Dataset Information

Strengthening health research capacity in sub-Saharan Africa: mapping the 2012-2017 landscape of externally funded international postgraduate training at institutions in the region.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The objective was to guide key stakeholders on future directions of external funding of international postgraduate training (Master's and PhD) of health research students at institutions in sub-Saharan Africa by mapping the numbers and characteristics of students, the location of institutions, and sources of external support. A cross-sectional survey of eligible external funding organizations and programmes was conducted in 2017. Information was gathered from funders' websites or through the assistance of institutional contacts. The information requested included the number of Master's and PhD grantees supported from January 2012 to June 2017, as well as each grantee's institution of study, gender, country of origin and research area.

Results

Of 72 organizations contacted, there were 44 responses. Of the 44, 30 funders reported programmes within the inclusion criteria, and 19 funders provided data on relevant programmes. The Wellcome Trust, the International Development Research Centre and the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation supported the greatest number of grantees. There was concentrated support for grantees in eastern and southern Africa, countries with developed research capacity, and highly-developed research and training centres. More support was provided for PhD than Master's degree programmes and for research areas more upstream along the research spectrum. Challenges were identified in recognizing relevant funding organizations and obtaining responses. Information was presented inconsistently across organizations, which were often unable to provide relevant and complete data within the survey timeframe.

Conclusions

External funders should collect, analyse and report data at regular intervals on their support for strengthening postgraduate health research capacity in sub-Saharan Africa. Standardization of this process and development of an online database would not only help to avoid overlap between programmes and promote synergy between funders, but also inform dialogue between external funders and key stakeholders on strategic issues. These issues include how external funders can a) optimise their support for research capacity strengthening to maximise the benefits of research for health and development on an equitable basis, and b) optimise the distribution of support for researchers at different career stages and for research on different parts of the research spectrum to maximise the health benefits of research.

SUBMITTER: Morel T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6066939 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: International development partners and research councils are increasingly funding research management and support (RMS) capacity strengthening initiatives in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) as part of a broader investment in strengthening national and regional research systems. However, the evidence-base to inform RMS capacity strengthening initiatives is limited at present. This research note presents a synthesis of 28 RMS capacity assessments completed in 25 universities/research institutions from across 15 SSA countries between 2014 and 2018. Methods: All 28 capacity assessments were completed following a standardised methodology consisting of semi-structured interviews conducted with research and research support staff at the respective institution as well as document reviews and observation of onsite facilities. Data were extracted from the 28 reports detailing the findings of each assessment according to a framework synthesis approach. Results: In total, 13 distinct capacity gap categories emerged from across the 28 RMS capacity assessment reports. Almost all the institutions assessed faced multiple gaps in RMS capacity within and across each of these 13 categories. The 13 categories were not independent of each other and were often closely inter-connected. Commonalities were also evident across multiple categories, the two most obvious of which were severe fiscal constraints and the often-complex bureaucracy of the institutional operating environment. Conclusions: The synthesis findings reveal multiple, commonly shared RMS capacity gaps in universities and research institutions across SSA. No single intervention type, or focus, would be sufficient to strengthen capacity across all 13 areas; rather, what is needed to facilitate a significant shift in RMS capacity within such SSA universities and research institutions is a combination of interventions, consisting of differing levels of cost and complexity, variously led (or supported) by both internal and external actors.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Strengthening research capacity in low-and-middle-income countries is essential to drive socioeconomic development and to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Understanding strengths and weaknesses in institutions' research capacity can guide effective targeting of investments and resources. This study assessed the capacity of institutions undertaking research in natural science topics in Africa to identify priority capacity gaps for future investment. METHODS:Assessments were conducted in eight African institutions that were partners in a UK-Africa programme to strengthen research capacity in renewable energy, soil-related science, and water and sanitation. Assessments involved eighty-six interviews and three focus group discussions to identify institutions' research capacity strengths and gaps against an evidence-informed benchmark. Use of the same interview guides and data collection processes across all institutions meant that findings could be compared. RESULTS:Common research capacity gaps were: lack of, or poorly maintained, equipment; unreliable, slow procurement systems; insufficient opportunities for developing the skills of research support staff such as administrators and technicians; dysfunctional institutional email communication systems; insufficient focus on the development of 'soft' researcher skills such as ethics, academic writing and, in non-Anglophone countries, English language. Programme strengths were the South-South and South-North partnerships for sharing and cascading expertise and resources, joint writing of proposals and publications, and improved individual and institutional visibility. CONCLUSION:There were many similarities in research capacity gaps irrespective of the institutions' natural sciences research focus, and these were similar to those reported in the health sector. Common capacity needs are improving the skills of technicians and administrators to support research activities, soft skills training for researchers, and more effective pan-institutional e-communication systems. These could be strategic investment targets for the joint efforts of national governments and international organisations that fund programmes for strengthening research capacity in low- and middle-income countries.

