
==== Front
PLOS Glob Public Health
PLOS Glob Public Health
plos
PLOS Global Public Health
2767-3375
Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA

10.1371/journal.pgph.0003314
PGPH-D-24-01117
Research Article
Science Policy
Science and Technology Workforce
Careers in Research
Social Sciences
Economics
Labor Economics
Employment
Careers
People and Places
Geographical Locations
Africa
Research and Analysis Methods
Database and Informatics Methods
Database Searching
Medicine and Health Sciences
Health Care
Health Services Research
Medicine and Health Sciences
Mental Health and Psychiatry
Social Sciences
Sociology
Education
Workshops
Research and Analysis Methods
Research Assessment
Systematic Reviews
Mentorship in health research institutions in Africa: A systematic review of approaches, benefits, successes, gaps and challenges
Mentorship in health research institutions in Africa
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2619-562X
Ng’oda Maurine Conceptualization Data curation Formal analysis Investigation Methodology Supervision Validation Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing 1 *
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6676-9600
Gatheru Peter Muriuki Conceptualization Data curation Formal analysis Investigation Methodology Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing 1 2
Oyeyemi Oyetunde Conceptualization Data curation Investigation Methodology Writing – review & editing 3
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7719-7994
Busienei Phylis Conceptualization Data curation Formal analysis Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing 1
Karugu Caroline H. Conceptualization Writing – review & editing 1
Mugo Sharon Conceptualization Writing – review & editing 1
Okoth Lilian Conceptualization Data curation Funding acquisition Project administration Resources 1
Nampijja Margaret Conceptualization Data curation Writing – review & editing 1
Kiwuwa-Muyingo Sylvia Conceptualization Data curation Writing – review & editing 1
Wado Yohannes Dibaba Conceptualization Data curation Writing – review & editing 1
Kitsao-Wekulo Patricia Conceptualization Data curation Funding acquisition Methodology Project administration Supervision Writing – review & editing 1
Asiki Gershim Conceptualization Data curation Funding acquisition Methodology Project administration Resources Supervision Validation Writing – review & editing 1
Gitau Evelyn Funding acquisition Project administration 1
1 African Population and Health Research Center, Nairobi, Kenya
2 School of Public Health, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana
3 Department of Biosciences and Biotechnology, University of Medical Sciences, Ondo City, Ondo Estate, Nigeria
Seeley Janet Editor
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND
The authors have declared that no competing interest exist.

* E-mail: mngoda@aphrc.org, maurinekn2012@gmail.com
23 9 2024
2024
4 9 e000331423 5 2024
26 8 2024
© 2024 Ng’oda et al
2024
Ng’oda et al
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Background

In Africa, where the burden of diseases is disproportionately high, significant challenges arise from a shortage of skilled researchers, lack of research funding, and limited mentorship opportunities. The continent faces a substantial gap in research output largely attributed to the dearth of mentorship opportunities for early career researchers.

Objective

To explore existing mentorship approaches, identify challenges, gaps, successes, and benefits, and provide insights for strengthening mentorship programs in African health research institutions.

Methods

We registered the review protocol on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews [CRD42021285018] and searched six electronic databases–EMBASE, AJOL, Web of Science, PubMed, DOAJ, and JSTOR from inception to 10 November 2023, for studies published in English reporting on approaches of mentorship in health research in African countries. We also searched grey literature repositories, institutional websites, and reference lists of included studies for additional literature. Two independent reviewers conducted screening of titles and abstracts of identified studies, full-text screening, assessment of methodological quality, and data extraction. We assessed study quality against the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). We resolved any disagreements through discussion and consensus. We employed a narrative approach to synthesize the findings.

Results

We retrieved 1799 articles and after screening, included 21 studies in the review. The reviewers identified 20 mentorship programs for health researchers (N = 1198) in 12 African countries mostly focusing on early-career researchers and junior faculty members. A few included mid-career and senior researchers.

We categorized the programs under three key mentoring approaches: international collaborative programs, regional and in-country collaborations, and specialized capacity-building initiatives. Our review highlighted the following successes and benefits of health research mentorship programs: the establishment of collaborations and partnerships, development of research programs and capacities, improvement of individual skills and confidence, increased publications, and successful grant applications. The gaps identified were limited funding, lack of a mentorship culture, negative attitudes towards research careers, and lack of prioritization of research mentorship.

Conclusion

Our review highlights a diverse landscape of health research mentorship aspects predominantly targeting early career researchers and heavily driven by the North. There is a need for locally driven mentorship initiatives in Africa to strengthen mentorship to advance health research in the region.

Trial registration

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021285018.

Africa Research Excellence Fund C0855-AREF Excell-2 Gitau Evelyn This work was supported by the African Research Excellent Fund (AREF to EG). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Data AvailabilityData underlying the findings for this review has been provided as part of the submitted article in the supplementary information.
Data Availability

Data underlying the findings for this review has been provided as part of the submitted article in the supplementary information.
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

There exists a significant gap in research output in sub-Saharan Africa where the burden of disease is disproportionately high [1]. The current state of health science research, funding, and research capacity in the continent falls short of addressing the existing and unmet health research needs [2]. Some of the contributing factors to this challenge are the scarcity of well-trained and skilled researchers and the lack of opportunities for hands-on research experience with research specialists, leading to inadequate supervision and limited mentorship opportunities for early career researchers [3].

Mentorship is defined in simple terms as a relationship where someone experienced, in this context researcher, guides and supports another person to help them learn and grow professionally [4]. There are two common approaches to mentorship. The first approach is the traditional one-on-one mentoring model [5]. In this paradigm, an experienced researcher, often with a distinguished record of accomplishment, provides guidance and support to a less experienced mentee. This close, personalized interaction facilitates in-depth discussions, transfer of skills, and the cultivation of a strong mentor-mentee relationship [6]. Through this approach, the mentor can offer valuable insights, share experiences, and assist the mentee in navigating the complexities of the research landscape. The one-on-one model is particularly effective for tailoring mentorship to the unique needs and goals of the mentee, fostering a deep sense of individualized support and professional development [5].

The second common approach to mentorship in research involves group or team-based mentoring [7]. In this collaborative model, a mentor oversees a cohort of mentees who work together on related research projects or within a shared research theme. This approach promotes a sense of community and encourages peer learning among mentees.

