ArticleBMC research notes2026
Building research capacity in sub-Saharan Africa: findings from a pilot scientific writing workshop in Cameroon.
Article in BMC research notes, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Strategic research leadership and research capacity enhancement in Ugandan universities: a systematic review.F1000Research · 2026Pooled it
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveSub-Saharan Africa produces less than 4% of global scientific output, despite significant health and development challenges. This study evaluated the effectiveness of a pilot scientific writing workshop in Cameroon aimed at building writing skills and publication readiness of early career researchers. We conducted two workshops' sessions in Yaoundé, Cameroon, in April and November 2023. A mixed-methods approach was used. Quantitative data were obtained via pre- and post-workshop questionnaires designed to capture participants' self-assessed knowledge, skills, and confidence related to the workshop content. Qualitative data were gathered through in-depth interviews. Descriptive and inferential statistics were applied to the survey data, and thematic content analysis was used to assess qualitative responses.
resultsA total of 86 participants completed both the pre- and post-workshop surveys (response rate: 86.9%). The majority had never published scientific papers (62.8%) nor had they received formal writing training (61.6%). The quantitative results showed statistically significant improvements in participants' overall understanding of scientific writing and publishing (mean difference = 0.93, p < 0.001) and confidence regarding writing skills (mean difference = 0.94, p < 0.001). Thematic analysis of the interviews revealed high satisfaction with the learning environment, perceived knowledge gains, and a strong demand for mentorship and sustained training opportunities.
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.