Explore the vast range of titles available.

Abstract BACKGROUND The setting of a randomized trial can determine whether its findings are generalizable and can therefore apply to different settings. The contribution of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to neurosurgical randomized trials has not been systematically described before. OBJECTIVE To perform a systematic analysis of design characteristics and methodology, funding source, and interventions studied between trials led by and/or conducted in high-income countries (HICs) vs LMICs. METHODS From January 2003 to July 2016, English-language trials with >5 patients assessing any one neurosurgical procedure against another procedure, nonsurgical treatment, or no treatment were retrieved from MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. Income classification for each country was assessed using the World Bank Atlas method. RESULTS A total of 73.3% of the 397 studies that met inclusion criteria were led by HICs, whereas 26.7% were led by LMICs. Of the 106 LMIC-led studies, 71 were led by China. If China is excluded, only 8.8% were led by LMICs. HIC-led trials enrolled a median of 92 patients vs a median of 65 patients in LMIC-led trials. HIC-led trials enrolled from 7.6 sites vs 1.8 sites in LMIC-led studies. Over half of LMIC-led trials were institutionally funded (54.7%). The majority of both HIC- and LMIC-led trials evaluated spinal neurosurgery, 68% and 71.7%, respectively. CONCLUSION We have established that there is a substantial disparity between HICs and LMICs in the number of published neurosurgical trials. A concerted effort to invest in research capacity building in LMICs is an essential step towards ensuring context- and resource-specific high-quality evidence is generated.

Background The Africa Capacity Building Initiative (ACBI) programme aimed to 'strengthen the research and training capacity of higher education institutions and support the development of individual scientists in sub-Saharan Africa through UK-Africa research collaborations' including by funding PhD studentships. We conducted research to understand students' experiences and to see how consortia-based programmes such as ACBI and their own institutions can enhance PhD students' research environment and progress. Methods In-depth interviews with 35 ACBI-funded PhD students explored their perspectives about how their research and personal development benefitted from belonging to a research consortium. Questionnaires were used to corroborate interview findings. Results Students recognised that membership of a research consortium provided many benefits compared to less well-resourced peers. By drawing on the programme and consortiums' resources, they were often able to overcome some limitations in their own institution's systems and facilities. Through their consortia they could access a wide range of international expertise and support from mentors and colleagues for their technical and psychosocial needs. Multiple consortia opportunities for engaging with the international scientific community and for networking, gave them confidence and motivation and enhanced their career prospects. Conclusion Our study and its recommendations highlight how the breadth and diversity of resources available to PhD students through research consortia can be harnessed to facilitate students' progress and to create a supportive and conducive research environment. It also underlines how, through a multi-level approach, consortia can contribute to longer-term improvements in institutional research environments for PhD students.

Background Training has been used to develop research skills among sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) researchers. Remote education may accelerate transfer of skills and reduce barriers to strengthening research capacity. This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of remote training on SRHR research and describe enablers and barriers of effective remote training. Methods PubMed, Embase, and Scielo were searched up to December 2022 for studies that evaluated in any language online research training programmes either on a SRHR topic or tailored for professionals working in SRHR published since 1990. Characteristics of included studies, the programmes they evaluated, the programme’s effectiveness, and reported barriers and enablers to remote learning were extracted. Three researchers synthesized and described findings on effectiveness, impact and outcomes mapping them against the Kirkpatrick model. Additionally, thematic analysis from qualitative data was conducted to identify themes relating to the barriers and enablers of remote learning. Results Of 1,510 articles retrieved, six studies that included 2,058 remote learners met the inclusion criteria. Five out of six studies described empirical improvements in participant research knowledge/skills and three studies reported improvements in attitudes/self-efficacy towards research. Follow-up surveys from four studies revealed frequent application of new research skills and improved opportunities for career advancement and publication following online trainings. Cited barriers to effective online SRHR research training included time management challenges and participants’ competing professional obligations; limited opportunities for interaction; and lack of support from home institutions. Cited enablers included well-structured and clear courses, learning objectives and expectations with participants; ensuring a manageable workload; facilitating interactions with mentors and hands-on experience; and selecting programme topics relevant to participants’ jobs. Conclusion Remote SRHR training can lead to improvements in research knowledge, skills, and attitudes, particularly when course learning objectives, structure, and expectations are outlined clearly, and ongoing mentorship is provided.

