plueme/wizJson huggingface dataset:
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2015 source: BMC 
title: Promoting sustainable research partnerships: a mixed-method evaluation of a United Kingdom–Africa capacity strengthening award scheme 
abstract:BackgroundResearch partnerships between high-income countries (HICs) and low- or middle-income countries (LMICs) are a leading model in research capacity strengthening activities. Although numerous frameworks and guiding principles for effective research partnerships exist, few include the perspective of the LMIC partner. This paper draws out lessons for establishing and maintaining successful research collaborations, based on partnership dynamics, from the perspectives of both HIC and LMIC stakeholders through the evaluation of a research capacity strengthening partnership award scheme.MethodsA mixed-method retrospective evaluation approach was used. Initially, a cross-sectional survey was administered to all award holders, which focused on partnership outputs and continuation. Fifty individuals were purposively selected to participate in interviews or focus group discussions from 12 different institutions in HICs and LMICs; the sample included the research investigators, research assistants, laboratory scientists and post-doctoral students. The evaluation collected data on critical elements of research partnership dynamics such as research outputs, nature of the partnership, future plans and research capacity. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively and qualitative data were analysed using an iterative framework approach.ResultsThe majority of United Kingdom and African award holders stated they would like to pursue future collaborations together. Key aspects within partnerships that appeared to influence this were; the perceived benefits of the partnership at the individual and institutional level such as publication of papers or collaborative grants; ability to influence ‘research culture’ and instigate critical thinking among mid-career researchers; previous working relationships, for example supervisor-student relationships; and equity within partnerships linked to partnership formation and experience of United Kingdom partners within LMICs. Factors which may hinder development of long term partnerships were also identified such as financial control or differing expectations of partners.ConclusionsThis paper provides evidence of what encourages international research partnerships for capacity strengthening to continue past award tenure, from the perspective of researchers in high and LMICs. Although every partnership is unique and individual experiences subjective, this paper provides extension and support of key principles and mechanisms that can contribute to successful research partnerships between researchers.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2015 source: BMC 
title: Tools and instruments for needs assessment, monitoring and evaluation of health research capacity development activities at the individual and organizational level: a systematic review 
abstract:BackgroundIn the past decades, various frameworks, methods, indicators, and tools have been developed to assess the needs as well as to monitor and evaluate (needs assessment, monitoring and evaluation; “NaME”) health research capacity development (HRCD) activities. This systematic review gives an overview on NaME activities at the individual and organizational level in the past 10 years with a specific focus on methods, tools and instruments. Insight from this review might support researchers and stakeholders in systemizing future efforts in the HRCD field.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed and Google Scholar. Additionally, the personal bibliographies of the authors were scanned. Two researchers independently reviewed the identified abstracts for inclusion according to previously defined eligibility criteria. The included articles were analysed with a focus on both different HRCD activities as well as NaME efforts.ResultsInitially, the search revealed 700 records in PubMed, two additional records in Google Scholar, and 10 abstracts from the personal bibliographies of the authors. Finally, 42 studies were included and analysed in depth. Findings show that the NaME efforts in the field of HRCD are as complex and manifold as the concept of HRCD itself. NaME is predominately focused on outcome evaluation and mainly refers to the individual and team levels.ConclusionA substantial need for a coherent and transparent taxonomy of HRCD activities to maximize the benefits of future studies in the field was identified. A coherent overview of the tools used to monitor and evaluate HRCD activities is provided to inform further research in the field.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2015 source: BMC 
title: Building an Australasian paramedicine research agenda: a narrative review 
abstract:The need for paramedicine research has been recognised internationally through efforts to develop out-of-hospital research agendas in several developed countries. Australasia has a substantial paramedicine research capacity compared to the discipline internationally and is well positioned as a potential leader in the drive towards evidence-based policy and practice in paramedicine. Our objective was to draw on international experiences to identify and recommend the best methodological approach that should be employed to develop an Australasian paramedicine research agenda. A search and critical appraisal process was employed to produce an overview of the literature related to the development of paramedicine research agendas throughout the world. Based on these international experiences, and our own analysis of the Australasian context, we recommend that a mixed methods approach be used to develop an inclusive Australasian Paramedicine Research Agenda. This