Dataset Information

Measuring the outcome and impact of research capacity strengthening initiatives: A review of indicators used or described in the published and grey literature.

ABSTRACT: Background: Development partners and research councils are increasingly investing in research capacity strengthening initiatives in low- and middle-income countries to support sustainable research systems. However, there are few reported evaluations of research capacity strengthening initiatives and no agreed evaluation metrics. Methods: To advance progress towards a standardised set of outcome and impact indicators, this paper presents a structured review of research capacity strengthening indicators described in the published and grey literature. Results: We identified a total of 668 indicators of which 40% measured output, 59.5% outcome and 0.5% impact. Only 1% of outcome and impact indicators met all four quality criteria applied. A majority (63%) of reported outcome indicators clustered in four focal areas, including: research management and support (97/400), the attainment and application of new research skills and knowledge (62/400), research collaboration (53/400), and knowledge transfer (39/400). Conclusions: Whilst this review identified few examples of quality research capacity strengthening indicators, it has identified priority focal areas in which outcome and impact indicators could be developed as well as a small set of 'candidate' indicators that could form the basis of development efforts.

SUBMITTER: Pulford J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7312283 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Measuring the outcome and impact of research capacity strengthening initiatives: A review of indicators used or described in the published and grey literature.

Pulford Justin J Price Natasha N Amegee Quach Jessica J Bates Imelda I

F1000Research 20200604

<b>Background:</b> Development partners and research councils are increasingly investing in research capacity strengthening initiatives in low- and middle-income countries to support sustainable research systems. However, there are few reported evaluations of research capacity strengthening initiatives and no agreed evaluation metrics. <b>Methods:</b> To advance progress towards a standardised set of outcome and impact indicators, this paper presents a structured review of research capacity stre ...[more]

PMID: 32595961

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundAlthough communities have long been exhorted to make efforts to enhance their own health, such approaches have often floundered and resulted in little or no health benefits when the capacity of the community has not been adequately strengthened. Thus being able to assess the capacity building process is paramount in facilitating action in communities for social and health improvement. The current review aims to i) identify all domains used in systematically documented frameworks developed by other authors to assess community capacity building; and ii) to identify the dimensions and attributes of each of the domains as ascribed by these authors and reassemble them into a comprehensive compilation.MethodsRelevant published articles were identified through systematic electronic searches of selected databases and the examination of the bibliographies of retrieved articles. Studies assessing capacity building or community development or community participation were selected and assessed for methodological quality, and quality in relation to the development and application of domains which were identified as constituents of community capacity building. Data extraction and analysis were undertaken using a realist synthesis approach.ResultsEighteen articles met the criteria for this review. The various domains to assess community capacity building were identified and reassembled into nine comprehensive domains: "learning opportunities and skills development", "resource mobilization", "partnership/linkages/networking", "leadership", "participatory decision-making", "assets-based approach", "sense of community", "communication", and "development pathway". Six sub-domains were also identified: "shared vision and clear goals", "community needs assessment", "process and outcome monitoring", "sustainability", "commitment to action" and "dissemination".ConclusionsThe set of domains compiled in this review serve as a foundation for community-based work by those in the field seeking to support and nurture the development of competent communities. Further research is required to examine the robustness of capacity domains over time and to examine capacity development in association with health or other social outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundRare superficial vascular anomalies represent a wide range of diseases. Their management is difficult given the broad spectrum and the lack of clinical trials assessing treatment efficacy. A randomized clinical trial of vascular anomalies is difficult because of the rarity of the diseases and is enhanced by the population of interest often being children. Therefore, suitable designs are needed. We conducted a methodological systematic literature search to identify designs implemented for investigating the treatment of rare superficial vascular anomalies.MethodsWe conducted a literature search on January 25, 2021, of the PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and European Union Clinical Trials Register databases. This systematic methodological literature search was registered at the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42021232449). Randomized and non-randomized studies were included if they met the following criteria: were prospective studies of rare superficial vascular anomaly therapies, dealt with humans (adults and children) and were published in English from 2000. We excluded case reports/case series reporting fewer than 10 patients, reviews, retrospective studies, animal studies, studies of systemic or common vascular anomalies and non-therapeutic studies. We did not assess risk of bias in the included studies because our review was a methodological one focused on the design used. The review provided a descriptive analysis of relevant features of eligible research studies.ResultsFrom 2046 articles identified, we included 97 studies (62 reports and 35 ongoing studies): 25 randomized controlled studies, 7 non-randomized comparative studies, 64 prospective cohorts and 1 case series. Among the 32 comparative studies included, 21 used a parallel-group design. The 11 other studies used different designs such as cross-over, randomized placebo phase, delayed-start, within-person, or challenge-dechallenge-rechallenge or used a historical control group or an observational run-in period.ConclusionsOur systematic literature search highlights the lack of randomized control trials in superficial vascular anomalies due to the rarity of patients and their heterogeneity. New designs are emerging and can overcome the limitations of testing treatments in parallel groups.

Project description:Accurate genome annotations in databases are a critical resource available to the scientific community for analysis and research. Inaccurate and inconsistent annotations exist as a result of errors generated from mass automated annotation, and currently act as a barrier to the application of bioinformatics. The purpose of this effort was to improve the SEED by improving the connection of functional roles to literature references. Direct literature references (DLits), found through searches of PubMed and other online databases such as SwissProt, were attached to protein sequences within the PubSEED to provide literature support for the roughly 2,500 distinct functional roles used to construct metabolic models within the Model SEED. Only DLits in which a researcher asserted the function of a protein were attached to sequences. Starting from a list of 1,072 functional roles that did not previously have DLit support, we were able to connect sequences to literature for 655 functional roles, at least 484 of which were in the original list of unsupported roles. When added to the existing set of sequences having DLits, the resulting set of DLit-sequence pairs (the foundation set) now connects approximately 4,300 DLits to approximately 5,600 distinct protein sequences obtained from approximately 16,000 genes (some of these genes have identical protein sequences). From the foundation set, we construct projection sets such that each set contains one member of the foundation set and projections of its functional role onto similar genes. The projection sets revealed 120 inconsistent annotations within the SEED. Two types of inconsistencies were corrected through manual annotation in the PubSEED: instances in which two identical protein sequences had been annotated with different functions, and instances when projected functions contradicted previous annotations. 26,785 changes to gene function assignment, 219 of which were to previously uncharacterized proteins, resulted in a more consistent and accurate set of input data from which to construct revised metabolic models within the Model SEED.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13205-011-0039-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The field of dissemination and implementation (D&I) science has grown significantly over recent years. Alongside this, an increased demand for training in D&I from researchers and implementers has been seen. Research describing and evaluating D&I training opportunities, referred to here as 'capacity building initiatives' (CBIs), can help provide an understanding of different methods of training as well as training successes and challenges. However, to gain a more detailed understanding of the evidence-base and how D&I CBIs are being reported in publications, a field-wide examination of the academic literature is required. METHODS:Systematic review to identify the type and range of D&I CBIs discussed and/or appraised in the academic literature. EMBASE, Medline and PsycINFO were searched between January 2006 and November 2019. Articles were included if they reported on a D&I CBI that was developed by the authors (of each of the included articles) or the author's host institution. Two reviewers independently screened the articles and extracted data using a standardised form. RESULTS:Thirty-one articles (from a total of 4181) were included. From these, 41 distinct D&I CBIs were identified which focussed on different contexts and professions, from 8 countries across the world. CBIs ranged from short courses to training institutes to being part of academic programmes. Nearly half were delivered face-face with the remainder delivered remotely or using a blended format. CBIs often stipulated specific eligibility criteria, strict application processes and/or were oversubscribed. Variabilities in the way in which the D&I CBIs were reported and/or evaluated were evident. CONCLUSIONS:Increasing the number of training opportunities, as well as broadening their reach (to a wider range of learners), would help address the recognised deficit in D&I training. Standardisation in the reporting of D&I CBIs would enable the D&I community to better understand the findings across different contexts and scientific professions so that training gaps can be identified and overcome. More detailed examination of publications on D&I CBIs as well as the wider literature on capacity building would be of significant merit to the field.

Project description:ObjectivesTo identify published closed-loop Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons (MTCs) and to summarise characteristics regarding their conduct and reporting.DesignSystematic review.MethodsWe searched multiple bibliographic databases (January 2006-31 July 2011) for full-text, English language publications of Bayesian MTCs comparing the effectiveness or safety of ?3 interventions based on randomised controlled trials and having at least one closed loop. Methodological and reporting characteristics of MTCs were extracted in duplicate and summarised descriptively.ResultsWe identified 34 Bayesian MTCs spanning 13 clinical areas. Publication of MTCs increased over the 5-year period; with 76.5% published during or after 2009. MTCs included a mean (±SD) of 35.9±30.1 trials (n=33 459±71 233 participants) and 8.5±4.3 interventions (85.7% pharmacological). Non-informative and informative prior distributions were reported to be used in 44.1% and 8.8% of MTCs, respectively, with the remainder failing to specify the prior used. A random-effects model was used to analyse the networks of trials in 58.5% of MTCs, all using WinBUGS; however, code was infrequently provided (20.6%). More than two-thirds of MTCs (76.5%) also conducted traditional meta-analysis. Methods used to evaluate convergence, heterogeneity and inconsistency were infrequently reported, but from those providing detail, methods appeared varied. MTCs most often used a binary effect measure (85.3%) and ranking of interventions based on probability was common (61.8%), although rarely displayed in a figure (8.8% of MTCs). MTCs were published in 24 different journals with a mean impact factor of 9.20±8.71. While 70.8% of journals imposed limits on word counts and 45.8% limits on the number of tables/figures, online supplements/appendices were allowed in 79.2% of journals. Publication of closed-loop Bayesian MTCs is increasing in frequency, but details regarding their methodology are often poorly described. Efforts in clarifying the appropriate methods and reporting of Bayesian MTCs should be of priority.

Dataset Information

Measuring the outcome and impact of research capacity strengthening initiatives: A review of indicators used or described in the published and grey literature.

Publications

Measuring the outcome and impact of research capacity strengthening initiatives: A review of indicators used or described in the published and grey literature.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets