Dataset Information

Strengthening Noncommunicable Disease Research Capacity and Chronic Disease Outcomes in Low- and Middle-Income Countries in South Asia: Implementation and Evaluation of the ASCEND Program.

ABSTRACT: This article describes the design, outcomes, challenges, and lessons learned from the ASian Collaboration for Excellence in Non-Communicable Disease (ASCEND) program, implemented between 2011 and 2015 in India, Sri Lanka, and Malaysia. The program involved a blended-delivery model, incorporating online and face-to-face training, mentoring, and supervision of trainees' research projects. Evaluation data were collected at baseline, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Intended outcomes, lessons, and challenges were summarized using a logic model. During the program period, 48 participants were trained over 2 cohorts in June 2011 and 2012. The trainees published 83 peer-reviewed articles between 2011 and 2015. Additionally, 154 presentations were given by trainees at national and international conferences. Underutilization of the online learning management system was an important challenge. Utilizing a combination of intensive face-to-face and online learning and mentoring of early career researchers in low- and middle-income countries has great potential to enhance the research capacity, performance, and outputs.

SUBMITTER: Byrnes A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10419968 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Strengthening Noncommunicable Disease Research Capacity and Chronic Disease Outcomes in Low- and Middle-Income Countries in South Asia: Implementation and Evaluation of the ASCEND Program.

Byrnes Allison A Haregu Tilahun Nigatu TN Pasricha Naanki N Singh Kavita K Thirunavukkarasu Sathish S Wickkramasinghe Kremlin K Thankappan Kavumpurathu Raman KR Oldenburg Brian B

Asia-Pacific journal of public health 20190813 6

This article describes the design, outcomes, challenges, and lessons learned from the ASian Collaboration for Excellence in Non-Communicable Disease (ASCEND) program, implemented between 2011 and 2015 in India, Sri Lanka, and Malaysia. The program involved a blended-delivery model, incorporating online and face-to-face training, mentoring, and supervision of trainees' research projects. Evaluation data were collected at baseline, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Intended outcomes, lessons, and challeng ...[more]

PMID: 31409121

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWhile the evidence for the clinical effectiveness of most noncommunicable disease (NCD) prevention and treatment interventions is well established, care delivery models and means of scaling these up in a variety of resource-constrained health systems are not. The objective of this review was to synthesize evidence on the current state of implementation research on priority NCD prevention and control interventions provided by health systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).Methods and findingsOn January 20, 2021, we searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from 1990 through 2020 to identify implementation research studies that focused on the World Health Organization (WHO) priority NCD prevention and control interventions targeting cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, and chronic respiratory disease and provided within health systems in LMICs. Any empirical and peer-reviewed studies that focused on these interventions and reported implementation outcomes were eligible for inclusion. Given the focus on this review and the heterogeneity in aims and methodologies of included studies, risk of bias assessment to understand how effect size may have been compromised by bias is not applicable. We instead commented on the distribution of research designs and discussed about stronger/weaker designs. We synthesized extracted data using descriptive statistics and following the review protocol registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021252969). Of 9,683 potential studies and 7,419 unique records screened for inclusion, 222 eligible studies evaluated 265 priority NCD prevention and control interventions implemented in 62 countries (6% in low-income countries and 90% in middle-income countries). The number of studies published has been increasing over time. Nearly 40% of all the studies were on cervical cancer. With regards to intervention type, screening accounted for 49%, treatment for 39%, while prevention for 12% (with 80% of the latter focusing on prevention of the NCD behavior risk factors). Feasibility (38%) was the most studied implementation outcome followed by adoption (23%); few studies addressed sustainability. The implementation strategies were not specified well enough. Most studies used quantitative methods (86%). The weakest study design, preexperimental, and the strongest study design, experimental, were respectively employed in 25% and 24% of included studies. Approximately 72% of studies reported funding, with international funding being the predominant source. The majority of studies were proof of concept or pilot (88%) and targeted the micro level of health system (79%). Less than 5% of studies report using implementation research framework.ConclusionsDespite growth in implementation research on NCDs in LMICs, we found major gaps in the science. Future studies should prioritize implementation at scale, target higher levels health systems (meso and macro levels), and test sustainability of NCD programs. They should employ designs with stronger internal validity, be more conceptually driven, and use mixed methods to understand mechanisms. To maximize impact of the research under limited resources, adding implementation science outcomes to effectiveness research and regional collaborations are promising.

