Research capacity, motivators and barriers to conducting research among healthcare providers in Tanzania's public health system: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Building health research capacity in low- and middle-income countries is essential to achieving universal access to safe, high-quality healthcare. It can enable healthcare workers to conduct locally relevant research and apply findings to strengthen their health delivery systems. However, lack of funding, experience, know-how, and weak research infrastructures hinders their ability. Understanding research capacity, engagement, and contextual factors that either promote or obstruct research efforts by healthcare workers can inform national strategies aimed at building research capacity. METHODS: We used a convergent mixed-methods study design to understand research capacity and research engagement of healthcare workers in Tanzania's public health system, including the barriers, motivators, and facilitators to conducting research. Our sample included 462 randomly selected healthcare workers from 45 facilities. We conducted surveys and interviews to capture data in five categories: (1) healthcare workers research capacity; (2) research engagement; (3) barriers, motivators, and facilitators; (4) interest in conducting research; and (5) institutional research capacity. We assessed quantitative and qualitative data using frequency and thematic analysis, respectively; we merged the data to identify recurring and unifying concepts. RESULTS: Respondents reported low experience and confidence in quantitative (34% and 28.7%, respectively) and qualitative research methods (34.5% and 19.6%, respectively). Less than half (44%) of healthcare workers engaged in research. Engagement in research was positively associated with: working at a District Hospital or above (p = 0.006), having a university degree or more (p = 0.007), and previous research experience (p = 0.001); it was negatively associated with female sex (p = 0.033). Barriers to conducting research included lack of research funding, time, skills, opportunities to practice, and research infrastructure. Motivators and facilitators included a desire to address health problems, professional development, and local and international collaborations. Almost all healthcare workers (92%) indicated interest in building their research capacity. CONCLUSION: Individual and institutional research capacity and engagement among healthcare workers in Tanzania is low, despite high interest for capacity building. We propose a fourfold pathway for building research capacity in Tanzania through (1) high-quality research training and mentorship; (2) strengthening research infrastructure, funding, and coordination; (3) implementing policies and strategies that stimulate engagement; and (4) strengthening local and international collaborations.

A multimodal mentorship intervention to improve surgical quality in Tanzania's Lake Zone: a convergent, mixed methods assessment.

BACKGROUND: Safe, high-quality surgical care in many African countries is a critical need. Challenges include availability of surgical providers, improving quality of care, and building workforce capacity. Despite growing evidence that mentoring is effective in African healthcare settings, less is known about its role in surgery. We examined a multimodal approach to mentorship as part of a safe surgery intervention (Safe Surgery 2020) to improve surgical quality. Our goal was to distill lessons for policy makers, intervention designers, and practitioners on key elements of a successful surgical mentorship program. METHODS: We used a convergent, mixed-methods design to examine the experiences of mentees, mentors, and facility leaders with mentorship at 10 health facilities in Tanzania's Lake Zone. A multidisciplinary team of mentors worked with surgical providers over 17 months using in-person mentorship, telementoring, and WhatsApp. We conducted surveys, in-depth interviews, and focus groups to capture data in four categories: (1) satisfaction with mentorship; (2) perceived impact; (3) elements of a successful mentoring program; and (4) challenges to implementing mentorship. We analyzed quantitative data using frequency analysis and qualitative data using the constant comparison method. Recurrent and unifying concepts were identified through merging the qualitative and quantitative data. RESULTS: Overall, 96% of mentees experienced the intervention as positive, 88% were satisfied, and 100% supported continuing the intervention in the future. Mentees, mentors, and facility leaders perceived improvements in surgical practice, the surgical ecosystem, and in reducing postsurgical infections. Several themes related to the intervention's success emerged: (1) the intervention's design, including its multimodality, side-by-side mentorship, and standardization of practices; (2) the mentee-mentor relationship, including a friendly, safe, non-hierarchical, team relationship, as well as mentors' understanding of the local context; and (3) mentorship characteristics, including non-judgmental feedback, experience, and accessibility. Challenges included resistance to change, shortage of providers, mentorship dose, and logistics. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests a multimodal mentorship approach is promising in building the capacity of surgical providers. By distilling the experiences of the mentees, mentors, and facility leaders, our lessons provide a foundation for future efforts to establish effective surgical mentorship programs that build provider capacity and ultimately improve surgical quality.