Volume LV, Number 2
Improving Scientific and Grant Writing Among Early-Career Scientists Involved in Health Science Research in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Case of Strengthening Institutional Capacity for Research Administration in Uganda (SICRA)
Francis Kiweewa
Strengthening Institutional Capacity for Research Administration (SICRA), Lira-Uganda;
Makerere University Walter Reed project (MUWRP), Kampala-Uganda;
Lira Regional Referral Hospital, Department of Internal Medicine, Lira-Uganda.
Bannet Asingura
Strengthening Institutional Capacity for Research Administration (SICRA), Lira-Uganda;
Makerere University Walter Reed project (MUWRP), Kampala-Uganda;
Makerere University School of Biomedical Sciences, Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology.
Sheila Achabo
Strengthening Institutional Capacity for Research Administration (SICRA), Lira-Uganda;
Makerere University Walter Reed project (MUWRP), Kampala-Uganda.
Lydia Nakiyingi
Strengthening Institutional Capacity for Research Administration (SICRA), Lira-Uganda;
Infectious Diseases Institute (IDI), Makerere University College of Health Sciences, Kampala-Uganda.
Ezra Musingye
Makerere University Walter Reed Project (MUWRP), Kampala-Uganda.
Juliet Kizanye
Makerere University Walter Reed Project (MUWRP), Kampala-Uganda.
Gertrude Nassanga
Makerere University Walter Reed Project (MUWRP), Kampala-Uganda.
Lynnette Ann Mukasa
Makerere University Walter Reed Project (MUWRP), Kampala-Uganda.
Betty Mwesigwa
Makerere University Walter Reed Project (MUWRP), Kampala-Uganda.
Hannah Kibuuka
Makerere University Walter Reed Project (MUWRP), Kampala-Uganda.
Henry Tumwijukye
Global Research Administration and Management Services Limited, Kampala-Uganda.
Abstract
Background: Expertise in scientific and grant writing are essential in health science research and practice. Quality scientific and grant writing are uncommon in Uganda which is partly responsible for the low quality and quantity of research outputs. To address this, the Makerere University Walter Reed Project (MUWRP) implemented Strengthening Institutional Capacity for Research Administration in Uganda (SICRA).
Methods: SICRA conducted 3-day face-to-face and virtual training workshops in scientific and grant writing targeting early-career scientists (ECS) at institutions involved in health research and graduate training in Uganda. Mentorship and follow-up were by phone call, email and face-to-face meetings as required. To determine the effect of SICRA interventions, we conducted a quasi-experimental impact assessment among trainees using a semi-structured questionnaire.
Results: 245 ECS attended SICRA workshops on grant writing (37.2%), scientific writing (33.3%), or both (28.2%). Seventy-eight trainees (32%) participated in the impact assessment. A majority of respondents (60.3%) had a master’s degree; 83% were full-time employees at a research or academic institution and 97.4% were involved in health research. Before SICRA, only 34.6% of respondents had written a manuscript, 19.2% had submitted at least one manuscript for institutional internal review and 25.6% had been published. After SICRA, 66.7% had written a manuscript (p<0.001), 51.3% had submitted a manuscript for internal review (p<0.001) and 38.5% were published (p=0.064). Before SICRA, only 37.2% had submitted a grant proposal, 24.4% had won a grant and 43.6% had participated in grant writing teams. After SICRA, 64.1% had submitted a grant proposal (p<0.001), 42.3% had received funding (p=0.011), and 62.8% were participating in grant writing teams (p=0.02).
Conclusions: SICRA improved ECS scientific and grant writing which led to increased research output. The 3-day training approach is appropriate for Uganda and similar LMICs.
Keywords: early-career scientists, scientific/grant writing, research administration
Introduction
Expertise in scientific communication including scholarly and grant writing are quintessential for a successful career in health science practice and research (Guyer et al., 2021; Behzadi & Gajdács, 2021; Council on Education for Public Health, 2021). The “modern” scientific paper can be traced back to the 17th century when form and style were first standardized with the publication of Le Journal des Scavans in France on 5 Jan 1665, and Philosophical Transactions in the United Kingdom on 6 March 1665 (Fyfe et al., 2015; Ghasemi et al., 2022). By the 19th century, experiments were being described in detail to allow reproducibility, referencing previous works; structuring scientific papers was evolving to ensure standardization. The current formal structure of scientific papers, i.e. introduction, methods, results and discussion (IMRaD) was adopted in the 1980s (Audisio et al, 2009). Currently, there are about 52,564 journals covering various topics in biomedical sciences (Ghasemi et al., 2022) and disseminating novel findings, knowledge and ideas through professional writing and publishing is critical for authors, the public and advancement of science (Azer et al., 2012).
