ArticlePloS one2024
Evaluating the research capacity and culture amongst staff at a tertiary level teaching hospital in Rwanda.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBuilding research capacity can strengthen health systems through evidence-based interventions. However, evaluating the current research capacity and increasing it is a layered process that needs to consider different institutional structures, as well as internal factors. This study collects baseline data on the research capacity and culture at King Faisal Hospital Rwanda (KFH), a tertiary-level teaching hospital in Rwanda. It also proposes ways to further strengthen it and recommends ways for other institutions in Rwanda to strengthen research capacity.
methodsThe Research Capacity and Culture Tool was distributed to full-time clinical and non-clinical KFH staff in September 2021. Participants were required to hold a position that minimally requires an Advanced Diploma. The quantitative survey data were analyzed in SPSS Version 27 and analyzed via descriptive statistics across all domains, including the individual, organizational, and team levels.
findings152 participants completed the questionnaire. On a 5-point Likert scale, the highest ranked skills were designing questionnaires (3.34) and using digital referencing systems (3.29), while the lowest ranked skills were securing research funding (2.40) and writing for publication in peer-reviewed journals (2.46). Perceptions about the organizational level's research system were overall stronger than those at the team level, with the weakest team-level system being having regular research forums and bulletins (2.14) and having digital tools for conducting research (2.14). Motivators to conducting research included skills development (87%) and career advancement (74%), while barriers included a lack of time (64%) and access to funding (56%). DISCUSSION: To strengthen the research capacity and culture at KFH, focus should be on allocating tools, resources, and training opportunities to staff. Research should be integrated into staff job descriptions, with a time audit conducted to ensure they have adequate time for these activities. Finally, decentralizing research and ensuring team-level ownership will help with staff buy in.
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.