practitioners’ capacity to adopt and implement a variety of EBIs across diverse practice contexts.

Background Conducting research in partnership with stakeholders (e.g. policy-makers, practitioners, organisations, patients) is a promising and popular approach to improving the implementation of research findings in policy and practice. This study aimed to identify the principles, strategies, outcomes and impacts reported in different types of reviews of research partnerships in order to obtain a better understanding of the scope of the research partnership literature. Methods This review of reviews is part of a Coordinated Multicenter Team approach to synthesise the research partnership literature with five conceptually linked literature reviews. The main research question was ‘What principles, strategies, outcomes and impacts are reported in different types of research partnership approaches?’. We included articles describing a literature review of research partnerships using a systematic search strategy. We used an adapted version of the Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool to assess quality. Nine electronic databases were searched from inception to April 2018. Principles, strategies, outcomes and impacts were extracted from the included reviews and analysed using direct content analysis. Results We included 86 reviews using terms describing several research partnership approaches (e.g. community-based participatory research, participatory research, integrated knowledge translation). After the analyses, we synthesised 17 overarching principles and 11 overarching strategies and grouped them into one of the following subcategories: relationship between partners; co-production of knowledge; meaningful stakeholder engagement; capacity-building, support and resources; communication process; and ethical issues related to the collaborative research activities. Similarly, we synthesised 20 overarching outcomes and impacts on researchers, stakeholders, the community or society, and the research process. Conclusions This review of reviews is the first that presents overarching principles, strategies, outcomes and impacts of research partnerships. This review is unique in scope as we synthesised literature across multiple research areas, involving different stakeholder groups. Our findings can be used as a first step to guide the initiation and maintenance of research partnerships and to create a classification system of the key domains of research partnerships, which may improve reporting consistency in the research partnership literature. Trial registration This study is registered via Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GVR7Y .

Science and technology are key to economic and social development, yet the capacity for scientific innovation remains globally unequally distributed. Although a priority for development cooperation, building or developing research capacity is often reduced in practice to promoting knowledge transfers, for example through North–South partnerships. Research capacity building/development tends to focus on developing scientists’ technical competencies through training, without parallel investments to develop and sustain the socioeconomic and political structures that facilitate knowledge creation. This, the paper argues, significantly contributes to the scientific divide between developed and developing countries more than any skills shortage. Using Charles Taylor’s concept of irreducibly social goods, the paper extends Sen’s Capabilities Approach beyond its traditional focus on individual entitlements to present a view of scientific knowledge as a social good and the capability to produce it as a social capability. Expanding this capability requires going beyond current fragmented approaches to research capacity building to holistically strengthen the different social, political and economic structures that make up a nation’s innovation system. This has implications for the interpretation of human rights instruments beyond their current focus on access to knowledge and for focusing science policy and global research partnerships to design approaches to capacity building/development beyond individual training/skills building.

International higher education branch campuses (IBCs) in China and elsewhere possess dual identity. There are stakeholders on both the home and host sides. While international branch campuses receive scholarly attention, there has been little study of their research and the role of institutional dual identity in research capacity building. This paper develops a conceptual framework that brings the conditions, practices, and outcomes of research together with dual institutional identity, to study research capacity building at NYU Shanghai. Data from 16 semi-structured interviews with academics, administrators, and university leaders indicate that institutional dual identity is central to what the institution has achieved in building research, influencing every aspect of the process. NYU Shanghai's American identity has shaped academic practices and workloads, and NYU's multi-site structure provides significant networks and resources, yet the institution has also adapted to its Chinese identity and local stakeholders. Dual identity has generated policy conflicts and logistical hurdles yet has also opened institutional and academic opportunities unavailable to other US institutions. While every IBC is embedded in a complex and partly unique context, this study suggests a reflexive understanding of research capacity building in such settings, and contributes to empirical knowledge of cross-border institutions, especially in China. (HRK / Abstract übernommen).

There have been increasing calls for community–academic partnerships to enhance the capacity of partners to engage in policy advocacy aimed at eliminating health disparities. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is a partnership approach that can facilitate capacity building and policy change through equitable engagement of diverse partners. Toward this end, the Detroit Community–Academic Urban Research Center, a long-standing CBPR partnership, has conducted a policy training project. We describe CBPR and its relevance to health disparities; the interface between CBPR, policy advocacy, and health disparities; the rationale for capacity building to foster policy advocacy; and the process and outcomes of our policy advocacy training. We discuss lessons learned and implications for CBPR and policy advocacy to eliminate health disparities.

Implementation of effective cross-sectoral nutrition policies remains a challenge worldwide. By reviewing reports from World Health Organization meetings and consultations - convened for policy-makers representing Member States of the Western Pacific Region - we provide an insight into how national policy-makers and external actors can support different dimensions of nutrition policy implementation. Key insights of policy-makers attending food and nutrition-centred meetings include that country-level implementation of nutrition policy relies on strong policy design, organizational planning and governance mechanisms that promote collective responsibility across multiple sectors. Policy-makers responsible for implementing nutrition policies face major challenges resulting from limited capacity, both within and external to government, particularly in relation to monitoring and enforcement activities. Successful implementation of nutrition policy measures will require greater political will to provide the requisite resources and institutional structures to ensure sustained policy effectiveness. Nongovernmental partners, including international agencies and researchers, have an opportunity to support policy implementation by providing technical support to Member States to frame action on nutrition in a more compelling way. They can also help policy-makers to build the organizational and structural capacity to coordinate cross-sectoral policy. Improved policy design, planning and governance and strategic capacity-building, supported by external partners, can strengthen the sustained implementation of cross-sectoral nutrition policy and improve nutrition outcomes.