23
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Tools and instruments for needs assessment, monitoring and evaluation of health research capacity development activities at the individual and organizational level: a systematic review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          In the past decades, various frameworks, methods, indicators, and tools have been developed to assess the needs as well as to monitor and evaluate (needs assessment, monitoring and evaluation; “NaME”) health research capacity development (HRCD) activities. This systematic review gives an overview on NaME activities at the individual and organizational level in the past 10 years with a specific focus on methods, tools and instruments. Insight from this review might support researchers and stakeholders in systemizing future efforts in the HRCD field.

          Methods

          A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed and Google Scholar. Additionally, the personal bibliographies of the authors were scanned. Two researchers independently reviewed the identified abstracts for inclusion according to previously defined eligibility criteria. The included articles were analysed with a focus on both different HRCD activities as well as NaME efforts.

          Results

          Initially, the search revealed 700 records in PubMed, two additional records in Google Scholar, and 10 abstracts from the personal bibliographies of the authors. Finally, 42 studies were included and analysed in depth. Findings show that the NaME efforts in the field of HRCD are as complex and manifold as the concept of HRCD itself. NaME is predominately focused on outcome evaluation and mainly refers to the individual and team levels.

          Conclusion

          A substantial need for a coherent and transparent taxonomy of HRCD activities to maximize the benefits of future studies in the field was identified. A coherent overview of the tools used to monitor and evaluate HRCD activities is provided to inform further research in the field.

          Related collections

          Most cited references61

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Building capacity in health research in the developing world.

          Strong national health research systems are needed to improve health systems and attain better health. For developing countries to indigenize health research systems, it is essential to build research capacity. We review the positive features and weaknesses of various approaches to capacity building, emphasizing that complementary approaches to human resource development work best in the context of a systems and long-term perspective. As a key element of capacity building, countries must also address issues related to the enabling environment, in particular: leadership, career structure, critical mass, infrastructure, information access and interfaces between research producers and users. The success of efforts to build capacity in developing countries will ultimately depend on political will and credibility, adequate financing, and a responsive capacity-building plan that is based on a thorough situational analysis of the resources needed for health research and the inequities and gaps in health care. Greater national and international investment in capacity building in developing countries has the greatest potential for securing dynamic and agile knowledge systems that can deliver better health and equity, now and in the future.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Description, justification and clarification: a framework for classifying the purposes of research in medical education.

            Authors have questioned the degree to which medical education research informs practice and advances the science of medical education. This study aims to propose a framework for classifying the purposes of education research and to quantify the frequencies of purposes among medical education experiments. We looked at articles published in 2003 and 2004 in Academic Medicine, Advances in Health Sciences Education, American Journal of Surgery, Journal of General Internal Medicine, Medical Education and Teaching and Learning in Medicine (1459 articles). From the 185 articles describing education experiments, a random sample of 110 was selected. The purpose of each study was classified as description ('What was done?'), justification ('Did it work?') or clarification ('Why or how did it work?'). Educational topics were identified inductively and each study was classified accordingly. Of the 105 articles suitable for review, 75 (72%) were justification studies, 17 (16%) were description studies, and 13 (12%) were clarification studies. Experimental studies of assessment methods (5/6, 83%) and interventions aimed at knowledge and attitudes (5/28, 18%) were more likely to be clarification studies than were studies addressing other educational topics (< 8%). Clarification studies are uncommon in experimental studies in medical education. Studies with this purpose (i.e. studies asking: 'How and why does it work?') are needed to deepen our understanding and advance the art and science of medical education. We hope that this framework stimulates education scholars to reflect on the purpose of their inquiry and the research questions they ask, and to strive to ask more clarification questions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Logic models: a tool for telling your programs performance story

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                johanna.huber@med.uni-muenchen.de
                nepalsushil88@gmail.com
                dabauer@med.lmu.de
                insa.wessels@hu-berlin.de
                martin.fischer@med.uni-muenchen.de
                claudia.kiessling@mhb-fontane.de
                Journal
                Health Res Policy Syst
                Health Res Policy Syst
                Health Research Policy and Systems
                BioMed Central (London )
                1478-4505
                21 December 2015
                21 December 2015
                2015
                : 13
                : 80
                Affiliations
                [ ]Institut für Didaktik und Ausbildungsforschung in der Medizin, Klinikum der Universität München, Ziemssenstraße 1, 80336 Munich, Germany
                [ ]bologna.lab, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Hausvogteiplatz 5-7, 10117 Berlin, Germany
                [ ]Medizinische Hochschule Brandenburg Theodor Fontane, Fehrbelliner Straße 38, 16816 Neuruppin, Germany
                Article
                70
                10.1186/s12961-015-0070-3
                4687225
                26691766
                b10da31e-51f2-44f7-a3f4-80c068564eb9
                © Huber et al. 2015

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 23 July 2015
                : 7 December 2015
                Categories
                Review
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2015

                Health & Social care
                health research capacity development,individual level,monitoring and evaluation,needs assessment,organizational level,tools

                Comments

                Comment on this article