Learning needs assessment for multi-stakeholder implementation science training in LMIC settings: findings and recommendations

Abstract Background Despite significant progress in the field of implementation science (IS), current training programs are inadequate to meet the global need, especially in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). Even when training opportunities exist, there is a “knowledge-practice gap,” where im...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Mallory Wolfe Turner, Stephanie Bogdewic, Erum Agha, Carrie Blanchard, Rachel Sturke, Audrey Pettifor, Kathryn Salisbury, Andrea Horvath Marques, Marie Lina Excellent, Nitya Rajagopal, Rohit Ramaswamy
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	BMC 2021
Materias:	Implementation science Low- and middle-income countries Capacity building Intelligent swarming Medicine (General) R5-920
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/7faed7331f2c4038b89f72f5819c2319
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:7faed7331f2c4038b89f72f5819c2319
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:7faed7331f2c4038b89f72f5819c23192021-12-05T12:04:07ZLearning needs assessment for multi-stakeholder implementation science training in LMIC settings: findings and recommendations10.1186/s43058-021-00238-22662-2211https://doaj.org/article/7faed7331f2c4038b89f72f5819c23192021-12-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-021-00238-2https://doaj.org/toc/2662-2211Abstract Background Despite significant progress in the field of implementation science (IS), current training programs are inadequate to meet the global need, especially in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). Even when training opportunities exist, there is a “knowledge-practice gap,” where implementation research findings are not useful to practitioners in a field designed to bridge that gap. This is a critical challenge in LMICs where complex public health issues must be addressed. This paper describes results from a formal assessment of learning needs, priority topics, and delivery methods for LMIC stakeholders. Methods We first reviewed a sample of articles published recently in Implementation Science to identify IS stakeholders and assigned labels and definitions for groups with similar roles. We then employed a multi-step sampling approach and a random sampling strategy to recruit participants (n = 39) for a semi-structured interview that lasted 30–60 min. Stakeholders with inputs critical to developing training curricula were prioritized and selected for interviews. We created memos from audio-recorded interviews and used a deductively created codebook to conduct thematic analysis. We calculated kappa coefficients for each memo and used validation techniques to establish rigor including incorporating feedback from reviewers and member checking. Results Participants included program managers, researchers, and physicians working in over 20 countries, primarily LMICs. The majority had over 10 years of implementation experience but fewer than 5 years of IS experience. Three main themes emerged from the data, pertaining to past experience with IS, future IS training needs, and contextual issues. Most respondents (even with formal training) described their IS knowledge as basic or minimal. Preferences for future training were heterogeneous, but findings suggest that curricula must encompass a broader set of competencies than just IS, include mentorship/apprenticeship, and center the LMIC context. Conclusion While this work is the first systematic assessment of IS learning needs among LMIC stakeholders, findings reflect existing research in that current training opportunities may not meet the demand, trainings are too narrowly focused to meet the heterogeneous needs of stakeholders, and there is a need for a broader set of competencies that moves beyond only IS. Our research also demonstrates the timely and unique needs of developing appropriately scoped, accessible training and mentorship support within LMIC settings. Therefore, we propose the novel approach of intelligent swarming as a solution to help build IS capacity in LMICs through the lens of sustainability and equity.Mallory Wolfe TurnerStephanie BogdewicErum AghaCarrie BlanchardRachel SturkeAudrey PettiforKathryn SalisburyAndrea Horvath MarquesMarie Lina ExcellentNitya RajagopalRohit RamaswamyBMCarticleImplementation scienceLow- and middle-income countriesCapacity buildingIntelligent swarmingMedicine (General)R5-920ENImplementation Science Communications, Vol 2, Iss 1, Pp 1-27 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Implementation science Low- and middle-income countries Capacity building Intelligent swarming Medicine (General) R5-920
spellingShingle	Implementation science Low- and middle-income countries Capacity building Intelligent swarming Medicine (General) R5-920 Mallory Wolfe Turner Stephanie Bogdewic Erum Agha Carrie Blanchard Rachel Sturke Audrey Pettifor Kathryn Salisbury Andrea Horvath Marques Marie Lina Excellent Nitya Rajagopal Rohit Ramaswamy Learning needs assessment for multi-stakeholder implementation science training in LMIC settings: findings and recommendations
description	Abstract Background Despite significant progress in the field of implementation science (IS), current training programs are inadequate to meet the global need, especially in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). Even when training opportunities exist, there is a “knowledge-practice gap,” where implementation research findings are not useful to practitioners in a field designed to bridge that gap. This is a critical challenge in LMICs where complex public health issues must be addressed. This paper describes results from a formal assessment of learning needs, priority topics, and delivery methods for LMIC stakeholders. Methods We first reviewed a sample of articles published recently in Implementation Science to identify IS stakeholders and assigned labels and definitions for groups with similar roles. We then employed a multi-step sampling approach and a random sampling strategy to recruit participants (n = 39) for a semi-structured interview that lasted 30–60 min. Stakeholders with inputs critical to developing training curricula were prioritized and selected for interviews. We created memos from audio-recorded interviews and used a deductively created codebook to conduct thematic analysis. We calculated kappa coefficients for each memo and used validation techniques to establish rigor including incorporating feedback from reviewers and member checking. Results Participants included program managers, researchers, and physicians working in over 20 countries, primarily LMICs. The majority had over 10 years of implementation experience but fewer than 5 years of IS experience. Three main themes emerged from the data, pertaining to past experience with IS, future IS training needs, and contextual issues. Most respondents (even with formal training) described their IS knowledge as basic or minimal. Preferences for future training were heterogeneous, but findings suggest that curricula must encompass a broader set of competencies than just IS, include mentorship/apprenticeship, and center the LMIC context. Conclusion While this work is the first systematic assessment of IS learning needs among LMIC stakeholders, findings reflect existing research in that current training opportunities may not meet the demand, trainings are too narrowly focused to meet the heterogeneous needs of stakeholders, and there is a need for a broader set of competencies that moves beyond only IS. Our research also demonstrates the timely and unique needs of developing appropriately scoped, accessible training and mentorship support within LMIC settings. Therefore, we propose the novel approach of intelligent swarming as a solution to help build IS capacity in LMICs through the lens of sustainability and equity.
format	article
author	Mallory Wolfe Turner Stephanie Bogdewic Erum Agha Carrie Blanchard Rachel Sturke Audrey Pettifor Kathryn Salisbury Andrea Horvath Marques Marie Lina Excellent Nitya Rajagopal Rohit Ramaswamy
author_facet	Mallory Wolfe Turner Stephanie Bogdewic Erum Agha Carrie Blanchard Rachel Sturke Audrey Pettifor Kathryn Salisbury Andrea Horvath Marques Marie Lina Excellent Nitya Rajagopal Rohit Ramaswamy
author_sort	Mallory Wolfe Turner
title	Learning needs assessment for multi-stakeholder implementation science training in LMIC settings: findings and recommendations
title_short	Learning needs assessment for multi-stakeholder implementation science training in LMIC settings: findings and recommendations
title_full	Learning needs assessment for multi-stakeholder implementation science training in LMIC settings: findings and recommendations
title_fullStr	Learning needs assessment for multi-stakeholder implementation science training in LMIC settings: findings and recommendations
title_full_unstemmed	Learning needs assessment for multi-stakeholder implementation science training in LMIC settings: findings and recommendations
title_sort	learning needs assessment for multi-stakeholder implementation science training in lmic settings: findings and recommendations
publisher	BMC
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/7faed7331f2c4038b89f72f5819c2319
work_keys_str_mv	AT mallorywolfeturner learningneedsassessmentformultistakeholderimplementationsciencetraininginlmicsettingsfindingsandrecommendations AT stephaniebogdewic learningneedsassessmentformultistakeholderimplementationsciencetraininginlmicsettingsfindingsandrecommendations AT erumagha learningneedsassessmentformultistakeholderimplementationsciencetraininginlmicsettingsfindingsandrecommendations AT carrieblanchard learningneedsassessmentformultistakeholderimplementationsciencetraininginlmicsettingsfindingsandrecommendations AT rachelsturke learningneedsassessmentformultistakeholderimplementationsciencetraininginlmicsettingsfindingsandrecommendations AT audreypettifor learningneedsassessmentformultistakeholderimplementationsciencetraininginlmicsettingsfindingsandrecommendations AT kathrynsalisbury learningneedsassessmentformultistakeholderimplementationsciencetraininginlmicsettingsfindingsandrecommendations AT andreahorvathmarques learningneedsassessmentformultistakeholderimplementationsciencetraininginlmicsettingsfindingsandrecommendations AT marielinaexcellent learningneedsassessmentformultistakeholderimplementationsciencetraininginlmicsettingsfindingsandrecommendations AT nityarajagopal learningneedsassessmentformultistakeholderimplementationsciencetraininginlmicsettingsfindingsandrecommendations AT rohitramaswamy learningneedsassessmentformultistakeholderimplementationsciencetraininginlmicsettingsfindingsandrecommendations
_version_	1718372265569026048

Learning needs assessment for multi-stakeholder implementation science training in LMIC settings: findings and recommendations

Ejemplares similares