ObjectivesLocally led health research in low and middle income countries (LMICs) is critical for overcoming global health challenges. Yet, despite over 25 years of international efforts, health research capacity in LMICs remains insufficient and development attempts continue to be fragmented. The aim of this systematic review is to identify and critically examine the main approaches and trends in health research capacity development and consolidate key thinking to identify a more coherent approach.MethodsThis review includes academic and grey literature published between January 2000 and July 2013. Using a predetermined search strategy, we systematically searched PubMed, hand-searched Google Scholar and checked reference lists. This process yielded 1668 papers. 240 papers were selected based on a priori criteria. A modified version of meta-narrative synthesis was used to analyse the papers.Results3 key narratives were identified: the effect of power relations on capacity development; demand for stronger links between research, policy and practice and the importance of a systems approach. Capacity development was delivered through 4 main modalities: vertical research projects, centres of excellence, North–South partnerships and networks; all were controversial, and each had their strengths and weaknesses. A plurality of development strategies was employed to address specific barriers to health research. However, lack of empirical research and monitoring and evaluation meant that their effectiveness was unclear and learning was weak.ConclusionsThere has been steady progress in LMIC health research capacity, but major barriers to research persist and more empirical evidence on development strategies is required. Despite an evolution in development thinking, international actors continue to use outdated development models that are recognised as ineffective. To realise newer development thinking, research capacity outcomes need to be equally valued as research outputs. While some development actors are now adopting this dedicated capacity development approach, they are in the minority.

BackgroundMalaria over-diagnosis in Africa is widespread and costly both financially and in terms of morbidity and mortality from missed diagnoses. An understanding of the reasons behind malaria over-diagnosis is urgently needed to inform strategies for better targeting of antimalarials.MethodsIn an ethnographic study of clinical practice in two hospitals in Tanzania, 2,082 patient consultations with 34 clinicians were observed over a period of three months at each hospital. All clinicians were also interviewed individually as well as being observed during routine working activities with colleagues. Interviews with five tutors and 10 clinical officer students at a nearby clinical officer training college were subsequently conducted.ResultsFour, primarily social, spheres of influence on malaria over-diagnosis were identified. Firstly, the influence of initial training within a context where the importance of malaria is strongly promoted. Secondly, the influence of peers, conforming to perceived expectations from colleagues. Thirdly, pressure to conform with perceived patient preferences. Lastly, quality of diagnostic support, involving resource management, motivation and supervision. Rather than following national guidelines for the diagnosis of febrile illness, clinician behaviour appeared to follow 'mindlines': shared rationales constructed from these different spheres of influence. Three mindlines were identified in this setting: malaria is easier to diagnose than alternative diseases; malaria is a more acceptable diagnosis; and missing malaria is indefensible. These mindlines were apparent during the training stages as well as throughout clinical careers.ConclusionClinicians were found to follow mindlines as well as or rather than guidelines, which incorporated multiple social influences operating in the immediate and the wider context of decision making. Interventions to move mindlines closer to guidelines need to take the variety of social influences into account.

Before the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic began, antimicrobial resistance (AMR) was among the top priorities for global public health. Already a complex challenge, AMR now needs to be addressed in a changing healthcare landscape. Here, we analyse how changes due to COVID-19 in terms of antimicrobial usage, infection prevention, and health systems affect the emergence, transmission, and burden of AMR. Increased hand hygiene, decreased international travel, and decreased elective hospital procedures may reduce AMR pathogen selection and spread in the short term. However, the opposite effects may be seen if antibiotics are more widely used as standard healthcare pathways break down. Over 6 months into the COVID-19 pandemic, the dynamics of AMR remain uncertain. We call for the AMR community to keep a global perspective while designing finely tuned surveillance and research to continue to improve our preparedness and response to these intersecting public health challenges.

Barriers to the widespread use of IPT primarily derived from healthcare workers, in particular, lack of experience among physicians. In addition to overcoming operational barriers, a change in healthcare worker perception is needed if IPT is to be widely used; we suggest local clinical opinion leaders could help achieve this.

