Understanding the impact of COVID-19 on women's access to and experiences of contraceptive services in England: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic response prompted rapid changes to how contraceptive services were delivered in England. Our aim was to examine women's experiences of accessing contraceptive services since March 2020 and to understand any inequalities of access. METHODS: We conducted telephone interviews with 31 women aged 17-54 years who had accessed contraceptive services in England since March 2020. The sample was skewed to include participants with lower educational attainment and higher deprivation. Interview transcripts were thematically analysed using inductive and deductive approaches. RESULTS: Few differences were found regarding educational attainment. Participants using contraceptive injections (all living in areas in the most deprived quintile) reported the greatest access challenges. Some switched method or stopped using contraception as a result. More general barriers reported by participants included service closures, unclear booking processes, and lack of appointment availability. Many participants welcomed the flexibility and convenience of remote contraceptive services. However, telephone appointments posed challenges for those at school or living with parents, and some described them as rushed and inconducive to asking questions or raising concerns. Those accessing contraception for the first time or nearing menopause felt they were unable to access sufficient support and guidance during the pandemic. Some participants voiced concerns around the lasting effects of COVID-19 on appointment availability and inadequate service delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Women's experiences of accessing contraceptive services in England since March 2020 are diverse. While remote services were suitable for some, COVID-19 restrictions unequally impacted women depending on their method of contraception and life stage.

Test, evidence, transition projects in Scotland: developing the evidence needed for transition of effective interventions in cancer care from innovation into mainstream practice.

BACKGROUND: A robust evidence base is required to assist healthcare commissioners and providers in selecting effective and sustainable approaches to improve cancer diagnosis and treatment. Such evidence can be difficult to build, given the fast-paced and highly pressured nature of healthcare delivery, the absence of incentives, and the presence of barriers in conducting pragmatic yet robust research evaluations. Cancer Research UK (CRUK) has played an active part in building the evidence base through its funding of programmes to identify, evaluate and scale-up innovative approaches across the UK. The aim of this paper is to describe and explain the research design and intended approach and activities for two cancer services improvement projects in Scotland funded by CRUK. METHODS: A hybrid effectiveness-implementation study design will assess both the efficiency of the new pathways and their implementation strategies, with the aim of generating knowledge for scale-up. A range of implementation, service and clinical outcomes will be assessed as determined by the projects' Theories of Change (ToCs). A naturalistic case study approach will enable in-depth exploration of context and process, and the collection and synthesis of data from multiple sources including routine datasets, patient and staff surveys, in-depth interviews and observational and other data. The evaluations are informed throughout by a patient/public representatives' group, and by small group discussions with volunteer cancer patients. DISCUSSION: Our approach has been designed to provide a holistic understanding of how (well) the improvement projects work (in relation to their anticipated outcomes), and how they interact with their wider contexts. The evaluations will help identify barriers, facilitators, and unanticipated consequences that can impact scalability, sustainability and spread. By opting for a pragmatic, participatory evaluation research design, we hope to inform strategies for scaling up successful innovations while addressing challenges in a targeted manner.

What happens after an NHS Health Check? A survey and realist review.

