Dataset Information

Evaluation of global health capacity building initiatives in low-and middle-income countries: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT: Background:Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are in dire need to improve their health outcomes. Although Global Health Capacity Building (GHCB) initiatives are recommended approaches, they risk being ineffective in the absence of standardized evaluation methods. This study systematically reviews evaluation approaches for GHCB initiatives in LMICs. Methods:We searched the Medline (OVID), PubMed, Scopus, and Embase.com databases for studies reporting evaluation of a GHCB initiative in a LMIC from January 1, 2009 until August 15, 2019. To differentiate them from intervention, prevention, and awareness initiatives, included articles reported at least one approach to evaluate their learning modality. We excluded cross-sectional studies, reviews, and book chapters that only assessed the effect of interventions. Data identifying the learning modality, and evaluation method, level, time interval, and approach were extracted from articles as primary outcomes. Results:Of 8324 identified studies, 63 articles were eligible for analysis. Most studies stemmed from Africa and Asia (69.8%), were delivered and evaluated face-to-face (74.6% and 76.2%), mainly to professionals (57.1%) and community workers (20.6%). Although the use of online and blended modalities showed an increase over the past 4 years, only face-to-face initiatives were evaluated long-term beyond individual-level. GHCB evaluations in general lacked standardization especially regarding the tools. Conclusion:This is an important resource for evaluating GHCB initiatives in LMICs. It synthesizes evaluation approaches, offers recommendations for improvement, and calls for the standardization of evaluations, especially for long-term and wider impact assessment of online and blended modalities.

SUBMITTER: Naal H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7568934 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluation of global health capacity building initiatives in low-and middle-income countries: A systematic review.

Naal Hady H El Koussa Maria M El Hamouch Melissa M Hneiny Layal L Saleh Shadi S

Journal of global health 20201201 2

<h4>Background</h4>Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are in dire need to improve their health outcomes. Although Global Health Capacity Building (GHCB) initiatives are recommended approaches, they risk being ineffective in the absence of standardized evaluation methods. This study systematically reviews evaluation approaches for GHCB initiatives in LMICs.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched the Medline (OVID), PubMed, Scopus, and Embase.com databases for studies reporting evaluation of a GHCB init ...[more]

PMID: 33110574

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Low-and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region are facing increasing global health challenges with a reduced ability to manage them. Global Health Capacity Building (GHCB) initiatives have the potential to improve health workforce performance and health outcomes, however little is known about the GHCB topics and approaches implemented in this region. This is the first systematic review of GHCB initiatives among LMICs in the MENA region. METHODS:An academic database search of Medline (OVID), PubMed, Scopus, Embase.com , and Open Grey was conducted for articles published between January 2009 and September 2019 in English. Next, a grey literature search following a recommended search framework was conducted. Reviewed records addressed a global health topic, had a capacity building component, looked at specific learning outcomes, and reflected an LMIC in the MENA. Primary outcomes included country, topic, modality, pedagogy, and population. RESULTS:Reports of GHCB initiatives were retrieved from grey sources (73.2%) and academic sources (26.8%). Most GHCB initiatives were mainly conducted face-to-face (94.4%) to professional personnel (57.5%) through a theoretical pedagogical approach (44.3%). Dominant global health themes were non-communicable diseases (29.2%), sexual and reproductive health (18.4%), and mental health (14.5%). When matched against the Global Burden of Disease data, important gaps were found regarding the topics of GHCB initiatives in relation to the region's health needs. There were limited reports of GHCB initiatives addressing conflict and emergency topics, and those addressing non-communicable disease topics were primarily reported from Egypt and Iran. CONCLUSION:Innovative and practicum-based approaches are needed for GHCB initiatives among LMICs in the MENA region, with a focus on training community workers. Regional and country-specific analyses of GHCB initiatives relative to their health needs are discussed in the manuscript based on the results of this review.

Project description:BackgroundScientific and professional development opportunities for early career scientists in low- and middle- income countries (LMICs) are limited and not consistent. There is a disproportionately low number of biomedical and clinical researchers in LMIC's relative to their high burden of disease, a disparity that is aggravated by emigration of up to 70% of scientists from their countries of birth for education and employment elsewhere. To help address this need, a novel University-accredited, immersive fellowship program was established by a large public-academic-private network. We sought to describe the program and summarize progress and lessons learned over its first 7-years.MethodsHallmarks of the program are a structured learning curriculum and bespoke research activities tailored to the needs of each fellow. Research projects expose the scientists to state-of-the-art methodologies and leading experts in their fields while also ensuring that learnings are implementable within their home infrastructure. Fellows run seminars on drug discovery and development that reinforce themes of scientific leadership and teamwork together with practical modules on addressing healthcare challenges within their local systems. Industry mentors achieve mutual learning to better understand healthcare needs in traditionally underserved settings. We evaluated the impact of the program through an online survey of participants and by assessing research output.ResultsMore than 140 scientists and clinicians from 25 countries participated over the 7-year period. Evaluation revealed strong evidence of knowledge and skills transfer, and beneficial self-reported impact on fellow's research output and career trajectories. Examples of program impact included completion of post-graduate qualifications; establishment and implementation of good laboratory- and clinical- practice mechanisms; and becoming lead investigators in local programs. There was a high retention of fellows in their home countries (>?75%) and an enduring professional network among the fellows and their mentors.ConclusionsOur experience demonstrates an example for how multi-sectoral partners can contribute to scientific and professional development of researchers in LMICs and supports the idea that capacity-building efforts should be tailored to the specific needs of beneficiaries to be maximally effective. Lessons learned may be applied to the design and conduct of other programs to strengthen science ecosystems in LMICs.

