Explore the vast range of titles available.

AbstractPopulation-level vaccination with newly developed vaccines to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic created a need to monitor vaccine effectiveness (VE) in the context of emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and changing epidemiology. WHO and partners launched the African Region Monitoring Vaccine Effectiveness (AFRO-MoVE) Network in March 2021 to assess the performance of COVID-19 vaccines in real-world conditions in Africa. The Network aimed to facilitate and support comparable COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness studies in the African region, to provide a platform of scientific expertise and infrastructure, encourage the use of robust similar study designs to enable pooling to produce regional VE estimates and to build a sustainable network of hospitals, institutions, and experts to evaluate vaccines against pandemic and endemic respiratory pathogens. In the two years since its inception, the network has coordinated VE studies in the region and provided technical guidance and generic protocols employing robust methodologies. It brought together over 200 experts, representing 22 African countries and 55 organisations, and strengthened capacities by hosting ten webinars and six technical workshops. Of the 55 partners organisations, 25 based in 13 countries collaborated on implementing VE studies in the region. AFRO-MoVE supported study implementation in two phases, first targeting COVID-19 vaccination priority groups, then the general population. The network provides technical and financial support to nine studies, including three cohort studies in health workers and adults with comorbidities, and six test-negative design studies evaluating VE against symptomatic and severe disease. A data platform was established for pooled regional estimates. The AFRO-MoVE Network can form a sustainable platform to provide data for evidence informed decisions and timely VE monitoring for existing and new vaccines against respiratory pathogens and other diseases in the African region. Further development and consolidation of the network’s activities can enable rapid response to future epidemics and pandemics.

Background Building the capacity of allied health professionals to engage in research has been recognised as a priority due to the many benefits it brings for patients, healthcare professionals, healthcare organisations and society more broadly. There is increasing recognition of the need for a coordinated multi-strategy approach to building research capacity. The aim of this systematic review was to identify existing integrated models and frameworks which guide research capacity building for allied health professionals working in publicly funded secondary and tertiary healthcare organisations. Methods A systematic review was undertaken searching five databases (Medline, CINAHL, Embase, AustHealth and Web of Science) using English language restrictions. Two authors independently screened and reviewed studies, extracted data and performed quality assessments using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Content and thematic analysis methods were used to code and categorise the data. Results A total of 8492 unique records were screened by title and abstract, of which 20 were reviewed in full-text. One quantitative study and five qualitative studies were included, each of which describing a research capacity building framework. Three interconnected and interdependent themes were identified as being essential for research capacity building, including ‘supporting clinicians in research’, ‘working together’ and ‘valuing research for excellence’. Conclusions The findings of this systematic review have been synthesised to develop a succinct and integrated framework for research capacity building which is relevant for allied health professionals working in publicly funded secondary and tertiary healthcare organisations. This framework provides further evidence to suggest that research capacity building strategies are interlinked and interdependent and should be implemented as part of an integrated ‘whole of system’ approach, with commitment and support from all levels of leadership and management. Future directions for research include using behaviour change and knowledge translation theories to guide the implementation and evaluation of this new framework. Trial registration The protocol for this systematic review has been registered with PROSPERO. The registration number is CRD42018087476 .

Growing demand for Global Health (GH) training and the internationalisation of education requires innovative approaches to training. Blended learning (BL, a form of e-learning combining face-to-face or real-time interaction with computer-assisted learning) is a promising approach for increasing GH research capacity in low- to middle-income countries. Implementing BL, however, requires additional skills and efforts from lecturers. This paper explores lecturers' views and experiences of delivering BL courses within the context of two north-south collaborative research capacity building projects, ARCADE HSSR and ARCADE RSDH. We used a qualitative approach to explore the experiences and perceptions of 11 lecturers involved in designing and delivering BL courses collaboratively across university campuses in four countries (South Africa, Uganda, India and Sweden). Data were collected using interviews in person or via Skype. Inductive qualitative content analysis was used. Participants reported that they felt BL increased access to learning opportunities and made training more flexible and convenient for adult learners, which were major motivations to engage in BL. However, despite eagerness to implement and experiment with BL courses, they lacked capacity and support, and found the task time consuming. They needed to make compromises between course objectives and available technological tools, in the context of poor Internet infrastructure. BL courses have the potential to build bridges between low- and middle-income contexts and between lecturers and students to meet the demand for GH training. Lecturers were very motivated to try these approaches but encountered obstacles in implementing BL courses. Considerable investments are needed to implement BL and support lecturers in delivering courses.