Project description:Background: Effective and scalable strategies are needed to develop health research capacity in low- and middle‑income countries (LMICs). Health research capacity strengthening (HRCS) focuses on boosting production and utilization of health research, with clinicians as key target participants. Despite the increased prevalence of virtual HRCS programs, there has been no review of the evidence for those targeting LMIC clinicians to date. Objective: This review characterizes the use of virtual tools in HRCS programs for clinicians in LMICs and describes the impacts, facilitators, and barriers associated with these programs. Methods: Following our protocol (PROSPERO; CRD42020152510), we employed an integrative review methodology. We adapted Cooke's Research Capacity Development for Impact framework by adding "equity" as a new domain and used it to evaluate programmatic impacts. We retrieved relevant articles from five databases and gray literature. Included articles were extracted and stratified by degree of virtual delivery. We analyzed virtual tool usage via content analysis. Using NVivo, we coded until theoretical saturation and analyzed data using the constant comparison method. Findings: From 1397 articles, 58 met inclusion criteria. Most programs were hybrid, and e‑courses were the most used virtual tool. Articles described impacts across all framework domains; the most discussed were skills and confidence building. Facilitators included user‑friendly platforms, interactive content, and strategies to improve program access, including financial and technological support. Some programs incorporated hybrid strategies to foster trust among participants and virtual mentors. Barriers included a lack of or an unfavorable local research culture. Conclusions: Recommendations from this review may guide the design and implementation of virtual HRCS programs for LMIC clinicians. These include selecting well‑fitted program participants, intentionally designing program structure and content, conducting needs assessments or pilots, incorporating equity as a programmatic target, ensuring longitudinal program evaluation and monitoring, and utilizing a comprehensive conceptualization of program sustainability.

Project description:Strengthening research capacity in low- and middle-income countries is one of the most effective ways of advancing their health and development but the complexity and heterogeneity of health research capacity strengthening (RCS) initiatives means it is difficult to evaluate their effectiveness. Our study aimed to enhance understanding about these difficulties and to make recommendations about how to make health RCS evaluations more effective. Through discussions and surveys of health RCS funders, including the ESSENCE on Health Research initiative, we identified themes that were important to health RCS funders and used these to guide a systematic analysis of their evaluation reports. Eighteen reports, produced between 2000 and 2013, representing 12 evaluations, were purposefully selected from 54 reports provided by the funders to provide maximum variety. Text from the reports was extracted independently by two authors against a pre-designed framework. Information about the health RCS approaches, tensions and suggested solutions was re-constructed into a narrative. Throughout the process contacts in the health RCS funder agencies were involved in helping us to validate and interpret our results. The focus of the health RCS evaluations ranged from individuals and institutions to national, regional and global levels. Our analysis identified tensions around how much stakeholders should participate in an evaluation, the appropriate balance between measuring and learning and between a focus on short-term processes vs longer-term impact and sustainability. Suggested solutions to these tensions included early and ongoing stakeholder engagement in planning and evaluating health RCS, modelling of impact pathways and rapid assimilation of lessons learned for continuous improvement of decision making and programming. The use of developmental approaches could improve health RCS evaluations by addressing common tensions and promoting sustainability. Sharing learning about how to do robust and useful health RCS evaluations should happen alongside, not after, health RCS efforts.

Project description:Development of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) threatens our ability to treat common and life threatening infections. Identifying the emergence of AMR requires strengthening of surveillance for AMR, particularly in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) where the burden of infection is highest and health systems are least able to respond. This work aimed, through a combination of desk-based investigation, discussion with colleagues worldwide, and visits to three contrasting countries (Ethiopia, Malawi and Vietnam), to map and compare existing models and surveillance systems for AMR, to examine what worked and what did not work. Current capacity for AMR surveillance varies in LMICs, but and systems in development are focussed on laboratory surveillance. This approach limits understanding of AMR and the extent to which laboratory results can inform local, national and international public health policy. An integrated model, combining clinical, laboratory and demographic surveillance in sentinel sites is more informative and costs for clinical and demographic surveillance are proportionally much lower. The speed and extent to which AMR surveillance can be strengthened depends on the functioning of the health system, and the resources available. Where there is existing laboratory capacity, it may be possible to develop 5-20 sentinel sites with a long term view of establishing comprehensive surveillance; but where health systems are weaker and laboratory infrastructure less developed, available expertise and resources may limit this to 1-2 sentinel sites. Prioritising core functions, such as automated blood cultures, reduces investment at each site. Expertise to support AMR surveillance in LMICs may come from a variety of international, or national, institutions. It is important that these organisations collaborate to support the health systems on which AMR surveillance is built, as well as improving technical capacity specifically relating to AMR surveillance. Strong collaborations, and leadership, drive successful AMR surveillance systems across countries and contexts.

