Aggrey Siya, Pulford Justin, Bahungirehe John Bosco, Wamboga Charles, Hope Andrew
Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.
Coordinating Office for Control of Trypanosomiasis in Uganda, Kampala, Uganda.
BMJ Public Health. 2024 Apr 22;2(1):e000410. doi: 10.1136/bmjph-2023-000410. eCollection 2024 Jun.
The Ugandan Tiny Target programme is an example of an international vector control partnership that held specific capacity strengthening objectives in support of a disease elimination goal. Drawing on this experience, we sought to derive transferable lessons that may inform capacity strengthening approaches within other partnership-based vector control programmes.
A longitudinal qualitative study encompassing semistructured interviews conducted with Ugandan partners working on the Tiny Target programme. Data analysis was informed by a general inductive approach.
Capacity strengthening priorities evolved over time initially focusing on the immediate capacities needed to perform roles and responsibilities assigned within the partnership and then shifting towards more advanced, transferable knowledge and skills. A distinction between operational and systemic priorities was observed: the former was necessary to support successful programme implementation whereas the latter reflected fundamental limitations or complexities within the Ugandan context that were bypassed by including an international partner. Systemic priorities were fewer in number than their operational counterparts, although substantially harder to resolve. The largest apparent threat to the long-term sustainability of reported capacity gains was their concentration within a small number of individuals.
Our study highlights three key lessons that may inform the design of national capacity strengthening activities conducted within the context of international vector control partnerships, including (1) Multiple approaches to strengthen capacity are needed and that can adapt to changing capacity strengthening priorities over time; (2) Balancing operational and systemic capacity strengthening priorities, the latter becoming increasingly important within longer-term partnerships and (3) Partnership members in focal country/ies should be supported to actively facilitate the transfer of newly acquired knowledge and skills to relevant colleagues/communities outside of the partnership. The generic nature of these recommendations suggests they are likely to be of benefit to many and diverse international partnerships within the wider global health space.
乌干达“微小目标”项目是国际病媒控制伙伴关系的一个范例,该伙伴关系设定了具体的能力建设目标以支持疾病消除目标。借鉴这一经验,我们试图总结出可借鉴的经验教训,为其他基于伙伴关系的病媒控制项目中的能力建设方法提供参考。
开展一项纵向定性研究,包括对参与“微小目标”项目的乌干达伙伴进行半结构化访谈。数据分析采用一般归纳法。
能力建设重点随时间推移而演变,最初侧重于履行伙伴关系中分配的角色和职责所需的即时能力,随后转向更先进、可转移的知识和技能。观察到业务重点和系统重点之间的区别:前者是支持项目成功实施所必需的,而后者反映了乌干达背景下的基本限制或复杂性,通过纳入国际伙伴得以规避。系统重点的数量少于业务重点,尽管更难解决。报告的能力提升的长期可持续性面临的最大明显威胁是这些能力集中在少数人手中。
我们的研究突出了三个关键经验教训,可为国际病媒控制伙伴关系背景下开展的国家能力建设活动的设计提供参考,包括:(1)需要多种能力建设方法,这些方法能够适应能力建设重点随时间的变化;(2)平衡业务能力建设重点和系统能力建设重点,后者在长期伙伴关系中变得越来越重要;(3)应支持重点国家的伙伴关系成员积极促进将新获得的知识和技能传授给伙伴关系之外的相关同事/社区。这些建议的通用性表明它们可能对更广泛的全球卫生领域中许多不同的国际伙伴关系有益。