Health Research Policy and Systems最新文献

{"title":"Using evidence briefs to support future implementation planning: the case of early fibrinolysis for myocardial infarction and rehabilitation for the amputee patient in Colombia.","authors":"Marcela Vélez, Viviana Vélez-Marín, Luz Helena Lugo-Agudelo, Daniel Felipe Patiño Lugo, Pamela Velásquez-Salazar, Luisa Fernanda Mesa Franco, Claudia Yaneth Vera-Giraldo, Juan Carlos Velásquez-Correa, Christine Fahim, Robert Marten, Sonam Yangchen, Sharon Straus","doi":"10.1186/s12961-026-01466-5","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s12961-026-01466-5","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite the relevance of clinical practice guidelines for health policy development, planning, evaluation and quality improvement, implementation of the Colombian national guidelines is still in early stages. The objective of this study was to develop two evidence briefs supporting future development of implementation plans.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We involved Colombian Ministry of Health representatives in dialogues about prioritizing recommendations for implementation. Two groups of recommendations were selected, and we developed two evidence briefs using the SUPPORT methodology's systematic process of searching and synthesizing evidence. One brief focused on providing early fibrinolysis when invasive therapy is not available promptly for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI); and the second brief focused on providing rehabilitation services for individuals with amputations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For the evidence brief on early fibrinolysis (EF) for individuals with a STEMI, 33 articles were included. Overall, 21 studies addressed barriers, 10 addressed facilitators, and 25 focused on strategies for implementation. For the brief on rehabilitation services for persons with amputations, 45 articles were included. A total of 23 studies addressed strategies for adherence to policy recommendations in low- and middle-income countries. Moreover, 23 studies included comprehensive care and continuity of rehabilitation services for persons with amputations or patients currently experiencing or likely to experience a disability. In both briefs, we identified common facilitators and barriers for implementing recommendations. Common barriers related to patient characteristics include living in rural areas or low socioeconomic status communities. Other barriers include the lack of clinicians' training to provide EF for individuals with a STEMI and rehabilitation services for individuals with amputations. A common implementation strategy was establishing networks integrating community facilities and hospitals, with clear healthcare pathways that facilitate navigating the health system and understanding the functions of each stakeholder.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both evidence briefs showed that in Colombia, to implement key recommendations, it is essential to improve timely access and continuity of services for populations living in rural areas and low-income settings. Evidence suggests that establishing networks integrating community facilities and hospitals might positively and significantly impact health outcomes and healthcare experience for patients with STEMI and patients with amputations who need rehabilitation services. The education sector is essential in improving the knowledge and skills of patients and healthcare providers of both conditions.</p>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":"24 Suppl 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2026-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13560190/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148929757","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Implementation and evaluation of a technical support center for the Research to Enhance the Adaptation and Implementation of Health Systems Guidelines in LMICs [RAISE] initiative.","authors":"Christine Fahim, Joshua Pratt, Amber Purewal, Leah Marsot-Shiffman, Keelia Quinn de Launay, Richelle Baddeliyanage, Larkin Davenport-Huyer, Sonam Yangchen, Azmach Hadush Gebregiorgis, Charles S Wiysonge, Andrea C Tricco, Lisa Puchalski-Ritchie, Ba' Pham, Ozge Tuncalp, Etienne V Langlois, Robert Marten, Sharon E Straus","doi":"10.1186/s12961-026-01462-9","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s12961-026-01462-9","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Capacity-strengthening initiatives for health policy and systems research (HPSR) in low- and middle- income countries (LMICs) are often designed with little consideration of LMIC stakeholder needs. We formed a Technical Support Centre to support research teams through the WHO Alliance for HPSR's Research to Enhance the Adaptation and Implementation of Health Systems Guidelines (RAISE) initiative. We describe the implementation and evaluation of the support program.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The support program was rooted in an integrated knowledge translation approach, whereby RAISE teams informed its design, content and delivery. Using mixed methods, we assessed quality of program implementation and its impact on RAISE teams' knowledge and capacity for HPSR and implementation research. Data were collected between August 2019 and November 2021.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 22 participants from six countries completed a needs assessment survey to inform design of the support program. The program included: an in-person capacity-strengthening workshop, 1:1 coaching with methods experts and virtual webinar series, discussion boards and workshops. RAISE teams perceived the supports to be of high quality. Mean scores for 8/9 research capacity outcomes improved over time; significant differences were observed in researchers' ability to develop evidence-based knowledge translation interventions (Z = -2.93, p < 0.05). Barriers to health system guideline adaptation and implementation included competing health system and stakeholder interests, lack of available data and equipment to facilitate data collection and lack of knowledge and skills among those tasked with implementing the guideline. Enablers included partnering with health system stakeholders at project inception, employing a multi-sectoral approach to implementation and building the competencies and skills of the implementation team.