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.

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.

Background Having a research-engaged health and medical workforce is associated with improvements in clinical outcomes for patients. As such, there has been significant government investment internationally to support health care organisations and services to increase staff engagement with research. Objectives This scoping review sought to provide an overview of the literature describing strategies employed to increase research engagement by health care providers and organisations, and to undertake a qualitative analysis to generate a list of research engagement strategies. Methods A scoping review using systematic search strategies was undertaken to locate peer-review publications and grey literature related to research engagement by health care providers and organisations. Research engagement was defined as a ‘deliberate set of intellectual and practical activities undertaken by health care staff and organisations to conduct research’. A database search of electronic records was performed with no limit on publication date. Publications were included regardless of study type (excluding systematic reviews) and categorised as either databased (presenting data or new analysis of existing data) and non-databased (no new data or analyses). Databased publications were further classified according to study type, study design and setting. A qualitative synthesis using a Framework Approach was undertaken with all studies that described a strategy to improve research engagement. Results A total of 152 publications were included in this study with 54% categorised as non-databased. Of the databased articles, the majority (72%) were descriptive studies describing prevalence of correlates of research engagement, 17 (25%) described intervention studies where only two were controlled studies. The following research engagement strategies were identified: i) dual skilled team/staff, ii) resources or physical infrastructure, iii) incentives, iv) leadership support of research, v) education/training, vi) networks, vii) forming partnerships or collaborations and viii) overall leadership structure of entity. Conclusions The literature on research engagement is primarily opinion-based and descriptive in nature. To provide the evidence needed to inform strategies, this needs to progress beyond descriptive to more rigorous well-designed intervention research.

Background Research capacity building programs, such as the Research Ready Grant Program (RRGP), are important methods of engaging clinicians in research knowledge and processes. Understanding the experiences and perceptions of clinicians who engage with such programs is important, as they provide valuable insights into the design and approach of research capability building programs. Methods Under the framework of the New World Kirkpatrick Model of evaluation, this study adopted a descriptive qualitative approach and used semi-structured interviews to explore the experiences of clinicians who engaged with the RRGP. The aims were to identify the components of the program that facilitate clinicians’ capacity to participate in the research processes. One member of each funded research team from the RRGP 2022 cohort was interviewed ( n  = 6). Interview transcripts were thematically analysed. Results Thematic analysis found that RRGP provided just in time learning, leveraging current clinical issues to engage clinicians, and provide experiential learning which demystified research processes. In the regional setting, the RRGP allowed clinicians to think globally, but to apply research to their local setting. Conclusion The RRGP provides a vehicle for change to facilitate learning and offers opportunities for clinicians to engage in research. Facilitating collaboration, quarantining time and space for research and balancing work, life and research time are important elements to consider when implementing research capability programs.

