Figure - available via license: CC BY-NC
Content may be subject to copyright.
of publications for CTN's international postdoctoral fellows who have completed their fellowship (n=6)
Source publication
As a response to the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) epidemic and part of Canadian Institutes for Health Research’s mandate to support international health research capacity building, the Canadian Institutes for Health Research Canadian HIV Trial Network (CTN) developed an international postdoctoral fellowship award under the CTN’s Postdoctoral...
Context in source publication
Citations
... He contributed to building capacity in HIV research in Africa through workshops and also helped outline guidance for early career health researchers [4,5]. He was part of a network of early career researchers supported by the Canadian HIV Trials Network that played an important role in building HIV research capacity on the African continent [6]. ...
Introduction
Research mentorship is critical for advancing science, but there are few practical strategies for cultivating mentorship in health research resource-limited settings. WHO/TDR Global commissioned a group to develop a practical guide on research mentorship. This global qualitative evidence synthesis included data from a crowdsourcing open call and scoping review to identify and propose strategies to enhance research mentorship in low/middle-income country (LMIC) institutions.
Methods
The crowdsourcing open call used methods recommended by WHO/TDR and solicited descriptions of strategies to enhance research mentorship in LMICs. The scoping review used the Cochrane Handbook and predefined the approach in a protocol. We extracted studies focused on enhancing health research mentorship in LMICs. Textual data describing research mentorship strategies from the open call and studies from the scoping review were coded into themes. The quality of evidence supporting themes was assessed using the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research approach.
Results
The open call solicited 46 practical strategies and the scoping review identified 77 studies. We identified the following strategies to enhance research mentorship: recognising mentorship as an institutional responsibility that should be provided and expected from all team members (8 strategies, 15 studies; moderate confidence); leveraging existing research and training resources to enhance research mentorship (15 strategies, 49 studies; moderate confidence); digital tools to match mentors and mentees and sustain mentorship relations over time (14 strategies, 11 studies; low confidence); nurturing a culture of generosity so that people who receive mentorship then become mentors to others (7 strategies, 7 studies; low confidence); peer mentorship defined as informal and formal support from one researcher to another who is at a similar career stage (16 strategies, 12 studies; low confidence).
Interpretation
Research mentorship is a collective institutional responsibility, and it can be strengthened in resource-limited institutions by leveraging already existing resources. The evidence from the crowdsourcing open call and scoping review informed a WHO/TDR practical guide. There is a need for more formal research mentorship programmes in LMIC institutions.
Objective:
The objective of this scoping review was to explore and synthesize the available literature on health research mentorship in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
Introduction:
Research mentorship is broadly considered a useful strategy to improve research capacities and research outputs. Existing literature and guidance on research mentorship have focused on high-income countries and assumed resource-rich environments. Despite the successful endeavors to improve health research capacity in LMICs, the strategies that work best under different circumstances are poorly understood. There is a need to map and understand the evidence on health research mentorship in the context of LMICs.
Inclusion criteria:
Sources that reported existing practices, barriers, and mitigation strategies related to health research mentorship in LMICs were included.
Methods:
We searched for published and unpublished studies and reports written in English, Spanish, or Portuguese. The search strategy was not limited by search dates and the last search was conducted on January 28, 2022. The databases searched included MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and JBI Evidence Synthesis. We also searched for gray literature in a selection of websites and digital repositories. The JBI scoping review methodology was used.
Results:
A total of 77 studies and reports were included in the review. The majority of the papers were from Africa (n=28). Others were from Americas (n=7), South East Asia (n=4), East Mediterranean (n=2), and Western Pacific (n=2). The remaining studies were from LMICs that included at least two regional offices. Most of the mentorship projects (n=55) were initiated and funded by institutions from high-income countries. The first authors of 41 papers were primarily affiliated from LMICs. The findings were categorized under a description of research mentorship practices, barriers related to research mentorship, and suggested mitigation strategies. Deliverable-driven training using intensive hands-on mentorship and ongoing peer mentorship programs were some of the non-regular, non-institutionalized approaches used to improve research capacity for junior researchers in LMICs. None of the included papers focused on institutional components of research mentorship in LMICs. The barriers to research mentorship activities in LMICs included lack of clarity on mentorship, cultural variations, unbalanced power dynamics, socio-political influences, language barriers, lack of experienced mentors, and limited local funding. Institutionalizing research mentorship, adapting mentoring methodologies relying on local resources, and addressing and respecting diversity in mentorship programs were among the main strategies identified to effectively implement research mentorship in LMICs.
Conclusions:
Research mentorship initiatives and practices are limited in LMICs. Few available practices are introduced by researchers and research institutions from high-income countries and yet not institutionalized. The identified existing practices, barriers, and facilitators on health research mentorship could help the design, implementation, and evaluation of programs to institutionalize health research mentorship in LMICs.
Introduction: Research mentorship is critical for advancing science, but there are few practical strategies for cultivating research mentorship in resource-limited settings. WHO/TDR Global commissioned a group to develop a practical guide on research mentorship. This global qualitative evidence synthesis included data from a crowdsourcing open call and scoping review to identify strategies to enhance research mentorship in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) institutions.
Methods: The crowdsourcing open call used methods recommended by WHO/TDR and solicited descriptions of strategies to enhance research mentorship in LMICs. The scoping review used the Cochrane Handbook and pre-defined the approach in a protocol. We extracted studies focused on enhancing research mentorship in LMICs. Textual data describing research mentorship strategies from the open call and studies from the scoping review were coded into themes. The quality of evidence supporting themes was assessed using the CERQUAL approach.
Results: The open call solicited 123 practical strategies and the scoping review identified 73 studies. We identified three broad trends related to engaging institutions across the life cycle of research mentorship, leveraging existing resources for research and training to expand research mentorship, and strengthening monitoring and evaluation of research mentorship programs. We identified the following strategies to enhance research mentorship: recognizing mentorship as an institutional responsibility that should be provided and expected from all team members (8 strategies, 15 studies; moderate confidence); leveraging existing research and training resources to enhance research mentorship (15 strategies, 49 studies; moderate confidence); digital tools to match mentors and mentees and sustain mentorship relations over time (14 strategies, 11 studies; low confidence); nurturing a culture of generosity so that people who receive mentorship then become mentors to others (7 strategies, 7 studies; low confidence); peer mentorship defined as informal and formal support from one researcher to another who is at a similar career stage (16 strategies, 12 studies; low confidence).
Interpretation: Research mentorship can be strengthened in resource-limited institutions. The evidence from this open call and scoping review informed a WHO/TDR practical guide. More research mentorship programs are needed in LMIC institutions.
