Achieving a Robust Mentoring and Research Capacity Program in a LMIC – The BRAINS Faculty Development Model

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1851460/v1

Background: A research and training program (RTP) was carried out to build capacity of faculty and improve the culture of research in the College of Medicine, University of Lagos (CMUL), Nigeria.

Methods: Realist guided mixed methods evaluation of the BRAINS project was carried out using secondary data generated during the 5-years (2015 – 2020) of project implementation. The participants were trainee’s and mentees (45) currently faculty in the CMUL. Data was extracted from all project related documents including coursework biodata, workshop evaluation forms, quarterly project report and end of project report, submitted by the mentees, minutes of meetings and the proposal submitted for funding. It was in the form of continuous variables and prose (sentences & stories). Quantitative data was analysed with IBM SPSS statistics version 20 while the prose was thematically analysed to generate themes and narratives. Both were subsequently combined for interpretation and used to refine the initial programme theory into an evidence-informed theory.

Results: Twelve courses were deployed, 1,418 participants (47.8% males and 52.2% females) from medical, nursing and allied medical departments were trained. Eighty participants were trained on Responsible Conduct of Research and Manuscript Writing over a three year period. Comparison of the pre/post-test knowledge scores showed a positive mean difference. Thematic analysis of workshop data produced three thematic domains representing effectiveness and gains namely: cognitive, reward and behavioural. 45 trainees were awarded grants and mentored, analysis of mentees data generated 4 themes: Achieving a robust mentoring program; Benefits of the mentoring program; Resilience in research; Improving the mentoring program.

Conclusion: By contributing to the body of knowledge available on RTPs, this evaluation identified key components that contributed to the success of the project and developed a model for achieving a robust training and mentoring program which can be replicated in other LMICs.

Research

Training

Grants

Faculty

Mentoring

Several countries in the global south lack the capacity (especially in areas like genomics and biomedical engineering) to conduct the research necessary for developing innovative and locally relevant strategies to manage prevailing health related problems. Building research capacity and improving the culture of R&D requires having access to training and development opportunities in addition to professionals who will support development and changes in professional practice. [1, 2] To fill this gap, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Fogarty International Center (FIC) supports global health research and scientists and builds partnerships among research institutions and investigators in the United States and abroad including LMICs. [3, 4]

Building Research and Innovation in Nigeria's Science (BRAINS) is a 5-year (2015–2020) program built on the achievements of the Medical Education Partnership Initiative Nigeria (MEPIN) funded by the Fogarty International Centre at the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, USA. BRAINS is domiciled at the College of Medicine, University of Lagos (CMUL), in partnership with Northwestern University, Harvard University and APIN Public Health Initiatives. Pre-pandemic, the BRAINS project provided training in the following areas of research; Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and infectious diseases, neuroscience, bioinformatics and genomics, community medicine and biomedical engineering for junior faculty. The intention was to promote research and innovation, and in the spirit of inclusion and equality create avenues and platform for academics to have access and engage in cutting edge research thereby raising local standards and grooming local academics for the competitive global stage. [5, 6]

Innovation in healthcare leads to improvement in quality of care and desired patient outcomes at the individual level. Harnessing of science in healthcare through research has led to the development of technology such as artificial intelligence and precision medicine resulting in improved healthcare delivery. [7] Furthermore, multilevel and trans-disciplinary approaches to research have been suggested as a suitable and more practical means of obtaining scientific findings that can be easily transformed into improved health outcomes. It is believed that this format will produce shared conceptual frameworks that can facilitate implementation of scientific advances into practice. [9]

Public policy making process in the twenty first century is expected to be evidence based. However, the process is most often influenced by the agenda of politicians, issues of authority, power, social, economic and environmental risk considerations. [10] BRAINS project evaluation will contribute to the body of knowledge available on research training programs (RTP), this realist guided evaluation will also identify key components of RTPs that have been successful across different settings and ultimately contribute to the development of optimal and standard methods to evaluate global health RTPs. The aim of this evaluation is to examine the input indicators, process indicators, output indicators and outcomes of the project in order to determine the project impact on the project beneficiaries.