Project description:BackgroundRoad traffic injuries (RTIs) are a growing but neglected global health crisis, requiring effective prevention to promote sustainable safety. Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) share a disproportionately high burden with 90% of the world's road traffic deaths, and where RTIs are escalating due to rapid urbanization and motorization. Although several studies have assessed the effectiveness of a specific intervention, no systematic reviews have been conducted summarizing the effectiveness of RTI prevention initiatives specifically performed in LMIC settings; this study will help fill this gap.MethodsIn accordance with PRISMA guidelines we searched the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, TRID, Lilacs, Scielo and Global Health. Articles were eligible if they considered RTI prevention in LMICs by evaluating a prevention-related intervention with outcome measures of crash, RTI, or death. In addition, a reference and citation analysis was conducted as well as a data quality assessment. A qualitative metasummary approach was used for data analysis and effect sizes were calculated to quantify the magnitude of emerging themes.ResultsOf the 8560 articles from the literature search, 18 articles from 11 LMICs fit the eligibility and inclusion criteria. Of these studies, four were from Sub-Saharan Africa, ten from Latin America and the Caribbean, one from the Middle East, and three from Asia. Half of the studies focused specifically on legislation, while the others focused on speed control measures, educational interventions, enforcement, road improvement, community programs, or a multifaceted intervention.ConclusionLegislation was the most common intervention evaluated with the best outcomes when combined with strong enforcement initiatives or as part of a multifaceted approach. Because speed control is crucial to crash and injury prevention, road improvement interventions in LMIC settings should carefully consider how the impact of improvements will affect speed and traffic flow. Further road traffic injury prevention interventions should be performed in LMICs with patient-centered outcomes in order to guide injury prevention in these complex settings.

Project description:The hemoglobinopathies, collectively, are cause for significant morbidity and mortality. Children are the most severely affected. Despite much of the genetics and biology of hemoglobinopathies being known for a long time, and being used successfully in some countries to systematically reduce burden of disease, many low and medium income countries remain practically untouched by recent developments in human genomics involving the systematic collection and sharing of variation data to fighting hemoglobinopathies (notably thalassaemias and sickle cell disease, but also G6PD). Commitment to systematic variant data collection is increasing, but this is occurring mostly in high-income countries where much of the diagnosis and testing takes place. There is a risk that countries with the highest burden of these diseases are being left behind in a form of “genomic divide”. Capacity to generate quality data on variants, to store this information so that it can be shared internationally, needs to be built in these countries. Tackling hemoglobinopathies is an ideal entry point for these countries to develop the necessary infrastructure and expertise that can expand into other areas of health. This genomic capacity will enable building: (I) the genetic evidence base for better management of delivery of local treatment, care and eventually even cure; (II) a foundation for genomic medicine by working with national, regional and local health care professionals to raise public awareness of the genetic basis of hemoglobinopathies. Global Globin 2020 Challenge has been initiated with two goals: (I) to see growth in the quality and quantity of curated inputs into internationally recognized genetic databases from low- and middle-income countries participating in the project, and to harmonize the sharing of all relevant variant data between countries in accordance with international best practice that integrates all the relevant ethical and regulatory frameworks and policies required to protect patients at the same time that the biotechnical procedures are developed; (II) to ensure that the storage, curation and sharing of the relevant DNA variation information is sustainable in the medium and longer term by expanding and strengthening the international network of professionals, including curators, researchers, clinicians, bioinformaticians, counsellors, patient groups and policymakers. Pursuit of these goals will raise the profile of genomic medicine in low and middle income countries in national, regional and international research organizations. It will also develop the capability of professionals required for diagnosing, treating and counseling carriers in low and middle income countries thus giving them a greater voice and profile among genomic researchers globally so they can actively participate in regional and international partnerships related to genomic research. Initially the GG2020 Challenge will focus on a group of countries that have already formed groups of the relevant professionals including: Belgium, China, Cyprus, Egypt, France, Malaysia, Mexico, Mozambique, Nigeria, South Africa, Venezuela, Vietnam, Portugal, and The Netherlands. Other countries are ready to be included as the project expands. HVP will utilize its relationship with both UNESCO and WHO to ensure that the necessary international standards and procedures are developed in a consultative and harmonized manner.

