PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
Research mentorship is critical for advancing science, but there are few practical strategies for cultivating mentorship in health research resource-limited settings. WHO/TDR Global commissioned a group to develop a practical guide on research mentorship. This global qualitative evidence synthesis included data from a crowdsourcing open call and scoping review to identify and propose strategies to enhance research mentorship in low/middle-income country (LMIC) institutions.
The crowdsourcing open call used methods recommended by WHO/TDR and solicited descriptions of strategies to enhance research mentorship in LMICs. The scoping review used the Cochrane Handbook and predefined the approach in a protocol. We extracted studies focused on enhancing health research mentorship in LMICs. Textual data describing research mentorship strategies from the open call and studies from the scoping review were coded into themes. The quality of evidence supporting themes was assessed using the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research approach.
The open call solicited 46 practical strategies and the scoping review identified 77 studies. We identified the following strategies to enhance research mentorship: recognising mentorship as an institutional responsibility that should be provided and expected from all team members (8 strategies, 15 studies; moderate confidence); leveraging existing research and training resources to enhance research mentorship (15 strategies, 49 studies; moderate confidence); digital tools to match mentors and mentees and sustain mentorship relations over time (14 strategies, 11 studies; low confidence); nurturing a culture of generosity so that people who receive mentorship then become mentors to others (7 strategies, 7 studies; low confidence); peer mentorship defined as informal and formal support from one researcher to another who is at a similar career stage (16 strategies, 12 studies; low confidence).
Research mentorship is a collective institutional responsibility, and it can be strengthened in resource-limited institutions by leveraging already existing resources. The evidence from the crowdsourcing open call and scoping review informed a WHO/TDR practical guide. There is a need for more formal research mentorship programmes in LMIC institutions.
The crowdsourcing open call used methods recommended by WHO/TDR and solicited descriptions of strategies to enhance research mentorship in LMICs. The scoping review used the Cochrane Handbook and predefined the approach in a protocol. We extracted studies focused on enhancing health research mentorship in LMICs. Textual data describing research mentorship strategies from the open call and studies from the scoping review were coded into themes. The quality of evidence supporting themes was assessed using the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research approach.
The open call solicited 46 practical strategies and the scoping review identified 77 studies. We identified the following strategies to enhance research mentorship: recognising mentorship as an institutional responsibility that should be provided and expected from all team members (8 strategies, 15 studies; moderate confidence); leveraging existing research and training resources to enhance research mentorship (15 strategies, 49 studies; moderate confidence); digital tools to match mentors and mentees and sustain mentorship relations over time (14 strategies, 11 studies; low confidence); nurturing a culture of generosity so that people who receive mentorship then become mentors to others (7 strategies, 7 studies; low confidence); peer mentorship defined as informal and formal support from one researcher to another who is at a similar career stage (16 strategies, 12 studies; low confidence).
Research mentorship is a collective institutional responsibility, and it can be strengthened in resource-limited institutions by leveraging already existing resources. The evidence from the crowdsourcing open call and scoping review informed a WHO/TDR practical guide. There is a need for more formal research mentorship programmes in LMIC institutions.
摘要：
背景：研究指导对于推进科学至关重要，但是在卫生研究资源有限的环境中培养导师的实用策略很少。世卫组织/TDRGlobal委托一个小组制定关于研究指导的实用指南。这种全球定性证据综合包括来自众包公开电话和范围审查的数据，以确定和提出策略，以加强中低收入国家（LMIC）机构的研究指导。
方法：众包公开调用使用了WHO/TDR推荐的方法，并征求了对策略的描述，以增强LMIC的研究指导。范围审查使用了Cochrane手册，并在协议中预定义了方法。我们提取了专注于加强LMIC健康研究指导的研究。来自公开电话的描述研究指导策略的文本数据和来自范围审查的研究被编码为主题。支持主题的证据质量是使用定性研究方法审查的证据信心来评估的。
结果：公开电话征集了46项实用策略，范围审查确定了77项研究。Weidentifiedthefollowingstrategiestoenhanceresearchmentorship:recognizingmentorshipasaninstitutionalresponsibilitythatshouldbeprovidedandexpectedfromallteammembers(8strategies,15项研究；适度的信心)；利用现有的研究和培训资源来加强研究指导(15项战略，49项研究；适度的信心)；数字工具，用于匹配导师和受训者，并随着时间的推移维持导师关系(14种策略，11项研究；低信心）；培养慷慨的文化，以便接受导师的人成为他人的导师（7种策略，7项研究；低信心）；同伴指导定义为从一个研究人员到另一个处于类似职业阶段的研究人员的非正式和正式支持（16种策略，12项研究；低置信度)。
结论：研究指导是一种集体机构责任，并且可以通过利用现有资源在资源有限的机构中得到加强。众包公开电话和范围审查的证据为世卫组织/TDR实践指南提供了信息。LMIC机构需要更正式的研究指导计划。
方法：众包公开调用使用了WHO/TDR推荐的方法，并征求了对策略的描述，以增强LMIC的研究指导。范围审查使用了Cochrane手册，并在协议中预定义了方法。我们提取了专注于加强LMIC健康研究指导的研究。来自公开电话的描述研究指导策略的文本数据和来自范围审查的研究被编码为主题。支持主题的证据质量是使用定性研究方法审查的证据信心来评估的。
结果：公开电话征集了46项实用策略，范围审查确定了77项研究。Weidentifiedthefollowingstrategiestoenhanceresearchmentorship:recognizingmentorshipasaninstitutionalresponsibilitythatshouldbeprovidedandexpectedfromallteammembers(8strategies,15项研究；适度的信心)；利用现有的研究和培训资源来加强研究指导(15项战略，49项研究；适度的信心)；数字工具，用于匹配导师和受训者，并随着时间的推移维持导师关系(14种策略，11项研究；低信心）；培养慷慨的文化，以便接受导师的人成为他人的导师（7种策略，7项研究；低信心）；同伴指导定义为从一个研究人员到另一个处于类似职业阶段的研究人员的非正式和正式支持（16种策略，12项研究；低置信度)。
结论：研究指导是一种集体机构责任，并且可以通过利用现有资源在资源有限的机构中得到加强。众包公开电话和范围审查的证据为世卫组织/TDR实践指南提供了信息。LMIC机构需要更正式的研究指导计划。