approach will capture the views and interests of a wide range of expert stakeholders through multiple data collection strategies, including interviews, roundtable discussions and an online Delphi consensus survey. Paramedic researchers and industry leaders have the opportunity to use this multidisciplinary process of inquiry to develop a paramedicine research agenda that will provide a framework for the development of a culture of open evaluation, innovation and improvement. This research agenda would assess the progress of paramedicine research in Australia and New Zealand, map the research capacity of the paramedicine discipline, paramedic services, universities and professional organisations, identify current strengths and opportunities, make recommendations to capitalize on opportunities, and identify research priorities. Success will depend on ensuring the participation of a representative sample of expert stakeholders, fostering an open and collaborative roundtable discussion, and adhering to a predefined approach to measure consensus on each topic.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2015 source: BMC 
title: A process evaluation accompanying an attempted randomized controlled trial of an evidence service for health system policymakers 
abstract:BackgroundWe developed an evidence service that draws inputs from Health Systems Evidence (HSE), which is a comprehensive database of research evidence about governance, financial and delivery arrangements within health systems and about implementation strategies relevant to health systems. Our goal was to evaluate whether, how and why a ‘full-serve’ evidence service increases the use of synthesized research evidence by policy analysts and advisors in the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care as compared to a ‘self-serve’ evidence service.MethodsWe attempted to conduct a two-arm, 10-month randomized controlled trial (RCT), along with a follow-up qualitative process evaluation, but we terminated the RCT when we failed to reach our recruitment target. For the qualitative process evaluation we modified the original interview guide to allow us to explore the (1) factors influencing participation in the trial; (2) usage of HSE, factors explaining usage patterns, and strategies to increase usage; (3) participation in training workshops and use of other supports; and (4) views about and experiences with key HSE features.ResultsWe terminated the RCT given our 15% recruitment rate. Six factors were identified by those who had agreed to participate in the trial as encouraging their participation: relevance of the study to participants’ own work; familiarity with the researchers; personal view of the importance of using research evidence in policymaking; academic background; support from supervisors; and participation of colleagues. Most reported that they never, infrequently or inconsistently used HSE and suggested strategies to increase its use, including regular email reminders and employee training. However, only two participants indicated that employee training, in the form of a workshop about finding and using research evidence, had influenced their use of HSE. Most participants found HSE features to be intuitive and helpful, although registration/sign-in and some page formats (particularly the advanced search page and detailed search results page) discouraged their use or did not optimize the user experience.ConclusionsThe qualitative findings informed a re-design of HSE, which allows users to more efficiently find and use research evidence about how to strengthen or reform health systems or in how to get cost-effective programs, services and drugs to those who need them. Our experience with RCT recruitment suggests the need to consider changing the unit of allocation to divisions instead of individuals within divisions, among other lessons.Trial registrationThis protocol for this study is published in Implementation Science and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (HHS/FHS REB 10–267).
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2015 source: BMC 
title: The NIHR Public Health Research Programme: responding to local authority research needs in the United Kingdom 
abstract:The remit of the National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research (PHR) Programme is to evaluate public health interventions, providing new knowledge on the benefits, costs, acceptability and wider impacts of interventions, set outside of the National Health Service, intended to improve the health of the public and reduce inequalities. This paper illustrates how the PHR Programme is providing new knowledge for public health decision makers, based on the nine key areas for local authority public health action, described by the King’s Fund. Many funded PHR projects are evaluating interventions, applied in a range of settings, across the identified key areas for local authority influence. For example, research has been funded on children and young people, and for some of the wider determinants of health, such as housing and travel. Other factors, such as spatial planning, or open and green spaces and leisure, are less represented in the PHR Programme. Further opportunities in research include interventions to improve the health of adolescents, adults in workplaces, and communities. Building evidence for public health interventions at local authority level is important to prioritise and implement effective changes to improve population health.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2015 source: BMC 
title: Collaborative research networks in health: a pragmatic scoping study for the development of an imaging network 