Mentorship is an important contributor to strengthening research capacity among health researchers. Formal mentorship programmes, targeting women mentees can help mitigate some of the gendered power dynamics and can also help early career researchers learn from others' experiences of navigating these challenges. In 2020, the UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction at the World Health Organization launched a mentorship programme geared towards early career women researchers. This paper describes the process of designing and implementing a mentorship programme for early career women sexual and reproductive health and rights researchers from low- and middle-income countries including valuable lessons learned vis-à-vis existing evidence. Some of these findings have been incorporated into iterations of the programme launched in 2022. Critical points include: ensuring considerations for language and geographical distribution; allowing mentees to participate in the matching process; providing training and opportunities to network and learn from other participants; offering the support and structure for developing these relationships. Providing women researchers with the tools - through mentorship - to navigate the unique challenges they face in their career journeys, can have a lasting impact on research capacity. Countries and institutions committed to strengthening research capacity need to focus on the holistic growth and motivation of individuals in a way that ensures gender equality.

The full impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is yet to be well established; however, as the pandemic spreads, and early results emerge, unmet needs are being revealed, and pressing questions are being asked about who is most affected, how, where, and in what ways government responses might be exacerbating inequalities. A number of scholars have called for more in-depth critical research on COVID-19 and health inequalities to produce a strong empirical evidence based on these issues. There are also justifiable concerns about the scarcity of health-equity actions oriented analyses of the situation and calls for more empirical evidence on COVID-19 and health inequalities. A preliminary condition to establish this type of information is strong capacity to conduct health inequalities research. Worldwide, however, this type of capacity is limited, which, alongside other challenges, will likely hinder capacities of many countries to develop comprehensive equity-oriented COVID-19 analyses, and adequate responses to present and future crises. The current pandemic reinforces the pending need to invest in and strengthen these research capacities. These capacities must be supported by widespread recognition and concern, cognitive social capital, and greater commitment to coordinated, transparent action, and responsibility. Otherwise, we will remain inadequately prepared to respond and meet our society’s unmet needs.

'Research capacity strengthening' (RCS) is an umbrella term that can be used to describe a wide variety of activities conducted in support of diverse objectives premised upon distinct, potentially opposing, views. Despite this, the ultimate objective of RCS activities is rarely made explicit which can be problematic when diverse objectives are possible. By 'ultimate' objective we are referring to the overarching (often long-term) goal an RCS initiative is intended to contribute towards (e.g. better population health) as opposed to the more immediate 'proximate' (often short-term) objectives of any such activity (e.g. improved capacity to undertake infectious disease research). We argue a need for those funding, designing and implementing RCS initiatives to make clear statements as to the ultimate objective that they foresee their respective initiative contributing towards as well as the proposed pathway and associated assumptions that underlie their approach. Examples of distinct ultimate objectives for RCS initiatives are presented alongside fictitious examples of how they may be transparently reported from both a funder and implementor perspective. Such transparency should be routine within the scope of funding calls for RCS activities (even when such activities are only a minor component of the call), subsequent applications to those calls and any description of an applied RCS activity/ies and/or the associated outcomes thereof. The process of determining one's ultimate objective will further cause funders and actors to think through their respective initiatives more thoroughly and make informed choices and better designed RCS projects. Doing so would reduce any ambiguity associated with the use of the term 'research capacity strengthening' and would provide a stronger foundation for robust programme evaluation.

