Frameworks for evaluating health research capacity strengthening: a qualitative study
Frameworks for evaluating health research capacity strengthening: a qualitative study
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1478-4505-11-46
复制
发表时间：
2013-12-14
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
Bates, Imelda
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Boyd, Alan;Cole, Donald C.;Bates, Imelda
背景：卫生研究能力加强（RCS）项目往往是复杂的，难以评估。为了告知健康RCS评估工作，我们的目的是描述和比较现有的健康RCS评估框架的主要特征：其发展过程，目的，目标用户，结构，内容和重要的评估问题的覆盖面。第二个目标是探讨如何利用ESSENCE框架，该框架试图解决这样一个问题：协调不同资助者的评价要求。我们确定并分析了2004年至2012年间由七家资助机构发布的健康RCS评估框架，使用混合方法，包括对文件进行结构化定性分析，一个利益相关者的调查和磋商，在卫生RCS的资金agencies.Results的关键接触：该框架的目的主要是由组织本身使用，大多数主要面向资助者的内部组织性能要求。这些框架对具体涉及RCS的理论的提及有限。逻辑框架等通用工具通常用于记录活动、产出和成果，但很少强调探讨基本假设或背景制约因素。ESSENCE框架的使用似乎limited.Conclusions：我们认为，有改进框架的余地，通过纳入更容易获得的信息，如何在实践中进行评价;利益攸关方的更多参与，以下评价能力建设原则;更加重视解释框架的基本原理;并构建框架，以便将健康RCS评估的一般和项目特定方面分开。第三和第四项改进可能有助于协调。
Background: Health research capacity strengthening (RCS) projects are often complex and hard to evaluate. In order to inform health RCS evaluation efforts, we aimed to describe and compare key characteristics of existing health RCS evaluation frameworks: their process of development, purpose, target users, structure, content and coverage of important evaluation issues. A secondary objective was to explore what use had been made of the ESSENCE framework, which attempts to address one such issue: harmonising the evaluation requirements of different funders.Methods: We identified and analysed health RCS evaluation frameworks published by seven funding agencies between 2004 and 2012, using a mixed methods approach involving structured qualitative analyses of documents, a stakeholder survey and consultations with key contacts in health RCS funding agencies.Results: The frameworks were intended for use predominantly by the organisations themselves, and most were oriented primarily towards funders' internal organisational performance requirements. The frameworks made limited reference to theories that specifically concern RCS. Generic devices, such as logical frameworks, were typically used to document activities, outputs and outcomes, but with little emphasis on exploring underlying assumptions or contextual constraints. Usage of the ESSENCE framework appeared limited.Conclusions: We believe that there is scope for improving frameworks through the incorporation of more accessible information about how to do evaluation in practice; greater involvement of stakeholders, following evaluation capacity building principles; greater emphasis on explaining underlying rationales of frameworks; and structuring frameworks so that they separate generic and project-specific aspects of health RCS evaluation. The third and fourth of these improvements might assist harmonisation.