plueme/wizJson huggingface dataset:
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2017 source: BMC 
title: A need to accelerate health research productivity in an African University: the case of Makerere University College of Health Sciences 
abstract:BackgroundIn the last decade, Makerere University College of Health Sciences (MakCHS) has taken strides in research and training to improve healthcare through collaborative training and research programs. However, there is limited data on the trends of MakCHS faculty contributions to research and on faculty growth to take leading roles in health research. This paper reviews MakCHS faculty research publications over 15.5 years and outlines possible strategies to enhance faculty research outputs.MethodsWe used a mixed methods approach. A systematic review of research publications by faculty at MakCHS (PubMed and Google Scholar from January 1, 2000, to June 30, 2015) to quantify the number of research articles, areas researched, authorship contribution by MakCHS faculty, source of funding, as well as affiliated local and international collaborations. Graphs were used to shown trends in publications and leadership of authorship by faculty. Annual individual faculty research productivity was presented as publication per capita. Qualitative data on high priority needs to improve research outputs was collected through focus group discussions (FGDs) with faculty members, and analysed manually into emerging themes.ResultsOf 298 faculty at MakCHS at 2015, 89 (30%) were female and 229 (77%) were junior and mid-level faculty (senior lecturer and below). The PubMed and Google Scholar searches yielded 6927 published articles, of which 3399 (49%) full-text articles were downloaded for analysis, 426/3825 (11%) available as titles/abstracts only, and 598/4423 (14%) were excluded. Only 614 articles were published in 2014, giving a publication per capita of 2.1 for any authorship, and 0.3 for first and last authorship positions. MakCHS faculty increasingly contributed as first, second, third, and last authors. Up to 57% of research was in infectious diseases, followed by non-communicable diseases (20%) and non-communicable maternal child health (11%). Priority needs to improve research outputs, as expressed by faculty, were (1) an institutionally led faculty career development program, (2) skills building in research methods and scientific writing, (3) protected time for research related activities, (4) opportunities for collaborative research, and (5) use of individual development plans.ConclusionFaculty research productivity was low and dominated by infectious diseases and non-communicable disease research. There is a need for structured institutional support to optimise faculty research outputs. Only with increased research productivity will MakCHS and other academic institutions be able to make a significant contribution in addressing national health challenges.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2017 source: BMC 
title: Operations research in global health: a scoping review with a focus on the themes of health equity and impact 
abstract:BackgroundOperations research (OR) is a discipline that uses advanced analytical methods (e.g. simulation, optimisation, decision analysis) to better understand complex systems and aid in decision-making.SummaryHerein, we present a scoping review of the use of OR to analyse issues in global health, with an emphasis on health equity and research impact. A systematic search of five databases was designed to identify relevant published literature. A global overview of 1099 studies highlights the geographic distribution of OR and common OR methods used. From this collection of literature, a narrative description of the use of OR across four main application areas of global health – health systems and operations, clinical medicine, public health and health innovation – is also presented. The theme of health equity is then explored in detail through a subset of 44 studies. Health equity is a critical element of global health that cuts across all four application areas, and is an issue particularly amenable to analysis through OR. Finally, we present seven select cases of OR analyses that have been implemented or have influenced decision-making in global health policy or practice. Based on these cases, we identify three key drivers for success in bridging the gap between OR and global health policy, namely international collaboration with stakeholders, use of contextually appropriate data, and varied communication outlets for research findings. Such cases, however, represent a very small proportion of the literature found.ConclusionPoor availability of representative and quality data, and a lack of collaboration between those who develop OR models and stakeholders in the contexts where OR analyses are intended to serve, were found to be common challenges for effective OR modelling in global health.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2017 source: BMC 
title: Understanding relevance of health research: considerations in the context of research impact assessment 
