Publication: International health research monitoring: exploring a scientific and a cooperative approach using participatory action research.
Accepted Date
2013-12-04
Issued Date
2014-02-17
Resource Type
Language
eng
ISSN
2044-6055 (electronic)
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
British Medical Journal
Bibliographic Citation
Chantler T, Cheah PY, Miiro G, Hantrakum V, Nanvubya A, Ayuo E. et al. International health research monitoring: exploring a scientific and a cooperative approach using participatory action research. BMJ Open. 2014 Feb 17;4(2):e004104.
Suggested Citation
Chantler, Tracey, Cheah, Phaik Yeong, Miiro, George, Viriya Hantrakum, Nanvubya, Annet, Ayuo, Elizabeth, Kivaya, Esther, Kidola, Jeremiah, Kaleebu, Pontiano, Parker, Michael, Njuguna, Patricia, Ashley, Elizabeth, Guerin, Philippe J., Lang, Trudie International health research monitoring: exploring a scientific and a cooperative approach using participatory action research.. Chantler T, Cheah PY, Miiro G, Hantrakum V, Nanvubya A, Ayuo E. et al. International health research monitoring: exploring a scientific and a cooperative approach using participatory action research. BMJ Open. 2014 Feb 17;4(2):e004104.. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004104. Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/855
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
International health research monitoring: exploring a scientific and a cooperative approach using participatory action research.
Corresponding Author(s)
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and determine the value of monitoring models developed by
the Mahidol Oxford Tropical Research Unit and the East African Consortium for
Clinical Research, consider how this can be measured and explore monitors' and
investigators' experiences of and views about the nature, purpose and practice of
monitoring.
RESEARCH DESIGN: A case study approach was used within the context of
participatory action research because one of the aims was to guide and improve
practice. 34 interviews, five focus groups and observations of monitoring
practice were conducted.
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Fieldwork occurred in the places where the monitoring
models are coordinated and applied in Thailand, Cambodia, Uganda and Kenya.
Participants included those coordinating the monitoring schemes, monitors, senior
investigators and research staff.
ANALYSIS: Transcribed textual data from field notes, interviews and focus groups
was imported into a qualitative data software program (NVIVO V. 10) and analysed
inductively and thematically by a qualitative researcher. The initial coding
framework was reviewed internally and two main categories emerged from the
subsequent interrogation of the data.
RESULTS: The categories that were identified related to the conceptual framing
and nature of monitoring, and the practice of monitoring, including relational
factors. Particular emphasis was given to the value of a scientific and
cooperative style of monitoring as a means of enhancing data quality, trust and
transparency. In terms of practice the primary purpose of monitoring was defined
as improving the conduct of health research and increasing the capacity of
researchers and trial sites.
CONCLUSIONS: The models studied utilise internal and network wide expertise to
improve the ethics and quality of clinical research. They demonstrate how
monitoring can be a scientific and constructive exercise rather than a
threatening process. The value of cooperative relations needs to be given more
emphasis in monitoring activities, which seek to ensure that research protects
human rights and produces reliable data.