Evaluation of health research capacity strengthening trainings on individual level: validation of a questionnaire

Huber, Johanna; Bauer, Daniel; Hœlscher, Michael; Kapungu, Jerry; Kroidl, Arne; Lennemann, Tessa; Maganga, Lucas; Opitz, Oliver; Salehe, Omari; Sigauke, Abbie; Fischer, Martin R.; Kiessling, Claudia

doi:10.1111/jep.12143

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 16 publications

(18 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These cite the fact that the WReN only includes the individual domain as a shortcoming. Janssen [30], Huber [31] and Williams [26] cited the original Spider publication in a list of published evaluation studies of research training programmes. Borkowski, [4] cites the WReN as a tool to measure research experience used in some of the studies included in their review.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Four papers used self-reported survey questionnaires with about 50 items, always coupled with open questions capturing participants’ comments and recommendations. Huber [31] aimed to validate the Local Health Research Capacity Strengthening (LHRCS) in four different training settings in Tanzania on either clinical research skills or on clinical skills necessary for research projects. The questionnaire, that was based on a theoretical model, was modified after the intervention to include four subscales with 19 items, three global impression items and open questions for participants’ comments and recommendations.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Proliferation of the WReN spider, an instrument to measure health professionals’ experience of research: a bibliographic study

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In 1997 the “Wessex Research Network (WReN) Spider” was developed and validated to assess the research experience of general practice based researchers. This bibliometric study traces the use and development of this instrument over 15 years. Methods We performed a bibliographic search to identify all the citations of the original article since 2002. Results Thirty one relevant papers were found. Publications were classified according to whether they used ( N = 18) or cited ( N = 13) the WReN Spider. The majority of these papers came from Australia (N = 18) and 10 papers focussed on the research training of Allied Health Professionals. The WReN Spider was used in 12 studies to assess baseline experience before a training intervention or to compare before and after training scores. The WReN Spider was often ( N = 9) modified to additionally assess interest, confidence or interest in up-skilling in each of its 10 limbs. It was also often ( N = 14) used in tandem with open ended questions to gain a more detailed understanding of people’s research skills, or with additional questions focussing on the research context, culture and team. None of the papers confirmed the validation of the WReN Spider, although it was applied in contexts that differed from the one in which it was developed. Conclusions The WReN Spider continues to be used to measure the research experience of health care practitioners, but it is frequently enhanced with other questions to look at the wider issues of research success, including collaborators, resource and environment.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proliferation of the WReN spider, an instrument to measure health professionals’ experience of research: a bibliographic study

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In one systematic review, most of the included studies that assessed long-term organizational-level impact of capacity building were from higher-income countries [ 84 ]. Evidently, higher levels of evaluation are time consuming, and require more sophisticated and complex methods of measurement [ 90 ]. In this review, while a small number of face-to-face approaches evaluated their initiatives long-term, and assessed impact beyond individual level, none of the online initiatives did so, and only 2 blended GHCB initiatives conducted evaluations beyond the 3 months-time period.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of global health capacity building initiatives in low-and middle-income countries: A systematic review

Naal

Koussa

Hamouch

et al. 2020

Journal of Global Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are in dire need to improve their health outcomes. Although Global Health Capacity Building (GHCB) initiatives are recommended approaches, they risk being ineffective in the absence of standardized evaluation methods. This study systematically reviews evaluation approaches for GHCB initiatives in LMICs. Methods We searched the Medline (OVID), PubMed, Scopus, and Embase.com databases for studies reporting evaluation of a GHCB initiative in a LMIC from January 1, 2009 until August 15, 2019. To differentiate them from intervention, prevention, and awareness initiatives, included articles reported at least one approach to evaluate their learning modality. We excluded cross-sectional studies, reviews, and book chapters that only assessed the effect of interventions. Data identifying the learning modality, and evaluation method, level, time interval, and approach were extracted from articles as primary outcomes. Results Of 8324 identified studies, 63 articles were eligible for analysis. Most studies stemmed from Africa and Asia (69.8%), were delivered and evaluated face-to-face (74.6% and 76.2%), mainly to professionals (57.1%) and community workers (20.6%). Although the use of online and blended modalities showed an increase over the past 4 years, only face-to-face initiatives were evaluated long-term beyond individual-level. GHCB evaluations in general lacked standardization especially regarding the tools. Conclusion This is an important resource for evaluating GHCB initiatives in LMICs. It synthesizes evaluation approaches, offers recommendations for improvement, and calls for the standardization of evaluations, especially for long-term and wider impact assessment of online and blended modalities.

