Operational research capacity building using 'The Union/MSF' model: adapting as we go along

How is the implementation of empirical research results documented in conflict-affected settings? Findings from a scoping review of peer-reviewed literature

Implementation science scholars argue that knowing 'what works' in public health is insufficient to change practices, without understanding 'how', 'where' and 'why' something works. In the peer reviewed literature on conflict-affected settings, challenges to produce research, make decisions informed by evidence, or deliver services are documented, but what about the understanding of 'how', 'where' and 'why' changes occur? We explored these questions through a scoping review of peer-reviewed literature based on core dimensions of the Extended Normalization Process Theory. We selected papers that provided data on how something might work (who is involved and how?), where (in what organizational arrangements or contexts?) and why (what was done?). We searched the Global Health, Medline, Embase databases. We screened 2054 abstracts and 128 full texts. We included 22 papers (of which 15 related to mental health interventions) and analysed them thematically. We had the results revised critically by co-authors experienced in operational research in conflict-affected settings. Using an implementation science lens, we found that: (a) implementing actors are often engaged after research is produced to discuss feasibility; (b) new interventions or delivery modalities need to be flexible; (c) disruptions affect how research findings can lead to sustained practices; (d) strong leadership and stable resources are crucial for frontline actors; (e) creating a safe learning space to discuss challenges is difficult; (f) feasibility in such settings needs to be balanced. Lastly, communities and frontline actors need to be engaged as early as possible in the research process. We used our findings to adapt the Extended Normalization Process Theory for operational research in settings affected by conflicts. Other theories used by researchers to document the implementation processes need to be studied further.

Capacity building in operational research on obstetric fistula: Experience in the Democratic Republic of Congo, 2017-2021

OBJECTIVE

To implement a Flexible Operational Research Training (FORT) course within the Fistula Care Plus Project, Democratic Republic of Congo, from 2017 to 2021.

METHODS

A descriptive study using design and implementation (process and outcome) data. Two to four members of medical teams from three supported sites were selected for the training based on their research interests and level of involvement in the program.

RESULTS

Two courses (13-14 months each) involving nine facilitators and 17 participants overall were conducted between 2017 and 2021. Most participants in both courses were medical doctors (67% and 71%, respectively) from the supported hospitals (83% and 77%, respectively). About half were women. In addition to classic face-to-face didactic modules, the courses integrated online platforms to cope with the changing contexts (Ebola virus and COVID-19). Most participants reported having gained new skills in developing research protocols, collecting, managing, and analyzing data, and developing research manuscripts. The two courses resulted in six scientific manuscripts and three presentations at international conferences. Participants subsequently published five papers from their research after the first course. The total direct costs for both courses were representing a cost of $3669 per participant trained.

CONCLUSION

The FORT model proved feasible, efficient, and successful. However, scaling up will require more adaptation efforts from programs and participating sites.

Revamping of Chronic Respiratory Diseases in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) endure an asymmetrically high burden of worldwide disease and death caused by chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs), i.e., asthma, emphysema, bronchiectasis, and post-tuberculosis lung disease (PTLD). CRDs are firmly related with indigence, infectious diseases, and other non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and add to complex multi-disease with great impact on the lives and livelihood of those affected. The pertinence of CRDs to health and demographic wellbeing is relied upon to increment in the long time ahead, as expectations of life rise and the contending dangers of right on time youth mortality and irresistible infections level. The WHO has distinguished the counteraction and control of NCDs as an earnest improvement issue and crucial for the sustainable development goals (SDSs) by 2030. In this review, we center on CRDs in LMICs. We examine the early life roots of CRDs, challenges in their avoidance, identification and administration in LMICs, and the pathways to resolve for accomplish valid widespread wellbeing inclusion.

Improving lung health in low-income and middle-income countries: from challenges to solutions

Low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) bear a disproportionately high burden of the global morbidity and mortality caused by chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs), including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchiectasis, and post-tuberculosis lung disease. CRDs are strongly associated with poverty, infectious diseases, and other non-communicable diseases (NCDs), and contribute to complex multi-morbidity, with major consequences for the lives and livelihoods of those affected. The relevance of CRDs to health and socioeconomic wellbeing is expected to increase in the decades ahead, as life expectancies rise and the competing risks of early childhood mortality and infectious diseases plateau. As such, the World Health Organization has identified the prevention and control of NCDs as an urgent development issue and essential to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. In this Review, we focus on CRDs in LMICs. We discuss the early life origins of CRDs; challenges in their prevention, diagnosis, and management in LMICs; and pathways to solutions to achieve true universal health coverage.

