Cargando…

Indicators for tracking programmes to strengthen health research capacity in lower- and middle-income countries: a qualitative synthesis

BACKGROUND: The monitoring and evaluation of health research capacity strengthening (health RCS) commonly involves documenting activities and outputs using indicators or metrics. We sought to catalogue the types of indicators being used to evaluate health RCS and to assess potential gaps in quality...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cole, Donald C, Boyd, Alan, Aslanyan, Garry, Bates, Imelda
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3999501/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24725961
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-12-17
_version_ 1782313505349697536
author Cole, Donald C
Boyd, Alan
Aslanyan, Garry
Bates, Imelda
author_facet Cole, Donald C
Boyd, Alan
Aslanyan, Garry
Bates, Imelda
author_sort Cole, Donald C
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The monitoring and evaluation of health research capacity strengthening (health RCS) commonly involves documenting activities and outputs using indicators or metrics. We sought to catalogue the types of indicators being used to evaluate health RCS and to assess potential gaps in quality and coverage. METHODS: We purposively selected twelve evaluations to maximize diversity in health RCS, funders, countries, and approaches to evaluation. We explored the quality of the indicators and extracted them into a matrix across individual, institutional, and national/regional/network levels, based on a matrix in the ESSENCE Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation framework. We synthesized across potential impact pathways (activities to outputs to outcomes) and iteratively checked our findings with key health RCS evaluation stakeholders. RESULTS: Evaluations varied remarkably in the strengths of their evaluation designs. The validity of indicators and potential biases were documented in a minority of reports. Indicators were primarily of activities, outputs, or outcomes, with little on their inter-relationships. Individual level indicators tended to be more quantitative, comparable, and attentive to equity considerations. Institutional and national–international level indicators were extremely diverse. Although linkage of activities through outputs to outcomes within evaluations was limited, across the evaluations we were able to construct potential pathways of change and assemble corresponding indicators. CONCLUSIONS: Opportunities for improving health RCS evaluations include work on indicator measurement properties and development of indicators which better encompass relationships with knowledge users. Greater attention to evaluation design, prospective indicator measurement, and systematic linkage of indicators in keeping with theories of change could provide more robust evidence on outcomes of health RCS.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3999501
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-39995012014-04-26 Indicators for tracking programmes to strengthen health research capacity in lower- and middle-income countries: a qualitative synthesis Cole, Donald C Boyd, Alan Aslanyan, Garry Bates, Imelda Health Res Policy Syst Research BACKGROUND: The monitoring and evaluation of health research capacity strengthening (health RCS) commonly involves documenting activities and outputs using indicators or metrics. We sought to catalogue the types of indicators being used to evaluate health RCS and to assess potential gaps in quality and coverage. METHODS: We purposively selected twelve evaluations to maximize diversity in health RCS, funders, countries, and approaches to evaluation. We explored the quality of the indicators and extracted them into a matrix across individual, institutional, and national/regional/network levels, based on a matrix in the ESSENCE Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation framework. We synthesized across potential impact pathways (activities to outputs to outcomes) and iteratively checked our findings with key health RCS evaluation stakeholders. RESULTS: Evaluations varied remarkably in the strengths of their evaluation designs. The validity of indicators and potential biases were documented in a minority of reports. Indicators were primarily of activities, outputs, or outcomes, with little on their inter-relationships. Individual level indicators tended to be more quantitative, comparable, and attentive to equity considerations. Institutional and national–international level indicators were extremely diverse. Although linkage of activities through outputs to outcomes within evaluations was limited, across the evaluations we were able to construct potential pathways of change and assemble corresponding indicators. CONCLUSIONS: Opportunities for improving health RCS evaluations include work on indicator measurement properties and development of indicators which better encompass relationships with knowledge users. Greater attention to evaluation design, prospective indicator measurement, and systematic linkage of indicators in keeping with theories of change could provide more robust evidence on outcomes of health RCS. BioMed Central 2014-04-12 /pmc/articles/PMC3999501/ /pubmed/24725961 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-12-17 Text en Copyright © 2014 Cole et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. 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.
spellingShingle Research
Cole, Donald C
Boyd, Alan
Aslanyan, Garry
Bates, Imelda
Indicators for tracking programmes to strengthen health research capacity in lower- and middle-income countries: a qualitative synthesis
title Indicators for tracking programmes to strengthen health research capacity in lower- and middle-income countries: a qualitative synthesis
title_full Indicators for tracking programmes to strengthen health research capacity in lower- and middle-income countries: a qualitative synthesis
title_fullStr Indicators for tracking programmes to strengthen health research capacity in lower- and middle-income countries: a qualitative synthesis
title_full_unstemmed Indicators for tracking programmes to strengthen health research capacity in lower- and middle-income countries: a qualitative synthesis
title_short Indicators for tracking programmes to strengthen health research capacity in lower- and middle-income countries: a qualitative synthesis
title_sort indicators for tracking programmes to strengthen health research capacity in lower- and middle-income countries: a qualitative synthesis
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3999501/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24725961
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-12-17
work_keys_str_mv AT coledonaldc indicatorsfortrackingprogrammestostrengthenhealthresearchcapacityinlowerandmiddleincomecountriesaqualitativesynthesis
AT boydalan indicatorsfortrackingprogrammestostrengthenhealthresearchcapacityinlowerandmiddleincomecountriesaqualitativesynthesis
AT aslanyangarry indicatorsfortrackingprogrammestostrengthenhealthresearchcapacityinlowerandmiddleincomecountriesaqualitativesynthesis
AT batesimelda indicatorsfortrackingprogrammestostrengthenhealthresearchcapacityinlowerandmiddleincomecountriesaqualitativesynthesis