Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Jun 4:9:517.
doi: 10.12688/f1000research.24144.1. eCollection 2020.

Measuring the outcome and impact of research capacity strengthening initiatives: A review of indicators used or described in the published and grey literature

Justin Pulford  1 , Natasha Price  1 , Jessica Amegee Quach  1 , Imelda Bates  1
Affiliations

Measuring the outcome and impact of research capacity strengthening initiatives: A review of indicators used or described in the published and grey literature

Justin Pulford et al. F1000Res. .

Abstract

Background: Development partners and research councils are increasingly investing in research capacity strengthening initiatives in low- and middle-income countries to support sustainable research systems. However, there are few reported evaluations of research capacity strengthening initiatives and no agreed evaluation metrics. Methods: To advance progress towards a standardised set of outcome and impact indicators, this paper presents a structured review of research capacity strengthening indicators described in the published and grey literature. Results: We identified a total of 668 indicators of which 40% measured output, 59.5% outcome and 0.5% impact. Only 1% of outcome and impact indicators met all four quality criteria applied. A majority (63%) of reported outcome indicators clustered in four focal areas, including: research management and support (97/400), the attainment and application of new research skills and knowledge (62/400), research collaboration (53/400), and knowledge transfer (39/400). Conclusions: Whilst this review identified few examples of quality research capacity strengthening indicators, it has identified priority focal areas in which outcome and impact indicators could be developed as well as a small set of 'candidate' indicators that could form the basis of development efforts.

Keywords: Evaluation; Indicators; LMICs; Research capacity strengthening; Review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

No competing interests were disclosed.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Process and outcomes from literature search strategy.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Number of indicators by type and level.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.. Number of outcome indicators by category and level.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Golenko X, Pager S, Holden L: A thematic analysis of the role of the organisation in building allied health research capacity: a senior managers’ perspective. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:276. 10.1186/1472-6963-12-276 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dye C, Boerma T, Evans D, et al. : The World Health Report 2013: research for universal health coverage.Geneva: World Health Organisation;2013.
    1. Pang T, Sadana R, Hanney S, et al. : Knowledge for better health: a conceptual framework and foundation for health research systems. Bull World Health Organ. 2003;81(11):815–20. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pastor J, Peraita C, Serrano L, et al. : Higher education institutions, economic growth and GDP per capita in European Union countries. European Planning Studies. 2018;26(8):1616–37. 10.1080/09654313.2018.1480707 - DOI
    1. Drucker J: Reconsidering the regional economic development impacts of higher education institutions in the United States. Regional Studies. 2016;50(7):1185–202. 10.1080/00343404.2014.986083 - DOI

Publication types