abstract:BackgroundWith massive investment in health-related research, above and beyond investments in the management and delivery of healthcare and public health services, there has been increasing focus on the impact of health research to explore and explain the consequences of these investments and inform strategic planning. Relevance is reflected by increased attention to the usability and impact of health research, with research funders increasingly engaging in relevance assessment as an input to decision processes. Yet, it is unclear whether relevance is a synonym for or predictor of impact, a necessary condition or stage in achieving it, or a distinct aim of the research enterprise. The main aim of this paper is to improve our understanding of research relevance, with specific objectives to (1) unpack research relevance from both theoretical and practical perspectives, and (2) outline key considerations for its assessment.ApproachOur approach involved the scholarly strategy of review and reflection. We prepared a draft paper based on an exploratory review of literature from various fields, and gained from detailed and insightful analysis and critique at a roundtable discussion with a group of key health research stakeholders. We also solicited review and feedback from a small sample of expert reviewers.ConclusionsResearch relevance seems increasingly important in justifying research investments and guiding strategic research planning. However, consideration of relevance has been largely tacit in the health research community, often depending on unexplained interpretations of value, fit and potential for impact. While research relevance seems a necessary condition for impact – a process or component of efforts to make rigorous research usable – ultimately, relevance stands apart from research impact. Careful and explicit consideration of research relevance is vital to gauge the overall value and impact of a wide range of individual and collective research efforts and investments. To improve understanding, this paper outlines four key considerations, including how research relevance assessments (1) orientate to, capture and compare research versus non-research sources, (2) consider both instrumental versus non-instrumental uses of research, (3) accommodate dynamic temporal-shifting perspectives on research, and (4) align with an intersubjective understanding of relevance.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2017 source: BMC 
title: Academic research productivity of post-graduate students at Makerere University College of Health Sciences, Uganda, from 1996 to 2010: a retrospective review 
abstract:BackgroundResearch is a core business of universities globally, and is crucial in the scientific process as a precursor for knowledge uptake and use. We aimed to assess the academic productivity of post-graduate students in a university located in a low-income country.MethodsThis is an observational retrospective documentary analysis using hand searching archives, Google Scholar and PubMed electronic databases. The setting is Makerere University College of Health Sciences, Uganda. Records of post-graduate students (Masters) enrolled from 1996 to 2010, and followed to 2016 for outcomes were analysed. The outcome measures were publications (primary), citations, electronic dissertations found online or conference abstracts (secondary). Descriptive and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed using Stata 14.1.ResultsWe found dissertations of 1172 Masters students over the 20-year period of study. While half (590, 50%) had completed clinical graduate disciplines (surgery, internal medicine, paediatrics, obstetrics and gynaecology), Master of Public Health was the single most popular course, with 393 students (31%). Manuscripts from 209 dissertations (18%; 95% CI, 16–20%) were published and approximately the same proportion was cited (196, 17%; 95% CI, 15–19%). Very few (4%) policy-related documents (technical reports and guidelines) cited these dissertations. Variables that remained statistically significant in the multivariable model were students’ age at enrolment into the Masters programme (adjusted coefficient –0.12; 95% CI, –0.18 to –0.06; P < 0.001) and type of research design (adjusted coefficient 0.22; 0.03 to 0.40; P = 0.024). Cohort studies were more likely to be published compared to cross-sectional designs (adjusted coefficient 0.78; 95% CI, 0.2 to 1.36; P = 0.008).ConclusionsThe productivity and use of post-graduate students’ research conducted at the College of Health Sciences Makerere University is considerably low in terms of peer-reviewed publications and citations in policy-related documents. The need for effective strategies to reverse this ‘waste’ is urgent if the College, decision-makers, funders and the Ugandan public are to enjoy the ‘return on investment’ from post-graduate students research.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2017 source: BMC 
title: Development of the Good Health Research Practice course: ensuring quality across all health research in humans 
abstract:Quality and ethics need to be embedded into all areas of research with human participants. Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines are international ethical and scientific quality standards for designing, conducting, recording and reporting trials involving human participants. Compliance with GCP is expected to provide public assurance that the rights, safety and wellbeing of participants are protected and that the clinical research data are credible. However, whilst GCP guidelines, particularly their principles, are recommended across all research types, it is difficult for non-clinical trial research to fit in with the exacting requirements of GCP. There is therefore a need for guidance that allows health researchers to adhere to the principles of GCP, which will improve the quality and ethical conduct of all research involving human participants. These concerns have led to the development of the Good Health Research Practice (GHRP) course. Its goal is to ensure that research is conducted to the highest possible standards, similar to the conduct of trials to GCP. The GHRP course provides training and guidance to ensure quality and ethical conduct across all health-related research. The GHRP course has been run so far on eight occasions. Feedback from delegates has been overwhelmingly positive, with most delegates stating that the course was useful in developing their research protocols and documents. Whilst most training in research starts with a guideline, GHRP has started with a course and the experience gained over running the courses will be used to write a standardised guideline for the conduct of health-related research outside the realm of clinical trials, so that researchers, funders and ethics committees do not try to fit non-trials into clinical trials standards.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2017 source: BMC 
