ArticleResearch square2026
Design, implementation, and evaluation of a peer-led virtual research training program for early-career health researchers in Central Africa.
Article in Research square, 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Sub-Saharan Africa bears a disproportionate share of the global disease burden yet contributes less than 4% of global scientific publications. Most research capacity-building efforts are dominated by short-term workshops that hardly translate into sustained impact. We describe the design, implementation, and evaluation of the CRENC-IeDEA Monday Research Calls, a peer-led, longitudinal virtual research training program for early-career health researchers in Central Africa. Methods: The program delivered 10 modules across 46 weekly one-hour sessions via Zoom during 2025. Early-career researchers delivered presentations and responded to audience questions under structured senior faculty mentorship. An end-of-program survey (N = 42) assessed satisfaction, self-reported research self-efficacy across 14 competency domains, skill application, and research outputs using the Kirkpatrick evaluation framework. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Holm-Bonferroni correction and Cohen's d effect sizes were used for pre-post comparisons. Results: The program received 227 applications, with 55 participants selected for synchronous training. Respondents were predominantly aged 25-34 years (62%), male (55%), and from Cameroon (83%). Thirty-six percent attended more than 75% of sessions, and 90% would definitely recommend the program. Overall satisfaction was high (mean 4.43/5; Cronbach's alpha = 0.82), with content applicability rated 4.60/5. Composite self-efficacy increased significantly from a pre-program mean of 3.10 to 4.20 (mean change = 1.10; Conclusions: A peer-led, longitudinal virtual training program grounded in adult learning theory and community of practice principles may achieve significant medium-term competency gains and tangible research outputs among early-career researchers in resource-limited settings at modest cost. Practical exercises, bilingual delivery, and prospective evaluation with a comparison group are critical next steps.
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.