Imagen de Portada

Using operational research as a tool to improve eye health services and systems in low-and middle-income settings: lessons from India and Nepal

Guardado en:
Publicado en:BMC Medical Education vol. 25 (2025), p. 1-10
Autor principal: Priya, Ruchi
Otros Autores: Bassett, Kenneth L, Gudlavalleti Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy, Kieran S. O’Brien, Judson, Katie, Gilbert, Suzanne S, Chaudhuri, Sirshendu, Agiwal, Varun
Publicado:
Springer Nature B.V.
Materias:
Seva Foundation
United States > US
Canada
Nepal
India
Mentors
Workshops
Questionnaires
Data analysis
Likert scale
Efficiency
Quality standards
Knowledge
Public health
Self report
Medical personnel
Industrialized nations
Clinical outcomes
Operations research
Response rates
Design
High income
Health services
Hospitals
Patients
Literature Reviews
Data Collection
Likert Scales
Capacity Building
Knowledge Level
Cost Effectiveness
Program Content
Referral
Learning Modules
Resource Allocation
Competence
Research Skills
Response Rates (Questionnaires)
Content Area Writing
Program Implementation
Educational Background
Educational Needs
Acceso en línea:Citation/Abstract
Full Text
Full Text - PDF
Etiquetas: Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
Resumen:BackgroundOperational Research (OR), as part of a quality assurance program, has become a standard feature of most health institutions in most high-income countries. In contrast, in low-income settings, operational research is less common, and almost no one has asssed operational research capacity building (ORCB) as a tool to improve efficacy, efficiency and quality in these settings. This study evaluated the impact of an ORCB program on participants’ research competencies and the extent to which research findings were implemented in practice.Materials and methodsThis study combined quantitative and qualitative data to evaluate an ORCB intervention in eye hospitals in Nepal (3 sites) and northern India (1 site) from 2019 to 2022. A self-reported questionnaire was administered at the end of the study period, and formal interviews were conducted. The questionnaire covered knowledge improvement, practice implementation, and motivating and challenging factors. Statistical analysis included paired t-tests to compare pre- and post-training scores. Qualitative data were gathered through interviews and observations and analysed thematically.ResultsThe program demonstrated significant improvements in participants’ research knowledge gain. Quantitative analysis revealed substantial gains in knowledge (p-values < 0.05 for all domains). Post-training, 66.7% developed study protocols, and 60% trained other staff or students. Qualitative feedback indicated overall positive impacts, including enhanced research and operational activities. However, reported challenges such as inconsistent mentorship quality, poor internet connectivity during online sessions, and difficulty in balancing clinical work with research. Despite these challenges, there was notable improvement in research practice and internal training within hospitals, and the program’s approach was appreciated for its effectiveness.ConclusionThe study highlights the need for standardized training modules, consistent mentorship, and stronger institutional support. Building operational research capacity in resource-poor settings with limited administrative staff and weak data infrastructure improves individual staff knowledge and skills. Participants learned about scientific principles of reliability and validity and their importance to efforts to improve service equity, efficiency, and effectiveness.
ISSN:1472-6920
DOI:10.1186/s12909-025-07803-6
Fuente:Healthcare Administration Database