Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34022883›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2021

Health research capacity building of health workers in fragile and conflict-affected settings: a scoping review of challenges, strengths, and recommendations.

Rania Mansour, Hady Naal, Tarek Kishawi, Nassim El Achi, Layal Hneiny, Shadi Saleh

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  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. Article
  16. Understanding injecting drug use in Afghanistan: A scoping review.Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. 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 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Rania MansourGlobal Health Institute, American University of Beirut, Beirut, 1107 2020, Lebanon.
Hady NaalGlobal Health Institute, American University of Beirut, Beirut, 1107 2020, Lebanon.
Tarek KishawiGlobal Health Institute, American University of Beirut, Beirut, 1107 2020, Lebanon.
Nassim El AchiGlobal Health Institute, American University of Beirut, Beirut, 1107 2020, Lebanon.
Layal HneinySaab Medical Library, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Shadi SalehGlobal Health Institute, American University of Beirut, Beirut, 1107 2020, Lebanon. ss117@aub.edu.lb.
American University of Beirut · LBSt George's, University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFragile and conflict-affected settings (FCAS) have a strong need to improve the capacity of local health workers to conduct health research in order to improve health policy and health outcomes. Health research capacity building (HRCB) programmes are ideal to equip health workers with the needed skills and knowledge to design and lead health-related research initiatives. The study aimed to review the characteristics of HRCB studies in FCASs in order to identify their strengths and weaknesses, and to recommend future directions for the field.

methodsWe conducted a scoping review and searched four databases for peer-reviewed articles that reported an HRCB initiative targeting health workers in a FCAS and published after 2010. Commentaries and editorials, cross-sectional studies, presentations, and interventions that did not have a capacity building component were excluded. Data on bibliographies of the studies and HRCB interventions and their outcomes were extracted. A descriptive approach was used to report the data, and a thematic approach was used to analyse the qualitative data.

resultsOut of 8822 articles, a total of 20 were included based on the eligibility criteria. Most of the initiatives centred around topics of health research methodology (70%), targeted an individual-level capacity building angle (95%), and were delivered in university or hospital settings (75%). Ten themes were identified and grouped into three categories. Significant challenges revolved around the lack of local research culture, shortages in logistic capability, interpersonal difficulties, and limited assessment and evaluation of HRCB programmes. Strengths of HRCB interventions included being locally driven, incorporating interactive pedagogies, and promoting multidisciplinary and holistic training. Common recommendations covered by the studies included opportunities to improve the content, logistics, and overarching structural components of HRCB initiatives.

conclusionOur findings have important implications on health research policy and related capacity building efforts. Importantly, FCASs should prioritize (1) funding HRCB efforts, (2) strengthening equitable international, regional, and national partnerships, (3) delivering locally led HRCB programmes, (4) ensuring long-term evaluations and implementing programmes at multiple levels of the healthcare system, and (5) adopting engaging and interactive approaches.

Indexed as

Capacity BuildingHealth PersonnelCross-Sectional StudiesDelivery of Health CareHealth WorkforceHumansCapacity buildingConflict-affectedFragile settingsHealth researchHealth workers

Identifiers

PMID34022883
PMCPMC8140497
OpenAlexW3165400324

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.