title: Adoption of innovative and evidence-based practices for children and adolescents in state-supported mental health clinics: a qualitative study 
abstract:BackgroundThis study examined how mental health clinic administrators decided whether or not to adopt evidence-based and other innovative practices by exploring their views of implementation barriers and facilitators and operation of these views in assessment of implementation costs and benefits.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 75 agency chief executive officers and program directors of 34 New York State-licensed mental health clinics serving children and adolescents.ResultsThree interconnected themes relating to barriers and facilitators were identified, namely costs and benefits associated with adoption, capacity for adoption, and acceptability of new practices. The highest percentage of participants (86.7%) mentioned costs as a barrier, followed by limited capacity (55.9%) and lack of acceptability (52.9%). The highest percentage (82.3%) of participants identified available capacity as a facilitator, followed by acceptability (41.2%) and benefits or limited costs (24.0%). Assessment of costs and benefits exhibited several principles of behavioural economics, including loss aversion, temporal discounting use of heuristics, sensitivity to monetary incentives, decision fatigue, framing, and environmental influences.ConclusionsThe results point to opportunities for using agency leader models to develop strategies to facilitate implementation of evidence-based and innovative practices for children and adolescents.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2017 source: BMC 
title: The impact on healthcare, policy and practice from 36 multi-project research programmes: findings from two reviews 
abstract:BackgroundWe sought to analyse the impacts found, and the methods used, in a series of assessments of programmes and portfolios of health research consisting of multiple projects.MethodsWe analysed a sample of 36 impact studies of multi-project research programmes, selected from a wider sample of impact studies included in two narrative systematic reviews published in 2007 and 2016. We included impact studies in which the individual projects in a programme had been assessed for wider impact, especially on policy or practice, and where findings had been described in such a way that allowed them to be collated and compared.ResultsIncluded programmes were highly diverse in terms of location (11 different countries plus two multi-country ones), number of component projects (8 to 178), nature of the programme, research field, mode of funding, time between completion and impact assessment, methods used to assess impact, and level of impact identified.Thirty-one studies reported on policy impact, 17 on clinician behaviour or informing clinical practice, three on a combined category such as policy and clinician impact, and 12 on wider elements of impact (health gain, patient benefit, improved care or other benefits to the healthcare system). In those multi-programme projects that assessed the respective categories, the percentage of projects that reported some impact was policy 35% (range 5–100%), practice 32% (10–69%), combined category 64% (60–67%), and health gain/health services 27% (6–48%).Variations in levels of impact achieved partly reflected differences in the types of programme, levels of collaboration with users, and methods and timing of impact assessment. Most commonly, principal investigators were surveyed; some studies involved desk research and some interviews with investigators and/or stakeholders. Most studies used a conceptual framework such as the Payback Framework. One study attempted to assess the monetary value of a research programme’s health gain.ConclusionThe widespread impact reported for some multi-project programmes, including needs-led and collaborative ones, could potentially be used to promote further research funding. Moves towards greater standardisation of assessment methods could address existing inconsistencies and better inform strategic decisions about research investment; however, unresolved issues about such moves remain.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2017 source: BMC 
title: The translation of sports injury prevention and safety promotion knowledge: insights from key intermediary organisations 