Conducting rigorous research that is worthy of publication in impactful peer-reviewed journals requires sustainable funding, which is usually obtained through grant writing. Grant writing can be a daunting and tedious process for many scientists; depending on the application requirements, complexity of the idea/research and experience of the team, it may take six to twelve months to write, review and submit a winning grant proposal (Devine, 2009). Grant application success rates are low, for example, less than 15% of applications to the European Union’s Horizon Research and Innovation Programme were funded in 2020, and less than 20% of applications were funded by the NIH (Weidmann et al., 2023). Practice and training can help in learning the basics of writing manuscripts and grants (Arrazola et al., 2020; Asokan & Shaji, 2016; Brumback, 2009; Bulage et al., 2021), however, good writing requires multiple procedures which are based on a framework/blueprint (Gemayel, 2016; Tullu, & Karande, 2017), mentoring by successful and seasoned authors and grant writers (Brumback, 2009), and robust supportive institutional structures including research and grant administration systems (Bavdekar & Tullu, 2016).
Many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) including Uganda have low research output mainly because of structural barriers; e.g., inadequate funding and research infrastructure (Fosci et al., 2019; Chan & Costa, 2005; Franzen et al., 2017; Man et al., 2004), however Uganda has steadily improved (Fosci et al., 2019). In 2020, the Essence on Health Research ranked Uganda as having Upper Medium Research Capacity based on the number of clinical trials, international grants (World RePORT), publications (PubMED) and training institutions offering PhDs (Eigbike & Essence on Health Research, 2020). This is in part due to targeted capacity building programs funded by internationally renowned institutions including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Fogarty International Center, Wellcome Trust, WHO’s Tropical Disease Research (TDR), the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA), Department for Research Cooperation (SAREC), the European Union and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (Fosci et al., 2019; Whitworth et al., 2008). The NIH has played a leading role by providing grants for many individual and institutional training programs at Ugandan tertiary and research institutions, especially Makerere University, and many of the supported programs focus on research training in Malaria, HIV, TB, Trypanosomiasis, and a few noncommunicable conditions, e.g., cancers. International and local funding opportunities for Ugandan researchers and research institutions have also increased, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, the government of Uganda and the U.S. Government have made significant multi-million-dollar investments in research funding and infrastructure development for health research and vaccine development in Uganda in recent years (Haberer et al., 2023; Kwizera et al, 2021). However, despite these efforts, the quantity and quality of research outputs including innovations and peer-reviewed publications remains relatively low in Uganda and many other LMICs particularly due to inadequate research support and administration (Fosci et al., 2019), and knowledge and skills gaps in scholarly writing. Uganda’s secondary and tertiary education does not offer adequate training in scholarly writing (Nsambu, 2007, Kyakuwa, 2023) and the health workforce—especially early-career scientists (ECS)—have few opportunities or encouragement for continuing education, practice and mentorship to improve professional writing skills (Oluwasanu et al., 2019; Lescano et al., 2019; Obuku et al., 2018; Ssemata et al., 2017; Nakanjako et al., 2011).
To improve professional scientific and grant writing among ECS in Uganda, the Makerere University Walter Reed Project (MUWRP) implemented a NIH funded G11 program titled Strengthening Institutional Capacity for Research Administration in Uganda (SICRA) between 2015 and 2020. SICRA training targeted research and administrative staff at key partner institutions involved in health research and graduate-level training in Uganda, i.e. MUWRP, Uganda Cancer Institute (UCI), Makerere University College of Veterinary Medicine, and Animal Resource and Biosecurity (MakCOVAB). In July 2021, we conducted an impact assessment to determine the effect of SICRA interventions, and here we present the findings and recommendations from our work.
