Enhancing mental health research capacity: emerging voices from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) global hubs

Health research mentorship in low-income and middle-income countries: a global qualitative evidence synthesis of data from a crowdsourcing open call and scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Research mentorship is critical for advancing science, but there are few practical strategies for cultivating mentorship in health research resource-limited settings. WHO/TDR Global commissioned a group to develop a practical guide on research mentorship. This global qualitative evidence synthesis included data from a crowdsourcing open call and scoping review to identify and propose strategies to enhance research mentorship in low/middle-income country (LMIC) institutions.

METHODS

The crowdsourcing open call used methods recommended by WHO/TDR and solicited descriptions of strategies to enhance research mentorship in LMICs. The scoping review used the Cochrane Handbook and predefined the approach in a protocol. We extracted studies focused on enhancing health research mentorship in LMICs. Textual data describing research mentorship strategies from the open call and studies from the scoping review were coded into themes. The quality of evidence supporting themes was assessed using the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research approach.

RESULTS

The open call solicited 46 practical strategies and the scoping review identified 77 studies. We identified the following strategies to enhance research mentorship: recognising mentorship as an institutional responsibility that should be provided and expected from all team members (8 strategies, 15 studies; moderate confidence); leveraging existing research and training resources to enhance research mentorship (15 strategies, 49 studies; moderate confidence); digital tools to match mentors and mentees and sustain mentorship relations over time (14 strategies, 11 studies; low confidence); nurturing a culture of generosity so that people who receive mentorship then become mentors to others (7 strategies, 7 studies; low confidence); peer mentorship defined as informal and formal support from one researcher to another who is at a similar career stage (16 strategies, 12 studies; low confidence).

INTERPRETATION

Research mentorship is a collective institutional responsibility, and it can be strengthened in resource-limited institutions by leveraging already existing resources. The evidence from the crowdsourcing open call and scoping review informed a WHO/TDR practical guide. There is a need for more formal research mentorship programmes in LMIC institutions.

Health research mentorship in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this scoping review was to explore and synthesize the available literature on health research mentorship in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

INTRODUCTION

Research mentorship is broadly considered a useful strategy to improve research capacities and research outputs. Existing literature and guidance on research mentorship have focused on high-income countries and assumed resource-rich environments. Despite the successful endeavors to improve health research capacity in LMICs, the strategies that work best under different circumstances are poorly understood. There is a need to map and understand the evidence on health research mentorship in the context of LMICs.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Sources that reported existing practices, barriers, and mitigation strategies related to health research mentorship in LMICs were included.

METHODS

We searched for published and unpublished studies and reports written in English, Spanish, or Portuguese. The search strategy was not limited by search dates and the last search was conducted on January 28, 2022. The databases searched included MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and JBI Evidence Synthesis . We also searched for gray literature in a selection of websites and digital repositories. The JBI scoping review methodology was used.

RESULTS

A total of 77 studies and reports were included in the review. The majority of the papers were from Africa (n=28). Others were from the Americas (n=7), South East Asia (n=4), East Mediterranean (n=2), and Western Pacific (n=2). The remaining studies were from LMICs that included at least 2 regional offices. Most of the mentorship projects (n=55) were initiated and funded by institutions from high-income countries. The first authors of 41 papers were primarily affiliated with LMICs. The findings were categorized under a description of research mentorship practices, barriers related to research mentorship, and suggested mitigation strategies. Deliverable-driven training using intensive hands-on mentorship and ongoing peer mentorship programs were some of the non-regular, non-institutionalized approaches used to improve research capacity for junior researchers in LMICs. None of the included papers focused on institutional components of research mentorship in LMICs. The barriers to research mentorship activities in LMICs included lack of clarity on mentorship, cultural variations, unbalanced power dynamics, socio-political influences, language barriers, lack of experienced mentors, and limited local funding. Institutionalizing research mentorship, adapting mentoring methodologies relying on local resources, and addressing and respecting diversity in mentorship programs were among the main strategies identified to effectively implement research mentorship in LMICs.

CONCLUSIONS

Research mentorship initiatives and practices are limited in LMICs. Few available practices have been introduced by researchers and research institutions from high-income countries and those that have are not yet institutionalized. The identified existing practices, barriers, and facilitators on health research mentorship could help the design, implementation, and evaluation of programs to institutionalize health research mentorship in LMICs.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework osf.io/jqa9z/.

SUPPLEMENTAL DIGITAL CONTENT

A Spanish-language version of the abstract of this review is available as supplemental digital content: http://links.lww.com/SRX/A32.

A mentored hands-on training model for scaling up implementation and intervention research in India: "connecting the dots"

Despite the high burden of mental disorders in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), less than 25% of those in need have access to appropriate services, in part due to a scarcity of locally relevant, evidence-based interventions and models of care. To address this gap, researchers from India and the United States and the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) collaboratively developed a "Grantathon" model to provide mentored research training to 24 new principal investigators (PIs). This included a week-long didactic training, a customized web-based data entry/analysis system and a National Coordination Unit (NCU) to support PIs and track process objectives. Outcome objectives were assessed via scholarly output including publications, awards received and subsequent grants that were leveraged. Multiple mentorship strategies including collaborative problem-solving approaches were used to foster single-centre and multicentre research. Flexible, approachable and engaged support from mentors helped PIs overcome research barriers, and the NCU addressed local policy and day-to-day challenges through informal monthly review meetings. Bi-annual formal review presentations by all PIs continued through the COVID-19 pandemic, enabling interim results reporting and scientific review, also serving to reinforce accountability. To date, more than 33 publications, 47 scientific presentations, 12 awards, two measurement tools, five intervention manuals and eight research grants have been generated in an open-access environment. The Grantathon is a successful model for building research capacity and improving mental health research in India that could be adopted for use in other LMICs.

Engaging early career researchers in a global health research capacity-strengthening programme: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Research capacity-strengthening is recognized as an important component of global health partnership working, and as such merits monitoring and evaluation. Early career researchers are often the recipients of research capacity-strengthening programmes, but there is limited literature regarding their experience.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study as part of an internal evaluation of the capacity-strengthening programme of the international HERA (HEalthcare Responding to violence and Abuse) research group. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with group members, and thematic analysis was undertaken.

RESULTS

Eighteen group members participated; nine of these were early career researchers, and nine were other research team members, including mid-career and senior researchers. Key themes were identified which related to their engagement with and experience of a research capacity-strengthening programme. We explored formal/planned elements of our programme: mentoring and supervision; training and other opportunities; funding and resources. Participants also discussed informal/unplanned elements which acted as important facilitators and/or barriers to engaging with research capacity-strengthening: English language; open relationships and communication; connection and disconnection; and diversity. The sustainability of the programme was also discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study gives voice to the early career researcher experience of engaging with a research capacity-strengthening programme in a global health group. We highlight some important elements that have informed adaptations to our programme and may be relevant for consideration by other global health research capacity-strengthening programmes. Our findings contribute to the growing literature and important discussions around research capacity-strengthening and how this relates to the future directions of global health partnership working.

Development of a research capacity and culture tool for people with lived experience of mental health challenges

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated research capacity and culture in people with lived experience of mental health challenges by developing a quantitative tool that measures capacity to engage in research.

METHOD

A cross-sectional, correlational methodology was employed, which comprised of three phases: lived experience consultations for item development (n = 15), item refinement (n = 20) and tool piloting. Items were adapted from, and extended, an existing research capacity and culture tool for healthcare workers. People (N = 112) with lived experience as mental health consumers, carers, peer workers and/or advocates aged 18-75 years took part in the tool piloting survey.

RESULTS

Overall, participants rated their individual research capacity and culture skills as moderate (mean = 5.41, standard deviation = 2.04). The most commonly reported barriers to research engagement related to lack of knowledge, familiarity or experience with the research process. The most commonly reported enablers were altruistic, such as using their experiences to improve services and help others. Research capacity and culture significantly correlated with current research activities (rs = 0.25-0.41; ps < 0.05), but not with being a research participant (r = 0.09; p > 0.05), suggesting that building research capacity of people with lived experience requires them to be active members of research teams.

CONCLUSION

The Lived Experience research capacity and culture tool developed in this study revealed that people with lived experience of mental health challenges are intrinsically motivated to engage in research to improve consumer outcomes. The tool may be useful to assess self, research team and organisational preparedness to conduct genuinely co-designed research, and to assess changes in lived experience research capacities and culture over time.

Strengthening research capacity: a systematic review of manuscript writing and publishing interventions for researchers in low-income and middle-income countries

INTRODUCTION

Health researchers from low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) are under-represented in the academic literature. Scientific writing and publishing interventions may help researchers publish their findings; however, we lack evidence about the prevalence and effectiveness of such interventions. This review describes interventions for researchers in LMICs aimed at strengthening capacity for writing and publishing academic journal articles.

METHODS

We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to report literature searches in PubMed, Embase, Global Health, Scopus and ERIC. Our keywords included LMICs, low-income and middle-income countries, health research and writing/publication support interventions, with no restrictions on publication date. Our screening process consisted of title screening, abstract review and full-text review. We collected information about the content, implementation and evaluation of each intervention, if included.