abstract:BackgroundA recognised research-to-practice gap exists in the health research field of sports injury prevention and safety promotion. There is a need for improved insight into increasing the relevancy, accessibility and legitimacy of injury prevention and safety promotion research knowledge for sport settings. The role of key organisations as intermediaries in the process of health knowledge translation for sports settings remains under-explored, and this paper aims to determine, and describe, the processes of knowledge translation undertaken by a set of key organisations in developing and distributing injury prevention and safety promotion resources.MethodsThe National Guidance for Australian Football Partnerships and Safety (NoGAPS) project provided the context for this study. Representatives from five key NoGAPS organisations participated in individual face-to-face interviews about organisational processes of knowledge translation. A qualitative descriptive methodology was used to analyse participants’ descriptions of knowledge translation activities undertaken at their respective organisations.ResultsSeveral themes emerged around health knowledge translation processes and considerations, including (1) identifying a need for knowledge translation, (2) developing and disseminating resources, and (3) barriers and enablers to knowledge translation.ConclusionsThis study provides insight into the processes that key organisations employ when developing and disseminating injury prevention and safety promotion resources within sport settings. The relevancy, accessibility and legitimacy of health research knowledge is foregrounded, with a view to increasing the influence of research on the development of health-related resources suitable for community sport settings.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2017 source: BMC 
title: International consultation on long-term global health research priorities, research capacity and research uptake in developing countries 
abstract:BackgroundIn recognition of the need for long-term planning for global health research, and to inform future global health research priorities, the United Kingdom Department for International Development (DfID) carried out a public consultation between May and June 2015. The consultation aimed to elicit views on the (1) the long-term future global health research priorities; (2) areas likely to be less important over time; (3) how to improve research uptake in low-income countries; and (4) how to build research capacity in low-income countries.MethodsAn online consultation was used to survey a wide range of participants on global health research priorities. The qualitative data was analysed using a thematic analysis, with frequency of codes in responses tabulated to approximate relative importance of themes and sub-themes.ResultsThe public consultation yielded 421 responses. The survey responses confirmed the growing importance of non-communicable disease as a global health research priority, being placed above infectious diseases. Participants felt that the key area for reducing funding prioritisation was infectious diseases. The involvement of policymakers and other key stakeholders was seen as critical to drive research uptake, as was collaboration and partnership. Several methods to build research capacity in low-income countries were described, including capacity building educational programmes, mentorship programmes and research institution collaboration and partnership.ConclusionsThe outcomes from this consultation survey provide valuable insights into how DfID stakeholders prioritise research. The outcomes from this survey were reviewed alongside other elements of a wider DfID consultation process to help inform long-term research prioritisation of global health research. There are limitations in this approach; the opportunistic nature of the survey’s dissemination means the findings presented may not be representative of the full range of stakeholders or views.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2017 source: BMC 
title: Research impact of systems-level long-term care research: a multiple case study 
abstract:BackgroundTraditional reporting of research outcomes and impacts, which tends to focus on research product publications and grant success, does not capture the value, some contributions, or the complexity of research projects. The purpose of this study was to understand the contributions of five systems-level research projects as they were unfolding at the Bruyère Centre for Learning, Research and Innovation (CLRI) in long-term care (LTC) in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. The research questions were, (1) How are partnerships with research end-users (policymakers, administrators and other public/private organisations) characterised? (2) How have interactions with the CLRI Management Committee and Steering Committee influenced the development of research products? (3) In what way have other activities, processes, unlinked actors or organisations been influenced by the research project activities?MethodsThe study was guided by Kok and Schuit’s concept of research impacts, using a multiple case study design. Data were collected through focus groups and interviews with research teams, a management and a steering committee, research user partners, and unlinked actors. Documents were collected and analysed for contextual background.ResultsCross-case analysis revealed four major themes: (1) Benefits and Perceived Tensions: Working with Partners; (2) Speaking with the LTC Community: Interactions with the CLRI Steering Committee; (3) The Knowledge Broker: Interactions with the Management Committee; and (4) All Forms of Research Contributions.ConclusionsMost contributions were focused on interactions with networks and stimulating important conversations in the province about LTC issues. These contributions were well-supported by the Steering and Management Committees’ research-to-action platform, which can be seen as a type of knowledge brokering model. It was also clear that researcher-user partnerships were beneficial and important.