show abstract

“…It is important to note that excluding pre/postintervention assessments significantly Open access reduced the inclusion of studies performed in low and middle-income countries. This finding highlights that although health systems in low and middle-income countries may benefit from providing evidence for HRCD, 5 they are rarely the focus of the HRCD literature. Most of the measurements of HRCD in lower income settings appear, in fact, to be narrowly linked to the measurement of the effectiveness of training offered for a specific study or limited to a particular disease.…”

Section: Summary Of Evidencementioning

confidence: 96%

“…4 Health research capacity development (HRCD) for healthcare workers has been recognised as a critical element to overcoming global health challenges, especially in low and middleincome countries. 5 For too long HRCD in low and middle-income countries has been documented through training programmes which enable local teams to participate in externally sponsored trials, creating a false appearance of growth and generating dependence on foreign support. 6 7 Strengths and limitations of this study ► Thoroughly conducted systematic review collecting data from all major existing databases and grey literature.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring research capacity development in healthcare workers: a systematic review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesA key barrier in supporting health research capacity development (HRCD) is the lack of empirical measurement of competencies to assess skills and identify gaps in research activities. An effective tool to measure HRCD in healthcare workers would help inform teams to undertake more locally led research. The objective of this systematic review is to identify tools measuring healthcare workers’ individual capacities to conduct research.DesignSystematic review and narrative synthesis using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist for reporting systematic reviews and narrative synthesis and the Critical Appraisals Skills Programme (CASP) checklist for qualitative studies.Data sources11 databases were searched from inception to 16 January 2020. The first 10 pages of Google Scholar results were also screened.Eligibility criteriaWe included papers describing the use of tools/to measure/assess HRCD at an individual level among healthcare workers involved in research. Qualitative, mixed and quantitative methods were all eligible. Search was limited to English language only.Data extraction and synthesisTwo authors independently screened and reviewed studies using Covidence software, and performed quality assessments using the extraction log validated against the CASP qualitative checklist. The content method was used to define a narrative synthesis.ResultsThe titles and abstracts for 7474 unique records were screened and the full texts of 178 references were reviewed. 16 papers were selected: 7 quantitative studies; 1 qualitative study; 5 mixed methods studies; and 3 studies describing the creation of a tool. Tools with different levels of accuracy in measuring HRCD in healthcare workers at the individual level were described. The Research Capacity and Culture tool and the ‘Research Spider’ tool were the most commonly defined. Other tools designed for ad hoc interventions with good generalisability potential were identified. Three papers described health research core competency frameworks. All tools measured HRCD in healthcare workers at an individual level with the majority adding a measurement at the team/organisational level, or data about perceived barriers and motivators for conducting health research.ConclusionsCapacity building is commonly identified with pre/postintervention evaluations without using a specific tool. This shows the need for a clear distinction between measuring the outcomes of training activities in a team/organisation, and effective actions promoting HRCD. This review highlights the lack of globally applicable comprehensive tools to provide comparable, standardised and consistent measurements of research competencies.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019122310.

show abstract

Evaluation of health research capacity strengthening trainings on individual level: validation of a questionnaire

Cited by 5 publications

References 16 publications

Proliferation of the WReN spider, an instrument to measure health professionals’ experience of research: a bibliographic study

Proliferation of the WReN spider, an instrument to measure health professionals’ experience of research: a bibliographic study

Evaluation of global health capacity building initiatives in low-and middle-income countries: A systematic review

Measuring research capacity development in healthcare workers: a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About