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Participants found the capacity strengthening program to be of high quality; participants' research capacity and skills improved over time and significant differences in the ability to develop evidence-based knowledge translation interventions were observed. Despite barriers experienced, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, RAISE teams reported that the support program strengthened their knowledge and supported them to engage diverse stakeholders in their research. Ongoing efforts to sustain capacity strengthening for health systems and HPSR implementation in LMICs are warranted.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/EF43J.</p>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":"24 Suppl 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2026-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13560173/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148929698","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Developing a strategy for identifying recommendations prioritized for implementation in the Colombian health system.","authors":"Marcela Vélez, Pamela Velásquez-Salazar, Claudia Yaneth Vera-Giraldo, Juan Carlos Velásquez-Correa, Julián Santiago Franco, Luz Helena Lugo-Agudelo, Viviana Vélez-Marín, Christine Fahim, Robert Marten, Sonam Yangchen, Sharon Straus","doi":"10.1186/s12961-026-01465-6","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s12961-026-01465-6","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Health systems guidelines (HSGs) developed by the WHO and clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) developed by the Colombian Ministry of Health can potentially support national and subnational policy-development processes. Barriers to implementation encountered when making necessary changes to the Colombian health system led to our research question: What prioritized recommendations are pending implementation in Colombia, and which require changes in health system arrangements?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A document analysis of all 58 Colombian CPGs and all 14 WHO HSG documents was performed in April 2020. We extracted information about recommendations prioritized on the CPGs/HSGs, updated status (documents were outdated if 5 years had elapsed since publication, and close to outdated if they were in the fifth year since publication), and the strength and direction of the recommendation as graded by the guideline development group. Recommendations were evaluated by two researchers to determine whether their implementation required making changes to the health system. Those changes were classified into three dimensions: governance, financial and delivery arrangements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the 71 guidelines, 958 recommendations were identified. A total of 393 (41.0%) were updated, 425 (44.4%) were outdated and 140 (14.6%) were close to outdated. Regarding the strength and direction of the recommendations, 540 were strong (56.4%), 189 were weak (19.7%) and 173 were suggested or recommended in a specific context (18.1%). Most of the recommendations were in favour of the intervention (n = 861, 89.9%), and only 97 were against the intervention (10.1%). Among the 363 recommendations from the WHO HSGs, 244 (67.2%) had not been implemented in Colombia. Of 958 recommendations, 518 (54.1%) needed a health system arrangement for their implementation: 259 in governance, 102 in financial and 503 in delivery.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We identified 518 recommendations that require change in Colombian health system arrangements. The most common change was related to availability of care, given that many of the recommendations refer to technologies/services approved and publicly funded but not widely available or accessible to different population groups. Further research may evaluate whether this strategy helps to define priorities for implementation.</p>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":"24 Suppl 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2026-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13560172/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148929792","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Co-development of a research-to-policy framework for Indonesia's health policy-making: a multiperspective approach.","authors":"Ahmad Fuady, Nico Gamalliel, Deandra Ardya Sutoyo, Kamilia Rifani Ufairah, Fona Qorina, Putri Prathiwi, Ayers Gilberth Ivano Kalaij, Abdillah Ahsan, Taufique Joarder, Mohammad Kurniawan","doi":"10.1186/s12961-026-01512-2","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s12961-026-01512-2","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Despite the global promotion of evidence-informed health policy-making, translating research into actionable policy remains a challenge across settings. While global frameworks have provided guidance, adaptation to local contexts remains limited. This study aimed to co-develop a practical, context-specific, stakeholder-informed research-to-policy (R2P) framework for Indonesia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A multilevel qualitative study (May 2024-May 2025) combined a narrative literature review, expert consultations, and cognitive debriefing interviews. Literature searches in the WHO Library and PubMed, supplemented by reference list screening were conducted to explore barriers, enablers, and steps in evidence translation. Consultations involved researchers, policy-makers (national and subnational), and civil society to capture multi-stakeholder perspectives. A follow-up round of cognitive debriefing was conducted to refine the draft framework and guidance. All sessions were transcribed and analysed thematically using the Steps for Coding and Theorization (SCAT) approach. Findings were mapped against factors identified in the WHO EIDM framework on evidence uptake to inform the development of the final R2P framework.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventeen participants contributed to framework co-development. The literature confirmed the absence of a formal R2P framework in Indonesia. Barriers included weak infrastructure, fragmented governance, low research capacity outside major centres, limited dissemination, and misalignment between research outputs and policy needs. Enablers included political commitment, knowledge-to-policy units, policy-relevant outputs, and collaborative relationships. For early researchers, policy-maker engagement, knowledge brokering, and institutional capacity building emerged as key needs. The resulting R2P framework comprises two interlinked domains: evidence generation and the policy process, highlighting continuous, multidirectional collaboration among academia, policy-makers, and communities.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The co-developed R2P framework offers a practical pathway to strengthen trust, accelerate translation, and promote inclusive, evidence-informed health policies. While tailored to Indonesia, its principles of early engagement, coproduction, contextual adaptation, and institutional capacity-building may be adapted across diverse health system settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2026-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13425871/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148630418","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Scoping review of instruments measuring organizational context in implementation studies within healthcare.","authors":"Janet E Squires, Ian D Graham, Wilmer J Santos, Ligyana Korki de Candido, Vanessa J Watkins, Megan Greenough, Alison M Hutchinson","doi":"10.1186/s12961-026-01507-z","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-026-01507-z","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Healthcare providers' use of research in practice is suboptimal. In Learning Health Systems, using the best available research evidence to guide practice is fundamental to continuous improvement. Whilst there is a growing body of evidence that context modifies the effects of implementation strategies to promote research use, knowledge on how best to measure context is lacking. As part of a larger research programme, which involved development of the Implementation in Context (ICON) framework comprising six domains and 22 attributes (Fig. 1), we conducted a scoping review to identify psychometrically sound and pragmatic instruments for measuring macro- or meso-level ICON attributes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The review was conducted in two phases: (1) identification of instruments that align with the 20 meso- and macro-level attributes in ICON and (2) assessment of their psychometric and pragmatic properties. Instruments and psychometric papers were identified through five electronic databases. The COnsensus-based Standards for selecting health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) criteria guided the psychometric evaluation. A modified GRADE approach was used to summarize the quality of the evidence for each instrument. In this paper, we report the properties of the included instruments measuring one of the macro- or meso-level attributes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 38 instruments (and assessed 169 psychometric papers) that captured nine of 15 meso-level ICON attributes; instruments measuring macro-level ICON attributes were not located. Most of the 38 instruments were rated as inadequate or doubtful (n = 31) on content validity. Using the COSMIN recommendation ratings, 13 instruments are recommended for measuring five meso-level ICON attributes: organizational climate, organizational change processes, receptivity to change, evaluation activity, and leadership. The remaining 25 instruments have the potential for use. All 38 instruments were rated to be at least adequate on pragmatic criteria.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We identified 13 instruments that measure meso-level ICON attributes that influence research implementation and meet psychometric quality criteria. Future work will include: (1) additional psychometric assessments of the 25 instruments not yet recommended for use, (2) psychometric and pragmatic assessments of instruments that assess multiple attributes in ICON, and (3) the development of instruments to measure ICON attributes for which instruments were not identified. Registration Open Science Framework, 21 June 2022, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/B2Z8K.</p>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2026-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149244344","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"3Rs principles for biomedical research in Africa: Evidence, challenges, early career researchers' perspectives, and pathways for One Health research governance.","authors":"Olawale F Olaniyan, Modou Dumbuya","doi":"10.1186/s12961-026-01514-0","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s12961-026-01514-0","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The 3Rs principles (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement) are globally recognized as a cornerstone of ethical animal research and an essential component of responsible biomedical research systems. Nonetheless, evidence on the awareness, reporting, and implementation in African research settings remain limited. This study therefore examined integration of 3Rs principles in African biomedical research by assessing existing evidence, key challenges, and pathways forward. It also explored awareness of early career researchers concerning ethical animal use and the 3Rs principles, with a particular focus on The Gambia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A two-pronged approach was used. A structured literature search of the PubMed Central and EBSCOhost databases (2001-2022) was conducted using predefined search terms and Boolean operators to identify peer-reviewed studies from African countries that explicitly reported the 3Rs principles. Also, a cross-sectional survey was administered to 80 purposively selected early career researchers and professionals in The Gambia to assess awareness, training, and institutional support for ethical use of animals in research. Data were analysed using Fisher's exact test (p < 0.05) and the phi coefficient (Φ) to examine associations between selected demographic and training-related variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven eligible studies explicitly mentioning the 3Rs were identified in six African countries. They mainly involved rodent models and focused on evaluating drug and nutrient efficacy, plant-based mitigation of toxicity, behavioural effects, antivenom evaluation, and environmental health risks. Nearly half involved transcontinental collaborations with researchers from Europe and the Americas. Survey findings showed important gaps in research ethics awareness, training, and institutional support. Most respondents (86%) were unfamiliar with the 3Rs principles, over 65% had not received formal training in research sample collection, and 63% reported absence of institutional protocols or policies governing ethical animal experimentation. Education level was significantly associated with prior training on sample collection from animals (p = 0.01; Φ = 0.341), underscoring the importance of strengthening capacity development, institutional oversight, and research governance within health research systems.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Limited awareness, reporting, and implementation of the 3Rs principles in African biomedical research point to important gaps in research capacity, governance, and ethical oversight. Strengthening institutional support, training, and regulatory frameworks are essential for advancing responsible research practices and strengthening One Health research systems. Findings from The Gambia provide valuable insights into broader African challenges and opportunities for improvement.</p>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2026-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13678922/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149220345","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"From trial site to research emerging research hub: mapping Ghana's vaccine research ecosystem, 1977-2025.","authors":"Sabastine Eugene Arthur, Gilbert Turkson, Joseph Ahia Quarcoo, Maame Ama Pentsiwaa Cudjoe, Caroline Trotter","doi":"10.1186/s12961-026-01516-y","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s12961-026-01516-y","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Ghana's vaccine research ecosystem has evolved substantially alongside national and global immunisation efforts. However, the extent and distribution of research activity across the full vaccine development continuum have not been systematically synthesised. This review maps peer-reviewed publications and institutional reports across a nine-stage vaccine development framework from 1977 to 2025, comparing patterns between the pre-pandemic (2000-2020) and post-pandemic (2021-2025) periods.</p><p><strong>Main body: </strong>Before 2020, vaccine-related research in Ghana was concentrated predominantly in downstream domains, including disease surveillance, programme implementation, and Phase II-III clinical trials, with notable contributions to malaria and pneumococcal vaccine development. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, publication output increased more than fivefold and diversified into emerging areas such as genomic surveillance, regulatory science, behavioural research, and digital health systems, accompanied by stronger leadership from domestic institutions. Despite this expansion, engagement in upstream domains, including discovery science, preclinical development, Phase I clinical trials, and local vaccine manufacturing, remains limited, reflecting persistent structural and infrastructure constraints.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Ghana has transitioned from a primarily implementation-focused setting to an increasingly active contributor to multidisciplinary vaccine evidence. Sustained investment in upstream research infrastructure, early-phase clinical trial capacity, sustainable financing mechanisms and behavioural intervention research will be essential to strengthen national vaccine sovereignty. The Ghanaian experience offers transferable lessons for other low- and middle-income countries seeking to build resilient and locally driven vaccine research ecosystems.</p>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2026-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13673764/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148548766","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Medical research barriers, facilitators, and motives in a developing country: a mixed-methods single-centre study.","authors":"Mohammad Abed, Farhang Rashidi, Mohammad Hassan Bagheri, Alipahsa Meysamie, Milad Shafizadeh","doi":"10.1186/s12961-026-01517-x","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s12961-026-01517-x","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Research engagement is essential for advancing clinical care and strengthening academic capacity. However, sustained participation is often limited by institutional and workflow constraints. This study assessed perceived research barriers and related factors at Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS) and developed and preliminarily evaluated a context-specific instrument.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A sequential, exploratory, mixed-methods, single-centre study was conducted. Qualitative interviews and focus groups informed the development of a 45-item questionnaire covering 10 domains of research barriers and motives. The final instrument was administered via an online survey, with quota-based stratified sampling across academic roles. Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The scale showed acceptable internal consistency (α = 0.85), but domain-level reliability was mostly modest (α range: 0.36-0.76), and the a priori 10-domain structure was not confirmed (CFI = 0.69, TLI = 0.66, RMSEA = 0.062, SRMR = 0.17); exploratory analysis supported five to six broader dimensions. A total of 358 participants completed the survey (mean age 28.66 ± 7.38; 62.6% male). The total questionnaire score ranged from 113 to 198, with a mean of 153.66 ± 16.24, indicating moderate-to-strong endorsement of perceived research challenges. The highest domain means were observed for data access and quality (27.01 ± 4.05), financial resources and infrastructure (23.01 ± 4.10), and authorship, ethics, and research performance (17.80 ± 2.95). Total scores did not differ by academic position (P = 0.27), but significant differences were observed in time, workload, and organizational support, as well as in skills, training, and methodological consultation (both P < 0.001). Total scores had a weak but significant correlation with years of research experience (P < 0.001) and H-index (P = 0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Perceived research barriers at TUMS