Research Capacity–Building Program for Clinicians and Staff at a Community-Based HIV Clinic in Uganda: A Pre/Post Evaluation

Njie-Carr, Veronica; Kalengé, Sheila; Kelley, Jack; Wilson, Amy; Muliira, Joshua Kanaabi; Nabirye, Rose Chalo; Glass, Nancy; Bollinger, Robert C.; Alamo-Talisuna, Stella; Chang, Larry W.

doi:10.1016/j.jana.2011.11.002

Cited by 13 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most programs took place in the southern African region [10, 12, 13, 20], followed by Uganda [16, 18]. Malawi [21], Nigeria [14], Cameroon [17], and the Democratic Republic of Congo [19] were also represented.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Approaches and impact of non-academic research capacity strengthening training models in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review

Mugabo

Rouleau²,

Odhiambo³

et al. 2015

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundResearch is essential to identify and prioritize health needs and to develop appropriate strategies to improve health outcomes. In the last decade, non-academic research capacity strengthening trainings in sub-Saharan Africa, coupled with developing research infrastructure and the provision of individual mentorship support, has been used to build health worker skills. The objectives of this review are to describe different training approaches to research capacity strengthening in sub-Saharan Africa outside academic programs, assess methods used to evaluate research capacity strengthening activities, and learn about the challenges facing research capacity strengthening and the strategies/innovations required to overcome them.MethodologyThe PubMed database was searched using nine search terms and articles were included if 1) they explicitly described research capacity strengthening training activities, including information on program duration, target audience, immediate program outputs and outcomes; 2) all or part of the training program took place in sub-Saharan African countries; 3) the training activities were not a formal academic program; 4) papers were published between 2000 and 2013; and 5) both abstract and full paper were available in English.ResultsThe search resulted in 495 articles, of which 450 were retained; 14 papers met all inclusion criteria and were included and analysed. In total, 4136 people were trained, of which 2939 were from Africa. Of the 14 included papers, six fell in the category of short-term evaluation period and eight in the long-term evaluation period. Conduct of evaluations and use of evaluation frameworks varied between short and long term models and some trainings were not evaluated. Evaluation methods included tests, surveys, interviews, and systems approach matrix.ConclusionsResearch capacity strengthening activities in sub-Saharan Africa outside of academic settings provide important contributions to developing in-country capacity to participate in and lead research. Institutional support, increased funds, and dedicated time for research activities are critical factors that lead to the development of successful programs. Further, knowledge sharing through scientific articles with sufficient detail is needed to enable replication of successful models in other settings.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For the training programs with a short-term evaluation period, one was not evaluated [19] and only one (16.7 %) used a recognized framework for evaluation [18]. These training programs used quantitative evaluation methods, mainly surveys and tests.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Approaches and impact of non-academic research capacity strengthening training models in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review

Mugabo

Rouleau²,

Odhiambo³

et al. 2015

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Six studies took place in lower-middle-income and two in upper-middle-income economies. Participants of one study were from a low-income country [ 27 ]. Two studies were performed in partnerships between a high-income and several low-, lower-middle and upper-middle-income economies.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tools and instruments for needs assessment, monitoring and evaluation of health research capacity development activities at the individual and organizational level: a systematic review

Huber

Nepal

Bauer

et al. 2015

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIn the past decades, various frameworks, methods, indicators, and tools have been developed to assess the needs as well as to monitor and evaluate (needs assessment, monitoring and evaluation; “NaME”) health research capacity development (HRCD) activities. This systematic review gives an overview on NaME activities at the individual and organizational level in the past 10 years with a specific focus on methods, tools and instruments. Insight from this review might support researchers and stakeholders in systemizing future efforts in the HRCD field.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed and Google Scholar. Additionally, the personal bibliographies of the authors were scanned. Two researchers independently reviewed the identified abstracts for inclusion according to previously defined eligibility criteria. The included articles were analysed with a focus on both different HRCD activities as well as NaME efforts.ResultsInitially, the search revealed 700 records in PubMed, two additional records in Google Scholar, and 10 abstracts from the personal bibliographies of the authors. Finally, 42 studies were included and analysed in depth. Findings show that the NaME efforts in the field of HRCD are as complex and manifold as the concept of HRCD itself. NaME is predominately focused on outcome evaluation and mainly refers to the individual and team levels.ConclusionA substantial need for a coherent and transparent taxonomy of HRCD activities to maximize the benefits of future studies in the field was identified. A coherent overview of the tools used to monitor and evaluate HRCD activities is provided to inform further research in the field.

show abstract

“…Guides were translated into Luganda and Luo and back-translated. A capacity-building workshop was held to train Reach Out staff members to conduct IDIs and FGs (Njie-Carr et al, 2012). Study interviews were conducted by these staff members and three of the authors over a one month period May/June 2010.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptions and acceptability of mHealth interventions for improving patient care at a community-based HIV/AIDS clinic in Uganda: A mixed methods study

et al. 2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mHealth (mobile technologies for health) represents a growing array of tools being applied in diverse health care settings. mHealth interventions for improving HIV/AIDS care is a promising strategy, but its evidence-base is limited. We conducted a formative research evaluation to inform the development of novel, mHealth HIV/AIDS care interventions to be used by community health workers (CHWs) in Kampala, Uganda. A mixed methods formative research approach was utilized. Qualitative methods included 20 in-depth interviews and 6 focus groups with CHWs, clinic staff, and patients. Thematic analysis was performed and selected quotations used to illustrate themes. Quantitative methods consisted of a survey administered to CHWs and clinic staff using categorical and Likert scale questions regarding current mobile phone and internet access and perceptions on the potential use of smartphones by CHWs. Qualitative results included themes on significant current care challenges, multiple perceived mHealth benefits, and general intervention acceptability. Key mHealth features desired included tools to verify CHW task completions, clinical decision support tools, and simple access to voice calling. Inhibiting factors identified included concerns about CHW job security and unrealistic expectations of mHealth capabilities. Quantitative results from 27 staff participants found that 26 (96%) did not have internet access at home; yet, only 2 (7.4%) did not own a mobile phone. Likert scale survey responses (1–5, 1=Strongly Disagree, 5=Strongly Agree) indicated general agreement that smartphones would improve efficiency (Mean=4.35) and patient care (4.31) but might be harmful to patient confidentiality (3.88) and training was needed (4.63). Qualitative and quantitative results were generally consistent, and, overall, there was enthusiasm for mHealth technology. However, a number of potential inhibiting factors were also discovered. Findings from this study may help guide future design and implementation of mHealth interventions in this setting, optimizing their chances for success.

show abstract

Research Capacity–Building Program for Clinicians and Staff at a Community-Based HIV Clinic in Uganda: A Pre/Post Evaluation

Cited by 13 publications

References 8 publications

Approaches and impact of non-academic research capacity strengthening training models in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review

Approaches and impact of non-academic research capacity strengthening training models in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review

Tools and instruments for needs assessment, monitoring and evaluation of health research capacity development activities at the individual and organizational level: a systematic review

Perceptions and acceptability of mHealth interventions for improving patient care at a community-based HIV/AIDS clinic in Uganda: A mixed methods study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About