Global Health Institute at the American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Saab Medical Library at the American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
J Glob Health. 2020 Dec;10(2):020412. doi: 10.7189/jogh.10.020412.
Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are in dire need to improve their health outcomes. Although Global Health Capacity Building (GHCB) initiatives are recommended approaches, they risk being ineffective in the absence of standardized evaluation methods. This study systematically reviews evaluation approaches for GHCB initiatives in LMICs.
We searched the Medline (OVID), PubMed, Scopus, and Embase.com databases for studies reporting evaluation of a GHCB initiative in a LMIC from January 1, 2009 until August 15, 2019. To differentiate them from intervention, prevention, and awareness initiatives, included articles reported at least one approach to evaluate their learning modality. We excluded cross-sectional studies, reviews, and book chapters that only assessed the effect of interventions. Data identifying the learning modality, and evaluation method, level, time interval, and approach were extracted from articles as primary outcomes.
Of 8324 identified studies, 63 articles were eligible for analysis. Most studies stemmed from Africa and Asia (69.8%), were delivered and evaluated face-to-face (74.6% and 76.2%), mainly to professionals (57.1%) and community workers (20.6%). Although the use of online and blended modalities showed an increase over the past 4 years, only face-to-face initiatives were evaluated long-term beyond individual-level. GHCB evaluations in general lacked standardization especially regarding the tools.
This is an important resource for evaluating GHCB initiatives in LMICs. It synthesizes evaluation approaches, offers recommendations for improvement, and calls for the standardization of evaluations, especially for long-term and wider impact assessment of online and blended modalities.
中低收入国家（LMICs）迫切需要改善其健康结果。尽管全球卫生能力建设（GHCB）倡议是推荐的方法，但如果没有标准化的评估方法，它们可能无效。本研究系统地回顾了 LMIC 中 GHCB 倡议的评估方法。
我们在 Medline（OVID）、PubMed、Scopus 和 Embase.com 数据库中搜索了 2009 年 1 月 1 日至 2019 年 8 月 15 日期间在 LMIC 中报告 GHCB 倡议评估的研究。为了将它们与干预、预防和意识倡议区分开来，纳入的文章报告了至少一种评估其学习模式的方法。我们排除了仅评估干预效果的横断面研究、综述和书籍章节。从文章中提取识别学习模式、评估方法、水平、时间间隔和方法的数据作为主要结果。
在 8324 项已识别的研究中，有 63 项符合分析条件。大多数研究来自非洲和亚洲（69.8%），以面对面的方式进行和评估（74.6%和 76.2%），主要针对专业人员（57.1%）和社区工作者（20.6%）。尽管在过去 4 年中在线和混合模式的使用有所增加，但只有面对面的倡议在个人层面之外进行了长期的长期评估。GHCB 评估总体上缺乏标准化，特别是关于工具。
这是评估 LMIC 中 GHCB 倡议的重要资源。它总结了评估方法，为改进提供了建议，并呼吁对评估进行标准化，特别是对在线和混合模式的长期和更广泛的影响评估。
