An academia-industry partnership

Research-policy partnerships - experiences of the Mental Health and Poverty Project in Ghana, South Africa, Uganda and Zambia

Background

Partnerships are increasingly common in conducting research. However, there is little published evidence about processes in research-policy partnerships in different contexts. This paper contributes to filling this gap by analysing experiences of research-policy partnerships between Ministries of Health and research organisations for the implementation of the Mental Health and Poverty Project in Ghana, South Africa, Uganda and Zambia.

Methods

A conceptual framework for understanding and assessing research-policy partnerships was developed and guided this study. The data collection methods for this qualitative study included semi-structured interviews with Ministry of Health Partners (MOHPs) and Research Partners (RPs) in each country.

Results

The term partnership was perceived by the partners as a collaboration involving mutually-agreed goals and objectives. The principles of trust, openness, equality and mutual respect were identified as constituting the core of partnerships. The MOHPs and RPs had clearly defined roles, with the MOHPs largely providing political support and RPs leading the research agenda. Different influences affected partnerships. At the individual level, personal relationships and ability to compromise within partnerships were seen as important. At the organisational level, the main influences included the degree of formalisation of roles and responsibilities and the internal structures and procedures affecting decision-making. At the contextual level, political environment and the degree of health system decentralisation affected partnerships.

Conclusions

Several lessons can be learned from these experiences. Taking account of influences on the partnership at individual, organisation and contextual/system levels can increase its effectiveness. A common understanding of mutually-agreed goals and objectives of the partnership is essential. It is important to give attention to the processes of initiating and maintaining partnerships, based on clear roles, responsibilities and commitment of parties at different levels. Although partnerships are often established for a specific purpose, such as carrying out a particular project, the effects of partnership go beyond a particular initiative.

Teaching of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics in UK medical schools: current status in 2009

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT

Junior doctors feel poorly prepared by their training in Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics and commonly make prescribing errors. Since 1993 the General Medical Council's guidance on undergraduate medical education 'Tomorrow's Doctors' has emphasized the integration of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics teaching within the medical curriculum. With the publication of a new version of Tomorrow's Doctors in 2009, medical schools will be further revising their Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics teaching.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

Although we know what the recommendations for undergraduate teaching of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics teaching are, there are no published data describing what is currently happening in UK medical schools. This paper describes the course structures, volume and range of teaching and assessment of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics in the UK in 2009. Our data provide a foundation for schools looking to revise the Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics Teaching in the light of Tomorrow's Doctors 2009.

AIM

To describe the current structure, delivery and assessment of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (CPT) teaching in UK medical schools.

METHODS

An online questionnaire was distributed to the person with overall responsibility for CPT teaching at all UK medical schools in June 2009.

RESULTS

Thirty of the 32 UK medical schools responded. 60% of schools have a CPT course although in 72% this was an integrated vertical theme. At 70% of schools pharmacologists have overall responsibility for CPT teaching (clinical 67%, non-clinical 33%); at 20% teaching is run by a non-specialist clinician and at 7% by a pharmacist. Teaching is commonly delivered by NHS clinicians (87%) and clinical pharmacists (80%) using lectures (90%) but additionally 50% of schools use e-Learning and 63% have a student formulary. CPT is assessed throughout the curriculum at many schools through written, practical examinations and course work. 90% of schools have specific CPT content in their written examinations. 90% of respondents believed that their students were 'fairly' to 'well' prepared for the foundation year but only 37% of schools gather data on the competence of their graduates.

CONCLUSIONS

CPT teaching in UK medical schools is very diverse. Most schools do not assess the performance of their graduates as prescribers and there is a lack of evidence that many of the teaching approaches employed are suitable for the development of prescribing skills. It is vital that developments in CPT teaching are driven by validated, real-world assessments of the prescribing skills of medical students and newly qualified doctors.