Project description:PURPOSE:The objectives of the International epidemiology databases to evaluate AIDS (IeDEA) are to (i) evaluate the delivery of combination antiretroviral therapy (ART) in children, adolescents and adults in sub-Saharan Africa, (ii) to describe ART regimen effectiveness, durability and tolerability, (iii) to examine HIV-related comorbidities and coinfections and (iv) to examine the pregnancy-related and HIV-related outcomes of women on ART and their infants exposed to HIV or ART in utero or via breast milk. PARTICIPANTS:IeDEA is organised in four regions (Central, East, Southern and West Africa), with 240 treatment and care sites, six data centres at African, European and US universities, and almost 1.4 million children, adolescents and adult people living with HIV (PLWHIV) enrolled. FINDINGS TO DATE:The data include socio-demographic characteristics, clinical outcomes, opportunistic events, treatment regimens, clinic visits and laboratory measurements. They have been used to analyse outcomes in PLWHIV-1 or PLWHIV-2 who initiate ART, including determinants of mortality, of switching to second-line and third-line ART, drug resistance, loss to follow-up and the immunological and virological response to different ART regimens. Programme-level estimates of mortality have been corrected for loss to follow-up. We examined the impact of coinfection with hepatitis B and C, and the epidemiology of different cancers and of (multidrug resistant) tuberculosis, renal disease and of mental illness. The adoption of 'Treat All', making ART available to all PLWHIV regardless of CD4+ cell count or clinical stage was another important research topic. FUTURE PLANS:IeDEA has formulated several research priorities for the 'Treat All' era in sub-Saharan Africa. It recently obtained funding to set up sentinel sites where additional data are prospectively collected on cardiometabolic risks factors as well as mental health and liver diseases, and is planning to create a drug resistance database.

Project description:Background: The Strengthening Capacity in Environmental Physics, Hydrogeology and Statistics for conservation agriculture research (CEPHaS) consortium sought to to strengthen research capacity among a network of African and UK researchers, and their respective institutions, to fill knowledge gaps on the impacts of conservation agriculture practices on the water cycle in cultivated soils. We examined experiences of consortium membership and, drawing on this information, determined key recommendations for future programmes with similar objectives. Methods: A mixed methods study encompassing an online survey (N=40) and semi-structured interviews (N=19) completed between June 2021 and February 2022 with CEPHaS consortium members from Malawi, UK, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Survey and interview data were analysed separately, using univariate statistics and framework synthesis respectively Results: Survey and interview findings were generally aligned, with both revealing a wide range of reported capacity strengthening gains resulting from CEPHaS engagement at both an individual and institutional level. Participants consistently expressed their CEPHaS involvement in positive terms with praise for the applied 'learn by doing' approach underpinning many of the activities as well as the engaging and highly inclusive leadership. There was evidence that the various trainings and resources provided through CEPHaS were valued, frequently utilised, and often transferred beyond the immediate CEPHaS membership for wider benefit. Resource provision and staff training were seen as foundational for long-term institutional benefits. Some challenges and suggested areas for improvement were reported by participants as were potential opportunities to facilitate greater impact. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the basic 'template' of the CEPHaS consortium provided a strong basis for research capacity strengthening in Conservation Agriculture, especially at the level of individual researchers, and that this template could be further enhanced in any future iteration of the same or similar programme. Recommendations for replicating and enhancing CEPHaS programme strengths are presented.

Project description:BackgroundLimited research capacity has contributed to the lack of high-quality research from low-and middle-income countries. This is compounded by limited research training opportunities. Research capacity scale-up training was deployed as part of the implementation of the National Surgical, Obstetrics, Anaesthesia, and Nursing Plan for Nigeria. We report the impact of this locally contextualized efforts to scale up research capacity in sub-Saharan Africa.MethodsThis is an evaluation of the training of 65 participants in research, grant writing and manuscript writing and publication. Pre- and post-training surveys using a 5-point Likert scale and open-ended questions were administered to evaluate the impact of the programme.ResultsThere were 39 (60%) males and 26 (40%) females aged 26-62 years (median 42 years). Thirty-nine (60%) participants had previous training in research, but only 12 (18.5%) had previously received grant writing training, and 17 (26.2%) had previously received manuscript writing and publishing training. Following training, 45 (70.3%) participants agreed that the training was relevant. The research, grant writing and manuscript writing, and publication components of the training were rated high by the participants (45-59, 70.3-92.2%). However, 41.2% felt that there was not enough time, and 32.4% felt that the training was too comprehensive. Nearly all the participants agreed that the training had improved their skills in research, grant writing and manuscript writing and publication, and more than two-thirds subsequently engaged in informal mentoring of others. Overall, participants achieved success in designing their own research projects and publishing manuscripts and grants. Three (4.6%) of the participants had gone on to become faculty for the research training programme. The three top barriers encountered following training were time constraints (67.3%), lack of funding (36.5%) and not being able to find research collaborators (25%).ConclusionOutcome of this training programme is encouraging and highlights the feasibility and potential impact of deploying such programmes in low and middle income countries (LMICs). Despite the positive outcomes, barriers including time constraints, funding limitations, and difficulties in finding research collaborators remain to be addressed. Such training programmes need to be supported to strengthen the research capacity in this and similar settings.