Group mentoring can be especially beneficial in fostering interdisciplinary collaborations, providing diverse perspectives, and creating a supportive network for mentees [6]. It also allows the mentor’s expertise to be leveraged across multiple individuals simultaneously [8]. The group dynamic enhances social learning, as mentees not only benefit from the mentor’s guidance but also from the collective knowledge and experiences of their peers. Group mentorship is adaptable to various research settings and can effectively address the evolving needs of mentees in collaborative research environments [7].

Recognizing mentorship as a vital strategy for personal and professional growth [9,10], there is a growing awareness of its importance in enhancing the capacities of individuals, including researchers [11]. However, mentorship practices are not widespread in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) [12], and available evidence on existing approaches demonstrates mixed results regarding effectiveness, often failing to account for the unique challenges and structures present in the research systems. The dearth of a well-established culture of mentorship, the absence of formal policies, and the inadequacy of structured tools for assessing mentorship further compound the challenges faced in fostering effective mentorship programs in LMICs [13].

The systematic review aimed to inform the development of optimized mentorship programs that address the specific needs and challenges faced by health researchers in Africa. We sought to synthesize evidence on various mentorship approaches prevalent in the region to provide a more comprehensive understanding of mentorship in health research institutions in Africa. We explored the nature and effectiveness of mentorship initiatives in African research institutions to identify both successes and challenges encountered in implementing these programs, pinpoint existing gaps in mentorship practices, and provide valuable insights.

The mentorship was considered effective if it resulted in early and mid-level career researchers taking up leadership roles and positions in research and academia, fostering a collaborative research environment, contributing to research outputs such as publications, and strengthening the skills of early and mid-level career researchers.

Methods

Protocol registration

We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (2020) as shown in supplementary document (S1 Checklist). We registered the protocol for this review with the PROSPERO under the registration number CRD42021285018.

Information sources and search

We identified relevant studies by searching various databases such as EMBASE, AJOL, Web of Science, DOAJ, PubMed, and JSTOR from their inception up to 10th November 2023. Additionally, we conducted searches on open grey literature repositories and specific institutional websites to identify any other relevant studies. We also conducted a manual search of reference lists of identified studies for any additional findings. A list of relevant search terms and keywords was prepared. The search terms were used in the following combinations: (“Practices”) AND (“Success” OR “Benefits” OR “Advantages”) AND (“Gaps” OR “Challenges”) AND (“mentor” OR “mentorship” OR “mentoring” OR “mentoring relationship” OR “onsite training” OR “vertical mentorship” OR “on-the-job training” OR “OJT” OR “capacity building” OR “capacity strengthening” OR “mentee” OR “mentoring program” OR “mentoring models” OR “career coaching” OR “career counselling” OR “career support” OR “mentorship advice”) AND (“research institutions” OR “research program” OR “researchers” OR “research organizations”) AND (“Africa” OR “African” OR “sub-Saharan Africa” OR “Africa South of the Sahara” OR “East Africa” OR “West Africa” OR “Southern Africa” OR “Central Africa” OR “Northern Africa”). To ensure that we retrieved articles from each country, we substituted the names of the study setting with the country-specific names. For example, to retrieve articles from East Africa, we replaced "East Africa" with Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Burundi, and Rwanda. The detailed search strategy is described in the supplementary documents (S1 Table).

Study selection and eligibility criteria

Teams of two reviewers from MN, PMG, OO, SM, CHK, SM, LO, MNa, SKM, YDW, and PKW independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts of the selected studies. Any disagreements between the two reviewers were addressed through discussion and consensus, or by consulting a senior reviewer (GA). The scope of our search was limited to studies published in the English language. We used the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, and Study (PICOS) design as a framework to formulate eligibility criteria. The PICOS elements comprised; i) participants–researchers at any career level, serving as mentors or mentees; ii) interventions–diverse mentoring programs of varied types, durations, and regularities; iii) comparisons–all mentorship programs were considered, regardless of the presence of a comparison group; iv) outcomes–studies reporting on mentorship approaches, benefits, successes, gaps, and challenges were included in the review; v) settings–African academic and/or research institutions. Articles focusing on non-human health research were not eligible. We also excluded systematic reviews, conference abstracts, commentaries, and opinion pieces.

Data collection process

Four reviewers (MN, PMG, OO, PB) independently extracted data from the selected studies using a Microsoft Excel extraction form. Key variables extracted were study author and date, country, study design, characteristics of the study population, sample size, intervention, mode of delivery, and outcome measures, including challenges, gaps, benefits, and successes. Discrepancies during the extraction process were resolved through discussion and consensus building.

Assessment of methodological quality

Two reviewers (MN and PM) independently evaluated the quality of the included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) [14], which enables the concurrent assessment of various empirical study types. The MMAT encompasses two general screening questions applicable to all study types and specific sets of five questions for each of the five study types: qualitative, quantitative randomized controlled trials, quantitative non-randomized, quantitative descriptive, and mixed methods design. Both reviewers utilized the MMAT criteria to assess key methodological components, including sampling, data collection, response bias, outcome measurements, and data analysis/reporting, providing a comprehensive evaluation of each study’s overall quality. Disagreements were resolved through discussion and consensus. Ratings were assigned based on the proportion of fulfilled quality criteria, with studies classified as low risk (≥75%), moderate risk (25–75%), or high risk (<25%). The included articles were categorised as qualitative, quantitative (observational), and mixed methods studies.

Outcome measures

The primary outcome of this review was the mentorship approach including the mode and period of delivery. Secondary outcomes included successes, benefits, gaps, and challenges associated with the mentorship interventions.

Synthesis of evidence

We employed a narrative synthesis approach to interpret findings from the included studies. For this reason, publication bias and heterogeneity in study designs, interventions, and outcomes were not considered. A comprehensive exploration of the outcomes of interest within the literature was achieved through a narrative synthesis. The synthesis involved summarizing the characteristics of included studies, such as study design, population, interventions, and key outcomes. We then categorized findings based on themes, similarities, and differences, providing a nuanced understanding of the evidence. The narrative synthesis was guided by the PRISMA guidelines.

