Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26695073›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2015

Promoting sustainable research partnerships: a mixed-method evaluation of a United Kingdom-Africa capacity strengthening award scheme.

Laura Dean, Janet Njelesani, Helen Smith, Imelda Bates

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Mobile Interventions for Reducing Sedentary Behavior and Promoting Physical Activity Among Office Workers: Bibliometric Study.Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Periodontal diseases in Africa.Periodontology 2000 · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. The Equity Tool for Valuing Global Health Partnerships.Global health, science and practice · 2022
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Laura DeanLiverpool School of Tropical Medicine (LSTM), Liverpool, UK. laura.dean@lstmed.ac.uk.
Janet NjelesaniNew York Institute of Technology (NYIT), New York, USA.
Helen SmithCentre for Maternal and Newborn Health, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.
Imelda BatesLiverpool School of Tropical Medicine (LSTM), Liverpool, UK.
Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine · GBNew York Institute of Technology · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResearch partnerships between high-income countries (HICs) and low- or middle-income countries (LMICs) are a leading model in research capacity strengthening activities. Although numerous frameworks and guiding principles for effective research partnerships exist, few include the perspective of the LMIC partner. This paper draws out lessons for establishing and maintaining successful research collaborations, based on partnership dynamics, from the perspectives of both HIC and LMIC stakeholders through the evaluation of a research capacity strengthening partnership award scheme.

methodsA mixed-method retrospective evaluation approach was used. Initially, a cross-sectional survey was administered to all award holders, which focused on partnership outputs and continuation. Fifty individuals were purposively selected to participate in interviews or focus group discussions from 12 different institutions in HICs and LMICs; the sample included the research investigators, research assistants, laboratory scientists and post-doctoral students. The evaluation collected data on critical elements of research partnership dynamics such as research outputs, nature of the partnership, future plans and research capacity. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively and qualitative data were analysed using an iterative framework approach.

resultsThe majority of United Kingdom and African award holders stated they would like to pursue future collaborations together. Key aspects within partnerships that appeared to influence this were; the perceived benefits of the partnership at the individual and institutional level such as publication of papers or collaborative grants; ability to influence 'research culture' and instigate critical thinking among mid-career researchers; previous working relationships, for example supervisor-student relationships; and equity within partnerships linked to partnership formation and experience of United Kingdom partners within LMICs. Factors which may hinder development of long term partnerships were also identified such as financial control or differing expectations of partners.

conclusionsThis paper provides evidence of what encourages international research partnerships for capacity strengthening to continue past award tenure, from the perspective of researchers in high and LMICs. Although every partnership is unique and individual experiences subjective, this paper provides extension and support of key principles and mechanisms that can contribute to successful research partnerships between researchers.

Indexed as

International CooperationAdultAfrica, EasternAfrica, WesternAgedBiomedical ResearchCapacity BuildingCross-Sectional StudiesEvaluation Studies as TopicEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleFocus GroupsHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID26695073
PMCPMC4689047
OpenAlexW2207209941

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.