Challenges and Strategies for Biomedical Researchers Returning to Low- and Middle-Income Countries after Training

Ahmed, Ayman; Daily, Johanna P.; Lescano, Andrés G.; Golightly, Linnie M.; Fasina, Abiola

doi:10.4269/ajtmh.19-0674

Cited by 37 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…More PA research infrastructure is urgently needed in LMICs to inform the development of contextually relevant policies and programs for this major part of the global population. 39 Due to limited resources, [44][45][46] building research capacity in LMICs is often challenging and requires coordinated efforts at individual, institutional, and national levels, 47,48 and familiarity with the local context and its challenges. The academic community in HICs should help develop global capacity for PA research by sharing their expertise and resources with researchers from LMICs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Status and Trends of Physical Activity Surveillance, Policy, and Research in 164 Countries: Findings From the Global Observatory for Physical Activity—GoPA! 2015 and 2020 Surveys

Varela¹,

Hallal²,

Grueso³

et al. 2023

Journal of Physical Activity and Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Physical activity (PA) surveillance, policy, and research efforts need to be periodically appraised to gain insight into national and global capacities for PA promotion. The aim of this paper was to assess the status and trends in PA surveillance, policy, and research in 164 countries. Methods: We used data from the Global Observatory for Physical Activity (GoPA!) 2015 and 2020 surveys. Comprehensive searches were performed for each country to determine the level of development of their PA surveillance, policy, and research, and the findings were verified by the GoPA! Country Contacts. Trends were analyzed based on the data available for both survey years. Results: The global 5-year progress in all 3 indicators was modest, with most countries either improving or staying at the same level. PA surveillance, policy, and research improved or remained at a high level in 48.1%, 40.6%, and 42.1% of the countries, respectively. PA surveillance, policy, and research scores decreased or remained at a low level in 8.3%, 15.8%, and 28.6% of the countries, respectively. The highest capacity for PA promotion was found in Europe, the lowest in Africa and low- and lower-middle-income countries. Although a large percentage of the world’s population benefit from at least some PA policy, surveillance, and research efforts in their countries, 49.6 million people are without PA surveillance, 629.4 million people are without PA policy, and 108.7 million live in countries without any PA research output. A total of 6.3 billion people or 88.2% of the world’s population live in countries where PA promotion capacity should be significantly improved. Conclusion: Despite PA is essential for health, there are large inequalities between countries and world regions in their capacity to promote PA. Coordinated efforts are needed to reduce the inequalities and improve the global capacity for PA promotion.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Status and Trends of Physical Activity Surveillance, Policy, and Research in 164 Countries: Findings From the Global Observatory for Physical Activity—GoPA! 2015 and 2020 Surveys

Varela¹,

Hallal²,

Grueso³

et al. 2023

Journal of Physical Activity and Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All of the included studies and reports documented research mentorship practices, with varying approaches and scope of practice. Training workshops, discussion forums, panel sessions, virtual sessions, face-to-face meetings, webinars, and e-mentoring were strategies reported to help build research capacity to design research studies, develop proposals, improve scientific writing and publication of manuscripts, identify grants, and develop mentorship processes for research capabilities 2,5,8,20,27,30,46,48,52–54,56,59,63,67,76,79,80,82,85,86,88 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Health research mentorship in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review