The executing institution is the College of Medicine, University of Lagos (CMUL), Nigeria. CMUL is a training centre for healthcare students and professionals made up of three faculties. The faculty of Basic Medical Sciences with eight departments; The faculty of Clinical Sciences with thirteen departments; and The faculty of Dental Sciences with five departments.

This was a mixed methods study of BRAINS grant awardees (45 mentees) and trainees. The mentees participated in some of the training workshops based on identified needs. Secondary data was collected from the project office using a data extraction form. This consisted of information amassed during the 5 years of the project (routine data collected from trainees during coursework and workshop evaluation data, quarterly project report and end of project report submitted by the mentees). It was in the form of continuous variables (quantitative) and prose (sentences). Data entry was captured on Microsoft excel, quantitative data was analysed with IBM SPSS statistics version 20. The prose component was coded and analysed thematically using the Braun and Clarke technique. The qualitative and quantitative findings were subsequently combined for interpretation.

This realist inspired evaluation is tailored after the Pawson and Tilley approach (1997), which lays emphasis on identifying what works for whom in what circumstances (context + mechanism) to achieve outcomes. The evaluation commenced with the development of an initial program theory using the BRAINS proposal, planning and execution documents to identify and define the process through which the program intended to improve the culture of research in CMUL. This initial theory uses a logic model i.e. a diagrammatic illustration of how coursework, grant funding, practice of research and pairing of junior faculty with experienced senior researchers will improve research culture and provide opportunities for locally relevant research (representation of the ideal concept of BRAINS). The essence of this is to explain the core elements of the programme while highlighting the logic of how the programme is intended to work. The next stage was to establish the progress of the programme towards set goals using secondary data supplied by the mentees and trainees that provided information on views and perspectives. This information was used to refine the initial programme theory into an evidence-informed theory by exploring the mechanisms by which mentoring as part of the BRAINS mentoring programme could impact research culture. The themes and narratives were incorporated to provide deep insights into the context within which the mechanism operated to generate predicted and unpredicted outcomes, to identify what worked or didn’t work as well as unravel the multilayer context responsible. (Fig. 5)

Course work centred on twelve courses designed to build research capacity of junior faculty, 1,418 participants (47.8% males and 52.2% females) from medical, nursing and allied medical departments were trained [Table 1 & Fig. 1].

Table 1

Distribution of participants and courses attended
S/N	Course Title	Year 1		Year 2		Year 3		Year 4		Year 5
		Number of faculty
		M	F	M	F	M	F	M	F	M	F	T
1	Responsible Conduct of Research and Grant Writing (RCR)	33	20	10	16	10	11	21	25	11	14	171
2	Genomics and Bioinformatics Workshop	39	24	21	17	17	15	19	21	00	00	173
3	e-Learning	00	00	27	14	16	14	7	19	00	00	97
4	Manuscript Writing (RCR)	00	00	24	15	22	22	13	17	7	20	140
5	Case-Based Method of Teaching	00	00	19	15	26	21	13	16	12	10	132
6	Public Health Research in Infectious Diseases	00	00	10	18	15	13	10	24	23	32	145
7	Research Design and Methodology	00	00	00	00	13	13	14	18	13	14	85
8	Bioinformatics	00	00	00	00	19	23	12	18	17	12	101
9	Mentoring	00	00	00	00	24	19	14	21	7	20	105
10	PowerPoint Presentation Skills Workshop	00	00	00	00	00	00	36	42	28	42	148
11	Data Analysis	00	00	00	00	00	00	16	25	17	17	75
12	Innovation	00	00	00	00	00	00	23	23	00	00	46

Quantitative: The Responsible Conduct of Research and Grant Writing (RCR) course was used to evaluate objective 1a (Train faculty to ensure they are equipped to conduct research & develop projects) while Manuscript Writing Course (MW) was used for objective 1b (Train faculty to produce strong manuscripts to present their findings). Eighty participants were trained on RCR and MW over a three year period. Comparison of the pre and post-test knowledge scores showed a positive mean difference except for year three RCR 1.2; 1.22; 0.67 and MW -0.3; 2.0; 4.1 (Tables 2 & 3)