abstract:BackgroundCollaborative research networks are often touted as a solution for enhancing the translation of knowledge, but questions remain about how to evaluate their impact on health service delivery. This pragmatic scoping study explored the enabling factors for developing and supporting a collaborative imaging network in a metropolitan university in Australia.MethodsAn advisory group was established to provide governance and to identify key informants and participants. Focus group discussions (n = 2) and semi-structured interviews (n = 22) were facilitated with representatives from a broad range of disciplines. In addition, a survey, a review of relevant websites (n = 15) and a broad review of the literature were undertaken to elicit information on collaborative research networks and perceived needs and factors that would support their involvement in a multi-disciplinary collaborative research network. Findings were de-identified and broad themes were identified.ResultsParticipants identified human factors as having priority for developing and sustaining a collaborative research network. In particular, leadership, a shared vision and a communication plan that includes social media were identified as crucial for sustaining an imaging network in health research. It is important to develop metrics that map relationships between network members and the role that communication tools can contribute to this process.ConclusionsThis study confirms that human factors remain significant across a range of collaborative endeavours. The use of focus group discussions, interviews, and literature and website reviews means we can now strongly recommend the primacy of human factors. More work is needed to identify how the network operates and what specific indicators or metrics help build the capacity of clinicians and scientists to participate in translational research.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2015 source: BMC 
title: Building coherence and synergy among global health initiatives 
abstract:BackgroundThe fast growth of global health initiatives (GHIs) has raised concerns regarding achievement of coherence and synergy among distinct, complementary and sometimes competing activities. Herein, we propose an approach to compare GHIs with regard to their main purpose and operational aspects, using the Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR/WHO) as a case study. The overall goal is to identify synergies and optimize efforts to provide solutions to reduce the burden of diseases.MethodsTwenty-six long-established GHIs were identified from among initiatives previously associated/partnered with TDR/WHO. All GHIs had working streams that would benefit from linking to the capacity building or implementation research focus of TDR. Individual profiles were created using a common template to collect information on relevant parameters. For analytical purposes, GHIs were simultaneously clustered in five and eight groups according to their ‘intended outcome’ and ‘operational framework’, respectively. A set of specific questions was defined to assess coherence/alignment against a TDR reference profile by attributing a score, which was subsequently averaged per GHI cluster. GHI alignment scores for intended outcome were plotted against scores for operational framework; based on the analysis of coherence/alignment with TDR functions and operations, a risk level (high, medium or low) of engagement was attributed to each GHI.ResultsThe process allowed a bi-dimensional ranking of GHIs with regards to how adequately they fit with or match TDR features and perspectives. Overall, more consistence was observed with regard to the GHIs’ main goals and expected outcomes than with their operational aspects, reflecting the diversity of GHI business models. Analysis of coherence indicated an increasing common trend for enhancing the engagement of developing country stakeholders, building research capacity and optimization of knowledge management platforms in support of improved access to healthcare.ConclusionsThe process used offers a broader approach that could be adapted by other GHIs to build coherence and synergy with peer organizations and helps highlight the potential contribution of each GHI in the new era of sustainable development goals. Emerging opportunities and new trends suggest that engagement between GHIs should be selective and tailored to ensure efficient collaborations.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2015 source: BMC 
title: Overview of a multi-stakeholder dialogue around Shared Services for Health: the Digital Health Opportunity in Bangladesh 
abstract:BackgroundNational level policymaking and implementation includes multiple stakeholders with varied interests and priorities. Multi-stakeholder dialogues (MSDs) can facilitate consensus building through collective identification of challenges, recognition of shared goals and interests, and creation of solution pathways. This can shape joint planning and implementation for long-term efficiency in health and other sectors. Scaling up the effective use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) requires cohesive strategic planning towards a shared goal. In Bangladesh, the government and partners convened an MSD in March 2015 to increase stakeholder engagement in policymaking and implementation of a national ICT or electronic or mobile health (eHealth or mHealth) strategy, which seeks to incorporate ICTs into the national health system, aligning with the Digital Bangladesh Vision 2021.MethodsRelevant stakeholders were identified and key priorities and challenges were mapped through key informant interviews. An MSD was conducted with key stakeholders in Dhaka, Bangladesh. The MSD included presentations, group option generation, agreement and prioritization of barriers to scaling up ICTs.ResultsThe MSD approach to building consensus on key priorities highlights the value of dialogue and collaboration with relevant stakeholders to encourage country ownership of nationwide efforts such as ICT scale-up. This MSD showed