Information about attendance, evaluation method and outcome measures, and results for the 20 writing and publishing interventions in the analytical sample
| Intervention name | Attendance and completion of programme | Evaluation method and outcome measures for writing and publishing components (including length of follow-up, if available) | Results (writing and publishing components only) |
| PUBLICATIONS REPORTED INTERVENTIONS (Interventions that Reported Submissions and/or Publications) | |||
| Thakurdesai et al, 201817 (eJCIndia; Electronic Journal Club India) | Not tracked | # e-conversations; # published papers and paper critiques; ongoing | Approximately 20 papers published by group members on journal club critiques; 3193 conversations (for example, journal club discussions) recorded as of April 2018. |
| Klinkenberg et al, 201418 (Ethiopian Operational Research Initiative) | Not reported | # published papers within first 2 years | 6 published papers |
| Kramer and Libhaber, 2016,35 Kramer and Libhaber, 201827 | Writing retreats in 2010 and 2011 attended by 8–10 participants; In 2012, 18 retreats held, 14 retreats held in 2013, and 12 retreats held in 2014. | Follow-up period not reported: # published papers pre/post; cost of writing a published paper; participant feedback on programme quality. | Publications in Witwatersrand Faculty of Health Sciences more than doubled from approximately 400 /year in 2008 to 1026 /year in 2016; eight papers submitted after each retreat in 2010 and 2011; after 2012 retreat, 186 papers from 18 groups submitted; 92 papers submitted from 14 groups who attended 2013 retreats; in 2014, 12 retreat groups produced 38 articles; positive assessment of writing courses including feeling inspired, having ‘good direction,’ gaining more confidence. |
| Ganju et al, 201836 (Knowledge Network) | 110 participants trained in 6 workshops from 2010 to 2015; no drop-outs reported for 3 workshops in 2010–2013. | 10 years follow-up: # manuscripts and publications; relevance and impact of publications; post-programme participant self-assessment survey (quantitative and qualitative measures). | 67 papers coauthored by mentees (publication status not specified); two-thirds of 95 published papers coauthored by programme-supported mentees; participants reported improvements in writing and publication skills and knowledge of research and scientific publication process. |
| Memiah et al, 201828 | Not reported | Follow-up at 3 months: participant feedback on programme quality; # publications. | 4 manuscripts published; evaluation data from writing portion not presented |
| Mathai et al, 201929 | Not reported | 3 years follow-up: # submissions; # publications; participant feedback on programme quality. | 16 trainees submitted 18 manuscripts for publication in peer-reviewed journals, 13 were accepted for publication; participants described greater facility with literature search process as result of programme. |
| Kempker et al, 201830 | Of 20 ‘long-term’ trainees, 19 (95%) completed at least 2 years of formal research training. | One-year follow-up: # publications; # and % of participants that published; author position; career development metrics. | 65 peer-reviewed publications by trainees since entering Fogarty training; among 20 trainees, 15 (75%) authored or coauthored at least one peer-reviewed publication after starting programme; median number of peer-reviewed publications per trainee was six (IQR 2–14); among 15 trainees with a publication, this was 13 (IQR 4–15). |
| da Silva et al, 201931; Gureje et al, 201952; (PAM-D; Partnership for Mental Health Development in Africa); Supporting papers: Schneider et al, 201653; Pilowsky et al, 201654 | 11 (85%) of 13 completed 4-day writing workshop, 14 participated in biostatistics and writing workshop (attendance not reported). | 2-year follow-up: # publications and # submissions; authorship position; participant feedback on programme quality. | At end of capacity strengthening activities at 5 Hubs, 60 articles published; trainees were first authors on 21 of 60 papers. |
| Fatima et al, 201932 (SORT-IT; Structured Operational Research Training Initiative in Pakistan); Supporting paper: Ramsay et al 201445 | 18/34 (78%) completed course | Tracked papers submitted and published | As of June 2018 (2 years after programme began), 18 papers submitted, 15 papers published |
| Guillerm et al, 201433; (SORT-IT; Structured Operational Research Training Initiative); Supporting paper: Bissell et al, 201237 | 83/93 (89%) of participants completed 7 days course. | 13-month follow-up questionnaire (76 of 93 respondents completed): % participants completing research projects; % published papers; % peer reviewers; % mentoring OR courses; % received new funding for operational research projects. | After median follow-up time of 13 months, 62% of participants completed further research projects and 50% published papers beyond course; nearly 40% were peer-reviewers for journals; 1/3 obtained new funding for operational research. |
