Is traumatic stress research global? A bibliometric analysis.

BACKGROUND: The representation of low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) in traumatic stress research is important to establish a global evidence base, build research capacity, and reduce the burden of unmet mental health needs around the world. Reviews of the traumatic stress literature up to 2002 showed trends toward globalization although LMIC were only marginally represented compared to high-income countries (HIC). OBJECTIVE: To examine the global nature of current traumatic stress research. In particular, we were interested in the extent to which traumatic stress research is: (1) conducted in LMIC, (2) conducted by LMIC researchers, and (3) accessible to them. METHOD: Using the databases PubMed, PsychInfo, and PILOTS, we systematically searched for peer-reviewed articles on traumatic stress published in any language in the year 2012. Out of the 3,123 unique papers identified, we coded a random sample (N=1,000) for study, author, article, and journal characteristics. RESULTS: Although our sample involved research in 56 different countries, most papers (87%) involved research in HIC, with 51% of all papers describing studies in the United States. In 88% of the papers, the author team was affiliated with HIC only. Less than 5% of all author teams involved collaborations between HIC and LMIC researchers. Moreover, 45% of the articles on LMIC studies published by a HIC corresponding author did not involve any LMIC co-authors. LMIC researchers appeared to publish empirical studies in lower impact journals. Of the 1,000 articles in our sample, 32% were open access and 10% were made available via different means; over half of the papers were not accessible without subscription. CONCLUSIONS: Traumatic stress research is increasingly global but still strongly dominated by HIC. Important opportunities to build capacity in LMIC appear to be missed. Implications toward more international traumatic stress research are discussed

Developing health systems research capacities through north-south partnership: An evaluation of collaboration with South Africa and Thailand

BACKGROUND: Over the past ten years, calls to strengthen health systems research capacities in low and middle income countries have increased. One mechanism for capacity development is the partnering of northern and southern institutions. However, detailed case-studies of north-south partnerships, at least in the domain of health systems research, remain limited.This study aims to evaluate the partnerships developed between the Health Economics and Financing Programme of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and three research partners in South Africa and Thailand to strengthen health economics-related research capacity. METHODS: Data from programme documents were collected over five years to measure quantitative indicators of capacity development. Qualitative data were obtained from 25 in-depth interviews with programme staff from South Africa, Thailand and London. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Five years of formal partnership resulted in substantial strengthening of individual research skills and moderate instituonalised strengthening in southern partner institutions. Activities included joint proposals, research and articles, staff exchange and post-graduate training. In Thailand, individual capacities were built through post-graduate training and the partner institution developed this as part of a package aimed at retaining young researchers at the institution. In South Africa, local post-graduate teaching programs were strengthened, regular staff visits/exchanges initiated and maintained and funding secured for several large-scale, multi-partner projects. These activities could not have been achieved without good personal relationships between members of the partner institutions, built on trust developed over twenty years. In South Africa, a critical factor was the joint appointment of a London staff member on long-term secondment to one of the partner institutions. CONCLUSION: As partnerships mature the needs of partners change and new challenges emerge. Partners' differing research priorities (national v international; policy-led v academic-led) need to be balanced and equitable funding mechanisms developed recognising the needs and constraints faced by both southern and northern partners. Institutionalising partnerships (through long-term development of trust, engagement of a broad range of staff in joint activities and joint appointment of staff), and developing responsive mechanisms for governing these partnerships (through regular joint negotiation of research priorities and funding issues), can address these challenges in mutually acceptable ways. Indeed, by late 2005 the partnership under scrutiny in this paper had evolved into a wider consortium involving additional partners, more explicit mechanisms for managing institutional relationships and some core funding for partners. Most importantly, this study has shown that it is possible for long-term north-south partnership commitments to yield fruit and to strengthen the capacities of public health research and training institutions in less developed countries

