Alzheimer's disease (AD) disproportionately affects women in both prevalence and severity; however, the biologic mechanisms underlying these sex differences are not fully understood. Sex differences in the brain, such as in brain anatomy, age-related declines in brain volume, and brain glucose metabolism, have been documented and may be important in understanding AD etiology. The full impact of sex as a basic biologic variable on this neurodegenerative disease remains elusive. To address the evidence for sex differences in AD, the Society for Women's Health Research (SWHR) convened an interdisciplinary roundtable of experts from academia, clinical medicine, industry, and the government to discuss the state-of-the-science in sex and gender differences in AD. Roundtable participants were asked to address gaps in our knowledge and identify specific sex-based research questions for future areas of study.

The barriers and facilitators of conducting knowledge translation (KT) activities are well-established but less is known about the institutional forces that drive these barriers, particularly in low resource settings. Understanding organizational readiness has been used to assess and address such barriers but the employment of readiness assessments has largely been done in high-income countries. We conducted a qualitative study to describe the institutional needs and barriers in KT specific to academic institutions in low- and middle-income countries. We conducted a review of the grey and published literature to identify country health priorities and established barriers and facilitators for KT. Key-informant interviews (KII) were conducted to elicit perceptions of institutional readiness to conduct KT, including experiences with KT, and views on motivation and capacity building. Participants included representatives from academic institutions and Ministries of Health in six countries (Bangladesh, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Nigeria). We conducted 18 KIIs, 11 with members of academic institutions and 7 with policymakers. KIIs were analysed using a deductive and inductive coding approach. Our findings support many well-documented barriers including lack of time, skills and institutional support to conduct KT. Three additional institutional drivers emerged around soft skills and the complexity of the policy process, alignment of incentives and institutional missions, and the role of networks. Participants reflected on often-lacking soft-skills needed by researchers to engage policy makers. Continuous engagement was viewed as a challenge given competing demands for time (both researchers and policy makers) and lack of institutional incentives to conduct KT. Strong networks, both within the institution and between institutions, were described as important for conducting KT but difficult to establish and maintain. Attention to the cross-cutting themes representing barriers and facilitators for both individuals and institutions can inform the development of capacity building strategies that meet readiness needs.

Capacity building in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) institutions hinges on the delivery of effective mentorship. This study presents an overview of mentorship toolkits applicable to LMIC institutions identified through a scoping review. A scoping review approach was used to 1) map the extent, range, and nature of mentorship resources and tools available and 2) to identify knowledge gaps in the current literature. To identify toolkits, we collected and analyzed data provided online that met the following criteria: written in English and from organizations and individuals involved in global health mentoring. We searched electronic databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, and Google search engine. Once toolkits were identified, we extracted the available tools and mapped them to pre-identified global health competencies. Only three of the 18 identified toolkits were developed specifically for the LMIC context. Most toolkits focused on individual mentor–mentee relationships. Most focused on the domains of communication and professional development. Fewer toolkits focused on ethics, overcoming resource limitations, and fostering institutional change. No toolkits discussed strategies for group mentoring or how to adapt existing tools to a local context. There is a paucity of mentoring resources specifically designed for LMIC settings. We identified several toolkits that focus on aspects of individual mentor–mentee relationships that could be adapted to local contexts. Future work should focus on adaptation and the development of tools to support institutional change and capacity building for mentoring.

There has been an exponential increase in the offering of short-term international field experiences in recent years in response to student demands for global health opportunities. Pre-departure preparation is an essential component to equip trainees with the adequate safety, wellness, and cultural competence needed to engage in a meaningful and mutually beneficial elective. This review seeks to quantify the plethora of pre-departure preparation training available to public health, clinical, and undergraduate trainees across the continuum of education for short-term experiences in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). We performed a systematic review of Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Ovid Global Health in February, 2018. A three-concept search was employed and included “global or international health”; “education or preparation of personnel/students”; and “field programs or travel.” The study teamed used PRISMA reporting guidelines to conduct title and full-text reviews and conduct data extraction and analysis. The search returned 2506 unique articles. Of these, 55 met inclusion criteria and were included in the final review. Ninety one percent (91%) of articles focused on pre-departure trainings for medical students and residents. Nine thematic domains for short-term international field experiences emerged; culture, safety, and project-specific knowledge were the most frequently covered domains while mentorship, professionalism, and emotional wellness and culture shock were least common. Approximately half (53.3%) of studies specifically evaluated the pre-departure component of the international experience using a survey or evaluation form. Recommendations emerged from these evaluations including early engagement with international partners, inclusion of self-reflection exercises and site-specific content, and utilization of interactive approaches in learning. Some institutions face barriers to conducting pre-departure preparation such as lack of dedicated faculty, finances, and institutional support. Interest in pre-departure training for international experiences is growing but few programs conduct and publish evaluations of these trainings. Pre-departure trainings should be developed in partnership with receiving institutions and faculty and incorporate critical self- reflection throughout the experience. In addition to the experience itself, institutions need to evaluate these curricula to better understand how they influence trainees’ capacity to effectively engage in LMIC settings.

The field of implementation research (IR) is growing. However, there are no recognised IR core competencies in low/middle-income countries (LMICs), nor consistent curriculum across IR training programs globally. The goal of this effort is to develop a framework of IR core competencies for training programs in LMICs. The framework was developed using a mixed-methods approach consisting of two online surveys with IR training coordinators (n = 16) and academics (n = 89) affiliated with seven LMIC institutions, and a modified-Delphi process to evaluate the domains, competencies and proficiency levels included in the framework. The final framework comprised of 11 domains, 59 competencies and 52 sub-competencies, and emphasised competencies for modifying contexts, strengthening health systems, addressing ethical concerns, engaging stakeholders and communication especially for LMIC settings, in addition to competencies on IR theories, methods and designs. The framework highlights the interconnectedness of domains and competencies for IR and practice, and training in IR following the outlined competencies is not a linear process but circular and iterative, and starting points for training may vary widely by the project, institution and challenge being addressed. The framework established the need for a theory-based approach to identifying proficiency levels for IR competencies (ie, to determine proficiency levels for IR based on generalisable educational theories for competency-based education), and the relevance of various IR competencies for LMICs compared with high-income settings. This framework is useful for identifying and evaluating competencies and trainings, and providing direction and support for professional development in IR.