Kaba,

Birhanu,

Fernandez

et al. 2023

JBI Evidence Synthesis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The objective of this scoping review was to explore and synthesize the available literature on health research mentorship in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Introduction: Research mentorship is broadly considered a useful strategy to improve research capacities and research outputs. Existing literature and guidance on research mentorship have focused on high-income countries and assumed resource-rich environments. Despite the successful endeavors to improve health research capacity in LMICs, the strategies that work best under different circumstances are poorly understood. There is a need to map and understand the evidence on health research mentorship in the context of LMICs. Inclusion criteria: Sources that reported existing practices, barriers, and mitigation strategies related to health research mentorship in LMICs were included. Methods: We searched for published and unpublished studies and reports written in English, Spanish, or Portuguese. The search strategy was not limited by search dates and the last search was conducted on January 28, 2022. The databases searched included MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and JBI Evidence Synthesis. We also searched for gray literature in a selection of websites and digital repositories. The JBI scoping review methodology was used. Results: A total of 77 studies and reports were included in the review. The majority of the papers were from Africa (n=28). Others were from Americas (n=7), South East Asia (n=4), East Mediterranean (n=2), and Western Pacific (n=2). The remaining studies were from LMICs that included at least two regional offices. Most of the mentorship projects (n=55) were initiated and funded by institutions from high-income countries. The first authors of 41 papers were primarily affiliated from LMICs. The findings were categorized under a description of research mentorship practices, barriers related to research mentorship, and suggested mitigation strategies. Deliverable-driven training using intensive hands-on mentorship and ongoing peer mentorship programs were some of the non-regular, non-institutionalized approaches used to improve research capacity for junior researchers in LMICs. None of the included papers focused on institutional components of research mentorship in LMICs. The barriers to research mentorship activities in LMICs included lack of clarity on mentorship, cultural variations, unbalanced power dynamics, socio-political influences, language barriers, lack of experienced mentors, and limited local funding. Institutionalizing research mentorship, adapting mentoring methodologies relying on local resources, and addressing and respecting diversity in mentorship programs were among the main strategies identified to effectively implement research mentorship in LMICs. Conclusions: Research mentorship initiatives and practices are limited in LMICs. Few available practices are introduced by researchers and research institutions from high-income countries and yet not institutionalized. The identified existing practices, barriers, and facilitators on health research mentorship could help the design, implementation, and evaluation of programs to institutionalize health research mentorship in LMICs. Review Registration Number: Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/jqa9z/

show abstract

“…All included studies were published as full articles. The study by Ahmed [ 21 ] included participants from Africa and Latin America; the study by Franzen [ 19 ] included participants from Ethiopia, Cameroon and Sri Lanka. The study by Johnson and colleagues [ 22 ] included participants from Colombia and Sawe’s study [ 20 ] included participants from Tanzania.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Barriers and facilitators to the conduct of critical care research in low and lower-middle income countries: A scoping review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Improvements in health-related outcomes for critically ill adults in low and lower-middle income countries need systematic investments in research capacity and infrastructure. High-quality research has been shown to strengthen health systems; yet, research contributions from these regions remain negligible or absent. We undertook a scoping review to describe barriers and facilitators for the conduct of critical care research. Methods We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE up to December 2021 using a strategy that combined keyword and controlled vocabulary terms. We included original studies that reported on barriers or facilitators to the conduct of critical care research in these settings. Two reviewers independently reviewed titles and abstracts, and where necessary, the full-text to select eligible studies. For each study, reviewers independently extracted data using a standardized data extraction form. Barriers and facilitators were classified along the lines of a previous review and based on additional themes that emerged. Study quality was assessed using appropriate tools. Results We identified 2693 citations, evaluated 49 studies and identified 6 for inclusion. Of the included studies, four were qualitative, one was a cross-sectional survey and one was reported as an ‘analysis’. The total number of participants ranged from 20–100 and included physicians, nurses, allied healthcare workers and researchers. Barriers identified included limited funding, poor institutional & national investment, inadequate access to mentors, absence of training in research methods, limited research support staff, and absence of statistical support. Our review identified potential solutions such as developing a mentorship network, streamlining of regulatory processes, implementing a centralized institutional research agenda, developing a core-outcome dataset and enhancing access to low-cost technology. Conclusion Our scoping review highlights important barriers to the conduct of critical care research in low and lower-middle income countries, identifies potential solutions, and informs researchers, policymakers and governments on the steps necessary for strengthening research systems.

show abstract

Challenges and Strategies for Biomedical Researchers Returning to Low- and Middle-Income Countries after Training

Cited by 37 publications

References 19 publications

Status and Trends of Physical Activity Surveillance, Policy, and Research in 164 Countries: Findings From the Global Observatory for Physical Activity—GoPA! 2015 and 2020 Surveys

Status and Trends of Physical Activity Surveillance, Policy, and Research in 164 Countries: Findings From the Global Observatory for Physical Activity—GoPA! 2015 and 2020 Surveys

Health research mentorship in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review

Barriers and facilitators to the conduct of critical care research in low and lower-middle income countries: A scoping review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About