Project description:Between August 2012 and April 2013 the Career Development Fellowship programme of the Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (World Health Organization) underwent an external evaluation to assess its past performance and determine recommendations for future programme development and continuous performance improvement. The programme provides a year-long training experience for qualified researchers from low and middle income countries at pharmaceutical companies or product development partnerships. Independent evaluators from the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute and the Barcelona Institute for Global Health used a results-based methodology to review the programme. Data were gathered through document review, surveys, and interviews with a range of programme participants. The final evaluation report found the Career Development Fellowship to be relevant to organizers' and programme objectives, efficient in its operations, and effective in its training scheme, which was found to address needs and gaps for both fellows and their home institutions. Evaluators found that the programme has the potential for impact and sustainability beyond the programme period, especially with the successful reintegration of fellows into their home institutions, through which newly-developed skills can be shared at the institutional level. Recommendations included the development of a scheme to support the re-integration of fellows into their home institutions post-fellowship and to seek partnerships to facilitate the scaling-up of the programme. The impact of the Professional Membership Scheme, an online professional development tool launched through the programme, beyond the scope of the Career Development Fellowship programme itself to other applications, has been identified as a positive unintended outcome. The results of this evaluation may be of interest for other efforts in the field of research capacity strengthening in LMICs or, generally, to other professional development schemes of a similar structure.

Project description:BackgroundLow- and middle-income countries face distinct challenges in providing health care services and training. The community of practice (CoP) has been described as a method of facilitating much-needed connections and conversations on this topic and has been adapted over time to include virtual CoPs. We describe the development and evaluation of a global Clinical Lead Forum (CLF) using a CoP framework to structure informal continuing professional development (CPD) and enhance the capacity of health care professionals in low- and middle-income countries.MethodsBaylor College of Medicine International Pediatric AIDS Initiative (BIPAI) and its network of affiliated, independent non-governmental organizations (NGOs) provide paediatric and maternal health care for vulnerable populations around the world. We established virtual sessions across the network to discuss clinical topics, which evolved based on the need to include a COVID-19 series. We collected demographic, participation, participant and facilitator assessments, as well as leadership notes from each session as part of an educational quality improvement study. We developed and evaluated the program using the Logic Model and used the Kirkpatrick Model to assess learning outcomes.ResultsA total of 299 unique participants engaged in sessions, representing a total of 10 disciplines. There were a total of 1295 participants who joined for the 11 sessions in the regular CLF series and the 23 sessions in the COVID-19 series. Survey responses were overall consistent with a value-added intervention.ConclusionsThe CLF, via both the regular sessions and the COVID-19 series, served as an impactful global health CoP for CPD. By focusing on creating a safe and inviting space, ensuring equity and inclusion, activating champions, fostering engagement, and promoting innovation and adaptability, this program decreased professional isolation, strengthened peer relationships, and enhanced the knowledge and practices of health care professionals. Our model may be scaled to other systems across the world to bridge divides and create similarly meaningful communities.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Substantial development assistance and research funding are invested in health research capacity strengthening (HRCS) interventions in low-income and middle-income countries, yet the effectiveness, impact and value for money of these investments are not well understood. A major constraint to evidence-informed HRCS intervention has been the disparate nature of the research effort to date. This review aims to map and critically analyse the existing HRCS effort to better understand the level, type, cohesion and conceptual sophistication of the current evidence base. The overall goal of this article is to advance the development of a unified, implementation-focused HRCS science. METHODS:We used a scoping review methodology to identify peer-reviewed HRCS literature within the following databases: PubMed, Global Health and Scopus. HRCS publications available in English between the period 2000 and 2016 were included. 1195 articles were retrieved of which 172 met the final inclusion criteria. A priori thematic analysis of all included articles was completed. Content analysis of identified HRCS definitions was conducted. RESULTS:The number of HRCS publications increased exponentially between 2000 and 2016. Most publications during this period were perspective, opinion or commentary pieces; however, original research publications were the primary publication type since 2013. Twenty-five different definitions of research capacity strengthening were identified, of which three aligned with current HRCS guidelines. CONCLUSIONS:The review findings indicate that an HRCS research field with a focus on implementation science is emerging, although the conceptual and empirical bases are not yet sufficiently advanced to effectively inform HRCS programme planning. Consolidating an HRCS implementation science therefore presents as a viable option that may accelerate the development of a useful evidence base to inform HRCS programme planning. Identifying an agreed operational definition of HRCS, standardising HRCS-related terminology, developing a needs-based HRCS-specific research agenda and synthesising currently available evidence may be useful first steps.

