Dataset Information

Evidence-informed capacity building for setting health priorities in low- and middle-income countries: A framework and recommendations for further research.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Li R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5497935 | biostudies-other | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evidence-informed capacity building for setting health priorities in low- and middle-income countries: A framework and recommendations for further research.

Li Ryan R Ruiz Francis F Culyer Anthony J AJ Chalkidou Kalipso K Hofman Karen J KJ

F1000Research 20170307

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 health ...[more]

PMID: 28721199

Similar Datasets

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: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:Strengthening research capacity in low- and middle-income countries is one of the most effective ways of advancing their health and development but the complexity and heterogeneity of health research capacity strengthening (RCS) initiatives means it is difficult to evaluate their effectiveness. Our study aimed to enhance understanding about these difficulties and to make recommendations about how to make health RCS evaluations more effective. Through discussions and surveys of health RCS funders, including the ESSENCE on Health Research initiative, we identified themes that were important to health RCS funders and used these to guide a systematic analysis of their evaluation reports. Eighteen reports, produced between 2000 and 2013, representing 12 evaluations, were purposefully selected from 54 reports provided by the funders to provide maximum variety. Text from the reports was extracted independently by two authors against a pre-designed framework. Information about the health RCS approaches, tensions and suggested solutions was re-constructed into a narrative. Throughout the process contacts in the health RCS funder agencies were involved in helping us to validate and interpret our results. The focus of the health RCS evaluations ranged from individuals and institutions to national, regional and global levels. Our analysis identified tensions around how much stakeholders should participate in an evaluation, the appropriate balance between measuring and learning and between a focus on short-term processes vs longer-term impact and sustainability. Suggested solutions to these tensions included early and ongoing stakeholder engagement in planning and evaluating health RCS, modelling of impact pathways and rapid assimilation of lessons learned for continuous improvement of decision making and programming. The use of developmental approaches could improve health RCS evaluations by addressing common tensions and promoting sustainability. Sharing learning about how to do robust and useful health RCS evaluations should happen alongside, not after, health RCS efforts.

Dataset Information

Evidence-informed capacity building for setting health priorities in low- and middle-income countries: A framework and recommendations for further research.

Publications

Evidence-informed capacity building for setting health priorities in low- and middle-income countries: A framework and recommendations for further research.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets