Suchergebnisse

Conducting health research in conflict-affected areas and other complex environments is difficult, yet vital. However, the capacity to undertake such research is often limited and with little translation into practice, particularly in poorer countries. There is therefore a need to strengthen health research capacity in conflict-affected countries and regions. In this narrative review, we draw together evidence from low and middle-income countries to highlight challenges to research capacity strengthening in conflict, as well as examples of good practice. We find that authorship trends in health research indicate global imbalances in research capacity, with implications for the type and priorities of research produced, equity within epistemic communities and the development of sustainable research capacity in low and middle-income countries. Yet, there is little evidence on what constitutes effective health research capacity strengthening in conflict-affected areas. There is more evidence on health research capacity strengthening in general, from which several key enablers emerge: adequate and sustained financing; effective stewardship and equitable research partnerships; mentorship of researchers of all levels; and effective linkages of research to policy and practice. Strengthening health research capacity in conflict-affected areas needs to occur at multiple levels to ensure sustainability and equity. Capacity strengthening interventions need to take into consideration the dynamics of conflict, power dynamics within research collaborations, the potential impact of technology, and the wider political environment in which they take place.

Background National health research for development (R4D) platforms in lower income countries (LICs) are few. The Health Research Capacity Strengthening Initiative (HRCSI, 2008–2013) was a national systems-strengthening programme in Malawi involved in national priority setting, decision-making on funding, and health research actor mobilization. Methods We adopted a retrospective mixed-methods evaluation approach, starting with information gleaned from reports (HRCSI and Malawian) and databases (HRCSI). A framework of a health research system (actors and components) guided report review and interview guide development. From a list of 173 individuals involved in HRCSI, 30 interviewees were selected within categories of stakeholders. Interviews were conducted face-to-face or via telephone/Skype over 1 month, documented with extensive notes. Analysis of emerging themes was iterative among co-evaluators, with synthesis according to the implementation stage. Results Major HRCSI outputs included (1) National research priority-setting: through the production of themed background papers by Malawian health researchers and broad consultation, HRCSI led the development of a National Health Research Agenda (2012–2016), widely regarded as one of HRCSI's foremost achievements. (2) Institutional research capacity: there was an overwhelming view that HRCSI had produced a step-change in the number of high calibre scientists in Malawi and in fostering research interest among young Malawians, providing support for around 56 MSc and PhD students, and over 400 undergraduate health-related projects. (3) Knowledge sharing: HRCSI supported research dissemination through national and institutional meetings by sponsoring attendance at conferences and through close relationships with individuals in the print media for disseminating information. (4) Sustainability: From 2011–2013, HRCSI significantly improved research systems, processes and leadership in Malawi, but further strengthening was needed for HRCSI to be effectively integrated into government structures and sustained long-term. Overall, HRCSI carried out many components relevant to a national health research system coordinating platform, and became competent at managing over half of 12 areas of performance for research councils. Debate about its location and challenges to sustainability remain open questions. Conclusions More experimentation in the setting-up of national health R4D platforms to promote country 'ownership' is needed, accompanied by evaluation processes that facilitate learning and knowledge exchange of better practices among key actors in health R4D systems.

Conducting health research in conflict-affected areas and other complex environments is difficult, yet vital. However, the capacity to undertake such research is often limited and with little translation into practice, particularly in poorer countries. There is therefore a need to strengthen health research capacity in conflict-affected countries and regions. In this narrative review, we draw together evidence from low and middle-income countries to highlight challenges to research capacity strengthening in conflict, as well as examples of good practice. We find that authorship trends in health research indicate global imbalances in research capacity, with implications for the type and priorities of research produced, equity within epistemic communities and the development of sustainable research capacity in low and middle-income countries. Yet, there is little evidence on what constitutes effective health research capacity strengthening in conflict-affected areas. There is more evidence on health research capacity strengthening in general, from which several key enablers emerge: adequate and sustained financing; effective stewardship and equitable research partnerships; mentorship of researchers of all levels; and effective linkages of research to policy and practice. Strengthening health research capacity in conflict-affected areas needs to occur at multiple levels to ensure sustainability and equity. Capacity strengthening interventions need to take into consideration the dynamics of conflict, power dynamics within research collaborations, the potential impact of technology, and the wider political environment in which they take place.

