Leadership in strategic information (LSI) building skilled public health capacity in Ethiopia

Abstract

BackgroundIn many developing countries, including Ethiopia, few have the skills to use data for effective decision making in public health. To address this need, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in collaboration with two local Ethiopian organizations, developed a year long Leadership in Strategic Information (LSI) course to train government employees working in HIV to use data from strategic information sources. A process evaluation of the LSI course examined the impact of the training on trainees' skills and the strengths and weaknesses of the course. The evaluation consisted of surveys and focus groups.FindingsTrainees' skill sets increased in descriptive and analytic epidemiology, surveillance, and monitoring and evaluation (M and E). Data from the evaluation indicated that the course structure and the M and E module required revision in order to improve outcomes. Additionally, the first cohort had a high attrition rate. Overall, trainees and key stakeholders viewed LSI as important in building skilled capacity in public health in Ethiopia.ConclusionThe evaluation provided constructive insight in modifying the course to improve retention and better address trainees' learning needs. Subsequent course attrition rates decreased as a result of changes made based on evaluation findings.

What can we learn from interventions that aim to increase policy-makers’ capacity to use research? A realist scoping review

“…Outcomes of interest were diverse, ranging from activities that can be measured objectively, such as increased use of systematic reviews [ 95 ], to more conceptual outcomes such as greater strategic use of data [ 101 , 102 ], ‘catalysing’ research use [ 103 ] and fostering a culture of critical thinking [ 104 ].…”

“… Campbell et al, 2011 [ 29 ] 3, 5 ✓ ✓ 8. Rolle et al, 2011 [ 101 ] 7, 8, 9, 10 ✓ ✓ 9. Peirson et al, 2012 [ 104 ] 3, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 10.…”

“…[ 91 , 102 , 127 ]), and some report using frameworks primarily for the evaluation (e.g. [ 41 , 101 , 104 ]).…”

“…Mechanisms are activated to varying extents (or not at all) depending on interactions between intervention strategies and contexts. Although mechanisms are not observable, their impacts are, so they can be inferred, tested and refined With one arguable exception [ 101 ], none of the studies explicitly identified or tested causal mechanisms so we inferred mechanisms from authors’ accounts of how the intervention was conceived, designed, delivered and received (i.e. how it was meant to function and how it actually functioned); this was supplemented with similar information from some of the non-eligible studies that were identified in this search, and from the wider theoretical and implementation literature.…”

What is the evidence on the best way to get evidence into use in education?

“…Despite this, training and dissemination workshops often have poor attendance after a fanfare start, especially for the most senior policy‐makers (Dagenais et al , 2013). Policy‐makers also report that they prefer having more interactive research mentors or knowledge brokers on standby (Rolle et al , 2011; Traynor et al , 2014). Committees set up for sharing policy evidence did not work well, as they were not supported by management (Hoeijmakers et al , 2013).…”