Embedding research capacity strengthening in multi-country studies in low-and middle-income countries: learnings from sexual and reproductive health research.

Research capacity strengthening (RCS) can empower individuals, institutions, networks, or countries to define and prioritize problems systematically; develop and scientifically evaluate appropriate solutions; and reinforce or improve capacities to translate knowledge into policy and practice. However, how to embed RCS into multi-country studies focusing on sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) is largely undocumented. We used findings from a qualitative study, from a review of the literature, and from a validation exercise from a panel of experts from research institutions that work on SRHR RCS. We provide a framework for embedded RCS; suggest a set of seven concrete actions that research project planners, designers, implementers, and funders can utilise to guide embedded RCS activities in low- and middle-income countries; and present a practical checklist for planning and assessing embedded RCS in research projects.

Paper ContextMain findings: Building on findings from a primary qualitative study, a literature review, and a consultation with experts on capacity strengthening in LMICs, we propose a systematic approach to embedded RCS.Added knowledge: We present a framework for embedding RCS in multi-country studies and propose seven action points and a checklist for the implementation of RCS in multi-country research projects with considerations for sexual and reproductive health and rights research.Global health impact for policy and action: An easy-to-use checklist can enable global health researchers and policymakers to ensure RCS is an integral component of multi-country research.

CARTA fellows' scientific contribution to the African public and population Health Research agenda (2011 to 2018).

BACKGROUND: Since its inception in 2009, the Consortium for Advanced Research Training in Africa (CARTA) program has focused on strengthening the capacity of nine African universities and four research centres to produce skilled researchers and scholars able to improve public and population health on the continent. This study describes the alignment between CARTA-supported doctoral topics and publications with the priorities articulated by the African public and population health research agenda. METHODS: We reviewed the output from CARTA PhD fellows between 2011 and 2018 to establish the volume and scope of the publications, and the degree to which the research focus coincided with the SDGs, World Bank, and African Development Bank research priority areas. We identified nine key priority areas into which the topics were classified. RESULTS: In total, 140 CARTA fellows published 806 articles in peer-reviewed journals over the 8 years up to 2018. All the publications considered in this paper had authors affiliated with African universities, 90% of the publications had an African university first author and 41% of the papers have CARTA fellows as the first author. The publications are available in over 6300 online versions and have been cited in over 5500 other publications. About 69% of the published papers addressed the nine African public and population health research agenda and SDG priority areas. Infectious diseases topped the list of publications (26.8%), followed by the health system and policy research (17.6%), maternal and child health (14.7%), sexual and reproductive health (14.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Investments by CARTA in supporting doctoral studies provides fellows with sufficient training and skills to publish their research in fields of public and population health. The number of publications is understandably uneven across Africa's public and population priority areas. Even while low in number, fellows are publishing in areas such as non-communicable disease, health financing, neglected tropical diseases and environmental health. Violence and injury is perhaps underrepresented. There is need to keep developing research capacity in partner institutions with low research output by training more PhDs in such institutions and by facilitating enabling environments for research.

Increasing collaborative research output between early-career health researchers in Africa: lessons from the CARTA fellowship program.

In 2008 nine African Universities and four African research institutions, in partnership with non-African institutions started the Consortium for Advanced Research Training in Africa (CARTA) to strengthen doctoral training and research capacity on health in Africa. This study describes particular aspects of the CARTA program that promotes collaboration between the PhD fellows in the program, and determines the patterns of collaborative publications that resulted from the intervention. We reviewed program monitoring and evaluation documents and conducted a bibliometric analysis of 806 peer-reviewed publications by CARTA fellows published between 2011 and 2018. Results indicate that recruiting multidisciplinary fellows from various institutions, encouraging registration of doctoral-level fellows outside home institutions, and organizing joint research seminars stimulated collaborative research on health-related topics. Fellows collaborated among themselves and with non-CARTA researchers. Fellows co-authored 75 papers (10%) between themselves, of which 53 (71%) and 42 (56%) included fellows of different cohorts and different disciplines respectively, and 19 (25%) involved fellows of different institutions. CARTA graduates continued to publish with each other after graduating - 11% of the collaborative publications occurred post-graduation - indicating that the collaborative approach was maintained after exiting from the program. However, not all fellows contributed to publishing collaborative papers. The study recommends concerted effort towards enhancing collaborative publications among the CARTA fellows, both doctoral and post-doctoral, which can include holding research exchange forums and collaborative grant-writing workshops.

Concordance between decision analysis and matching systematic review of randomized controlled trials in assessment of treatment comparisons: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Systematic review (SR) of randomized controlled trials (RCT) is the gold standard for informing treatment choice. Decision analyses (DA) also play an important role in informing health care decisions. It is unknown how often the results of DA and matching SR of RCTs are in concordance. We assessed whether the results of DA are in concordance with SR of RCTs matched on patient population, intervention, control, and outcomes. METHODS: We searched PubMed up to 2008 for DAs comparing at least two interventions followed by matching SRs of RCTs. Data were extracted on patient population, intervention, control, and outcomes from DAs and matching SRs of RCTs. Data extraction from DAs was done by one reviewer and from SR of RCTs by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: We identified 28 DAs representing 37 comparisons for which we found matching SR of RCTs. Results of the DAs and SRs of RCTs were in concordance in 73% (27/37) of cases. The sensitivity analyses conducted in either DA or SR of RCTs did not impact the concordance. Use of single (4/37) versus multiple data source (33/37) in design of DA model was statistically significantly associated with concordance between DA and SR of RCTs. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings illustrate the high concordance of current DA models compared with SR of RCTs. It is shown previously that there is 50% concordance between DA and matching single RCT. Our study showing the concordance of 73% between DA and matching SR of RCTs underlines the importance of totality of evidence (i.e. SR of RCTs) in the design of DA models and in general medical decision-making.