Methods
Trainee and Mentor Selection
SICRA trainings were advertised by email, flyers/posters on notice boards at target institutions, and social media (WhatsApp). Prospective trainees were required to write an expression of interest including how the respective SICRA training workshops will impact their career. For grant writing workshops, trainees were expected to have evidence of employment with a research or academic program or to be a student at one of the recognized Universities. They were also required to have a proposal topic, a target funding opportunity for which they are eligible and a reference letter from their institutional head or immediate supervisor. For scientific writing workshops, trainees required a research dataset, a manuscript topic and at least an abstract. At the beginning of the training program, trainees were asked to enumerate their respective expectations from the training engagement at an individual and team level. Similarly, the training organizers enumerated the training goals and the responsibilities of the trainees. The expectations were reviewed daily between the trainees and the training organizers to assess how well they were being met, and together agreed on reasonable adjustments in the training approach so that expectations were met. The trainers and mentors for both the scientific/manuscript and the grant writing training workshops were selected based on their subject matter expertise, experience (including grant-winning history, publications in peer-reviewed journals, and adult learning), flexibility, commitment to the program and a demonstrable willingness to provide ongoing mentorship.
Training Approach
Figure 1 below summarizes the SICRA Training Approach. Between 2016 and 2020, SICRA conducted three workshops in scientific writing and six workshops in grantsmanship (including research administration) to train and mentor ECS at MUWRP, MakCOVAB, UCI, and other research and academic institutions in Uganda. Using an interactive approach that paid attention to specific individual and/or team training needs, trainees were supported to develop their draft grant proposals and/or manuscripts.
Training Curriculum and Trainers
The sample training curriculum is summarized below in Tables 1 and 2. Also refer to the Supplementary Materials for the sample training slides used as well as the abridged trainers’ biography.
Figure 1. SICRA’s 3-day Training Approach and Curriculum
The Training focused on (1) writing a good story from the editor’s, reviewer’s, or reader’s perspective i.e. writing for the audience, (2) improving scholarly writing style for clear and concise writing, (3) manuscript structure (IMRaD) and NIH grant structure, (4) misconduct during writing and publication, (5) creating data management plans and best practices during data dissemination, (6) deciding who should be an author or principle investigator and how to share authorship and leadership on grant proposal, (7) criteria to consider when selecting target journals and funding mechanisms, (8) understanding the peer-review and grant review process and responding to reviewers’ comments, (9) understanding research metrics, NIH scoring and contribution to science, and (10) preparing cover letters and navigating the submission process.
Table 1. Sample Agenda for the Manuscript Writing Workshops
Each SICRA workshop lasted 3 days and involved face-to-face and online didactic lectures, group practical sessions and question and answer sessions. After, trainees were awarded certificates of completion and offered ongoing mentorship and research/grant administrative support through email, text messages and phone calls.
Table 2. Sample Agenda for the Grant Writing Workshops
Impact Assessment
In 2021, 245 former SICRA trainees were invited by email to participate in the impact assessment. We received confirmation of attendance from 70% of former trainees but 2 days before the workshop, COVID-19 containment measures were announced in Uganda which hindered travel and public gatherings including workshops. Despite this, 78 (32%) attended the half-day impact assessment workshop and participated in a quasi-experimental survey using a semi-structured questionnaire designed to collect data on: (1) demographics and (2) experience, knowledge, skills and attitude towards scientific and grant writing before and after SICRA. (Refer to Supplemental File 3). After the survey, attendees participated in open-ended discussions with the facilitators to ask questions and provide feedback about SICRA’s training approach and impact.
Statistical Analysis
Demographic and descriptive data are presented as frequency counts and percentages. Data collected under a before and after SICRA design were analyzed using the two-sided exact McNemar’s test for categorical variables and the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test for continuous variables. P-values (p) less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
Ethical Considerations
SICRA activities were approved by Makerere University School of Public Health Research Ethics Committee (MakSPH-HDREC) and the Uganda National Council of Science and Technology (UNCST). Since SICRA was a training program with a pre-planned impact assessment, MakSPH-HDREC granted a waiver of written informed consent. All individuals who participated in the impact assessment provided verbal informed consent. To ensure confidentiality, all questionnaires were coded and did not contain personal identifiers.
