Dataset Information

Capacity building for implementation research: a methodology for advancing health research and practice.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Dako-Gyeke P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7268492 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Capacity building for implementation research: a methodology for advancing health research and practice.

Dako-Gyeke Phyllis P Asampong Emmanuel E Afari Edwin E Launois Pascal P Ackumey Mercy M Opoku-Mensah Kwabena K Dery Samuel S Akweongo Patricia P Nonvignon Justice J Aikins Moses M

Health research policy and systems 20200601 1

<h4>Background</h4>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 b ...[more]

PMID: 32487176

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMany interventions found to be effective in health services research studies fail to translate into meaningful patient care outcomes across multiple contexts. Health services researchers recognize the need to evaluate not only summative outcomes but also formative outcomes to assess the extent to which implementation is effective in a specific setting, prolongs sustainability, and promotes dissemination into other settings. Many implementation theories have been published to help promote effective implementation. However, they overlap considerably in the constructs included in individual theories, and a comparison of theories reveals that each is missing important constructs included in other theories. In addition, terminology and definitions are not consistent across theories. We describe the Consolidated Framework For Implementation Research (CFIR) that offers an overarching typology to promote implementation theory development and verification about what works where and why across multiple contexts.MethodsWe used a snowball sampling approach to identify published theories that were evaluated to identify constructs based on strength of conceptual or empirical support for influence on implementation, consistency in definitions, alignment with our own findings, and potential for measurement. We combined constructs across published theories that had different labels but were redundant or overlapping in definition, and we parsed apart constructs that conflated underlying concepts.ResultsThe CFIR is composed of five major domains: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of the individuals involved, and the process of implementation. Eight constructs were identified related to the intervention (e.g., evidence strength and quality), four constructs were identified related to outer setting (e.g., patient needs and resources), 12 constructs were identified related to inner setting (e.g., culture, leadership engagement), five constructs were identified related to individual characteristics, and eight constructs were identified related to process (e.g., plan, evaluate, and reflect). We present explicit definitions for each construct.ConclusionThe CFIR provides a pragmatic structure for approaching complex, interacting, multi-level, and transient states of constructs in the real world by embracing, consolidating, and unifying key constructs from published implementation theories. It can be used to guide formative evaluations and build the implementation knowledge base across multiple studies and settings.

Project description:BackgroundWhile dissemination and implementation (D&I) science has grown rapidly, there is an ongoing need to understand how to build and sustain capacity in individuals and institutions conducting research. There are three inter-related domains for capacity building: people, settings, and activities. Since 2008, Washington University in St. Louis has dedicated significant attention and resources toward building D&I research capacity. This paper describes our process, challenges, and lessons with the goal of informing others who may have similar aims at their own institution.ActivitiesAn informal collaborative, the Washington University Network for Dissemination and Implementation Research (WUNDIR), began with a small group and now has 49 regular members. Attendees represent a wide variety of settings and content areas and meet every 6 weeks for half-day sessions. A logic model organizes WUNDIR inputs, activities, and outcomes. A mixed-methods evaluation showed that the network has led to new professional connections and enhanced skills (e.g., grant and publication development). As one of four, ongoing, formal programs, the Dissemination and Implementation Research Core (DIRC) was our first major component of D&I infrastructure. DIRC's mission is to accelerate the public health impact of clinical and health services research by increasing the engagement of investigators in later stages of translational research. The aims of DIRC are to advance D&I science and to develop and equip researchers with tools for D&I research. As a second formal component, the Washington University Institute for Public Health has provided significant support for D&I research through pilot projects and a small grants program. In a third set of formal programs, two R25 training grants (one in mental health and one in cancer) support post-doctoral scholars for intensive training and mentoring in D&I science. Finally, our team coordinates closely with D&I functions within research centers across the university. We share a series of challenges and potential solutions.ConclusionOur experience in developing D&I research at Washington University in St. Louis shows how significant capacity can be built in a relatively short period of time. Many of our ideas and ingredients for success can be replicated, tailored, and improved upon by others.

