Increasing chronic disease research capacity in Guatemala through a mentoring program

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.

Advancing Reliable Data for Cancer Control in the Central America Four Region

The Central America Four (CA-4) region, comprising Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and Nicaragua, is the largest low- and middle-income country region in the Western Hemisphere, with over 36 million inhabitants. The CA-4 nations share a common geography, history, language, and development indices, and unified with open borders in 2006. The growing CA-4 cancer burden among the noncommunicable diseases is expected to increase 73% by 2030, which argues for a regional approach to cancer control. This has driven efforts to establish population-based cancer registries as a central component of the cancer control plans. The involvement of international and academic partners in an array of initiatives to improve cancer information and control in the CA-4 has accelerated over the past several years. Existing data underscore that the infectious cancers (cervical, stomach, and liver) are a particular burden. All four countries have committed to establishing regional population-based cancer registries and have advanced significantly in pediatric cancer registration. The challenges common to each nation include the lack of national cancer control plans and departments, competing health priorities, lack of trained personnel, and sustainability strategies. General recommendations to address these challenges are outlined. The ongoing regional, international, and academic cooperation has proven helpful and is expected to continue to be a powerful instrument to contribute to the design and implementation of long-term national cancer control plans.

To what extent do site-based training, mentoring, and operational research improve district health system management and leadership in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND

District health managers play a key role in the effectiveness of decentralized health systems in low- and middle-income countries. Inadequate management and leadership skills often hamper their ability to improve quality of care and effectiveness of health service delivery. Nevertheless, significant investments have been made in capacity-building programmes based on site-based training, mentoring, and operational research. This systematic review aims to review the effectiveness of site-based training, mentoring, and operational research (or action research) on the improvement of district health system management and leadership. Our secondary objectives are to assess whether variations in composition or intensity of the intervention influence its effectiveness and to identify enabling and constraining contexts and underlying mechanisms.

METHODS

We will search the following databases: MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library, CRD database (DARE), Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) group, ISI Web of Science, Health Evidence.org, PDQ-Evidence, ERIC, EMBASE, and TRIP. Complementary search will be performed (hand-searching journals and citation and reference tracking). Studies that meet the following PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) criteria will be included: P: professionals working at district health management level; I: site-based training with or without mentoring, or operational research; C: normal institutional arrangements; and O: district health management functions. We will include cluster randomized controlled trials, controlled before-and-after studies, interrupted time series analysis, quasi-experimental designs, and cohort and longitudinal studies. Qualitative research will be included to contextualize findings and identify barriers and facilitators. Primary outcomes that will be reported are district health management and leadership functions. We will assess risk of bias with the Cochrane Collaboration's tools for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and non RCT studies and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklists for qualitative studies. We will assess strength of recommendations with the GRADE tool for quantitative studies, and the CERQual approach for qualitative studies. Synthesis of quantitative studies will be performed through meta-analysis when appropriate. Best fit framework synthesis will be used to synthesize qualitative studies.

DISCUSSION

This protocol paper describes a systematic review assessing the effectiveness of site-based training (with or without mentoring programmes or operational research) on the improvement of district health system management and leadership.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42015032351.

Mentoring health researchers globally: Diverse experiences, programmes, challenges and responses

Mentoring experiences and programmes are becoming increasingly recognised as important by those engaged in capacity strengthening in global health research. Using a primarily qualitative study design, we studied three experiences of mentorship and eight mentorship programmes for early career global health researchers based in high-income and low- and middle-income countries. For the latter, we drew upon programme materials, existing unpublished data and more formal mixed-method evaluations, supplemented by individual email questionnaire responses. Research team members wrote stories, and the team assembled and analysed them for key themes. Across the diverse experiences and programmes, key emergent themes included: great mentors inspire others in an inter-generational cascade, mentorship is transformative in personal and professional development and involves reciprocity, and finding the right balance in mentoring relationships and programmes includes responding creatively to failure. Among the challenges encountered were: struggling for more level playing fields for new health researchers globally, changing mindsets in institutions that do not have a culture of mentorship and building collaboration not competition. Mentoring networks spanning institutions and countries using multiple virtual and face-to-face methods are a potential avenue for fostering organisational cultures supporting quality mentorship in global health research.