Project description:BackgroundNoncommunicable diseases (NCDs), including mental health, have become a major concern in low- and middle-income countries. Despite increased attention to them over the past decade, progress toward addressing NCDs has been slow. A lack of bold policy commitments has been suggested as one of the contributors to limited progress in NCD prevention and management. However, the policies of key global actors (bilateral, multilateral, and not-for-profit organisations) have been understudied.MethodsThis study aimed to map the key global actors investing in action regarding NCDs and review their policies to examine the articulation of priorities regarding NCDs. Narrative synthesis of 70 documents and 31 policy papers was completed, and related to data collated from the Global Health Data Visualisation Tool.ResultsIn 2019 41% of development assistance for health committed to NCDs came from private philanthropies, while that for other global health priorities from this source was just 20%. Through a range of channels, bilateral donors were the other major source of NCD funding (contributing 41% of NCD funding). The UK and the US were the largest bilateral investors in NCDs, each contributing 8%. However, NCDs are still under-prioritised within bilateral portfolios - receiving just 0.48% of US funding and 1.66% of the UK. NGOs were the key channels of funding for NCDs, spending 48% of the funds from donors in 2019. The reviewed literature generally focused on NCD policies of WHO, with policies of multilateral and bilateral donors given limited attention. The analysis of policies indicated a limited prioritisation of NCDs in policy documents. NCDs are framed in the policies as a barrier to economic growth, poverty reduction, and health system sustainability. Bilateral donors prioritise prevention, while multilateral actors offer policy options for NCD prevention and care. Even where stated as a priority, however, funding allocations are not aligned.ConclusionThe growing threat of NCDs and their drivers are increasingly recognised. However, global actors' policy priorities and funding allocations need to align better to address these NCD threats. Given the level of their investment and engagement, more research is needed into the role of private philanthropies and NGOs in this area.

Project description:Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is an active partnership between the public and researchers in the research process. In dementia research, PPI ensures that the perspectives of the person with "lived experience" of dementia are considered. To date, in many lower- and middle-income countries (LMIC), where dementia research is still developing, PPI is not well-known nor regularly undertaken. Thus, here, we describe PPI activities undertaken in seven research sites across South Asia as exemplars of introducing PPI into dementia research for the first time. Objective: Through a range of PPI exemplar activities, our objectives were to: (1) inform the feasibility of a dementia-related study; and (2) develop capacity and capability for PPI for dementia research in South Asia. Methods: Our approach had two parts. Part 1 involved co-developing new PPI groups at seven clinical research sites in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh to undertake different PPI activities. Mapping onto different "rings" of the Wellcome Trust's "Public Engagement Onion" model. The PPI activities included planning for public engagement events, consultation on the study protocol and conduct, the adaptation of a study screening checklist, development and delivery of dementia training for professionals, and a dementia training programme for public contributors. Part 2 involved an online survey with local researchers to gain insight on their experience of applying PPI in dementia research. Results: Overall, capacity and capability to include PPI in dementia research was significantly enhanced across the sites. Researchers reported that engaging in PPI activities had enhanced their understanding of dementia research and increased the meaningfulness of the work. Moreover, each site reported their own PPI activity-related outcomes, including: (1) changes in attitudes and behavior to dementia and research involvement; (2) best methods to inform participants about the dementia study; (3) increased opportunities to share knowledge and study outcomes; and (4) adaptations to the study protocol through co-production. Conclusions: Introducing PPI for dementia research in LMIC settings, using a range of activity types is important for meaningful and impactful dementia research. To our knowledge, this is the first example of PPI for dementia research in South Asia.

Dataset Information

Strengthening Noncommunicable Disease Research Capacity and Chronic Disease Outcomes in Low- and Middle-Income Countries in South Asia: Implementation and Evaluation of the ASCEND Program.

Publications

Strengthening Noncommunicable Disease Research Capacity and Chronic Disease Outcomes in Low- and Middle-Income Countries in South Asia: Implementation and Evaluation of the ASCEND Program.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets