Dataset Information

Capacity development in health systems and policy research: a survey of the Canadian context.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Over the past decade, substantial global investment has been made to support health systems and policy research (HSPR), with considerable resources allocated to training. In Canada, signs point to a larger and more highly skilled HSPR workforce, but little is known about whether growth in HSPR human resource capacity is aligned with investments in other research infrastructure, or what happens to HSPR graduates following training.

Methods

We collected data from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Canada's national health research funding agency, and the Canadian Association for Health Services and Policy Research on recent graduates in the HSPR workforce. We also surveyed 45 Canadian HSPR training programs to determine what information they collect on the career experiences of graduates.

Results

No university programs are currently engaged in systematic follow-up. Collaborative training programs funded by the national health research funding agency report performing short-term mandated tracking activities, but whether and how data are used is unclear. No programs collected information about whether graduates were using skills obtained in training, though information collected by the national funding agency suggests a minority (<30%) of doctoral-level trainees moving on to academic careers.

Conclusions

Significant investments have been made to increase HSPR capacity in Canada and around the world but no systematic attempts to evaluate the impact of these investments have been made. As a research community, we have the expertise and responsibility to evaluate our health research human resources and should strive to build a stronger knowledge base to inform future investment in HSPR research capacity.

SUBMITTER: Grudniewicz A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3933033 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Capacity development in health systems and policy research: a survey of the Canadian context.

Grudniewicz Agnes A Hedden Lindsay L Kromm Seija S Lavergne Ruth R Menear Matthew M Sivananthan Saskia S

Health research policy and systems 20140207

<h4>Background</h4>Over the past decade, substantial global investment has been made to support health systems and policy research (HSPR), with considerable resources allocated to training. In Canada, signs point to a larger and more highly skilled HSPR workforce, but little is known about whether growth in HSPR human resource capacity is aligned with investments in other research infrastructure, or what happens to HSPR graduates following training.<h4>Methods</h4>We collected data from the Cana ...[more]

PMID: 24502563

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is an established body of evidence linking systems of social protection to health systems and health outcomes. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide further emphasis on this linkage as necessary to achieving health and non-health goals. Existing literature on social protection and health has focused primarily on cash transfers. We sought to identify potential research priorities concerning social protection and health in low and middle-income countries, from multiple perspectives.MethodsPriority research questions were identified through two sources: 1) research reviews on social protection interventions and health, 2) interviews with 54 policy makers from Ministries of Health, multi-lateral or bilateral organizations, and NGOs. Data was collated and summarized using a framework analysis approach. The final refining and ranking of the questions was completed by researchers from around the globe through an online platform.ResultsThe overview of reviews identified 5 main categories of social protection interventions: cash transfers; financial incentives and other demand side financing interventions; food aid and nutritional interventions; parental leave; and livelihood/social welfare interventions. Policy-makers focused on the implementation and practice of social protection and health, how social protection programs could be integrated with other sectors, and how they should be monitored/evaluated. A collated list resulted in 31 priority research questions. Scale and sustainability of social protection programs ranked highest. The top 10 research questions focused heavily on design, implementation, and context, with a range of interventions that included cash transfers, social insurance, and labor market interventions.ConclusionsThere is potentially a rich field of enquiry into the linkages between health systems and social protection programs, but research within this field has focused on a few relatively narrowly defined areas. The SDGs provide an impetus to the expansion of research of this nature, with priority setting exercises such as this helping to align funder investment with researcher effort and policy-maker evidence needs.

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: TDR, The Special Programme for Research and Training hosted at the World Health Organization, has long supported Low- and Middle-Income Countries in strengthening research capacity through three training programmes: the Postgraduate Training Scheme (PGTS), the Clinical Research and Development Fellowship (CRDF), and the Structured Operational Research Training InitiaTive (SORT IT). In the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, we assessed whether those trained through these programmes were involved in the COVID-19 response and if so, in which area(s) of the emergency response they were applying their skills. Methods: From the records for each training programme, we identified the individuals who had completed training during the relevant timespan of each programme: 1999-2018 for the CRDF scheme, 2015-2020 for PGTS, and 2009-2019 for SORT-IT. Between March and April 2020, we sent trainees an online questionnaire by e-mail. Results: Out of 1254 trained, 1143 could be contacted and 699 responded to the survey. Of the latter, 411 were involved with the COVID-19 response, of whom 315 (77%) were applying their acquired skills in 85 countries. With some overlap between programmes, 84% of those trained through CRDF were applying their skills in 27 countries, 91% of those trained through PGTS were applying their skills in 19 countries, and through SORT IT, this was 73% in 62 countries. Skills were being applied in various areas of the emergency response, including: emergency preparedness, situation analysis/surveillance, infection control and clinical management, data generation, mitigating the effect of COVID on the health system, and research. Depending on the type of training programme, 26-74% were involved in implementation, operational or clinical research. Conclusion: Research training programmes build research capacity and equip health workers with transferable core competencies and skillsets prior to epidemics. This becomes invaluable in building health system resilience at a time of pandemics.

Dataset Information

Capacity development in health systems and policy research: a survey of the Canadian context.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Capacity development in health systems and policy research: a survey of the Canadian context.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets