We tested if peer-reviewed conservation research output has increased in sub-Saharan African countries over the last 30 years in response to increased development. We carried out a bibliometric analysis to identify the number of conservation research papers published by national authors of 41 sub-Saharan African countries during 1987–2017, to provide an index of national conservation research output. We identified country-specific development factors influencing these totals, using general linear modelling. There were positive relationships between conservation research output and population size, GDP, literacy rate, international tourism receipts and population growth rate, and negative relationships with urban population and agricultural land cover, in total explaining 77% of variation. Thirty-eight per cent of countries contributed < 30 conservation research papers (of 12,701) in 30 years. Analysis of trends in primary authorship in a random subsample of 2,374 of these papers showed that primary authorship by sub-Saharan African authors has increased significantly over time but is now at a lower rate than primary authorship for authors from countries outside the country associated with the search term, usually a European or North American country. Overall, 46% of papers had national primary authors, but 67% of these were South African. The results show that conservation research output in sub-Saharan Africa overall is increasing but only significantly in a few countries, and is still dominated by non-national scientists, probably as a result of a lack of socio-economic development.

Evidence-based practice (EBP), which is commonly implemented in high-income countries (HICs), integrates the best research evidence, clinical expertise and patient preferences in the planning and provision of healthcare for both physical and mental health conditions. Although the same principles of EBP apply in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), research into and implementation of such interventions in these countries remains significantly behind compared with HICs. This article presents a brief overview of the global mental health agenda and initiatives aiming to address this pressing gap through the promotion of research and scaling up services, identification of barriers to developing and implementing EBP in LMICs, and possible solutions to overcome them.

Since 1997 ageing research in the United Kingdom (UK) has been promoted through a series of research council special programmes with an emphasis on multi-disciplinary, collaborative, user-focused research. There has been notable progress and substantial setbacks, especially a major lull in activity, and strong disciplinary biases in later programmes. Skills, expertise and influence on policy and practice, developed through early programmes, have been lost. Two philosophies of programme management have emerged: a top-down approach to the development of priorities and activities, largely reflecting a linear model of research, development and diffusion; and, a bottom-up approach strongly influenced by the priorities of users including older people, which has emphasised the role of problem-solving and social interaction between researchers and users. A comparison of these two philosophies highlights factors which contribute to successful programme implementation and valuable outcomes for society at large. These emphasise: involvement of all potential users; encouragement of champions; supporting researchers at all stages in their careers; transparency in communicating intent, progress and achievements; varied and robust knowledge transfer; and, above all else, understanding the challenges faced by individuals as they grow older. Future programmes would be assured of making significant contributions to supporting older people and an ageing society if those commissioning the programmes recognised the importance of these factors and accepted the consequent challenges for the organisation of the programmes.

Part of Ontario’s strategy on Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) was to develop research priorities and recommend strategies for building research capacity. The process to achieve these objectives included an environmental scan, key informant interviews, surveys, and a consensus workshop; this process involved over 100 researchers, clinicians, persons with early dementia, and family caregivers. This article describes the process undertaken, key issues identified, and recommendations for research priorities and for building research capacity; and provides a strategic direction for dementia research in Ontario that is relevant for other jurisdictions. ADRD research in all aspects is required to advance knowledge of ADRD cause, care, and cure; gaps currently exist in understanding effective approaches to care and knowledge transfer. Capacity for high-calibre research hinges on maintaining attractive career paths for researchers, solid infrastructures, and strong partnerships. For research to inform policy and practice, better mechanisms are needed for knowledge exchange.

The implementation of a revised government strategy for UK health research led to a reorientation of primary care research, largely focused on recruitment to, and involvement in, clinical trials. This reorientation prompted consideration of new approaches to developing clinical research facilities able to deliver this agenda. The provision of local enhanced services (LES) allow primary care organizations to provide additional services and thereby offer potential for involving primary care staff in clinical research. This paper describes the development and evaluation of one such LES scheme in the East of England, and highlights potential barriers and facilitators to progress.