Análise do sistema de pesquisa em saúde do Brasil: o ambiente de pesquisa

OBJETIVO: conhecer a percepção dos formuladores de política científica, pesquisadores e usuários dos resultados da pesquisa em saúde sobre o ambiente da pesquisa em saúde no país. Método: estudo descritivo com dados obtidos por meio de questionário padronizado aplicado a uma amostra probabilística de líderes de grupos de pesquisa de instituições do Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Minas Gerais, Rio Grande do Sul, Bahia e Distrito Federal; e, amostra intencional de formuladores de política científica e usuários dos resultados de pesquisa. Questionários desenvolvidos e testados por equipe da Organização Mundial de Saúde (OMS), utilizados em 12 estudos-pilotos em países de renda média e baixa. RESULTADOS: os entrevistados consideram a motivação para a produção e utilização da pesquisa em saúde melhor em suas instituições do que no país. Os aspectos do ambiente de pesquisa considerados prioritários foram: relevância dos problemas investigados, incentivo à carreira do pesquisador e transparência no financiamento. Os aspectos mais bem avaliados foram: acesso às informações científicas, oportunidades para comunicação e publicação dos resultados e treinamento dos pesquisadores. As piores avaliações foram feitas para: salários, incentivos à carreira e transparência no financiamento. Os resultados sofreram a influência da área científica de atuação dos entrevistados, da posição como formulador, pesquisador ou usuário e dos grupos etários. CONCLUSÃO: os entrevistados avaliaram o ambiente de pesquisa em saúde no país como regular para a maioria dos aspectos analisados destacando como bons apenas o treinamento dos pesquisadores, o acesso à informação científica e as oportunidades para publicação. Há necessidade de aprimoramento de vários aspectos do ambiente de pesquisa em saúde no país.OBJECTIVE: to learn about the perception of decision-makers of scientific policies, researchers and users of health research results regarding the health research environment in Brazil. Method: descriptive study with data obtained by means of standardized questionnaires administered to a random sample of research group leaders working at institutions located in the states of Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Minas Gerais, Rio Grande do Sul, Bahia and in the Federal District; and intentional samples of decision-makers of scientific policies and users of research results. The questionnaires were developed and tested by a team from the World Health Organization (WHO) and used in 12 pilot studies in middle and low income countries. RESULTS: the interviewees consider that the motivation for health research production and utilization is better in their institutions than in the country. Among the aspects of the research environment, the following ones were considered priorities: relevance of the investigated problems, incentive to the researcher's career, and transparency in funding. The aspects that received the best evaluation were: access to scientific information, opportunities for results communication and publication, and researchers' training. The worst evaluations were given to: salaries, career incentives and transparency in funding. The results were influenced by the scientific area in which the interviewees work, by the position as decision-maker, researcher or user, and by age groups. CONCLUSION: the interviewees evaluated the health research environment in the country as regular for most analyzed aspects, considering good only researchers' training, access to scientific information, and publication opportunities. Several aspects of the health research environment in the country need to be improved

Institutional capacity for health systems research in East and Central African Schools of Public Health: strengthening human and financial resources

BACKGROUND: Despite its importance in providing evidence for health-related policy and decision-making, an insufficient amount of health systems research (HSR) is conducted in low-income countries (LICs). Schools of public health (SPHs) are key stakeholders in HSR. This paper, one in a series of four, examines human and financial resources capacities, policies and organizational support for HSR in seven Africa Hub SPHs in East and Central Africa. METHODS: Capacity assessment done included document analysis to establish staff numbers, qualifications and publications; self-assessment using a tool developed to capture individual perceptions on the capacity for HSR and institutional dialogues. Key informant interviews (KIIs) were held with Deans from each SPH and Ministry of Health and non-governmental officials, focusing on perceptions on capacity of SPHs to engage in HSR, access to funding, and organizational support for HSR. RESULTS: A total of 123 people participated in the self-assessment and 73 KIIs were conducted. Except for the National University of Rwanda and the University of Nairobi SPH, most respondents expressed confidence in the adequacy of staffing levels and HSR-related skills at their SPH. However, most of the researchers operate at individual level with low outputs. The average number of HSR-related publications was only <1 to 3 per staff member over a 6-year period with most of the publications in international journals. There is dependency on external funding for HSR, except for Rwanda, where there was little government funding. We also found that officials from the Ministries of Health often formulate policy based on data generated through ad hoc technical reviews and consultancies, despite their questionable quality. CONCLUSIONS: There exists adequate skilled staff for HSR in the SPHs. However, HSR conducted by individuals, fuelled by Ministries’ of Health tendency to engage individual researchers, undermines institutional capacity. This study underscores the need to form effective multidisciplinary teams to enhance research of immediate and local relevance. Capacity strengthening in the SPH needs to focus on knowledge translation and communication of findings to relevant audiences. Advocacy is needed to influence respective governments to allocate adequate funding for HSR to avoid donor dependency that distorts local research agenda.DFI

