ReviewHealth research policy and systems2026
The development and utility of frameworks designed to evaluate research capacity building initiatives in healthcare settings: a methodological review.
Review in Health research policy and systems, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBuilding research capacity in health settings is essential for improving the relevance and application of health research. Rigorous evaluation of research capacity in health settings optimizes the development, implementation and improvement of such initiatives. Cooke's 2005 framework was the earliest peer-reviewed framework to evaluate research capacity in health settings. While subsequent frameworks exist, it is not clear how they were developed and are used in practice. This review investigates the development, composition and utilization of peer-reviewed frameworks designed to evaluate research capacity in health settings.
methodsThis two-phased methodological review was informed by the JBI scoping review methodology. Phase 1 involved a systematic search of seven databases on 1 May 2025 to identify peer-reviewed frameworks for evaluating research capacity. Phase 2 involved a forward citation search of included frameworks using Google Scholar, finalized on 18 September 2025, to identify the number and nature of citing studies. Data extraction and narrative synthesis were informed by the review aims.
resultsPhase 1 database searches yielded 2581 unique citations, of which 8 met the inclusion criteria. An additional framework was identified through citation searching, totalling 9 frameworks. The frameworks were developed via retrospective processes (reviews of literature and local data) or prospective methods (engagement workshops). Several were informed by earlier frameworks. Frameworks typically comprised an overarching structure, substructural components and a series of outcome indicators. Framework authors defined research capacity building in nuanced ways. Phase 2 forward citation searching of the nine frameworks revealed 881 citations. Of these, 37 citing articles met the inclusion criteria. Most (31/37) citing studies utilized Cooke's 2005 framework. Frameworks were largely used to inform data collection and analysis, and most citing authors only used only some framework components. Limitations and strengths of the frameworks related to the development process and practical application were identified by framework and citing authors.
conclusionsThis review facilitated new insights into the development, characteristics and utilization of frameworks to evaluate research capacity building in health settings. There are nine peer-reviewed, published frameworks, several informed by and expanding on earlier frameworks, which is essential for advancing the evaluation of research capacity in health 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.