A Global Crowdsourcing Open Call to Improve Research Mentorship in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Mixed Methods Analysis

Youth engagement and social innovation in health in low-and-middle-income countries: Analysis of a global youth crowdsourcing open call

Social innovation in health is a ground-up, community-engaged process that draws on the diverse strengths of local individuals to drive social change and health improvement. Social innovation may be particularly useful in low and middle-income countries to ensure effective and sustainable health solutions. The purpose of this study is to describe the findings of a global youth (18-35 years old) crowdsourcing open call on social innovations, and to identify the levels of engagement in such innovations. We organized a global crowdsourcing open call (Go Youth!) to identify and recognize youth social innovations in health and adopted both quantitative and qualitative approaches to analyze our data. For quantitative analyses, we described the socio-demographic characteristics of youth who submitted innovations. For qualitative analyses, we adopted a deductive-inductive analytic approach utilizing an adapted Hart's Ladder as a conceptual framework for our thematic analysis of participants' submissions, which comprised four levels of youth engagement: none, minimal, moderate, and substantial. The open call received 99 eligible submissions. Most participants were 23 years of age or older (90.7%), resided in LMICs (98.0%), male (64.3%), and had a bachelor's or higher degree (72.4%). Most of the submissions were written in English (93.9%), located in Africa (69.7%), and had prior implementation (60.2%). A total of 39 innovations had substantial youth engagement and qualitative data suggested that youth leadership and peer mentorship of other youth in the community were important aspects of engagement. LMIC youth developed and implemented social innovations that had evidence of impact or effectiveness in their communities, illustrating how social innovation approaches may be feasible in LMICs. More efforts should be made to identify and empower youth in these settings to spark change.

Partnering to Improve Mentorship Capacity for Ugandan Reproductive Health Researchers: Program Description and Evaluation

Mentorship is essential to health researchers in achieving their full potential and advancing public health. In most low-resource settings, there is a paucity of training on how to be a successful mentor. The Center for International Reproductive Health Training at the University of Michigan conducted and evaluated a workshop at two universities in Uganda for mentors of new reproductive health research grant awardees. The program aimed to strengthen mentors' mentorship skills and to identify ways to foster institutional support for mentoring. Mentors rated their post-training skills using a 5-point Likert scale (not skilled to extremely skilled) immediately and 3 months after the training. Ten of 19 mentors who participated in the training completed the evaluation. The majority were 41 to 50 years old, male, midcareer faculty. Immediately after the training, mentors rated themselves (mean ± SD) highest in knowledge of research ethics (4.4 ± 0.5), fostering independence in mentees (4.3 ± 0.9), and understanding the benefits of mentoring (3.9 ± 1.1). Mentors felt least confident in fostering institutional change to support mentorship (3.3 ± 0.8), communication (3.5 ± 0.5), and overcoming adversity (3.5 ± 0.8). The two most important things the mentors learned were how to appreciate and manage diversity and how they can benefit from mentorship. Barriers to mentoring that persisted after the program ended included lack of time and institutional resources. Enhancing mentorship training opportunities will foster a generation of scientists who are more supported, skilled, and productive in research, leading to better reproductive and public health outcomes in their communities.

Training in the art and science of facilitation to scale research mentor training in low and middle income countries

Advancing biomedical research in low and middle income countries (LMICs) to expand the capacity for LMICs to integrate biomedical research into their health care systems and education has been the focus of many programs in global health over the past two decades. Central to the success of these programs is effective research mentoring, characterized by academic, career and psychosocial support through culturally appropriate practices. Research mentoring is a learned skill, developed through training, mutual discussions, practice and feedback. The majority of extant training programs are designed and delivered by US partners, so the next stage in building capacity is to train facilitators within the LMIC partner institutions to contextualize and advance mentoring specifically within their cultural and institutional norms by co-developing, delivering and evaluating semi-annual research mentoring training. To this end, we describe the development, delivery and outcome evaluation of a 5-week course in the art and skill of facilitation. Care was taken to explicitly distinguish between concepts of "teaching" and "facilitation," since "teaching" is closely connected to a transmission or banking model of education, which is characterized by "top-down," hierarchical relationship. The course discussed power and positionality, themes that resonate with partners in Nigeria and Tanzania. These themes provided unique entry into deeper conversations core to advancing mentoring practice away from the traditional dyadic power structure that remains from colonization. Evaluation findings indicate significant advances in awareness of differences between teaching and facilitating, increased confidence in facilitation skills, especially in the area of structured planning and organization, as well as improved communication and interpersonal skills. All respondents felt that students in Nigeria and Tanzania would respond well to the facilitation approach conveyed during the course and they found value in participating in the course as a cohort.

A review and analysis of accountability in global health funding, research collaborations and training: towards conceptual clarity and better practice

INTRODUCTION

Accountability is a complex idea to unpack and involves different processes in global health practice. Calls for accountability in global health would be better translated to action through a better understanding of the concept and practice of accountability in global health. We sought to analyse accountability processes in practice in global health funding, research collaborations and training.

METHODS

This study is a literature review that systematically searched PubMed and Scopus for articles on formal accountability processes in global health. We charted information on processes based on accountability lines ('who is accountable to whom') and the outcomes the processes were intended for ('accountability for what'). We visualised the representation of accountability in the articles by mapping the processes according to their intended outcomes and the levels where processes were implemented.

RESULTS

We included 53 articles representing a wide range of contexts and identified 19 specific accountability processes for various outcomes in global health funding, research collaborations and training. Target setting and monitoring were the most common accountability processes. Other processes included interinstitutional networks for peer checking, litigation strategies to enforce health-related rights, special bodies that bring actors to account for commitments, self-accountability through internal organisational processes and multipolar accountability involving different types of institutional actors. Our mapping identified gaps at the institutional, interinstitutional and broader system levels where accountability processes could be enhanced.

CONCLUSION

To rebalance power in global health, our review has shown that analysing information on existing accountability processes regarding 'who is accountable to whom' and 'accountability for what' would be useful to characterise existing lines of accountability and create lines where there are gaps. However, we also suggest that institutional and systems processes for accountability must be accompanied by political engagement to mobilise collective action and create conditions where a culture of accountability thrives in global health.

Development of a research mentorship guide and consensus statement for low- and middle-income countries: Results of a modified Delphi process

BACKGROUND

Institutional research mentorship is a form of mentorship whereby institutions foster mentor-mentee relationships. Research mentorship improves research effectiveness and supports relationships. However, resources are needed in order to institutionalize research mentorship tailored to low- and middle- income countries (LMICs). The aim of this study was to develop a consensus document on institutionalizing research mentorship through a modified Delphi process as part of the practical guide development process.

METHODS

This study used a two-round modified Delphi process, which is an iterative, structured approach of consensus decision making. Each participant was asked about a series of items related to research mentorship using Likert scale questions. Agreement for each item was pre-defined as ≥80% of participants rating the item as "agree" or "strongly agree." The items that reached agreement, were then discussed during round two at an in-person conference in Ethiopia. A separate group of individuals only participated virtually. For the final consensus survey, response rates and commenting rates (participants who wrote two or more comments) were compared among conference and non-conference participants.

RESULTS

The Delphi process led to the inception of three main themes in terms of developing research mentorship: leveraging existing resources, measuring and evaluating institutional mentorship, and encouraging a research mentorship life cycle. During the virtual first round, 59% (36/61) participants who were emailed completed the survey. In the second round, conference participants had a response rate of 79% (11/14) compared to non-conference participants with a response rate of 45% (21/47). Conference participants had a 100% (11/11) commenting rate whereas non-conference participants had a 38% (8/21) commenting rate. This study achieved consensus in both survey rounds for all 35 items on the consensus document.

CONCLUSIONS

The data suggest that an in-person conference may increase participant engagement. The consensus developed through a modified Delphi method directly informed a practical guide on institutionalizing research mentorship in LMICs.

Crowdsourcing to support training for public health: A scoping review

Crowdsourcing is an interactive process that has a group of individuals attempt to solve all or part of a problem and then share solutions with the public. Crowdsourcing is increasingly used to enhance training through developing learning materials and promoting mentorship. This scoping review aims to assess the literature on crowdsourcing for training in public health. We searched five medical and public health research databases using terms related to crowdsourcing and training. For this review, the concept of crowdsourcing included open calls, designathons, and other activities. We used a PRISMA checklist for scoping reviews. Each full-text was assessed by two independent reviewers. We identified 4,071 citations, and 74 studies were included in the scoping review. This included one study in a low-income country, 15 studies in middle-income countries, 35 studies in high-income countries, and 11 studies conducted in multiple countries of varying income levels (the country income level for 12 studies could not be ascertained). Nine studies used open calls, 35 used a hackathon, designathon or other "a-thon" event, and 30 used other crowdsourcing methods, such as citizen science programs and online creation platforms. In terms of crowdsourcing purpose, studies used crowdsourcing to educate participants (20 studies), develop learning materials (17 studies), enhance mentorship (13 studies) and identify trainees (9 studies). Fifteen studies used crowdsourcing for more than one training purpose. Thirty-four studies were done in-person, 31 were conducted virtually and nine used both meeting options for their crowdsourcing events. Seventeen studies generated open access materials. Our review found that crowdsourcing has been increasingly used to support public health training. This participatory approach can be a useful tool for training in a variety of settings and populations. Future research should investigate the impact of crowdsourcing on training outcomes.

A randomized controlled trial enhancing viral hepatitis testing in primary care via digital crowdsourced intervention

Despite the availability of hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) testing in primary care, testing rates in China remain low. Social media is an inexpensive means of disseminating information and could facilitate hepatitis testing promotion. We evaluated the capacity of digitally crowdsourced materials to promote HBV/HCV testing uptake via a randomized controlled trial (identifier: ChiCTR1900025771), which enrolled 750 Chinese primary care patients. We randomized patients (1:1) to receive crowdsourced HBV/HCV promotion materials through social media or facility-based care without promotional materials for four weeks. Exposure to all intervention materials was associated with increased odds of HBV (aOR = 1.79, 95% CI: 1.09–3.00) and HCV (aOR = 1.95, 95% CI: 1.29–2.99) testing compared to facility-based care. There was a significant reduction in hepatitis stigma among intervention group participants (HBV slope: −0.15, p < 0.05; and HCV slope: −0.13, p < 0.05). Digitally crowdsourced promotion messages could enhance hepatitis testing uptake and should be considered in hepatitis reduction strategies.

Trial registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR1900025771) on September 9, 2019. Available from: http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=42788