Factors affecting African postdoctoral researcher capacity development within 'learn-by-doing' international research partnerships: findings from the 'Partnership for Increasing the Impact of Vector Control (PIIVeC)'.

INTRODUCTION: The Partnership to Increase the Impact of Vector Control sought to develop the research and leadership capacity of 10 African postdoctoral vectorborne disease scientists via a 'learn-by-doing' approach. We identified factors that either supported or hindered their development and, drawing on this information, determined key lessons for future programmes with similar objectives. METHODS: A longitudinal qualitative study encompassing focus group discussions and semistructured interviews conducted with the cohort of African postdoctoral fellows, programme leadership, supervisory and research support staff (N=28). Data analysis was informed by a general inductive approach. RESULTS: Numerous supportive and hindering factors were identified. Supportive factors were primarily structural or attitudinal in nature, whereas hindering factors were primarily operational or contextual. None of the supporting or hindering factors were specific to vectorborne disease research. Four key lessons for future programme implementation emerged, including: the value in exposing postdoctoral fellows to a diverse work-mix and training-mix to improve understanding of the broad skillset needed for scientific career advancement; recognising and managing the potentially competing interests of different partnership members to ensure everyone benefits from participation; ensuring equity of opportunity and rewarding engagement; and ensuring flexibility in support provision. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights numerous factors that may be readily incorporated into early career researcher capacity strengthening initiatives based on a learn-by-doing approach. Many of these factors are supported by a growing weight of evidence and would be appropriate to research capacity strengthening programmes both within and outside of a vectorborne disease context.

Knowledge translation and evidence generation to increase the impact of vector control in Burkina Faso, Cameroon and Malawi.

Lack of context-specific evidence and inadequate evidence-use for decision-making contribute to poor health. This paper reports on our work aimed at addressing the knowledge translation (KT) gap between evidence generators and users. We present our experiences of strengthening KT via technical advisory groups (TAGs) in parallel with increasing evidence generation through research fellowships and operational research. Vectorborne diseases (VBDs) impose substantial health and economic burdens in sub-Saharan Africa despite being preventable with vector control. The Partnership for Increasing the Impact of Vector Control aimed to reduce the burden of VBDs in Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Malawi and at regional and global levels. TAGs can promote evidence-use in policy and practice by engaging relevant stakeholders in both research and policy processes. TAGs and related activities are best facilitated by a coordinator with skills in research and policy. Contextual factors should influence the design and governance of TAGs, which will likely evolve over time. Relevant national stakeholders should be included in TAGs and be actively involved in developing research agendas to increase the relevance and acceptability of research findings for decision-making. The countries present three differing contexts with longer-term research and evaluation necessary to draw lessons on impact.

'You want to deal with power while riding on power': global perspectives on power in participatory health research and co-production approaches.

INTRODUCTION: Power relations permeate research partnerships and compromise the ability of participatory research approaches to bring about transformational and sustainable change. This study aimed to explore how participatory health researchers engaged in co-production research perceive and experience 'power', and how it is discussed and addressed within the context of research partnerships. METHODS: Five online workshops were carried out with participatory health researchers working in different global contexts. Transcripts of the workshops were analysed thematically against the 'Social Ecology of Power' framework and mapped at the micro (individual), meso (interpersonal) or macro (structural) level. RESULTS: A total of 59 participants, with participatory experience in 24 different countries, attended the workshops. At the micro level, key findings included the rarity of explicit discussions on the meaning and impact of power, the use of reflexivity for examining assumptions and power differentials, and the perceived importance of strengthening co-researcher capacity to shift power. At the meso level, participants emphasised the need to manage co-researcher expectations, create spaces for trusted dialogue, and consider the potential risks faced by empowered community partners. Participants were divided over whether gatekeeper engagement aided the research process or acted to exclude marginalised groups from participating. At the macro level, colonial and 'traditional' research legacies were acknowledged to have generated and maintained power inequities within research partnerships. CONCLUSIONS: The 'Social Ecology of Power' framework is a useful tool for engaging with power inequities that cut across the social ecology, highlighting how they can operate at the micro, meso and macro level. This study reiterates that power is pervasive, and that while many researchers are intentional about engaging with power, actions and available tools must be used more systematically to identify and address power imbalances in participatory research partnerships, in order to contribute to improved equity and social justice outcomes.

