ArticleBMJ open2024
Multimethods study to develop tools for competency-based assessments of implementation research training programmes in low and middle-income countries.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementation research for advancing health equity: Design and competency-based assessment of a short-term implementation research training program focused on health equity in global health.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Translating implementation science principles and methods to front-line clinicians: The Implementation Science Scholars Program.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Lost in translation: key lessons from conducting dissemination and implementation science in Zambia.Implementation science communications · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionMethods and validated tools for evaluating the performance of competency-based implementation research (IR) training programmes in low-middle-income countries (LMICs) are lacking. In this study, we developed tools for assessing the performance of IR training programmes based on a framework of IR core competencies in LMICs.
methodsWe developed self-assessment and objective-assessment tools drawing on the IR competency framework. We used exploratory factor analyses and a one-parameter logistic model to establish construct validity and internal consistency of the tools drawing on a survey conducted in 2020 with 166 trainees before and after an index IR course across five universities and LMICs under the Special Program for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases postgraduate IR training scheme. We conducted key informant interviews (KII) with 20 trainees and five trainers to reflect on the usefulness of the tools and framework for guiding IR training in LMICs.
resultsTwo 16-item tools for self-assessment of IR knowledge and self-efficacy and a 40-item objective assessment tool were developed. The factor loadings of items in the self-assessment tools were 0.65-0.87 with Cronbach's alpha (α) of 0.97, and 0.77-0.91 with α of 0.98 for the IR knowledge and self-efficacy tools, respectively. The distribution of item difficulty in the objective-assessment tool was consistent before and after the index IR course. Pearson correlation coefficient (r) between the self-assessed and objectively assessed IR knowledge before the index IR course was low, r=0.27 (p value: <0.01), with slight improvements after the index IR course, r=0.43 (p value: <0.01). All KII respondents reported the assessment tools and framework were valid for assessing IR competencies.
conclusionThe IR competency framework and tools developed for assessing IR competencies and performance of IR training programmes in LMICs are reliable and valid. Self-assessment methods alone may not suffice to yield a valid assessment of performance in these settings.
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.