Indicators for tracking programmes to strengthen health research capacity in lower- and middle-income countries: a qualitative synthesis

Table 5 Recommendations for different stakeholders to improve health RCS evaluation*

Recommendation	Funding agencies		Priority decision-makers		Producers		Users		Evaluators
	International	National	International organizations	National research councils	Institutions (universities, research institutes, NGOs), networks	Researchers (established and learning)	International organizations	National and sub-national health services
Adequate allocation of resources to quality evaluation research alongside investments in the quality of the science, scientists, and science communication.	+++	++		++
Systematic attention to indicator framing, selection, measurement (multiple data sources and valid standards to enhance quality), and analysis.	+	+			++	++	+	+	+++
Development of indicators which better encompass relationships with knowledge users.			++	++	++	++	++	++	+++
Disaggregation of indicator data according to equity categories.	+	+			++	++	++	++	+++
Systematic consideration of assumptions, pre-conditions, or measurement confounders associated with the evaluations.						++			+++
Greater attention to evaluation design, use of clear conceptual frameworks, systematic linkage of indicators in keeping with theories of change.	+	+				++			+++
Development of comprehensive, prospective systems for health RCS indicator monitoring and evaluation, in which long-term impact is considered throughout the entire project cycle.	++	++	+	+	++	++	+	+	++
Separation out of three components of the upper level– provincial-national research environment, international-global research environment, and research networks.	++	++	++	++	+	+	+		+++

ISSN: 1478-4505