Table 2

Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR)
Variable	Year 3	Year 4	Year 5
No of Departments involved	16	22	15
No of Participants	17	41	22
Mean difference pre and post-test knowledge scores	1.2	1.22	0.67
	%	%	%
Cadre Junior (Graduate Assistant, Assistant lecturer, Lecturer 2) Senior (Lecturer 1 & Senior Lecturer)	36 63	61 39	67 33
Attendance at RCR course for the First Time	47	71	52
Gender Female	53	59	52
Young faculty Age ≤ 35	32	29	19
Statements that trainees strongly agreed with
Attending the course is useful	95	81	86
Equipped to Conduct Research in-line with Best Practices	85	71	82
Understand how to Handle Conflict of Interest	75	56	77
Confident to Write & Apply for Grants	35	32	46

Table 3

Manuscript writing (MW)
Variable	Year 3	Year 4	Year 5
No of Departments involved	16	18	13
No of Participants	30	26	25
Mean difference pre and post-test knowledge scores	− 0.3	2	4.1
	%	%	%
Cadre Junior (Graduate Assistant, Assistant lecturer, Lecturer 2) Senior (Lecturer 1 & Senior Lecturer)	37 63	50 50	64 36
Attendance at RCR course First Time	33	46	56
Gender Female	57	54	72
Young faculty Age ≤ 35	20	19	24

Qualitative: Analysis of the RCR and MW workshop evaluation forms yielded three themes representing effectiveness and gains

Theme 1 - Cognitive Domain (68.8% of comments)

Trainee’s perception of empowerment revolves around knowledge to improve manuscript writing and greater understanding of abstract optimization and referencing skills.

More elaborate understanding about manuscript writing especially on how I can optimize my abstract to increase visibility. In addition, formatting references is very helpful. (Participant year4)

I have significantly learnt how to write my manuscript and submit it for publication, I learnt about article optimization for the first time, also CONSORT Statement & RCTs. (Participant year5)

Theme 2 - Reward Domain (21.1% of comments)

The trainees valued the contribution of the training to their promotion readiness self-assessment skill and ability to navigate promotion/career development hurdles

The session on scoring system by the university has really empowered me to get ready for my promotion, I learnt how to assess my promotion and the requirements involved; I acquired a new skill. (Participant year3)

It has been very educative and an eye opener towards publication, promotion and the policy of University of Lagos, understanding the process of evaluation of publications in UNILAG, I had learnt more about the basic needs for my career development. (Participant year4)

Theme 3 - Behavioural Domain (9% of comments)

The trainings were immensely helpful in motivating junior faculty to forge ahead in their career

It has motivated me to complete unfinished manuscripts and encouraged me to re-submit some that I had abandoned due to rejection. (Participant year3)

This course will help me to publish my unpublished work, I believe my next manuscript writing will be less stressful including writing a draft for peer review and overcoming my fear. (Participant year5)

Forty five trainees ranging from assistant lecturers to senior lecturers across five faculties were awarded grants and mentored to conduct quality research. (Table 4) Qualitative analysis of mentees report generated four themes: Achieving a robust mentoring program, Benefits of the mentoring program, Resilience in Research, Improving the mentoring program. (Table 5)

Table 4

Socio-demographic Characteristics of the Mentees
Variable (n = 45)	Frequency (%)
Gender
Female	23 (51.1)
Male	22 (48.9)
Faculty of Mentees
Basic medical sciences	09 (20.0)
Clinical sciences	23 (51.1)
Dental sciences	05 (11.1)
Engineering related	02 (4.5)
Pharmacy	06 (13.3)
Cadre of Mentees at the time of Award
Ass Lecturer	02 (4.5)
Lecturer 2	06 (13.3)
Lecturer 1	18 (40.0)
Senior Lecturer	19 (42.2)
Mentees with Established Collaborations
Yes	40 (88.9)
No	05 (11.1)
Mentees who had Training Outside the Country
Yes	12 (26.7)
No	33 (73.3)

Table 5

Themes and Subthemes Mentees Qualitative Data
Themes	Subthemes
A. Achieving a robust mentoring program	i. The mentoring experience was second to none ii. Building capacity of mentees through coursework iii. Funding academic research in a challenging economy iv. Grant management support
B. Benefits of the mentoring program	i. Improved research capacity ii. Networking & collaboration iii. Provided opportunities for upgrade (grantsmanship, conferences, professional development)
C. Resilience in Research	i. Challenges encountered ii. Innovative strategies developed
D. Improving the mentoring program

Theme A: Achieving a robust mentoring program

Subtheme Ai. The mentoring experience was second to none: Mentors were considered very supportive because they provided encouragement and emotional support which kept the mentees motivated in the presence of challenges described as trying times. This support inspired and improved resilience ensuring that project objectives were achieved.

