↓ Skip to main content

Gaps and strategies in developing health research capacity: experience from the Nigeria Implementation Science Alliance

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
135 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Gaps and strategies in developing health research capacity: experience from the Nigeria Implementation Science Alliance
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12961-018-0289-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Echezona E. Ezeanolue, William Nii Ayitey Menson, Dina Patel, Gregory Aarons, Ayodotun Olutola, Michael Obiefune, Patrick Dakum, Prosper Okonkwo, Bola Gobir, Timothy Akinmurele, Anthea Nwandu, Hadiza Khamofu, Bolanle Oyeledun, Muyiwa Aina, Andy Eyo, Obinna Oleribe, Ikoedem Ibanga, John Oko, Chukwuma Anyaike, John Idoko, Muktar H. Aliyu, Rachel Sturke, Nigeria Implementation Science Alliance

Abstract

Despite being disproportionately burdened by preventable diseases than more advanced countries, low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) continue to trail behind other parts of the world in the number, quality and impact of scholarly activities by their health researchers. Our strategy at the Nigerian Implementation Science Alliance (NISA) is to utilise innovative platforms that catalyse collaboration, enhance communication between different stakeholders, and promote the uptake of evidence-based interventions in improving healthcare delivery. This article reports on findings from a structured group exercise conducted at the 2016 NISA Conference to identify (1) gaps in developing research capacity and (2) potential strategies to address these gaps. A 1-hour structured group exercise was conducted with 15 groups of 2-9 individuals (n = 94) to brainstorm gaps for implementation, strategies to address gaps and to rank their top 3 in each category. Qualitative thematic analysis was used. First, duplicate responses were merged and analyses identified emerging themes. Each of the gaps and strategies identified were categorised as falling into the purview of policy-makers, researchers, implementing partners or multiple groups. Participating stakeholders identified 98 gaps and 91 strategies related to increasing research capacity in Nigeria. A total of 45 gaps and an equal number of strategies were ranked; 39 gaps and 43 strategies were then analysed, from which 8 recurring themes emerged for gaps (lack of sufficient funding, poor research focus in education, inadequate mentorship and training, inadequate research infrastructure, lack of collaboration between researchers, research-policy dissonance, lack of motivation for research, lack of leadership buy-in for research) and 7 themes emerged for strategies (increased funding for research, improved research education, improved mentorship and training, improved infrastructure for research, increased collaboration between academic/research institutions, greater engagement between researchers and policy-makers, greater leadership buy-in for research). The gaps and strategies identified in this study represent pathways judged to be important in increasing research and implementation science capacity in Nigeria. The inclusion of perspectives and involvement of stakeholders who play different roles in policy, research and implementation activities makes these findings comprehensive, relevant and actionable, not only in Nigeria but in other similar LMICs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 135 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 16%
Researcher 16 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 11%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Other 23 17%
Unknown 39 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 14%
Social Sciences 11 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 19 14%
Unknown 49 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 March 2018.
All research outputs
#3,712,504
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#535
of 1,226 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,471
of 445,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#26
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,226 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 445,207 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.