Results

Search output

The initial search yielded 1623 articles from six databases. We identified an additional 176 articles through searches on open grey and specific institutional websites, resulting in 1799 retrieved articles. After removing 423 duplicates, we screened 1376 titles and abstracts, leading to the preliminary selection of 303 articles for full-text review. Ultimately, 21 studies that met the inclusion criteria were included in the review as shown in Fig 1 in the supplementary documents.

10.1371/journal.pgph.0003314.g001 Fig 1 Flow diagram for study identification.

Study characteristics

All the 21 studies included in the review were observational studies published between 2013 and 2023. The studies were from 12 different African countries including Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Ethiopia, Nigeria, South Africa, Malawi, Ghana, Liberia, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, and Lesotho. The primary studies used diverse methods which included qualitative designs (10 studies; 48%) [15–24], quantitative designs (9 studies; 43%) [25–33], and mixed methods (2 studies; (9%) [32,33].

Characteristics of participants

The review included a diverse cohort of early-career, mid-career, and senior researchers (N = 1198) from various institutions. The participants were recruited from universities [13,14,18,19,21,24,26,27,29,30,32], health research institutions [15–17,20,22,23,25,28], public health teaching institutions [33], and hospitals [35]. Notably, their work focus spanned a range of fields, including HIV/AIDS rsearch, mental health, sanitation and hygiene, family health, biomedical sciences, biostatistics, health system and policy, and public health. The inclusion of mid- or senior-level faculty researchers, doctoral fellows, statisticians, and undergraduate students contributed to a well-rounded participant pool. This diversity not only enriches the study’s findings but also underscores the broad relevance and applicability of research mentorship across multiple disciplines within the health sciences. The detailed characteristics of the individual studies included in the review can be found in supplementary information (S2 Table).

Methodological quality of individual studies

Ten qualitative studies, nine quantitative studies, and two mixed-methods studies were assessed for methodological quality. We rated eight studies as low risk and 13 studies as moderate risk. Detailed information on the risk rating for each study can be found in supplementary information (S3 Table).

Approaches of research mentorship

We identified three key approaches from the included studies that have been used for mentoring health researchers in Africa. Broadly, we have categorized these into international collaborative programs [14–16,19,24,33], regional and in-country collaborations [17,18,20,23,31], and specialized capacity-building programs [21,22,25–28,30,32,34].

International collaborative programs

International collaboration emerged as a central theme in the findings as one of the approaches used in health research mentorship, demonstrating a concerted effort to foster exchanges through cross-cultural training programs global symposia and workshops, resources sharing through north-south and south-south collaborations, and building global community of researchers through multinational research hubs, global networks, and infrastructure development. These collaborative initiatives aimed to transcend geographical boundaries, leverage diverse expertise, and collectively address health research challenges to achieve sustainable and impactful outcomes.

The ARCADE project [20] and the 5-year multinational collaboration across five African countries, the USA, and the UK highlight both north-south and south-south collaborations [34]. These initiatives brought together researchers from different continents, acknowledging the importance of shared expertise and resources. The collaborative capacity strengthening initiative at the University of Western Cape (UWC) in South Africa [16], involving international symposia and workshops provided platforms for researchers to come together, share insights, and engage in collaborative learning. The exchange of ideas fosters a global perspective on research challenges, methodologies, and solutions. The AIDS International Training and Research Program (AITRP) [15] and the collaborative capacity strengthening initiative involving the UWC in South Africa [16] exemplify cross-cultural training programs.

Regional and in-country collaborations

In-country and regional collaborations are also prominently highlighted as an avenue to mentorship, reflecting the recognition of the importance of strengthening research capacity at the local and regional levels. This theme involves partnerships and initiatives that focus on collaboration within a specific country or region. For instance, the Nigeria Implementation Science Alliance (NISA) [19], an initiative that involves collaboration among partners within Nigeria and the sub-Saharan African region focuses on local research capacity strengthening. The program aims to facilitate collaboration, enhance implementation research, and identify culturally appropriate strategies to improve public health through research.

The Transforming Health Professions Education in Tanzania (THET) project [32] included a component where young peers received mentorship from senior researchers through mentored research awards and research training. These peers, in turn, provided reciprocal peer-to-peer mentorship to undergraduate students.

This approach emphasizes the importance of building mentorship networks within the country, creating a sustainable model for capacity strengthening. In a separate example, a series of two-day intensive regional mentorship workshops were conducted over four years to train mid- and senior-level investigators engaged in public health, clinical, and basic science research across multiple academic institutions in LMICs [21]. These workshops focused on developing mentorship skills locally and regionally, recognizing the value of nurturing research talent within specific geographic contexts. The African Mental Health Research Initiative (AMARI) [23] recruits and trains research fellows at Master’s, PhD, and post-doc levels within the African region. The initiative aims to equip these fellows with research, teaching, and leadership skills to build a viable and sustainable research network.

Specialized capacity-building programs

This approach recognizes the importance of tailoring mentorship initiatives to the unique needs and challenges faced by researchers in Africa and involves targeted initiatives designed to enhance specific skills and competencies related to health research. For example, the Consortium for Advanced Research Training in Africa (CARTA) program [26], delivered through PhD training fellowships is a specialized training that focuses on creating a network of locally trained but globally recognized African scholars. CARTA recognizes the importance of advancing research capacity at the doctoral level locally, contributing to the development of a cadre of highly skilled researchers.

The Sanitation and Hygiene Applied Research for Equity (SHARE) program [28] incorporates specialized mentoring integrated into research, administration, financial management, and communication activities. This approach ensures that participants receive guidance and support in areas directly relevant to their research projects.

The Sexual Violence Research Initiative [18] provided intensive mentoring and technical advice specifically for the development or adaptation and conduct of preliminary proof of concept testing of violence against women and violence against children primary prevention interventions. This specialized training addressed the unique challenges associated with research on sensitive topics and provided targeted support for researchers in the field of sexual violence prevention. The Medical Education Partnership Initiative–Medical Education for Equitable Services for All Ugandans (MEPI-MESAU) program [29] goes beyond the traditional mentorship by providing infrastructure support including administrative support, paid tuition fees, tools, and skills training–on study design, biostatistics, manuscript and grant writing, to early career researchers.