Background Research is a key driver in improving the quality of care in health settings. The UK Government has published its strategy to increase research within the National Health Service (NHS) and to implement lessons learned from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We investigated the current research interest, culture, and capacity amongst staff in one medium-sized, regional Health Board in Scotland to determine how research activity may be increased and how attitudes to research may have changed following the recent pandemic. Methods This study was part of a two-phase evaluation with both quantitative and qualitative methods using an initial questionnaire ( n  = 503) and then semi-structured interviews with 28 staff recruited following completion of their questionnaire. Results from the first phase have been published; this paper presents the results of the second phase. The interview explored the perception of the research culture and capacity at an organisational, team and individual level. Topics included perceived barriers and facilitators for engaging in research activities and the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on changes in attitude to research within the NHS. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using thematic analysis. Results Respondents comprised 7 nurses/midwives, 6 doctors/dentists, 3 allied health professionals, 3 other therapeutic and 9 admin/support staff. All respondents identified similar facilitators and barriers to undertaking research, irrespective of their role or experience with research. Four key themes were: the influence of structural and professional differences, the need for protected time, access to resources, and increased visibility of research. Responses varied between staff grades; those with research embedded as part of their training and professional role expressed more accepting views to undertaking research. Issues identified were the provision of protected time, skills training, practical support from research facilitators working in clinical teams, active encouragement by managers, improved communication, and the adoption of a research strategy at Board level. Research activity declined during the pandemic, but respondents expressed an increased awareness of the importance of research as a priority in improving health outcomes during the pandemic. Conclusions The research interest and culture in our Health Board could be improved by addressing the four broad themes identified, thereby increasing research capacity in line with Government aspirations. The findings may have relevance for small to medium-sized Health Boards in the UK and elsewhere when responding to the call to increase their research profile.

There is an increasing need to provide evidence of outcomes within the community services sector. However, funding challenges, workforce pressures, and the complex social contexts in which community service organizations operate limit their potential for organizational capacity building. This has flow on effects on the ability to conduct impactful and strategic research. The embedded research model (i.e., when a researcher is embedded into a “host” organisation) may aid in building research and evaluation capacity. This may be particularly useful for the purposes of routine outcome monitoring and continuous quality improvement, which may in turn lead to opportunities for local research and evaluation through the embedded research model. Previous research on the embedded research model across various settings has suggested a number of lessons for implementation. However, to date, nil research has focused on community service organizations. Additional considerations need to be made within this context due to resource limitations, ethical issues, and diverse reporting requirements. Such considerations include the need to take a ‘slow science’ approach to research and evaluation outputs, consideration of the organisation’s readiness for change, and the need to report activities in a transparent, thorough, and consistent manner. The endorsement of embedded research in community service organisations may aid in providing evidence of outcomes for clients, and simultaneously, increase the ability for policymakers to evidence-informed decisions on how to improve outcomes for the local population.

Background Research capacity building (RCB) initiatives have gained steady momentum in health settings across the globe to reduce the gap between research evidence and health practice and policy. RCB strategies are typically multidimensional, comprising several initiatives targeted at different levels within health organisations. Research education and training is a mainstay strategy targeted at the individual level and yet, the evidence for research education in health settings is unclear. This review scopes the literature on research education programs for nurses and allied health professionals, delivered and evaluated in healthcare settings in high-income countries. Methods The review was conducted systematically in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology. Eleven academic databases and numerous grey literature platforms were searched. Data were extracted from the included full texts in accordance with the aims of the scoping review. A narrative approach was used to synthesise findings. Program characteristics, approaches to program evaluation and the outcomes reported were extracted and summarised. Results Database searches for peer-reviewed and grey literature yielded 12,457 unique records. Following abstract and title screening, 207 full texts were reviewed. Of these, 60 records were included. Nine additional records were identified on forward and backward citation searching for the included records, resulting in a total of 69 papers describing 68 research education programs. Research education programs were implemented in fourteen different high-income countries over five decades. Programs were multifaceted, often encompassed experiential learning, with half including a mentoring component. Outcome measures largely reflected lower levels of Barr and colleagues’ modified Kirkpatrick educational outcomes typology (e.g., satisfaction, improved research knowledge and confidence), with few evaluated objectively using traditional research milestones (e.g., protocol completion, manuscript preparation, poster, conference presentation). Few programs were evaluated using organisational and practice outcomes. Overall, evaluation methods were poorly described. Conclusion Research education remains a key strategy to build research capacity for nurses and allied health professionals working in healthcare settings. Evaluation of research education programs needs to be rigorous and, although targeted at the individual, must consider longer-term and broader organisation-level outcomes and impacts. Examining this is critical to improving clinician-led health research and the translation of research into clinical practice.