ACE and non-ACE pathways in the renal vascular response to RAS interruption in type 1 diabetes mellitus

ACE and non-ACE pathways in the renal vascular response to RAS interruption in type 1 diabetes mellitus.BackgroundThe enormous contribution of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) interruption with ACE (angiotensin-converting enzyme) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) in the treatment of diabetic nephropathy has led to interest in the factors involved in angiotensin II (Ang II) generation. In normal subjects, RAS interruption using an ARB produced a 50% greater renal plasma flow (RPF) rise than with an ACE inhibitor, suggesting a substantial contribution of non-ACE pathways. Moreover, immunohistochemistry studies in kidneys of overtly proteinuric diabetic subjects showed up-regulation of chymase, an alternative Ang II-generating enzyme. Our aim was to determine the degree to which the non-ACE pathways contribute to RAS activation in type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM).MethodsType 1DM patients (N = 37, 14 M/23 F; age 31 ± 2 years; DM duration 16 ± 1.7 years; HbA1c 7.7.0 ± 0.3%) were studied on a high-salt diet. They received captopril 25mg po one day and candesartan 16mg po the next day. RPF and glomerular filtration rate (GFR) were measured before and up to 4 hours after drug administration.ResultsBoth captopril and candesartan induced a significant rise in RPF (baseline vs. peak <0.0001 for both), and the rise was concordant for the 2 drugs (r = 0.77,P < 0.001). However, the RPF responses were not significantly different between the 2 drugs (captopril 72 ± 11mL/min/1.73m2, candesartan 75 ± 12,P = 0.841).ConclusionIn predominantly normoalbuminuric, normotensive type 1 DM, activation of the intrarenal RAS reflects a mechanism involving primarily the classic ACE pathway

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

Context-led capacity building in time of crisis: fostering non-communicable diseases (NCD) research skills in the Mediterranean Middle East and North Africa.

BACKGROUND: This paper examines one EC-funded multinational project (RESCAP-MED), with a focus on research capacity building (RCB) concerning non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in the Mediterranean Middle East and North Africa. By the project's end (2015), the entire region was engulfed in crisis. OBJECTIVE: Designed before this crisis developed in 2011, the primary purpose of RESCAP-MED was to foster methodological skills needed to conduct multi-disciplinary research on NCDs and their social determinants. RESCAP-MED also sought to consolidate regional networks for future collaboration, and to boost existing regional policy engagement in the region on the NCD challenge. This analysis examines the scope and sustainability of RCB conducted in a context of intensifying political turmoil. METHODS: RESCAP-MED linked two sets of activities. The first was a framework for training early- and mid-career researchers through discipline-based and writing workshops, plus short fellowships for sustained mentoring. The second integrated public-facing activities designed to raise the profile of the NCD burden in the region, and its implications for policymakers at national level. Key to this were two conferences to showcase regional research on NCDs, and the development of an e-learning resource (NETPH). RESULTS: Seven discipline-based workshops (with 113 participants) and 6 workshops to develop writing skills (84 participants) were held, with 18 fellowship visits. The 2 symposia in Istanbul and Beirut attracted 280 participants. Yet the developing political crisis tagged each activity with a series of logistical challenges, none of which was initially envisaged. The immediacy of the crisis inevitably deflected from policy attention to the challenges of NCDs. CONCLUSIONS: This programme to strengthen research capacity for one priority area of global public health took place as a narrow window of political opportunity was closing. The key lessons concern issues of sustainability and the paramount importance of responsively shaping a context-driven RCB

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

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

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

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

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