ArticleBMC family practice2005
A framework to evaluate research capacity building in health care.
Article in BMC family practice, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 183 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
183 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Mechanisms to build research capacity in the rural health workplace: a realist synthesis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Virtual Health Research Capacity Strengthening in Low- and Middle‑Income Countries: A Systematic Integrative Review.Annals of global health · 2025Pooled it
- Benchmarking Drug Regulatory Systems for Capacity Building: An Integrative Review of Tools, Practice, and Recommendations.International journal of health policy and management · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Research capacity building frameworks for allied health professionals - a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2018Pooled it
- Frameworks for embedding a research culture in allied health practice: a rapid review.Health research policy and systems · 2018Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Tools and instruments for needs assessment, monitoring and evaluation of health research capacity development activities at the individual and organizational level: a systematic review.Health research policy and systems · 2015Pooled it
- Approaches and impact of non-academic research capacity strengthening training models in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review.Health research policy and systems · 2015Pooled it
- Strategies for research engagement of clinicians in allied health (STRETCH): a mixed methods research protocol.BMJ open · 2017Trial
- Designing a Standardized and Sustainable Training Framework for Healthcare Workforce Capacity Building in Punjab, Pakistan.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- The development and utility of frameworks designed to evaluate research capacity building initiatives in healthcare settings: a methodological review.Health research policy and systems · 2026Review
- Development of an Illustrative Conceptual Model to Promote Rural Research Capacity Building Efforts by Embedded Researchers.The Australian journal of rural health · 2026Article
- Positive Insights on Student Research Engagement in Academic Undergraduate General Practice: A Mixed Methods Study.The clinical teacher · 2026Article
- Establishing a Research Institute in an Ontario Community Hospital: Reflections and Lessons Learned.Healthcare management forum · 2026Article
- Evidence-based decision-making in a climate of political expediency: insights from local government.Perspectives in public health · 2026Review
- A scoping review of research capability building: impact on health workforce attraction and retention in rural and remote Australia.Human resources for health · 2026Article
- Building Capacity in Institutional Operational Research in Low-Resource Settings: Protocol for an Implementation Research Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Key Features of Successful Research-Related Roles for Nurses and Midwives in out of Hospital Settings: A Mixed Methods Approach.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Article
123 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBuilding research capacity in health services has been recognised internationally as important in order to produce a sound evidence base for decision-making in policy and practice. Activities to increase research capacity for, within, and by practice include initiatives to support individuals and teams, organisations and networks. Little has been discussed or concluded about how to measure the effectiveness of research capacity building (RCB) DISCUSSION: This article attempts to develop the debate on measuring RCB. It highlights that traditional outcomes of publications in peer reviewed journals and successful grant applications may be important outcomes to measure, but they may not address all the relevant issues to highlight progress, especially amongst novice researchers. They do not capture factors that contribute to developing an environment to support capacity development, or on measuring the usefulness or the 'social impact' of research, or on professional outcomes. The paper suggests a framework for planning change and measuring progress, based on six principles of RCB, which have been generated through the analysis of the literature, policy documents, empirical studies, and the experience of one Research and Development Support Unit in the UK. These principles are that RCB should: develop skills and confidence, support linkages and partnerships, ensure the research is 'close to practice', develop appropriate dissemination, invest in infrastructure, and build elements of sustainability and continuity. It is suggested that each principle operates at individual, team, organisation and supra-organisational levels. Some criteria for measuring progress are also given. SUMMARY: This paper highlights the need to identify ways of measuring RCB. It points out the limitations of current measurements that exist in the literature, and proposes a framework for measuring progress, which may form the basis of comparison of RCB activities. In this way it could contribute to establishing the effectiveness of these interventions, and establishing a knowledge base to inform the science of RCB.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.