Dataset Information

Assessing the capacity for conflict and health research in Lebanon: a qualitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Conflicts pose new challenges for health systems, requiring rapid and practical approaches to meet emerging needs on the ground. Lebanon has been highly influenced by surrounding conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, especially the Syrian crisis. Strengthening research capacity to collect evidence on conflict in the MENA region and beyond is crucial to inform healthcare policy and practice. For targeted capacity strengthening interventions, the main objective of this paper is to present key findings of a needs assessment of conflict and health research in Lebanon. This will support recent efforts to scale up context-specific policies, interventions to strengthen the country's health system, and research capacity.

Methods

The study is based on 30 semi-structured interviews with key informants such as specialist academics, humanitarian workers and public sector officials.

Results

Despite being ranked third in the number of publications on biomedical and health research per capita in MENA and in hosting reputable universities which are considered central academic hubs in the region, lack of nationwide research culture, insufficient funding and limited access to data were reported to be major challenges for health researchers in Lebanon. Even with the ongoing efforts, poor impact of research on policy continues to be a persistent gap. Large disparities in research capacities and taught skills were reported between different universities in Lebanon, with a disproportionate emphasis on quantitative over qualitative skills. Most medical students are not trained to conduct research or to practice in conflict settings. Concerns were also expressed regarding the ethics of research conducted, specifically by local non-governmental organizations.

Recommendations

To conduct contextualized trainings on research skills with a stronger focus on qualitative approaches, medical practice, and ethical research in conflict. To better involve policymakers in designing research agendas by organizing multiple stakeholder meetings.

Conclusion

The study indicates that health research in Lebanon is characterized by considerable strengths in terms of human capital and research capacities of certain universities. However, the Lebanese research infrastructure needs further development in terms of ensuring sustainable funding, providing access to data, teaching qualitative research skills, conducting ethical and multidisciplinary research, and promoting cross-sectoral knowledge transfer.

SUBMITTER: El Achi N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7432458 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFragile and conflict-affected settings (FCAS) have a strong need to improve the capacity of local health workers to conduct health research in order to improve health policy and health outcomes. Health research capacity building (HRCB) programmes are ideal to equip health workers with the needed skills and knowledge to design and lead health-related research initiatives. The study aimed to review the characteristics of HRCB studies in FCASs in order to identify their strengths and weaknesses, and to recommend future directions for the field.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review and searched four databases for peer-reviewed articles that reported an HRCB initiative targeting health workers in a FCAS and published after 2010. Commentaries and editorials, cross-sectional studies, presentations, and interventions that did not have a capacity building component were excluded. Data on bibliographies of the studies and HRCB interventions and their outcomes were extracted. A descriptive approach was used to report the data, and a thematic approach was used to analyse the qualitative data.ResultsOut of 8822 articles, a total of 20 were included based on the eligibility criteria. Most of the initiatives centred around topics of health research methodology (70%), targeted an individual-level capacity building angle (95%), and were delivered in university or hospital settings (75%). Ten themes were identified and grouped into three categories. Significant challenges revolved around the lack of local research culture, shortages in logistic capability, interpersonal difficulties, and limited assessment and evaluation of HRCB programmes. Strengths of HRCB interventions included being locally driven, incorporating interactive pedagogies, and promoting multidisciplinary and holistic training. Common recommendations covered by the studies included opportunities to improve the content, logistics, and overarching structural components of HRCB initiatives.ConclusionOur findings have important implications on health research policy and related capacity building efforts. Importantly, FCASs should prioritize (1) funding HRCB efforts, (2) strengthening equitable international, regional, and national partnerships, (3) delivering locally led HRCB programmes, (4) ensuring long-term evaluations and implementing programmes at multiple levels of the healthcare system, and (5) adopting engaging and interactive approaches.

