Training cameroonian researchers on pragmatic knowledge translation trials: a workshop report

Training cameroonian researchers on pragmatic knowledge translation trials: a workshop report

 

Lawrence Mbuagbaw^1,2,3,&, Lehana Thabane^1,2,4,5,6, Pierre Ongolo-Zogo^3,7

 

¹Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada, ²Biostatistics Unit, Father Sean O’Sullivan Research Centre, St Joseph’s Healthcare-Hamilton, ON, Canada, ³Centre for Development of Best Practices in Health, Yaoundé Central Hospital, Yaoundé, Cameroon, ⁴Departments of Paediatrics and Anaesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada, ⁵Centre for Evaluation of Medicine, St Joseph’s Healthcare-Hamilton, ON, Canada, ⁶Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, ON, Canada, ⁷Faculty of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University of Yaoundé 1, Yaoundé, Cameroon

 

 

^&Corresponding author
Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

 

 

 

 

Many countries in Africa suffer from limited health research capacity [1,2]. Ongoing efforts to improve health research capacity and promote evidence-based practice among Cameroonian clinicians and researchers have been met with many challenges. Key among these is the challenge of using or conducting evidence syntheses such as systematic reviews without basic understanding of primary study designs [3]. As such, efforts have been made to enhance capacity in primary research [4]. Randomized controlled trials are often considered to generate high quality evidence, but have been criticized for lacking generalizability [5]. Designing RCTs that generate findings that are readily applicable in “real world” settings require that they be pragmatic.

 

The United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) provide a framework for a comprehensive strategy to improve the lives of people in low-resource settings. The efforts described here address the fourth (reduce child mortality), sixth (combat HIV/AIDS and malaria) and eighth (global partnership for development) MDGs by focusing on the application of evidence for the management of morbid conditions through international partnerships. In a bid to enhance local capacity to generate context-relevant evidence that can readily be applied, building on information gathered from previous workshops [3,4], and in response to research capacity needs, the Centre for Development of Best Practices in Health (CDBPH; www.cdbph.org) conducted a workshop on pragmatic knowledge translation trials. The CDBPH is a knowledge translation and brokering facility located in the Yaoundé Central Hospital, Yaoundé, Cameroon, that supports a wide range of health care stake-holders in the generation and application of research evidence. The CDBPH was created with funding from the Global Health Leadership Award from the Canadian Global Health Research Initiative administered by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) – Canada.

 

This workshop sought to introduce the notion of “pragmatism” in evidence generation by guiding participants on research that bridges the evidence-practice gap [6]. The purpose of this report is to provide a detailed account of the activities, material and output of this workshop; and to showcase successful capacity building strategies.

 

 

Location: The CDBPH organised the workshop, which took place from the 30^th June to the 2^nd August 2014, at the Laurence Vergne Room of the Yaoundé Central Hospital, Yaoundé, Cameroon.

 

Aims: The overarching theme of this training was to build on the efforts from previous workshops and to introduce Cameroonian clinicians and researchers to clinical trials [4]. This time the aim was to train participants on pragmatic knowledge translation trials and to develop proposals for funding. Participants were expected to achieve the following competencies at the end of the workshop: 1) distinguish pragmatic trials from other types of trials, 2) understand key concepts in knowledge translation, 3) describe important steps in clinical trial design and 4) participate in the design of a pragmatic knowledge translation trial.

 

Participants: the CDBPH invited lecturers from the Faculty of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, of the University of Yaoundé 1, staff from the Ministry of Health and other independent researchers affiliated with the CDBPH.

 

Facilitators: the course was facilitated by a Canadian professor of biostatistics and epidemiology with experience in pragmatic knowledge translation trials, a Cameroonian public health physician and epidemiologist; and a Cameroonian professor of radiology. All three facilitators had vast experience with knowledge translation, pragmatic trials and evidence-based practice.

 

Pre-workshop tasks: the pre-workshop tasks included introductory readings to knowledge translation and pragmatic trials, and to consider potential research questions that could be addressed during the workshop.

 

Program: Over two days, the participants were guided on the how to break down a research questions into its components using the PICOT framework (participants, intervention, comparison, outcome, timeframe); [7] and the basics of knowledge translation and pragmatic trials. Upon request, further details on clinical trial methodology were covered including sample size, unit of randomization, intervention, measurement, analyses, inference and reporting using the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement [8]. They also covered the PRECIS (Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary) tool and practiced how to apply it to their own research [9]. The next two days involved hands-on group work and developing proposals for pragmatic knowledge translation trials. Among the topics brought up by the workshop participants (Table 1), three were chosen for development of detailed proposals. The participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes and timelines are described in Table 2. Before and after the workshop a questionnaire was administered to test baseline and post-workshop knowledge of the material covered.

 

Course material and readings: the participants were provided with reading material relevant to each topic addressed. Table 3 is a summary of the topics covered in the workshop, the readings and other electronic resources.

 

Evaluation: the results of the questionnaires before and after the workshop were evaluated and compared. The questionnaire covered all topics discussed during the workshop. A total of 27 points could be obtained for responding correctly to 11 questions. The mean score (standard deviation) before the workshop was 14.7 (3.75) compared to 18.27 (4.21) after the workshop. This difference (+3.5) was statistically significant (t (33) =-2.64; p<0.012), showing a marked improvement in knowledge on pragmatic knowledge translation clinical trials. Participants were also asked to rank each of the sessions in the workshop in the following domains: Clarity of the objectives, appropriateness of the objectives, clarity of the presentation, usefulness of the materials and overall clarity of presentation. Overall, the workshop was well received (Figure 1). The workshop participants mostly liked the practical and “pragmatic” nature of the workshop, the group work sessions, availability of the facilitators, the material covered and detailed explanations provided during presentations. They wished the workshop could be longer and still had concerns regarding the PRECIS tool and some aspects of study design. They suggested the following improvements: more material on study design and knowledge translation; and more support for their personal research projects. For future workshops they wished to learn more about observational studies, sample size estimation, systematic reviews, critical appraisal and randomization. Upon request, the participants were given electronic copies of the material from previous workshops [4].

 

Output: three draft proposals for knowledge translation pragmatic trials in the management of diabetes, hypertension and malaria were developed during this workshop. These three conditions contribute to significant morbidity and mortality in Cameroon. The prevalence of diabetes and hypertension are 6% and 24% respectively with close to 5 million Cameroonians affected by one or both of these conditions. Malaria on the other hand is even more morbid. It is responsible for close to 40% of all deaths in health facilities, 50% of all hospitalisations in children under 5 and 45% of all medical consultations [10]. These numbers suggest that the topics selected by the participants are highly relevant to Cameroon. In addition, recent papers suggest that management of malaria is sub-optimal with little or no respect for current national guidelines [11, 12]. These proposals are described in Table 2. Completion of these drafts and sourcing for funding is ongoing.

 

 

Achieving the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) which include curbing child deaths, reducing the morbidity and mortality from malaria (and HIV) and engaging in global partnerships will require not only financial investments by all countries, but commitment to strengthening health systems through capacity building in health research in developing countries. Building capacity in pragmatic trials to translate knowledge into practice is an imperative. In this paper, we report on the second in a series of workshops aiming at improving evidence-based practice in health by conducting pragmatic KT trials in Cameroon. The workshop generated several ideas where there is still a gap between knowledge and practice—management of patients with diabetes, hypertension and malaria. The proposals to develop these ideas into real trials are currently underway. The hope is that, if successfully funded, these will transform the healthcare system in Cameroon and hopefully spark the interest to conduct more KT trials led by African researchers in in sub-Saharan Africa—a region that remains the disproportionately affected by these diseases.

 

 

The authors declare no competing interest.

 

 

All authors read and agreed to the final version of this manuscript and have equally contributed to its content.

 

 

This workshop was supported by the Effective Health Care Research Consortium which is funded by UKaid from the Department for International Development. It was organised by the Centre for Development for Best Practices in Health/Yaoundé Central Hospital. We also wish to thank Professor Thabane from McMaster University for his availability during the workshop.

 

 

Table 1: intervention research topics proposed by participants in knowledge translation pragmatic trials workshop

Table 2: outline of knowledge translation pragmatic trials in development

Table 3: workshop outline

Figure 1: evaluation of workshop (n=15)

 

 

1. Nchinda TC. Research capacity strengthening in the South. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54(11):1699-711. PubMed | Google Scholar


2. Laabes EP, Desai R, Zawedde SM, Glew RH. How much longer will Africa have to depend on western nations for support of its capacity-building efforts for biomedical research? Trop Med Int Health. 2011 Mar;16(3):258-62. PubMed | Google Scholar


3. Mbuagbaw L, Wiysonge CS, Nsagha DS, Ongolo-Zogo P, Pantoja T. An introduction to systematic reviews and meta-analysis: a workshop report on promoting evidence based medical practice through capacity building in research synthesis. Pan Afr Med J. 2011;8:15. PubMed | Google Scholar