Lastly, initiatives like AFFIRM, LATIN-MH, PAM-D, RedeAmericas, and SHARE, funded by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), specifically targeted mental health research [24]. These hubs aimed to improve the research core for evidence-based mental health interventions, enhance research skills in global mental health, and provide capacity-building opportunities for early career investigators in LMICs. In Rwanda, the 6-week deliverable-driven survey analysis training program [27] aimed at strengthening the skills of local research leaders and statisticians. This hands-on training focused on a specific aspect of research (survey analysis) and was designed to achieve tangible outcomes within a defined period. S4 Table summarizes the approaches to mentorship in health research identified in the 21 studies included in this review.

Successes

In this section, we highlight the diverse successes derived from the health research mentorship programs implemented in 12 different African countries. We consolidate these successes into five crucial themes outlined herewith: establishment of partnerships and collaborations; development of research programs; individual capacity strengthening; development of research publications; and successful grant applications and awards.

Establishment of partnerships and collaborations

Six studies mentioned the establishment of partnerships and collaborations as one of the successes of mentorship programs in health research institutions in Africa [15,19,24,25,28,29]. The successes related to this aspect included the establishment of mutually beneficial collaborations between investigators in different countries that were developed during training, which built a supportive research environment. There were also shared and mutually beneficial resources within international research collaborations, which supported early career investigators and served as a conduit to transfer health research training opportunities to researchers in African institutions [15]. Through mentorship programs, various organizations and government agencies were able to make definite commitments toward more investment in implementation research. For example, in Nigeria, the National Agency for the Control of AIDS (NACA) in collaboration with the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the Population Council was able to launch the “Adolescent and Young People Challenge” pilot project. This project sought to fund innovative ideas led by youth to provide comprehensive HIV education to at least 200,000 Nigerians [19]. The mentorship programs also led to the establishment of sustainable partnerships between researchers in sub-Saharan African countries and other LMICs, as well as with institutions in the north.

These partnerships facilitated collaborative cutting-edge research in global mental health and provided a management strategy that builds partnerships between local and international partners for efficient coordination and timely achievement of set goals [25].

Development of research programs

Thirteen studies reported the development of research programs as a key success of the respective mentorship programs. The different aspects achieved under this theme, as reported by the highlighted studies, were that early career investigators learned how to navigate the complex international research environment to build local research capacity [14,16] with trainees experiencing moderate increases in research confidence that were statistically significant, and an observed positive research culture being created [35]. In a study conducted in Uganda, the mentored PhD students were able to supervise and mentor 65 Master’s students, thus building local research capacity [28]. Participation in workshops provided knowledge of valuable concepts and a structure for the development and strengthening of formal mentoring programs across LMIC institutions, leading to the growth of institutional support, the establishment of several new institutional mentorship training programs, the initiation of peer mentorship networks, and regular mentor-mentee meetings. A qualitative study conducted in Kenya, Peru, India, and South Africa reported that the mentorship training model expanded as a national mandate for research training, nested within a required training program [21]. Hubs that evolved into centers of research excellence with a crop of dedicated researchers were also established [25].

Individual capacity strengthening

Individual capacity strengthening was reported to increase as participants engaged in various training programs, workshops, and research activities.

For instance, in Zimbabwe, faculty members attended at least one of 15 faculty development workshops. Forty-one faculty members underwent a one-year advanced faculty development training in medical education and leadership, 33 mentored research scholars were trained under the novel NECTAR, and 52 and 12 in cardiovascular and mental health programs, respectively [34]. In Rwanda, three-quarters of the participants mentored others in survey data analysis or conducted an additional survey analysis in the year following the training. Similarly, 36% of participants completed an additional DHS analysis, 71% completed an additional survey analysis, and 79% provided mentorship to others about survey data analysis [27].

In addition, individual capacity strengthening was achieved as mentors enrolled in other courses or training. In Tanzania, most young peers had taken at least three research training short courses, and six had enrolled in PhD programs. The number of fellows increased from 12 to 24, and mentored graduates increased from 41 to 67 in the second cohort. Eight senior fellows enrolled in PhD programs, and 10 of 12 had registered for a PhD fellowship [31–33]. In Malawi, Uganda, and South Africa, the ARCADE project was successful in developing and delivering courses that reached over 920 postgraduate students [20]. In Ethiopia, Ghana, Malawi, South Africa, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Liberia, Nigeria, and Sri Lanka, the mentorship programs have achieved more success, including participants completing their courses for second master’s degrees with a special focus on specific health aspects, winning awards to support the further development of their research careers, and the appointment of one participant as a professor and another young researcher at a Health Institute [24].

Development of research publications

The mentorship programs led to the development of new publications in various fields, as reported by nine studies. For instance, during the first two years of the program in Tanzania, various research articles from the mentored programs were published, with other manuscripts in the final stages of preparation. Each mentee had at least one or more manuscripts published or accepted for publication, and young peers shared authorship in at least one of the published articles [31–33]. Various publications were also done in other different mentorship programs across various countries, with authorship being from multi-institutional teams and submitted to international peer-reviewed scientific journals [23,24,26–28]. In South Africa, 70 interns contributed to 51 peer-reviewed articles [22], while in Uganda, 80 publications not related to PhD thesis work were co-authored by PhD students [29].

Successful grant applications and awards

Five studies reported funding applications with some grants being awarded as a major success derived from the mentorship programs. A study done in Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Nigeria, and South Africa reported 21 grant applications being made successfully over the mentorship period [25]. Similarly, in Tanzania, young peers began to broaden their research careers by involvement in other ongoing research projects and grant applications [33], with a majority (n = 7/12) receiving research grants for their research program [32] and six small- to medium-sized research grants won [31]. Similarly, the mentorship programs led to the formation of a peer network of researchers that was deemed a pivot of success.

For instance, through the SHARE program, nine networks were created during phase II of the project, out of which six of the PhD students have pursued research that has led to independent grant funding, as well as collaborative grants on which they are listed as a co-investigators [29]. The mentorship programs also led to awards. For instance, two travel fellowship grants for early career researchers to attend the 2016 and 2017 World Psychiatric Association International Congress were won. Grants to attend conferences to share findings for completed dissertation projects were won, enabling participants to interact with other external partners and build sustainable collaborations [24].

Benefits

This review reveals benefits that extend beyond the individual participants. We summarize these benefits under three pivotal themes: capacity building and skill development; networking and collaboration; and career advancement and marketability.