The mentor taught me how to be focused, resilient and be determined to achieve my overall professional development. (R25)

The mentors were a great source of useful information, advice & guidance on a wide array of subjects including overall conduct of the research as well as highly technical scientific inputs. The advice given provided clarity and was useful in navigating thorny areas in research implementation. Areas mentioned by the mentees include manuscript drafting; obtaining approval from government institutions, ministries & agencies; lab work, analysis & interpretation of results; methodology (alternatives to face-to face data collection during COVID19 lockdown); procurement; negotiation with suppliers; data collection tools; access to/recruitment of patients. Mentoring helped the mentees focus on achievable objectives and adhere to deadlines, this was achieved through periodic meetings and regular project review.

My mentor was available ad libitum to provide guidance, good critique of the research protocol with a guaranteed feedback mechanism that ensured a wonderful academic culture and a sustainable relationship that would last into the foreseeable future. The experience gained during this symbiotic relationship has formed a strong basis on which a sterling academic framework of discipline, attention to details and advancement of analytical mind would flourish. (R39)

Subtheme Aii. Building capacity of mentees through coursework: Mentees mentioned 13 key areas of capacity building as a result of attending the BRAINS coursework namely – Grant writing, Bioinformatics, Genomics, RCR, Research methods, Manuscript writing, Data analysis, Networking & Collaboration, Mentorship, Ethics, Powerpoint presentation, Innovation and Project management. The highest five in ranking were Grant writing 20 (44%); Data analysis 13 (29%); RCR 12 (27%); Research Methods 11 (24%) and Manuscript writing 11 (24%).

The BRAINS training contributed to my ability to conduct research in the areas of project planning, resources management, drive for grants, teamwork and team management, expanded my reach in terms of manpower accessibility and has assisted me to develop both intellectual and physical project management prowess (R3)

From attendee to facilitator, I have subsequently facilitated three times in the BRAINS research methodology workshop, which is also a support for my professional development (R33)

Subtheme Aiii. Funding academic research in a challenging economy: The BRAINS project commenced in 2015 with yearly grant awards over a five year period. The amount released to the mentees was based on the budget (in naira) requested for in the proposal they submitted. Devaluation of the naira has been progressive in the past 7 years, resulting in rising costs of goods and commodities. This situation was exacerbated by the COVID19 pandemic and subsequent global lockdown. Overall all the mentees were affected by the economic downturn but the overall impact of currency devaluation (up to half) and poor access to forex by importers was felt more by mentees with laboratory based research work. Some of the mentees ran into financial difficulty during implementation and had to evolve innovative strategies to overcome funding related challenges. Four strategies were mentioned, reducing the scale of work; using personal funds; deploying funds from other grants; and negotiating further discounts with suppliers.

More than 100% devaluation occurred with the grant money which was denominated in naira. The local arm of the study which involved extraction of genomic materials was eventually shelved (R45)

Subtheme Aiv. Grant management support: The grant management office was a pillar of emotional support to the mentees, the staff provided invaluable support to the smooth conduct of research work during the COVID19 disruption. They provided encouragement and regular follow up which motivated the mentees and helped build resilience ensuring that mentees completed their research project within the specified period. Regarding practical support, the team provided assistance in the form of advice and guidance whenever required in several key areas including budgeting, documentation and monitoring of progress, support with collecting the grant fund, report writing, project timelines, navigating difficult technicalities, registering with PubMed and eras common, community access and mobilization. This interactive process built the capacity of mentees in project management skills. BRAINS project staff ensured that mentees were informed and supplied with reminders regarding other grant opportunities & applications. Access to such vital information was crucial in the harvest of grants witnessed by the mentees. Effective communication with regular feedback and prompt response to clarifications when needed ensured challenges were handled in an effective and efficient manner.

The BRAINS research office provided timely information about what was expected of me as a mentee. They facilitated smooth release of the fund approved for the study. They were passionate to get updates about the progress of the work. (R15)

The grant management office also provided additional financial support outside of the grant for mentees to present their findings at an international conference; travel to collect a Centennial award; purchased the license for statistical software thereby paving way for a more robust data analysis and reporting of research findings.

Theme B. Benefits of the mentoring program

Subtheme Bi. Improved research capacity: Conducting a funded research as a principal investigator was an exciting experience for the mentees. This research independence provided a great opportunity for learning, practicing old skills and acquiring new skills resulting in improved research capacity and research work of international standard. Learning was continuous and cut across a range of subjects. Mentees were of the opinion that the BRAINS program greatly changed how they conducted research. For faculty working on genomics related research, the knowledge gained from the training was invaluable, the exposure and skills acquired from the bench work provided a foundation that can be applied to research on genomics of Infectious diseases like HIV/AIDS, TB, and other microbial diseases endemic to Nigeria. In addition, researchers experienced the unique challenges inherent in conducting research in their various fields of specialization.

Mentees acquired skills in the following areas: Grant/proposal writing, Data analysis, Manuscript writing, Budgeting, Project management, Networking & Collaboration, Ethics, Genomics and RCR. Ranking with regards to importance statistical analysis 38%; Genomics 36%; Project management 33%; Grant writing 27% and Manuscript writing 24%. Other areas of enhanced capacity include ability to come up with research questions, conceptualise, design and conduct scientific research; research management; communication; critical thinking; innovative data collection techniques (data collection in batches); medical device product development; laboratory skills in quantitative RTPCR and Western Blot.

This mentored program has helped me to build skills and capacity that are useful in executing research while adapting to the use of resources available in a low cost environment as well as collaborating with experts from other fields to bring out the best in my research. (R24)

If I am to put everything on a rating scale, I would say that the BRAINS has improved my ability to conduct research from 40–90%. I will attribute this success to the skills acquired in grant writing from BRAINS workshop; and the fact that this BRAINS grant boosted my biosketch. (R9)

Subtheme Bii. Networking & Collaboration: Mentoring exposed the mentees to improved networking opportunities and active multidisciplinary collaboration locally and internationally. For some mentees it provided access to a wider network of diverse but relevant collaborators which facilitated access to experts in various fields, laboratory facilities and information regarding conferences.

Provided me the opportunity to collaborate successfully with experts in various fields, lead a team composed of professionals across different cadres, broadened my knowledge of biomaterials and increased my innovative capacity. The opportunity of joining an additional research team headed by one of my collaborators has resulted in co-authoring in a chapter in a biomaterials book, a manuscript and application for two other grants. The BRAINS funding opportunity has resulted in a marked improvement in my profile and opened opportunities for future collaborations. (R22)

Subtheme Biii. Provided opportunities for upgrade (grantsmanship, conferences, and professional development/promotions): Figs. 2 & 3

Going through the BRAINS mentoring program built the personal confidence of the mentees resulting in improved ability to write and execute translational and ethical research projects. The increased personal confidence made it possible for mentees to apply for international conferences and grants which were largely successful. Application of due diligence and prudence in managing scarce resources in the execution of such research projects contributed to excellent project management. Some mentees were also able to develop a research direction. Coupled with the capacity building that was a key feature of the program, at the end of the mentoring period it was a natural phenomenon for some individuals to transition from mentees to mentors.

The mentored program has ensured that I also am a mentor. I have learnt from my mentor and I am now mentoring others to get grants. One of my mentees received a grant this year. (R4)

The BRAINS Mentored-research afforded me the opportunity to conceive a fundable research grant proposal in a more organized and methodical way. I was able to submit this proposal for a K43 award and I got the award. (R20)

C. Resilience in Research

Subtheme Ci. Challenges encountered: The research environment was challenging largely due to the unavailability of some equipment, reagents and materials locally. Therefore researchers had to contend with procurement, supplies and repair related difficulties. Coupled with irregular electricity supply, the environment was unconducive for 21st century research activities. Obtaining approvals from relevant government institutions and agencies for research activities was reported to be bedevilled with time consuming bureaucracy resulting in delays in patient recruitment, data collection, app development etc. leading to missed deadlines and delays in achieving research objectives. Additionally, the COVID19 pandemic related lockdown brought a unique set of challenges to research implementation (including laboratory work; data collection; patient recruitment, procurement & supplies) and excess workload. Also, most of the researchers are healthcare workers whose workload increased tremendously during this period.

Subtheme Cii. Innovative strategies developed: Mentees dealt effectively with the challenges mentioned by proactively adopting several relevant innovative problem solving strategies for implementation as well as maximising local/international collaboration efforts. This involved extended multicentre data collection plans; using more research assistants; traveling abroad for the lab work; moving samples to more efficient centres; reducing the scale of work; assistance from colleagues and collaborators for recruitment, procurement, lab work and data collection. Researchers were of the opinion that character traits of patience and persistence came in very handy in handling the very difficult and stressful situations they had to endure.

Colleagues in the (mentions name of the lab) helped me complete the laboratory processes while I had to return to Nigeria because of the pandemic (R36)

My mentor gave access to the pathology laboratory and also put me in contact with a junior faculty in pathology with whom I was able to perform the pathology aspects of the project (R41)

Theme D. Improving the Mentoring Program

The BRAINS mentored research program was highly rated by the mentees however, areas of improvement for future programs were mentioned. The recommendations revolved around mentors and collaborations; and secondly training and technical support. Mentees were of the opinion that having one local & one international mentor per mentee was very beneficial boosting collaborative efforts especially with other laboratories and highly skilled experts. In addition to the current bouquet of courses mentees requested for additional international training in molecular and genomic studies; qualitative methods and mixed methods study design; practical laboratory training. Technical support in dealing with the bureaucracy surrounding payment to foreign suppliers by the central bank of Nigeria and approval from other relevant institutions was also considered vital.

Support in fast tracking the process of patent application & filing. Support in reducing the delays by Central Bank of Nigeria in making payments to foreign suppliers (R14)

This realist guided program evaluation integrated qualitative analysis with some quantitative measurement to assess the impact of a formal and collaborative research training and mentoring program (RTMP) on building research capacity of faculty in a sub-Saharan African country. In keeping with expectations from the funders and reports from previous Fogarty training programs, our RTMP demonstrated high return on investment and other downstream benefits.[4, 11, 12] The major success indicators for improvement in individual research training capacity include the number of manuscripts submitted to journals and subsequently published in high impact journals; acquisition of skills in conducting quality research and enhanced research capacity of the health workforce which will ultimately lead to improved research culture in the University. (Fig. 2) These performance metrics are interwoven and constitute a continuous sustainable cycle because the scholarly output will ensure access to vital information necessary for policy formulation/review and improvement of clinical practice at the institution and country wide. (Fig. 4)

Publishing research in peer review journals is an important step in sharing and disseminating credible knowledge and information. Publishing quality research shows that the grant funds have been judiciously applied and therefore an invitation for bigger grants to build on what has been achieved. At the same time publications provides evidence that the research is ethical, has been designed, carried out, analysed and written up to a standard that is acceptable to the global scientific community.[13–15] Other downstream benefits from the RTMP include multidisciplinary research collaboration with international partners, grants from other funders and career advancement of the mentees. Our finding is in consonance with reports of previous program evaluations from other LMIC reporting individual level research training outcomes namely publications/dissemination of study results, conference presentations and successful grant applications.[16–20] One of the pivots of this program was mentorship from local and international specialists. Each of the mentors contributed richly to the project and improved both the capacity of junior researchers and the research environment through the introduction of skills, expertise, use of facilities & laboratory and diverse work cultures. The major strength of BRAINS is local leadership made up of a multidisciplinary team a proven crucial determinant of sustainability of the gains of RTMP and other funded schemes in LMIC. [21–24]

Conclusion: The BRAINS project succeeded in bringing together a large number of experienced and skilled specialist locally and in the global north to mentor and build research capacity of junior faculty in CMUL. This fostered relationships at individual and institutional (Universities) level, each institution bringing a different set of skills and expertise, competences, and diverse work cultures to enrich the project. The interaction between the actors gave birth to more funded proposals and grants, publications in high impact journals, research activities and professional advancement of individuals. (Fig. 5) The findings from this evaluation will strengthen and improve the scale up of capacity building projects to other similar institutions.

Recommendations: In as much as the aim of this mentored research program was to improve the research culture of individual faculty, it is important to design tools for measuring institutional research capacity. This will allow the project team capture the effectiveness of the project by determining the degree of change at specific timelines. The COVID19 pandemic has shown that going forward research needs and capacity will have to evolve at a faster rate necessitating programs to continuously conduct surveys to identify perceived needs and gaps. This helps to ensure that the training remains relevant and at the same time, this is a great step to maintain and consolidate the research culture for sustainability at the institution; Knowledge sharing and dissemination through ongoing research methodology and proposal & manuscript writing activities at the institutional level for all PG students by the mentees will extend the gains beyond the institution for easy scale up of improvement country wide; It is equally important to build sustainable enabling environment to retain highly motivated scholars and skilled researchers.

Ethical approval and consent to participate - All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations (declaration of Helsinki). All experimental protocols for the BRAINS grant research were approved by the College of Medicine, University of Lagos Health Research and Ethics Committee. All the grantees gave informed consent to the grant office to use their data in publications and presentations.

Consent for publication - NA

Availability of Data and Materials - The data that support the findings of this study are available from the authors and the Grants Office College of Medicine, University of Lagos, Nigeria.

Request should be addressed to:

Prof Folasade Tolulope Ogunsola (PI)

Email: [email protected]

Competing interests - The authors declare that they have no competing interests

Funding/Support – Research reported in this publication was supported by the Fogarty International Center of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number D43TW010134. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Co - Funding Partners

Fogarty International Center (FIC); NIH Common Fund, Office of Strategic Coordination, Office of the Director (OD/OSC/CF/NIH); Office of AIDS Research, Office of the Director (OAR/NIH); Office of Research on Women's Health, Office of the Director (ORWH/NIH)

National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD/NIH); National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS/NIH).

Acknowledgement – Not Applicable

Authors Contributions - All the authors conceived the idea for the study; AS, ME, SCA, OF and BMA undertook data collection and analysis; AS, BMA, FTO interpreted the data; AS and BMA drafted the manuscript with critical input from all the authors; all the authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Disclaimers

“Research reported in this publication was supported by the Fogarty International Center of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number D43TW010134. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.”

