Chelsea M. McGuire

Background: Effective and scalable strategies are needed to develop health research capacity in low- and middle‑income countries (LMICs). Health research capacity strengthening (HRCS) focuses on boosting production and utilization of health research, with clinicians as key target participants. Despite the increased prevalence of virtual HRCS programs, there has been no review of the evidence for those targeting LMIC clinicians to date. Objective: This review characterizes the use of virtual tools in HRCS programs for clinicians in LMICs and describes the impacts, facilitators, and barriers associated with these programs. Methods: Following our protocol (PROSPERO; CRD42020152510), we employed an integrative review methodology. We adapted Cooke’s Research Capacity Development for Impact framework by adding “equity” as a new domain and used it to evaluate programmatic impacts. We retrieved relevant articles from five databases and gray literature. Included articles were extracted and stratified by degree of virtual delivery. We analyzed virtual tool usage via content analysis. Using NVivo, we coded until theoretical saturation and analyzed data using the constant comparison method. Findings: From 1397 articles, 58 met inclusion criteria. Most programs were hybrid, and e‑courses were the most used virtual tool. Articles described impacts across all framework domains; the most discussed were skills and confidence building. Facilitators included user‑friendly platforms, interactive content, and strategies to improve program access, including financial and technological support. Some programs incorporated hybrid strategies to foster trust among participants and virtual mentors. Barriers included a lack of or an unfavorable local research culture. Conclusions: Recommendations from this review may guide the design and implementation of virtual HRCS programs for LMIC clinicians. These include selecting well‑fitted program participants, intentionally designing program structure and content, conducting needs assessments or pilots, incorporating equity as a programmatic target, ensuring longitudinal program evaluation and monitoring, and utilizing a comprehensive conceptualization of program sustainability.

Annals of Global Health is a peer-reviewed, fully open access, online journal dedicated to publishing high quality articles dedicated to all aspects of global health. The journal's mission is to advance global health, promote research, and foster the prevention and treatment of disease worldwide. Its goals are to improve the health and well-being of all people, advance health equity, and promote wise stewardship of the earth's environment. The latest journal impact factor is 2.90. Annals of Global Health is supported by the Program for Global Public Health and the Common Good at Boston College. It was founded in 1934 by the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai as the Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine. It is a partner journal of the Consortium of Universities for Global Health. From time to time, Annals of Global Health publishes Special Collections, a series of articles organized around a common theme in global health. Recent Special Collections have included "Local evidence and strategies in addressing NCDs Non-Communicable Diseases in Tanzania", "Universal Health Coverage through Integrated Care", and "The Minderoo-Monaco Commission on Plastics and Human Health". Global health workers interested in developing a Special Collection are strongly encouraged to contact the Managing Editor in advance to discuss the project.

Background: Since 2020, the world has been battling the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The mortality and morbidity at the height of the pandemic sparked generalised fear and uncertainty about the future. Concerns were raised about the psychological impact of the pandemic on workers in healthcare systems globally. This study was conducted to establish the degree of psychological impact of the pandemic on frontline health workers in Lesotho. Methods: The study used a quantitative cross-sectional survey design. The Kessler psychological distress screening tool (K-10) and the post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) checklist for civilians (PCL-C) were administered to screen for psychological distress among clinical staff at St. Joseph’s Hospital in Roma and its four Health Centres. Additional open- and closed-ended questions were added for context. Data were analysed using Fisher’s exact tests, Pearson chi-square tests and correlation studies. Results: Of the 101 participants, 42 (41.6%) scored ≥ 24 on the K-10 scale (95% CI: 32.0% – 51.2%) indicating moderate to severe psychological distress and 32 (31.7%) scored ≥ 50 on the PCL-C checklist suggesting severe PTSD (95% CI: 24.5% – 42.9%). High scores on the K-10 were found more among men than women (17 [37.8%] vs. 4 [7.1%]; p ≤ 0.001). Post-traumatic stress disorder was more in the younger age group (p ≤ 0.03), in those reporting anxiety (p = 0.005) and those with more co-morbidities (p ≤ 0.001). Conclusion: This study revealed the grave psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on frontline clinical health workers in Lesotho. Contribution: These data will assist health leaders and policymakers to implement mental health support interventions for health workers in future.

The African Journal of Primary Health & Family Medicine welcomes submissions that encourage scholarly exchange between family medicine and primary health care researchers and practitioners across Africa and the developing world, whilst providing a contextual and holistic view of family medicine as practiced across the continent.