Results
Demographics
245 ECS attended at least one SICRA workshop, i.e., grant writing (37.2%), scientific writing (33.3%), or both (28.2%). Although 70% of the trainees confirmed their intention to participate in the impact assessment, only seventy-eight trainees (32%) eventually participated in the impact assessment mainly due to the COVID-19 containment measure announced by the Uganda Government restricting movements and gatherings. Of the 78 SICRA trainees who participated in the impact assessment, 43 (55%) were males, 29 (37.2%) attended the grantsmanship training only, 26 (33.3%) attended scientific writing training only, and 22 (28.2%) attended both. Forty-seven (60.3%) had a masters’ degree, 65 (83.3%) were full-time employees at a research/academic institution and 76 (97.4%) classified their work as involving research (Refer to Table 3).
Table 3. Demographics of SICRA Trainees who Participated in the Impact Assessment (n=78)
Scientific Writing
A majority of trainees who participated in the impact assessment reported that SICRA improved their knowledge, skills and competencies in scientific writing. Before SICRA, 42.3% said they lacked adequate writing skills/expertise, 17.9% mentioned they lacked confidence and 32% reported inadequate mentorship. All the aforementioned indicators reduced after SICRA: only 10.3% lacked adequate writing skills/expertise (p<0.001), 6.4% lacked confidence (p=0.012), and 11.5% noted inadequate mentorship (p<0.001). SICRA did not impact trainees’ heavy workload, access to research data, data analysis skills and ability to identify research topics. Below are quotes from select SICRA trainees about the impact of SICRA on their scientific writing:
“My participation in SICRA training generally influenced my confidence in writing and helped me gain a more positive attitude towards scientific writing. Additionally, SICRA provided extra resources to help in guiding e.g., websites.” (K_01)
“I had confidence in the abstract I was going to present because I was sure that it was well-written, and the research was well-done following mentorship and writing skills I received from SICRA.” (K_12)
“After attending scientific writing training, I re-wrote my dissertation, I felt confident about my work and decided to share it with a bigger group.” (K_07)
“It [SICRA] empowered me and gave me more knowledge on writing.” (K_39)
SICRA also improved manuscript output and publications in peer-reviewed journals: before SICRA, only 34.6% had written a manuscript, 19.2% had submitted at least one manuscript for internal review, and 25.6% had published in a peer-reviewed journal. After SICRA, each of the aforementioned indicators increased: 66.7% had written a manuscript (p<0.001), 51.3% had submitted manuscript(s) for internal review (p<0.001), and 38.5% (p=0.064) had been published (Refer to Table 4).
Table 4. Trainees’ Experience in Scientific Writing Before and After SICRA
Trainees’ Experience in Scientific Writing Before and After SICRA
The above cited paper also endorses that a sample of national policies recognize competences, inclusive of soft skills, as a means to deliver non-formal learning recognition. These views dovetail with SARIMA’s and the IPRC’s positioning and orientation.
Grant Writing
SICRA increased grant proposal output and participation in grant writing teams: before SICRA, 43.6% of respondents had participated in grant writing teams (including roles where they were not the lead) which increased significantly to 62.8% after SICRA (p=0.02). Similarly, there was a statistically significant increase in the proportion of respondents who submitted a grant proposal after SICRA, i.e. from 37.2% to 64.1% (p<0.001). The number of grant awardees also increased from 24.4% to 42.3% after SICRA (p=0.011). Below are quotes from select SICRA trainees about the impact of SICRA on their grant writing:
“After attending SICRA I had the confidence and self-belief that I would participate in a successful grant writing and submission. SICRA gave me the skills and additional knowledge on how to perform grants writing.” (K_22)
“Participation in SICRA helped me learn how to draft a grant and even a concept, so I felt more confident to participate.” (K_60)
“The skills gained in critical appraisal, understanding FOA guidelines influenced my decision.” (K_58)
SICRA also increased the number of trainees who joined grant writing teams and assumed various supportive roles. We observed significant improvements in the number of trainees who: 1) conducted literature reviews i.e. 17.9% to 35.9% (p<0.001); 2) developed statistical plans i.e. 3.8% to 12.8% (p=0.039); 3) developed budgets i.e.15.4% to 28.2% (p=0.021); 4) handled referencing/citations i.e. 3.9% to 16.7% (p=0.006); and 5) formatted proposals i.e. 9.0% to 23.1% (p=0.012).
SICRA also significantly improved awareness about research and grant administration: before SICRA, 65.4% were aware of grant/research administration support systems at parent organization and 47.4% were aware of research policies/research strategic plans/Standard Operating Procedures at parent organization; both indicators significantly improved to 88.5% and 83.1% respectively.