Drain PK, Subbaraman R, Heimburger DC. Preserving the Fogarty International Center—benefits for Americans and the World. N Engl J Med 2017; 377: 9–11.
Heimburger DC, Carothers CL, Blevins M, Warner TL, Vermund SH. Impact of global health research training on scholarly productivity: the Fogarty International Clinical Research Scholars and Fellows Program. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2015; 93:1201–1207
Fogarty International Center (FIC). Advancing Science for global health, National
Institute of Health (NIH). Available from: https://www.fic. nih.gov/About/Staff/Policy
Planning-Evaluation/ Pages/evaluation-framework.aspx.
Kempker RR, Tukvadze N, Sthreshley L, et al. The impact of a Fogarty international center-supported tuberculosis research training program in the country of Georgia.” Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2018; 98(4): 1069–1074.
The Guardian. CMUL receives $3.2m research grant from Harvard, Northwestern varsities. Available at https://guardian.ng/features/science/cmul-receives-3-2m-research-grant-from-harvard-northwestern-varsities/ accessed 01/03/2021
College of Medicine, University of Lagos. Building Research and Innovation in Nigeria’s Science (BRAINS). Available at http://cmul.unilag.edu.ng/brains_year03/
Modern Healthcare. Driving Healthcare Innovation by Translating Science into Practice. Available at https://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20180619/SPONSORED/180619899/driving-healthcare-innovation-by-translating-science-into-practice/ accessed 01/03/2021
Rapport F, Clay-Williams R, Churruca K, Shih P, Hogden A, Braithwaite J. The struggle of translating science into action: Foundational concepts of implementation science. J. Eval Clin Pract 2018; 24(1):117-126.
Colditz GA, Emmons KM, Vishwanath K, Kerner JF. Translating science to practice: community and academic perspectives. J Public Health Manag Pract 2008; 14(2):144-9. 8.
Jason Gallo. Translating Science into Policy and Legislation: Evidence-Informed Policymaking. The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication. 2017
Heimburger DC, Carothers CL, Blevins M, Warner TL, Vermund SH. Impact of global health research training on scholarly productivity: the Fogarty International Clinical Research Scholars and Fellows Program. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2015; 93:1201–1207
Drain PK, Subbaraman R, Heimburger DC. Preserving the Fogarty International Center—benefits for Americans and the World. N Engl J Med 2017; 377: 9–11.
Zachariah R, Tayler-Smith K, Ngamvithayapong-Yana J, Ota M, Murakami K, Ohkado A. The published research paper: is it an important indicator of successful operational research at programme level? Trop Med Int Health. 2010; 15(11):1274-7
Comeau DL, Mishkin K, Tukvadze N, Avaliani Z, Kempker RR, Sthreshley L et al. Mentoring in Global Health: formative evaluation of tuberculosis research training programs in Ethiopia and Georgia. The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene. 2018; 99(3):565-77.
Heimburger DC, Carothers CL, Blevins M, Warner TL, Vermund SH et al. Impact of global health research training on scholarly productivity: The Fogarty International Clinical Research Scholars and Fellows Program.” Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2015; 93: 1201–1207.
Vicente-Crespo M, Agunbiade O, Eyers J, Thorogood M, Fonn S. Institutionalizing research capacity strengthening in LMICs: A systematic review and meta-synthesis. AAS Open Research. 2020; 3:43 doi: 10.12688/aasopenres.13116.3
Ali MM, Haskins L, John V, Hatløy A, Luthuli S, Mapumulo S et al. Establishing a postgraduate programme in nutritional epidemiology to strengthen resource capacity, academic leadership and research in the democratic republic of Congo. BMC medical education. 2021; 21(1):1-1.
Noormahomed EV, Mandane A, Cuambe A, Rodrigues MA, Noormahomed S, Carrilho C et al. Design and Implementation of Postgraduate Programs in Health in a Resource-Limited Setting in Mozambique (The Lúrio University). Advances in Medical Education and Practice. 2021; 12:399.
Noormahomed EV, Mocumbi AO, Ismail M, Carrilho C, Patel S, Nguenha A. et al The medical education partnership initiative effect on increasing health professions education and research capacity in Mozambique. Annals of global health. 2018; 84(1):47.
Horwood C, Mapumulo S, Haskins L, John V, Luthuli S, Tylleskär T et al. A North–South-South partnership in higher education to develop health research capacity in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: the challenge of finding a common language. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2021; 19(1):1-3.
Hakim JG, Chidzonga MM, Borok MZ, Nathoo KJ, Matenga J, Havranek E et al. Medical Education Partnership Initiative (MEPI) in Zimbabwe: Outcomes and Challenges. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2018; 6(1):82-92.
Bates I, Boyd A, Smith H, Donald C. A practical and systematic approach to organisational capacity strengthening for research in the health sector in Africa. Health Res Policy Syst. 2014; 12(1): 11.
Torondel B, Balls E, Chisenga CC, Save K, Elialilia O, Sheillah S. Experiences of capacity strengthening in sanitation and hygiene research in Africa and Asia: The SHARE Research Consortium. Health Res Policy Syst. 2019; 17(1): 77.
Noormahomed EV, Carrilhod C, Ismaild M, Noomahomed S, Nguenha A, Benson CA. The Medical Education Partnership Initiative (MEPI), a collaborative paradigm for institutional and human resources capacity building between high- and low- and middle-income countries: The Mozambique experience. Glob Health Action. 2017; 10(1): 1272879.

No competing interests reported.

Achieving a Robust Mentoring and Research Capacity Program in a LMIC – The BRAINS Faculty Development Model

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Methods

Results

Theme A: Achieving a robust mentoring program

Theme B. Benefits of the mentoring program

Discussion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1