Capacity building and skill development

The mentorship programs led to significant skill development and capacity building among participants [26,32]. This was evident through diverse training in research methodologies, epidemiology, biostatistics, grant writing, and other crucial aspects [33]. The acquisition of these skills not only enhanced the participants’ ability to conduct high-quality research [28,33] but also made them valuable contributors to national and international projects [17]. The establishment of training centers and departments further institutionalised these skills, fostering a culture of continuous learning and research excellence [26,28].

Networking and collaboration

The initiatives for research mentorship played a crucial role in fostering strong collaborations among institutions and researchers [20]. These collaborations were instrumental in the success of various projects and contributed to the publication of research papers [24,28]. The projects served as a platform for early career and mid-level researchers to take leadership roles in published papers [25], demonstrating the effectiveness of mentorship in fostering a collaborative research environment. In addition, the North-South and regional collaboration programs exposed participants to international perspectives thus encouraging the integration of local and global knowledge [16,33].

Career advancement and marketability

There was a positive impact of the mentorship programs on the career trajectories of participants [28,32,33]. Interns who engaged in significant research projects became more marketable as research practitioners [22]. The experience gained and the demonstrated completeness of their work opened doors to attractive positions in academia [32,33], government, and other sectors [22]. Additionally, the model of mentorship proved effective in strengthening skills among full-time working professionals [27], allowing them to enhance their capabilities without disrupting ongoing work commitments. This contributed to the overall growth of faculty [34], increased student enrolment [33], and the establishment of new research support centers [34].

Challenges and gaps

The reviewed studies identified limited funding and the absence of a robust mentorship culture as significant barriers to research advancement.

Negative perceptions of research as a career path and the lack of emphasis on mentorship in research further exacerbated the reported obstacles. The challenges were compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic, which disrupted research operations and constrained available resources. These factors are discussed in detail in the following section.

Limited funding

Six studies [15,16,18,23,25,32] reported on the challenges of funding for health research mentorship programs. Limited funding encompassed the failure of health researchers to access funding to support research, the inability of early career researchers to access independent research funding without external collaborators, and the inability to secure long-term funding for meaningful capacity strengthening. Limited funding was also reported to include a lack of support for degree programs, post-doctoral training, and research [14,25]. A mismatch between the availability of short-term funds for specific research initiatives and requirements for longer-term investment in capacity building was reported as a gap [16]. Lastly, in instances where funding is available, the funders often drive the focus of mentorship programs, and the lack of southern ownership was identified as a gap [16].

Lack of a healthy mentorship culture

In seven studies, [15,20–23,25,27], the lack of understanding of the concept of mentorship leading to a lack of institutional mentoring culture was highlighted as a challenge. Sustaining mentorship and institutional support for mentorship, and failure by institutions to acknowledge or ‘give credit’ for mentoring activities in the merit or promotional processes are notable challenges in health research mentorship.

Of particular concern in many of the mentorship programs was a general lack of time management strategies to balance mentoring with other competing activities including academic pursuits, teaching duties, and burdensome administrative roles. Related to the lack of a mentorship culture were limited mentoring skills, and a lack of motivation, or zeal on the part of both mentors and mentees. Mentors reported that getting mentees to understand their roles and commit to achieving the set goals was a burdensome challenge [16]. Mentorship was also reported to place a heavy demand on senior researchers’ time [21], which is already committed to urgent needs such as obtaining donor funds, reporting to donors, managing projects, networking, and publishing–all attached to a researcher’s performance appraisal. This in turn led to increasing levels of stress among mentors and very little time left to focus on mentees who needed significant guidance and support [28].

For mentees, different sets of administrative regulations across institutions were reported to lead to complications and delays in starting or sustaining certain capacity-building activities. Mentees reported difficulties in balancing work burdens, as they were involved in research activities as well as the training and support for their institutions and their development. This lack of protected time for health research mentorship was also cited as a gap by one study [33]. Lack of infrastructure support that enables high-quality research including grants administration, mentorship, research leadership, research culture, and open communication between policymakers and researchers as well as difficulties in accessing a PhD supervisor were other challenges faced by mentees [20–23]. Several other gaps were also identified including the lack of recognition of mentorship as a key success factor for early career researchers [21], the absence of a formal mentorship structure [21,26], and the lack of clarity in expectations of a mentor-mentee relationship [21].

Negative attitudes towards research as a career

Research, as a career, was not a very attractive proposition in many Southern contexts according to some studies [16–19]. Researchers being drawn by incentives to ‘consultancy not research’ complicated this. Research was also viewed as inaccessible, especially to young people and outside academic settings. Lack of research interest was cited as a gap in three studies [14,15,22], with institutions such as universities or health departments prioritizing teaching rather than focusing on research careers [18,29].

Lack of prioritisation of research mentorship

The low priority given to research mentorship by funders and governments was recognized in studies conducted in South Africa, Rwanda, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, and Nigeria [21,24], and weak collaborations between different stakeholders and countries involved in mentorship may have contributed to this [16]. The absence of a national research strategy [16] was also identified as a gap in research mentorship programs in various African countries.

COVID-19 related factors

Challenges related to the emergence of COVID-19 were reported in two studies [31,32] and included halting physical meetings between mentors and mentees because of the global restriction of face-to-face meetings. Other COVID-19-related challenges included the suspension of research activities such as enrolment of participants, procuring of laboratory reagents, delays in data collection, hiking of prices, and delays in delivery of procured research materials [32]. Internet connectivity challenges leading to suboptimal quality of video conferences were also highlighted as challenges [33].

Discussion

In this review, we identified 20 mentorship programs involving a diverse group of African health researchers across 12 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Only two of these were initiated in Africa and funded from local sources. While most African researchers have benefited from North-South collaboration, there is an opportunity to develop local mentorship programs to reduce the overreliance on foreign-funded and foreign-driven programs. Foreign-initiated and driven programs can be beneficial to building local health research capacity; however, local programs are often more accessible and sustainable, given their understanding of the local, context, infrastructure, and resources [30]. Such programs can foster a stronger sense of community and collaboration, contributing to long-term impact. Locally led initiatives also empower African mentors to play leadership roles, reinforcing a sense of ownership and self-determination in shaping the future of their communities [26]. Overall, locally initiated mentorship programs are better positioned to address the nuanced localized needs of mentees, promoting a more inclusive and impactful approach to personal and professional development. This finding is similar to those reported in earlier studies [36] that most health research mentorship initiatives in LMICs were introduced and funded by high-income countries and were not institutionalized as yet. Nevertheless, even though few, Africa-led, Africa-centered, and Africa-specific initiatives such as the Alliance for Accelerating Excellence in Africa (AESA) and the Coalition for Research and Innovation (CARI) are platforms that can provide support for training African researchers and opportunities for collaboration [1].