Table 5. Trainee’s Experiences in Grant Writing Before and After SICRA
The conceptual framework (Figure 1) is depicted in overlapping circles (1-4). As noted above, we contend that non-formal accreditation, as achieved through judging experiential competencies, spans learning and work boundaries (Circle 1). Equally so, RMA spans role and identity boundaries (Whitchurch, 2008). (2), SARIMA, as an organization, also coalesces on boundary spanning in the multi-faceted roles around RMA together with innovation management, as well as its work across Higher Education, Government, Funding Agencies and Private Sector research (3). SARIMA’s work on its framework and related accreditation signals it to be an expert body, willing to pronounce or ‘regulate’ on the “nebulous” nature of competence and demarcate core and transversal “attributes for… professional judgement” and “authentic… performance” (Rich, 2019, p. 2). SARIMA may therefore be seen to be comfortable working ‘the boundary’. We investigate this as an exploratory question (4). In this initial conceptualization, we assume firm lines for each distinct domain (circled), while also providing Venn diagrams to show that, as per the research question, there are overlapping strategies, which are to be investigated. The conceptual framework informed our theorizing process, which we then operationalized methodologically through exploring the narratives of each distinct element of the framework, using narrative interview methods.
Perception about SICRA Training Model
A majority of trainees who participated in the impact assessment considered the SICRA training approach as appropriate to address ECS training needs in professional scientific and grant writing: 75 (96.2%) indicated that they would strongly recommend SICRA to their colleagues; and 71 (91%) strongly agreed and/or agreed that SICRA provided adequate skills to write manuscripts/grants and/or identify appropriate funding opportunities. Only 24 (30.8%) reported that they required further training in scientific and grant writing after SICRA.
Discussion
SICRA workshops and training modules were designed to target ECS at select institutions involved in research and graduate-level training in Uganda, as a majority of SICRA trainees were full-time employees holding a masters’ degree, as is common for many ECS in Uganda.
Overall, our results demonstrate that SICRA significantly improved ECS’s knowledge, skills, competence and confidence in scientific and grant writing including understanding the characteristics of good writing and review processes as evidenced by actual engagement in writing which culminated in publications in peer-reviewed journals and grant awards after SICRA. SICRA trainees therefore increased research output at MUWRP, UCI, MakCOVAB and other target institutions. Our findings corroborate previous scholars who showed that health research output and capacity building models that utilize seminars, workshops, and experienced scientists as trainers significantly improved research capacity (Arrazola et al., 2020; Varadaraj et al., 2019).
However, SICRA may not have significantly addressed some individual barriers in scientific and grant writing such as heavy workload, lack of access to data, inadequate data analysis skills and lack of a topic although there was a trend towards improvement. This could be because SICRA was designed to improve knowledge, skills and competencies in a narrow field of professional scientific and grant writing, but not time management, data analysis (which varies greatly across scientific genre) and other individual skills required for successful careers in health research. Future SICRA trainings may need to be augmented with more activities and opportunities for ECS to learn from experienced mentors about how to navigate the early stages of a scientific career that usually require huge time investment, hard work and persistence (Shinkafi, 2020; Richards et al., 2021).
Sustaining health research capacity gains from SICRA and similar programs requires functional institutional systems including mentorship, research/grant administration systems (Brumback, 2009). SICRA significantly increased the number of ECS that were adequately mentored, aware and able to utilize grant administrative support staff and research policies at MUWRP, UC, MakCOVAB and other target institutions. The awareness about supportive institutional environments may have also contributed to the observed increase in research output at target institutions.
Finally, since more than 96% of respondents stated that they would recommend SICRA to their colleagues, the SICRA approach/model is appropriate for Uganda and similar settings to train and mentor ECS in professional scientific and grant writing. SICRA workshops and mentorship approaches are based on strategies implemented by others (Behzadi & Gajdács, 2021; Arrazola et al., 2020; Iskander et al., 2018; Sharma, 2010), but slightly adjusted to match the context-specific needs of ECS in Uganda and similar resource-limited settings. For instance, due to heavy workload, many ECS in Uganda rarely have time to spare outside their day-to-day jobs, therefore SICRA training content was condensed into a curriculum that could be taught in a short time (3 days) without significantly impacting working hours. The short-course approach enabled more ECS to attend SICRA workshops to completion, however, this approach may not impart all the knowledge, skills and competencies required to be a professional scientific and grant writer which could explain why some SICRA trainees attended multiple scientific and grant writing workshops.