To improve the delivery and reach of primary health care, a robust scientific foundation driven by research is needed. However, few family physicians conduct research, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. Early-career and trainee family physicians are a key part of the primary care research pipeline and have an expressed need for research training and mentorship. AfriWon Research Collaborative (ARC) was an online research training and mentorship pilot program whose objective was to increase research activity among participants from AfriWon Renaissance, the family physician young doctors’ movement of sub-Saharan Africa. ARC utilized a 10-module online curriculum, supported by peer and faculty e-mentorship, to guide participants through writing a research protocol. The feasibility, acceptability, and scalability of this program was evaluated via a mixed-methods RE-AIM-guided process evaluation using descriptive statistics and inductive/deductive thematic analysis. The pilot reached participants from Botswana, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ghana, Nigeria and Sierra Leone and was adopted by mentors from 11 countries across three continents. Four of the 10 pilot participants completed a full research protocol by the end of the six-month core program. Seven out of the 10 participants, and nine out of the 15 mentors, planned to continue their mentorship relationships beyond the core program. The program helped instill a positive research culture in active participants. Some participants’ and mentors’ engagement with the ARC program was limited by confusion over mentorship structure and role, poor network connectivity, and personal life challenges. Online research training and mentorship for trainee and early-career family physicians in sub-Saharan Africa is feasible and acceptable to participants and mentors. Similar programs must pay careful attention to mentorship training and provide a flexible yet clearly organized structure for mentee-mentor engagement. Additional work is needed to determine optimal implementation strategies and ability to scale.

Background: Strengthening primary care research capacity is a priority globally. Family medicine training programmes in sub-Saharan Africa represent an important opportunity to build primary care research; however, they are often limited by insufficient research training and mentorship. Peers can be used to extend research mentorship capacity, but have not been evaluated in this context. Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate one family medicine training programme’s research capacity building efforts through a blended research curriculum and peer mentorship. Setting: Lesotho is a landlocked country within South Africa of approximately two million people. The Family Medicine Specialty Training Programme (FMSTP) is the only accredited postgraduate medical education programme in Lesotho. Methods: This two-year mixed-methods evaluation used: (1) Likert-scale surveys measuring trainee research confidence, (2) written evaluations by trainees, peers, programme faculty and administrators and (3) in-depth, semi-structured interviews. Survey data were analysed using Friedman and sign tests. Interview and written data were analysed thematically via a mixed inductive-deductive approach using Cooke’s framework. Results: Family Medicine Specialty Training Programme trainees (n = 8) experienced moderate increases in research confidence that were statistically significant. Skill-building occurred primarily via experiential learning. Research was grounded in trainees’ clinical practice and locally relevant. A positive research culture was created, promising for sustainability. We identified infrastructure gaps, including funding and protected time. Peer research mentorship supported trainees’ motivation and provided a safe space for questions. Conclusion: The FMSTP research curriculum and peer mentorship programme were successful in positively impacting a number of Cooke’s research capacity domains. This evaluation identified improvements that are now being implemented.

The African Journal of Primary Health & Family Medicine welcomes submissions that encourage scholarly exchange between family medicine and primary health care researchers and practitioners across Africa and the developing world, whilst providing a contextual and holistic view of family medicine as practiced across the continent.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalent sexual norms and behaviors of rural Rwandan adolescents, including barriers to accessing and utilizing reproductive healthcare services, were explored qualitatively. METHODS: Focus groups were conducted with adolescents in the rural community of Kibogora, Rwanda. Participants included students from local secondary schools and adolescents not in school. Interview guides were adapted from validated World Health Organization guides. Trained midwives conducted focus groups in the local language. All were recorded, interpreted, transcribed and coded for themes. Interviewers were matched in gender with interviewees. Each subject completed a demographic survey with questions pertaining to sex and personal relationships. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-six adolescents (14-24 years) participated. Fourteen focus groups were conducted. Predominant themes include prevalence of transactional sex, need for sexual and reproductive health knowledge, need for increased access to condoms and services, fear of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, and confidentiality issues related to obtaining care. Adolescents correctly identify risks of having unsafe sex (infectious disease and pregnancy) but feel obtaining services is socially prohibitive. Adolescents consistently overestimate the number of sexually active peers when compared to the low number of adolescents reporting sexual activity on anonymous surveys. CONCLUSION: It is not only important to involve the local community, including adolescents, in designing and implementing any sexual and reproductive health educational program but it is also important to create safe and comfortable avenues for adolescents to access confidential services.

Purpose: To improve understanding of the facilitators and barriers affecting the integration of mind–body medicine (MBM) into primary care and describe the experiences of mind–body primary care providers. Methods: The authors conducted a qualitative analysis of semi-structured telephone interviews with mind–body primary care providers selected via a maximum variation sampling strategy. Results: Four main themes emerged: (1) MBM is an approach to patient care as well as a set of modalities, (2) time and reimbursement pose significant challenges to MBM, (3) support for MBM in one's practice setting is a key facilitator, and (4) commitment to MBM comes from personal experience. “Insufficient time” was the most highly ranked barrier among survey respondents. Interviewees described innovative strategies to overcome barriers, including customized intake forms, MBM training for staff, MBM group visits, and discounted referrals for low-income patients. Conclusions: While increased MBM and self-care training for providers may facilitate the integration of MBM into primary care, systematic changes are needed to decrease time pressures on providers and incentivize patient wellness. Despite barriers, providers are using innovative strategies to provide mind–body primary care in diverse practice settings.