Building capacity for evidence generation, synthesis and implementation to improve the care of mothers and babies in South East Asia: methods and design of the SEA-ORCHID Project using a logical framework approach

Background: Rates of maternal and perinatal mortality remain high in developing countries despite the existence of effective interventions. Efforts to strengthen evidence-based approaches to improve health in these settings are partly hindered by restricted access to the best available evidence, limited training in evidence-based practice and concerns about the relevance of existing evidence. South East Asia - Optimising Reproductive and Child Health in Developing Countries (SEA-ORCHID) was a five-year project that aimed to determine whether a multifaceted intervention designed to strengthen the capacity for research synthesis, evidence-based care and knowledge implementation improved clinical practice and led to better health outcomes for mothers and babies. This paper describes the development and design of the SEA-ORCHID intervention plan using a logical framework approach. Methods: SEA-ORCHID used a before-and-after design to evaluate the impact of a multifaceted tailored intervention at nine sites across Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines and Indonesia, supported by three centres in Australia. We used a logical framework approach to systematically prepare and summarise the project plan in a clear and logical way. The development and design of the SEA-ORCHID project was based around the three components of a logical framework (problem analysis, project plan and evaluation strategy). Results: The SEA-ORCHID logical framework defined the project's goal and purpose (To improve the health of mothers and babies in South East Asia and To improve clinical practice in reproductive health in South East Asia), and outlined a series of project objectives and activities designed to achieve these. The logical framework also established outcome and process measures appropriate to each level of the project plan, and guided project work in each of the participating countries and hospitals. Conclusions: Development of a logical framework in the SEA-ORCHID project enabled a reasoned, logical approach to the project design that ensured the project activities would achieve the desired outcomes and that the evaluation plan would assess both the process and outcome of the project. The logical framework was also valuable over the course of the project to facilitate communication, assess progress and build a shared understanding of the project activities, purpose and goal.Steve McDonald, Tari Turner, Catherine Chamberlain, Pisake Lumbiganon, Jadsada Thinkhamrop, Mario R Festin, Jacqueline J Ho, Hakimi Mohammad, David J Henderson-Smart, Jacki Short, Caroline A Crowther, Ruth Martis, Sally Green for the SEA-ORCHID Study Grou

How do NHS organisations plan research capacity development? Strategies, strengths, and opportunities for improvement

Research that is integral into a 'learning healthcare system' can promote cost effective services and knowledge creation. As such, research is defined as a 'core function' in UK health service organisations, and is often planned through research and development (R&D) strategies that aim to promote research activity and research capacity development (RCD). The discussion focuses around the content of ten R&D strategies for healthcare organisations in England and Scotland, with respect to RCD. These organisations were engaged with a research interest network called ACORN (Addressing Organisational Capacity to do Research Network) that included two Scottish Health Boards, four community and mental health trusts, two provincial district hospitals, and two teaching hospitals. We undertook a thematic documentary analysis of the R&D strategies which identified 11 'core activities' of RCD. The potential for building research capacity in these 'core activities' was established by reviewing them through the lens of a RCD framework. Core activities aimed to 'hard wire' RCD into health organisations. They demonstrated a complex interplay between developing a strong internal organisational infrastructure, and supporting individual career planning and skills development, in turn enabled by organisational processes. They also included activities to build stronger inter-organisational relationships and networks. Practitioner, manager and patient involvement was a cross cutting theme. The potential to demonstrate progress was included in plans through monitoring activity across all RCD principles. Strategies were primarily aimed at research production rather than research use. Developing 'actionable dissemination' was poorly addressed in the strategies, and represents an area for improvement. We describe strengths of RCD planning activities, and opportunities for improvement. We explore how national policy and research funders can influence health systems' engagement in research

Developing capacity in health informatics in a resource poor setting: lessons from Peru

The public sectors of developing countries require strengthened capacity in health informatics. In Peru, where formal university graduate degrees in biomedical and health informatics were lacking until recently, the AMAUTA Global Informatics Research and Training Program has provided research and training for health professionals in the region since 1999. The Fogarty International Center supports the program as a collaborative partnership between Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia in Peru and the University of Washington in the United States of America. The program aims to train core professionals in health informatics and to strengthen the health information resource capabilities and accessibility in Peru. The program has achieved considerable success in the development and institutionalization of informatics research and training programs in Peru. Projects supported by this program are leading to the development of sustainable training opportunities for informatics and eight of ten Peruvian fellows trained at the University of Washington are now developing informatics programs and an information infrastructure in Peru. In 2007, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia started offering the first graduate diploma program in biomedical informatics in Peru

On-going collaborative priority-setting for research activity: a method of capacity building to reduce the research-practice translational gap

Background: International policy suggests that collaborative priority setting (CPS) between researchers and end users of research should shape the research agenda, and can increase capacity to address the research-practice translational gap. There is limited research evidence to guide how this should be done to meet the needs of dynamic healthcare systems. One-off priority setting events and time-lag between decision and action prove problematic. This study illustrates the use of CPS in a UK research collaboration called Collaboration and Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC). Methods: Data were collected from a north of England CLAHRC through semi-structured interviews with 28 interviewees and a workshop of key stakeholders (n = 21) including academics, NHS clinicians, and managers. Documentary analysis of internal reports and CLAHRC annual reports for the first two and half years was also undertaken. These data were thematically coded. Results: Methods of CPS linked to the developmental phase of the CLAHRC. Early methods included pre-existing historical partnerships with on-going dialogue. Later, new platforms for on-going discussions were formed. Consensus techniques with staged project development were also used. All methods demonstrated actual or potential change in practice and services. Impact was enabled through the flexibility of research and implementation work streams; ‘matched’ funding arrangements to support alignment of priorities in partner organisations; the size of the collaboration offering a resource to meet project needs; and the length of the programme providing stability and long term relationships. Difficulties included tensions between being responsive to priorities and the possibility of ‘drift’ within project work, between academics and practice, and between service providers and commissioners in the health services. Providing protected ‘matched’ time proved difficult for some NHS managers, which put increasing work pressure on them. CPS is more time consuming than traditional approaches to project development. Conclusions: CPS can produce needs-led projects that are bedded in services using a variety of methods. Contributing factors for effective CPS include flexibility in use and type of available resources, flexible work plans, and responsive leadership. The CLAHRC model provides a translational infrastructure that enables CPS that can impact on healthcare systems

Health Research Profile to assess the capacity of low and middle income countries for equity-oriented research

BACKGROUND: The Commission on Health Research for Development concluded that "for the most vulnerable people, the benefits of research offer a potential for change that has gone largely untapped." This project was designed to assess low and middle income country capacity and commitment for equity-oriented research. METHODS: A multi-disciplinary team with coordinators from each of four regions (Asia, Latin America, Africa and Central and Eastern Europe) developed a questionnaire through consensus meetings using a mini-Delphi technique. Indicators were selected based on their quality, validity, comprehensiveness, feasibility and relevance to equity. Indicators represented five categories that form the Health Research Profile (HRP): 1) Research priorities; 2) Resources (amount spent on research); 3) Production of knowledge (capacity); 4) Packaging of knowledge and 5) Evidence of research impact on policy and equity. We surveyed three countries from each region. RESULTS: Most countries reported explicit national health research priorities. Of these, half included specific research priorities to address inequities in health. Data on financing were lacking for most countries due to inadequate centralized collection of this information. The five main components of HRP showed a gradient where countries scoring lower on the Human Development Index (HDI) had a lower capacity to conduct research to meet local health research needs. Packaging such as peer-reviewed journals and policy forums were reported by two thirds of the countries. Seven out of 12 countries demonstrated impact of health research on policies and reported engagement of stakeholders in this process. CONCLUSION: Only one out of 12 countries indicated there was research on all fronts of the equity debate. Knowledge sharing and management is needed to strengthen within-country capacity for research and implementation to reduce inequities in health. We recommend that all countries (and external agencies) should invest more in building a certain minimum level of national capacity for equity-oriented research