External funding to strengthen capacity for research in low-income and middle-income countries: exigence, excellence and equity

Maher, Dermot; Aseffa, Abraham; Kay, Simon; Bayona, Marta Tufet

doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2019-002212

Cited by 23 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Effective research capacity strengthening involves sustained deliberate actions geared at various aspects of the research process and at various levels of coordination at global, regional and national levels. These processes will enable countries with the greatest need to fairly and openly compete for research without compromising on quality 35 . Moving forward, cooperation among research funders, enhanced mobilisation of domestic funding for capacity strengthening and periodic evaluations to guide future investments, as highlighted by the ESSENCE group of funders, are key steps for building sustained research capacity in Africa 36 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Funding and COVID-19 research priorities - are the research needs for Africa being met?

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Emerging data from Africa indicates remarkably low numbers of reported COVID-19 deaths despite high levels of disease transmission. However, evolution of these trends as the pandemic progresses remains unknown. More certain are the devastating long-term impacts of the pandemic on health and development evident globally. Research tailored to the unique needs of African countries is crucial. UKCDR and GloPID-R have launched a tracker of funded COVID-19 projects mapped to the WHO research priorities and research priorities of Africa and less-resourced countries and published a baseline analysis of a living systematic review (LSR) of these projects. Methods: In-depth analyses of the baseline LSR for COVID-19 funded research projects in Africa (as of 15th July 2020) to determine the funding landscape and alignment of the projects to research priorities of relevance to Africa. Results: The limited COVID-19 related research across Africa appears to be supported mainly by international funding, especially from Europe, although with notably limited funding from United States-based funders. At the time of this analysis no research projects funded by an African-based funder were identified in the tracker although there are several active funding calls geared at research in Africa and there may be funding data that has not been made publicly available. Many projects mapped to the WHO research priorities and five particular gaps in research funding were identified, namely: investigating the role of children in COVID-19 transmission; effective modes of community engagement; health systems research; communication of uncertainties surrounding mother-to-child transmission of COVID-19; and identifying ways to promote international cooperation. Capacity strengthening was identified as a dominant theme in funded research project plans. Conclusions: We found significantly lower funding investments in COVID-19 research in Africa compared to high-income countries, seven months into the pandemic, indicating a paucity of research targeting the research priorities of relevance to Africa.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Funding and COVID-19 research priorities - are the research needs for Africa being met?

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is a lot wrong with global health, and the COVID-19 pandemic is highlighting many of these wrongs. 1 The growing calls to decolonise global health point to imbalances that contribute to the status quo in global health knowledge production: insufficient funding for research capacity building in the Global South, 2 domination of research activities by institutions and researchers from the Global North, 3 lack of fair credit to and representation of local authors in research publications, 4 prohibitive publication costs and little interest in local issues from global health journals, 5 and barriers faced by researchers from the Global South to participation in international conferences. 6 But more pernicious than all of these imbalances is the underlying and pervasive dehumanisation of Black and Brown (and other) people, 7 and the persistent white saviour mentality and related white or northern supremacy.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reform of research funding processes could pave the way for progress in global health

Ashuntantang

Luyckx

Naicker

et al. 2021

The Lancet Global Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Use of the tools may be refined as the RCS evidence base develops, especially in regard to informing the impact weighting of alternative RCS interventions, and the tools themselves may contribute to the development of the evidence base by facilitating both cross-programme learning and greater diversity in RCS intervention, and therefore, greater opportunity to ‘test’ different intervention types. The conceptual tools are largely neutral with respect to underlying RCS approaches such as whether research excellence or research equity should be prioritised in the capacity strengthening effort 12 or the appropriate balance between individual-level, institution-level or broader systems-level RCS investments. 13 The conceptual tools may also be applied in those cases where the RCS intervention is ‘embedded’ within a larger research programme as opposed to being the primary programme objective in its own right.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidance and conceptual tools to inform the design, selection and evaluation of research capacity strengthening interventions

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This practice note presents four conceptual tools intended to support the design, selection and evaluation of research capacity strengthening (RCS) programmes in low-income and middle-income country settings. The tools may be used by a wide range of RCS stakeholders, including funders, implementing parties and programme evaluators, to guide decision-making in lieu of largely as yet unavailable empirical evidence. The first conceptual tool guides decision-making regarding RCS intervention design, focusing specifically on the combination and integration of potential intervention activities. The second conceptual tool provides a framework for assessing the implementation challenges of potential RCS interventions in terms of: (1) the overall cost of implementing the proposed intervention in a given context; (2) the length of time required to complete full implementation of the proposed intervention in a given context and (3) the level of control the implementing partners would have over the proposed intervention in a given context. The third conceptual tool provides a means to consider the anticipated impact of potential RCS interventions in order to inform selection decisions (ie, which out of a number of potential RCS intervention options may be most impactful in a given setting given the intervention design and implementation challenges). The fourth and final tool is designed to support the evaluation of a collective RCS effort, whether that be multiple RCS interventions delivered within the context of a single or continuous programme or multiple RCS programmes delivered in a common setting.

show abstract

External funding to strengthen capacity for research in low-income and middle-income countries: exigence, excellence and equity

Cited by 23 publications

References 4 publications

Funding and COVID-19 research priorities - are the research needs for Africa being met?

Funding and COVID-19 research priorities - are the research needs for Africa being met?

Reform of research funding processes could pave the way for progress in global health

Guidance and conceptual tools to inform the design, selection and evaluation of research capacity strengthening interventions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About