Project description:IntroductionIn the past decade, the definition of spondyloarthritis (SpA) has undergone major modifications with respect to new diagnostic tools and classifications. With the advent of biotherapies, treatment possibilities in patients with SpA have substantially improved in the last few years. There is great interest in obtaining accurate data on the disease prevalence, especially in regions where data remains scarce such as low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), in order to measure and understand the needs of their healthcare systems. Therefore, through a global systematic review and meta-analysis, the current study aims to investigate the prevalence of SpA and human leucocyte antigen B27 (HLAB27) and its association with the risk of SpA in the LMIC population.Methods and analysisWe will include cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies performed among adults (>15 years) living in LMICs. EMBASE, Medline, Global Index Medicus and Web of Knowledge will be searched for relevant records published until 30 April 2020, without any language restriction. The review will be reported according to the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. After screening of titles and abstracts, study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment by two independent reviewers, we shall assess the studies individually for clinical and statistical heterogeneity. Random-effect meta-analysis will be used to pool studies judged to be clinically homogeneous. Egger's test and visual inspection of funnel plots will be used to assess publication bias. Results will be presented by WHO subregions.Ethics and disseminationSince primary data is not collected in this study, ethical approval is not required. This review is expected to provide relevant data on the epidemiology of SpA, HLAB27 and their association in the global population of LMICs. The final report will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42020163898.

Project description:Priority-setting in health is risky and challenging, particularly in resource-constrained settings. It is not simply a narrow technical exercise, and involves the mobilisation of a wide range of capacities among stakeholders - not only the technical capacity to "do" research in economic evaluations. Using the Individuals, Nodes, Networks and Environment (INNE) framework, we identify those stakeholders, whose capacity needs will vary along the evidence-to-policy continuum. Policymakers and healthcare managers require the capacity to commission and use relevant evidence (including evidence of clinical and cost-effectiveness, and of social values); academics need to understand and respond to decision-makers' needs to produce relevant research. The health system at all levels will need institutional capacity building to incentivise routine generation and use of evidence. Knowledge brokers, including priority-setting agencies (such as England's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and Health Interventions and Technology Assessment Program, Thailand) and the media can play an important role in facilitating engagement and knowledge transfer between the various actors. Especially at the outset but at every step, it is critical that patients and the public understand that trade-offs are inherent in priority-setting, and careful efforts should be made to engage them, and to hear their views throughout the process. There is thus no single approach to capacity building; rather a spectrum of activities that recognises the roles and skills of all stakeholders. A range of methods, including formal and informal training, networking and engagement, and support through collaboration on projects, should be flexibly employed (and tailored to specific needs of each country) to support institutionalisation of evidence-informed priority-setting. Finally, capacity building should be a two-way process; those who build capacity should also attend to their own capacity development in order to sustain and improve impact.

Project description:BackgroundA significant number of women in low and middle income countries (L-MICs) who need any family planning, experience a lack in access to modern effective methods. This study was conducted to review potential cost effectiveness of scaling up family planning interventions in these regions from the published literatures and assess their implication for policy and future research.Study designA systematic review was performed in several electronic databases i.e Medline (Pubmed), Embase, Popline, The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), EBSCOHost, and The Cochrane Library. Articles reporting full economic evaluations of strategies to improve family planning interventions in one or more L-MICs, published between 1995 until 2015 were eligible for inclusion. Data was synthesized and analyzed using a narrative approach and the reporting quality of the included studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.ResultsFrom 920 references screened, 9 studies were eligible for inclusion. Six references assessed cost effectiveness of improving family planning interventions in one or more L-MICs, while the rest assessed costs and consequences of integrating family planning and HIV services, concerning sub-Saharan Africa. Assembled evidence suggested that improving family planning interventions is cost effective in a variety of L-MICs as measured against accepted international cost effectiveness benchmarks. In areas with high HIV prevalence, integrating family planning and HIV services can be efficient and cost effective; however the evidence is only supported by a very limited number of studies. The major drivers of cost effectiveness were cost of increasing coverage, effectiveness of the interventions and country-specific factors.ConclusionImproving family planning interventions in low and middle income countries appears to be cost-effective. Additional economic evaluation studies with improved reporting quality are necessary to generate further evidence on costs, cost-effectiveness, and affordability, and to support increased funding and investments in family planning programs.

Dataset Information

Evaluation of global health capacity building initiatives in low-and middle-income countries: A systematic review.

Publications

Evaluation of global health capacity building initiatives in low-and middle-income countries: A systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure