Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: In many low and middle-income countries (LMIC), the production and use of evidence syntheses to inform policy-making and practice is not widespread. One of the main reasons for this is the low capacity in many LMIC to synthesise research evidence. The Global Evidence Synthesis Initiative (GESI) was launched recently to address this capacity gap. The goal of GESI is to enhance the capacity of evidence synthesis centers in LMIC to undertake multidisciplinary research syntheses. GESI has built a network of 37 established evidence synthesis centers from 24 LMIC to enhance south-south collaboration and encourage knowledge sharing and experience.
Objectives: To identify the needs of the GESI Network members in order to tailor capacity building activities and link members to potential funders.
Methods: A qualitative study was conducted with the Network members. Using GoToMeeting, the GESI Secretariat conducted one-on-one interviews with each centre in the GESI Network to assess needs in capacity building regarding: conducting evidence synthesis, knowledge translation, working on cross-sectoral projects, engagement with policy-makers, and other categories. The interviews were transcribed and underwent coding and thematic analysis to identify main needs.
Results: Four main themes emerged: context, current successes and challenges, perceived needs and specific ways in which GESI could contribute to addressing them. Some centers saw their success in producing policy-relevant reviews as being related to being situated in reputable institutions, which provided them with better access to intramural grants and funding and, most importantly, additional resources for managing their grants. Many pointed to their ability to engage stakeholders as another important strength. A number of challenges were also identified, including access to library resources and grants that are not geared towards their own context. The Centers’ perceived needs were assessed at individual, team, Centre and institutional levels, and were categorized as capacity building needs and needs related to improving channels for evidence synthesis generation and dissemination.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: Consumers were not involved in this research. However, the GESI Centres aim to produce evidence to inform better decision making among policy makers and the public.
Objectives: To identify the needs of the GESI Network members in order to tailor capacity building activities and link members to potential funders.
Methods: A qualitative study was conducted with the Network members. Using GoToMeeting, the GESI Secretariat conducted one-on-one interviews with each centre in the GESI Network to assess needs in capacity building regarding: conducting evidence synthesis, knowledge translation, working on cross-sectoral projects, engagement with policy-makers, and other categories. The interviews were transcribed and underwent coding and thematic analysis to identify main needs.
Results: Four main themes emerged: context, current successes and challenges, perceived needs and specific ways in which GESI could contribute to addressing them. Some centers saw their success in producing policy-relevant reviews as being related to being situated in reputable institutions, which provided them with better access to intramural grants and funding and, most importantly, additional resources for managing their grants. Many pointed to their ability to engage stakeholders as another important strength. A number of challenges were also identified, including access to library resources and grants that are not geared towards their own context. The Centers’ perceived needs were assessed at individual, team, Centre and institutional levels, and were categorized as capacity building needs and needs related to improving channels for evidence synthesis generation and dissemination.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: Consumers were not involved in this research. However, the GESI Centres aim to produce evidence to inform better decision making among policy makers and the public.