Skip to main content
Global Health Action logoLink to Global Health Action
. 2013 Aug 7;6:10.3402/gha.v6i0.21643. doi: 10.3402/gha.v6i0.21643

A research capacity strengthening project for infectious diseases in Honduras: experience and lessons learned

Ana Lourdes Sanchez 1,*, Maritza Canales 2,3, Lourdes Enriquez 2,3, Maria Elena Bottazzi 4, Ada Argentina Zelaya 2,5, Vilma Esther Espinoza 2, Gustavo Adolfo Fontecha 2,3
PMCID: PMC3739968  PMID: 23930937

Abstract

Background

In Honduras, research capacity strengthening (RCS) has not received sufficient attention, but an increase in research competencies would enable local scientists to advance knowledge and contribute to national priorities, including the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

Objective

This project aimed at strengthening research capacity in infectious diseases in Honduras, focusing on the School of Microbiology of the National Autonomous University of Honduras (UNAH). The primary objective was the creation of a research-based graduate program for the continued training of researchers. Parallel objectives included institutional strengthening and the facilitation of partnerships and networks.

Methods

Based on a multi-stakeholder consultation, an RCS workplan was designed and undertaken from 2007 to 2012. Due to unexpected adverse circumstances, the first 2 years were heavily dedicated to implementing the project's flagship, an MSc program in infectious and zoonotic diseases (MEIZ). In addition, infrastructure improvements and demand-driven continuing education opportunities were facilitated; biosafety and research ethics knowledge and practices were enhanced, and networks fostering collaborative work were created or expanded.

Results

The project coincided with the peak of UNAH's radical administrative reform and an unprecedented constitutional crisis. Challenges notwithstanding, in September 2009, MEIZ admitted the first cohort of students, all of whom undertook MDG-related projects graduating successfully by 2012. Importantly, MEIZ has been helpful in expanding the School of Microbiology's traditional etiology-based, disciplinary model to infectious disease teaching and research. By fulfilling its objectives, the project contributed to a stronger research culture upholding safety and ethical values at the university.

Conclusions

The resources and strategic vision afforded by the project enhanced UNAH's overall research capacity and its potential contribution to the MDGs. Furthermore, increased research activity and the ensuing improvement in performance indicators at the prime Honduran research institution invoke the need for a national research system in Honduras.

Keywords: research capacity strengthening, infectious disease, global health, Millennium Development Goals, Honduras


Honduras is categorized as a medium-development country, ranking 120 among 187 countries and territories globally (1). It is located in Central America's extreme north, within the Mesoamerica Biodiversity Hotspot (2). It is a relatively small country (112,492 km2) with a population of over 8 million inhabitants (3). Within the Americas, Honduras is considered one of the least developed nations (4), characterized by profound social inequalities (5). While important progress has been made toward achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), serious challenges remain as the country not only endures the double burden of non-communicable and infectious diseases (3) but also a number of social issues dominating the domestic political agenda (6). Perhaps, not surprisingly, despite the global movement for strengthening health research as an essential factor for human development (7, 8), Honduras has yet to prioritize scientific research (9). Currently, the country is considered among the least scientifically developed in Latin America (10) and the world (11, 12).

However, institutional and individual efforts to increase Honduras's research productivity are ongoing. The National Autonomous University of Honduras (UNAH) is the prime Honduran higher education institution (13, 14) but as is often the case for developing countries’ universities (15, 16), UNAH's strength resides in undergraduate teaching, while scientific research is limited (only 3% of >3,000 faculty members are registered as researchers) (13). Researchers at UNAH are concentrated in a few academic units, especially at the School of Microbiology (13). Reasons for this particularity include, first, that most faculty members hold graduate degrees (mainly MSc) earned abroad; and second, that the School was one of UNAH's main beneficiaries of a Swedish initiative to increase regional research capacity in medical microbiology (14, 17, 18). From 1988 to 2012, the Swedish cooperation through the Karolinska Institute Research Training (KIRT) program trained 11 Honduran microbiologists. Regrettably, only five of them remain at UNAH, while the rest moved to Sweden, or took non-leadership positions elsewhere. In addition to facing the widely known constraints foreign-trained scientists encounter upon returning to their native developing countries (19), Honduran KIRT graduates went back to an academic unit lacking a graduate program where to consolidate their scientific capacity. As a consequence, their research activity gradually declined. In contrast, most of their Costa Rican counterparts returning to their homeland – with a strong research tradition (11, 20) and one of the most integrated NHRS in Latin America (8, 20, 21) – enrolled into active research laboratories affiliated with graduate schools, and continued to do research and produce peer-reviewed publications (22, 23). Honduras's case is not unusual but suggests that the concept of research capacity strengthening (RCS) characterizing donors’ initiatives for decades (24) needs to be advanced. Nowadays, a consensus exists that a long-term, systemic, and inter-sectoral approach is necessary to sustain an active local scientific community (19, 25). Arguably, centers of excellence and permanent graduate programs are at the core of thriving research environment (26, 27).

This article describes the implementation, challenges, and lessons learned of an RCS project entitled ‘Increasing Capacity to Achieve MDG No. 6 in Honduras: Combating Infectious Diseases’ (http://www.brocku.ca/globalhealth). The primary objective was establishing an infectious disease graduate program that would serve as permanent platform for continued scientific research at UNAH's School of Microbiology.

