Table 3

Information about attendance, evaluation method and outcome measures, and results for the 20 writing and publishing interventions in the analytical sample

Intervention nameAttendance and completion of programmeEvaluation 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; ongoingApproximately 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 years6 published papers
Kramer and Libhaber, 2016,35 Kramer and Libhaber, 201827Writing 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, 201828Not reportedFollow-up at 3 months: participant feedback on programme quality; # publications.4 manuscripts published; evaluation data from writing portion not presented
Mathai et al, 201929Not reported3 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, 201830Of 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, 20165411 (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 20144518/34 (78%) completed courseTracked papers submitted and publishedAs 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, 20123783/93 (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 20144590% 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 programme1-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, 20123711/12 (92%) of participants completed 5 day programme# submissions within 3 weeks of programmeEach 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 reportedNot 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, 201655Not reportedPre 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, 20032625 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, 201138Not reportedFollow-up period not reported; participant feedback on programme qualityQuality 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.