Limitations
There was a low response rate (32%) in the impact assessment: only 78/245 SICRA trainees participated. We received confirmation of attendance from 70% of former trainees but 2 days before the workshop, COVID-19 containment measures were announced in Uganda which hindered travel and public gatherings. Therefore, it is possible that our data is biased by the low response rate. Second, we relied on the trainees’ memory for the before and after SICRA analyses which could cause recall bias. To minimize this, we used each individual as their own control since a healthy ECS can clearly recall what they learned in 1-5 years. Third, the impact assessment did not collect data on other professional writing trainings that SICRA trainees may have attended between 2015 and 2020. However, the increasing popularity and interest in SICRA at various institutions alludes that as a model, SICRA was more appreciated than similar programs at the time. Lastly, SICRA impact assessment did not collect data or follow up on the quality but largely focused on quantity of publications by SICRA trainees.
Conclusion
SICRA had a positive impact on ECS’s professional scientific and grant writing which lead to increased research output. The 3-day training approach is appropriate for LMICs where ECS may have little time to spare, however future trainings should be augmented with activities and mentorship opportunities that empower ECS to overcome personal barriers in health science career paths, e.g. time management, hard work and persistence. Therefore, future SICRA trainings and other programs considering similar health research capacity-building programs should incorporate training activities and modules that address SICRA’s shortcomings and provide opportunities for ECS to sufficiently learn from experienced scientists and mentors. These lessons can inform best practices for future writing courses and resource allocation to support writing activities among ECSs.
Authors’ Contributions
The authors contributed to the manuscript as follows: FK, SA, HK and HT participated in conceptualization and funding acquisition; FK, BA, SA, BM and HK participated in project administration and supervision. FK, BA and EM designed the methodology of the impact assessment; FK, BA, SA, EM, GN, LN, LAM and JK participated in data collection, curation and formal analysis; FK and BA participated in original draft preparation; all authors participated in final review and editing.
Francis Kiweewa*
Strengthening Institutional Capacity for Research Administration (SICRA), Lira-Uganda;
Makerere University Walter Reed project (MUWRP), Kampala-Uganda;
Lira Regional Referral Hospital, Department of Internal Medicine, Lira-Uganda.
Bannet Asingura*
Makerere University Walter Reed project (MUWRP), Kampala-Uganda;
Makerere University School of Biomedical Sciences, Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology.
Sheila Achabo
Strengthening Institutional Capacity for Research Administration (SICRA), Lira-Uganda;
Makerere University Walter Reed project (MUWRP), Kampala-Uganda.
Lydia Nakiyingi
Strengthening Institutional Capacity for Research Administration (SICRA), Lira-Uganda;
Infectious Diseases Institute (IDI), Makerere University College of Health Sciences, Kampala-Uganda.
Ezra Musingye, Juliet Kizanye, Gertrude Nassanga, Lynnette Ann Mukasa, Betty Mwesigwa, Hannah Kibuuka
Makerere University Walter Reed Project (MUWRP), Kampala-Uganda.
Henry Tumwijukye
Global Research Administration and Management Services Limited, Kampala-Uganda.
*Corresponding Authors’ Information
Francis Kiweewa, MBChB, MMED, MPH is the Chair of the Department of Internal Medicine at Lira Regional Referral Hospital, and Principal Investigator of Strengthening Institutional Capacity for Research Administration (SICRA).fkiweewa@gmail.com(FK).
Bannet Asingura, BA, MSc. is the Head of Business Development and Proposal writing at SICRA, a Research Associate at MUWRP and member of faculty at the Makerere University School of Biomedical Sciences, Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology.basing1121@gmail.com(BA)..
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank all trainees, trainers and mentors who participated in SICRA.