Guidance and conceptual tools to inform the design, selection and evaluation of research capacity strengthening interventions.

This practice note presents four conceptual tools intended to support the design, selection and evaluation of research capacity strengthening (RCS) programmes in low-income and middle-income country settings. The tools may be used by a wide range of RCS stakeholders, including funders, implementing parties and programme evaluators, to guide decision-making in lieu of largely as yet unavailable empirical evidence. The first conceptual tool guides decision-making regarding RCS intervention design, focusing specifically on the combination and integration of potential intervention activities. The second conceptual tool provides a framework for assessing the implementation challenges of potential RCS interventions in terms of: (1) the overall cost of implementing the proposed intervention in a given context; (2) the length of time required to complete full implementation of the proposed intervention in a given context and (3) the level of control the implementing partners would have over the proposed intervention in a given context. The third conceptual tool provides a means to consider the anticipated impact of potential RCS interventions in order to inform selection decisions (ie, which out of a number of potential RCS intervention options may be most impactful in a given setting given the intervention design and implementation challenges). The fourth and final tool is designed to support the evaluation of a collective RCS effort, whether that be multiple RCS interventions delivered within the context of a single or continuous programme or multiple RCS programmes delivered in a common setting.

Measuring the outcome and impact of research capacity strengthening initiatives: A review of indicators used or described in the published and grey literature.

Background: Development partners and research councils are increasingly investing in research capacity strengthening initiatives in low- and middle-income countries to support sustainable research systems. However, there are few reported evaluations of research capacity strengthening initiatives and no agreed evaluation metrics. Methods: To advance progress towards a standardised set of outcome and impact indicators, this paper presents a structured review of research capacity strengthening indicators described in the published and grey literature. Results: We identified a total of 668 indicators of which 40% measured output, 59.5% outcome and 0.5% impact. Only 1% of outcome and impact indicators met all four quality criteria applied. A majority (63%) of reported outcome indicators clustered in four focal areas, including: research management and support (97/400), the attainment and application of new research skills and knowledge (62/400), research collaboration (53/400), and knowledge transfer (39/400). Conclusions: Whilst this review identified few examples of quality research capacity strengthening indicators, it has identified priority focal areas in which outcome and impact indicators could be developed as well as a small set of 'candidate' indicators that could form the basis of development efforts.

Strengthening research management and support services in sub-Saharan African universities and research institutions.

Background: International development partners and research councils are increasingly funding research management and support (RMS) capacity strengthening initiatives in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) as part of a broader investment in strengthening national and regional research systems.  However, the evidence-base to inform RMS capacity strengthening initiatives is limited at present. This research note presents a synthesis of 28 RMS capacity assessments completed in 25 universities/research institutions from across 15 SSA countries between 2014 and 2018.  Methods: All 28 capacity assessments were completed following a standardised methodology consisting of semi-structured interviews conducted with research and research support staff at the respective institution as well as document reviews and observation of onsite facilities. Data were extracted from the 28 reports detailing the findings of each assessment according to a framework synthesis approach. Results: In total, 13 distinct capacity gap categories emerged from across the 28 RMS capacity assessment reports.  Almost all the institutions assessed faced significant gaps in RMS capacity within and across each of these 13 categories. The 13 categories were not independent of each other and were often closely inter-connected. Commonalities were also evident across multiple categories, the two most obvious of which were severe fiscal constraints and the often-complex bureaucracy of the institutional operating environment. Conclusions: The synthesis findings reveal multiple, commonly shared RMS capacity gaps in universities and research institutions across SSA. No single intervention type, or focus, would be sufficient to strengthen capacity across all 13 areas; rather, what is needed to facilitate a significant shift in RMS capacity within such SSA universities and research institutions is a combination of interventions, consisting of differing levels of cost and complexity, variously led (or supported) by both internal and external actors.