Background: The National Health Service Health Check in England aims to provide adults aged 40 to 74 with an assessment of their risk of developing cardiovascular disease and to offer advice to help manage and reduce this risk. The programme is commissioned by local authorities and delivered by a range of providers in different settings, although primarily in general practices. This project focused on variation in the advice, onward referrals and prescriptions offered to attendees following their health check. Objectives: (1) Map recent programme delivery across England via a survey of local authorities; (2) conduct a realist review to enable understanding of how the National Health Service Health Check programme works in different settings, for different groups; (3) provide recommendations to improve delivery. Design: Survey of local authorities and realist review of the literature. Review methods: Realist review is a theory-driven, interpretive approach to evidence synthesis that seeks to explain why, when and for whom outcomes occur. We gathered published research and grey literature (including local evaluation documents and conference materials) via searching and supplementary methods. Extracted data were synthesised using a realist logic of analysis to develop an understanding of important contexts that affect the delivery of National Health Service Health Checks, and underlying mechanisms that produce outcomes related to our project focus. Results: Our findings highlight the variation in National Health Service Health Check delivery models across England. Commissioners, providers and attendees understand the programme's purpose in different ways. When understood primarily as an opportunity to screen for disease, responsibility for delivery and outcomes rests with primary care, and there is an emphasis on volume of checks delivered, gathering essential data and communicating risk. When understood as an opportunity to prompt and support behaviour change, more emphasis is placed on delivery of advice and referrals to 'lifestyle services'. Practical constraints limit what can be delivered within the programme's remit. Public health funding restricts delivery options and links with onward services, while providers may struggle to deliver effective checks when faced with competing priorities. Attendees' responses to the programme are affected by features of delivery models and the constraints they face within their own lives. Limitations: Survey response rate lower than anticipated; review findings limited by the availability and quality of the literature. Conclusions and implications: The purpose and remit of the National Health Service Health Check programme should be clarified, considering prevailing attitudes about its value (especially among providers) and what can be delivered within existing resources. Some variation in delivery is likely to be appropriate to meet local population needs, but lack of clarity for the programme contributes to a 'postcode lottery' effect in the support offered to attendees after a check. Our findings raise important questions about whether the programme itself and services that it may feed into are adequately resourced to achieve positive outcomes for attendees, and whether current delivery models may produce inequitable outcomes. Future work: Policy-makers and commissioners should consider the implications of the findings of this project; future research should address the relative scarcity of studies focused on the end of the National Health Service Health Check pathway. Study registration: PROSPERO registration CRD42020163822. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme (NIHR129209).

The National Health Service Health Check aims to help people understand their risk of developing some health conditions, including heart disease, stroke, diabetes, kidney disease and dementia. During a check, providers take measurements and ask questions about lifestyle. They calculate a 'risk score' to predict how likely someone is to have a heart attack or stroke in the future. An important next step is for providers to offer advice and support to help people to reduce their risk. This might include referring them to their general practitioner to discuss prescribing medicines, for advice and to offer referrals to other services, such as stop-smoking or weight-management services. We know this activity varies across England. Our project focused on understanding this step: what affects what people are offered after they are told their risk score? We undertook a survey of local authorities, who are responsible for organising and funding the health check. We reviewed the literature on the health check using an approach called 'realist review', to see what it could tell us about how checks are delivered. We found wide variation in what people are offered after being given their risk score. This variation depends on what local authorities and providers think the programme is for, and especially if they think it should be used to find people who have certain health conditions, or if they think it is an opportunity to encourage people to change their lifestyle. Funding and workforce pressures have affected how much time is available during checks for personalised discussion and advice, and limited the services available to help people make lifestyle changes. Based on our findings, our recommendations for policy-makers, local authorities and providers are to make the purpose of the health check clearer and improve links with services that could support people with lifestyle changes.

The NHS Health Check programme: a survey of programme delivery in England before and after the Covid-19 pandemic response.

Background: This study investigated NHS Health Check programme delivery before and after the Covid-19 pandemic response, with a focus on support services and referral methods available to Health Check attendees. The NHS Health Check is an important part of England's Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) prevention programme. Methods: Public health commissioners from all 151 local authorities responsible for commissioning the NHS Health Check programme were surveyed in 2021, using an online questionnaire to capture detail about programme delivery, changes in delivery because of the pandemic response, and monitoring of programme outcomes. Four-point rating scales were used to obtain level of confidence in capacity, accessibility and usage of follow-on support services for Health Check attendees. A typology of programme delivery was developed, and associations between delivery categories and a range of relevant variables were assessed using one-way analysis of variance. Results: Sixty-eight responses were received on behalf of 74 (of 151) local authorities (49%), across all geographical regions. Our findings suggest a basic typology of delivery, though with considerable variation in who is providing the Checks, where and how, and with continued changes prompted by the Covid-19 pandemic. Support for risk management is highly varied with notable gaps in some areas. Local authorities using a model of delivery that includes community venues tended to have a higher number of services to support behaviour change following the Check, and greater confidence in the accessibility and usage of these services. A minority of local authorities gather data on referrals for Health Check attendees, or on outcomes of referrals. Conclusions: The Covid-19 pandemic has prompted continued changes in delivery, which are likely to influence patient experience and outcomes; these need careful evaluation. The programme's delivery and commissioners' intentions to follow through risk communication with appropriate support is challenged by the complexity of the commissioning landscape.