Declarations
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Supporting Information
S1: SICRA Scientific Writing Workshop Agenda
S2: SICRA Grant Writing Workshop Agenda
S3: SICRA Impact Evaluation Questionnaire
References
Arrazola, J., Polster, M., Etkind, P., Moran, J. S., & Vogt, R. L. (2020). Lessons learned from an intensive writing training course for applied epidemiologists. Public Health Reports, 135(4), 428–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033354920932659
Asokan, N., & Shaji, K. S. (2016). Methods to enhance capacity of medical teachers for research publications. Indian Journal of Public Health, 60(2), 154–158. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-557X.184574
Audisio, R. A., Stahel, R. A., Aapro, M. S., Costa, A., Pandey, M., & Pavlidis, N. (2009). Successful publishing: How to get your paper accepted. Surgical Oncology, 18(4), 350–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suronc.2008.09.001
Azer, S. A., Ramani, S., & Peterson, R. (2012). Becoming a peer reviewer to medical education journals. Medical Teacher, 34(9), 698–704. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.687488
Bavdekar, S. B., & Tullu, M. S. (2016). Success in publishing: The answer lies in training and improving research infrastructure. Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, 62(2), 139. https://doi.org/10.4103/0022-3859.180579
Behzadi, P., & Gajdács, M. (2021). Writing a strong scientific paper in medicine and the biomedical sciences: A checklist and recommendations for early career researchers. Biologia Futura, 72(4), 395–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42977-021-00095-z
Brumback, R. A. (2009). Success at publishing in biomedical journals: Hints from a journal editor. Journal of Child Neurology, 24(3), 370–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/0883073808331089
Bulage, L., Ario, A. R., Kabwama, S. N., Kwesiga, B., Kadobera, D., Kihembo, C., Antara, S., & Wanyenze, R. K. (2021). Documentation and dissemination of scientific evidence by the Uganda Public Health Fellowship Program: Experiences and lessons learnt, 2015-2020. Human Resources for Health, 19(1), 128. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-021-00665-1
Chan, L., & Costa, S. (2005). Participation in the global knowledge commons: Challenges and opportunities for research dissemination in developing countries. New Library World, 106(1210/1211), 141-163. University of Toronto, TSpace. https://hdl.handle.net/1807/4255
Council on Education for Public Health. (2021, August). Accreditation criteria: Schools of public health and public health programs. https://media.ceph.org/documents/2021.Criteria.pdf
Devine, E. B. (2009). The art of obtaining grants. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 66(6), 580–587. https://doi.org/10.2146/ajhp070320
Eigbike, M., & Essence on Health Research. (2020, September). Health research capacity strengthening in low and middle-income countries: Current situation and opportunities to leverage data for better coordination and greater impact [Report]. https://tdr.who.int/docs/librariesprovider10/essence/essence-mechanism-consultant-report-2020.pdf
Fosci, M., Loffreda, L., Chamberlain, A., & Naidoo, N. (2019, October). Assessing the needs of the research system in Uganda [Report for the SRIA Programme]. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5ef4adad86650c129b9af059/NA_report_Uganda__Dec_2019_Heart_.pdf
Franzen, S. R., Chandler, C., & Lang, T. (2017). Health research capacity development in low and middle income countries: Reality or rhetoric? A systematic meta-narrative review of the qualitative literature. BMJ Open, 7(1), e012332. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012332
Fyfe, A., McDougall-Waters, J., & Moxham, N. (2015). 350 YEARS OF SCIENTIFIC PERIODICALS. Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, 69(3), 227–239. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2015.0036
Gemayel, R. (2016). How to write a scientific paper. The FEBS Journal, 283(21), 3882–3885. https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.13918
Ghasemi, A., Mirmiran, P., Kashfi, K., & Bahadoran, Z. (2022). Scientific publishing in biomedicine: A brief history of scientific journals. International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism, 21(1), e131812. https://doi.org/10.5812/ijem-131812
Guyer, R. A., Schwarze, M. L., Gosain, A., Maggard-Gibbons, M., Keswani, S. G., & Goldstein, A. M. (2021). Top ten strategies to enhance grant-writing success. Surgery, 170(6), 1727–1731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2021.06.039
Iskander, J. K., Wolicki, S. B., Leeb, R. T., & Siegel, P. Z. (2018). Successful scientific writing and publishing: A step-by-step approach. Preventing Chronic Disease, 15, E79. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd15.180085