Project description:BackgroundAcademic institutions building capacity for implementation scholarship are also well positioned to build capacity in real world health and human service settings. How practitioners and policy makers are included and trained in implementation capacity-building initiatives, and their impact on building implementation practice capacity is unclear. This scoping review identified and examined features of interventions that build implementation practice capacity across researchers and practitioners or practitioners-in-training.MethodsFive bibliographic databases were searched. Eligible studies (a) described an implementation capacity building intervention with a connection to an academic institution, (b) targeted researchers and practitioners (including practitioners-in-training, students, or educators), and (c) reported intervention or participant outcomes. Articles that only described capacity building interventions without reporting outcomes were excluded. Consistent with Arksey and O'Malley's framework, key study characteristics were extracted (target participants, core components, and outcomes) and analyzed using open coding and numerical analysis.ResultsOf 1349 studies identified, 64 met eligibility for full-text review, and 14 were included in the final analysis. Half of the studies described implementation capacity building interventions that targeted health or behavioral health researchers, practitioners, and practitioners-in-training together, and half targeted practitioners or practitioners-in-training only. The most common components included structured didactic activities offered in person or online, mentorship and expert consultation to support implementation, and practical application activities (e.g., field placements, case studies). Knowledge sharing activities and technical assistance were less common. All studies reported favorable outcomes related to knowledge attainment, increased ability to implement evidence, productivity, and satisfaction.ConclusionsBuilding implementation capacity among practitioners is critical for integrating insights from implementation science into the field and preventing the "secondary" implementation research-to-practice gap. This scoping review identified several promising implementation practice capacity building interventions that tend to build practitioner capacity via expert led activities which may be relevant for academic institutions seeking to build implementation practice capacity. To avoid widening the implementation research-to-practice gap, implementation capacity building interventions are needed that target policy makers, expand beyond multiple practice settings, and leverage university/community partnerships or on-site academic medical centers. Future studies will also be needed to test the impact on service quality and public health outcomes.

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:BackgroundTo ensure the provision of high-quality safety and cost-effective health and welfare services, managers and professionals are required to introduce and ensure the routine use of clinical guidelines and other evidence-based interventions. Despite this, they often lack training and support in implementation. This project aims to investigate how a team training intervention, with the goal to build implementation capacity, influences participants' implementation knowledge and skills, as well as how it influences implementation activities and implementation capacity within participating health and welfare organizations. Furthermore, the aim is to investigate how the organizations' contexts influence the intervention outcomes.MethodsThe building implementation capacity (BIC) intervention builds on the behavior change wheel, which considers implementation as a matter of behavior change. The intervention will be provided to teams of managers and professionals working in health and welfare organizations and seeking support to implement a guideline- or evidence-based intervention. The intervention consists of a series of interactive workshops that provides the participating teams with the knowledge and skills to apply a systematic implementation model. A longitudinal mixed-methods evaluation, including interviews, surveys, and document analysis, will be applied over 24 months. The normalization process theory measure will be used to assess how the intervention influences implementation activities in practice and implementation capacity in the teams and the wider organizations.DiscussionThis project has an ambition to add to the knowledge concerning how to promote the uptake of research findings into health care by building implementation capacity through team training in implementation. The project's uniqueness is that it is designed to move beyond individual-level outcomes and evaluate implementation activities and implementation capacity in participating organizations. Further, the intervention will be evaluated over 24 months to investigate long-term outcomes of implementation training.

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:BackgroundLimited health research capacities (HRC) undermine a country's ability to identify and adequately respond to local health needs. Although numerous interventions to strengthen HRC have been conducted in Africa, there is a need to share the lessons learnt by funding organizations, institutes and researchers. The aim of this report is to identify best practices in HRC strengthening by describing a training programme conducted between 2016 and 2017 at the Saint Joseph's Catholic Hospital (SJCH) in Monrovia (Liberia).MethodsA call for trainees was launched at the SJCH, the Liberia Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Authority (LMHRA), the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, the Mother Pattern College of Health Sciences (MPCHS) and community members. Selected trainees participated in four workshops on Good Clinical Laboratory Practice (GCLP), standard operating procedures (SOP) and scientific communication, as well as in a 5-months eLearning mentoring programme. After the training, a collectively-designed research project on malaria was conducted.ResultsTwenty-one of the 28 trainees (14 from the SJCH, 3 from LMHRA, one from MPCHS, and 10 community representatives) completed the programme satisfactorily. Pre- and post-training questionnaires completed by 9 of the trainees showed a 14% increase in the percentage of correct answers. Trainees participated in a mixed-methods cross-sectional study of Plasmodium falciparum infection among pregnant women at the SJCH. Selected trainees disseminated activities and research outcomes in three international meetings and three scientific publications.ConclusionThis training-through-research programme successfully involved SJCH staff and community members in a practical research exercise on malaria during pregnancy. The challenge is to ensure that the SJCH remains active in research. Harmonization of effectiveness indicators for HRC initiatives would strengthen the case for investing in such efforts.

Dataset Information

Capacity building for implementation research: a methodology for advancing health research and practice.

Publications

Capacity building for implementation research: a methodology for advancing health research and practice.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets