Research capacity strengthening: donor approaches to improving and assessing its impact in low‐ and middle‐income countries

Abstract

Increasing attention, and a concomitant increase in funds, is being devoted to the strengthening of research capacity for health within low- and middle-income countries. Yet approaches to research capacity strengthening (RCS) are still new, and there is much debate about how to strengthen something that is so difficult to define, let alone measure. This paper aims to inform our understanding of how research capacity is being strengthened, and how we might consider the effectiveness of these initiatives. It does this by examining (a) understandings of and approaches to RCS, and (b) different ways in which RCS is monitored and evaluated. The study included a literature review, internet search, and analysis of the web pages and available documents for six donor organizations key to health RCS. E-mail and telephone discussions were conducted with experts in the area of health RCS, as well as semi-structured telephone interviews with representatives from the six identified organizations. The study found that understandings of and approaches to RCS are wide ranging. We are at the early stages of knowing how best to identify, target and affect the many factors that are important for stronger research capacity. Furthermore, as RCS initiatives become more wide-ranging and complex, they become more difficult to monitor and evaluate. Donors are struggling with many challenges associated with tracking RCS initiatives. There is no consensus on the best methods or tools to use. There is a clear need for improved strategies and the development of a tried and tested framework for RCS tracking.

The economic burden of cardiovascular disease and hypertension in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

“…There is still insufficient capacity and ownership for health systems and health economics research in LMICs [38, 39]. Despite long-standing international interest in research capacity strengthening [40, 41] with some promising results [42, 43], good practice recommendations in this area are relatively recent [44–46]. Second, before their explicit inclusion in the Sustainable Development Goals (Target 3.4 “ reduce by one third premature mortality from NCDs through prevention and treatment, and promote mental health and wellbeing ”), NCDs received insufficient attention from national governments relative to the yet unfinished agenda of infectious diseases.…”

Rethinking health research capacity strengthening

“…There is also limited consensus on and precedence for systematic evaluations of HRCS initiatives, making it difficult to establish clear benchmarks for success (see for example Trostle 1992, Simon 2000, Cooke 2005, Gadsby 2010, Nurse 2011). In line with several of our fellow grantees, we have relied on outputs including competitive grants awarded to our trainees and publications.…”

A research capacity strengthening project for infectious diseases in Honduras: experience and lessons learned

“…Although defining, practicing, and measuring research capacity have gained significant attention recently (24, 27–29, 31, 52), frameworks are still needed for a systematic and empirical approach to RCS.…”

“…In contrast, most of their Costa Rican counterparts returning to their homeland – with a strong research tradition (11, 20) and one of the most integrated NHRS in Latin America (8, 20, 21) – enrolled into active research laboratories affiliated with graduate schools, and continued to do research and produce peer-reviewed publications (22, 23). Honduras's case is not unusual but suggests that the concept of research capacity strengthening (RCS) characterizing donors’ initiatives for decades (24) needs to be advanced. Nowadays, a consensus exists that a long-term, systemic, and inter-sectoral approach is necessary to sustain an active local scientific community (19, 25).…”