Strengthening research management and support services in sub-Saharan African universities and research institutions.

Background: International development partners and research councils are increasingly funding research management and support (RMS) capacity strengthening initiatives in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) as part of a broader investment in strengthening national and regional research systems.  However, the evidence-base to inform RMS capacity strengthening initiatives is limited at present. This research note presents a synthesis of 28 RMS capacity assessments completed in 25 universities/research institutions from across 15 SSA countries between 2014 and 2018.  Methods: All 28 capacity assessments were completed following a standardised methodology consisting of semi-structured interviews conducted with research and research support staff at the respective institution as well as document reviews and observation of onsite facilities. Data were extracted from the 28 reports detailing the findings of each assessment according to a framework synthesis approach. Results: In total, 13 distinct capacity gap categories emerged from across the 28 RMS capacity assessment reports.  Almost all the institutions assessed faced multiple gaps in RMS capacity within and across each of these 13 categories. The 13 categories were not independent of each other and were often closely inter-connected. Commonalities were also evident across multiple categories, the two most obvious of which were severe fiscal constraints and the often-complex bureaucracy of the institutional operating environment. Conclusions: The synthesis findings reveal multiple, commonly shared RMS capacity gaps in universities and research institutions across SSA. No single intervention type, or focus, would be sufficient to strengthen capacity across all 13 areas; rather, what is needed to facilitate a significant shift in RMS capacity within such SSA universities and research institutions is a combination of interventions, consisting of differing levels of cost and complexity, variously led (or supported) by both internal and external actors

Knowledge translation and evidence generation to increase the impact of vector control in Burkina Faso, Cameroon and Malawi

Lack of context-specific evidence and inadequate evidence-use for decision-making contribute to poor health. This paper reports on our work aimed at addressing the knowledge translation (KT) gap between evidence generators and users. We present our experiences of strengthening KT via technical advisory groups (TAGs) in parallel with increasing evidence generation through research fellowships and operational research. Vector-borne diseases (VBDs) impose substantial health and economic burdens in sub-Saharan Africa despite being preventable with vector control. The Partnership for Increasing the Impact of Vector Control aimed to reduce the burden of VBDs in Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Malawi, and at regional and global levels. TAGs can promote evidence-use in policy and practice by engaging relevant stakeholders in both research and policy processes. TAGs and related activities are best facilitated by a coordinator with skills in research and policy. Contextual factors should influence the design and governance of TAGs, which will likely evolve over time. Relevant national stakeholders should be included in TAGs and be actively involved in developing research agendas to increase the relevance and acceptability of research findings for decision-making. The countries present three differing contexts with longer-term research and evaluation necessary to draw lessons on impact

Factors affecting African postdoctoral researcher capacity development within ‘learn-by-doing’ international research partnerships: findings from the ‘Partnership for Increasing the Impact of Vector Control (PIIVeC)’

Introduction: The Partnership to Increase the Impact of Vector Control sought to develop the research and leadership capacity of 10 African postdoctoral vector borne disease scientists via a ‘learn-by-doing’ approach. We identified factors that either supported or hindered their development and, drawing on this information, determined key lessons for future programmes with similar objectives. Methods: A longitudinal qualitative study encompassing focus group discussions and semi structured interviews conducted with the cohort of African postdoctoral fellows, programme leadership, supervisory and research support staff (N=28). Data analysis was informed by a general inductive approach. Results: Numerous supportive and hindering factors were identified. Supportive factors were primarily structural or attitudinal in nature, whereas hindering factors were primarily operational or contextual. None of the supporting or hindering factors were specific to vectorborne disease research. Four key lessons for future programme implementation emerged, including: the value in exposing postdoctoral fellows to a diverse work-mix and training-mix to improve understanding of the broad skillset needed for scientific career advancement; recognising and managing the potentially competing interests of different partnership members to ensure everyone benefits from participation; ensuring equity of opportunity and rewarding engagement; and ensuring flexibility in support provision. Conclusion: Our study highlights numerous factors that may be readily incorporated into early career researcher capacity strengthening initiatives based on a learn-by-doing approach. Many of these factors are supported by a growing weight of evidence and would be appropriate to research capacity strengthening programmes both within and outside of a vector borne disease context