Evaluation of global health capacity building initiatives in low-and middle-income countries: A systematic review

LATEST ARTICLES
SEARCH INDEX
SUGGEST ARTICLE
THE OSI COLLECTIONS
ABOUT THE OSI

OSI STATISTICS

Total abstracts indexed:
538
Audio abstracts:
101
Open access articles:
478
Pending review:
124
Annotations added:
2
Countries represented:
91
No. of contributors:
10
Bookmarks made:
12
Specialities covered:
19

Evaluation of global health capacity building initiatives in low-and middle-income countries: A systematic review


JournalJournal of global health
Publication date – Aug – 2020
Authors – Hady Naal, Maria El Kouss, Melissa El Hamouch, Layal Hneiny, Shadi Saleh
Keywordsglobal health capacity building, Low-and middle-income countries
Open access – Yes
SpecialityHealth policy
World region Global

Language – English
Submitted to the One Surgery Index on September 1, 2020 at 3:34 am
Abstract:

Background
Low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) are in dire need to improve their
health outcomes. Although Global Health Capacity Building (GHCB) initiatives are
recommended approaches, they risk being ineffective in the absence of standardized evaluation
methods. This study systematically reviews evaluation approaches for GHCB initiatives in
LMICs.
Methods
We searched the Medline (OVID), PubMed, Scopus, and Embase.com databases for
studies reporting evaluation of a GHCB initiative in a LMIC from January 1st, 2009 until
August 15th, 2019. To differentiate them from intervention, prevention, and awareness
initiatives, included articles reported at least one approach to evaluate their learning modality.
We excluded cross-sectional studies, reviews, and book chapters that only assessed the effect
of interventions. Data identifying the learning modality, and evaluation method, level, time
interval, and approach were extracted from articles as primary outcomes.
Results
Of the 8,324 identified studies, 63 articles were eligible for analysis. Most studies
stemmed from Africa and Asia (69.8%), were delivered and evaluated face-to-face (74.6% and
76.2%), mainly to professionals (57.1%) and community workers (20.6%). Although the use
of online and blended modalities showed an increase over the past 4 years, only face-to-face
initiatives were evaluated long-term beyond individual-level. GHCB evaluations in general
lacked standardization especially regarding the tools.
Conclusion:
This is an important resource for evaluating GHCB initiatives in LMICs. It
synthesizes evaluation approaches, offers recommendations for improvement, and calls for the
standardization of evaluations, especially for long-term and wider impact assessment of online
and blended modalities.

OSI Number – 20660

Public annotations on this article:
No public annotations yet