Background Inadequate research capacity impedes the development of evidence-based health programming in sub-Saharan Africa. However, funding for research capacity building (RCB) is often insufficient and restricted, limiting institutions’ ability to address current RCB needs. The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation’s African Health Initiative (AHI) funded Population Health Implementation and Training (PHIT) partnership projects in five African countries (Ghana, Mozambique, Rwanda, Tanzania and Zambia) to implement health systems strengthening initiatives inclusive of RCB. Methods Using Cooke’s framework for RCB, RCB activity leaders from each country reported on RCB priorities, activities, program metrics, ongoing challenges and solutions. These were synthesized by the authorship team, identifying common challenges and lessons learned. Results For most countries, each of the RCB domains from Cooke’s framework was a high priority. In about half of the countries, domain specific activities happened prior to PHIT. During PHIT, specific RCB activities varied across countries. However, all five countries used AHI funding to improve research administrative support and infrastructure, implement research trainings and support mentorship activities and research dissemination. While outcomes data were not systematically collected, countries reported holding 54 research trainings, forming 56 mentor-mentee relationships, training 201 individuals and awarding 22 PhD and Masters-level scholarships. Over the 5 years, 116 manuscripts were developed. Of the 59 manuscripts published in peer-reviewed journals, 29 had national first authors and 18 had national senior authors. Trainees participated in 99 conferences and projects held 37 forums with policy makers to facilitate research translation into policy. Conclusion All five PHIT projects strongly reported an increase in RCB activities and commended the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation for prioritizing RCB, funding RCB at adequate levels and time frames and for allowing flexibility in funding so that each project could implement activities according to their trainees’ needs. As a result, many common challenges for RCB, such as adequate resources and local and international institutional support, were not identified as major challenges for these projects. Overall recommendations are for funders to provide adequate and flexible funding for RCB activities and for institutions to offer a spectrum of RCB activities to enable continued growth, provide adequate mentorship for trainees and systematically monitor RCB activities.

Background Research capacity-strengthening is recognized as an important component of global health partnership working, and as such merits monitoring and evaluation. Early career researchers are often the recipients of research capacity-strengthening programmes, but there is limited literature regarding their experience. Methods We conducted a qualitative study as part of an internal evaluation of the capacity-strengthening programme of the international HERA (HEalthcare Responding to violence and Abuse) research group. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with group members, and thematic analysis was undertaken. Results Eighteen group members participated; nine of these were early career researchers, and nine were other research team members, including mid-career and senior researchers. Key themes were identified which related to their engagement with and experience of a research capacity-strengthening programme. We explored formal/planned elements of our programme: mentoring and supervision; training and other opportunities; funding and resources. Participants also discussed informal/unplanned elements which acted as important facilitators and/or barriers to engaging with research capacity-strengthening: English language; open relationships and communication; connection and disconnection; and diversity. The sustainability of the programme was also discussed. Conclusions Our study gives voice to the early career researcher experience of engaging with a research capacity-strengthening programme in a global health group. We highlight some important elements that have informed adaptations to our programme and may be relevant for consideration by other global health research capacity-strengthening programmes. Our findings contribute to the growing literature and important discussions around research capacity-strengthening and how this relates to the future directions of global health partnership working.

Background: There is increasing demand for culturally responsive and contextually appropriate evaluation tools that can promote transformative change in the African development space. One way to address this demand is by adapting the existing Western-based evaluation theories to ensure that they are sensitive to the African settings. This protocol describes how the realist evaluation, which is a Western-based approach, would be implemented in a manner that respects the indigenous research principles. The study would be positioned within the African Research Initiative for Scientific Excellence (ARISE) programme – a research capacity strengthening initiative. Methods and Analysis: A multiple case study design will be used, specifically targeting three purposively selected research projects. Initial programme theories (IPTs) will be elicited through review of the ARISE programme documents, focus group discussions with project level stakeholders and beneficiaries and review of published literature. Qualitative methods will then be applied to test the IPTs. Interviews with the Principal Investigators (PIs), research collaborators, PIs’ mentors, finance and grants management (research support) staff and partners; (b) participant observation with the PIs and (c) storytelling sessions with the masters/PhD trainees. Retroductive theorising will be applied in data analysis. Deductive reasoning will seek to identify Contexts, Mechanism and Outcomes (CMOs) that are aligned with the IPTs. New CMOs will be inductively identified. The indigenous principles will be infused in different stages of the evaluation. Conclusion: This study will be the first of its kind to explore how the realist evaluation approach can be indigenised in an African setting. Tensions and incompatibilities between the realist evaluation approach and the indigenous research principles will be reported as part of the study results. An ‘indigenous-inspired realist evaluation’ framework will be suggested based on the reflections on the evaluation methods and processes which could be tested and refined by researchers in Africa.

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.