Health Research Collaborations by Academic Entities: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To review the literature on health research collaborations by academic entities and to identify the main phases, components, and concepts of these research collaborations. METHOD: The authors conducted a systematic review of the literature, searching 4 databases in March 2022 for studies on health research collaboration between an academic entity (individual, group, or institution) and any other entity included. They excluded non-health-related studies and studies in which collaboration was not for the purpose of research. From included studies, reviewers abstracted data about the 4 main phases of research collaborations (initiation, conduct, monitoring, and evaluation) and synthesized their corresponding components and concepts using thematic analysis method. RESULTS: A total of 59 studies met inclusion criteria. These studies described building research collaborations between an academic entity and other academic entities (n = 29; 49%), communities (n = 28; 47%), industry (n = 7; 12%), and/or governmental entities (n = 4; 7%). Of the 59 studies, 22 addressed 2 phases of collaboration, 20 addressed 3 phases, and 17 addressed all 4 phases. All included studies described at least 1 of the components relevant to the initiation phase and at least 1 relevant to the conduct phase. Team structure was the most common component discussed in relation to the initiation phase (n = 48; 81%), and team dynamics was the most common component discussed in relation to the conduct phase (n = 55; 93%). At least 1 of the components relevant to the monitoring phase was reported in 36 studies, and at least 1 component relevant to the evaluation phase was reported in 28 studies. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides important information for groups aiming to engage in collaborative research. The synthesized list of collaboration phases and their components can serve as a road map for collaborators at different steps of their research.

Views of medical residents on a research training program: A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: The American University of Beirut Medical Center (AUBMC) developed the Fellowship and Residency Research Program (FRRP) to provide residents and clinical fellows with a supervised and structured research experience. The objective of this study was to explore the views of FRRP participants about the training program and how to enhance it. METHODS: In 2018, we conducted a qualitative study targeting residents where we invited potential participants through email and via snowball sampling. We continued the data collection until we reached data saturation with 21 participants (N = 21) and used thematic analysis to identify emerging themes. RESULTS: Thematic analysis generated four emerging themes: one related to the expectations of residents, while the remaining three themes related to how the program is working to meet those expectations, specifically: coordination, mentorship, and capacity building. For these three latter themes, we discussed the strengths and challenges related to each. In terms of coordination, few residents complained that the deadlines to submit deliverables are not evenly distributed across the years. In terms of mentorship, participants appreciated the flexibility in choosing the mentor. In terms of capacity building activities, participants found the lecture series, both real time and virtual, to be helpful. Finally, participants pointed out that the FRRP program should be mandatory. DISCUSSION: To provide residents and clinical fellows with a supervised and structured research experience, we have built on our findings to introduce several changes to our program such as ensuring the availability and commitment of faculty mentors, and providing capacity building activities to the program participants.

Public health effects of travel-related policies on the COVID-19 pandemic: A mixed-methods systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To map travel policies implemented due to COVID-19 during 2020, and conduct a mixed-methods systematic review of health effects of such policies, and related contextual factors. DESIGN: Policy mapping and systematic review. DATA SOURCES AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: for the policy mapping, we searched websites of relevant government bodies and used data from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker for a convenient sample of 31 countries across different regions. For the systematic review, we searched Medline (Ovid), PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and COVID-19 specific databases. We included randomized controlled trial, non-randomized studies, modeling studies, and qualitative studies. Two independent reviewers selected studies, abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. RESULTS: Most countries adopted a total border closure at the start of the pandemic. For the remainder of the year, partial border closure banning arrivals from some countries or regions was the most widely adopted measure, followed by mandatory quarantine and screening of travelers. The systematic search identified 69 eligible studies, including 50 modeling studies. Both observational and modeling evidence suggest that border closure may reduce the number of COVID-19 cases, disease spread across countries and between regions, and slow the progression of the outbreak. These effects are likely to be enhanced when implemented early, and when combined with measures reducing transmission rates in the community. Quarantine of travelers may decrease the number of COVID-19 cases but its effectiveness depends on compliance and enforcement and is more effective if followed by testing, especially when less than 14 day-quarantine is considered. Screening at departure and/or arrival is unlikely to detect a large proportion of cases or to delay an outbreak. Effectiveness of screening may be improved with increased sensitivity of screening tests, awareness of travelers, asymptomatic screening, and exit screening at country source. While four studies on contextual evidence found that the majority of the public is supportive of travel restrictions, they uncovered concerns about the unintended harms of those policies. CONCLUSION: Most countries adopted full or partial border closure in response to COVID-19 in 2020. Evidence suggests positive effects on controlling the COVID-19 pandemic for border closure (particularly when implemented early), as well as quarantine of travelers (particularly with higher levels of compliance). While these positive effects are enhanced when implemented in combination with other public health measures, they are associated with concerns by the public regarding some unintended effects.