CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 129Global Health and SurgeryHealth and Medical Research ImpactsHealth Policy Implementation Science

Barriers to clinical research in Africa: a quantitative and qualitative survey of clinical researchers in 27 African countries

Open access
Conradie, A., Duys, R., Forget, P., Biccard, B.M.·2018·British Journal of Anaesthesia
DOI 10.1016/j.bja.2018.06.013
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background There is a need for high quality research to improve perioperative patient care in Africa. The aim of this study was to understand the particular barriers to clinical research in this environment.Methods We conducted an electronic survey of African Surgical Outcomes Study (ASOS) investigators, including 29 quantitative Likert scale questions and eight qualitative questions with subsequent thematic analysis. Protocol compliant and non-compliant countries were compared according to WHO statistics for research and development, health workforce data, and world internet statistics.Results Responses were received from 134/418 of invited researchers in 24/25 (96%) of participating countries, and three non-participating countries. Barriers included lack of a dedicated research team (47.7%), reliable internet access (32.6%), staff skilled in research (31.8%), and team commitment (23.8%). Protocol compliant countries had significantly more physicians per 1000 population (4 vs 0.9, P<0.01), internet penetration (38% vs 28%, P=0.01) and published clinical trials (1461 vs 208, P<0.01) compared with non-compliant countries. Facilitators of research included establishing a research culture (86.9%), simple data collection tools (80%), and ASOS team interaction (77.9%). Most participants are interested in future research (93.8%). Qualitative data reiterated human resource, financial resource, and regulatory barriers. However, the desire to contribute to an African collaboration producing relevant data to improve patient outcomes was expressed strongly by ASOS investigators.Conclusions Barriers to successful participation in ASOS related to resource limitations and not motivation of the clinician investigators. Practical solutions to individual barriers may increase the success of multi-centre perioperative research in Africa.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.bja.2018.06.013

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The slow pace of substance use BI research could be attributed to general barriers to conducting research in Africa e.g. low experience with research methods, lack of funding and time, competing work priorities, and a lack of belief that research is valuable or will make a difference.

    “The slow pace of substance use BI research could be attributed to general barriers to conducting research in Africa e.g. low experience with research methods, lack of funding and time, competing work priorities, and a lack of belief that research is valuable or will make a difference [121,122].”

    From A scoping review of substance use brief interventions in Africa (2024) · cites this paper as [122]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Conradie, A., Duys, R., Forget, P., & Biccard, B. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Cape Town (ZA)
  • Vrije Universiteit Brussel (BE)
Corresponding author
Conradie, A.
ORCID
Venue
British Journal of Anaesthesia
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-10
Volume
121
Issue
4
Pages
813-821
ISSN
0007-0912 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.bja.2018.06.013
OpenAlex
W2884038031
Cited by
129
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1
FWCI
7.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • British Journal of Anaesthesia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Global Health and Surgery
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health and Medical Research Impacts
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
barriers to clinical research, research capacity, research workforce, internet access, research funding, research regulation, research culture, Africa
MeSH terms
Africa, Clinical Trials as Topic, Culture, Humans, Surveys and Questionnaires, Research, Research Personnel, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Guideline Adherence, Internet, Qualitative Research, Quality Improvement

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review