The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A framework to evaluate research capacity building in health care
Open accessAbstract
Background: Building research capacity in health services has been recognised internationally as important in order to produce a sound evidence base for decision-making in policy and practice. Activities to increase research capacity for, within, and by practice include initiatives to support individuals and teams, organisations and networks. Little has been discussed or concluded about how to measure the effectiveness of research capacity building (RCB) Discussion: This article attempts to develop the debate on measuring RCB. It highlights that traditional outcomes of publications in peer reviewed journals and successful grant applications may be important outcomes to measure, but they may not address all the relevant issues to highlight progress, especially amongst novice researchers. They do not capture factors that contribute to developing an environment to support capacity development, or on measuring the usefulness or the 'social impact' of research, or on professional outcomes. The paper suggests a framework for planning change and measuring progress, based on six principles of RCB, which have been generated through the analysis of the literature, policy documents, empirical studies, and the experience of one Research and Development Support Unit in the UK. These principles are that RCB should: develop skills and confidence, support linkages and partnerships, ensure the research is 'close to practice', develop appropriate dissemination, invest in infrastructure, and build elements of sustainability and continuity. It is suggested that each principle operates at individual, team, organisation and supra-organisational levels. Some criteria for measuring progress are also given. Summary: This paper highlights the need to identify ways of measuring RCB. It points out the limitations of current measurements that exist in the literature, and proposes a framework for measuring progress, which may form the basis of comparison of RCB activities. In this way it could contribute to establishing the effectiveness of these interventions, and establishing a knowledge base to inform the science of RCB.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Journal of Family Practice
(1997) · The American Journal of Family Therapy · doi:10.1080/01926189708251066 · Cited by 3,067
(1984) · PubMed · Cited by 2,436
Networks, Diversity, and Productivity: The Social Capital of Corporate R&D Teams
Reagans, R., & Zuckerman, E. W. (2001) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.12.4.502.10637 · Cited by 1,613
Health policy-makers' perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review
Innvær, S., Vist, G., Trommald, M., & Oxman, A. (2002) · Journal of Health Services Research & Policy · doi:10.1258/135581902320432778 · Cited by 1,006
Research governance framework for health and social care
(2002) · Health and Social Care in the Community · doi:10.1046/j.0966-0410.2001.00336.x · Cited by 792
Evidence-based healthcare: how to make health policy and management decisions
(1999) · Journal of Vascular Surgery · doi:10.1016/s0741-5214(99)70404-0 · Cited by 608
Four approaches to capacity building in health: consequences for measurement and accountability
Crisp, B. R. (2000) · Health Promotion International · doi:10.1093/heapro/15.2.99 · Cited by 431
Effectiveness of Alliances and Partnerships for Health Promotion
Gillies, P. (1998) · Health Promotion International · doi:10.1093/heapro/13.2.99 · Cited by 412
Evidence-Based Healthcare: How to Make Health Policy and Management Decisions
Guberman, A. H. (1997) · Cited by 340
Best research for best health: a new national health research strategy
Evans, T. W. (2006) · Clinical Medicine · doi:10.7861/clinmedicine.6-5-435 · Cited by 264
Cited by
Capacity for conducting systematic reviews in low- and middle-income countries: a rapid appraisal
Oliver, S., Bangpan, M., Stansfield, C., & Stewart, R. (2015) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/s12961-015-0012-0 · Cited by 59
“Dimensions for strengthening capacity for health research [1] and methods for its evaluation [2] have been developed from systematic reviews of research literature and good practice.”
BackgroundMethodKengia, J. T., Kalolo, A., Barash, D., Chwa, C., Hayirli, T. C., Kapologwe, N. A., Kinyaga, A., Meara, J. G., Staffa, S. J., Zanial, N., et al. (2023) · Human Resources for Health · doi:10.1186/s12960-023-00858-w · Cited by 40
Metadata
- Authors
- Cooke, J.
- Venue
- BMC Family Practice
- Published
- 2005-10-27
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 44-44
- ISSN
- 1471-2296 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2159541428
- Cited by
- 422
- References
- 19
- FWCI
- 4.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A framework to evaluate research capacity building in health care. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2296-6-44
- The paper
- Cooke, J. (2005). A framework to evaluate research capacity building in health care. BMC Family Practice. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-6-44
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.