02910nas a2200421   4500000000100000008004100001260003400042653005700076653002800133653001600161653002200177653002100199653003600220100001000256700001200266700001600278700001400294700001600308700001300324700001500337700001400352700001300366700002000379700001800399700001600417700001300433700001300446700001100459700000900470700001100479700001100490700001400501700001400515245012800529490000700657520179900664022002502463       2024                            d  bOxford University Press (OUP)10aPublic Health, Environmental and Occupational Health10aHealth (social science)10aCo-creation10aSocial innovation10aNeeds Assessment10aLow-and middle income countries1 aTao Y1 aTan RKJ1 aWohlfarth M1 aAhumuza E1 aAribodor OB1 aCruz JRB1 aFajardo MS1 aMagista M1 aMarley G1 aMier-Alpaño JD1 aOgwaluonye UC1 aPaipilla KA1 aScott CP1 aUlitin A1 aChen E1 aWu D1 aAwor P1 aTang W1 aLabarda M1 aTucker JD00aSocial innovation in health training to engage researchers in resource-limited settings: process description and evaluation0 v393 a<p>Research on social innovations in health has increased in recent years. However, little training is geared toward enhancing social innovation research capacity. Most health training for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is developed by individuals in high-income countries, disregarding LMIC researchers’ wisdom and insights and the communities’ needs. Our team organized a multi-phase investigation involving a series of surveys and co-creation group discussions to assess individuals’ training needs that directly informed a subsequent co-created training workshop series. We conducted a Hennessy–Hicks Training Needs Assessment among the Social Innovation in Health Initiative (SIHI) network and formed a co-creation group comprising SIHI fellows to design related training workshops. We ran a final evaluation survey and analyzed the workshop series’ strengths, weaknesses and threats. Descriptive and thematic analysis were employed to analyze survey data and open-ended responses. The final evaluation survey captured data from 165 learners in 35 countries, including 26 LMICs. Most participants (67.3%, 111/165) rated the training workshop series as excellent, and 30.3% (50/165) rated it as good on a five-point scale. The need for writing research grants and manuscripts was rated the highest priority. Learners were interested in community-engaged research and diversity, equity and inclusion. This workshop illustrated how co-creation could be an effective tool for developing training materials tailored for LMIC researchers. We also offer a template for conducting a needs assessment and subsequent training workshops for LMICs. The ground-up, locally developed courses may be more effective than externally developed training programs intended for LMICs.</p>
  a0957-4824, 1460-2245