the dynamic context in which stakeholders operate, including those from academia, donors and foundations, healthcare professionals, associations, multilateral organizations, non-governmental organizations, partner countries and the private sector. Through this MSD, participants improved understanding of each other’s contributions and interests, identified existing relationships, and agreed on policy and implementation gaps that needed to be filled. Collaboration among stakeholders in ICT efforts and research can promote a cohesive approach to scaling up, as well as improve policymaking by integrating interests and feedback of different key cross sectoral actors.ConclusionMSDs can align stakeholders to identify challenges and solution pathways, and lead to coordinated action and accountability for resources and results. In addition, the MSD template and approach has been useful to guide ICT scale up in Bangladesh and could be replicated in other contexts to facilitate multi-constituency, multi-sector collaboration.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2015 source: BMC 
title: Building a knowledge translation platform in Malawi to support evidence-informed health policy 
abstract:With the support of the World Health Organization’s Evidence-Informed Policy Network, knowledge translation platforms have been developed throughout Africa, the Americas, Eastern Europe, and Asia to further evidence-informed national health policy. In this commentary, we discuss the approaches, activities and early lessons learned from the development of a Knowledge Translation Platform in Malawi (KTPMalawi). Through ongoing leadership, as well as financial and administrative support, the Malawi Ministry of Health has strongly signalled its intention to utilize a knowledge translation platform methodology to support evidence-informed national health policy. A unique partnership between Dignitas International, a medical and research non-governmental organization, and the Malawi Ministry of Health, has established KTPMalawi to engage national-level policymakers, researchers and implementers in a coordinated approach to the generation and utilization of health-sector research. Utilizing a methodology developed and tested by knowledge translation platforms across Africa, a stakeholder mapping exercise and initial capacity building workshops were undertaken and a multidisciplinary Steering Committee was formed. This Steering Committee prioritized the development of two initial Communities of Practice to (1) improve data utilization in the pharmaceutical supply chain and (2) improve the screening and treatment of hypertension within HIV-infected populations. Each Community of Practice’s mandate is to gather and synthesize the best available global and local evidence and produce evidence briefs for policy that have been used as the primary input into structured deliberative dialogues. While a lack of sustained initial funding slowed its early development, KTPMalawi has greatly benefited from extensive technical support and mentorship by an existing network of global knowledge translation platforms. With the continued support of the Malawi Ministry of Health and the Evidence-Informed Policy Network, KTPMalawi can continue to build on its role in facilitating the use of evidence in the development and refinement of health policy in Malawi.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2015 source: BMC 
title: Identifying potential indicators to measure the outcome of translational cancer research: a mixed methods approach 
abstract:BackgroundIn a context where there is an increasing demand to evaluate the outcome of bio-medical research, our work aims to develop a set of indicators to measure the impact of translational cancer research. The objective of our study was to explore the scope and issues of translational research relevant to evaluation, explore the views of researchers on the evaluation of oncological translational research, and select indicators measuring the outcomes and outputs of translational research in oncology by consensus.MethodsSemi-structured interviews amongst 23 researchers involved in translational cancer research were conducted and analysed using thematic analysis. A two-round modified Delphi survey of 35 participants with similar characteristics was then performed followed by a physical meeting. Participants rated the feasibility and validity of 60 indicators. The physical meeting was held to discuss the methodology of the new indicators.ResultsThe main themes emerging from the interviews included a common definition for translational research but disagreements about the exact scope and limits of this research, the importance of multidisciplinarity and collaboration for the success of translational research, the disadvantages that translational research faces in current evaluation systems, the relative lack of pertinence of existing indicators, and propositions to measure translational cancer research in terms of clinical applications and patient outcomes. A total of 35 participants took part in the first round survey and 12 in the second round. The two-round survey helped us select a set of 18 indicators, including four that seemed to be particularly adapted to measure translational cancer research impact on health service research (number of biomarkers identified, generation of clinical guidelines, citation of research in clinical guidelines, and citation of research in public health guidelines). The feedback from participants helped refine the methodology and definition of indicators not commonly used.ConclusionIndicators need to be accepted by stakeholders under evaluation. This study helped the selection and refinement of indicators considered as the most relevant by researchers in translational cancer research. The feasibility and validity of those indicators will be tested in a scientometric study.