Mentoring in Global Health: Formative Evaluation of Tuberculosis Research Training Programs in Ethiopia and Georgia

Evaluating Global Surgery Partnerships From Low and Middle Income Country Perspectives

INTRODUCTION

Little is known about perceptions of low-income and middle-income country (LMIC) partners regarding global surgery collaborations with high-income countries (HICs).

METHODS

A survey was distributed to surgeons from LMICs to assess the nature and perception of collaborations, funding, benefits, communication, and the effects of COVID-19 on partnerships.

RESULTS

We received 19 responses from LMIC representatives in 12 countries on three continents. The majority (83%) had participated in collaborations within the past 5 y with 39% of collaborations were facilitated virtually. Clinical and educational partnerships (39% each) were ranked most important by respondents. Sustainability of the partnership was most successfully achieved in domains of education/training (78%) and research (61%). The majority (77%) of respondents reported expressing their needs before HIC team arrival. However, 54% of respondents were the ones to initiate the conversation and only 47% said HIC partners understood the overall environment well at arrival to LMIC. Almost all participants (95%) felt a formal process of collaboration and a structured partnership would benefit all parties in assessing needs. During the COVID-19 pandemic, 87% of participants reported continued collaborations; however, 44% of partners felt that relationships were weaker, 31% felt relationships were stronger, and 25% felt they were unchanged.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study provides a snapshot of LMIC surgeons' perspectives on collaboration in global surgery. Independent of location, LMIC partners cite inadequate structure for long-term collaborations. We propose a formal pathway and initiation process to assess resources and needs at the outset of a partnership.

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.

Achieving a robust mentoring and research capacity program in a LMIC - the BRAINS faculty development model

BACKGROUND

A research and training program (RTP) was carried out to build the capacity of faculty and improve the culture of research in the College of Medicine, University of Lagos (CMUL), Nigeria.

METHODS

Realist-guided mixed methods evaluation of the BRAINS project was carried out using secondary data generated during the 5-years (2015 - 2020) of project implementation. Capacity building workshops and mentored research activities targeted at faculty in the CMUL were conducted. Overall, 1,418 participants attended the workshops in batches. Among the participants, forty-five faculty received grants and were mentored by senior professionals (local & international) to conduct research. Data were extracted from all project-related documents including coursework biodata, workshop evaluation forms, quarterly project reports, and end- of-project reports, submitted by the mentees, minutes of meetings, and the proposal submitted for funding. It was in the form of continuous variables and prose (sentences & stories). Quantitative data were analysed with IBM SPSS statistics version 20. Mean knowledge score and mean difference was calculated, paired t-test was carried out using p < 0.05 to determine statistical significance. The prose was thematically analysed to generate themes and narratives. Both were subsequently combined for interpretation and used to refine the initial programme theory into an evidence-informed theory.

RESULTS

Twelve courses were deployed, and 1,418 participants (47.8% males and 52.2% females) from medical, nursing, and allied medical departments were trained. Eighty participants were trained in Responsible Conduct of Research and eighty-one on Manuscript Writing over three years. A comparison of the pre/post-test knowledge scores showed a positive mean difference. Thematic analysis of workshop data produced three thematic domains representing effectiveness and gains namely: cognitive, reward, and behavioural. 45 trainees were awarded grants and mentored, and analysis of mentee's data generated 4 themes: Achieving a robust mentoring program; Benefits of the mentoring program; Resilience in research; Improving the mentoring program.

CONCLUSION

By contributing to the body of knowledge available on RTPs, this evaluation identified key components that contributed to the success of the project and developed a model for achieving a robust training and mentoring program which can be replicated in other LMICs.

Consortium for violence prevention research, leadership training, and implementation for excellence (CONVERGE): a protocol to train science leaders in gender-based-violence and violence-against-children research for impact

Background

Gender-based violence (GBV) and violence against children (VAC) are two prevalent and highly interconnected global health challenges, yet data and research capacities to study these forms of violence and to generate evidence-based policies and programs remain limited. To address critical shortages in research capacity in Vietnam and to establish a model for other Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs), we are establishing CONVERGE-the Consortium for Violence Prevention Research, Implementation, and Leadership Training for Excellence.

Methods

Based on a needs assessment with partners in Vietnam, CONVERGE will provide a comprehensive research training program supporting 15 long-term, postdoctoral trainees with multi-disciplinary research training in GBV and VAC. We also will offer in-country trainings and short-courses to 40 short-term mid-career academic trainees and 60 short-term practitioner/stakeholder trainees over 5  years to build productive GBV and VAC academic, scientific, and practitioner networks. The CONVERGE training program has four components: (1) 14 h of virtual/in-person annual mentorship training to prepare research mentors and to create a pipeline of future mentors in Vietnam; (2) a one-month intensive research training for long-term postdoctoral fellows at Emory University; (3) a structured 17-month, in-country mentored research project for long-term trainees that results in a peer-reviewed manuscript and a subsequent grant submission; and, (4) week-long in-country intensive translational trainings on implementation science, advanced topics in leadership, and advanced topics in science dissemination. Opportunities for on-going virtual training and professional networking will be provided for CONVERGE trainees and mentors in Vietnam with other trainees and mentors of D43s focused on injury/violence prevention, D43s housed at Emory, and D43s with other institutions in Southeast Asia. To assess the reach, implementation, fidelity, and effectiveness of these four components, we will implement a rigorous, mixed-methods, multi-level evaluation strategy using process and outcome measures. Findings from the evaluation will be used to refine program components for future trainee and mentor cohorts and to assess long-term program impact.

Discussion

Led by Emory University in the US and Hanoi Medical University in Vietnam, CONVERGE represents leading institutions and experts from around the world, with a goal of providing mentorship opportunities for early-career scientists with an interest in violence prevention.

Global Health Perspectives on Race in Research: Neocolonial Extraction and Local Marginalization

Best practices in global health training prioritize leadership and engagement from investigators from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), along with conscientious community consultation and research that benefits local participants and autochthonous communities. However, well into the 20th century, international research and clinical care remain rife with paternalism, extractive practices, and racist ideation, with race presumed to explain vulnerability or protection from various diseases, despite scientific evidence for far more precise mechanisms for infectious disease. We highlight experiences in global research on health and illness among indigenous populations in LMICs, seeking to clarify what is both scientifically essential and ethically desirable in research with human subjects; we apply a critical view towards race and racism as historically distorting elements that must be acknowledged and overcome.

Emergency medicine doctoral education in Africa: a scoping review of the published literature

BACKGROUND

While Africa accounts for a significant proportion of world population, and disease and injury burden, it produces less than 1% of the total research output within emergency care. Emergency care research capacity in Africa may be expanded through the development of doctoral programmes that aim to upskill the PhD student into an independent scholar, through dedicated support and structured learning. This study therefore aims to identify the nature of the problem of doctoral education in Africa, thereby informing a general needs assessment within the context of academic emergency medicine.

METHODS

A scoping review, utilising an a priori, piloted search strategy was conducted (Medline via PubMed and Scopus) to identify literature published between 2011 and 2021 related to African emergency medicine doctoral education. Failing that, an expanded search was planned that focused on doctoral education within health sciences more broadly. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened for inclusion in duplicate, and extracted by the principal author. The search was rerun in September 2022.

RESULTS

No articles that focused on emergency medicine/care were found. Following the expanded search, a total of 235 articles were identified, and 27 articles were included. Major domains identified in the literature included specific barriers to PhD success, supervision practices, transformation, collaborative learning, and research capacity improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

African doctoral students are hindered by internal academic factors such as limited supervision and external factors such as poor infrastructure e.g. internet connectivity. While not always feasible, institutions should offer environments that are conducive to meaningful learning. In addition, doctoral programmes should adopt and enforce gender policies to help alleviate the gender differences noted in PhD completion rates and research publication outputs. Interdisciplinary collaborations are potential mechanisms to develop well-rounded and independent graduates. Post-graduate and doctoral supervision experience should be a recognised promotion criterion to assist with clinician researcher career opportunities and motivation. There may be little value in attempting to replicate the programmatic and supervision practices of high-income countries. African doctoral programmes should rather focus on creating contextual and sustainable ways of delivering excellent doctoral education.

Evaluation of global health capacity building initiatives in low-and middle-income countries: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are in dire need to improve their health outcomes. Although Global Health Capacity Building (GHCB) initiatives are recommended approaches, they risk being ineffective in the absence of standardized evaluation methods. This study systematically reviews evaluation approaches for GHCB initiatives in LMICs.

METHODS

We searched the Medline (OVID), PubMed, Scopus, and Embase.com databases for studies reporting evaluation of a GHCB initiative in a LMIC from January 1, 2009 until August 15, 2019. To differentiate them from intervention, prevention, and awareness initiatives, included articles reported at least one approach to evaluate their learning modality. We excluded cross-sectional studies, reviews, and book chapters that only assessed the effect of interventions. Data identifying the learning modality, and evaluation method, level, time interval, and approach were extracted from articles as primary outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 8324 identified studies, 63 articles were eligible for analysis. Most studies stemmed from Africa and Asia (69.8%), were delivered and evaluated face-to-face (74.6% and 76.2%), mainly to professionals (57.1%) and community workers (20.6%). Although the use of online and blended modalities showed an increase over the past 4 years, only face-to-face initiatives were evaluated long-term beyond individual-level. GHCB evaluations in general lacked standardization especially regarding the tools.

CONCLUSION

This is an important resource for evaluating GHCB initiatives in LMICs. It synthesizes evaluation approaches, offers recommendations for improvement, and calls for the standardization of evaluations, especially for long-term and wider impact assessment of online and blended modalities.

Championing women working in health across regional and rural Australia - a new dual-mentorship model

BACKGROUND

Mentoring is a critical component of career development and job satisfaction leading to a healthier workforce and more productive outputs. However, there are limited data on mentorship models in regional areas and in particular for women aspiring to leadership positions. Mentorship programs that leverage off experienced mentors from diverse disciplines have the potential to foster the transfer of knowledge and to positively influence job satisfaction and build capacity within the context of workforce shortage.

METHODS

This study describes a dual-mentorship model of professional development for women working in health in regional and rural Australia. We present the framework and describe the evaluation findings from a 12-month pilot program.

RESULTS

Both academic and corporate mentors provided diverse perspectives to the mentees during the 12-month period. On average, corporate mentors met with mentees more often, and focused these discussions on strategy and leadership skills whilst academic mentors provided more technical advice regarding academic growth. Mentees reported an improvement in workplace interconnectedness and confidence at the completion of the program.

CONCLUSION

We developed a framework for establishing a professional mentorship program that matches women working in regional health with mentors from diverse sectors including business, government, philanthropy and health, to provide a holistic approach to improving career satisfaction, institutional productivity and supporting a diverse workforce in regional or resource-poor settings.