Explore the vast range of titles available.

Community-based organizations (CBOs) are well-positioned to address the negative effects of HIV stigma, which is prevalent in the U.S. South. This article describes a Gilead COMPASS-funded small grants and capacity-building program for CBOs to address stigma and describes the broad reach and positive outcomes associated with program implementation.

The Serranía de los Paraguas is a mountainous region situated in the central part of the Cordillera Occidental of Colombia. It rises some 2500 m above the wet forest and supports a high concentration of species richness and endemism for plants and terrestrial vertebrates (amphibians, birds, and mammals). In the case of amphibians, 61 named species occurring in The Serranía de los Paraguas are recognized in the literature, which are mostly the works of J.D. Lynch and P. Ruíz-Carranza in the 1990s. During a 9-d survey in the wet season (19–27 July 2019) on the Reserva Natural Comunitaria Cerro El Inglés (one of the hills of the Serranía de los Paraguas) on the frontier between Chocó and Valle del Cauca departments, we discovered two new species of the genus Pristimantis. Both species share a divided palmar tubercle as well as a distinctive color pattern on the groin, of which both are distinctive within Pristimantis. The first new species is distinguished by its small size and having a distinctive carmine red color pattern on groin, uniform lateral fringes on fingers (no crenulated), palmar tubercle deeply bifid (or divided), advertisement call composed of a short single note distinctly pulsed, and absence of nuptial pads as well as hyperdistal tubercles, inner tarsal tubercle and fold, and partial fusion of Toe IV and V. The second new species is distinguished by having dermal ridges on scapular region, conical tubercle on upper eyelid and heel, palmar tubercle divided, differentiated tympanic membrane, males with vocal slits, orange spots on groin, advertisement call composed of distinctly pulsed 6–8 notes, and absence of dorsolateral folds as well as cranial crest, hyperdistal tubercles, and toe webbing. Considering these new species, the number of amphibians inhabiting the Serranía de los Paraguas has increased to 63 species. It is important to point out that within this outstanding species richness of amphibians, there are 10 endemic species and 17 threatened species according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List (7 Critically Endangered, 5 Endangered, and 5 Vulnerable). Likewise, it is noteworthy that 29 terraranan species can be found in the Reserva Natural Comunitaria Cerro El Inglés. Thus, based on the species richness, endemism, diversity at higher taxonomic levels, and the number of threatened species, it seems reasonable to say that the Serranía de los Paraguas is a priority site for conservation of amphibians in Colombia.

Calls for the co‐production of climate knowledge and services are increasingly prominent in research and funding proposals, including within federally funded programs. While co‐production has led to more accessible and relevant climate services for frontline communities, scholars have identified numerous barriers to equitable relationships and outcomes within co‐production partnerships. In an effort to support the development of climate services through equitable research partnerships, the Consortium for Climate Risk in the Urban Northeast, a NOAA Climate Adaptation Partnership team, collaboratively designed and launched the Community Climate Resilience (CCR) Grant competition in 2022. The CCR program serves to provide funding and build capacity among community‐based organizations (CBOs) responding to climate variability in historically disinvested communities in the urban Northeast, as well as foster co‐production partnerships between the organizations and local university‐based researchers. This paper assesses the design and implementation of the program based on data collected through a survey of research partners, discussions with key stakeholders, and observation of relevant project meetings. Despite the incorporation of lessons from similar co‐production projects, program designers found several persistent impediments to equitable partnerships, including time constraints, funding limitations, and burdensome institutional requirements. We reflect on these challenges and offer strategies for overcoming barriers to equitable partnerships, including streamlining funding pass‐through structures, increasing transparency in funding competitions, promoting flexible funding options, and fostering communities of practice among CBOs and university partners. The findings are relevant for researchers and practitioners implementing equity‐focused co‐production partnerships and small grant programs in climate services and related fields. Plain Language Summary Knowledge and services produced collaboratively between scientists and local stakeholders have benefits for communities responding to evolving climate risks, including more accessible and relevant research. Funding agencies, including those at the federal level in the U.S., have increased requirements for co‐produced research and service development, prompting relationships between university researchers and community partners. However, co‐production partnerships are not always equitable. This paper identifies promising strategies for improving equity outcomes within co‐production relationships and small grant programs. The authors assess the design and implementation of the Community Climate Resilience (CCR) Grant competition, launched by the Consortium for Climate Risk in the Urban Northeast, a NOAA Climate Adaptation Partnership team, in 2022. While the CCR program attended to multiple dimensions of equity, the authors identified a number of impediments to equitable co‐production partnerships, including time and funding limitations and difficult institutional requirements. We suggest streamlining access to funding, increasing transparency in competition design, promoting realistic funding options, and fostering communities of practice to improve equity outcomes in similar small grant programs and co‐production relationships related to climate adaptation, resiliency, and other fields. Key Points We identify promising approaches for equitable co‐production relationships in university‐community small grant programs We assess equity implications of the design and implementation of a small grant program for community resilience in the urban Northeast Streamlining funding access, increasing transparency, promoting flexible spending, and fostering collaboration may improve equity outcomes

