The long term effect of pulmonary tuberculosis on income and employment in a low income, urban setting.

BACKGROUND: Mitigating the socioeconomic impact of tuberculosis (TB) is key to the WHO End TB Strategy. However, little known about socioeconomic well-being beyond TB-treatment completion. In this mixed-methods study, we describe socioeconomic outcomes after TB-disease in urban Blantyre, Malawi, and explore pathways and barriers to financial recovery. METHODS: Adults ≥15 years successfully completing treatment for a first episode of pulmonary TB under the National TB Control Programme were prospectively followed up for 12 months. Socioeconomic, income, occupation, health seeking and cost data were collected. Determinants and impacts of ongoing financial hardship were explored through illness narrative interviews with purposively selected participants. RESULTS: 405 participants were recruited from February 2016 to April 2017. Median age was 35 years (IQR: 28-41), 67.9% (275/405) were male, and 60.6% (244/405) were HIV-positive. Employment and incomes were lowest at TB-treatment completion, with limited recovery in the following year: fewer people were in paid work (63.0% (232/368) vs 72.4% (293/405), p=0.006), median incomes were lower (US$44.13 (IQR: US$0-US$106.15) vs US$72.20 (IQR: US$26.71-US$173.29), p<0.001), and more patients were living in poverty (earning

Access to health care for people with disabilities in rural Malawi: what are the barriers?

BACKGROUND: People with disabilities experience significant health inequalities. In Malawi, where most individuals live in low-income rural settings, many of these inequalities are exacerbated by restricted access to health care services. This qualitative study explores the barriers to health care access experienced by individuals with a mobility or sensory impairment, or both, living in rural villages in Dowa district, central Malawi. In addition, the impact of a chronic lung condition, alongside a mobility or sensory impairment, on health care accessibility is explored. METHODS: Using data from survey responses obtained through the Research for Equity And Community Health (REACH) Trust's randomised control trial in Malawi, 12 adult participants, with scores of either 3 or 4 in the Washington Group Short Set (WGSS) questions, were recruited. The WGSS questions concern a person's ability in core functional domains (including seeing, hearing and moving), and a score of 3 indicates 'a lot of difficulty' whilst 4 means 'cannot do at all'. People with cognitive impairments were not included in this study. All who were selected for the study participated in an individual in-depth interview and full recordings of these were then transcribed and translated. RESULTS: Through thematic analysis of the transcripts, three main barriers to timely and adequate health care were identified: 1) Cost of transport, drugs and services, 2) Insufficient health care resources, and 3) Dependence on others. Attitudinal factors were explored and, whilst unfavourable health seeking behaviour was found to act as an access barrier for some participants, community and health care workers' attitudes towards disability were not reported to influence health care accessibility in this study. CONCLUSIONS: This study finds that health care access for people with disabilities in rural Malawi is hindered by closely interconnected financial, practical and social barriers. There is a clear requirement for policy makers to consider the challenges identified here, and in similar studies, and to address them through improved social security systems and health system infrastructure, including outreach services, in a drive for equitable health care access and provision.

Strengthening capacity for natural sciences research: A qualitative assessment to identify good practices, capacity gaps and investment priorities in African research institutions.

BACKGROUND: Strengthening research capacity in low-and-middle-income countries is essential to drive socioeconomic development and to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Understanding strengths and weaknesses in institutions' research capacity can guide effective targeting of investments and resources. This study assessed the capacity of institutions undertaking research in natural science topics in Africa to identify priority capacity gaps for future investment. METHODS: Assessments were conducted in eight African institutions that were partners in a UK-Africa programme to strengthen research capacity in renewable energy, soil-related science, and water and sanitation. Assessments involved eighty-six interviews and three focus group discussions to identify institutions' research capacity strengths and gaps against an evidence-informed benchmark. Use of the same interview guides and data collection processes across all institutions meant that findings could be compared. RESULTS: Common research capacity gaps were: lack of, or poorly maintained, equipment; unreliable, slow procurement systems; insufficient opportunities for developing the skills of research support staff such as administrators and technicians; dysfunctional institutional email communication systems; insufficient focus on the development of 'soft' researcher skills such as ethics, academic writing and, in non-Anglophone countries, English language. Programme strengths were the South-South and South-North partnerships for sharing and cascading expertise and resources, joint writing of proposals and publications, and improved individual and institutional visibility. CONCLUSION: There were many similarities in research capacity gaps irrespective of the institutions' natural sciences research focus, and these were similar to those reported in the health sector. Common capacity needs are improving the skills of technicians and administrators to support research activities, soft skills training for researchers, and more effective pan-institutional e-communication systems. These could be strategic investment targets for the joint efforts of national governments and international organisations that fund programmes for strengthening research capacity in low- and middle-income countries.

Advancing the science of health research capacity strengthening in low-income and middle-income countries: a scoping review of the published literature, 2000-2016.

OBJECTIVES: Substantial development assistance and research funding are invested in health research capacity strengthening (HRCS) interventions in low-income and middle-income countries, yet the effectiveness, impact and value for money of these investments are not well understood. A major constraint to evidence-informed HRCS intervention has been the disparate nature of the research effort to date. This review aims to map and critically analyse the existing HRCS effort to better understand the level, type, cohesion and conceptual sophistication of the current evidence base. The overall goal of this article is to advance the development of a unified, implementation-focused HRCS science. METHODS: We used a scoping review methodology to identify peer-reviewed HRCS literature within the following databases: PubMed, Global Health and Scopus. HRCS publications available in English between the period 2000 and 2016 were included. 1195 articles were retrieved of which 172 met the final inclusion criteria. A priori thematic analysis of all included articles was completed. Content analysis of identified HRCS definitions was conducted. RESULTS: The number of HRCS publications increased exponentially between 2000 and 2016. Most publications during this period were perspective, opinion or commentary pieces; however, original research publications were the primary publication type since 2013. Twenty-five different definitions of research capacity strengthening were identified, of which three aligned with current HRCS guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: The review findings indicate that an HRCS research field with a focus on implementation science is emerging, although the conceptual and empirical bases are not yet sufficiently advanced to effectively inform HRCS programme planning. Consolidating an HRCS implementation science therefore presents as a viable option that may accelerate the development of a useful evidence base to inform HRCS programme planning. Identifying an agreed operational definition of HRCS, standardising HRCS-related terminology, developing a needs-based HRCS-specific research agenda and synthesising currently available evidence may be useful first steps.

The peer review process for awarding funds to international science research consortia: a qualitative developmental evaluation.

Background: Evaluating applications for multi-national, multi-disciplinary, dual-purpose research consortia is highly complex. There has been little research on the peer review process for evaluating grant applications and almost none on how applications for multi-national consortia are reviewed. Overseas development investments are increasingly being channelled into international science consortia to generate high-quality research while simultaneously strengthening multi-disciplinary research capacity. We need a better understanding of how such decisions are made and their effectiveness. Methods: An award-making institution planned to fund 10 UK-Africa research consortia. Over two annual rounds, 34 out of 78 eligible applications were shortlisted and reviewed by at least five external reviewers before final selections were made by a face-to-face panel. We used an innovative approach involving structured, overt observations of award-making panel meetings and semi-structured interviews with panel members to explore how assessment criteria concerning research quality and capacity strengthening were applied during the peer review process. Data were coded and analysed using pre-designed matrices which incorporated categories relating to the assessment criteria. Results: In general the process was rigorous and well-managed. However, lack of clarity about differential weighting of criteria and variations in the panel's understanding of research capacity strengthening resulted in some inconsistencies in use of the assessment criteria. Using the same panel for both rounds had advantages, in that during the second round consensus was achieved more quickly and the panel had increased focus on development aspects. Conclusion: Grant assessment panels for such complex research applications need to have topic- and context-specific expertise. They must also understand research capacity issues and have a flexible but equitable and transparent approach. This study has developed and tested an approach for evaluating the operation of such panels and has generated lessons that can promote coherence and transparency among grant-makers and ultimately make the award-making process more effective.