are broadly endorsed and appear concentrated in modifiable institutional domains, particularly data access and quality, resource constraints, and governance-related factors. Institutional strategies that strengthen data systems, improve access to evidence, and enhance organizational support may improve the feasibility and sustainability of research engagement in similar academic medical settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2026-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13678940/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149220392","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Understanding and evaluating the impact of a multi-institutional academic partnership to reduce cancer health disparities.","authors":"Ashley Sellers, Meredith Meadows, Dana Marshall, Ashmeet Oberoi, Rebecca Selove, Emilee Ayers, David G Schlundt, Calandra G Whitted, Sarah V Suiter","doi":"10.1186/s12961-026-01496-z","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s12961-026-01496-z","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cancer health disparities remain a challenge in the USA. To address these disparities, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) launched the Comprehensive Program to Advance Cancer Health (CPACH) in 2001, funding multi-institutional partnerships to strengthen research infrastructure, create training pathways and engage communities. While evaluations of CPACH partnerships often assess single components such as education or community engagement, less is known about their long-term, systemic impact.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a qualitative study of the Meharry-Vanderbilt-TSU Cancer Partnership (MVTCP), the longest continuously funded CPACH site. In total, 43 interest holders, including faculty, students, and community advisory board members, participated in semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using an iterative inductive-deductive approach, guided by the health systems science framework and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis revealed four impacts: increased funding/financial ROI, institutional collaboration, educational and career advancement, and community outreach, education and engagement. These impacts were supported by each institution's capacities, personnel, and collaborative activities, which together generated multilevel change.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The MVTCP demonstrates how multi-institutional partnerships can create synergistic impacts that extend beyond traditional research metrics, producing systemic change in institutions, careers, and communities. Policy and practice should prioritize sustained investment in collaborative models that integrate mentorship and community engagement as structural expectations to improve cancer health for all.</p>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2026-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13377699/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148470307","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The development and utility of frameworks designed to evaluate research capacity building initiatives in healthcare settings: a methodological review.","authors":"Olivia A King, Ella Ottrey, Michele Conlin, Sze Lin Yoong, Anna Wong Shee, Emma West, Laura Alston, Joanne Porter, Catherine E Huggins","doi":"10.1186/s12961-026-01511-3","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s12961-026-01511-3","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Building research capacity in health settings is essential for improving the relevance and application of health research. Rigorous evaluation of research capacity in health settings optimizes the development, implementation and improvement of such initiatives. Cooke's 2005 framework was the earliest peer-reviewed framework to evaluate research capacity in health settings. While subsequent frameworks exist, it is not clear how they were developed and are used in practice. This review investigates the development, composition and utilization of peer-reviewed frameworks designed to evaluate research capacity in health settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This two-phased methodological review was informed by the JBI scoping review methodology. Phase 1 involved a systematic search of seven databases on 1 May 2025 to identify peer-reviewed frameworks for evaluating research capacity. Phase 2 involved a forward citation search of included frameworks using Google Scholar, finalized on 18 September 2025, to identify the number and nature of citing studies. Data extraction and narrative synthesis were informed by the review aims.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Phase 1 database searches yielded 2581 unique citations, of which 8 met the inclusion criteria. An additional framework was identified through citation searching, totalling 9 frameworks. The frameworks were developed via retrospective processes (reviews of literature and local data) or prospective methods (engagement workshops). Several were informed by earlier frameworks. Frameworks typically comprised an overarching structure, substructural components and a series of outcome indicators. Framework authors defined research capacity building in nuanced ways. Phase 2 forward citation searching of the nine frameworks revealed 881 citations. Of these, 37 citing articles met the inclusion criteria. Most (31/37) citing studies utilized Cooke's 2005 framework. Frameworks were largely used to inform data collection and analysis, and most citing authors only used only some framework components. Limitations and strengths of the frameworks related to the development process and practical application were identified by framework and citing authors.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This review facilitated new insights into the development, characteristics and utilization of frameworks to evaluate research capacity building in health settings. There are nine peer-reviewed, published frameworks, several informed by and expanding on earlier frameworks, which is essential for advancing the evaluation of research capacity in health settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2026-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13374067/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148455680","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}