Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29297405›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2017

Research capacity building integrated into PHIT projects: leveraging research and research funding to build national capacity.

Bethany L Hedt-Gauthier, Roma Chilengi, Elizabeth Jackson, Cathy Michel, Manuel Napua, Jackline Odhiambo, Ayaga Bawah, with input from the AHI PHIT Partnership Collaborative

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Institutional Approaches to Research Integrity in Ghana.Science and engineering ethics · 2020
    Review
  18. Article
  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

8 authors.

Bethany L Hedt-GauthierPartners In Health, Kigali, Rwanda. Bethany_Hedt@hms.harvard.edu.
Roma ChilengiCentre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia.
Elizabeth JacksonHeilbrunn Department of Population and Family Health, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York City, USA.
Cathy MichelHealth Alliance International, Beira, Mozambique.
Manuel NapuaBeira Operational Research Center, National Institute of Health, Beira, Mozambique.
Jackline OdhiamboPartners In Health, Kigali, Rwanda.
Ayaga BawahHeilbrunn Department of Population and Family Health, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York City, USA.
with input from the AHI PHIT Partnership Collaborative

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInadequate research capacity impedes the development of evidence-based health programming in sub-Saharan Africa. However, funding for research capacity building (RCB) is often insufficient and restricted, limiting institutions' ability to address current RCB needs. The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation's African Health Initiative (AHI) funded Population Health Implementation and Training (PHIT) partnership projects in five African countries (Ghana, Mozambique, Rwanda, Tanzania and Zambia) to implement health systems strengthening initiatives inclusive of RCB.

methodsUsing Cooke's framework for RCB, RCB activity leaders from each country reported on RCB priorities, activities, program metrics, ongoing challenges and solutions. These were synthesized by the authorship team, identifying common challenges and lessons learned.

resultsFor most countries, each of the RCB domains from Cooke's framework was a high priority. In about half of the countries, domain specific activities happened prior to PHIT. During PHIT, specific RCB activities varied across countries. However, all five countries used AHI funding to improve research administrative support and infrastructure, implement research trainings and support mentorship activities and research dissemination. While outcomes data were not systematically collected, countries reported holding 54 research trainings, forming 56 mentor-mentee relationships, training 201 individuals and awarding 22 PhD and Masters-level scholarships. Over the 5 years, 116 manuscripts were developed. Of the 59 manuscripts published in peer-reviewed journals, 29 had national first authors and 18 had national senior authors. Trainees participated in 99 conferences and projects held 37 forums with policy makers to facilitate research translation into policy.

conclusionAll five PHIT projects strongly reported an increase in RCB activities and commended the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation for prioritizing RCB, funding RCB at adequate levels and time frames and for allowing flexibility in funding so that each project could implement activities according to their trainees' needs. As a result, many common challenges for RCB, such as adequate resources and local and international institutional support, were not identified as major challenges for these projects. Overall recommendations are for funders to provide adequate and flexible funding for RCB activities and for institutions to offer a spectrum of RCB activities to enable continued growth, provide adequate mentorship for trainees and systematically monitor RCB activities.

Indexed as

Capacity BuildingGhanaHumansMozambiqueResearchResearch Support as TopicRwandaTanzaniaZambiaAfricaGhanaHealth programsMozambiqueResearch capacity strengtheningResearch fundingResearch policyRwandaTanzaniaZambia

Identifiers

PMID29297405
PMCPMC5763288

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.