Huber Johanna, Nepal Sushil, Bauer Daniel, Wessels Insa, Fischer Martin R, Kiessling Claudia
Institut für Didaktik und Ausbildungsforschung in der Medizin, Klinikum der Universität München, Ziemssenstraße 1, 80336, Munich, Germany.
bologna.lab, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Hausvogteiplatz 5-7, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2015 Dec 21;13:80. doi: 10.1186/s12961-015-0070-3.
In the past decades, various frameworks, methods, indicators, and tools have been developed to assess the needs as well as to monitor and evaluate (needs assessment, monitoring and evaluation; "NaME") health research capacity development (HRCD) activities. This systematic review gives an overview on NaME activities at the individual and organizational level in the past 10 years with a specific focus on methods, tools and instruments. Insight from this review might support researchers and stakeholders in systemizing future efforts in the HRCD field.
A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed and Google Scholar. Additionally, the personal bibliographies of the authors were scanned. Two researchers independently reviewed the identified abstracts for inclusion according to previously defined eligibility criteria. The included articles were analysed with a focus on both different HRCD activities as well as NaME efforts.
Initially, the search revealed 700 records in PubMed, two additional records in Google Scholar, and 10 abstracts from the personal bibliographies of the authors. Finally, 42 studies were included and analysed in depth. Findings show that the NaME efforts in the field of HRCD are as complex and manifold as the concept of HRCD itself. NaME is predominately focused on outcome evaluation and mainly refers to the individual and team levels.
A substantial need for a coherent and transparent taxonomy of HRCD activities to maximize the benefits of future studies in the field was identified. A coherent overview of the tools used to monitor and evaluate HRCD activities is provided to inform further research in the field.
在过去几十年中,已开发出各种框架、方法、指标和工具,用于评估需求以及监测和评价(需求评估、监测与评价;“NaME”)卫生研究能力发展(HRCD)活动。本系统评价概述了过去10年中在个人和组织层面的NaME活动,特别关注方法、工具和手段。本次评价所得的见解可能有助于研究人员和利益相关者将HRCD领域未来的工作系统化。
在PubMed和谷歌学术中进行了系统的文献检索。此外,还查阅了作者的个人文献目录。两名研究人员根据先前定义的纳入标准独立审查已识别的摘要,以确定是否纳入。对纳入的文章进行分析,重点关注不同的HRCD活动以及NaME工作。
最初,检索在PubMed中发现了700条记录,在谷歌学术中发现了另外2条记录,以及作者个人文献目录中的10篇摘要。最后,纳入42项研究并进行了深入分析。研究结果表明,HRCD领域的NaME工作与HRCD概念本身一样复杂多样。NaME主要侧重于结果评估,主要涉及个人和团队层面。
已确定迫切需要一个连贯且透明的HRCD活动分类法,以最大限度地提高该领域未来研究的效益。提供了用于监测和评价HRCD活动的工具的连贯概述,以为该领域的进一步研究提供参考。