Project description:BackgroundThere is a growing demand within international health agencies to ensure health research systems (HRSs) are strengthened and well-functioning to support healthcare systems (HCSs). Understanding HRS performance through system actors is an indispensable move in analysing this system. This study aims to examine policy-makers', academics' and experts' satisfaction with overall HRS performance, while also investigating their perceptions about political will and attention towards health research. Ultimately, we want to identify gaps related to performance and generate insights on how to move forward for HRS performance strengthening.MethodsThis study was carried out in Palestine, targeting three sectors, namely government institutions, public health universities, and major local and international health non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Semi-structured, in-depth interviews (IDIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with participants. The institutions from the three sectors were selected based on stated criteria and peer reviews. Data were translated from Arabic into English, transcribed, content checked by the principal investigator, imported to a software programme (MAXQDA 12), and then coded. Thematic content analysis was used.ResultsA total of 104 experts participated in 52 IDIs and 52 experts participated in 6 FGDs. Findings revealed three principal domains. First, the HRS in Palestine is remarkably underperforming, and the majority of experts were unsatisfied. Participants perceived the system as ineffective and inefficient, poorly managed and lacking systematic assessment. Second, the factors behind system underperformance were (1) an unstructured system and the lack of a research culture as well as of a governing body or policies; (2) health research was seen as individualistic, non-development driven and unutilised in policy decisions; and (3) considerably deficient coordination and essential resources. The third finding showed inadequate political support and engagement, which then also related to system underperformance.ConclusionsThe Palestinian HRS is perceived as underperforming by health experts at different levels, where research is not on the leadership agendas. Potential actions should be taken to actively engage the state health decision-makers and inform them of the importance, uses and impacts of performance assessment. Findings urge policy-makers and legislators to build an inclusive and national body of governance with agreed strategies including fundamentally hybrid and aligned performance assessment mechanisms, such as a research observatory platform. In addition, it is recommended to establish a strategic plan to expand professionals' research awareness and abilities, as well as empower the institution's research monitoring and evaluation capacities.

Project description:ObjectivesResearch is key to achieving global development goals. Our objectives were to develop and test an evidence-informed process for assessing health research management and support systems (RMSS) in four African universities and for tracking interventions to address capacity gaps.SettingFour African universities.Participants83 university staff and students from 11 cadres.Intervention/methodsA literature-informed 'benchmark' was developed and used to itemise all components of a university's health RMSS. Data on all components were collected during site visits to four African universities using interview guides, document reviews and facilities observation guides. Gaps in RMSS capacity were identified against the benchmark and institutional action plans developed to remedy gaps. Progress against indicators was tracked over 15 months and common challenges and successes identified.ResultsCommon gaps in operational health research capacity included no accessible research strategy, a lack of research e-tracking capability and inadequate quality checks for proposal submissions and contracts. Feedback indicated that the capacity assessment was comprehensive and generated practical actions, several of which were no-cost. Regular follow-up helped to maintain focus on activities to strengthen health research capacity in the face of challenges.ConclusionsIdentification of each institutions' strengths and weaknesses against an evidence-informed benchmark enabled them to identify gaps in in their operational health research systems, to develop prioritised action plans, to justify resource requests to fulfil the plans and to track progress in strengthening RMSS. Use of a standard benchmark, approach and tools enabled comparisons across institutions which has accelerated production of evidence about the science of research capacity strengthening. The tools could be used by institutions seeking to understand their strengths and to address gaps in research capacity. Research capacity gaps that were common to several institutions could be a 'smart' investment for governments and health research funders.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Evidence based practice enhances service planning and delivery, clinical decision making and patient care. However, health professionals often lack the time and opportunity to access or generate evidence. Research capacity building is thus an important mechanism for improving health service delivery. This study evaluates the effectiveness of a UK-wide Nurse and Allied Health Professional musculoskeletal research internship programme in which graduates applied to undertake their internship through one of five Higher Education Institutions. The evaluation explores the experiences of interns and their mentors. METHODS:Sixteen new graduates completed the internship programme (September 2015 - August 2018). Twelve interns and thirteen mentors participated in the evaluation. The evaluation used qualitative asynchronous email-based interviews to explore the experiences of interns and mentors. Interpretive phenomenological analysis of coded transcripts identified principal themes. RESULTS:Early research outputs from the interns include three peer reviewed publications and 21 conference abstract presentations. Two interns were in full time research at the time of interview or had a research component in their clinical role. Nine interns in clinical posts disclosed plans to return to research in the near future. Seven themes were identified: the impact on interns' careers; personal impact (for example, influence on self-confidence); impact on clinical practice; drivers for applying; intervention design (for example, attitudes concerning the timing and duration of the intervention); mentorship and networking (including general support provided and quality of career advice); challenges. CONCLUSION:The internship programme is an effective model in building research capacity in musculoskeletal research for Nurses and Allied Health Professionals, influencing careers, building confidence and improving clinical practice. The internship programme has the potential to be replicable to other clinical contexts nationally and internationally.