Rheumatic Heart Disease (RHD) remains endemic in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) despite its virtual elimination in high-income countries. RHD Action was launched to amplify global efforts to control RHD in 2015 by World Heart Federation and Reach, with demonstration projects in Uganda and Tanzania, and support from Medtronic Foundation. The Small Grants Programme focuses on three domains: People and Communities, Medicines and Technologies, and Systems and Services. It is designed to support patient and community groups in promoting awareness, advocacy, and to build health workers' capacity to prevent and treat RHD in LMICs. Our study evaluates the impact and effectiveness of the RHD Action Small Grants Programme. We conducted a mixed method study that involved both quantitative and qualitative surveys, through phone interviews and online surveys amongst the grant beneficiaries, to assess the impact and effectiveness of the small grant programme. An invitation to complete an online survey, using a Google Forms format, was issued to Small Grant Project Directors and Co-Directors that received funding for projects between 2017 and 2019. The online survey requested basic project information using tick boxes, Likert scales, and short answer open-ended questions about successes and challenges faced by recipients. The questionnaire also addressed recipients' experience with the RHD Action Small Grants process - applying for the grant, nature and quality of support received to carry out project, the reporting process, and any media coverage provided. For the phone interviews, responses to the short-answer questions were used as the basis for follow up phone interviews. The discussions were recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed for new and recurring themes emerging from the in-depth discussions. Initiated in 2017, RHD Action has funded 21 proposals from a pool of 60 submissions. Recipient countries include Zambia, Uganda (2), Namibia, Kenya, Malawi (2), Egypt, Ethiopia, Nigeria (3), Rwanda (2), Mozambique, and Cameroon (2) as well as Fiji (2), the Philippines and Nepal. Five recipients were funded in 2017, eight in 2018 and eight in 2019. Project directors are primarily junior doctors and project managers supervised by senior mentors. In most cases, this is their first funding award. These projects have demonstrated tangible impact and have provided content for first manuscript and abstract submissions and presentations at professional conferences. Grant reports are presented as website stories showcasing the achievements of small local efforts with meaningful impact. For RHD Action, there is large return on a modest monetary investment resulting in a very visible, viable global RHD networking platform for enthusiastic community and provider activists.

Universities play a crucial role in new knowledge production that is considered as key driver of economic growth. Hence, the support of university research is essential, usually provided by the public sector. This article presents an evaluation of small grants of universities through examining research projects in the field of economics implemented in years 2008-2018 in Slovakia. A negative binomial regression analysis was used to determine the effects of small grants on publication outputs of supported researchers. Impact of subsidy on the number of all publications and separately on the quantity of higher quality scientific articles was distinguished. Results show a slight positive impact of the volume of funds on overall publication outputs, even though other factors seem to be more important as the size of the research team, the proximity to the capital city as well as the quality of faculty at which the project is implemented. Conversely, the impact of the volume of funds on higher quality publication appears to be not significant. In this case, more substantial are factors indicating the previous reputation of the research team, ranking of faculty and general research environment. Our findings indicate that researchers with great publication activity are willing to report high quality scientific articles in forthcoming periods regardless the support. Ergo, less active scientists are not benefiting from small grant in terms of their publication improvement.

Background: For decades, WHO has been providing targeted funding for health research on priority areas of public health in the Eastern Mediterranean Region through different grant schemes. Aims: This paper investigated the impact of WHO/EMRO’s funding schemes and factors facilitating or hindering such impact. Methods: We assessed the impact of health research funded by WHO/EMRO during 2010–2018 from the health, economic, decision-making, and knowledge translation perspectives, emphasizing accountability and analysis, using the Payback framework, mixed-method approach (quantitative, qualitative), and triangulation. Results: Principal investigators of 45 (45.9%) out of the 98 funded projects responded to the questionnaire. Almost all (88.0%) the 45 projects reported developing at least one decision-making document. Less than half reported producing peer-reviewed documents and conducting target group empowerment, while 24.0% said they secured research funds from other organizations. For 23 projects (51.0%), research results could have had a direct impact on health and on economy, and 25 (56.0%) projects conducted at least one active knowledge translation activity. Using multiple logistic regression, there was no significant association between the country of research and impact on decision-making and implementation of result if health or economic impact was expected. Conclusion: To strengthen the impact of research, WHO/EMRO should embark on a series of interventions to guide and empower countries in the use of research results. Discrepancies between health research systems in the Eastern Mediterranean Region and differences in individual and organizational capacities in the different countries require targeted interventions.