Our review highlights mentorship benefits that extend beyond the individual level to institutional, country, regional, and international arenas. Capacity building and skills development, networking and collaboration, and career development and marketability were highlighted in the reviewed studies.

Not only were individuals participating in mentorship programs upskilled in various aspects such as research methodologies, epidemiology, biostatistics, and grant writing among other skills, but mentorship enabled individuals to contribute to national and international projects. Enhancing individual capacities enables local researchers and junior faculty to navigate the complex international research environment and transfer health research training to African institutions. Even though most mentorship initiatives are North-initiated and driven, the programs expose participants to international perspectives that contribute to the integration of local and international knowledge. Additionally, participants are also enabled to develop their research niches within academia, government, and the private sector.

We further establish that the main hindrance to the development of health research capacity including mentorship programs is limited local funding. Current funding for health research and research capacity development remains inadequate to address Africa’s unmet health needs. This calls for African countries to develop clear and context-informed strategies and mechanisms to foster both private and public investment in health research capacity development. Furthermore, African countries can leverage international programs that can be institutionalized and tailored to respond to local needs for health research capacity development. Consistent with our findings, limited local health research capacity development funding has also been previously highlighted by other researchers as a major challenge to capacity development [1,14,35].

Additionally, the lack of a healthy mentorship culture in most African health research institutions mostly arising from a lack of understanding of the concept and importance of mentorship in research capacity development was a substantial gap. Efforts are needed to ensure that mentorship is appreciated and given credit during merit and promotion activities.

This will ensure that mentorship is prioritized alongside other core research capacity activities such as teaching, administrative roles, applying for grants, managing projects, reporting to donors, and networking. Coupled with mentorship prioritization, capacity development in mentorship skills, and arousing interest to engage in mentorship would also contribute to mentorship being treated as an important part of health research capacity development.

Lastly, for mentorship to be viewed as a key success factor for early career researchers and junior faculty, institutions must address unfavorable administrative regulations, and lack of protected time along the mentorship continuum for both mentors and mentees. Additionally, deliberate efforts to establish formal mentorship structures, provide clarity in expectations of a mentor-mentee relationship, and prioritize mentorship on the part of funders, governments, and institutions will go a long way in institutionalizing health research mentorship in Africa.

Conclusion

Our review revealed three main approaches to mentorship in Africa: international collaborative programs, regional and in-country collaborations, and specialized capacity-building programs. The successes of these programs were diverse and included the establishment of partnerships, the development of research programs, individual capacity strengthening, increased publication outputs, and successful grant applications and awards. These programs not only benefited individual participants but also contributed to broader capacity building, skill development, networking, collaboration, and career advancement at institutional, country, regional, and international levels.

However, several challenges and gaps were identified, such as limited funding, a lack of a healthy mentorship culture, negative attitudes toward research as a career, lack of prioritization of research mentorship, and challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The review emphasizes the critical need for increased local funding for health research mentorship programs, the establishment of a robust mentorship culture, and addressing challenges related to administrative regulations, protected time, and mentorship skills. Furthermore, the findings underscore the importance of developing locally initiated mentorship programs to reduce reliance on foreign-funded initiatives. Researchers should make efforts to establish local and regional collaborative partnerships. While international collaborations are valuable, locally-led programs can be more accessible, sustainable, and tailored to address nuanced local needs, fostering a stronger sense of community and collaboration.

In addressing the identified challenges and building on the successes, African countries must develop clear and context-informed strategies for both public and private investment in health research capacity development. Additionally, efforts are needed to promote mentorship appreciation in merit and promotion activities, develop mentorship skills, and institutionalize mentorship structures. Only through these comprehensive efforts can health research mentorship be prioritized and effectively contribute to the sustainable development of research capacity in Africa.

Limitations of the study

While this systematic review provides important insights into mentorship programs for health researchers in African institutions, it is crucial to recognize certain inherent limitations in the study design and execution. The review’s focus on studies published exclusively in English introduces a potential language bias, as pertinent research in other languages might have been overlooked, potentially impacting the thoroughness of the findings. Additionally, despite efforts to include diverse African regions, the search strategy may exhibit biases toward specific countries or regions, stemming from variations in research visibility and accessibility. This potential bias could constrain the generalizability of the findings across the entire African continent. To mitigate these limitations, multiple databases were consulted, and searches were conducted using a variety of relevant keywords and MeSH terms to retrieve as many articles as possible and to ensure a comprehensive coverage of mentorship programs across different African contexts. Additionally, we did not synthesize data regarding the most successful mentorship approaches in terms of the outputs so this topic should be explored in future reviews. Lastly, the heterogeneity of mentorship programs, characterized by variations in types, durations, and regularities, poses challenges in comparing and synthesizing outcomes. To address this challenge, we systematically categorized and classified mentorship programs based on predefined criteria, allowing for a structured synthesis of findings. Despite these limitations, the systematic approach, adherence to PRISMA guidelines, and comprehensive exploration of mentorship outcomes enhance the credibility of the findings derived from this review. Nevertheless, researchers and policymakers should approach the interpretation of the results with an awareness of these limitations and endeavour to conduct further research addressing identified gaps and challenges in mentorship programs for health researchers in Africa.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist PRISMA 2020 checklist.

(DOCX)

S1 Table Search stratey.

(DOCX)

S2 Table Characteristics of studies included in the review.

(DOCX)

S3 Table Risk of bias assessment.

(DOCX)

S4 Table Mentorship approaches.

(DOCX)

S5 Table List f abbreviations.

(DOCX)

S6 Table Studies retrieved.

(XLSX)

S7 Table Data extracted.

