ArticleHuman resources for health2026
From implementation to learning: a process-oriented framework to evaluate innovative global health capacity building in fragile and conflict-affected settings.
Article in Human resources for health, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGlobal Health Capacity Building (GHCB) initiatives are central to strengthening health systems and workforce readiness in Fragile and Conflict-Affected Settings (FCAS). While many evaluation frameworks exist, most were developed for stable contexts and offer limited guidance on how to adapt evaluation processes to environments rife with political instability, limited infrastructure, population mobility, and rapidly shifting conditions. As innovative learning modalities, such as online and blended learning modalities expand in FCAS, there is a critical need for evaluation approaches that are context-responsive, process-oriented, and tailored to fragile settings.
methodThis paper presents the Evaluation of Capacity Building (eCAP) framework, an evidence-informed framework for evaluating GHCB in FCAS. The eCAP framework was developed through a 5-year iterative process by the Global Health Institute at the American University of Beirut, as informed by 3 sequential phases: (1) 3 systematic reviews exploring evaluation methods for GHCB in low- and middle-income countries and in the MENA region; (2) evaluation of 5 case studies implemented in the region; and (3) a synthesis of outcomes and process-related results between 2019 and 2024.
resultsThe eCAP framework conceptualizes the evaluation lifecycle in FCAS as a dynamic and adaptive process across three interconnected phases: (1) understanding the program (modality, population, context, level of evaluation, and program logic); (2) implementation (logistics, recruitment, engagement, tool selection, and timing of data collection), and (3) analysis, feedback, and learning. Without prescribing standardized indicators, the framework emphasizes decision-making principles for evaluation that enable adaptation to contextual constraints and other field-based realities. The framework is useful for diverse FCAS, and it has demonstrated feasibility and utility in capturing short-to-medium term outcomes while preserving methodological rigor under challenging and unstable conditions.
conclusionThe eCAP framework addresses a key gap in the evaluation of GHCB initiatives in FCAS by offering a structured yet adaptable approach grounded in ample field-based evidence. The framework provides practical guidance for researchers, implementers, and funders seeking to design and evaluate capacity building initiatives in complex humanitarian environments. Ultimately, this framework has implications for strengthening evaluation practices, improving programmatic learnings, and guiding policy and funding decisions related to capacity building in FCAS.
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.