Conducting operational research in humanitarian settings: is there a shared path for humanitarians, national public health authorities and academics?

In humanitarian contexts, it is a difficult and multi-faceted task to enlist academics, humanitarian actors and health authorities in a collaborative research effort. The lack of research in such settings has been widely described in the past decade, but few have analysed the challenges in building strong and balanced research partnerships. The major issues include considering operational priorities, ethical imperatives and power differentials. This paper analyses in two steps a collaborative empirical endeavour to assess health service utilization by Syrian refugee and Lebanese women undertaken by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health (MoPH) and the Harvard François-Xavier Bagnoud (FXB) Center. First, based on challenges documented in the literature, we shed light on how we negotiated appropriate research questions, methodologies, bias analyses, resource availability, population specificities, security, logistics, funding, ethical issues and organizational cultures throughout the partnership. Second, we describe how the negotiations required each partner to go outside their comfort zones. For the academics, the drivers to engage included the intellectual value of the collaboration, the readiness of the operational partners to conduct an empirical investigation and the possibility that such work might lead to a better understanding in public health terms of how the response met population needs. For actors responding to the humanitarian crisis (the ICRC and the MOPH), participating in a technical collaboration permitted methodological issues to be worked through in the context of deliberations within the wider epistemic community. We find that when they collaborate, academics, humanitarian actors and health authorities deploy their respective complementarities to build a more comprehensive approach. Barriers such as the lack of uptake of research results or weak links to the existing literature were overcome by giving space to define research questions and develop a longer-term collaboration involving individual and institutional learning. There is the need ahead of time to create balanced decision-making mechanisms, allow for relative financial autonomy, and define organizational responsibilities. Ultimately, mutual respect, trust and the recognition of each other's expertise formed the basis of an initiative that served to better understand populations affected by conflict and meet their needs.

Utilization of primary health care services among Syrian refugee and Lebanese women targeted by the ICRC program in Lebanon: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The Syrian crisis has put tremendous strain on the Lebanese health system, particularly in the historically underserved border region. The ICRC Primary Health Care program has focused on refugee and host communities in these areas. This study objectives were: 1) to determine whether the ICRC program was reaching the most vulnerable populations; 2) to understand the key perceived health needs in the catchment areas of the ICRC supported facilities; and 3) to identify barriers to utilization of health care services.

METHODS

Between July and September 2017 we conducted two cross-sectional studies - one randomized household survey and one clinic-based - in the catchment areas of three ICRC-supported facilities, targeting women of reproductive age and caretakers of children under five. Differences between groups were analysed with t-test or chi-squared test.

RESULTS

In the household survey, similar socio-demographic profiles were observed between Syrian refugee women and vulnerable Lebanese hosts. With regard to the study objectives:The most vulnerable populations were those seen in the ICRC-supported facilities.For both populations, the most common reasons for seeking care were non-communicable diseases (40.6%) and sexual and reproductive health issues (28.6%). Yet the people reaching the ICRC supported facilities were more likely to seek care for communicable diseases affecting their children (37.8%), rather than for the most common reasons expressed in the household survey.In the catchment areas, reported gaps included low immunization coverage and low levels of antenatal care and family planning both for Syrian and Lebanese. Dental care also emerged as an issue. Out of pocket expenditures was reported as a critical barrier for utilization of primary health care services for both populations, while the most important barrier for utilization of ICRC-supported services was lack of awareness.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the ICRC reaching the most vulnerable Syrian and Lebanese communities, the population-based survey revealed that important gaps exist in terms of utilization of health care services among women of reproductive age and their children. A stronger outreach component is needed to address lack of awareness. Innovative solutions are also needed to address cost barriers at the levels of both facility and individual user.