RESULTS

We identified 20 interventions designed to strengthen capacity for scientific writing and publishing. We summarised information from the 14 interventions that reported submitted or published papers as outcomes separately, reasoning that because they provide quantifiable metrics of success, they may offer particular insights into intervention components leading to publication. The writing and publishing components in this 'Publications Reported' group were an average length of 5.4 days compared with 2.5 days in the other group we refer to as 'Other Interventions.' Whereas all 14 Publications Reported interventions incorporated mentors, only two of five in the Other Interventions group incorporated mentors. Across interventions, leaders expressed the importance of a high ratio of mentors to participants, the need to accommodate time demands of busy researchers, and the necessity of a budget for open access fees and high-quality internet connectivity.

CONCLUSION

Writing and publishing interventions in LMICs are an underutilised opportunity for capacity strengthening. To facilitate the implementation of high-quality interventions, future writing and publishing interventions should share their experiences by publishing detailed information about the approach and effectiveness of the interventions.

Training LEADers to Accelerate Global Mental Health Disparities Research (LEAD) Program: A Research Training Program Protocol

Background: There is a critical need to address mental health needs across the globe, especially in low and middle-income countries where mental health disparities are pervasive, including among children. The global mental health disparities suggest an imperative for culturally and contextually-congruent mental health services models that expand upon the existing services and interventions for these groups. Rigorous research is a key tool in providing the scientific evidence to inform public policy and practice efforts to effectively address these needs. Yet, there is a limited number of researchers, especially those from diverse backgrounds, who study these issues. In this paper, we describe the "TrainingLEADers to Accelerate Global Mental Health Disparities Research" (LEAD) program, a research training program funded by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities and focused on global mental health disparities research for early career researchers from under-represented minority groups. Methods: The LEAD program is designed as a two-phase training program for advanced pre-doctoral students, postdoctoral fellows, and junior faculty from diverse backgrounds in the U.S., including groups underrepresented in biomedical, behavioral, clinical and social sciences research, interested in global mental health disparities research. Trainees are matched with mentors and participate in an intensive 12-week program. Discussion: The LEAD program seeks to provide a robust platform for the development, implementation and expansion of evidence-based culturally and contextually-congruent interventions and services models addressing global mental health disparities across the life cycle, especially in low-resource communities in the global context. By producing a sustainable network of well-trained investigators from underrepresented backgrounds, LEAD will potentially contribute to the shared lessons and efforts relevant to addressing global mental health disparities and improving care for vulnerable populations in low-resource settings.

Identifying challenges and recommendations for advancing global mental health implementation research: A key informant study of the National Institute of Mental Health Scale-Up Hubs

OBJECTIVE

This study explored perspectives of researchers working with the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Scale-Up Hubs, consisting of research partnerships for scaling up mental health interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), to: 1) identify common barriers to conducting impactful research on the implementation of evidence-based mental health services; and 2) provide recommendations to overcome these implementation challenges.

METHODS

A sequential qualitative approach was employed. First, an open-ended survey was distributed to the 10 Scale-Up Hubs and NIMH program staff asking informants to identify challenges in conducting mental health implementation research in LMICs. Second, survey findings guided an in-person workshop to generate implementation recommendations to inform the field.

RESULTS

In total, 46 respondents completed surveys, and 101 researchers attended the workshop. The workshop produced implementation recommendations for low-resource settings: 1) identifying impact of research on policy and practice; 2) sustaining careers of early researchers in global mental health; 3) engaging policymakers and donors to value mental health research; 4) supporting the workforce for delivering evidence-based treatments for mental disorders; and 5) promoting sustainability of programs.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings can strengthen collaboration between researchers and key stakeholders, and highlight important targets for improving mental health implementation research in LMICs.

"We need more big trees as well as the grass roots": going beyond research capacity building to develop sustainable careers in mental health research in African countries

BACKGROUND

There are substantial gaps in our knowledge regarding the aetiology of mental, neurological and substance use disorders in sub-Saharan Africa, and the cost-effectiveness and scalability of interventions to reduce the burden of these conditions on the continent. To address these gaps, international investment has focussed on building research capacity, including funding doctoral students in African countries, to support development of high quality, contextually relevant interventions. Absent, however, is an understanding of how capacity building feeds into research careers.

METHODS

Within a broader mental health research capacity-building initiative (African Mental Health Research Initiative), we conducted 52 qualitative interviews with early-career researchers, policymakers, academics, and service users from four African countries (Ethiopia, Malawi, South Africa, and Zimbabwe) and with international funders of mental health research. The interview guide focused on the research context, planning, and priorities and how respondents perceive research careers and funding. Thematic analysis was applied to the transcribed interviews.

