How to improve research capacity strengthening efforts: learning from the monitoring and evaluation of four research consortia in Africa.

Recent efforts to shift the control and leadership of health research on African issues to Africa have led to increased investments for scientific research capacity strengthening (RCS) on the continent and a greater demand for accountability, value for money and demonstration of return on investment. There is limited literature on monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of RCS systems and there is a clear need to further explore whether the M&E frameworks and approaches that are currently used are fit for purpose. The M&E approaches taken by four African RCS consortia funded under the Developing Excellence in Leadership, Training and Science in Africa (DELTAS) I initiative were assessed using several methods, including a framework comparison of the M&E approaches, semi-structured interviews and facilitated discussion sessions. The findings revealed a wide range in the number of indicators used in the M&E plans of individual consortium, which were uniformly quantitative and at the output and outcome levels. Consortia revealed that additional information could have been captured to better evaluate the success of activities and measure the ripple effects of their efforts. While it is beneficial for RCS consortia to develop and implement their own M&E plans, this could be strengthened by routine engagement with funders/programme managers to further align efforts. It is also important for M&E plans to consider qualitative data capture for assessment of RCS efforts. Efforts could be further enhanced by supporting platforms for cross-consortia sharing, particularly when trying to assess more complex effects. Consortia should make sure that processes for developmental evaluation, and capturing and using the associated learning, are in place. Sharing the learning associated with M&E of RCS efforts is vital to improve future efforts. Investing and improving this aspect of RCS will help ensure tracking of progress and impact of future efforts, and ensure accountability and the return on investment. The findings are also likely applicable well beyond health research.

Career development for infection and immunity research in Uganda: a decade of experience from the Makerere University - Uganda Virus Research Institute research and training programme.

Background: The Makerere University/Uganda Virus Research Institute (UVRI) Centre of Excellence for Infection & Immunity Research and Training (MUII) is a collaborative programme supporting excellence in Infection and Immunity (I&I) research in Uganda. Set up in 2008, MUII aims to produce internationally competitive Ugandan and East African I&I research leaders, and develop human and infrastructural resources to support research and training excellence. We undertook an internal evaluation of MUII's achievements, challenges and lessons learned between 08-2008 and 12-2019, to inform programmes seeking to build Africa's health research expertise. Methods: Quantitative data were abstracted from programme annual reports. Qualitative data were obtained in 03-04/2019: a cross-sectional evaluation was undertaken among a purposefully selected representative sample of 27 trainees and two programme staff. Qualitative data was analysed according to pre-determined themes of achievements, challenges, lessons learned and recommendations for improvement. Results: By 12-2019, MUII had supported 68 fellowships at master's-level and above (50% female: 23 Masters, 27 PhD, 15 post-doctoral, three group-leaders) and over 1,000 internships. Fellows reported career advancement, mentorship by experts, and improved research skills and outputs. Fellows have published over 300 papers, secured grants worth over £20m, established over 40 international collaborations, and taken on research and academic leadership positions in the country. Key lessons were: i) Efficient administration provides a conducive environment for high quality research; ii) Institutions need supportive policies for procurement, including provisions for purchases of specific biological research reagents from international manufacturers; iii) Strong international and multi-disciplinary collaboration provides a critical mass of expertise to mentor researchers in development; and iv) Mentorship catalyses young scientists to progress from graduate trainees to productive academic researchers, relevant to society's most pressing health challenges. Conclusions: Sustainable academic productivity can be achieved through efficient operational support, global collaboration and mentorship to provide solutions to Africa's health challenges.

Continuous research monitoring improves the quality of research conduct and compliance among research trainees: internal evaluation of a monitoring programme.

Background: Research site monitoring (RSM) is an effective way to ensure compliance with Good Clinical Practice (GCP). However, RSM is not offered to trainees (investigators) at African Institutions routinely. The Makerere University/Uganda Virus Research Institute Centre of Excellence in Infection and Immunity Research and Training (MUII-Plus) introduced internal monitoring to promote the quality of trainees' research projects. Here, we share our monitoring model, experiences and achievements, and challenges encountered. Methods: We analysed investigators' project reports from monitoring visits undertaken from April 2017 to December 2019. Monitors followed a standard checklist to review investigator site files and record forms, and toured site facilities. We planned four monitoring visits for each trainee: one at site initiation, two interim, and a closeout monitoring visit. A team of two monitors conducted the visits. Results: We monitored 25 out of the 26 research projects in progress between April 2017 and December 2019. Compliance with protocols, standard operating procedures, GCP, and GCLP improved with each monitoring visit. Median (IQR) compliance rate was 43% (31%, 44%) at site initiation visit for different monitoring items, 70% (54%, 90%) at the 1st interim monitoring visit, 100% (92%, 100%) at 2nd interim monitoring visit and all projects achieved 100% compliance at site closeout.  All investigators had good work ethics and practice, and appropriate facilities. Initially, some investigators' files lacked essential documents, and informed consent processes needed to be improved. We realized that non-compliant investigators had not received prior training in GCP/GCLP, so we offered them this training. Conclusions: Routine monitoring helps identify non-compliance early and improves the quality of research. We recommend continuous internal monitoring for all research studies. Investigators conducting research involving human subjects should receive GCP/GCLP training before commencing their projects. Institutional higher degrees and research ethics committees should enforce this as a requirement for project approvals.