Project description:BACKGROUND:Implementation research is increasingly being recognised as an important discipline seeking to maximise the benefits of evidence-based interventions. Although capacity-building efforts are ongoing, there has been limited attention on the contextual and health system peculiarities in low- and middle-income countries. Moreover, given the challenges encountered during the implementation of health interventions, the field of implementation research requires a creative attempt to build expertise for health researchers and practitioners simultaneously. With support from the Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases, we have developed an implementation research short course that targets both researchers and practitioners. This paper seeks to explain the course development processes and report on training evaluations, highlighting its relevance for inter-institutional and inter-regional capacity strengthening. METHODS:The development of the implementation research course curriculum was categorised into four phases, namely the formation of a core curriculum development team, course content development, internal reviews and pilot, and external reviews and evaluations. Five modules were developed covering Introduction to implementation research, Methods in implementation research, Ethics and quality management in implementation research, Community and stakeholder engagement, and Dissemination in implementation research. Course evaluations were conducted using developed tools measuring participants' reactions and learning. RESULTS:From 2016 to 2018, the IR curriculum has been used to train a total of 165 researchers and practitioners predominantly from African countries, the majority of whom are males (57%) and researchers/academics (79.4%). Participants generally gave positive ratings (e.g. integration of concepts) for their reactions to the training. Under 'learnings', participants indicated improvement in their knowledge in areas such as identification of implementation research problems and questions. CONCLUSION:The approach for training both researchers and practitioners offers a dynamic opportunity for the acquisition and sharing of knowledge for both categories of learners. This approach was crucial in demonstrating a key characteristic of implementation research (e.g. multidisciplinary) practically evident during the training sessions. Using such a model to effectively train participants from various low- and middle-income countries shows the opportunities this training curriculum offers as a capacity-building tool.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the contextual factors influencing research and research capacity building in rural health settings.DesignQualitative study using semi-structured telephone interviews to collect data regarding health professionals' research education and capacity building. Analysis involved inductive coding using Braun and Clark's thematic analysis; and deductive mapping to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).SettingVictorian rural health services and university campuses.ParticipantsTwenty senior rural health managers, academics and/or research coordinators. Participants had at least three years' experience in rural public health, health-related research or health education settings.Main outcome measuresContextual factors influencing the operationalisation and prioritisation of research capacity building in rural health services.ResultsFindings reflected the CFIR domains and constructs: intervention characteristics (relative advantage); outer setting (cosmopolitanism, external policies and incentives); inner setting (implementation climate, readiness for implementation); characteristics of individuals (self-efficacy); and process (planning, engaging). Findings illustrated the implementation context and the complex contextual tensions, which either prevent or enhance research capacity building in rural health services.ConclusionsRealising the Australian Government's vision for improved health service provision and health outcomes in rural areas requires a strong culture of research and research capacity building in rural health services. Low levels of rural research funding, chronic workforce shortages and the tension between undertaking research and delivering health care, all significantly impact the operationalisation and prioritisation of research capacity building in rural health services. Effective policy and investment addressing these contextual factors is crucial for the success of research capacity building in rural health services.

Project description: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 .

Project description:While increasing attention is placed on using evidence-based decision making (EBDM) to improve public health, there is little research assessing the current EBDM capacity of the public health workforce. Public health agencies serve a wide range of populations with varying levels of resources. Our survey tool allows an individual agency to collect data that reflects its unique workforce.Health department leaders and academic researchers collaboratively developed and conducted cross-sectional surveys in Kansas and Mississippi (USA) to assess EBDM capacity. Surveys were delivered to state- and local-level practitioners and community partners working in chronic disease control and prevention. The core component of the surveys was adopted from a previously tested instrument and measured gaps (importance versus availability) in competencies for EBDM in chronic disease. Other survey questions addressed expectations and incentives for using EBDM, self-efficacy in three EBDM skills, and estimates of EBDM within the agency.In both states, participants identified communication with policymakers, use of economic evaluation, and translation of research to practice as top competency gaps. Self-efficacy in developing evidence-based chronic disease control programs was lower than in finding or using data. Public health practitioners estimated that approximately two-thirds of programs in their agency were evidence-based. Mississippi participants indicated that health department leaders' expectations for the use of EBDM was approximately twice that of co-workers' expectations and that the use of EBDM could be increased with training and leadership prioritization.The assessment of EBDM capacity in Kansas and Mississippi built upon previous nationwide findings to identify top gaps in core competencies for EBDM in chronic disease and to estimate a percentage of programs in U.S. health departments that are evidence-based. The survey can serve as a valuable tool for other health departments and non-governmental organizations to assess EBDM capacity within their own workforce and to assist in the identification of approaches that will enhance the uptake of EBDM processes in public health programming and policymaking. Localized survey findings can provide direction for focusing workforce training programs and can indicate the types of incentives and policies that could affect the culture of EBDM in the workplace.