Adapting operational research training to the Rwandan context: the Intermediate Operational Research Training programme

Background: Promoting national health research agendas in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) requires adequate numbers of individuals with skills to initiate and conduct research. Recently, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have joined research capacity building efforts to increase research leadership by LMIC nationals. Partners In Health, an international NGO operating in Rwanda, implemented its first Intermediate Operational Research Training (IORT) course to cultivate Rwandan research talent and generate evidence to improve health care delivery.

Objective: This paper describes the implementation of IORT to share experiences with other organizations interested in developing similar training programmes.

Methods: The Intermediate Operational Research Training utilized a deliverable-driven training model, using learning-by-doing pedagogy with intensive hands-on mentorship to build research skills from protocol development to scientific publication. The course had short (two-day) but frequent training sessions (seven sessions over eight months). Trainees were clinical and programme staff working at the district level who were paired to jointly lead a research project.

Results: Of 10 trainees admitted to the course from a pool of 24 applicants, nine trainees completed the course with five research projects published in peer-reviewed journals. Strengths of the course included supportive national and institutional research capacity guidelines, building from a successful training model, and trainee commitment. Challenges included delays in ethical review, high mentorship workload of up to 250 hours of practicum mentorship, lack of access to literature in subscription journals and high costs of open access publication.

Conclusions: The IORT course was an effective way to support the district-based government and NGO staff in gaining research skills, as well as answering research questions relevant to health service delivery at district hospitals. Other NGOs should build on successful programmes while adapting course elements to address context-specific challenges. Mentorship for LMIC trainees is critical for effectiveness of research capacity building initiatives.

Social multiplier effects: academics' and practitioners' perspective on the benefits of a tuberculosis operational research capacity-building program in Indonesia

BACKGROUND

The Tuberculosis Operational Research Group (TORG) implemented a capacity-building model involving academics and practitioners (i.e. clinicians or program staff) in an operational research (OR) team in Indonesia.

OBJECTIVE

This study explored academics' and practitioners' perspectives regarding the benefits of participating in a tuberculosis (TB) OR capacity-building program in Indonesia.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study involving in-depth interviews with 36 academics and 23 practitioners undertaking the TORG capacity-building program. We asked open-ended questions about their experience of the program. Data were analyzed via content analysis.

RESULTS

The findings demonstrated the social multiplier effects of the OR capacity-building program. Both academics and practitioners reported perceived improvements in research knowledge, skills, and experience, and described additional individual- and institutional-level benefits. The individual-level benefits level included improvements in understanding of the TB program, motivation for research and self-satisfaction, the development/enhancement of individual networking, receipt of recognition, and new opportunities. The additional benefits reported at an institutional level included improvement in research curricula, in-house training, and program management and the development/enhancement of institutional partnerships.

CONCLUSIONS

The program improved not only individuals' capacity for conducting OR but also the quality of the TB program management and public health education. OR should be included in research methodology curricula for postgraduate public health/disease control programs. The capacity-building model, in which academics and program staff collaborated within an OR team, should be promoted.

Does research through Structured Operational Research and Training (SORT IT) courses impact policy and practice?

SETTING

Structured Operational Research and Training Initiative (SORT IT) courses are well known for their output, with nearly 90% of participants completing the course and publishing in scientific journals.

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the impact of research papers on policy and practice that resulted from six SORT IT courses initiated between July 2012 and March 2013.

DESIGN

This was a cross-sectional study involving e-mail-based, self-administered questionnaires and telephone/skype/in-person responses from first and/or senior co-authors of course papers. A descriptive content analysis of the responses was performed and categorised into themes.

RESULTS

Of 72 participants, 63 (88%) completed the course. Course output included 81 submitted papers, of which 76 (94%) were published. Of the 81 papers assessed, 45 (55%) contributed to a change in policy and/or practice: 29 contributed to government policy/practice change (20 at national, 4 at subnational and 5 at hospital level), 11 to non-government organisational policy change and 5 to reinforcing existing policy. The changes ranged from modifications of monitoring and evaluation tools, to redrafting of national guidelines, to scaling up existing policies.

CONCLUSION

More than half of the SORT IT course papers contributed to a change in policy and/or practice. Future assessments should include more robust and independent verification of the reported change(s) with all stakeholders.