Health research mentorship in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review was to explore and synthesize the available literature on health research mentorship in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). INTRODUCTION: Research mentorship is broadly considered a useful strategy to improve research capacities and research outputs. Existing literature and guidance on research mentorship have focused on high-income countries and assumed resource-rich environments. Despite the successful endeavors to improve health research capacity in LMICs, the strategies that work best under different circumstances are poorly understood. There is a need to map and understand the evidence on health research mentorship in the context of LMICs. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Sources that reported existing practices, barriers, and mitigation strategies related to health research mentorship in LMICs were included. METHODS: We searched for published and unpublished studies and reports written in English, Spanish, or Portuguese. The search strategy was not limited by search dates and the last search was conducted on January 28, 2022. The databases searched included MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and JBI Evidence Synthesis . We also searched for gray literature in a selection of websites and digital repositories. The JBI scoping review methodology was used. RESULTS: A total of 77 studies and reports were included in the review. The majority of the papers were from Africa (n=28). Others were from the Americas (n=7), South East Asia (n=4), East Mediterranean (n=2), and Western Pacific (n=2). The remaining studies were from LMICs that included at least 2 regional offices. Most of the mentorship projects (n=55) were initiated and funded by institutions from high-income countries. The first authors of 41 papers were primarily affiliated with LMICs. The findings were categorized under a description of research mentorship practices, barriers related to research mentorship, and suggested mitigation strategies. Deliverable-driven training using intensive hands-on mentorship and ongoing peer mentorship programs were some of the non-regular, non-institutionalized approaches used to improve research capacity for junior researchers in LMICs. None of the included papers focused on institutional components of research mentorship in LMICs. The barriers to research mentorship activities in LMICs included lack of clarity on mentorship, cultural variations, unbalanced power dynamics, socio-political influences, language barriers, lack of experienced mentors, and limited local funding. Institutionalizing research mentorship, adapting mentoring methodologies relying on local resources, and addressing and respecting diversity in mentorship programs were among the main strategies identified to effectively implement research mentorship in LMICs. CONCLUSIONS: Research mentorship initiatives and practices are limited in LMICs. Few available practices have been introduced by researchers and research institutions from high-income countries and those that have are not yet institutionalized. The identified existing practices, barriers, and facilitators on health research mentorship could help the design, implementation, and evaluation of programs to institutionalize health research mentorship in LMICs. REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework osf.io/jqa9z/. SUPPLEMENTAL DIGITAL CONTENT: A Spanish-language version of the abstract of this review is available as supplemental digital content: http://links.lww.com/SRX/A32.

Description of global innovative methods in developing the WHO Community Engagement Package.

OBJECTIVES: Development of a Community Engagement Package composed of (1) database of community engagement (CE) experiences from different contexts, (2) CE learning package of lessons and tools presented as online modules, and (3) CE workshop package for identifying CE experiences to enrich the CE database and ensure regular update of learning resources. The package aims to guide practitioners to promote local action and enhance skills for CE. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The packages were co-created with diverse teams from WHO, Social Innovation in Health Initiative, UNICEF, community practitioners, and other partners providing synergistic contributions and bridging existing silos. METHODS: The design process of the package was anchored on CE principles. Literature search was performed using standardised search terms through global and regional databases. Interviews with CE practitioners were also conducted. RESULTS: A total of 356 cases were found to fit the inclusion criteria and proceeded to data extraction and thematic analysis. Themes were organised according to rationale, key points and insights, facilitators of CE and barriers to CE. Principles and standards of CE in various contexts served as a foundation for the CE learning package. The package comprises four modules organised by major themes such as mobilising communities, strengthening health systems, CE in health emergencies and CE as a driver for health equity. CONCLUSION: After pilot implementation, tools and resources were made available for training and continuous collection of novel CE lessons and experiences from diverse socio-geographical contexts.