The NHS Health Check programme is for adults in England aged between 40 and 74. It aims to help people to reduce their risk of some major conditions such as heart disease and stroke. The Check involves taking measurements and calculating a 'risk score'. People considered 'at risk' are then advised on how to reduce this. Professionals can refer people to services that will help, like weight management services. Different professionals might provide the Checks in various settings. This depends on choices made by local councils. How and where they are provided, and how well they work, differs across England. Our study helped us learn more about this programme. We focused on what happens after people are told their risk score. There are 151 local councils that make decisions about how to deliver the Health Check programme in their area. We contacted these councils in 2021 to ask them questions in an online questionnaire. These questions were about programme delivery, including during the Covid-19 pandemic. And about whether and how they track programme outcomes. We also asked about the follow-on support services that are available for people. Using this information, we developed broad categories of programme delivery. About half of all local councils responded. Our findings show lots of variation in who is providing the Checks, where and how. The Covid-19 pandemic prompted even more changes. However, we were able to suggest three broad categories of delivery based on our findings. Support for people to manage their disease risk varies, with notable gaps in some areas. Most local councils gather very little information on what happens to people who attend the Health Checks. We need to know more about how different ways of delivering Health Checks affects patient experience and outcomes.

Health visiting in the UK in light of the COVID-19 pandemic experience (RReHOPE): a realist review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Health visiting services, providing support to under 5s and their families, are organised and delivered in very different ways in different parts of the UK. While there has been attention to the key components of health visiting practice and what works well and how, there is little research on how health visiting services are organised and delivered and how that affects their ability to meet their objectives. The COVID-19 pandemic rapidly disrupted service delivery from March 2020. This realist review aims to synthesise the evidence on changes during the pandemic to identify the potential for improving health visiting services and their delivery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review will follow the RAMESES (Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards) quality standards and Pawson's five iterative stages to locate existing theories, search for evidence, select literature, extract data, synthesise evidence and draw conclusions. It will be guided by stakeholder engagement with practitioners, commissioners, policymakers, policy advocates and people with lived experience. This approach will consider the emerging strategies and evolving contexts in which the services are delivered, and the varied outcomes for different groups. A realist logic of analysis will be used to make sense of what was happening to health visiting services during and following the pandemic response through the identification and testing of programme theories. Our refined programme theory will then be used to develop recommendations for improving the organisation, delivery and ongoing postpandemic recovery of health visiting services. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: General University Ethics Panel approval has been obtained from University of Stirling (reference 7662). Dissemination will build on links to policymakers, commissioners, providers, policy advocates and the public. A range of audiences will be targeted using outputs tailored to each. A final stakeholder event focused on knowledge mobilisation will aid development of recommendations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022343117.

Understanding what happens to attendees after an NHS Health Check: a realist review.

OBJECTIVES: The NHS Health Check offers adults aged 40-74 an assessment of their risk of developing cardiovascular disease. Attendees should be offered appropriate clinical or behavioural interventions to help them to manage or reduce these risks. This project focused on understanding variation in the advice and support offered to Health Check attendees. DESIGN: We conducted a realist review, assembling a diverse body of literature via database searches (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, HMIC, Web of Science) and other search methods, and synthesised data extracted from documents using a realist logic of analysis. Our aim was to develop an understanding of contexts affecting delivery of the NHS Health Check and the underlying mechanisms producing outcomes related to the offer for attendees post-Check. RESULTS: Our findings demonstrate differences in how NHS Health Check commissioners, providers and attendees understand the primary purpose of the programme. A focus on screening for disease can produce an emphasis on high-volume delivery in primary care. When delivery models are organised around behavioural approaches to risk reduction, more emphasis is placed on advice, and referrals to 'lifestyle services'. However, constrained funding and competing priorities for providers limit what can be delivered within the programme's remit. Attendees' experiences and responses to the programme are affected by how the programme is delivered, and by the difficulty of incorporating its outputs into their lives. CONCLUSIONS: The remit of the NHS Health Check should be reviewed with consideration of what can be effectively delivered within existing resources. Variation in delivery may be appropriate to meet local needs, but differences in how the programme's primary purpose is understood contribute to a 'postcode lottery' in post-Check advice and support. Our findings underline existing concerns that the programme may generate inequitable outcomes and raise questions about whether it can deliver positive outcomes for the majority of attendees. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42020163822.

Qualitative analysis of the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic response on paediatric health services in North of Scotland and North of England.