Project description:BackgroundThe global cancer burden is disproportionately greater in low- and middle-income countries, including those affected by conflict in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. Contributing factors include inadequate control of risk factors plus limited surveillance and treatment options. Weak healthcare infrastructure may be further compounded by the conflict prevalent in multiple MENA countries. Improved cancer surveillance, research, and capacity strengthening are essential for implementing cancer control plans in the MENA region, requisite for reducing the disproportionate cancer burden.AimsThis article aims to understand the barriers to cancer research and training in conflict-affected MENA countries, and to identify opportunities for developing capacities for reliable cancer research strategies.MethodsThis study employs a mixed-method approach utilizing an online questionnaire with open and close ended questions targeting oncologists and cancer researchers in conflict-affected MENA countries. For open-ended questions, we performed a qualitative content analysis to identify thematic barriers.ResultsForty-eight respondents, mostly Medical and Radiation Oncologists, completed the questionnaire. The most significant training needs were conducting clinical, basic, and qualitative cancer research. The most prominent barriers identified were insufficient training in data analysis and research design (77% and 75% of respondents, respectively) and insufficient institutional and government funding (94% and 85%, respectively). For the qualitative data, we organized the barriers into six themes, the most common was the lack of research infrastructure (28%).ConclusionsDespite an escalating cancer burden, conflict-affected MENA countries are lagging in knowledge production and implementation of evidence-based cancer research. Novel modes of knowledge transmission and collaboration across geographical and political boundaries are sorely needed. Based on our study, we recommend developing innovative and accessible training opportunities focusing on developing basic, clinical, and qualitative research skills. Research capacity-strengthening initiatives should encourage the investigation of context-specific research questions with the potential to make a meaningful impact on cancer control in the region.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Disaster research response (DR2) is necessary to answer scientific questions about the environmental health impacts of disasters and the effectiveness of response and recovery strategies. This research explores the preparedness and capacity of National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) P30 Core Centers (CCs) to conduct DR2 and engage with communities in the context of disasters. METHODS:In early 2018, we conducted an online survey of CC Directors (n = 16, 69.5% response rate) to identify their DR2 relevant scientific assets, capabilities, and activities. Summary statistics were calculated. We also conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 16 (69.5%) CC Community Engagement Core directors to identify facilitators and barriers of DR2 community engagement. Interview notes were coded and thematically analyzed. RESULTS:Survey: While 56% of responding CCs reported prior participation in DR2 and preparedness to repurpose funding to support DR2, less than one third reported development of a disaster-specific data collection protocol, deployment plan, or concept of operations plan, participation in an exercise to test DR2 capacity, development of academic partnerships to conduct DR2, development of a process for fast-tracking institutional review board approvals for DR2, or maintenance of formal agreements with state, local, or community-based partner(s). A number of CCs reported developing or considering developing capacity in these areas. Barriers to, and tools and resources to enhance, CC engagement in DR2 were identified. Interviews: Four key components for community engaged DR2 were identified: pre-existing community relationships, responsive research that benefits communities, coordination among researchers, and coordination with community response partners. Several roles for, benefits of, and barriers to Community Engagement Rapid Response Teams (CERRT) were described. CONCLUSIONS:CCs have significant scientific assets and community partnerships that can be leveraged for DR2; however, additional planning is necessary to ensure that these scientific assets and community partnerships are leveraged when disasters strike.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Capacity for health economics analysis and research is indispensable for evidence-informed allocations of scarce health resources; however, little is known about the experience and capacity strengthening preferences of academics and practitioners in the Eastern Mediterranean region. This study aimed to assess the needs for strengthening health economics capacity in Jordan, Lebanon, the occupied Palestinian territories and Turkey as part of the Research for Health in Conflict in the Middle East and North Africa (R4HC) project. METHODS:We combined a bibliometric analysis of health economics outputs based on a literature search conducted across seven databases with an online survey of academic researchers and non-academic practitioners. The records included in the bibliometric analysis were original studies and reviews with an explicit economic outcome related to health, disease or disability, had at least one author in Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine or Turkey, and were published between January 2014 and December 2018. Two types of analyses were conducted using VOSviewer software, namely keyword co-occurrence and co-publication networks across countries and organisations. The online survey asked academic researchers, analysts and decision-makers - identified through the bibliometric analysis and regional professional networks - about previous exposure to and priorities for capacity development in health economics. RESULTS:Of 15,185 records returned by the literature search, 566 were included in the bibliometric analysis. Organisations in Turkey contributed more than 80% of records and had the broadest and most diverse network of collaborators, nationally and internationally. Only 1% (n?=?7) of studies were collaborations between researchers in two or more different jurisdictions. Cost analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis and health system economics were the main health economics topics across the included studies. Economic evaluations, measuring the economic burden of disease and health equity, were reported by survey respondents (n?=?80) as the most important areas to develop in. Short courses, learn-by-doing and mentoring from an experienced professional were, in aggregate, the most preferred learning styles. CONCLUSIONS:Existing pockets of health economic expertise in the region can constitute the base of future capacity development efforts. Building confidence toward applying specific methods and trust toward stimulating cross-jurisdiction collaborations appear essential components for sustainably developing health economics capacity.