Applying DOTS principles for operational research capacity building

Mentorship for operational research capacity building: hands-on or hands-off?

Mentorship is a key feature of operational research training courses run by the International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease and Médecins Sans Frontières. During the recent South Pacific paper writing module, the faculty discussed 'hands-on' mentorship (direct technical assistance) vs. 'hands-off' mentorship (technical advice). This article explores the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Our collective experience indicates that 'hands-on' mentorship is a valuable learning experience for the participant and a rewarding experience for the mentor. This approach increases the likelihood of successful course completion, including publishing a well written paper. However, mentors must allow participants to lead and take ownership of the paper, in keeping with a first author position.

What happens after participants complete a Union-MSF structured operational research training course?

SETTING

Eight operational research (OR) courses run by the International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease (The Union) and Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) for participants from low- and middle-income countries. There is a knowledge gap about whether participants continue OR after course completion.

OBJECTIVES

To determine 1) the research output of participants and their institutions after course completion; 2) the influence of OR fellowships on output; and 3) the output of non-OR fellows stratified by sex, region and staff position.

DESIGN

A self-administered e-mail questionnaire survey.

RESULTS

Of 83 participants who completed a course, 76 (92%) responded to the questionnaire. Following course completion, 47 (62%) participants completed new research projects, 38 (50%) published papers (vs. 25 [33%] who had published before the course), 42 (55%) presented posters or oral abstracts at conferences, 33 (43%) facilitated at further OR courses, 29 (38%) reviewed scientific papers, 25 (33%) secured further OR funding and 55 (72%) said their institutions were involved in OR implementation or capacity building. OR fellows performed better than non-OR fellows. Among the latter, males and participants from Asia had better output than females and participants from Africa (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The significant proportion of participants continuing to engage in OR after course completion provides encouraging evidence of the long-term value of this capacity building model.

References for scientific papers: why not standardise to one global style?

The different reference styles demanded by journals, both for in-text citations and manuscript bibliographies, require that significant time and attention be paid to minute detail that constitute a tedious obstacle on the road to publication for all authors, but especially for those from resource-limited countries and/or writing in a second language. To illustrate this, we highlight different reference styles requested by five popular journals to which operational research papers are often submitted. We call for a simpler, standardised format for in-text and bibliography reference citations, so that researchers can concentrate on the science and its interpretation rather than fonts and punctuation.