Assessment of the impact of implementation research on the Visceral Leishmaniasis (VL) elimination efforts in Nepal.

Nepal, Bangladesh, and India signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in 2005 to eliminate visceral leishmaniasis (VL) as a public health problem from the Indian subcontinent by 2015. By 2021, the number of reported VL cases in these countries had declined by over 95% compared to 2007. This dramatic success was achieved through an elimination programme that implemented early case detection and effective treatment, vector control, disease surveillance, community participation, and operational research that underpinned these strategies. The experience offered an opportunity to assess the contribution of implementation research (IR) to VL elimination in Nepal. Desk review and a stakeholder workshop was conducted to analyse the relationship between key research outputs, major strategic decisions in the national VL elimination programme, and annual number of reported new cases over time between 2005 and 2023. The results indicated that the key decisions across the strategic elements, throughout the course of the elimination programme (such as on the most appropriate tools for diganostics and treatment, and on best strategies for case finding and vector management), were IR informed. IR itself responded dynamically to changes that resulted from interventions, addressing new questions that emerged from the field. Close collaboration between researchers, programme managers, and implementers in priority setting, design, conduct, and review of studies facilitated uptake of evidence into policy and programmatic activities. VL case numbers in Nepal are now reduced by 90% compared to 2005. Although direct attribution of disease decline to research outputs is difficult to establish, the Nepal experience demonstrates that IR can be a critical enabler for disease elimination. The lessons can potentially inform IR strategies in other countries with diseases targeted for elimination.

Tracking global resources and capacity for health research: time to reassess strategies and investment decisions.

The COVID-19 pandemic and more recently the Monkeypox outbreak emphasize the urgency and importance of improving the availability and equitable distribution of resources for health research across rich and poor countries. Discussions about the persistent imbalances in resource allocation for health research between rich and poor countries are not new, but little or no progress has been made in redressing these imbalances over the years. This is critical not only for emergency preparedness, but for the worlds' ability to improve population health in an equitable manner. Concerned with the lack of progress in this area, Member States of the World Health Organization requested the establishment of a Global Observatory on Health Research and Development, with the aim of consolidating, monitoring and analyzing relevant information on health research and development, with a view to informing the coordination and prioritization of new investments. In this commentary, we highlight some of the striking disparities from the Observatory's analysis over the 5 years since its establishment and reflect on what is needed to overturn stagnant progress.

Quality, Equity and Partnerships in Mixed Methods and Qualitative Research during Seven Years of Implementing the Structured Operational Research and Training Initiative in 18 Countries.

Introduction: Qualitative studies are often inadequately reported, making it difficult to judge their appropriateness for decision making in public health. We assessed the publication characteristics and quality of reporting of qualitative and mixed-method studies from the Structured Operational Research and Training Initiative (SORT IT), a global partnership for operational research capacity building. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis of publications to assess the qualitative component using an adapted version of the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) checklist. Results: In 67 publications involving 18 countries, 32 journals and 13 public health themes, 55 were mixed-methods studies and 12 were qualitative studies. First authorship from low-and-middle-income (LMIC) countries was present in 64 (96%), LMIC last authorship in 55 (82%), and female first authorship in 30 (45%). The mean LMIC institutions represented per publication was five (range 1-11). Sixty-three (94%) publications were open access. Reporting quality was graded as 'good' to 'excellent' in 60 (89%) publications, 'fair' in five (8%) and 'poor' in two (3%). Conclusion: Most SORT IT publications adhered to COREQ standards, while supporting gender equity in authorship and the promotion of LMIC research leadership. SORT IT plays an important role in ensuring quality of evidence for decision making to improve public health.

The Structured Operational Research and Training Initiative for Strengthening Health Systems to Tackle Antimicrobial Resistance and Improve Public Health in Low-and-Middle Income Countries.

If research is to have an impact and change health outcomes for the better, the findings of the research should be translated into recommendations and actions that can influence policy and/or practice [...].

Pediatric COVID-19 Therapeutics: Seizing the Right Research and Development Opportunities to Accelerate Access for Children.

Children, although at lower risk of poor outcomes from COVID-19 relative to adults, still stand to benefit from therapeutic interventions. Understanding of COVID-19 clinical presentation and prognosis in children is essential to optimize therapeutic trials design. This perspective illustrates how to collectively accelerate pediatric COVID-19 therapeutic research and development, based on the experience of the Global Accelerator for Paediatric Formulations.

Characteristics, utilisation and influence of viewpoint articles from the Structured Operational Research and Training Initiative (SORT IT) - 2009-2020.

Background: The Structured Operational Research and Training Initiative (SORT IT) teaches the practical skills of conducting and publishing operational research (OR) to influence health policy and/or practice. In addition to original research articles, viewpoint articles are also produced and published as secondary outputs of SORT IT courses. We assessed the characteristics, use and influence of viewpoint articles derived from all SORT IT courses. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study involving all published viewpoint articles derived from the SORT IT courses held from August 2009 - March 2020. Characteristics of these papers were sourced from the papers themselves and from SORT-IT members involved in writing the papers. Data on use were sourced from the metrics provided on the online publishing platforms and from Google Scholar. Influence on policy and practice was self-assessed by the authors of the papers and was performed only for papers deemed to be 'calls for action'. Results: A total of 41 viewpoint papers were published. Of these, 15 (37%) were 'calls for action'. In total, 31 (76%) were published in open-access journals and the remaining 10 in delayed access journals. In 12 (29%) of the papers, first authors were from low and middle-income countries (LMICs). Female authors (54%) were included in 22, but only four (10%) and two (5%) of first and last authors respectively, were female. Only seven (17%) papers had available data regarding online views and downloads. The median citation score for the papers was four (IQR 1-9). Of the 15 'call for action' papers, six influenced OR capacity building, two influenced policy and practice, and three influenced both OR capacity building within SORT IT and policy and practice. Conclusion: Viewpoint articles generated during SORT IT courses appear to complement original OR studies and are valued contributors to the dissemination of OR practices in LMICs.