Strengthening research ethics governance and regulatory oversight in Central America and the Dominican Republic in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Good governance and regulatory supervision are required to conduct research in an international public health emergency context and to ensure compliance with ethical standards. The "Strengthening research ethics governance and regulatory oversight in Central America and the Dominican Republic in response to the COVID-19 pandemic" study is a regional effort in which research ethics stakeholders participated in addressing research ethics governance and preparedness response challenges to the COVID-19 pandemic in Central America and the Dominican Republic. METHODS: A qualitative action research study was conducted following a participatory approach. Research ethics stakeholders in Central America and the Dominican Republic were mapped; a regional webinar and three virtual workshops were conducted discussing research ethics governance, ethics review and collaborative research practice during the pandemic. A roundtable session presented results and obtained feedback on a draft of a policy to strengthen regional research ethics governance. RESULTS: Countries across Central America and the Dominican Republic are at different stages in their development of research ethics systems. Countries with more established systems before COVID-19 were better organized and prepared to respond. This finding argues against improvisation and supports further work on strengthening governance of research ethics systems. Community engagement in research ethics public policy-making is practically absent in the region. Research and research ethics collaboration schemes are lacking amongst the countries; however, there are incipient initiatives in the region, such as the Central America and Caribbean Network of Research Ethics Committees. A policy brief with recommendations on how to advance towards strengthening the governance of research ethics systems was prepared and submitted to the Central American Integration System for analysis and possible approval. CONCLUSION: National research ethics systems in Central America and the Dominican Republic were unprepared to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic with respect to research oversight and effective collaboration. In most cases, national research ethics systems were found to be weak, and regional research collaboration was practically absent. To promote collaboration, a joint strategy needs to be developed with a regional vision towards sharing knowledge and best practices.

Enabling evidence to tackle everyday diseases to mitigate another pandemic.

The next emergent novel pathogen is likely to occur where the ability to undertake health research and collect life-saving data is lacking. Without embedded and ongoing research activities in place spotting and stopping a new threat is not possible, thereby enabling undetected infection and unchecked transmission within a community. Without local existing capabilities to collect such data delay is catastrophic. Fundamental goals in pandemic preparedness should be to stop an outbreak before it becomes a pandemic. This requires immediate action from teams already in place with the right skills, this could be readily achieved if we shift our thinking and enable research capabilities to be present in every healthcare setting. Addressing fundamental gaps in health research capacity and equity could tackle this and then we would be better prepared, globally.

Engaging local health research communities to enhance long-term capacity building in Brazil.

The '2019 Research Capacity Network (REDe) workshop series' was an initiative led by Brazil-based REDe coordinators and The Global Health Network (TGHN) in partnership with Brazilian researchers interested in arboviruses. This workshop initiative has provided crucial training to the local research community offering transferable skills to effectively respond to health emergencies, with an impact beyond arboviral diseases, as evidenced by further activities undertaken during the COVID-19 pandemic. The success of this approach resulted from several factors, especially the workshops' local leadership and the combination of in-person training with online sharing of the resources generated in the local language. Analytics data from REDe online platform evidenced the wider reach of the shared resources to a larger audience than the workshop attendees. Importantly, the impact of this approach extends beyond the workshop series per se, with workshop participants afforded access to wider training, career development and collaborative opportunities through REDe and TGHN platforms. In addition, this initiative design resulted in the development of new collaborations between the workshop leaders and other local researchers, who have been jointly writing research projects and applying for grants. As a result, REDe has become a highly dynamic community of practice for health researchers in the region, strengthening the research culture and improving connectivity. Here, we describe the design and implementation of this initiative and demonstrate the value of integrating local expertise, and a practical workshop series format with digital dissemination of research resources and training materials to generate a vibrant and robust community of practice.

Measuring research capacity development in healthcare workers: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: A key barrier in supporting health research capacity development (HRCD) is the lack of empirical measurement of competencies to assess skills and identify gaps in research activities. An effective tool to measure HRCD in healthcare workers would help inform teams to undertake more locally led research. The objective of this systematic review is to identify tools measuring healthcare workers' individual capacities to conduct research. DESIGN: Systematic review and narrative synthesis using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist for reporting systematic reviews and narrative synthesis and the Critical Appraisals Skills Programme (CASP) checklist for qualitative studies. DATA SOURCES: 11 databases were searched from inception to 16 January 2020. The first 10 pages of Google Scholar results were also screened. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included papers describing the use of tools/to measure/assess HRCD at an individual level among healthcare workers involved in research. Qualitative, mixed and quantitative methods were all eligible. Search was limited to English language only. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two authors independently screened and reviewed studies using Covidence software, and performed quality assessments using the extraction log validated against the CASP qualitative checklist. The content method was used to define a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: The titles and abstracts for 7474 unique records were screened and the full texts of 178 references were reviewed. 16 papers were selected: 7 quantitative studies; 1 qualitative study; 5 mixed methods studies; and 3 studies describing the creation of a tool. Tools with different levels of accuracy in measuring HRCD in healthcare workers at the individual level were described. The Research Capacity and Culture tool and the 'Research Spider' tool were the most commonly defined. Other tools designed for ad hoc interventions with good generalisability potential were identified. Three papers described health research core competency frameworks. All tools measured HRCD in healthcare workers at an individual level with the majority adding a measurement at the team/organisational level, or data about perceived barriers and motivators for conducting health research. CONCLUSIONS: Capacity building is commonly identified with pre/postintervention evaluations without using a specific tool. This shows the need for a clear distinction between measuring the outcomes of training activities in a team/organisation, and effective actions promoting HRCD. This review highlights the lack of globally applicable comprehensive tools to provide comparable, standardised and consistent measurements of research competencies. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019122310.

The remaining unknowns: a mixed methods study of the current and global health research priorities for COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: In March 2020, the WHO released a Global Research Roadmap in an effort to coordinate and accelerate the global research response to combat COVID-19 based on deliberations of 400 experts across the world. Three months on, the disease and our understanding have both evolved significantly. As we now tackle a pandemic in very different contexts and with increased knowledge, we sought to build on the work of the WHO to gain a more current and global perspective on these initial priorities. METHODS: We undertook a mixed methods study seeking the views of the global research community to (1) assess which of the early WHO roadmap priorities are still most pressing; (2) understand whether they are still valid in different settings, regions or countries; and (3) identify any new emerging priorities. RESULTS: Thematic analysis of the significant body of combined data shows the WHO roadmap is globally relevant; however, new important priorities have emerged, in particular, pertinent to low and lower middle-income countries (less resourced countries), where health systems are under significant competing pressures. We also found a shift from prioritising vaccine and therapeutic development towards a focus on assessing the effectiveness, risks, benefits and trust in the variety of public health interventions and measures. Our findings also provide insight into temporal nature of these research priorities, highlighting the urgency of research that can only be undertaken within the period of virus transmission, as well as other important research questions but which can be answered outside the transmission period. Both types of studies are key to help combat this pandemic but also importantly to ensure we are better prepared for the future. CONCLUSION: We hope these findings will help guide decision-making across the broad research system including the multilateral partners, research funders, public health practitioners, clinicians and civil society.