RESULTS

Five components of a research career emerged: (i) research positions; (ii) research skills; (iii) funding; (iv) research commitment from African countries; and (v) advocacy. All stakeholders wanted more high-impact African researchers, but few saw a clear, replicable track for developing their careers within universities or their Ministries of Health in their African countries. This stemmed, in part, from the lack of support for infrastructure that enables high-quality research: grants administration, mentorship, university leadership, research culture, and open communication between policymakers and researchers.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the importance of developing research infrastructure alongside capacity-building efforts. International funders should invest in grant management at African universities which would place them at the centre of research initiatives. African universities should prioritise the creation of a research culture by developing and promoting well-defined research tracks for both clinicians and academics, investing in grant management, and raising the profile of research within their institutions.

Efficacy of psychosocial interventions for mental health outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries: an umbrella review

BACKGROUND

Mental health conditions are leading causes of disability worldwide. Psychosocial interventions for these conditions might have a key role in their treatment, although applicability of findings to poor-resource settings might be a challenge. We aimed to evaluate the strength and credibility of evidence generated in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) on the efficacy of psychosocial interventions for various mental health outcomes.

METHODS

We did an umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomised studies done in LMICs. Literature searches were done in Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Epistemonikos from Jan 1, 2010, until May 31, 2019. Systematic reviews of randomised studies investigating the efficacy of psychosocial interventions for mental health conditions in LMICs were included. Systematic reviews of promotion, prevention, and protection interventions were excluded, because the focus was on treatment interventions only. Information on first author, year of publication, outcomes, number of included studies, and reported summary meta-analytic estimates was extracted from included meta-analyses. Summary effects were recalculated using a common metric and random-effects models. We assessed between-study heterogeneity, predictive intervals, publication bias, small-study effects, and whether the results of the observed positive studies were more than expected by chance. On the basis of these calculations, strength of associations was assessed using quantitative umbrella review criteria, and credibility of evidence using the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42019135711.

FINDINGS

123 primary studies from ten systematic reviews were included. The evidence on the efficacy of psychosocial interventions in adults with depression in humanitarian settings (standardised mean difference 0·87, 95% CI 0·67-1·07; highly suggestive association, GRADE: moderate) and in adults with common mental disorders (0·49, 0·36-0·62; highly suggestive association, GRADE: moderate) was supported by the most robust evidence. Highly suggestive strength of association was found for psychosocial interventions in adults with schizophrenia for functional outcomes, in adults with depression, and in adults with post-traumatic stress disorder in humanitarian settings. In children in humanitarian settings, and in children with disruptive behaviour, psychosocial interventions were supported by suggestive evidence of efficacy.

INTERPRETATION

A relatively large amount of evidence suggests the benefit of psychosocial interventions on various mental health outcomes in LMICs. However, strength of associations and credibility of evidence were quite variable, depending on the target mental health condition, type of population and setting, and outcome of interest. This varied evidence should be considered in the development of clinical, policy, and implementation programmes in LMICs and should prompt further studies to improve the strength and credibility of the evidence base.

FUNDING

University of Verona.

The Arab Region's Contribution to Global Mental Health Research (2009-2018): A Bibliometric Analysis

Background: Mental health research output in the Arab region is increasing, yet little is known about its recent landscape. This study provides a bibliometric analysis of mental health research in all 22 Arab countries over the past decade. Method: We used 760 journals and numerous keywords to search for articles published between 2009 and 2018 by individuals affiliated with institutions located in the Arab region. We analyzed data within Arab countries and between Arab and non-Arab countries. Results: We found that research output in the Arab world has increased by almost 160% in the past ten years, in comparison to 57% for the rest of the world. The quality of publications has also steadily improved, and so did international collaboration. Despite the progress, the number of articles per capita remains remarkably lower for the Arab world compared to the rest of the world. Also, the majority of articles continue to emanate from a limited number of countries (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon) and institutions within these countries. Mental health research topics in the Arab region are similar to those found in low- and middle-income countries of Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean. Conclusion: The region needs to invest more in mental health research to close the gap with other medical and healthcare research areas and with the rest of the world. The region also needs to increase its international collaboration and research training to produce higher-quality studies, attract more funding, and publish more in top journals. As the region's population continues to face increasing trauma as a result of war and terrorism, among others, the field is afforded an opportunity to establish a major standing in the healthcare domain. Researchers are uniquely poised to use their body of research evidence to effectively help people reengage with their environments and return to daily life activities.