Poor quality of care is a major concern in low-income countries, and is in part attributed to low motivation of healthcare workers. Non-physician clinicians (mid-level cadre healthworkers) are

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is one of the latest issues to galvanise political and financial investment as an emerging global health threat. This paper explores the construction of AMR as a problem, following three lines of analysis. First, an examination of some of the ways in which AMR has become an object for action—through defining, counting and projecting it. Following Lakoff’s work on emerging infectious diseases, the paper illustrates that while an ‘actuarial’ approach to AMR may be challenging to stabilise due to definitional and logistical issues, it has been successfully stabilised through a ‘sentinel’ approach that emphasises the threat of AMR. Second, the paper draws out a contrast between the way AMR is formulated in terms of a problem of connectedness—a ‘One Health’ issue—and the frequent solutions to AMR being focused on individual behaviour. The paper suggests that AMR presents an opportunity to take seriously connections, scale and systems but that this effort is undermined by the prevailing tendency to reduce health issues to matters for individual responsibility. Third, the paper takes AMR as a moment of infrastructural inversion (Bowker and Star) when antimicrobials and the work they do are rendered more visible. This leads to the proposal of antibiotics as infrastructure—part of the woodwork that we take for granted, and entangled with our ways of doing life, in particular modern life. These explorations render visible the ways social, economic and political frames continue to define AMR and how it may be acted upon, which opens up possibilities for reconfiguring AMR research and action.

BackgroundInappropriate treatment of malaria is widely reported particularly in areas where there is poor access to health facilities and self-treatment of fevers with anti-malarial drugs bought in shops is the most common form of care-seeking. The main objective of the study was to examine the impact of introducing rapid diagnostic tests for malaria (mRDTs) in registered drug shops in Uganda, with the aim to increase appropriate treatment of malaria with artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) in patients seeking treatment for fever in drug shops.MethodsA cluster-randomized trial of introducing mRDTs in registered drug shops was implemented in 20 geographical clusters of drug shops in Mukono district, central Uganda. Ten clusters were randomly allocated to the intervention (diagnostic confirmation of malaria by mRDT followed by ACT) and ten clusters to the control arm (presumptive treatment of fevers with ACT). Treatment decisions by providers were validated by microscopy on a reference blood slide collected at the time of consultation. The primary outcome was the proportion of febrile patients receiving appropriate treatment with ACT defined as: malaria patients with microscopically-confirmed presence of parasites in a peripheral blood smear receiving ACT or rectal artesunate, and patients with no malaria parasites not given ACT.FindingsA total of 15,517 eligible patients (8672 intervention and 6845 control) received treatment for fever between January-December 2011. The proportion of febrile patients who received appropriate ACT treatment was 72·9% versus 33·7% in the control arm; a difference of 36·1% (95% CI: 21·3 – 50·9), p<0·001. The majority of patients with fever in the intervention arm accepted to purchase an mRDT (97·8%), of whom 58·5% tested mRDT-positive. Drug shop vendors adhered to the mRDT results, reducing over-treatment of malaria by 72·6% (95% CI: 46·7– 98·4), p<0·001) compared to drug shop vendors using presumptive diagnosis (control arm).ConclusionDiagnostic testing with mRDTs compared to presumptive treatment of fevers implemented in registered drug shops substantially improved appropriate treatment of malaria with ACT.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01194557.

Delays in the diagnosis of cancer are common, and they are attributed to both patient and healthcare system factors. Minimizing such delays and improving early detection rates is a key goal of the new cancer reform strategy in England, in light of recent data showing that survival rates in the UK are low. The aim of this study was to explore the pathway from initial persistent change in health to diagnosis of cancer in a sample of patients from seven diagnostic groups in the UK and the factors mediating this process. Qualitative interviews with patients diagnosed with cancer were carried out. Seventy-five cancer patients discussed their pre-diagnosis experience as part of a broader exploration of their symptom experience for a larger study. Data were analysed by using content analysis and chart events. A broader range of mediating factors affecting and extending the patient pathway to diagnosis were reported in relation to lung, gastrointestinal and head and neck cancers and lymphoma, compared with breast, gynaecological and brain cancer patients. Many of the mediating factors were patient-related (e.g. misattribution of symptoms to common ailments, underestimation of the seriousness of the symptoms, self-medication or monitoring of symptoms, etc.). Primary care practitioner-factors were also prominent, including the exploration of firstly more common possibilities for treating the presenting symptoms without follow-up of persisting symptoms. Public health education about common cancer signs and symptoms, educational approaches in primary care to improve early diagnoses of cancer and updated guidelines for referral of suspected cancers should be enhanced before we can see any improvements in survival rates from cancer in the UK.