Suchergebnisse

The us national institutes of health, Fogarty International Center (NIH-FIC) has, for the past 13 years, been a leading funder of international research ethics education for resource-limited settings. Nearly half of the NIH-FIC funding in this area has gone to training programs that train individuals from sub-Saharan Africa. Identifying the impact of training investments, as well as the potential predictors of post-training success, can support curricular ***decision-making, help establish funding priorities, and recognize the ultimate outcomes of trainees and training programs. Comprehensive evaluation frameworks and targeted evaluation tools for bioethics training programs generally, and for international research ethics programs in particular, are largely absent from published literature. This paper shares an original conceptual framework, data collection tool, and detailed methods for evaluating the inputs, processes, outputs, and outcomes of research ethics training programs serving individuals in resource-limited settings. This paper is part of a collection of papers analyzing the Fogarty International Center's International Research Ethics Education and Curriculum Development program.

Background Based on the realization that Uganda is not on track to achieving Millennium Development Goals 4 and 5, Makerere University School of Public Health in collaboration with other partners proposed to conduct two community based maternal/newborn care interventions aimed at increasing access to health facility care through transport vouchers and use of community health workers to promote ideal family care practices. Prior to the implementation, a stakeholder analysis was undertaken to assess and map stakeholders' interests, influence/power and position in relation to the interventions; their views regarding the success and sustainability; and how this research can influence policy formulation in the country. Methods A stakeholder analysis was carried out in March 2011 at national level and in four districts of Eastern Uganda where the proposed interventions would be conducted. At the national level, four key informant interviews were conducted with the ministry of health representative, Member of Parliament, and development partners. District health team members were interviewed and also engaged in a workshop; and at community level, twelve focus group discussions were conducted among women, men and motorcycle transporters. Results This analysis revealed that district and community level stakeholders were high level supporters of the proposed interventions but not drivers. At community level the mothers, their spouses and transporters were of low influence due to the limited funds they possessed. National level and district stakeholders believed that the intervention is costly and cannot be affordably scaled up. They advised the study team to mobilize and sensitize the communities to contribute financially from the start in order to enhance sustainability beyond the study period. Stakeholders believed that the proposed interventions will influence policy through modeling on how to improve the quality of maternal/newborn health services, male involvement, and improved accessibility of services. Conclusion Most of the stakeholders interviewed were supporters of the proposed maternal and newborn care intervention because of the positive benefits of the intervention. The analysis highlighted stakeholder concerns that will be included in the final project design and that could also be useful in countries of similar setting that are planning to set up programmes geared at increasing access to maternal and new born interventions. Key among these concerns was the need to use both human and financial resources that are locally available in the community, to address supply side barriers that influence access to maternal and child healthcare. Research to policy translation, therefore, will require mutual trust, continued dialogue and engagement of the researchers, implementers and policy makers to enable scale up. ; UKaid

The last fifteen years have witnessed a significant increase in investment in research ethics capacity development throughout the world. We examine nine research ethics training programs that are focused on Sub-Saharan Africa and supported by the US National Institutes of Health. We collected data from grants awards' documents and annual reports supplemented by questionnaires completed by the training program directors. Together, these programs provided long-term training in research ethics to 275 African professionals, strengthened research ethics committees in 19 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, and created research ethics curricula at many institutions and bioethics centers within Africa. Trainees' leadership resulted in new national systems and policies on research ethics, human tissue storage and export, and methods of monitoring compliance with research ethics guidelines. Training programs adapted to challenges that arose due to varied trainees' background knowledge in ethics, duration of time available for training, spoken and written English language skills, administrative obstacles, and the need to sustain post-training research ethics activities. Our report showcases the development of awareness of research ethics and building/strengthening of basic research ethics infrastructure in Sub-Saharan Africa. Nevertheless, the increasing amount and complexity of health research being conducted in Sub-Saharan Africa suggests the need for continued investment in research ethics capacity development in this region. This paper is part of a collection of papers analyzing the Fogarty International Center's International Research Ethics Education and Curriculum Development program.

Abstract Background National community-based health worker (CBHW) programs often face challenges in ensuring that these remote workers are adequately trained, equipped and supervised. As governments increasingly deploy CBHWs to improve access to primary health care, there is an urgent need to assess how well health systems are supporting CBHWs to provide high quality care. Methods This paper presents the results of a mixed-methods assessment of selected health systems supports (supervision, drug supply, and job aids) for a national community case management (CCM) program for childhood illness in Malawi during the first year of implementation. We collected data on the types and levels of drug supply and supervision through a cross-sectional survey of a random sample of Health Surveillance Assistants (HSAs) providing CCM services in six districts. We then conducted in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with program managers and HSAs, respectively, to gain an understanding of the barriers and facilitating factors for delivering health systems supports for CCM. Results Although the CCM training and job aid were well received by stakeholders, HSAs who participated in the first CCM training sessions often waited up to 4 months before receiving their initial supply of drugs and first supervision visits. One year after training began, 69% of HSAs had all essential CCM drugs in stock and only 38% of HSAs reported a CCM supervision visit in the 3 months prior to the survey. Results of the qualitative assessment indicated that drug supply was constrained by travel distance and stock outs at health facilities, and that the initial supervision system relied on clinicians who were able to spend only limited time away from clinical duties. Proactive district managers trained and enrolled HSAs' routine supervisors to provide CCM supervision. Conclusions Malawi's CCM program is promising, but health systems supports must be improved to ensure consistent coverage and quality. Mixed-methods implementation research provided the Ministry of Health with actionable feedback that it is using to adapt program policies and improve performance.

This article reviews theoretical and practical approaches for setting priorities in global child health research investments. It also provides an overview of previous attempts to develop appropriate tools and methodologies to define priorities in health research investments. A brief review of the most important theoretical concepts that should govern priority setting processes is undertaken, showing how different perspectives, such as medical, economical, legal, ethical, social, political, rational, philosophical, stakeholder driven, and others will necessarily conflict each other in determining priorities. We specially address present research agenda in global child health today and how it relates to United Nation's (UN) Millennium Development Goal 4, which is to reduce child mortality by two-thirds between 1990 and 2015. The outcomes of these former approaches are evaluated and their benefits and shortcomings presented. The case for a new methodology for setting priorities in health research investments is presented, as proposed by Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative, and a need for its implementation in global child health is outlined. A transdisciplinary approach is needed to address all the perspectives from which investments into health research can be seen as priorities. This prioritization requires a process that is transparent, systematic, and that would take into account many perspectives and build on advantages of previous approaches.

BACKGROUND: The use of non-standard motorcycle helmets has the potential to undermine multinational efforts aimed at reducing the burden of road traffic injuries associated with motorcycle crashes. However, little is known about the prevalence or factors associated with their use. METHODS: Collaborating institutions in nine low- and middle-income countries undertook cross-sectional surveys, markets surveys, and reviewed legislation and enforcement practices around non-standard helmets. FINDINGS: 5563 helmet-wearing motorcyclists were observed; 54% of the helmets did not appear to have a marker/sticker indicating that the helmet met required standards and interviewers judged that 49% of the helmets were likely to be non-standard helmets. 5088 (91%) of the motorcyclists agreed to be interviewed; those who had spent less than US$10 on their helmet were found to be at the greatest risk of wearing a non-standard helmet. Data were collected across 126 different retail outlets; across all countries, regardless of outlet type, standard helmets were generally 2-3 times more expensive than non-standard helmets. While seven of the nine countries had legislation prohibiting the use of non-standard helmets, only four had legislation prohibiting their manufacture or sale and only three had legislation prohibiting their import. Enforcement of any legislation appeared to be minimal. INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that the widespread use of non-standard helmets in low- and middle-income countries may limit the potential gains of helmet use programmes. Strategies aimed at reducing the costs of standard helmets, combined with both legislation and enforcement, will be required to maximise the effects of existing campaigns.

This article provides detailed guidelines for the implementation of systematic method for setting priorities in health research investments that was recently developed by Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI). The target audience for the proposed method are international agencies, large research funding donors, and national governments and policy-makers. The process has the following steps: (i) selecting the managers of the process; (ii) specifying the context and risk management preferences; (iii) discussing criteria for setting health research priorities; (iv) choosing a limited set of the most useful and important criteria; (v) developing means to assess the likelihood that proposed health research options will satisfy the selected criteria; (vi) systematic listing of a large number of proposed health research options; (vii) pre-scoring check of all competing health research options; (viii) scoring of health research options using the chosen set of criteria; (ix) calculating intermediate scores for each health research option; (x) obtaining further input from the stakeholders; (xi) adjusting intermediate scores taking into account the values of stakeholders; (xii) calculating overall priority scores and assigning ranks; (xiii) performing an analysis of agreement between the scorers; (xiv) linking computed research priority scores with investment decisions; (xv) feedback and revision. The CHNRI method is a flexible process that enables prioritizing health research investments at any level: institutional, regional, national, international, or global.

For the poorest of our world, non-communicable diseases and injuries (NCDIs) account for more than a third of their burden of disease; this burden includes almost 800000 deaths annually among those aged younger than 40 years, more than HIV, tuberculosis, and maternal deaths combined. • Despite already living in abject poverty, between 19 million and 50 million of the poorest billion spend a catastrophic amount of money each year in direct out-of-pocket costs on health care as a result of NCDIs. • Progressive implementation of affordable, cost-effective, and equitable NCDI interventions between 2020 and 2030 could save the lives of more than 4·6 million of the world's poorest, including 1·3 million who would otherwise die before the age of 40 years. • To avoid needless death and suffering, and to reduce the risk of catastrophic health spending, essential NCDI services must be financed through pooled, public resources, either from increased domestic funding or external funds. • National governments should set and adjust priorities based on the best available local data on NCDIs and the specific needs of the worst off. • International development assistance for health should be augmented and targeted to ensure that the poorest families affected by NCDIs are included in progress towards universal health care.