Advancing the science of health research capacity strengthening in low-income and middle-income countries: a scoping review of the published literature, 2000–2016

Abstract

ObjectivesSubstantial development assistance and research funding are invested in health research capacity strengthening (HRCS) interventions in low-income and middle-income countries, yet the effectiveness, impact and value for money of these investments are not well understood. A major constraint to evidence-informed HRCS intervention has been the disparate nature of the research effort to date. This review aims to map and critically analyse the existing HRCS effort to better understand the level, type, cohesion and conceptual sophistication of the current evidence base. The overall goal of this article is to advance the development of a unified, implementation-focused HRCS science.MethodsWe used a scoping review methodology to identify peer-reviewed HRCS literature within the following databases: PubMed, Global Health and Scopus. HRCS publications available in English between the period 2000 and 2016 were included. 1195 articles were retrieved of which 172 met the final inclusion criteria. A priori thematic analysis of all included articles was completed. Content analysis of identified HRCS definitions was conducted.ResultsThe number of HRCS publications increased exponentially between 2000 and 2016. Most publications during this period were perspective, opinion or commentary pieces; however, original research publications were the primary publication type since 2013. Twenty-five different definitions of research capacity strengthening were identified, of which three aligned with current HRCS guidelines.ConclusionsThe review findings indicate that an HRCS research field with a focus on implementation science is emerging, although the conceptual and empirical bases are not yet sufficiently advanced to effectively inform HRCS programme planning. Consolidating an HRCS implementation science therefore presents as a viable option that may accelerate the development of a useful evidence base to inform HRCS programme planning. Identifying an agreed operational definition of HRCS, standardising HRCS-related terminology, developing a needs-based HRCS-specific research agenda and synthesising currently available evidence may be useful first steps.

Managing health research capacity strengthening consortia: a systematised review of the published literature

“…Possible contributors to this authorship pattern include the dominance of high-income partners in consortium leadership, and broader structural and contextual factors which contribute to this imbalance such as resource and expertise constraints. Of note is that the nascent nature of the management-specific evidence reflects a similar trend in the broader HRCS literature, except that there is a better representation of LMIC authors in the latter 34. These imbalances and the factors contributing to them need to be addressed, with a particular emphasis on correcting the under-representation of LMIC perspectives in the available evidence.…”

“…Across the available evidence base, terms used for collaborations such as partnership, network and consortium are used inconsistently and interchangeably, a point also noted by others 59 89. Similarly, the concept of ‘(health) research capacity strengthening’ has been inconsistently applied across the broader HRCS literature 34. Thus, it is not entirely clear how an HRCS consortium might differ from a traditional health research consortium or how a consortium might differ from a partnership or network.…”

“…Due to the paucity of robust HRCS research publications,34 conducting a standardised systematic review which requires high-quality research evidence35 36 was not feasible. We thus conducted a systematised review, which models the systematic review process without strict adherence to study inclusion criteria 35.…”

Global Health: A Review of Concepts, Players, and Publications

“…18 The goal is to develop human resources and institutional capacity for effective research targeted at key priorities; (ii) global health governance and strengthening national health research systems, a primary interest of the Council on Health Research for Development (COHRED); 19,20 (iii) new strategies and action networks for disease control, which have received the support of academic organizations, international partnerships, and the WHO. 21,22 Embedding research into health policy and practice has become the key objective of several GHI. 23 Based on the thematic analysis, the current study showed an increasing interest in implementation research, an area that aims at bringing new strategies and interventions to practice by understanding barriers and facilitators of program implementation.…”

Prioritizing research areas for antibiotic stewardship programmes in hospitals: a behavioural perspective consensus paper

“…We fully agree with proposals to advance antibiotic stewardship research in those countries [4,24], as evidenced by the fact that most of our group members collaborate with research partners in LMICs. However, the health research capacity strengthening research field with a focus on implementation science is emerging, and currently evidence bases are not yet sufficiently advanced to effectively inform health research capacity strengthening research programme planning [30]. On the basis of our best knowledge and experiences, we recognized that implementation of ASPs varies greatly across types of healthcare systems, let alone LMICs, so inviting a limited number partners from LMICs was likely to unfairly prioritize specific research needs in their countries.…”