Peace Corps Partnered Health Services Implementation Research in Global Health: Opportunity for Impact

Abstract

Background:There is abundant evidence of the affordable, life-saving interventions effective at the local primary health care level in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, the understanding of how to deliver those interventions in diverse settings is limited. Primary healthcare services implementation research is needed to elucidate the contextual factors that can influence the outcomes of interventions, especially at the local level. US universities commonly collaborate with LMIC universities, communities, and health system partners for health services research but common barriers exist. Current challenges include the capacity to establish an ongoing presence in local settings in order to facilitate close collaboration and communication. The Peace Corps is an established development organization currently aligned with local health services in many LMICs and is well-positioned to facilitate research partnerships. This article explores the potential of a community–Peace Corps–academic partnership approach to conduct local primary healthcare services implementation research.Discussion:The Peace Corps is well positioned to offer insights into local contextual factors because volunteers work closely with local leaders, have extensive trust within local communities, and have an ongoing, constant, well-integrated presence. However, the Peace Corps does not routinely conduct primary healthcare services implementation research. Universities, within the United States and locally, could benefit from the established resources and trust of the Peace Corps to conduct health services implementation research to advance access to local health services and further the knowledge of real world application of local health services in a diversity of settings. The proposed partnership would consist of (1) a local community advisory board and local health system leaders, (2) Peace Corps volunteers, and (3) a US-LMIC academic institutional collaboration. Within the proposed partnership approach, the contributions of each partner are as follows: the local community and health system leadership guides the work in consideration of local priorities and context; the Peace Corps provides logistical support, community expertise, and local trust; and the academic institutions offer professional technical and public health educational and training resources and research support.Conclusion:The Peace Corps offers the opportunity to enhance a community-academic partnership in LMICs through community-level guidance, logistical assistance, and research support for community based participatory primary health-care services implementation research that addresses local primary healthcare priorities.

Perceptions of Orthopaedic Volunteers and Their Local Hosts in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Are We on the Same Page?

“…28 Working with the host staff in clearly establishing goals and expectations would help align the efforts of volunteers and hosts, making them more successful at working toward a common defined objective and ultimately improving the experience for all stakeholders. 29…”

Forming and implementing community advisory boards in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review

“…Most CAB members had no formal medical or public health training, and consequently organizing teams (e.g. research teams, staff from professional training institutions, and universities) tended to focus training on improving members’ medical knowledge as well as addressing research goals and ethics [13, 18, 33, 38, 45, 48, 49]. Once formed, most CABs held periodic meetings, with meeting frequently ranging from weekly to monthly to quarterly to yearly.…”

“…Most included publications attributed this challenge to the different levels of education and social backgrounds and experience between researchers and members of communities and CABs. Eighteen publications mentioned that community members had better knowledge of local cultural and social contexts compared to researchers [5, 12, 13, 24, 25, 28, 29, 31, 36, 39, 43, 48, 50, 57, 62–64, 84]. Eleven publications also discussed community perceptions of the limitations of researcher-community connections in LMICs related to knowledge gaps and failure to provide enough training in science [13, 16, 17, 24, 31, 33, 35, 40, 85, 88, 95].…”

“…Our data suggest that CAB members sometimes had insufficient ethics guidance. Some researchers were inadequate in providing targeted and appropriate trainings for CAB members [17, 26, 34, 81, 85], and only seven publications mentioned CAB members had received training on ethics [13, 18, 33, 38, 45, 48, 49]. Thirteen publications highlighted the absence of guidance on ethical regulations of CABs in LMICs and suggested the importance of ethics training [5, 16, 24, 31, 46, 79–86].…”

Multi-site community-engaged quality improvement to inform regional cervical cancer screening implementation and sustainment in rural Sénégal

“…The aggregated data gathered from QI action plans provide information to inform activities and program development at the higher-levels of the health system and advance the knowledge of how to deliver primary healthcare services at the local level in LMICs. 35 As the partnership and local ministry of health respond to the barriers identified in the QI action plans, cervical cancer programs and primary healthcare services should be strengthened and adapted to multiple locations and various contexts.…”