"You Travel Faster Alone, but Further Together": Learning From a Cross Country Research Collaboration From a British Council Newton Fund Grant

"Nothing without connection"-Participant perspectives and experiences of mentorship in capacity building in Timor-Leste

The literature on mentorship approaches to capacity building in global health is limited. Likewise, there are few qualitative studies that describe mentorship in capacity building in global health from the perspective of the mentors and mentees. This qualitative study examined the perspectives and experiences of participants involved in a program of health capacity building in Timor-Leste that was based on a side-by-side, in-country mentorship approach. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 23 participants (including Timorese and expatriate mentors, and local Timorese colleagues) from across a range of professional health disciplines, followed by a series of member checking workshops. Findings were reviewed using inductive thematic analysis. Participants were included in review and refinement of themes. Four major themes were identified: the importance of trust and connection within the mentoring relationship; the side-by-side nature of the relationship (akompaña); mentoring in the context of external environmental challenges; and the need for the mentoring relationship to be dynamic and evolving, and aligned to a shared vision and goals. The importance of accompaniment (akompaña) as a key element of the mentoring relationship requires further exploration and study. Many activities in global health capacity building remain focused on provision of training, supervision, and supportive supervision of competent task performance. Viewed through a decolonising lens, there is an imperative for global health actors to align with local priorities and goals, and work alongside individuals supporting them in their vision to become independent leaders of their professions. We propose that placing mentoring relationships at the centre of human resource capacity building programs encourages deep learning, and is more likely to lead to long term, meaningful and sustainable change.

Health research mentorship in low-income and middle-income countries: a global qualitative evidence synthesis of data from a crowdsourcing open call and scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Research mentorship is critical for advancing science, but there are few practical strategies for cultivating mentorship in health research resource-limited settings. WHO/TDR Global commissioned a group to develop a practical guide on research mentorship. This global qualitative evidence synthesis included data from a crowdsourcing open call and scoping review to identify and propose strategies to enhance research mentorship in low/middle-income country (LMIC) institutions.

METHODS

The crowdsourcing open call used methods recommended by WHO/TDR and solicited descriptions of strategies to enhance research mentorship in LMICs. The scoping review used the Cochrane Handbook and predefined the approach in a protocol. We extracted studies focused on enhancing health research mentorship in LMICs. Textual data describing research mentorship strategies from the open call and studies from the scoping review were coded into themes. The quality of evidence supporting themes was assessed using the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research approach.

RESULTS

The open call solicited 46 practical strategies and the scoping review identified 77 studies. We identified the following strategies to enhance research mentorship: recognising mentorship as an institutional responsibility that should be provided and expected from all team members (8 strategies, 15 studies; moderate confidence); leveraging existing research and training resources to enhance research mentorship (15 strategies, 49 studies; moderate confidence); digital tools to match mentors and mentees and sustain mentorship relations over time (14 strategies, 11 studies; low confidence); nurturing a culture of generosity so that people who receive mentorship then become mentors to others (7 strategies, 7 studies; low confidence); peer mentorship defined as informal and formal support from one researcher to another who is at a similar career stage (16 strategies, 12 studies; low confidence).

INTERPRETATION

Research mentorship is a collective institutional responsibility, and it can be strengthened in resource-limited institutions by leveraging already existing resources. The evidence from the crowdsourcing open call and scoping review informed a WHO/TDR practical guide. There is a need for more formal research mentorship programmes in LMIC institutions.

Health research mentorship in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this scoping review was to explore and synthesize the available literature on health research mentorship in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

INTRODUCTION

Research mentorship is broadly considered a useful strategy to improve research capacities and research outputs. Existing literature and guidance on research mentorship have focused on high-income countries and assumed resource-rich environments. Despite the successful endeavors to improve health research capacity in LMICs, the strategies that work best under different circumstances are poorly understood. There is a need to map and understand the evidence on health research mentorship in the context of LMICs.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Sources that reported existing practices, barriers, and mitigation strategies related to health research mentorship in LMICs were included.

METHODS

We searched for published and unpublished studies and reports written in English, Spanish, or Portuguese. The search strategy was not limited by search dates and the last search was conducted on January 28, 2022. The databases searched included MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and JBI Evidence Synthesis . We also searched for gray literature in a selection of websites and digital repositories. The JBI scoping review methodology was used.

RESULTS

A total of 77 studies and reports were included in the review. The majority of the papers were from Africa (n=28). Others were from the Americas (n=7), South East Asia (n=4), East Mediterranean (n=2), and Western Pacific (n=2). The remaining studies were from LMICs that included at least 2 regional offices. Most of the mentorship projects (n=55) were initiated and funded by institutions from high-income countries. The first authors of 41 papers were primarily affiliated with LMICs. The findings were categorized under a description of research mentorship practices, barriers related to research mentorship, and suggested mitigation strategies. Deliverable-driven training using intensive hands-on mentorship and ongoing peer mentorship programs were some of the non-regular, non-institutionalized approaches used to improve research capacity for junior researchers in LMICs. None of the included papers focused on institutional components of research mentorship in LMICs. The barriers to research mentorship activities in LMICs included lack of clarity on mentorship, cultural variations, unbalanced power dynamics, socio-political influences, language barriers, lack of experienced mentors, and limited local funding. Institutionalizing research mentorship, adapting mentoring methodologies relying on local resources, and addressing and respecting diversity in mentorship programs were among the main strategies identified to effectively implement research mentorship in LMICs.

CONCLUSIONS

Research mentorship initiatives and practices are limited in LMICs. Few available practices have been introduced by researchers and research institutions from high-income countries and those that have are not yet institutionalized. The identified existing practices, barriers, and facilitators on health research mentorship could help the design, implementation, and evaluation of programs to institutionalize health research mentorship in LMICs.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework osf.io/jqa9z/.

SUPPLEMENTAL DIGITAL CONTENT

A Spanish-language version of the abstract of this review is available as supplemental digital content: http://links.lww.com/SRX/A32.

Action for Increasing Diversity, Market Access, and Capacity in Oncology Registration Trials—Is Africa the Answer? Report From a Satellite Session of the Accelerating Anti-Cancer Agent Development and Validation Workshop

Patients of African ancestry are not well-represented in cancer clinical trials despite bearing a disproportionate share of mortality both in United States and Africa. We describe key stakeholder perspectives and priorities related to bringing early-stage cancer clinical trials to Africa and outline essential action steps. Increasing Diversity, Market Access, and Capacity in Oncology Registration Trials—Is Africa the Answer? satellite session was organized at 2021 Accelerating Anti-Cancer Agent Development and Validation Workshop. Panelists included representatives of African Organization for Research and Training in Cancer, Uganda Cancer Institute, Uganda Women's Cancer Support Organization, BIO Ventures for Global Health, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the US Food and Drug Administration, Nigeria's National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control, Bayer, and Genentech, with moderators from ASCO and American Cancer Society. Key discussion themes and resulting action steps were agreed upon by all participants. Panelists agreed that increasing diversity in cancer clinical trials by including African patients is key to ensuring novel drugs are safe and effective across populations. They underscored the importance of equity in clinical trial access for patients in Africa. Panelists discussed their values related to access and barriers to opening clinical trials in Africa and described innovative solutions from their work aimed at overcoming these obstacles. Multisectoral collaboration efforts that allow leveraging of limited resources and result in sustainable capacity building and mutually beneficial long-term partnerships were discussed as key to outlined action steps. The panel discussion resulted in valuable insights about key stakeholder values and priorities related to bringing early-stage clinical trials to Africa, as well as specific actions for each stakeholder group.

Evaluating official development assistance-funded granting mechanisms for global health and development research that is initiated in high-income countries

Background

Several countries allocate official development assistance (ODA) for research on global health and development issues that is initiated in the donor country. The integration of such research within domestic research systems aligns with efforts to coordinate ODA investments with science, technology and innovation policies towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Methods

Through a document synthesis and interviews with research funders in ODA donor and recipient countries, we evaluated the performance of this funding approach across seven donor-country programmes from five donor countries and examined the institutional design elements that increase its chances of advancing development goals and addressing global challenges.

Results

We found that carefully designed programmes provide a promising pathway to producing valuable and contextually relevant knowledge on global health and development issues. To achieve these outcomes and ensure they benefit ODA-receiving countries, programmes should focus on recipient-country priorities and absorptive capacity; translate research on global public goods into context-appropriate technologies; plan and monitor pathways to impact; structure equitable partnerships; strengthen individual and institutional capacity; and emphasize knowledge mobilization.

Conclusions

Global health and development research programmes and partnerships have an important role to play in achieving the SDGs and addressing global challenges. Governments should consider the potential of ODA-funded research programmes to address gaps in their global health and development frameworks. In the absence of concrete evidence of development impact, donor countries should consider making increases in ODA allocations for research additional to more direct investments that have demonstrated effectiveness in ODA-receiving countries.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12961-022-00859-6.

Partnerships and Collaborations: The Right Alliances for Clinical Trials in Africa

Africa attracts < 1% of all trials conducted around the world. The implication is that proof of safety and efficacy in Africans is lacking for a lot of new therapies. The sizeable proportion of approximately 20% of the global population that Africa represents largely does not have empiric data to support use of new therapies in a population with a distinct genetic and racial profile. Beyond the imperative of evidence-based interventions, Africans carry a disproportionately heavy burden of certain diseases, including prostate cancer, sickle cell anemia, and malaria. It therefore provides opportunity for efficient recruitment of participants for trials for such diseases. However, this advantage has not convinced sponsors to carry out clinical trials in Africa. India and China each have roughly the same population size as Africa, but each presents just one regulatory jurisdiction for clinical trials. Africa has 54 countries, and a sponsor would theoretically need to file 54 different applications to cover the entire continent. Collaboration and partnership among all stakeholders in the clinical trial ecosystem will reduce the burden on sponsors and make Africa competitive as a destination for clinical trials. Collaboration among national regulatory agencies will enable Africa to be treated as one regulatory jurisdiction and reduce administrative burden. Sites and researchers can partner to improve quality, attain necessary certifications, and increase overall efficiency. Central to all of these are clinical research organizations that can coordinate and work across borders to make clinical trial projects seamless. Ultimately, patients will benefit as quality of clinical practice improves and access to new therapies is enhanced.

Analysis of the MUII-plus mentorship programme: reflections of Fellows’ experiences and lessons for other programmes

Background: The MUII mentorship programme began 11 years ago with a successful group mentorship model. Over the years, the programme has evolved and is presently anchored on the “GROW” approach. This model allows individuals to: set Goals (What I want?); Reflect (Where am I now?); think of Options (What can I do?); What to implement (my actions?). It is intended to help fellows (current, honorary, alumni) herein referred to as mentees achieve their short, medium, and long-term research, career and professional goals. Methods: A mixed methods study combining a cross-sectional survey, one focus group discussion and 11 in-depth key informant interviews were carried out between November 2018 and January 2019 to 1) assess the status of the mentorship programme, 2) perform a strength weakness opportunity and threats (SWOT) analysis, and 3) identify factors relevant for sustainability. Results: An open invitation was made to 52 fellows to participate in the survey, and 23 responded. Among respondents, the largest proportions were male [70% (16/23)], and PhD fellows [35% (8/23)]. The respondents rated the fellowship experience as excellent [65% (15/23)], and most [78% (18/23)] revealed they had benefitted greatly from the programme. The SWOT analysis revealed outstanding strengths of having regular fellows’ meetings for peer support, and availability of international collaborations, linkages and exposure. Opportunities identified included large pool of mentees within MUII-plus and evidence of fellows taking up leadership positions. The biggest threat to the mentorship programme was the busy schedule of mentors. Conclusions: The MUII-plus mentorship programme has strong potential to offer research and career mentorship to its fellows. To promote sustainability of the programme, there is a need for innovative ways to engage mentors; such as digital platforms (e-mentorship) for greater mentor-mentee interactions.

The state of population health research performance in the Middle East and North Africa: a meta-research study

BACKGROUND

Population health (PH) research capacity and performance are essential pillars of evidence-based practice to help address health inequalities. Best evidence is provided by systematic reviews (SRs). None of the published bibliometric analysis specifically assess the production of SRs on PH in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). The aim of our study is to investigate publication patterns and time trends of SRs reporting PH in the MENA region to evaluate the state of PH research performance in the region.

METHOD

The study protocol was developed a priori (protocol registration number: CRD42017076736). PubMed was searched. Two independent reviewers screened 5747 identified articles. We investigated author affiliation and collaboration, yearly citations of the SRs and journal information. Joinpoint regression was used to explore these characteristics overtime.

RESULTS

Our meta-research included 387 SRs published between 2008 and 2016 which reported data on PH in 20 MENA countries. Publication of SRs increased over time in journals with impact factor < 4 and in the categories of yearly number of citations < 50 (p values ≤ 0.0024). Authors belonging to the region published increasingly (p value = 0.0001) over time. Thirty percent of the SRs were from authors solely from the region, while an additional 30% were from the region collaborating with Western country authors. Of these collaborative reviews, 79% were led by authors from the region. However, collaboration in the region (with the exclusion of collaboration with Western country authors) was rare (0.8%). These authors from the region published more in open-access journals while authors from Western countries collaborating or not with authors from the region published more in hybrid or non-open-access journals (p value < 0.0001). Collaboration between authors from MENA and Western countries led to published SRs in journals with impact factor ≥ 10. Systematic reviews with global coverage were published more by authors from Western countries, while SRs with country-level coverage were published by authors from the region (p value < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The incremental trend of PH SR publications on MENA likely reflects the ongoing improvement in research performance in the region. Authors from the region appear to be taking a lead role in conducting and disseminating MENA PH research. Open-access journals are a major contributor in facilitating MENA research dissemination.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number CRD42017076736.

Analysis of the MUII-plus mentorship programme: reflections of Fellows’ experiences and lessons for other programmes

Background: The MUII mentorship programme began 11 years ago with a successful group mentorship model. Over the years, the programme has evolved and is presently anchored on the “GROW” approach. This model allows individuals to: set Goals (What I want?); Reflect (Where am I now?); think of Options (What can I do?); What to implement (my actions?). It is intended to help fellows (current, honorary, alumni) herein referred to as mentees achieve their short, medium, and long-term research, career and professional goals. Methods: A mixed methods study combining a cross-sectional survey, one focus group discussion and 11 in-depth key informant interviews were carried out between November 2018 and January 2019 to 1) assess the status of the mentorship programme, 2) perform a strength weakness opportunity and threats (SWOT) analysis, and 3) identify factors relevant for sustainability. Results: An open invitation was made to 52 fellows to participate in the survey, and 23 responded. Among respondents, the largest proportions were male [70% (16/23)], and PhD fellows [35% (8/23)]. The respondents rated the fellowship experience as excellent [65% (15/23)], and most [78% (18/23)] revealed they had benefitted greatly from the programme. The SWOT analysis revealed outstanding strengths of having regular fellows’ meetings for peer support, and availability of international collaborations, linkages and exposure. Opportunities identified included large pool of mentees within MUII-plus and evidence of fellows taking up leadership positions. The biggest threat to the mentorship programme was the busy schedule of mentors. Conclusions: The MUII-plus mentorship programme has strong potential to offer research and career mentorship to its fellows. To promote sustainability of the programme, there is a need for innovative ways to engage mentors; such as digital platforms (e-mentorship) for greater mentor-mentee interactions.