Project description: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.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.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.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.

Project description:Evidence-based public health gives public health practitioners the tools they need to make choices based on the best and most current evidence. An evidence-based public health training course developed in 1997 by the Prevention Research Center in St. Louis has been taught by a transdisciplinary team multiple times with positive results. In order to scale up evidence-based practices, a train-the-trainer initiative was launched in 2010.This study examines the outcomes achieved among participants of courses led by trained state-level faculty. Participants from trainee-led courses in four states (Indiana, Colorado, Nebraska, and Kansas) over three years were asked to complete an online survey. Attempts were made to contact 317 past participants. One-hundred forty-four (50.9 %) reachable participants were included in analysis. Outcomes measured include frequency of use of materials, resources, and other skills or tools from the course; reasons for not using the materials and resources; and benefits from attending the course. Survey responses were tabulated and compared using Chi-square tests.Among the most commonly reported benefits, 88 % of respondents agreed that they acquired knowledge about a new subject, 85 % saw applications for the knowledge to their work, and 78 % agreed the course also improved abilities to make scientifically informed decisions at work. The most commonly reported reasons for not using course content as much as intended included not having enough time to implement evidence-based approaches (42 %); other staff/peers lack training (34 %); and not enough funding for continued training (34 %). The study findings suggest that utilization of course materials and teachings remains relatively high across practitioner groups, whether they were taught by the original trainers or by state-based trainers.The findings of this study suggest that train-the-trainer is an effective method for broadly disseminating evidence-based public health principles. Train-the-trainer is less costly than the traditional method and allows for courses to be tailored to local issues, thus making it a viable approach to dissemination and scale up of new public health practices.

Project description:Priority-setting in health is risky and challenging, particularly in resource-constrained settings. It is not simply a narrow technical exercise, and involves the mobilisation of a wide range of capacities among stakeholders - not only the technical capacity to "do" research in economic evaluations. Using the Individuals, Nodes, Networks and Environment (INNE) framework, we identify those stakeholders, whose capacity needs will vary along the evidence-to-policy continuum. Policymakers and healthcare managers require the capacity to commission and use relevant evidence (including evidence of clinical and cost-effectiveness, and of social values); academics need to understand and respond to decision-makers' needs to produce relevant research. The health system at all levels will need institutional capacity building to incentivise routine generation and use of evidence. Knowledge brokers, including priority-setting agencies (such as England's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and Health Interventions and Technology Assessment Program, Thailand) and the media can play an important role in facilitating engagement and knowledge transfer between the various actors. Especially at the outset but at every step, it is critical that patients and the public understand that trade-offs are inherent in priority-setting, and careful efforts should be made to engage them, and to hear their views throughout the process. There is thus no single approach to capacity building; rather a spectrum of activities that recognises the roles and skills of all stakeholders. A range of methods, including formal and informal training, networking and engagement, and support through collaboration on projects, should be flexibly employed (and tailored to specific needs of each country) to support institutionalisation of evidence-informed priority-setting. Finally, capacity building should be a two-way process; those who build capacity should also attend to their own capacity development in order to sustain and improve impact.

Dataset Information

Evaluating health research capacity building: an evidence-based tool.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure