Education-based grant programmes for bottom-up distance learning and project catalysis: antimicrobial resistance in Sub-Saharan Africa
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
International development and aid are often conducted through the allocation of funding determined by decisions of non-locals, especially in the west for those in the global south. In addition, such funding is often disassociated from local expertise, therefore providing little long-term developmental impact and generating distrust. This is particularly true for conservation, as well as environmental and educational programmes. We hypothesize that by granting local people the educational tools and the necessary funding to develop their own projects through the use of an applicant-driven peer-review approach, it is possible to relocalize the decision-making process to the programme participants, with the potential to generate and select more relevant projects with developmental outcomes of higher quality. Here we created an online curriculum for antimicrobial resistance (AMR) education that was followed by 89 participants across Ghana, Tanzania, Nigeria and Uganda. We then created an open research programme that facilitated the creation of eight de novo projects on AMR. Finally, we organized an applicant-driven grant round to allocate funding to the ‘Neonatal Sepsis in Nigeria’ project to conduct a pilot study and awareness campaign. This work opens perspectives for the design of frugal educational programmes and the funding of context-specific, community-driven projects aimed at empowering local stakeholders in the global South.
Article activity feed
-
-
The work presented is clear and the arguments well formed. This study would be a valuable contribution to the existing literature. This is a study that would be of interest to the field and community. All comments by the reviewers were satisfactorily addressed.
-
-
Comments to Author
The authors have described an innovative initiative to tackle the problem of AMR in Ghana, although this approach can also be used elsewhere too. The manuscript is well-written, with good organisation, methodology and presentation of results/discussion. Some minor points that need to be addressed: 1. Methods: What was the number of the participants? Was there good level of engagement and satisfaction? 2. Methods: Provide more detail about Gephi 0.9.3. What exactly was done and how? 3. Methods: Was there any assessment linked to the MOOC? 4. Fig 3a: Provide a key of the dot intensities and the number of participants, as it is hard to understand this figure 5. Figs 3a and 5a: The map images are a bit blurry, please provide clearer images. 6. Fig 3c: It is difficult to read some of the letters in the …
Comments to Author
The authors have described an innovative initiative to tackle the problem of AMR in Ghana, although this approach can also be used elsewhere too. The manuscript is well-written, with good organisation, methodology and presentation of results/discussion. Some minor points that need to be addressed: 1. Methods: What was the number of the participants? Was there good level of engagement and satisfaction? 2. Methods: Provide more detail about Gephi 0.9.3. What exactly was done and how? 3. Methods: Was there any assessment linked to the MOOC? 4. Fig 3a: Provide a key of the dot intensities and the number of participants, as it is hard to understand this figure 5. Figs 3a and 5a: The map images are a bit blurry, please provide clearer images. 6. Fig 3c: It is difficult to read some of the letters in the small nodes, increase the font size"intensity indicating number of participants from the region" - the intensity diff 7. Conclusions: Can this approach be applied in other parts of the world? 8. Conclusions: How will your approach help raising AMR awareness in the area?
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Good
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Good
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Strongly support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-
The work presented is clear and the arguments well formed. This study would be a valuable contribution to the existing literature. This is a study that would be of interest to the field and community. Please address all comments made by the reviewers.
-
Comments to Author
This paper by Graham and colleagues is a very nice description of an excellent initiative, which should hopefully encourage other teams to follow their example in developing initiatives to tackle the problems of AMR in this way. It is clear from their results that pairing a MOOC with a grant round is an effective way of teaching, and of building solutions to AMR. Moreover, it is encouraging to see that this appears to have sparked lasting networks and collaborations amongst the participants as measured by their continued engagement via Slack etc. Major points: 1. It is not clear from the text whether or not there was any formative or summative assessment associated with the MOOC (apart from the grant round that followed). Perhaps the authors could make this point clearer. 2. It is not entirely clear …
Comments to Author
This paper by Graham and colleagues is a very nice description of an excellent initiative, which should hopefully encourage other teams to follow their example in developing initiatives to tackle the problems of AMR in this way. It is clear from their results that pairing a MOOC with a grant round is an effective way of teaching, and of building solutions to AMR. Moreover, it is encouraging to see that this appears to have sparked lasting networks and collaborations amongst the participants as measured by their continued engagement via Slack etc. Major points: 1. It is not clear from the text whether or not there was any formative or summative assessment associated with the MOOC (apart from the grant round that followed). Perhaps the authors could make this point clearer. 2. It is not entirely clear to me from the timeline in Figure 1, when the in-person practical sessions were held - I think it might be helpful to show this. 3. If the authors have this data, it would be perhaps helpful to show the number of participants attending each session, and/or accessing the YouTube recordings afterwards. Was engagement sustained throughout all sessions of the course? Minor points: 1. line 65, "Recent efforts in Nigeria…." - a citation would be helpful here for readers who are unfamiliar with this work 2. minor editing for grammar needed - for example, line 75 "There has been efforts" should be "There have been efforts" 3. lines 93-95, perhaps briefly summarise the results of the other study? 4. Figure 1, the colour code being used in panel d is not immediately self-evident, perhaps this could be explained in the legend or with a key. 5. Figure 1, much of the text is too small to read easily when the figure is viewed at 100% magnification. Perhaps this figure could be made a little more readable. 6. Methods - use of Gephi 0.9.3 could be a little clearer and more detailed, to allow researchers to reproduce these results 7. Fig 3a - "intensity indicating number of participants from the region" - the intensity differences are not very easily distinguishable on the map as presented, perhaps these could be made clearer and/or a scale added to help readers understand these data. 8. Fig 3c - some of the smaller nodes are unreadable, perhaps the font sizes could be made larger 9. Fig 4 - the use of similar colours (blue and yellow) across the pie chart and the bar graphs may imply connections between these data/groups - however, they don't appear to be connected. Perhaps a different colour palette for the bar charts would be helpful. 10. Fig 5b - unclear what is meant by the "tree" on the left of the heatmap, or how this was generated? Is the tree necessary at all? 11. Fig S1 - tryptophan resistance? Perhaps the authors could explain what is meant by this, or provide a little more detail about the strains being shown? 12. For the parts i-iii in panel A, it would be helpful to explain what these are in the figure legend. 13. A little more detail on the community building (i.e. how the Slack channels were organised, to promote effective communication) might be helpful for readers wishing to start similar initiatives.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Good
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Very good
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Strongly support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-