International and UK National Health Service policy has focused attention on the need to develop research capacity in primary care, with the emphasis on collaboration between professional groups and across organizations including health and social care, and the academic context. The results of a survey of research activity, interest and skills in a health and social care community, in Northern England, are reported. The survey targeted primary care trust (PCT) staff, general practice staff and social services staff seconded to the PCT, and a response rate of 31% was achieved. Twelve per cent of respondents were involved in research, with research active professionals typically involved in between one and three projects. PCT staff reported a significantly higher level of research activity, research skills and research interest than general practice or social care staff. The holding of a master's degree was associated with a greater desire to lead or collaborate in research. All three groups expressed a preference for practice-based research training and other forms of research support were identified, including protected time, apprenticeship, mentoring and funding advice. The results of this survey have been valuable in terms of research governance, forming research strategy, and impact on capacity via training and support for the health and social care community within a newly formed research alliance between a district general hospital, a PCT and social services, including an academic advisory group. The paper concludes that a holistic approach to research capacity building should inform changing policy and research funding in the UK.

Primary care research networks were established in Scotland to encourage research in primary care and build capacity. The aim of this descriptive study was to evaluate the primary care research network in Dumfries and Galloway, a rural area of Scotland, by describing the methods used and the outcomes in terms of research training and completed projects. All primary care professionals working in the region were offered an initial grant to buy time for research training to develop their own research ideas. Those attending the two day research training course were encouraged to submit a protocol for funding and Local Research Ethics Committee approval. Of the 605 and 717 primary care professionals circulated in the first and second years, 23 (4%) and 11 (2%), respectively applied for a research training grant. Of these, eight completed a research project together with a further six who had previous research training. Eleven (79%) of the 14 completed projects were the subject of oral presentations and 11 were submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. Only a small minority of professionals working in primary care will want to develop their own research, and this requires support, protected time and long-term mentoring. Building research capacity in primary care involves a number of activities ranging from funding academic units, to giving opportunities for non-academics to undertake research. These distinctions are important for decisions about appropriate funding and support.

There has traditionally been a low level of engagement of primary care practitioners with research. In the UK, primary care trusts (PCTs) now have some responsibility for the encouragement of research and development in primary care. The aim of this study was to assess the current level of research activity and capacity for research within a PCT. A questionnaire, incorporating a recently developed and validated research and development culture index, was sent to all 572 health care professionals and staff under the auspices of North Tyneside Research PCT. Data analysis used nonparametric tests of association including chi-squared, Mann–Whitney U and Spearman's rank order correlation. There was a 50.3 per cent response rate to the questionnaire. Groups more likely to show an increased capacity for research included those with postgraduate qualifications and those in post for the least time. General practitioners were less likely than other professional groupings to declare personal skills or aptitude for research. The two most important factors thought to contribute towards the development of a culture of R&D were having access to people to support development and changes in professional practice and having access to training and development opportunities. The use of the R&D culture index enabled groups to be identified that may be more research interested and can therefore be targeted to increase research capacity. The R&D culture index could be used by other PCTs wishing to define and develop research capacity in primary care.

Whilst much good practice relating to research support for rural PCTs undoubtedly exists, little has been published about the processes that facilitate such successful support. This paper outlines the nature of a collaborative venture between a Research & Development Support Unit, HRDNoW, and a Primary Care Research Network, CumbReN in providing research support to three rural PCTs in North Cumbria. In doing so, the paper highlights how research capacity is built through a combination of inputs at an individual and organisational level and looks specifically at the outcomes of this collaboration.

In the UK, the Department of Health recognizes the importance of research activity to improve patient care, but the amount of research activity relating to primary care is scant. Few have considered managerial and organizational aspects relating to developing research capacity in primary care and none have examined this from the perspective of organizations responsible for managing primary care at a local level. Yet these organizations have a critical role in increasing the amount of appropriate health services research and developing a research culture. A qualitative analysis of focus group workshops was performed to identify issues associated with developing research capacity within a primary care trust (PCT) covering a single local authority borough in England. All staff attached to the PCT were invited to attend facilitator-led focus groups and asked to consider from an individual and organizational perspective: What will enable them to increase the use of and participation in research? What barriers exist? What opportunities exist or could exist to develop this in the PCT? Themes were identified using content analysis based on written records from the focus groups. Issues relating to developing research capacity were grouped into the following categories: What is research? Training; Resources; Managerial; and Organizational issues. Research was not seen as an integral component of the daily or routine work of most people in a health care organization. Managerial and organizational issues were a considerable barrier to developing research capacity. Lack of appreciation and support for research by managers and lack of structures to facilitate research within the organization prevented research capacity being developed. Primary care management organizations need to work with service managers to encourage the incorporation of research activity into the routine work of staff. Greater dialogue is needed between individuals, service managers and academics to ensure that appropriate research is carried out to support the organization in meeting its explicit objectives. More work is needed to understand the perceptions of research from a managers’ perspective and to develop constructive ways to gain their support for a research agenda.