Institutionalizing research capacity strengthening in LMICs: A systematic review and meta-synthesis

Abstract

Background: Evidence on effective strategies to ensure sustainability of research capacity strengthening interventions in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) institutions is lacking. This systematic review identified publications describing research capacity building programs and noted their effect, their contexts, and the mechanisms, processes and social actors employed in them. Methods: We searched online databases for the period 2011-2018. Inclusion criteria were that the publications 1) described the intervention; 2) were implemented in LMICs; 3) were based in, or relevant to, university staff or post docs; 4) aimed to improve research capacity; 5) aimed to effect change at the institutional level. Two reviewers screened titles, abstracts and full text in consecutive rounds, a third resolved disagreements. Two people extracted the data of each full text using a data extraction tool covering data relevant to our question. Results: In total 4052 citations were identified and 19 papers were included, which referred to 14 interventions. Only three interventions mentioned using a conceptual framework to develop their approach and none described using a theory of change to assess outcomes. The most frequent inputs described were some method of formal training, promotion of a research-conducive environment and establishment of research support systems. A range of outcomes were reported, most frequently an increased number of publications and proportion of staff with PhDs. When factors of success were discussed, this was attributed to a rigorous approach to implementation, adequate funding, and local buy-in. Those who mentioned sustainability linked it to availability of funds and local buy-in. The lack of a common lexicon and a framework against which to report outcomes made comparison between initiatives difficult. Conclusions: The reduced number of interventions that met the inclusion criteria suggests that programs should be well-described, evaluated systematically, and findings published so that the research capacity strengthening community can extract important lessons.

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

“…The studies and reports included in the review consisted of predominantly descriptive qualitative studies (n=76) and 1 systematic review 73 . A range of methods were used to collect data on research mentorship, including desk review/document analysis, semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions, workshop deliberations, Delphi techniques, and surveys either through self-administered questionnaires or online surveys.…”

“…The characteristics of included studies are presented in Appendix IV. The included sources were published between 2009 and 2021, 2,5,8,9,16–88 and most (n=57, 74%) were published from 2017 onward. The majority of the papers were from Africa (n=28) 8,17,18,24,33–35,37,41–44,46,48,50,51,53,57,59,61,62,65,66,68,79–81,85 .…”

“…Others were from the Americas (n=7), 29,49,69–72,83 South East Asia (n=4), 30,64,67,78 Eastern Mediterranean (n=2), 56,82 and Western Pacific (n=2) 58,88 regions according to the World Health Organization regional classification 89 . A total of 26 studies and reports were from LMICs 2,5,9,19,20,23,26,28,31,32,36,38,39,45,47,54,55,60,63,73–77,86,87 that included at least 2 regional offices, whereas 8 studies and reports were from around the globe 16,21,22,25,27,40,52,84 and included both LMICs and HICs.…”

“…Studies included in this review reported that improved research knowledge and skills contributed to accessing research funding, exposure to networks, consortia and collaborative opportunities on a global scale; and improved mentor–mentee collaboration that motivated junior researchers. Concrete outputs included improved quality of research outcomes in terms of the number of abstracts accepted for oral presentation; number of scientific outputs in peer-reviewed journals; number of research grants developed and funded; and improved institutional capacity in research dissemination and grants management 2,17,18,24,25,27,28,30,39,40,44,45,48,49,55,56,63,70,73–75,77,82,84,88 …”

Enabling research capacity strengthening within a consortium context: a qualitative study

“…The access to funding that consortium membership conferred was essential to the realisation of many perceived benefits such as undertaking specialist training, infrastructure development and, indeed, allowing often complex (and expensive) research projects to be implemented in good time and in full. ‘Generous funding’ has been reported as an important factor in institutionalising RCS 19 and Southern research organisations have previously expressed a preference to collaborate with Northern partners as opposed to Southern counterparts on the basis that this is more likely to result in greater funding access. 20 Thus, our findings further underline the necessity of funding access to both the research and RCS endeavours in the global South.…”