Mixed-methods evaluation of family medicine research training and peer mentorship in Lesotho

Abstract

Background: Strengthening primary care research capacity is a priority globally. Family medicine training programmes in sub-Saharan Africa represent an important opportunity to build primary care research; however, they are often limited by insufficient research training and mentorship. Peers can be used to extend research mentorship capacity, but have not been evaluated in this context.Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate one family medicine training programme’s research capacity building efforts through a blended research curriculum and peer mentorship.Setting: Lesotho is a landlocked country within South Africa of approximately two million people. The Family Medicine Specialty Training Programme (FMSTP) is the only accredited postgraduate medical education programme in Lesotho.Methods: This two-year mixed-methods evaluation used: (1) Likert-scale surveys measuring trainee research confidence, (2) written evaluations by trainees, peers, programme faculty and administrators and (3) in-depth, semi-structured interviews. Survey data were analysed using Friedman and sign tests. Interview and written data were analysed thematically via a mixed inductive-deductive approach using Cooke’s framework.Results: Family Medicine Specialty Training Programme trainees (n = 8) experienced moderate increases in research confidence that were statistically significant. Skill-building occurred primarily via experiential learning. Research was grounded in trainees’ clinical practice and locally relevant. A positive research culture was created, promising for sustainability. We identified infrastructure gaps, including funding and protected time. Peer research mentorship supported trainees’ motivation and provided a safe space for questions.Conclusion: The FMSTP research curriculum and peer mentorship programme were successful in positively impacting a number of Cooke’s research capacity domains. This evaluation identified improvements that are now being implemented.

Research Mentorship in Low and Middle-Income Countries: A Global Qualitative Evidence Synthesis of Data from a Crowdsourcing Open Call and Scoping Review

“…A total of 14 strategies and 11 studies 27,31,[34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42] demonstrated that digital tools enhanced research mentorship in LMICs. Digital tools including apps, websites, and other web-based platforms to aid in mentor/mentee matching, communication, establish and sustain mentorship relationship over time (14 submissions).…”

“…Fifteen open call strategies and 49 studies 19,20,[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]35,37,38,40,42, showed that leveraging existing research and training programs facilitated research mentorship. Already existing training programs with databases of staff, contacts/institutions that can be partnered with to network on mentorship and leverage other institution's resources is beneficial for facilitating sustainability research mentorship.…”

“…A total of 16 open call submissions and 12 studies 23,27,[29][30][31]40,76,80,[84][85][86][87] recognized the role of peer mentorship in enhancing research mentorship in LMIC settings. Peer mentorship is defined as informal and formal support from one researcher to another who is at a similar career stage.…”

“…Eight strategies and 15 studies [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] identified research mentorship as an institutional and collective responsibility which should be expected from and provided by all team members. To support this, some submissions highlighted the development of a quick reference guide or policies to ensure that everyone is engaged in mentorship (5 submissions).…”

“…Fifteen open call strategies and 49 studies 19,20,[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]35,37,38,40,42,…”