Implementing a national health research for development platform in a low-income country – a review of Malawi’s Health Research Capacity Strengthening Initiative

BackgroundDespite being disproportionately burdened by preventable diseases than more advanced countries, low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) continue to trail behind other parts of the world in the number, quality and impact of scholarly activities by their health researchers. Our strategy at the Nigerian Implementation Science Alliance (NISA) is to utilise innovative platforms that catalyse collaboration, enhance communication between different stakeholders, and promote the uptake of evidence-based interventions in improving healthcare delivery. This article reports on findings from a structured group exercise conducted at the 2016 NISA Conference to identify (1) gaps in developing research capacity and (2) potential strategies to address these gaps.MethodsA 1-hour structured group exercise was conducted with 15 groups of 2–9 individuals (n = 94) to brainstorm gaps for implementation, strategies to address gaps and to rank their top 3 in each category. Qualitative thematic analysis was used. First, duplicate responses were merged and analyses identified emerging themes. Each of the gaps and strategies identified were categorised as falling into the purview of policy-makers, researchers, implementing partners or multiple groups.ResultsParticipating stakeholders identified 98 gaps and 91 strategies related to increasing research capacity in Nigeria. A total of 45 gaps and an equal number of strategies were ranked; 39 gaps and 43 strategies were then analysed, from which 8 recurring themes emerged for gaps (lack of sufficient funding, poor research focus in education, inadequate mentorship and training, inadequate research infrastructure, lack of collaboration between researchers, research-policy dissonance, lack of motivation for research, lack of leadership buy-in for research) and 7 themes emerged for strategies (increased funding for research, improved research education, improved mentorship and training, improved infrastructure for research, increased collaboration between academic/research institutions, greater engagement between researchers and policy-makers, greater leadership buy-in for research).ConclusionsThe gaps and strategies identified in this study represent pathways judged to be important in increasing research and implementation science capacity in Nigeria. The inclusion of perspectives and involvement of stakeholders who play different roles in policy, research and implementation activities makes these findings comprehensive, relevant and actionable, not only in Nigeria but in other similar LMICs.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-018-0289-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gaps and strategies in developing health research capacity: experience from the Nigeria Implementation Science Alliance

Ezeanolue

Menson

Patel

et al. 2018

“…While priority setting is only a first step, a demand-driven priority agenda can assist researchers in formulating proposals towards local needs and can help funders to select studies that are more likely to be used. A careful and inclusive priority setting process not only helps to orient research to needs, but also provides a platform for interaction, building trust and networking, which are important for the eventual use of research [ 50 – 52 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Which health research gets used and why? An empirical analysis of 30 cases

Kok

Gyapong

Wolffers

et al. 2016

BackgroundWhile health research is considered essential for improving health worldwide, it remains unclear how it is best organized to contribute to health. This study examined research that was part of a Ghanaian-Dutch research program that aimed to increase the likelihood that results would be used by funding research that focused on national research priorities and was led by local researchers. The aim of this study was to map the contribution of this research to action and examine which features of research and translation processes were associated with the use of the results.MethodsUsing Contribution Mapping, we systematically examined how 30 studies evolved and how results were used to contribute to action. We combined interviews with 113 purposively selected key informants, document analysis and triangulation to map how research and translation processes evolved and contributions to action were realized. After each case was analysed separately, a cross-case analysis was conducted to identify patterns in the association between features of research processes and the use of research.ResultsThe results of 20 of the 30 studies were used to contribute to action within 12 months. The priority setting and proposal selection process led to the funding of studies which were from the outset closely aligned with health sector priorities. Research was most likely to be used when it was initiated and conducted by people who were in a position to use their results in their own work. The results of 17 out of 18 of these user-initiated studies were translated into action. Other features of research that appeared to contribute to its use were involving potential key users in formulating proposals and developing recommendations.ConclusionsOur study underlines the importance of supporting research that meets locally-expressed needs and that is led by people embedded in the contexts in which results can be used. Supporting the involvement of health sector professionals in the design, conduct and interpretation of research appears to be an especially worthwhile investment.

“…Papers published so far have covered various key aspects of health research systems. For example, Cole et al reviewed Malawi’s Health Research Capacity Strengthening Initiative, which was a national systems-strengthening programme that involved “ national priority setting, decision-making on funding, and health research actor mobilization ” ([29], p. 1). Woodward et al [30] highlighted the importance of agreeing priority areas for the research funding made available from donors’ investments in the health sectors of fragile and conflict-affected states.…”

Section: Editorialmentioning

confidence: 99%

Building health research systems: WHO is generating global perspectives, and who’s celebrating national successes?

Hanney

González-Block

2016

In 2016, England’s National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) celebrated its tenth anniversary as an innovative national health research system with a focus on meeting patients’ needs. This provides a good opportunity to reflect on how the creation of the NIHR has greatly enhanced important work, started in 1991, to develop a health research system in England that is embedded in the National Health Service.In 2004, WHO identified a range of functions that a national health research system should undertake to improve the health of populations. Health Research Policy and Systems (HRPS) has taken particular interest in the pioneering developments in the English health research system, where the comprehensive approach has covered most, if not all, of the functions identified by WHO. Furthermore, several significant recent developments in thinking about health research are relevant for the NIHR and have informed accounts of its achievements. These include recognition of the need to combat waste in health research, which had been identified as a global problem in successive papers in the Lancet, and an increasing emphasis on demonstrating impact. Here, pioneering evaluation of United Kingdom research, conducted through the impact case studies of the Research Excellence Framework, is particularly important. Analyses informed by these and other approaches identified many aspects of NIHR’s progress in combating waste, building and sustaining research capacity, creating centres of research excellence linked to leading healthcare institutions, developing research networks, involving patients and others in identifying research needs, and producing and adopting research findings that are improving health outcomes.The NIHR’s overall success, and an analysis of the remaining problems, might have lessons for other systems, notwithstanding important advances in many countries, as described in papers in HRPS and elsewhere. WHO’s recently established Global Observatory for Health Research and Development provides an opportunity to promote some of these lessons. To inform its work, the Observatory is sponsoring a thematic series of papers in HRPS focusing on health research issues such as funding flows, priority setting, capacity building, utilisation and equity. While important papers on these have been published, this series is still open to new submissions.