ArticleBMC medical education2023
Achieving a robust mentoring and research capacity program in a LMIC - the BRAINS faculty development model.
Article in BMC medical education, 2023. 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.
- Mentorship-A critical metric for career development and advancing global health.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA research and training program (RTP) was carried out to build the capacity of faculty and improve the culture of research in the College of Medicine, University of Lagos (CMUL), Nigeria.
methodsRealist-guided mixed methods evaluation of the BRAINS project was carried out using secondary data generated during the 5-years (2015 - 2020) of project implementation. Capacity building workshops and mentored research activities targeted at faculty in the CMUL were conducted. Overall, 1,418 participants attended the workshops in batches. Among the participants, forty-five faculty received grants and were mentored by senior professionals (local & international) to conduct research. Data were extracted from all project-related documents including coursework biodata, workshop evaluation forms, quarterly project reports, and end- of-project reports, submitted by the mentees, minutes of meetings, and the proposal submitted for funding. It was in the form of continuous variables and prose (sentences & stories). Quantitative data were analysed with IBM SPSS statistics version 20. Mean knowledge score and mean difference was calculated, paired t-test was carried out using p < 0.05 to determine statistical significance. The prose was thematically analysed to generate themes and narratives. Both were subsequently combined for interpretation and used to refine the initial programme theory into an evidence-informed theory.
resultsTwelve courses were deployed, and 1,418 participants (47.8% males and 52.2% females) from medical, nursing, and allied medical departments were trained. Eighty participants were trained in Responsible Conduct of Research and eighty-one on Manuscript Writing over three years. A comparison of the pre/post-test knowledge scores showed a positive mean difference. Thematic analysis of workshop data produced three thematic domains representing effectiveness and gains namely: cognitive, reward, and behavioural. 45 trainees were awarded grants and mentored, and analysis of mentee's data generated 4 themes: Achieving a robust mentoring program; Benefits of the mentoring program; Resilience in research; Improving the mentoring program.
conclusionBy contributing to the body of knowledge available on RTPs, this evaluation identified key components that contributed to the success of the project and developed a model for achieving a robust training and mentoring program which can be replicated in other LMICs.
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.