OBJECTIVE: To capture the extent and impact of changes in the delivery of child health services in the UK, resulting from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic response, from the perspectives of a range of child healthcare providers. SETTING: National Health Service commissioned/delivered healthcare services in two regional settings in the UK: North of Scotland (NOS) and North East and North Cumbria (NENC) in England. PARTICIPANTS: Purposive sample of 39 child healthcare professionals including paediatricians, community/specialist nurses, allied health professionals and mental health professionals, from across the two regions (22 in NOS, 17 in NENC). METHODS: Semistructured qualitative interviews conducted via telephone between June and October 2020, fully transcribed and analysed in NVivo V.11 using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Extensive changes across a range of paediatric services were rapidly implemented to support the pandemic response and ongoing healthcare delivery. New ways of working emerged, principally to control the spread of the virus. Keeping users and their families out of hospital was an urgent driver for change. The changes had considerable impact on the health and well-being of staff with many experiencing radical changes to their working conditions and roles. However, there were some positive changes noted: some practitioners felt empowered and listened to by decision makers; some of the usual bureaucratic barriers to change were lifted; staff saw improved collaboration and joint working across the system; and some new ways of working were seen to be more efficient. Interviewees perceived the implications for children and their families to be profound, particularly with regard to self-care, relationships with practitioners and timely access to services. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the challenges experienced by staff, the pandemic provided an opportunity for positive, lasting change. It is vital to capitalise on this opportunity to benefit patient outcomes and to 'build back' services in a more sustainable way.

Measuring Older Peoples' Experiences of Person-Centred Coordinated Care: Experience and Methodological Reflections from Applying a Patient Reported Experience Measure in SUSTAIN.

INTRODUCTION: While several evaluation studies on (cost-)effectiveness of integrated care have been conducted in recent years, more insight is deemed necessary into integrated care from the perspective of service users. In the context of a European project on integrated care for older people living at home (SUSTAIN), this paper shares the experience and methodological reflections from applying a Patient Reported Experience Measure (PREM) on person-centred coordinated care -the P3CEQ- among this population. METHODS: A combination of quantitative and qualitative data and analysis methods was used to assess the usability and the quality of applying a PREM among older people presenting complex care needs, using the P3CEQ delivery in SUSTAIN as a case study. 228 service users completed the P3CEQ and nine SUSTAIN researchers participated in a consultation about their experience administering the questionnaire. P3CEQ scores were analysed quantitatively using principal component analysis and multilevel linear regression. P3CEQ open responses and researcher notes collected when administering the questionnaire were thematically analysed. RESULTS: Service user inclusion was high and most P3CEQ items had low non-response rates. Quantitative analysis and researcher experience indicate the relevance of face-to-face administration for obtaining such an amount of data in this population group. The presence of a carer increased inclusion of more vulnerable respondents, such as the cognitively impaired, but posed a challenge in data interpretation. Although several P3CEQ items were generally understood as intended by questionnaire developers, the analysis of open responses highlights how questions can lead to diverging and sometimes narrow interpretations by respondents. Cognitive impairment and a higher educational attainment were associated with lower levels of perceived person-centredness of care. CONCLUSION: This study shows essential preconditions to meaningfully collect and analyse PREM data on older peoples' experiences with integrated care: face-to-face administration away from care providers, collection of reasons for non-response and open comments providing nuances to answers, and multilevel modelling taking into account diversity in the target population. Several areas of improvement for future PREM use in this population have been identified: use of administration and coding guides, inclusion of clear and easy to understand definitions and examples illustrating what questions do and do not mean, measures of the expectations of person-centred coordinated care, and procedures ensuring sound ethical research. These methodological learnings can enhance future evaluation of integrated care from a service user perspective.

Exploring the Team Climate of Health and Social Care Professionals Implementing Integrated Care for Older People in Europe.