(XLSX)

10.1371/journal.pgph.0003314.r001
Decision Letter 0
Seeley Janet Academic Editor
© 2024 Janet Seeley
2024
Janet Seeley
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version0
2 Jul 2024

PGPH-D-24-01117

Mentorship in Health Research Institutions in Africa: A Systematic Review of Approaches, Benefits, Successes, Gaps and Challenges

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Dr. Ng'oda,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Global Public Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 01 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at globalpubhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Janet Seeley

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Journal Requirements:

1. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

2. Please provide separate figure files in .tif or .eps format only and remove any figures embedded in your manuscript file. Please also ensure all files are under our size limit of 10MB.

For more information about figure files please see our guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/s/figures 

https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/s/figures#loc-file-requirement

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Thank you for this interesting paper. The reviewer has some suggestions for improvement which I believe will strengthen your paper. I realise that re-running the review with individual African country names may seem to be a large task - but I would urge you to run a check to see that nothing has been missed. You can then update your methods to assure readers that this was done. If you find papers that were missed, they can be added in and you can explain in your methods that you ran a country search separately to ensure that no papers were missed.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Global Public Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is a very well written systematic review of the landscape of mentorship across African institutions. The authors have described their systematic approach to the study, which was registered on PROSPERO and follows the PRISMA guidelines and the PICO approach applied using MMAT for reviews of mixed methods studies. The review outlines the key benefits and challenges related to different mentorship models for capacity strengthening in health research in Africa. I only have a couple of minor comments on the paper:

1. The initial search term do not include lists of individual country names and I wonder if this has led to missing some initiatives from the study

2. The authors explicitly state that the review will consider effectiveness but do not provide a clear definition of what effectiveness means in this context. Inclusion of this would substantially enhance the review.

3. This is perhaps beyond the scope of this review but I would be interested to see how capacity strengthening impacted African researchers by gender, I wonder if the authors might comment on this at least?

4. I also wonder whether the authors might be able to comment in the conclusions on which approaches were considered most successful in terms of outputs based on mentorship approaches - this would substantially increase the importance of this paper

These are simply recommendations for minor revisions, to move towards greater interpretation of the findings, but the paper is well structured, clearly thought through and very well written overall.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

10.1371/journal.pgph.0003314.r002
Author response to Decision Letter 0
Submission Version1
23 Aug 2024

Attachment Submitted filename: Point by point response.docx

10.1371/journal.pgph.0003314.r003
Decision Letter 1
Seeley Janet Academic Editor
© 2024 Janet Seeley
2024
Janet Seeley
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version1
27 Aug 2024

Mentorship in Health Research Institutions in Africa: A Systematic Review of Approaches, Benefits, Successes, Gaps and Challenges

PGPH-D-24-01117R1

Dear Dr Ng'oda,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Mentorship in Health Research Institutions in Africa: A Systematic Review of Approaches, Benefits, Successes, Gaps and Challenges' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Global Public Health.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact globalpubhealth@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Global Public Health.

Best regards,

Janet Seeley

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

***********************************************************

Thank you for your attention to the comments - and the changes you have made. I do hope this paper is read widely - I look forward to seeing this published.