Despite the direct contribution of community-engaged research towards effective translation, establishing strong and sustained community academic research partnerships remains a challenge. The Atlanta Clinical and Translational Science Institute's Community Engagement Research Program (CERP) has developed and implemented three models for using small grants to seed new community academic partnerships for research: 1) community-initiated health projects with faculty partners, 2) dissemination of discoveries to community partners, and 3) building collaborative research capacity. In this paper, we describe each model in terms of its purpose, funding level, funding period, proposal requirements, selection criteria and faculty involvement. Resulting partnerships are described, along with benefits and challenges from faculty and community perspectives, and lessons learned in using these mechanisms to promote community-engaged research. These models may aid others attempting to promote community-engaged research for the purpose of narrowing the gap between research, practice and ultimately, impact on community health.

This case study provides details of a small-grants scheme (delivered by the Institute of Classical Studies since 2018) which is designed to support researchers in classics and related subjects to undertake activities whereby they are able to share their research with non-specialist audiences (that is, people who do not already have an academic knowledge of the field in which they are researching). It outlines the practicalities of running such a scheme, describes the outcomes and impact which the scheme has had to date, and concludes by offering recommendations for organizations which may be considering setting up such a grant programme specifically to support public engagement with academic research. The lessons learned as a result of this scheme could be readily applied to other academic disciplines (particularly – but not limited to – those with an arts and humanities focus which share characteristics with classics) or institutional contexts.

There is a demand for providing evidence on the effectiveness of research investments on the promotion of novice researchers' scientific productivity and production of research with new initiatives and innovations. We used a mixed method approach to evaluate the funding effect of the New Investigator Fund (NIF) by comparing scientific productivity between award recipients and non-recipients. We reviewed NIF grant applications submitted from 2004 to 2013. Scientific productivity was assessed by confirming the publication of the NIF-submitted application. Online databases were searched, independently and in duplicate, to locate the publications. Applicants' perceptions and experiences were collected through a short survey and categorized into specified themes. Multivariable logistic regression was performed. Odds ratios (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) are reported. Of 296 applicants, 163 (55 %) were awarded. Gender, affiliation, and field of expertise did not affect funding decisions. More physicians with graduate education (32.0 %) and applicants with a doctorate degree (21.5 %) were awarded than applicants without postgraduate education (9.8 %). Basic science research (28.8 %), randomized controlled trials (24.5 %), and feasibility/pilot trials (13.3 %) were awarded more than observational designs (p   <  0.001). Adjusting for applicants and application factors, awardees published the NIF application threefold more than non-awardees (OR = 3.4, 95 %, CI = 1.9, 5.9). The survey response rate was 90.5 %, and only 58 % commented on their perceptions, successes, and challenges of the submission process. These findings suggest that research investments as small as seed funding are effective for scientific productivity and professional growth of novice investigators and production of research with new initiatives and innovations. Further efforts are recommended to enhance the support of small grant funding programs.

International sustainable development and conservation agendas can help regional decision makers to frame their own agendas. Agendas can guide programs and initiatives that drive funding and capacity development for research, and the research, in turn, provides knowledge, evidence, capacity building, and impetus for action. Deficits in research capacity, knowledge, and funding confound efforts on the impact pathway from agenda to outcome. Small-grants programs can play an important role in filling these gaps. In this paper, we evaluate a suite of impacts of a small-grants program linked to a regional research agenda for the Andean forest landscape. Using the concept of additionality, and analyzing the database of applications for the solicitation process and responses to a questionnaire by awardees, we evaluated the effects of the funding on research input, outputs and outcomes, and transformative application to sustainable development. We found that the solicitation process, which yielded 180 applications, fell short of its goal of attracting applicants well distributed among the Andean countries, applications from women, and applications for interdisciplinary transformative research projects. Nevertheless, the 15 projects that were funded did ultimately cross disciplinary lines, result in diverse outputs and outcomes, and help to advance work toward achieving sustainable development and biodiversity conservation in the Andean forest landscape. We recommend that small-grants programs that focus narrowly on a topic or region be supported and that they strive to elevate regional researchers and women in the community of practice.