BACKGROUND AND PROBLEM STATEMENT: Team climate describes shared perceptions of organisational policies, practices and procedures. A positive team climate has been linked to better interprofessional collaboration and quality of care. Most studies examine team climate within health or social care organisations. This study uniquely explores the team climate of integrated health and social care teams implementing integrated care initiatives for older people in thirteen sites across seven European countries, and examines the factors which contribute to the development of team climate. THEORY AND METHODS: In a multiple case study design, data collected as part of the European SUSTAIN (Sustainable Tailored Integrated Care for Older People in Europe) project were analysed. The short-form Team Climate Inventory (TCI-14) was administered before and after implementation of the integrated care initiatives. Qualitative data was used to explain the changes in TCI-14 scores over time. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Overall, team climate was found to be high and increased over time in eight of the thirteen sites. The development of a shared vision was associated with a strong belief in the value and feasibility of the initiative, clear roles and responsibilities, and a reflective approach. Strong inter-personal relationships, shared decision-making, and high levels of commitment and motivation contributed to the development of participative safety. Support for innovation increased when staff had the 'space' and time to work together. CONCLUSION: This mixed methods study offers significant insights into the development and maintenance of team climate in complex, integrated care systems in Europe.

Supporting Older People to Live Safely at Home - Findings from Thirteen Case Studies on Integrated Care Across Europe.

INTRODUCTION: While many different factors can undermine older people's ability to live safely at home, safety as an explicit aspect of integrated care for older people living at home is an underexplored topic in research. In the context of a European project on integrated care, this study aims to improve our understanding of how safety is addressed in integrated care practices across Europe. METHODS: This multiple case study included thirteen integrated care sites from seven European countries. The Framework Method guided content analyses of the case study reports. Activities were clustered into activities aimed at identifying and managing risks, or activities addressing specific risks related to older people's functioning, behaviour, social environment, physical environment and health and social care receipt. RESULTS: Case studies included a broad range of activities addressing older people's safety. Although care providers felt they sufficiently addressed safety issues, older people were often concerned and insecure about their safety. Attention to the practical and social aspects of safety was often insufficient. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION: Integrated care services across Europe address older people's safety in many ways. Further integration of health and social care solutions is necessary to enhance older people's perceptions of safety.

Improving Person-Centredness in Integrated Care for Older People: Experiences from Thirteen Integrated Care Sites in Europe.

INTRODUCTION: Although person-centredness is a key principle of integrated care, successfully embedding and improving person-centred care for older people remains a challenge. In the context of a cross-European project on integrated care for older people living at home, the objective of this paper is to provide insight at an overarching level, into activities aimed at improving person-centredness within the participating integrated care sites. The paper describes experiences with these activities from the service providers' and service users' perspectives. METHODS: A multiple embedded case study design was conducted that included thirteen integrated care sites for older people living at home. RESULTS: Service providers were positive about the activities that aimed to promote person-centred care and thought that most activities (e.g. comprehensive needs assessment) positively influenced person-centredness. Experiences of service users were mixed. For some activities (e.g. enablement services), discrepancies were identified between the views of service providers and those of service users. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Evaluating activities aimed at promoting person-centredness from both the service providers' and service users' perspectives showed that not all efforts were successful or had the intended consequences for older people. Involvement of older people in designing improvement activities could ensure that care and support reflect their needs and preferences, and build positive experiences of care and support.

Evaluability assessments as an approach to examining social prescribing.

We report on two evaluability assessments (EAs) of social prescribing (SP) services in South East England conducted in 2016/7. We aimed to demonstrate how EAs can be used to assess whether a programme is ready to be evaluated for outcomes, what changes would be needed to do so and whether the evaluation would contribute to improved programme performance. We also aimed to draw out the lessons learned through the EA process and consider how these can inform the design and evaluation of SP schemes. EAs followed the steps described by Wholey, New Dir Eval 33:77, (1987) and Leviton et al., Annu Rev Public Health 31:213, (2010), including collaboration with stakeholders, elaboration, testing and refinement of an agreed programme theory, understanding the programme reality, identification and review of existing data sources and assessment against key criteria. As a result, evaluation of the services was not recommended. Necessary changes to allow for future evaluation include gaining access to electronic patient records, establishing procedures for collection of baseline and outcome data and linking to data on use of other healthcare services. Lessons learned include ensuring that: (a) SP schemes are developed with involvement (and buy in) of relevant stakeholders; (b) information governance and data sharing agreements are in place from the start; (c) staffing levels are sufficient to cover the range of activities involved in service delivery, data monitoring, reporting, evaluation and communication with stakeholders; (d) SP schemes are co-located with primary care services; and (e) referral pathways and linkages to health service data systems are established as part of the programme design. We conclude that EA provides a valuable tool for informing the design and evaluation of SP schemes. EA can help commissioners to make best use of limited evaluation resources and prioritise which programmes need to be evaluated, as well as how, why and when.