| Zachariah et al, 201634; (SORT-IT; Structured Operational Research Training Initiative in 64 LMICs); Supporting paper: Ramsay et al 201445 | 90% of participants completed programme (including submitting publication to peer-reviewed journal). | 13 months follow-up: # publications; # manuscripts; % of participants who became facilitators. | 197 papers published or in press within 13 months of the start of the programme. Of 213 participants who achieved successful course completion, 41 (19%) became new facilitators of subsequent courses. |
| Goel et al, 201819 (SORT-IT; Structured Operational Research Training Initiative adapted for Tobacco Control) | 14 of 14 attended entire 5.5 day programme | 1-year follow-up: # publications; # submissions; # manuscripts; participant feedback on programme quality; cost of writing intervention. | One year after course, participants submitted four papers to peer-reviewed journal, one was published and two in press; participants reviewed course favourably |
| Kumar et al, 201320 (Union/MSF Operational Research Training* adapted for Nepal); Supporting paper: Bissell et al, 201237 | 11/12 (92%) of participants completed 5 day programme | # submissions within 3 weeks of programme | Each participant submitted at least one manuscript to peer-reviewed journal |
| Odhiambo et al, 201721 (IORT (Intermediate Operational Research Training Programme; adapted from SORT-IT for Rwanda) | 9/10 participants completed the course attending all sessions. | # publications per funded project assessed after 3 years (2013–2016) | 5 papers published (one for each project funded) |
| OTHER INTERVENTIONS (Interventions that Did Not Report Submissions and /or Publications) | |||
| Merritt et al, 201922 (ACES; Academic Competencies Series) | 12 of 16 (75%) eligible people attended 5 days writing workshop. | Not reported | Not reported |
| Usher et al, 201523 (APEDNN; Asia Pacific Emergency and Disaster Nursing Network) | All participants travelled to the 3-week workshop. | Post course quantitative and qualitative survey; participant feedback on programme quality. | None specifically related to writing intervention; some evaluation comments discussed issues related to writing publications, such as conducting literature reviews and searching databases. |
| Atindehou et al, 201924 (MooSciTIC: A shot of science!) | Year 1: 18/25 (72%) participants attended; year 2 16/28 (57%), and year 3 23/27 (85%); completion not reported. | Participant feedback and 1 year delayed feedback on programme quality; year three self-assessment survey of programme impact: (efficiency and quality in research publication; improved student supervision; reuse of teaching materials). | Overall, participants rated intervention well; participants especially liked scientific communication and bibliography topics; 70% reported increased efficiency and quality in research publication, 60% reported improved student supervision, 40% reused teaching materials to train students and/or fellow scientists. |
| Varadaraj et al, 201925; Varadaraj et al, 201655 | Not reported | Pre and 2-month follow-up post-programme participant survey: participant feedback on programme quality; % understood how to conduct literature review; % understood how to write a research paper; participant self-assessment; % feel that mentor is important. | 86% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that they understood how to conduct a literature review and over 90% agreed or strongly agreed that they understood how to write a research paper. 91% believed mentor is important. |
| Harries et al, 200326 | 25 began training and 17 (68%) attended 1-day workshop (½ day on writing); 11 (65%) turned in paper within 2 months of workshop. | 2-month follow-up: # papers turned in; assessment of participant manuscripts by national TB programme facilitators. | Of 11 papers turned in to course organisers, article reported that five were well written. |
| Mbuagbaw et al, 201138 | Not reported | Follow-up period not reported; participant feedback on programme quality | Quality of lectures: all indicated good or excellent; quality of examples: all rated good or excellent; quality of reading material: all rated good or excellent; pace of course: 1/12 indicated satisfactory, 7/12 indicated good and 4/12 indicated excellent; amount of material covered: all rated good or excellent. |
*Union/MSF is the pre-cursor to the SORT-IT intervention.
LMICs, low-income and middle-income countries; MSF, Médecins Sans Frontières; TB, tuberculosis.