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):
==== Refs
References

1 Simpkin V , Namubiru-Mwaura E , Clarke L , Mossialos E . Investing in health r&d: Where we are, what limits us, and how to make progress in africa. BMJ Glob Heal. 2019;4 (2 ).
2 Kasprowicz VO , Chopera D , Waddilove KD , Brockman MA , Gilmour J , Hunter E , et al . African-led health research and capacity building- is it working? BMC Public Health. 2020;20 (1 ):1–10.31898494
3 Jasińska KK , Guei S . Neuroimaging field methods using functional near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) neuroimaging to study global child development: Rural sub-Saharan Africa. J Vis Exp. 2018;2018 (132 ):1–11. doi: 10.3791/57165 29443053
4 Nakanjako D , Byakika-Kibwika P , Kintu K , Aizire J , Nakwagala F , Luzige S , et al . Mentorship needs at academic institutions in resource-limited settings: A survey at makerere university college of health sciences. BMC Med Educ. 2011;11 (1 ):1–6. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-11-53 21219639
5 Nicholson BA , Pollock M , Ketcham CJ , Fitz Gibbon HM , Bradley ED , Gibbon F . Beyond the mentor-mentee model: A case for multi-mentoring in undergraduate research. Perspect Undergrad Res Mentor [Internet]. 2017;6 (1 ):1–14. Available from: https://www.elon.edu/u/academics/undergraduate-research/purm/purm-6-1/.
6 Mullen CA , Klimaitis CC . Defining mentoring: a literature review of issues, types, and applications. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2021;1483 (1 ):19–35. doi: 10.1111/nyas.14176 31309580
7 Young BR , Williamson HJ , Burton DL , Massey OT , Levin BL , Baldwin JA . Challenges and Benefits in Designing and Implementing a Team-Based Research Mentorship Experience in Translational Research. Pedagog Heal Promot. 2015;1 (4 ):233–46. doi: 10.1177/2373379915600174 26949735
8 Hunn V. African American Students, Retention, and Team-Based Learning: A Review of the Literature and Recommendations for Retention at Predominately White Institutions. J Black Stud. 2014;45 (4 ):301–14.
9 Sambunjak D , Straus SE , Marušić A . Mentoring in academic medicine: A systematic review. J Am Med Assoc. 2006;296 (9 ):1103–15. doi: 10.1001/jama.296.9.1103 16954490
10 Margaret Nora L. The 21st century faculty member in the educational process-what should be on the horizon? Acad Med. 2010;85 (9 SUPPL.):45–55.
11 Kanaskie ML . Mentoring—A staff retention tool. Crit Care Nurs Q. 2006;29 (3 ):248–52. doi: 10.1097/00002727-200607000-00010 16862027
12 Sambunjak D , Straus SE , Marusic A . A systematic review of qualitative research on the meaning and characteristics of mentoring in academic medicine. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25 (1 ):72–8. doi: 10.1007/s11606-009-1165-8 19924490
13 Noormahomed E , Williams P , Lescano AG , Raj T , Bukusi EA , Schooley RT , et al . The evolution of mentorship capacity development in low- and middle-income countries: Case studies from Peru, Kenya, India, and Mozambique. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2019;100 (Suppl 1 ):29–35. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.18-0560 30430979
14 Hong QN , Fàbregues S , Bartlett G , Boardman F , Cargo M , Dagenais P , et al . The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Educ Inf. 2018;34 :285–91.
15 Daniels J , Nduati R , Kiarie J , Farquhar C . Supporting early career health investigators in Kenya: A qualitative study of HIV/AIDS research capacity building. Pan Afr Med J. 2015;20 :1–8.25995798
16 Ager A , Zarowsky C . Balancing the personal, local, institutional, and global: Multiple case study and multidimensional scaling analysis of African experiences in addressing complexity and political economy in health research capacity strengthening. Heal Res Policy Syst. 2015;13 (1 ):1–9. doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-13-5 25595847
17 Daniels J , Nduati R , Farquhar C . Right from primary school, i liked science: understanding health research capacity building in sub-saharan africa through kenyan training experiences. Glob Health Promot. 2014;21 (2 ):32–42. doi: 10.1177/1757975913515531 24557949
18 Dartnall E. Harnessing the power of South-South partnerships to build capacity for the prevention of sexual and intimate partner violence. African Saf Promot. 2017;15 (1 ):8–15.
19 Ezeanolue EE , Iheanacho T , Patel D V ., Patel S , Sam-Agudu N , Obiefune M , et al . Challenges and strategies for improving training of mid-level research personnel in Nigeria. Ann Glob Heal. 2019;85 (1 ):1–6. doi: 10.5334/aogh.2405 31225955
20 Färnman R , Diwan V , Zwarenstein M , Atkins S . Successes and challenges of north-south partnerships—Key lessons from the African/Asian Regional Capacity Development projects. Glob Health Action. 2016;9 (1 ):1–10.
21 Gandhi M , Raj T , Fernandez R , Rispel L , Nxumalo N , Lescano AG , et al . Mentoring the mentors: Implementation and evaluation of four fogarty-sponsored mentoring training workshops in low-and middle-income countries. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2019;100 (Suppl 1 ):20–8. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.18-0559 30430977
22 Mda T. Growing researchers from the historically disadvantaged groups through internships. Perspect Educ. 2013;31 (2 ):92–101.
23 Langhaug LF , Jack H , Hanlon C , Holzer S , Sorsdahl K , Mutedzi B , et al . “we need more big trees as well as the grass roots”: Going beyond research capacity building to develop sustainable careers in mental health research in African countries. Int J Ment Health Syst [Internet]. 2020;14 (1 ):1–14. Available from: doi: 10.1186/s13033-020-00388-1 31921334
24 Da Silva ATC , Hanlon C , Susser E , Rojas G , Claro HG , Quayle J , et al . Enhancing mental health research capacity: Emerging voices from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) global hubs. Int J Ment Health Syst [Internet]. 2019;13 (1 ):1–9. Available from: 10.1186/s13033-019-0276-9.
25 Gureje O , Seedat S , Kola L , Appiah-Poku J , Othieno C , Harris B , et al . Partnership for mental health development in Sub-Saharan Africa (PaM-D): A collaborative initiative for research and capacity building. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2019;28 (4 ):389–96. doi: 10.1017/S2045796018000707 30479242
26 Somefun OD , Adebayo KO . The role of mentoring in research ecosystems in Sub-Saharan Africa: Some experiences through the CARTA opportunity. Glob Public Health. 2021;16 (1 ):36–47. doi: 10.1080/17441692.2020.1776365 32486968
27 Thomson DR , Semakula M , Hirschhorn LR , Murray M , Ndahindwa V , Manzi A , et al . Applied statistical training to strengthen analysis and health research capacity in Rwanda. Heal Res Policy Syst [Internet]. 2016;14 (1 ):1–7. Available from: 10.1186/s12961-016-0144-x.
28 Torondel B , Balls E , Chisenga CC , Kumwenda S , Okello E , Simiyu S , et al . Experiences of capacity strengthening in sanitation and hygiene research in Africa and Asia: The SHARE Research Consortium. Heal Res Policy Syst. 2019;17 (1 ):1–10. doi: 10.1186/s12961-019-0478-2 31382967
29 Manabe YC , Nambooze H , Okello ES , Kamya MR , Katabira ET , Ssinabulya I , et al . Group mentorship model to enhance the efficiency and productivity of PHD research training in Sub-Saharan Africa. Ann Glob Heal. 2018;84 (1 ):170–5. doi: 10.29024/aogh.25 30873808
30 Ughasoro M , Musa A , Yakubu A , Adefuye B , Folahanmi A , Isah A , et al . Barriers and Solutions to Effective Mentorship in Health Research and Training Institutions in Nigeria: Mentors, Mentees, and Organizational Perspectives. Niger J Clin Pract. 2019;22 :1070–7.31417049
31 Balandya E , Sunguya B , Kidenya B , Nyamhanga T , Minja IK , Mahande M , et al . Joint Research Mentoring Through the Community of Young Research Peers: A Case for a Unifying Model for Research Mentorship at Higher Learning Institutions. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2022;13 (April ):355–67.35478975
32 Mremi A , Pancras G , Mrema D , Morris B , Mwakyandile T , Msanga DR , et al . Mentorship of young researchers in resource-limited settings: experiences of the mentees from selected health sciences Universities in Tanzania. BMC Med Educ. 2023;23 (1 ):1–7.36593450
33 Balandya E , Sunguya B , Gunda DW , Kidenya B , Nyamhanga T , Minja IK , et al . Building sustainable research capacity at higher learning institutions in Tanzania through mentoring of the Young Research Peers. BMC Med Educ. 2021;21 (1 ):1–11.33388043
34 Hakim JG , Chidzonga MM , Borok MZ , Nathoo KJ , Matenga J , Havranek E , et al . Medical Education Partnership Initiative (MEPI) in Zimbabwe: Outcomes and challenges. Glob Heal Sci Pract. 2018;6 (1 ):82–92. doi: 10.9745/GHSP-D-17-00052 29602867
35 McGuire CM , Riffenburg K , Malope S , Jack B , Borba CPC . Mixed-methods evaluation of family medicine research training and peer mentorship in Lesotho. African J Prim Heal Care Fam Med. 2020;12 (1 ):1–17. doi: 10.4102/phcfm.v12i1.2387 33181879
36 Kaba M , Birhanu Z , Fernandez Villalobos NV , Osorio L , Echavarria MI , Berhe DF , et al . Health research mentorship in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review. JBI Evid Synth. 2023;21 (10 ):1912–70. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-22-00260 37461876
