Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24914129›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine2014

Research and its governance in health research institutions in sub-Saharan African countries: results of a questionnaire-based survey.

Derege Kebede, Chris Zielinski, Peter Ebongue Mbondji, Issa Sanou, Wenceslas Kouvividila, Paul-Samson Lusamba-Dikassa

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Derege KebedeWorld Health Organization Regional Office for Africa, PO Box 6, Brazzaville, Congo kebeded@who.int.
Chris ZielinskiWorld Health Organization Regional Office for Africa, PO Box 6, Brazzaville, Congo.
Peter Ebongue MbondjiWorld Health Organization Regional Office for Africa, PO Box 6, Brazzaville, Congo.
Issa SanouWorld Health Organization Regional Office for Africa, PO Box 6, Brazzaville, Congo.
Wenceslas KouvividilaWorld Health Organization Regional Office for Africa, PO Box 6, Brazzaville, Congo.
Paul-Samson Lusamba-DikassaWorld Health Organization Regional Office for Africa, PO Box 6, Brazzaville, Congo.
World Health Organization Regional Office for Africa · CG

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

summaryObjective: To describe governance and stewardship of research in health research institutions in the World Health Organization (WHO) African Region. Design: A structured questionnaire was used to solicit information on governance and stewardship from health research institutions. Setting: Forty-two Member States of the WHO African Region. Participants: Key informants from the respondent health research institutions in the respondent sub-Saharan African countries. Main outcome measures: Institutions' participation in setting the national health research agenda. Institutional research priorities, scientific reviews and governance structure. Results: During the previous 12 months, the heads of 49% of respondent health research institutions participated in the setting or coordination of national research priorities. The most frequently cited priorities for contributing to or performing research were improving health programmes, producing new knowledge, influencing health policies and conducting operational research. For 78% of respondent institutions, scientific review was required for research funded directly by the institution, and for 73% of respondent institutions, scientific review was required for research not funded by the institution. However, most respondent institutions did not have written policies or guidelines, either for the scientific review of proposals (70%) or regarding conflict of interest on scientific review committees (80%). Conclusions: Some health research institutions demonstrate good practice in terms of the establishment of structures and processes for governance and stewardship, many others do not. There is a need for the strengthening of the stewardship capacity of research institutions in the Region.

Indexed as

health research governancehealth research institutionshealth research stewardshipscientific review of health research

Identifiers

PMID24914129
PMCPMC4109359
OpenAlexW2144819201

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.