Strengthening health research capacity in low- and middle-income countries remains a major policy goal. The Health Research Capacity Strengthening (HRCS) Global Learning (HGL) program of work documented experiences of HRCS across sub-Saharan Africa. We reviewed findings from HGL case studies and reflective papers regarding the dynamics of HRCS. Analysis was structured with respect to common challenges in such work, identified through a multi-dimensional scaling analysis of responses from 37 participants at the concluding symposium of the program of work. Symposium participants identified 10 distinct clusters of challenges: engaging researchers, policymakers, and donors; securing trust and cooperation; finding common interest; securing long-term funding; establishing sustainable models of capacity strengthening; ensuring Southern ownership; accommodating local health system priorities and constraints; addressing disincentives for academic engagement; establishing and retaining research teams; and sustaining mentorship and institutional support. Analysis links these challenges to three key and potentially competing drivers of the political economy of health research: an enduring model of independent researchers and research leaders, the globalization of knowledge and the linked mobility of (elite) individuals, and institutionalization of research within universities and research centres and, increasingly, national research and development agendas. We identify tensions between efforts to embrace the global 'Community of Science' and the promotion and protection of national and institutional agendas in an unequal global health research environment. A nuanced understanding of the dynamics and implications of the uneven global health research landscape is required, along with a willingness to explore pragmatic models that seek to balance these competing drivers.

Journal article published in THE LANCET. ; Health research has a key role in the development of low-income and middle-income countries. There are several current initiatives that have greatly contributed to capacity strengthening of health research in sub-Saharan Africa, including those supported by WHO and Tropical Disease Research (TDR), the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA) and Department for Research Cooperation (SAREC), the European Union, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the International Clinical Epidemiology Network (INCLEN), the Fogarty International Centre, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Wellcome Trust. However, enormous challenges remain for sub-Saharan Africa to establish a common framework for sustainable research capacity strengthening. The Global Ministerial Forum on Research for Health in Bamako will give emphasis to the challenges of research for development and health, the need for more health-system research, and a greater intersectoral approach to science, technology, and health. That health research is indispensable for improving health, equity, and development is now widely accepted,1 yet how sub-Saharan African countries can develop their fragile health systems and their own capacity to do health research is rarely discussed.2 A recent African-led initiative—the Initiative to Strengthen Health Research Capacity in Africa (ISHReCA)—has identified nine key requirements to strengthening health-research capacity in Africa (panel 1). We focus on these requirements and suggest practical strategies for sustainable capacity strengthening in African institutions. ; Health research has a key role in the development of low-income and middle-income countries. There are several current initiatives that have greatly contributed to capacity strengthening of health research in sub-Saharan Africa, including those supported by WHO and Tropical Disease Research (TDR), the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA) and Department for Research Cooperation (SAREC), the European Union, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the International Clinical Epidemiology Network (INCLEN), the Fogarty International Centre, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Wellcome Trust. However, enormous challenges remain for sub-Saharan Africa to establish a common framework for sustainable research capacity strengthening. The Global Ministerial Forum on Research for Health in Bamako will give emphasis to the challenges of research for development and health, the need for more health-system research, and a greater intersectoral approach to science, technology, and health. That health research is indispensable for improving health, equity, and development is now widely accepted,1 yet how sub-Saharan African countries can develop their fragile health systems and their own capacity to do health research is rarely discussed.2 A recent African-led initiative—the Initiative to Strengthen Health Research Capacity in Africa (ISHReCA)—has identified nine key requirements to strengthening health-research capacity in Africa (panel 1). We focus on these requirements and suggest practical strategies for sustainable capacity strengthening in African institutions.

Africa's progress depends on her capacity to generate, adapt, and use scientific knowledge to meet regional health and development needs. Yet, Africa's higher education institutions that are mandated to foster this capacity lack adequate resources to generate and apply knowledge, raising the need for innovative approaches to enhance research capacity. In this paper, we describe a newly-developed program to support PhD research in health and population sciences at African universities, the African Doctoral Dissertation Research Fellowship (ADDRF) Program. We also share our experiences implementing the program. As health research capacity-strengthening in Africa continues to attract attention and as the need for such programs to be African-led is emphasized, our experiences in developing and implementing the ADDRF offer invaluable lessons to other institutions undertaking similar initiatives.

Background: To improve the delivery and reach of primary health care, a robust scientific foundation driven by research is needed. However, few family physicians conduct research, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. Early-career and trainee family physicians are a key part of the primary care research pipeline and have an expressed need for research training and mentorship.Objective: AfriWon Research Collaborative (ARC) was an online research training and mentorship pilot program whose objective was to increase research activity among participants from AfriWon Renaissance, the family physician young doctors' movement of sub-Saharan Africa.Methods: ARC utilized a 10-module online curriculum, supported by peer and faculty e-mentorship, to guide participants through writing a research protocol. The feasibility, acceptability, and scalability of this program was evaluated via a mixed-methods RE-AIMguided process evaluation using descriptive statistics and inductive/deductive thematic analysis.Findings:The pilot reached participants from Botswana, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ghana, Nigeria and Sierra Leone and was adopted by mentors from 11 countries across three continents. Four of the 10 pilot participants completed a full research protocol by the end of the six-month core program. Seven out of the 10 participants, and nine out of the 15 mentors, planned to continue their mentorship relationships beyond the core program. The program helped instill a positive research culture in active participants. Some participants' and mentors' engagement with the ARC program was limited by confusion over mentorship structure and role, poor network connectivity, and personal life challenges.Conclusions: Online research training and mentorship for trainee and early-career family physicians in sub-Saharan Africa is feasible and acceptable to participants and mentors. Similar programs must pay careful attention to mentorship training and provide a flexible yet clearly organized structure for mentee-mentor engagement. Additional work is needed to determine optimal implementation strategies and ability to scale.

Linking research to practice : strengthening ICT for development research capacity in Asia -- List of Tables -- List of Figures -- Foreword -- Preface -- Acknowledgements -- Section I: Management perspectives: insiders' thoughts on the programme -- 1. Perspectives on ICT d research and practice -- 2. SIRCA an opportunity to build and improve the field of ICT4D -- 3. Managing the SIRCA programme -- 4. Primary investigator and mentor perspectives of SIRCA -- Section II: Research perspectives: theoretical reflections by experts -- 5. ICTD praxis bridging theory and practice -- 6. Messy methods for ICT4D research -- 7. Ethics and ICTD research -- 8. ICTD Curric ulum development and professional training: mainstreaming SIRCA research models -- 9. Multi-stakeholder perspectives influencing policy-research-practice -- 10. From production… to dissemination… to adoption -- Section III: Research outputs -- 11. It's the talk, not the tech: what governments should know about blogging and social media -- 12. Integrating digital and human data sources for environmental planning and climate change adaptation: from research to practice in central Vietnam -- 13. The challenge of working across contexts and domains: mobile health education in rural Cambodia -- 14. The dynamics and challenges of academic internet use amongst Cambodian university students -- Section IV: Synthesis and conclusion -- 15. Finding a path to influencing policy by Roger Harris and Arul Chib -- About the contributors -- Index.