The Response to and Impact of the Ebola Epidemic: Towards an Agenda for Interdisciplinary Research.

BACKGROUND: The 2013-2016 Ebola virus disease (EVD) epidemic in West Africa was the largest in history and resulted in a huge public health burden and significant social and economic impact in those countries most affected. Its size, duration and geographical spread presents important opportunities for research than might help national and global health and social care systems to better prepare for and respond to future outbreaks. This paper examines research needs and research priorities from the perspective of those who directly experienced the EVD epidemic in Guinea. METHODS: The paper reports the findings from a research scoping exercise conducted in Guinea in 2017. This exercise explored the need for health and social care research, and identified research gaps, from the perspectives of different groups. Interviews were carried out with key stakeholders such as representatives of the Ministry of Health, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), academic and health service researchers and members of research ethics committees (N=15); health practitioners (N=12) and community representatives (N=11). Discussion groups were conducted with male and female EVD survivors (N=24) from two distinct communities. RESULTS: This research scoping exercise identified seven key questions for further research. An important research priority that emerged during this study was the need to carry out a comprehensive analysis of the wider social, economic and political impact of the epidemic on the country, communities and survivors. The social and cultural dynamics of the epidemic and the local, national and international response to it need to be better understood. Many survivors and their relatives continue to experience stigma and social isolation and have a number of complex unmet needs. It is important to understand what sort of support they need, and how that might best be provided. A better understanding of the virus and the long-term health and social implications for survivors and non-infected survivors is also needed. CONCLUSION: This study identified a need and priority for interdisciplinary research focusing on the long-term sociocultural, economic and health impact of the EVD epidemic. Experiences of survivors and other non-infected members of the community still need to be explored but in this broader context.

The 'added value' GPs bring to commissioning: a qualitative study in primary care.

BACKGROUND: The 2012 Health and Social Care Act in England replaced primary care trusts with clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) as the main purchasing organisations. These new organisations are GP-led, and it was claimed that this increased clinical input would significantly improve commissioning practice. AIM: To explore some of the key assumptions underpinning CCGs, and to examine the claim that GPs bring 'added value' to commissioning. DESIGN AND SETTING: In-depth interviews with clinicians and managers across seven CCGs in England between April and September 2013. METHOD: A total of 40 clinicians and managers were interviewed. Interviews focused on the perceived 'added value' that GPs bring to commissioning. RESULTS: Claims to GP 'added value' centred on their intimate knowledge of their patients. It was argued that this detailed and concrete knowledge improves service design and that a close working relationship between GPs and managers strengthens the ability of managers to negotiate. However, responders also expressed concerns about the large workload that they face and about the difficulty in engaging with the wider body of GPs. CONCLUSION: GPs have been involved in commissioning in many ways since fundholding in the 1990s, and claims such as these are not new. The key question is whether these new organisations better support and enable the effective use of this knowledge. Furthermore, emphasis on experiential knowledge brings with it concerns about representativeness and the extent to which other voices are heard. Finally, the implicit privileging of GPs' personal knowledge ahead of systematic public health intelligence also requires exploration.

Research capacity strengthening: donor approaches to improving and assessing its impact in low- and middle-income countries.

Increasing attention, and a concomitant increase in funds, is being devoted to the strengthening of research capacity for health within low- and middle-income countries. Yet approaches to research capacity strengthening (RCS) are still new, and there is much debate about how to strengthen something that is so difficult to define, let alone measure. This paper aims to inform our understanding of how research capacity is being strengthened, and how we might consider the effectiveness of these initiatives. It does this by examining (a) understandings of and approaches to RCS, and (b) different ways in which RCS is monitored and evaluated. The study included a literature review, internet search, and analysis of the web pages and available documents for six donor organizations key to health RCS. E-mail and telephone discussions were conducted with experts in the area of health RCS, as well as semi-structured telephone interviews with representatives from the six identified organizations. The study found that understandings of and approaches to RCS are wide ranging. We are at the early stages of knowing how best to identify, target and affect the many factors that are important for stronger research capacity. Furthermore, as RCS initiatives become more wide-ranging and complex, they become more difficult to monitor and evaluate. Donors are struggling with many challenges associated with tracking RCS initiatives. There is no consensus on the best methods or tools to use. There is a clear need for improved strategies and the development of a tried and tested framework for RCS tracking.