Project conceptualization

Responding to a request for applications (RFA) issued in 2006 by the Teasdale-Corti Team Grants Program of the Global Health Research Initiative (GHRI), the core working team and authors of this article submitted a proposal for this project. The RFA entailed a proposal development grant (PDG) and a full proposal application. The first three authors of this article learned of this opportunity while working on a related Honduras-based project. The core team assembled and submitted a PDG proposing the creation of a graduate program, a long-standing goal at the School of Microbiology. Initial PDG funds were granted to conduct a national consultation to discuss the need and feasibility of such a program. The consultation took place in 2006, gathering in a two-day workshop a wide range of stakeholders: practitioners, educators, researchers, and research users from infectious disease and related disciplines (microbiology, medicine, nursing, veterinary medicine, food and agriculture, public health, epidemiology, medical anthropology, sociology, education, non-governmental organizations, and funding agencies). Stakeholders identified three main barriers to infectious disease control in the country, namely, insufficient integration of disease-specific programs, limited expertise for program evaluation, and lack of highly trained professionals able to assist with control programs, do research, and advocate for evidence-based solutions. For the latter, a Honduras-based graduate program whose curriculum integrated the study of biomedical as well as social determinants of infectious disease was recommended. Research competencies identified in the literature as essential (28, 29) such as the ability to work collaboratively, efficiently, and ethically, as well as leadership and communication skills were indicated as strong assets in these future professionals. In addition to individual training, stakeholders highlighted the need for strengthening governance within academic and non-academic institutions. These recommendations were captured in a written declaration signed by all participants at the end of the workshop.

With all these elements, a full proposal was submitted outlining a 4-year program of work whose central objective was implementing a research-based, 2-year graduate program, named ‘the MSc Program in Infectious and Zoonotic Diseases’ (MEIZ, for its Spanish abbreviation). Of 259 PDGs and 35 full proposals received by GHRI, this project was one of 14 selected for funding (30).

Objectives

Our work focused on the following objectives:

Objective 1

To create a sustainable research-based graduate program that integrates the study of Honduran-relevant biomedical, social, and environmental drivers of infectious diseases, including zoonoses.

Objective 2

To strengthen research capacity at UNAH, focusing on research methodology, while promoting better practices and policies around research ethics and biosafety.

Objective 3

To foster a favorable research environment that provides UNAH's research community the essential resources to generate and disseminate research.

Objective 4

To promote the development and strengthening of networks so Honduran investigators can form or maintain partnerships at the national, regional, and international levels.

Methods

The project was conceptualized as ‘capacity-strengthening’ in contrast to ‘capacity-building’. Both terms are often regarded as synonymous but we coincide with other authors that the former is more encompassing as it conveys the intention to enhance pre-existing capacity (31). Our project implementation used a ‘multi-level approach’ (32). Ideally, RCS interventions should consider all levels (individual, institutional, and if possible, the macro-level context), as each is affected by the other (33). The present project, while focusing on individuals, also endeavored to promoting networks from which individuals could influence the system. It also strived for facilitating an enabling environment at the institutional level. This approach is considered an advanced model of capacity building (28) and increases the likelihood of sustainability (27). Whitworth and co-workers propose a similar approach, but explicitly recommend the ‘engagement of southern voices and institutions’ (34). This engagement was also an integral part of the present project.

Pedagogy specialists at UNAH provided advice to design and implement the graduate program as outlined in the consultation workshop. They recommended a plan comprising modules on the following: Honduran-specific content (epidemiology of infectious disease, health system, national plan, and so on); a primer on global health; discipline-specific content (e.g. pathogens, immunology, diagnostics); and experiential learning opportunities through field visits and laboratory sessions. Cross-cutting competencies, such as research methodology, biosafety, research ethics, technical writing, and project management, were integrated through periodic activities. Research seminars took place throughout the program, and an original research project was a requisite for degree completion.

Other theoretical foundations helpful for project implementation are as follows. Change theory and social cognitive (learning) theory (35) helped us implement self-efficacy strengthening activities for students. Individual mentoring along with group seminars and skill building laboratories resulted in increased academic performance and motivation. Organizational change theory (36) helped keep at reasonable levels the team's expectations of influencing sustainable organizational change within UNAH. According to Buchanan et al., sustainability of change within an organization is a complex phenomenon affected by internal factors as much as by a number of externalities outside an individual project's control (36). Social capital and networks theory (37) informed the formulation of a specific objective for promoting networks as means of preserving and consolidating a critical mass of researchers.

Finally, to address the power differentials operating in North–South partnerships (17, 38, 39) we strived for a truly cooperative partnership based on trust and mutual respect. According to Costello and Zumla, this type of partnership rests on four principles: (1) mutual trust and shared decision making; (2) national ownership; (3) emphasis on getting research findings into policy and practice; and (4) development of national research capacity (38).

Monitoring and evaluation

Internal monitoring and evaluation (M&E) activities were ongoing. Logic framework approach (LFA) was used initially and we periodically measured objectives’ achievements using a quantitative scale. But setbacks experienced during the first 2 years made it impossible to launch MEIZ. Hence, our midterm evaluation showed that the project was failing. These raised concerns among project partners including the funding agency, which encouraged us to reconsider our objectives and/or find a different Honduran partner. However, upon critical examination we decided that: (1) the project objectives were as relevant and valid as ever; (2) we have made great strides toward achieving those objectives; and (3) we were strengthening capacity and promoting change in the process. Our M&E framework could not reflect this. After expert advice, we adopted Outcome Mapping (OM) (40), a process-oriented methodology that allows reporting incremental progress rather than just end-of-process outputs (40). Subsequent evaluations integrated both methodologies, so while we struggled accomplishing the original objectives, were able to show progress that otherwise would have gone unmentioned. This was useful for keeping the team's morale and the Canadian partners’ confidence.

Activities and experience

For our first objective (MEIZ creation and implementation), we carried out a plan involving the following stages: curriculum design (as described above), establishing administrative and academic infrastructures, implementation, internal assessment, accreditation preparedness, and planning for sustainability.

Nine students were admitted to MEIZ. Due to the full-time nature of the program, tuition scholarships and modest research fellowships were offered. Regardless, requiring exclusive dedication to the program limited the number of applicants to only those who could afford not holding a full-time job or those whose employers were able to sponsor their studies.

Two additional points are worth emphasizing. First, in the absence of graduate handbooks or similar academic guidelines at UNAH, we implemented an adapted a version of the MSc graduate handbook in use at Brock University's Faculty of Applied Health Sciences. Briefly, in addition to the supervisor, an advisory committee was appointed for each student to facilitate his or her progress. Beginning the second year, students had to defend their project's proposal; a process that entailed completing the thesis’ first three chapters (introduction, literature review, and methodology) and a short oral defence. Upon the project's completion, students had to undergo a formal defence for which an external examiner was required. At this point, a complete thesis document (including results, discussion, conclusions, and recommendations) was mandatory.

The second point deserving mention is about sustainability. To avoid problems experienced by other programs operating unsanctioned by the Higher Education National Council, we were determined not to launch MEIZ without proper approvals. This caused a 1-year delay, but it assured MEIZ's continuation. Academic sustainability was secured by strengthening faculty members’ methodological and supervisory skills and providing them with multiple opportunities for professional development. Implementing a biosafety level-2 research laboratory, installing a research ethics board (REB), and prioritizing biosafety practices enhanced the research environment. Activities related to Objectives 2–4 are summarized in Tables 13. Briefly, to contribute to institutional strengthening we conducted needs assessments on four domains (methodology, graduate studies, research ethics, and biosafety) (41) and implemented responsive work plans including continuing education, acquisition of additional funding, expert consultation, and so on.

Table 1.

Institutional strengthening activities undertaken at National Autonomous University of Honduras (UNAH) and the School of Microbiology

Domains Actions taken by the project
Methodology
Weaknesses in
Research design
Literature search
Knowledge synthesis
Statistical analysis
Scientific writing
Results dissemination
Project management
Project monitoring and evaluation
Established a ‘train-the-trainers’ program
Organized and delivered courses, workshops, and hands-on training experiences
Facilitated/funded attendance to conferences and trainings
Increased library collection
Gave access to bibliographic material and software
Implemented individual and group mentoring
Graduate studies
Lack of a research-based graduate program in infectious diseases
Disconnect between research and graduate studies offices
Low visibility of graduate programs
Designed, created, and implemented MEIZ
Created dialog opportunities
Facilitated participation at UNAH's research activities and publications
Promoted research through mass communication media
Promoted MEIZ at different scientific and policy-making venues
Biosafety
Low awareness of the importance of biosafety practices
Inadequate expertise
Irregular use of biosafety precautions
Lack of internal biosafety guidelines
Minimally active Biosafety Committee
Inadequate supplies and signage
Absence of continuing education on biosafety
Integration of biosafety into undergrad/grad curricula
Facilitated courses, seminars, and onsite visits by international experts
Increased library collection
Biosafety assessment by an international expert
Training and courses for students, faculty, and staff by local and international instructors
Reactivation of Biosafety Committee
Appointment of a biosafety officer for MEIZ
Supplied personal protective equipment and printed resources
Created the National Center for Biosafety Training (CENCAB)
Research ethics
Low awareness of the need for research ethics clearance for research with human participants
Inadequate expertise
Absence of institutional research ethics board
Lack of guidelines for research ethics oversight
Absence of continuing education on research ethics
Integrated research ethics into undergraduate and graduate curricula
Provided access to online training (www.citiprogram.org)
Facilitated courses, seminars, and hands-on training
Facilitated and funded onsite visits by experts
Increased library collection
Appointment of an ethics officer for MEIZ and School
Drafted guidelines, protocols, and standard operating procedures for research ethics review process
Implemented a research ethics board for MEIZ
Obtained additional funding through the GHRI's Global Health Research Awards (GHLA) initiative (see GHLA's website at www.brocku.ca/globalhealth/ghla.php)
Created the Documentation Centre for Bioethics and Research Ethics (C-BIO)

MEIZ: Master's Program in Infectious and Zoonotic Diseases.

Table 3.

Alliances and networks facilitated by the Honduras-Canada Teasdale-Corti project

Institution Period Activity or project
National
National University of Agriculture (UNA) 2007–2012 Training MEIZ students
Research projects
Community involvement
Ministry of Health (MoH) 2007–2012 MoH staff admitted to MEIZ
Biosafety seminars
Collaboration with research projects on malaria, dengue, and soil-transmitted helminths
Part of the steering committees for
(a) The National Plan for Neglected Diseases
(b) Malaria (‘Mesa Técnica’)
(c) NHRS
PAHO-Honduras 2011–2012 Research ethics initiative
Advisory Committee on Health Research of the Pan American Health Organization (ACHR)
International
Brock University, Canada 2006–2012 Overall project leadership
Financial stewardship
Ethics and biosafety expertise
Pedagogical and methodological expertise
Graduate program design and direction
Joint conference presentations
Peer-reviewed publications
Alliances brokerage
George Washington University, USA 2007–2011 Project evaluation
Collaboration with research projects
Supervision of graduate students
Joint conference presentations
Baylor College of Medicine, USA 2011–2012 Supervision of graduate students
Network facilitation
Joint conference presentations
Emory University, USA 2008–2010 Biosafety assessment and training
Joint publications and conference presentations
NeTropica Meeting
Centers for Disease Control, USA 2011 Malaria training
Mexican Biosafety Association 2011–2012 Biosafety training and expertise. Expert support to CENCAB
Canadian Coalition for Global Health Research, CCGHR 2010–2012 Global health advice
Networking
NeTropica meeting
University of Guelph 2011 Research on healthcare access in Honduras
McMaster University, Canada 2009–2012 Dengue genetics project
MEIZ thesis co-supervision
University of Calgary 2009–2010 Workshop on Zoonotic diseases
Sanger Institute, UK 2009–2012 Co-supervision of MEIZ student
Joint conference presentations
NeTropica Meeting
NeTropica, Costa Rica 2007–2012 Funding MEIZ students
NeTropica Meetings
Alliances brokerage
University of Costa Rica 2009–2012 Training and supervising MEIZ students
Joint conference presentations
National University of Costa Rica 2011–2012 Entomology training for MEIZ students
University of San Carlos, Guatemala 2008–2010 Research Ethics training and mentoring
National University of Nicaragua (UNAN) Leon, Nicaragua 2007–2012 Curricular design, MEIZ seminars, and students training
TDR 2009–2011 Membership in the Disease Reference Group on Zoonoses and Marginalised Infectious Diseases (DRG6)
COHRED 2012 NeTropica Meeting, networking with Council of Ministers of Health from Central America and Dominican Republic (COMISCA)

COHRED: Council on Health Research for Development; GHRI: Global Health Research Initiative, Canada; MEIZ: Masters Program in Infectious and Zoonotic Diseases; NeTropica: The Network for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases in Central America; NHRS: National health research system; TDR: Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases of the World Health Organization.

To foster a favorable research environment, we secured and furnished research spaces, as shown in Table 2. We also organized a variety of courses and conferences, facilitated attendance by our associates to scholarly meetings, and promoted networks and partnerships regionally and internationally (Table 3).

Table 2.

Spaces allocated by the National Autonomous University of Honduras (UNAH) to the Honduras-Canada Teasdale-Corti project

Physical/intellectual space Project's contribution Location Current usage
MEIZ classroom Design, renovations, and furnishings School of Microbiology
Building J-1, 4th Floor
MEIZ
School of Microbiology lectures and seminars
Research ethics board
MEIZ administrative office Design, renovations, and furnishings School of Microbiology
Building J-1, 4th Floor
MEIZ
Office space for projects’ PIs
Teasdale-Corti Research Lab Design, renovations, equipment, and laboratory furniture School of Microbiology
Building J1, 4th Floor
MEIZ graduate students
Faculty members associated with project
Other researchers at the School of Microbiology and UNAH
Conference room Furnishing Sciences building
Building E-1, 2nd Floor
MEIZ
Microbiology lectures and seminars
Other academic units
CENCAB
National Center for Biosafety Training
Opened on April 2012
Concept and design
Consultationfurnishing, signage
Sciences building
Building E-1, 2nd Floor
Biosafety training for UNAH's health/biosciences and chemical engineering students, faculty, and custodial staff.
Others from private and public sector
C-BIO
Documentation Centre for Bioethics and Research Ethics Inaugurated on August 1, 2012
Concept and design
furnishings, library collection
UNAH's central library University-wide access
Research ethics boards
General public

MEIZ: Masters Program in Infectious and Zoonotic Diseases.

Outputs

RCS outputs

Graduate students

All nine students completed the program, for an unprecedented 100% graduation efficiency at UNAH. Project topics and supervisors’ affiliation are listed in Table 4.

Table 4.

Research project topics and supervisors’ affiliation for MEIZ graduates first cohort

Research project topic Supervisors’ affiliations
Genetic characterization of Chlamydia trachomatis Primary: Baylor College of Medicine, USA
Co-Supervisor: Sanger Institute, UK

Genetic characterization and drug resistance of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Primary: University of Costa Rica
Co-supervisor: UNAH

Molecular epidemiology of enteric viruses causing diarrheal disease in children under 5 years of age Primary: UNAH
Co-supervisor: UNAH

Susceptibility of larval stages of Aedes aegypti to Temephos Primary: McMaster University, Canada
Co-supervisor: UNAH

Genetic characterization of Histoplasma capsulatum isolated from Honduran patients Primary: Brock University, Canada
Co-supervisor: UNAH
Interactions of Brucella canis with eukaryotic cells Primary: University of Costa Rica
Co-supervisor: UNAH

Human host genetics and severity of Dengue infections Primary: UNAH
Co-supervisor: University, Leon, Nicaragua

Bacterial etiology of diarrhea in children under 5 years of age Primary: UNAH
Co-supervisor: UNAH

Soil-transmitted helminth infections in Honduran school children Primary: Brock University, Canada
Co-supervisor: UNAH

UNAH: National Autonomous University of Honduras; MEIZ: Master's Program in Infectious and Zoonotic Diseases.

Teaching resources

We implemented the ‘School of Microbiology Advancement Grants’ to support undergraduate teaching and strengthen grantmanship skills. Projects funded included an online microbiology magazine, writing laboratory manuals, expanding bacterial collections, training in molecular techniques, quality control in haematology, and optimization of immune assays.

Infrastructure

We transformed or supported a number of physical spaces for teaching and research. Due to their impact, the following three are worth mentioning:

  1. The Teasdale-Corti Research Laboratory, a fully equipped biosafety level-2 facility accessible to researchers and students across the university;

  2. The Documentation Center for Bioethics and Research Ethics (C-BIO) a space designed to evoke reflection about ethics, academic integrity, and respect for the environment; and

  3. The National Center for Biosafety Training (CENCAB), the first and only in Honduras, offering services to the private and public sectors. To date CENCAB had trained UNAH's custodial services and laboratory personnel as well as > 2,000 students.

Networks and partnerships

Project activities fostered frequent interactions between Honduran researchers with regional, North American, and European researchers (see Table 3). To consolidate MEIZ position in Central America, we hosted the VI Biennial NeTropica Meeting, held in Copán, Honduras, July 2012. Several collaborations forged at the meeting are already taking place (more about this meeting at: http://www.brocku.ca/globalhealth/nett2012.php). NeTropica (Network for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases in Central America, http://www.netropica.org) was created with Swedish funding to help KIRT graduates establishing a regional scientific community in the field of tropical diseases (18).

Research outputs

Reports

We delivered 6 reports to UNAH and 19 technical research reports to the funding agency (11 progress reports, 1 midterm evaluation, 1 extension request, 5 annual reports, and 1 final report).

Conference presentations

Collectively, we made a total of 48 international conference presentations, 50% of which were student-driven.

Publications

MEIZ students have published in several journals, for example, in UNAH's research journal (n=3), the Honduran Medical Journal (n=1), a Costa Rican journal (n=1), and two international journals (n=2). Project team members have published eight peer-reviewed articles, one book chapter, and one biosafety manual.

Research studies

We also supported 15 collaborative investigations that either overlapped with MEIZ or were of interest to project associates. Projects ranged from graduate education and ethics, to food/water microbiology, malaria, soil-transmitted helminths, and zoonotic diseases.

Policy and practice outputs

We helped establishing UNAH's first non-medical REB and making biosafety training compulsory for students exposed to biological and chemical hazards. We also assisted in revitalizing UNAH's Microbiology Research Institute and forged its alliance with MEIZ. Project team members have been appointed to leadership positions at CENCAB, MEIZ-REB, and the Research Institute; while others serve on national committees such as the National Program for Neglected Diseases, Malaria Task Force, and the Inter-Institutional NHRS Steering Committee. Project team members have also participated in international policy meetings; notably, the 2nd Latin American Conference on Research and Innovation for Health, the Global Forum for Health Research (a Geneva-based NGO committed to research and innovation for health, http://www.globalforumhealth.org/), and the Disease Reference Group on Zoonoses and Marginalised Infectious Diseases (DRG6) (42) convened in 2009 by the WHO-based Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR).

Outcomes

The project contributed to important changes in individuals as well as in the institution. First, we helped develop a Honduras-based graduate program reliant on local talent. In the past, UNAH had been the subject of different RCS models (from training opportunities in high-income countries to the ‘sandwich model’ implemented by the KIRT program) (17, 18). But we contended that although highly beneficial, such models left to chance the research environment those foreign-trained researchers would encounter upon returning to their home institutions. We also argued that a locally owned graduate program would not only boost research activity but also provide opportunities to those for whom foreign training is not a viable alternative.

Second, through MEIZ we succeeded in reinforcing a research culture that upholds scientific rigor as well as safety and ethical values. Third, since MEIZ integrates the study of biomedical and social determinants of infectious diseases, the program has been helpful in expanding the School of Microbiology's traditional etiology-based, disciplinary model to infectious disease teaching and research (43). Fourth, through mentoring sessions, we made every effort to demystify research, stimulate higher order thinking, and promote self-efficacy among students. Through OM exercises (40) students were able to set their own progress indicators, track behavior changes, and identify barriers to their learning.

Finally, the increased number of research partners engaged by the project, opened many opportunities for collaboration, mentoring, and behavior modeling. The project promoted multi-stakeholder meetings and brought together constituencies that normally have few opportunities to intersect. These linking opportunities are conducive to knowledge generation and innovation, and promote stronger research systems (17).

Lessons learned

The partnership

The fact that the Canadian principal investigator (PI) was a Honduran expatriate, former faculty member of the School of Microbiology and KIRT graduate, minimized the challenges that sometimes arise at the interpersonal level during RCS initiatives (31). Partnerships operating with expatriate research leaders can lead to sophisticated and yet neo-colonial models of collaborations (38), but the present partnership responded was relevant to the Honduran partner needs. The partnership, however, was not symmetrical as there were ‘inevitable constraints’ (39). The tasks requiring strong research proficiency fell heavily on the Canadian PI (e.g. grantmanship, technical writing, graduate program oversight, financial stewardship, research dissemination, networking). Consequently, the burden of responsibilities was, at times, daunting for the Canadian PI. As individual and institutional research capacities build up, more equitable distribution of responsibilities will be possible.

The context

Although we originally planned this as a 4-year project, we were granted a no-cost 1-year extension. We experienced institutional-level challenges inherent to RCS initiatives (31) and also two unusual circumstances that imposed extraordinary difficulties. First, the transformation process happening at UNAH provoked widespread discoordination, high turnover of senior administrators, and frequent strikes. Second, the country's constitutional crisis that peaked in 2009 with the dismissal of the President (44, 45). The latter could have had disastrous effects on the project as it effectively halted foreign cooperation, impeded travel, and generated serious setbacks for MEIZ implementation. Three reasons explain why we were able to launch MEIZ in September 2009: the resilience of the team – an attribute identified as key factor in others settings (46), the understanding attitude of the funding agency, and the fact that we had built local capacity during the first 2 years.

Multidisciplinarity quest

MEIZ was conceived with a multi-disciplinary curriculum to introduce students to the broad spectrum of infectious disease determinants and to instil the benefits of collaborative work. It was relatively easy to do this at the theoretical level (courses, seminars, field visits, and so on), but it proved more difficult for the thesis projects. (Table 4 shows that these projects mostly addressed basic science questions.) According to MEIZ design, it was preferable having students working collaboratively on common issues (e.g. on Dengue, a major infectious disease in the country, have students informing each other's work whether it was on genetics, health promotion, vector biology, and so on). We also intended working in collaboration with two related graduate programs existing in Honduras (Public Health and Epidemiology), by cross-listing courses, holding multi-disciplinary seminars, sharing supervisors, and so on. Scheduling incompatibilities, and to some extent, the lack of experience working together were barriers to this collaboration.

Achieving multidisciplinarity is not without challenges (47), but in the particular case of infectious disease, a collaborative approach to research and intervention is imperative if we are to reduce their burden to human and animal populations (43). As MEIZ continues to mature and the critical mass of researchers grows, we anticipate a diversification of research topics and collaboration across disciplines.

MEIZ academic process and productivity

MEIZ was the first program at UNAH to implement a graduate handbook detailing a rigorous academic process. The handbook was based on a Canadian model, but far from being an inappropriate transfer, its implementation assured students’ timely completion. UNAH's lax regulations in this regard have had a counterproductive effect and few students formally graduate – if ever. Gradually building students’ ability for scientific writing through both a skills and process approach (48) was a critical determinant for MEIZ completion rate.

The number of students admitted to the program was distant from our original expectations. MEIZ was planned for commencement in 2008 and receiving one cohort per year thereafter. But we graduated one cohort and initiated the selection process of another. In this case, the scarcity of experienced Honduras-based supervisors was the limiting factor. To compensate, supervisors from abroad were recruited (Table 4), but importantly, supervisors affiliated with Canadian or US universities are Honduran expatriates. This supports the argument that ‘brain circulation does not have to be a zero-sum game’ (49) and underscores the benefits of knowledge networks. In time, availability of experienced supervisors will increase and so will the program's intake capacity. The latter will also depend on the possibility to offer full scholarships as MEIZ is committed to giving access to capable students regardless their financial situation.

Sustainability

The measure of a sound development initiative resides in its sustainability (50). Intuitively, we made great efforts to promote self-reliance as an elemental factor for sustainability, but as it often happens with RCS initiatives (51), we did not agreed upon a precise set of short and long-term indicators of sustained capacity. The continued operation of the graduate program is, at present, the most obvious indicator of sustainability. With the project finalized, a period of adaptation will follow, as sustainability is a dynamic process and not a simple linear unfreezing, change, and refreezing of changes effected by the project (36). Instead of expecting UNAH to begin providing all resources needed for MEIZ's expansion, we envision an increased pursuit of national and international research funds as well as more proactivity in attracting research partners.

We recommend RCS initiatives to integrate a sustainability working framework to monitor the permanency and growth of the key capacities they aim to develop. Although defining, practicing, and measuring research capacity have gained significant attention recently (24, 2729, 31, 52), frameworks are still needed for a systematic and empirical approach to RCS.

Conclusions

Honduras is a scientifically lagging country (11) and has been, with few exceptions, ignored by international research organizations as well as by researchers from high-income countries. Our work is evidence that this can and should change (53).

While it is not possible to establish a linear cause–effect between the work presented here and the eventual long-term changes that may occur at individual and institutional levels (40), we would like to propose that the project was successful in contributing in a unique way to Honduras's research capacity. A distinguishable feature of this project is the utilization of a multi-level approach to capacity building, that is, a capacity strengthening model away from traditional models imposing uncritical transfers of training, resources, or research paradigms (31, 54). As such, this project helped reducing to some extent the research ‘asymmetry’ that prevents productive research collaboration (55). It also contributed in a way – however small – to Honduras's preparedness to meets its national objectives, including the MDGs.

Our results reveal that there is much talent and capacity in Honduras to advance scientific research and that adequate and opportune support at the individual and institutional levels are essential at this critical moment. The creation and effective operation of an NHRS in the country will undoubtedly help increase the amount and quality of health research. In turn, high-quality research will potentially benefit Honduras's human development.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to other team members who participated in early phases of the project or provided specific expertise, especially to Dan Malleck, PhD (Brock University), Eduardo Fernandez, MD/MPH (McMaster University), and Amílcar Colindres, MSc (National University of Agriculture, Honduras).

Authors’ contributions

A. L. S., M. C., and L. E. conceived the project. All authors applied for the grant and implemented the project and contributed to data collection and interpretation. A. L. S. wrote this article. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of this article.

Conflict of interest and funding

This work was carried out with support from the Global Health Research Initiative (GHRI), a collaborative research funding partnership of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Canadian International Development Agency, Health Canada, the International Development Research Centre and the Public Health Agency of Canada (IDRC Project Number: 103460-050).

References

  • 1.UNDP. New York: The United Nations Development Programme; 2013. The 2013 human development report –“The rise of the south: human progress in a diverse world”; p. 216. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Survey U, Agency C, Fund W, Department U. Washington, DC: The Encyclopedia of Earth; Honduras. Available from: http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/153546 [cited 16 July 2013] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.PAHO. Washington, DC: Pan American Health Organization; 2012. Honduras. Health in the Americas; pp. 144–47. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Word Bank. Honduras. Honduras overview. Available from: http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/honduras/overview [cited 16 July 2013]
  • 5.UNDP. Costa Rica: UNDP Honduras; 2012. Human development report Honduras 2011. Reducing inequity: an undeferable challenge; p. 323. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Johnson C. Framing and the politics of public health: an examination of competing health narratives in Honduras. Global Publ Health. 2010;5:1–14. doi: 10.1080/17441690902830982. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Global Forum for Health Research. Geneva: Global Forum for Health Research; 2002. The 10/90 report on health research 2001–2002. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Becerra F, Cuervo LG. Health research in Latin America. Lancet. 2010;375:120. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60045-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.(RICYT) LRdIdCyT-IeI. Updated science and technology indicators up to the year 2010 by country: Honduras. Available from: http://db.ricyt.org/query/HN/1990,2010/calculados [cited 16 July 2013]
  • 10.Sancho R, Morillo F, De Filippo D, Gómez I, Fernández MT. Indicators of inter-institutional scientific colaboration among Latin American countries. Interciencia. 2006;31:284–92. In Spanish. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Wagner CS, Brahmakulam I, Jackson B, Wong A, Yoda T. Science and technology collaboration: building capacity in developing countries? 2001. Available from: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR1357.0.pdf [cited16 July 2013]
  • 12.SCImago. SJR – SCImago Journal & Country Rank. Available from: http://www.scimagojr.com [cited 16 July 2013]
  • 13.Acevedo A. Scientific research and its relationship with higher education in Honduras. Economía y Administración. 2011;12:81–94. In Spanish. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Yarzábal L, Rodríguez C. Higher education and scientific research in Honduras. 2001. (In Spanish). Stockholm: Asdi/SAREC. Available from: http://www.ilaedes.org/15-2.html [cited 16 July 2013].
  • 15.Sanyal B, Varghese N. Paris: UNESCO; 2006. Research capacity in higher education sector in developing countries; p. 14. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Altbach PG. Advancing the national and global knowledge economy: the role of research universities in developing countries. Stud High Educ. 2013;38:316–30. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Velho L. Research capacity building for development: from old to new assumptions. Sci Tech Soc. 2004;9:171–207. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Moreno E, Gutierrez JM, Chaves-Olarte E. The struggle of neglected scientific groups: ten years of NeTropica efforts to promote research in tropical diseases in Central America. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011;5:e1055. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001055. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Osei-Atweneboana MY, Lustigman S, Prichard RK, Boatin BA, Basanez MG. A research agenda for helminth diseases of humans: health research and capacity building in disease-endemic countries for helminthiases control. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6:e1602. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001602. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Monge-Najera J, Ho YS. Costa Rica publications in the Science Citation Index Expanded: a bibliometric analysis for 1981–2010. Rev Biol Trop. 2012;60:1649–61. doi: 10.15517/rbt.v60i4.2158. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Moloney A. Latin America faces hurdles in health research. Lancet. 2009;374:1053–4. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(09)61688-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Lomonte B, Ainsworth S. Scientific publications of Costa Rica in Science Citation Index bibliometric analysis of the period 1999–2001. Rev Biol Trop. 2002;50:951–62. In Spanish. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Lomonte B, Ainsworth S. San Jose: Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Costa Rica; 2000. Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico en Costa Rica: Logros y Perspectivas; pp. 81–114. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Gadsby EW. Research capacity strengthening: donor approaches to improving and assessing its impact in low- and middle-income countries. Int J Health Plann Manage. 2011;26:89–106. doi: 10.1002/hpm.1031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Minja H, Nsanzabana C, Maure C, Hoffmann A, Rumisha S, Ogundahunsi O, et al. Impact of health research capacity strengthening in low- and middle-income countries: the case of WHO/TDR programmes. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011;5:e1351. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001351. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Balán J. Research universities in Latin America: the challenges of growth and institutional diversity. Soc Res: Int Q. 2012;79:741–70. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Lansang MA, Dennis R. Building capacity in health research in the developing world. Bull World Health Organ. 2004;82:764–70. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ubels J, editor. Stimulating the provision of local capacity development support. London: Earthscan Ltd; 2010. A capacity development market? p. 361. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Datta A, Shaxson L, Pellini A. Working Paper 344. Overseas Development Institute; 2012. Capacity, complexity and consulting lessons from managing capacity development projects; p. 36. Available from: http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/7601.pdf [cited 16 July 2013] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Stephen C, Daibes I. Defining features of the practice of global health research: an examination of 14 global health research teams. Glob Health Action. 2010;3 doi: 10.3402/gha.v3i0.5188. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Vasquez EE, Hirsch JS, Giang LM, Parker RG. Rethinking health research capacity strengthening. Glob Public Health: Int J Res Pol Pract. 2013 doi: 10.1080/17441692.2013.786117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Nuyens Y. Geneva: Global Forum for Health Research; 2005. No development without research: a challenge for research capacity strengthening. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Ontario Prevention Clearinghouse. Capacity building for health promotion: more than brick and mortar. Ontario Health Promotion E-Bulletin Spring. 2002;308:1–4. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Whitworth J, Sewankambo NK, Snewin VA. Improving implementation: building research capacity in maternal, neonatal, and child health in Africa. PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000299. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000299. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Bandura A. Human agency in social cognitive theory. Am Psychol. 1989;44:1175–84. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.44.9.1175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Buchanan D, Fitzgerald L, Ketley D, Gollop R, Jones JL, Lamont SS, et al. No going back: a review of the literature on sustaining organizational change. Int J Manag Rev. 2005;7:189–205. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Lin N. Building a network theory of social capital. Connections. 1999;22:28–51. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Costello A, Zumla A. Moving to research partnerships in developing countries. Br Med J. 2000;321:827–9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7264.827. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Tomlinson T, Swartz L, Landman M. Insiders and outsiders: levels of collaboration in research partnerships across resource divides. Infant Ment Health J. 2006;27:532–43. doi: 10.1002/imhj.20105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Earl S, Carden FTS. Building learning and reflection into development programs. Ottawa: IDRC; 2001. Outcome Mapping. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Sanchez A, Gabrie J, Zelaya A, Enriquez L, Canales M, Kaufman S. Biosafety competencies in developing countries: the role of universities. Appl Biosafety. 2011;16:240–52. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Molyneux D, Hallaj Z, Keusch GT, McManus DP, Ngowi H, Cleaveland S, et al. Zoonoses and marginalised infectious diseases of poverty: where do we stand? Parasit Vectors. 2011;4:106. doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-4-106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Anholt RM, Stephen C, Copes R. Strategies for collaboration in the interdisciplinary field of emerging zoonotic diseases. Zoonoses Public Health. 2012;59:229–40. doi: 10.1111/j.1863-2378.2011.01449.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Taylor-Robinson MM, Ura JD. Public opinion and conflict in the separation of powers: understanding the Honduran coup of 2009. J Theor Polit. 2013;25:105–27. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Ruhl J. Honduras unravels. J Democr. 2010;21:93–107. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Brooks A, Monirith L. Faculty virtue and research capacity-building in the context of poorly funded universities: the case of the Royal University of Phnom Penh. Human Resource Dev Int. 2010;13:83–98. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Corbett CF, Costa LL, Balas MC, Burke WJ, Feroli ER, Daratha KB. Facilitators and challenges to conducting interdisciplinary research. Med Care. 2013;51:S23–31. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31827dc3c9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Rosales J, Moloney C, Badenhorst C, Dyer J, Murray M. Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA12); 2012. Breaking the barriers of research writing: rethinking pedagogy for engineering graduate research. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Jacob M, Meek VL. Scientific mobility and international research networks: trends and policy tools for promoting research excellence and capacity building. Stud High Educ. 2013;38:331–44. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.AUCC. Ottawa: Association of Colleges and Universities and Colleges of Canada; 2006. Highlighting the impacts of North–South research collaboration among Canadian and Southern higher education partners. Available from: http://www.aucc.ca/media-room/publications/highlighting-the-impacts-of-north-south-research-collaboration [cited 16 July 2013] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Wiltsey Stirman S, Kimberly J, Cook N, Calloway A, Castro F, Charns M. The sustainability of new programs and innovations: a review of the empirical literature and recommendations for future research. Implement Sci. 2012;7:17. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Bates I, Akoto AY, Ansong D, Karikari P, Bedu-Addo G, Critchley J, et al. Evaluating health research capacity building: an evidence-based tool. PLoS Med. 2006;3:e299. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030299. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Sanchez AL, Canales M, Enriquez L, Zelaya AA, Espinoza VE, Fontecha GA. Lancet Glob Health. 2013:75. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(13)70033-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.ESSENCE. Geneva, Switzerland: ESSENCE; 2011. Planning, monitoring andevaluation framework for capacity strengthening in health research. Available from: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2011/TDR_essence_11.1_eng.pdf [cited 16 July 2013] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Bradley M. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre; 2007. North-South research partnerships: challenges, responses and trends – A literature review and annotated bibliography. Available from: http://web.idrc.ca/uploads/user-S/11788973691CP_Working_Paper_1-FINAL.pdf [cited 16 July 2013] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Global Health Action are provided here courtesy of Taylor & Francis

RESOURCES