ArticleGlobal health action2022
Benefits and barriers in a clinical research competency development scheme for low- and middle-income countries.
Article in Global health action, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Barriers and enablers to scholarship for post basic nursing students in clinical service.Curationis · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe EDCTP-TDR Clinical Research and Development Fellowship (CRDF) scheme has offered one-year clinical research training placements for early- and mid-career researchers from LMIC since 1999.
objectiveUsing the results of a 2018 external evaluation of the CRDF, the current article aims to identify the principal benefits for the main stakeholders of the CRDF scheme as well as the main barriers to accessing these benefits.
methodData analysis was derived from an external evaluation of the CRDF scheme. Based on a logical framework approach, data for the external evaluation was collected through document review, interviews, focus groups, and questionnaires collected from the main stakeholder groups. The evaluation was structured along six main themes: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, sustainability, and equity.
resultsThe current paper focuses on the expected benefits, unexpected benefits, and barriers to enjoying benefits of the scheme for key stakeholders. DISCUSSION: Expected benefits were aligned with the development of clinical research competencies, which is the objective of the scheme. Unexpected benefits centred on transferable professional skills in scientific leadership and knowledge translation. Barriers mainly were found around engagement with home institutions and the return and reintegration of fellows following the training period. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommendations include further engagement with and support for home institutions and developing a formal framework for the development of transferable professional competencies, including leadership and knowledge transfer competencies.
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.