Barriers and facilitators to the conduct of critical care research in low and lower-middle income countries: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Improvements in health-related outcomes for critically ill adults in low and lower-middle income countries need systematic investments in research capacity and infrastructure. High-quality research has been shown to strengthen health systems; yet, research contributions from these regions remain negligible or absent. We undertook a scoping review to describe barriers and facilitators for the conduct of critical care research.We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE up to December 2021 using a strategy that combined keyword and controlled vocabulary terms. We included original studies that reported on barriers or facilitators to the conduct of critical care research in these settings. Two reviewers independently reviewed titles and abstracts, and where necessary, the full-text to select eligible studies. For each study, reviewers independently extracted data using a standardized data extraction form. Barriers and facilitators were classified along the lines of a previous review and based on additional themes that emerged. Study quality was assessed using appropriate tools.We identified 2693 citations, evaluated 49 studies and identified 6 for inclusion. Of the included studies, four were qualitative, one was a cross-sectional survey and one was reported as an 'analysis'. The total number of participants ranged from 20-100 and included physicians, nurses, allied healthcare workers and researchers. Barriers identified included limited funding, poor institutional & national investment, inadequate access to mentors, absence of training in research methods, limited research support staff, and absence of statistical support. Our review identified potential solutions such as developing a mentorship network, streamlining of regulatory processes, implementing a centralized institutional research agenda, developing a core-outcome dataset and enhancing access to low-cost technology.Our scoping review highlights important barriers to the conduct of critical care research in low and lower-middle income countries, identifies potential solutions, and informs researchers, policymakers and governments on the steps necessary for strengthening research systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.098 | 0.294 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.035 | 0.036 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".