Increasing the use of evidence in policy making means strengthening capacity on both the supply and demand sides of evidence production. However, little experience of strengthening the capacity of policy makers in low- and middle- income countries has been published to date. We describe the experiences of five projects (in Bangladesh, Gambia, India and Nigeria), where collaborative teams of researchers and policy makers/policy influencers worked to strengthen policy maker capacity to increase the use of evidence in policy. Activities were focused on three (interlinked) levels of capacity building: individual, organizational and, occasionally, institutional. Interventions included increasing access to research/data, promoting frequent interactions between researchers and members of the policy communities, and increasing the receptivity towards research/data in policy making or policy-implementing organizations. Teams were successful in building the capacity of individuals to access, understand and use evidence/data. Strengthening organizational capacity generally involved support to infrastructure (e.g. through information technology resources) and was also deemed to be successful. There was less appetite to address the need to strengthen institutional capacity-although this was acknowledged to be fundamental to promoting sustainable use of evidence, it was also recognized as requiring resources, legitimacy and regulatory support from policy makers. Evaluation across the three spheres of capacity building was made more challenging by the lack of agreed upon evaluation frameworks. In this article, we propose a new framework for assessing the impact of capacity strengthening activities to promote the use of evidence/data in policy making. Our evaluation concluded that strengthening the capacity of individuals and organizations is an important but likely insufficient step in ensuring the use of evidence/data in policy-cycles. Sustainability of evidence-informed policy making requires strengthening institutional capacity, as well as understanding and addressing the political environment, and particularly the incentives facing policy makers that supports the use of evidence in policy cycles.

Puskesmas (Community Health Center) is a public organization that is tasked with providing the best health services to the people who live in 139 villages and 5 sub-districts in Jayapura Regency. In fact, Community Health Center are not optimally performing their duties and functions because they experience delays in their human resources, supporting facilities, poor management of Community Health Center, no clear regulatory support and a lack of budget availability to support Community Health Center operations in their services. The problem in this research is How to Strengthen the Organizational Capacity of Puskesmas in Improving Health Services in Jayapura District? The purpose of this study was to analyze the Strengthening of Public Health Center Organizational Capacity in improving health services in Jayapura Regency. This research is expected to contribute to the Jayapura Regency Government, through the Health Office and in particular for Community Health Center as regional technical implementation units to improve the Organizational Capacity in Improving Health Services in Jayapura Regency. The results showed that the Organizational Capacity of Puskesmas can be improved by strengthening management governance, incentive systems, facilities, leadership, organizational culture, communication, and organizational structure.

Background Africa bears a disproportionately high burden of globally significant disease but has lagged in knowledge production to address its health challenges. In this contribution, we discuss the challenges and approaches to health research capacity strengthening in sub-Saharan Africa and propose that the recent shift to an African-led approach is the most optimal. Methods and findings We introduce several capacity building approaches and recent achievements, explore why African-led research on the continent is a potentially paradigm-shifting and innovative approach, and discuss the advantages and challenges thereof. We reflect on the approaches used by the African Academy of Sciences (AAS)-funded Sub-Saharan African Network for TB/HIV Research Excellence (SANTHE) consortium as an example of an effective African-led science and capacity building programme. We recommend the following as crucial components of future efforts: 1. Directly empowering African-based researchers, 2. Offering quality training and career development opportunities to large numbers of junior African scientists and support staff, and 3. Effective information exchange and collaboration. Furthermore, we argue that long-term investment from international donors and increasing funding commitments from African governments and philanthropies will be needed to realise a critical mass of local capacity and to create and sustain world-class research hubs that will be conducive to address Africa's intractable health challenges. Conclusions Our experiences so far suggest that African-led research has the potential to overcome the vicious cycle of brain-drain and may ultimately lead to improvement of health and science-led economic transformation of Africa into a prosperous continent.

Information and communication technologies have long promised to provide quality education, improve healthcare, allow open government, and solve environmental issues. To realize this potential and influence policy-making and programme design, the Singapore Internet Research Centre, supported by the IDRC, created an innovative research capacity-building programme, SIRCA. The programme supports interdisciplinary ICTD research through the nurturing of research relationships. By bringing together experienced mentors with deserving early-career Asian researchers in an intellectually stimulating environment, SIRCA has fostered a cohort of talent capable of generating the rigorous scientific evidence needed. Their stories, and reflections upon the programme, are told here. If ever it needed demonstrating that ICTs are an indispensable tool for developing an information society rather than a reward for achieving it, then the SIRCA programme has achieved that