Lescano, A. G., Cohen, C. R., Raj, T., Rispel, L., Garcia, P. J., Zunt, J. R., Hamer, D. H., Heimburger, D. C., Chi, B. H., Ko, A. I., & Bukusi, E. A. (2019). Strengthening mentoring in low- and middle-income countries to advance global health research: An overview. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 100(1_Suppl), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.18-0556
Man, J. P., Weinkauf, J. G., Tsang, M., & Sin, D. D. (2004). Why do some countries publish more than others? An international comparison of research funding, English proficiency and publication output in highly ranked general medical journals. European Journal of Epidemiology, 19(8), 811–817. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:ejep.0000036571.00320.b8
Nakanjako, D., Byakika-Kibwika, P., Kintu, K., Aizire, J., Nakwagala, F., Luzige, S., Namisi, C., Mayanja-Kizza, H., & Kamya, M. R. (2011). Mentorship needs at academic institutions in resource-limited settings: A survey at Makerere University College of Health Sciences. BMC Medical Education, 11, 53. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-11-53
Obuku, E. A., Sewankambo, N. K., Mafigiri, D. K., Sengooba, F., Karamagi, C., & Lavis, J. N. (2018). Use of post-graduate students' research in evidence informed health policies: A case study of Makerere University College of Health Sciences, Uganda. Health Research Policy and Systems, 16(1), 77. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0343-8
Oluwasanu, M. M., Atara, N., Balogun, W., Awolude, O., Kotila, O., Aniagwu, T., Adejumo, P., Oyedele, O. O., Ogun, M., Arinola, G., Babalola, C. P., Olopade, C. S., Olopade, O. I., & Ojengbede, O. (2019). Causes and remedies for low research productivity among postgraduate scholars and early career researchers on non-communicable diseases in Nigeria. BMC Research Notes, 12(1), 403. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-019-4458-y
Richards, G. C., Bradley, S. H., Dagens, A. B., Haase, C. B., Kahan, B. C., Rombey, T., Wayant, C., Williams, L. Z. J., & Gill, P. J. (2021). Challenges facing early-career and mid-career researchers: Potential solutions to safeguard the future of evidence-based medicine. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, 26(1), 8–11. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2019-111273
Sharma S. (2010). How to become a competent medical writer? Perspectives in Clinical Research, 1(1), 33–37. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc3149406/
Shinkafi, T. S. (2020). Challenges experienced by early career researchers in Africa. Future Science OA, 6(5), FSO469. https://doi.org/10.2144/fsoa-2020-0012
Ssemata, A. S., Gladding, S., John, C. C., & Kiguli, S. (2017). Developing mentorship in a resource-limited context: A qualitative research study of the experiences and perceptions of the Makerere University Student and Faculty Mentorship Programme. BMC Medical Education, 17(1), 123. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-017-0962-8
Tullu, M. S., & Karande, S. (2017). Writing a model research paper: A roadmap. Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, 63(3), 143–146. https://doi.org/10.4103/jpgm.JPGM_325_17
Varadaraj, V., Ranjit, A., Nwadiuko, J., Canner, J., Diener-West, M., Schneider, E. B., Thyagarajan, S. P., Shrestha, R., & Nagarajan, N. (2019). Towards diaspora-driven research capacity strengthening in low- and middle-income countries: Results from India and Nepal. International Health, 11(3), 221–228. https://doi.org/10.1093/inthealth/ihy076
Weidmann, A. E., Cadogan, C. A., Fialová, D., Hazen, A., Henman, M., Lutters, M., Okuyan, B., Paudyal, V., & Wirth, F. (2023). How to write a successful grant application: Guidance provided by the European Society of Clinical Pharmacy. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, 45(3), 781–786. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-023-01543-7
Whitworth, J. A., Kokwaro, G., Kinyanjui, S., Snewin, V. A., Tanner, M., Walport, M., & Sewankambo, N. (2008). Strengthening capacity for health research in Africa. Lancet, 372
Haberer, J. E., & Boum, Y., 2nd (2023). Behind-the-Scenes Investment for Equity in Global Health Research. The New England journal of medicine, 388(5), 387–390. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp2213809
Kwizera, R., Mande, E., Omali, D., Okurut, S., Nabweyambo, S., Nabatanzi, R., Nakanjako, D., & Meya, D. B. (2021). Translational research in Uganda: linking basic science to bedside medicine in a resource limited setting. Journal of translational medicine, 19(1), 76. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-021-02747-z