Crowdfunding for health research: a qualitative evidence synthesis and a pilot programme.

BACKGROUND: Many low-income and middle-income country (LMIC) researchers have disadvantages when applying for research grants. Crowdfunding may help LMIC researchers to fund their research. Crowdfunding organises large groups of people to make small contributions to support a research study. This manuscript synthesises global qualitative evidence and describes a Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR) crowdfunding pilot for LMIC researchers. METHODS: Our global systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis searched six databases for qualitative data. We used a thematic synthesis approach and assessed our findings using the GRADE-CERQual approach. Building on the review findings, we organised a crowdfunding pilot to support LMIC researchers and use crowdfunding. The pilot provided an opportunity to assess the feasibility of crowdfunding for infectious diseases of poverty research in resource-constrained settings. RESULTS: Nine studies were included in the qualitative evidence synthesis. We identified seven findings which we organised into three broad domains: public engagement strategies, correlates of crowdfunding success and risks and mitigation strategies. Our pilot data suggest that crowdfunding is feasible in diverse LMIC settings. Three researchers launched crowdfunding campaigns, met their goals and received substantial monetary (raising a total of US$26 546 across all three campaigns) and non-monetary contributions. Two researchers are still preparing for the campaign launch due to COVID-19-related difficulties. CONCLUSION: Public engagement provides a foundation for effective crowdfunding for health research. Our evidence synthesis and pilot data provide practical strategies for LMIC researchers to engage the public and use crowdfunding. A practical guide was created to facilitate these activities across multiple settings.

Social Innovation For Health Research: Development of the SIFHR Checklist.

BACKGROUND: Social innovations in health are inclusive solutions to address the healthcare delivery gap that meet the needs of end users through a multi-stakeholder, community-engaged process. While social innovations for health have shown promise in closing the healthcare delivery gap, more research is needed to evaluate, scale up, and sustain social innovation. Research checklists can standardize and improve reporting of research findings, promote transparency, and increase replicability of study results and findings. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The research checklist was developed through a 3-step community-engaged process, including a global open call for ideas, a scoping review, and a 3-round modified Delphi process. The call for entries solicited checklists and related items and was open between November 27, 2019 and February 1, 2020. In addition to the open call submissions and scoping review findings, a 17-item Social Innovation For Health Research (SIFHR) Checklist was developed based on the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) Checklist. The checklist was then refined during 3 rounds of Delphi surveys conducted between May and June 2020. The resulting checklist will facilitate more complete and transparent reporting, increase end-user engagement, and help assess social innovation projects. A limitation of the open call was requiring internet access, which likely discouraged participation of some subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The SIFHR Checklist will strengthen the reporting of social innovation for health research studies. More research is needed on social innovation for health.

Social innovation research checklist: A crowdsourcing open call and digital hackathon to develop a checklist for research to advance social innovation in health.

While social innovations in health have shown promise in closing the healthcare delivery gap, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), more research is needed to evaluate, scale up, and sustain social innovations. Research checklists can standardize and improve reporting of research findings, promote transparency, and increase replicability of study results and findings. This article describes the development of a 17-item social innovation in health research checklist to assess and report social innovation projects and provides examples of good reporting. The checklist is adapted from the TIDieR checklist and will facilitate more complete and transparent reporting and increase end user engagement. SUMMARY POINTS: While many social innovations have been developed and shown promise in closing the healthcare delivery gap, more research is needed to evaluate social innovationThe Social Innovation in Health Research Checklist, the first of its kind, is a 17-item checklist to improve reporting completeness and promote transparency in the development, implementation, and evaluation of social innovations in healthThe research checklist was developed through a three-step process, including a global open call for ideas, a scoping review, and a three-round modified Delphi processUse of this research checklist will enable researchers, innovators and partners to learn more about the process and results of social innovation in health research.

Social innovation for health: engaging communities to address infectious diseases.

Universal health coverage emphasises the value of the community-based delivery of health services to ensure that underserved populations have access to care. In areas where infectious diseases are endemic, there are often few resources and limited capacity, and the introduction of effective and accessible strategies require innovation. In this special issue, the contributing authors emphasise the power of local responses to the circumstances that underpin diseases of poverty, and highlight the methodological and programme innovations necessary to support and sustain these responses. Through case studies, the authors illustrate how social innovations can address health inequities, and they identify the role of academics in the Social Innovation in Health Initiative to support this approach.

The role of multilateral organizations and governments in advancing social innovation in health care delivery.

BACKGROUND: Despite great medical advances and scientific progress over the past century, one billion people globally still lack access to basic health care services. In the context of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development social innovation models aim to provide effective solutions that bridge the health care delivery gap, address equity and create social value. This commentary highlights the roles of multilateral organizations and governments in creating an enabling environment where social innovations can more effectively integrate into health systems to maximize their impact on beneficiaries. MAIN TEXT: The integration of social innovations into health systems is essential to ensure their sustainability and the wide dissemination of their impact. Effective partnerships, strong engagement with and endorsement by governments and communities, regulations, trust and sometimes willingness are key factors to enhance system integration, replication and dissemination of the models. Three examples of social innovations selected by the Social Innovation in Health Initiative illustrate the importance of engaging with governments and communities in order to link, integrate and synergize their efforts. Key challenges that they encountered, and lessons learnt are highlighted. Multilateral organizations and governments increasingly engage in promoting and supporting the development, testing and dissemination of social innovations to address the health care delivery gap. They play an important role in creating an enabling environment. This includes promoting the concept of social innovation in health care delivery, spreading social innovation approach and lessons learnt, fostering partnerships and leveraging resources, convening communities, health system actors and various stakeholders to work together across disciplines and sectors, and nurturing capacity in countries. CONCLUSIONS: Multilateral organizations and local and national governments have a critical role to play in creating an enabling environment where social innovations can flourish. In supporting and disseminating social innovation approach, multilateral organizations and governments have a great opportunity to accelerate Universal Health Coverage and the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Tracking the career development of scientists in low- and middle-income countries trained through TDR's research capacity strengthening programmes: Learning from monitoring and impact evaluation.

The Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR) co-sponsored by UNICEF, UNDP, World Bank and WHO has been supporting research capacity strengthening in low- and middle-income countries for over 40 years. In order to assess and continuously optimize its capacity strengthening approaches, an evaluation of the influence of TDR training grants on research career development was undertaken. The assessment was part of a larger evaluation conducted by the European Science Foundation. A comprehensive survey questionnaire was developed and sent to a group of 117 trainees supported by TDR who had completed their degree (masters or PhD) between 2000 and 2012; of these, seventy seven (77) responded. Most of the respondents (80%) rated TDR support as a very important factor that influenced their professional career achievements. The "brain drain" phenomenon towards high-income countries was particularly low amongst TDR grantees: the rate of return to their region of origin upon completion of their degree was 96%. A vast majority of respondents are still working in research (89%), with 81% of respondents having participated in multidisciplinary research activities; women engaged in multidisciplinary collaboration to a higher extent than men. However, only a minority of all have engaged in intersectoral collaboration, an aspect that would require further study. The post-degree career choices made by the respondents were strongly influenced by academic considerations. At the time of the survey, 92% of all respondents hold full-time positions, mainly in the public sector. Almost 25% of the respondents reported that they had influenced policy and practice changes. Some of the challenges and opportunities faced by trainees at various stages of their research career have been identified. Modalities to overcome these will require further investigation. The survey evidenced how TDR's research capacity grant programmes made a difference on researchers' career development and on south-south collaborations, by strengthening and localizing research capacity in lower income regions, and also showed there is more that needs to be done. The factors involved, challenges and lessons learnt may help donors and policy makers improve their future interventions with regard to designing capacity strengthening programmes and setting funding priorities.

Research Capacity Strengthening in Low and Middle Income Countries - An Evaluation of the WHO/TDR Career Development Fellowship Programme.

Between August 2012 and April 2013 the Career Development Fellowship programme of the Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (World Health Organization) underwent an external evaluation to assess its past performance and determine recommendations for future programme development and continuous performance improvement. The programme provides a year-long training experience for qualified researchers from low and middle income countries at pharmaceutical companies or product development partnerships. Independent evaluators from the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute and the Barcelona Institute for Global Health used a results-based methodology to review the programme. Data were gathered through document review, surveys, and interviews with a range of programme participants. The final evaluation report found the Career Development Fellowship to be relevant to organizers' and programme objectives, efficient in its operations, and effective in its training scheme, which was found to address needs and gaps for both fellows and their home institutions. Evaluators found that the programme has the potential for impact and sustainability beyond the programme period, especially with the successful reintegration of fellows into their home institutions, through which newly-developed skills can be shared at the institutional level. Recommendations included the development of a scheme to support the re-integration of fellows into their home institutions post-fellowship and to seek partnerships to facilitate the scaling-up of the programme. The impact of the Professional Membership Scheme, an online professional development tool launched through the programme, beyond the scope of the Career Development Fellowship programme itself to other applications, has been identified as a positive unintended outcome. The results of this evaluation may be of interest for other efforts in the field of research capacity strengthening in LMICs or, generally, to other professional development schemes of a similar structure.