4.2 Article

Strengthening research capacity in LMICs to address the global NCD burden

期刊

GLOBAL HEALTH ACTION
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/16549716.2020.1846904

关键词

Noncommunicable diseases; capacity building; global health; scientific research; research training

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The burden of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) continues to rise across the globe, and the risk of dying prematurely from an NCD in a low- and middle-income country (LMIC) is almost double that in a high-income country. Confronting this crisis requires a critical mass of scientists who are well versed in regional health problems and understand the cultural, social, economic, and political contexts that influence the effectiveness of interventions to address NCDs. Investing in research capacity strengthening in LMICs is critical to effectively combating disease, and local researchers are best poised to address the health challenges in their home countries given their understanding of the unique culture and context in which they are working. The Fogarty International Center of the U.S. National Institutes of Health has a set of programs focused on building individual and institutional NCD research capacity in LMICs. The Programs provide models for sustainable scientific research capacity strengthening, innovative funding mechanisms and partnership-building approaches. Investing in the training and scientific capacity of LMIC individuals and institutions not only helps foster a research culture and solidify local ownership of research, but it also ensures that the most appropriate solutions are developed, increasing the likelihood that those solutions will sustain over time. In addition, the Programs' investigators have advanced the science across a range of NCDs and associated risk factors. This article describes key lessons and compelling cases from the Programs that can be harnessed by other health researchers and funders to further the global response to the NCD burden.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据