4. Mbuagbaw L, Ongolo-Zogo P, Thabane L. Setting the stage for randomized controlled trials in Cameroon: a workshop report. Pan African Medical Journal. 2013;15:144. PubMed | Google Scholar


5. Bush T. Beyond HERS: some (not so) random thoughts on randomized clinical trials. Int J Fertil Womens Med. 2001 Mar-Apr;46(2):55-9. PubMed | Google Scholar


6. Lang ES, Wyer PC, Haynes RB. Knowledge translation: closing the evidence-to-practice gap. Ann Emerg Med. 2007 Mar;49(3):355-63. PubMed | Google Scholar


7. Thabane L, Thomas T, Ye C, Paul J. Posing the research question: not so simple. Can J Anaesth. 2009 Jan;56(1):71-9. PubMed | Google Scholar


8. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010 Mar 23;340:c332. PubMed | Google Scholar


9. Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD, Treweek S, Furberg CD, Altman DG, et al. A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 May;62(5):464-75. PubMed | Google Scholar


10. MINSANTE. Cameroon Health Sector Strategy 2001-2015 2009. Available from: http://www.ccghrharmonization.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Health-Sector-Strategy_Cameroon.pdf. (accessed 25/09/2014). Google Scholar


11. Mangham LJ, Cundill B, Achonduh OA, Ambebila JN, Lele AK, Metoh TN, et al. Malaria prevalence and treatment of febrile patients at health facilities and medicine retailers in Cameroon. Tropical Medicine & International Health. 2012;17(3):330-42. PubMed | Google Scholar


12. Sayang C, Gausseres M, Vernazza-Licht N, Malvy D, Bley D, Millet P. Treatment of malaria from monotherapy to artemisinin-based combination therapy by health professionals in rural health facilities in southern Cameroon. Malaria Journal. 2009;8:174. PubMed | Google Scholar


13. Downs M, Tucker K, Christ-Schmidt H, Wittes J. Some practical problems in implementing randomization. Clin Trials. 2010 Jun;7(3):235-45. PubMed | Google Scholar


14. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Generation of allocation sequences in randomised trials: chance, not choice. Lancet. 2002 Feb 9;359(9305):515-9. PubMed | Google Scholar


15. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Allocation concealment in randomised trials: defending against deciphering. Lancet. 2002 Feb 16;359(9306):614-8. PubMed | Google Scholar


16. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Blinding in randomised trials: hiding who got what. Lancet. 2002 Feb 23;359(9307):696-700. PubMed | Google Scholar


17. Sackett DL. Commentary: Measuring the success of blinding in RCTs: don't, must, can't or needn't?. Int J Epidemiol. 2007 Jun;36(3):664-5. PubMed | Google Scholar


18. Sadler GR, Ko CM, Alisangco J, Rosbrook BP, Miller E, Fullerton J. Sample size considerations when groups are the appropriate unit of analysis. Appl Nurs Res. 2007 Aug;20(3):152-7. PubMed | Google Scholar


19. Selby P, Brosky G, Oh PI, Raymond V, Ranger S. How pragmatic or explanatory is the randomized, controlled trial? The application and enhancement of the PRECIS tool to the evaluation of a smoking cessation trial. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:101. PubMed | Google Scholar


20. Treweek S, Zwarenstein M. Making trials matter: pragmatic and explanatory trials and the problem of applicability. Trials. 2009;10:37. PubMed | Google Scholar


21. Kimmelman J. The social function of clinical equipoise. Clinical Trials. 2012;9(5):630-1. PubMed | Google Scholar


22. Smith A, Palmer S, Johnson DW, Navaneethan S, Valentini M, Strippoli GF. How to conduct a randomized trial. Nephrology (Carlton). 2010 Dec;15(8):740-6. PubMed | Google Scholar


23. Zwarenstein M, Treweek S, Gagnier JJ, Altman DG, Tunis S, Haynes B, et al. Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. BMJ. 2008;337:a2390. PubMed | Google Scholar


24. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Sample size calculations in randomised trials: mandatory and mystical. Lancet. 2005;365(9467):1348-53. PubMed | Google Scholar


25. Jüni P, Egger M. Commentary: Empirical evidence of attrition bias in clinical trials. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2005;34(1):87-8. PubMed | Google Scholar


26. Dumville JC, Torgerson DJ, Hewitt CE. Reporting attrition in randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2006;332(7547):969-71. PubMed | Google Scholar


27. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2010 Jun 1;152(11):726-32. PubMed | Google Scholar


28. Knatterud GL. Management and conduct of randomized controlled trials. Epidemiol Rev. 2002;24(1):12-25. PubMed | Google Scholar