Building Research Capacity in the Global South: Insights from a Scientific Writing Workshop

Building Research Capacity in the Global South: Insights from a Scientific Writing Workshop | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Building Research Capacity in the Global South: Insights from a Scientific Writing Workshop Pierrette Ngutete Mukundwa, Barnabas Tobi Alayande, Divine Iradukunda, and 8 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7310084/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 14 Feb, 2026 Read the published version in BMC Medical Education → Version 1 posted 14 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Introduction: Health researchers in the Global South face many barriers to scientific publication, including language limitations, lack of access to mentorship, and minimal training opportunities. Scientific writing workshops offer an affordable and effective method for building research capacity. We aimed to evaluate the design, implementation, and effectiveness of a scientific writing workshop implemented by the University of Global Health Equity (UGHE) in Rwanda and the Duke Global Health Institute (DGHI) for early-career researchers in Rwanda and surrounding regions. Methods We conducted a mixed-methods program evaluation of a contextualized scientific writing workshop co-designed by UGHE and DGHI from 2023 to 2025 using Glatthorn’s and Smith’s curriculum frameworks and Fair-Trade Learning principles and delivered three times Pre- and post-workshop surveys assessed participant perceptions (Kirkpatrick Level 1). Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (p < 0.05); qualitative responses underwent thematic analysis. Results A total of 203 participants attended (129 online, 94 in person). Pre-workshop data (n = 178) showed that 57.3% had a good understanding of scientific writing, and 34.2% felt comfortable preparing a manuscript. Post-workshop surveys (n = 195) data showed 87.6% reported having a strong understanding of adapting skills to resource-limited settings, and 88.2% had a good understanding of the manuscript components. Emerging themes included increased confidence, skill enhancement, motivation, and the need for more practice. Participants recommended extending workshop time, adding practical components, and providing mentorship. Conclusions This collaborative workshop enhanced the scientific writing skills and confidence among early-career health researchers in Rwanda and surrounding regions. Grounded in equity and contextual relevance, the workshop addresses barriers in scientific publishing and offers a scalable model for research capacity strengthening in resource-limited settings. Scientific writing research capacity Global South LMICs manuscript preparation health equity Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Background Scientific writing is the cornerstone of the publication and dissemination of global health research ( 1 , 2 ). This form of writing is used to express and share new knowledge in a trusted format to advance scientific practice. Researchers in the Global South, particularly in non-native English-speaking regions, face significant hurdles to scientific publication. These investigators need more time to write a paper, have a 2–3 times higher frequency of language-related manuscript rejection, and have a 12-fold higher frequency of language-related paper revisions ( 3 ). Although language editing services exist, they are often out of reach to researchers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) because of financial and other barriers ( 4 ). Capacity building in scientific writing for authors from the Global South is an essential component of health equity. Scientific writing workshops are an effective and affordable pathway for improving scientific writing skills in resource-constrained settings ( 5 ). Writing workshops and other writing interventions in LMICs have been shown to enhance the quality and quantity of research output and are foundational to building long-term research capacity. However, these programs face several limitations, including the lack of LMIC-based faculty, sustainability, financial barriers, and a limited number of available writing courses ( 5 , 6 ). A lack of effective scientific writing skills has been noted among students and researchers in Rwanda ( 7 , 8 ). To address this gap, the University of Global Health Equity (UGHE), Rwanda, and the Duke Global Health Institute (DGHI), USA co-designed and implemented a scientific writing workshop focused on both the elements of English writing proficiency and the classic elements of scientific writing. The workshop provided a contextualized, hybrid (in-person and online) platform to equip a cross-cultural, multidisciplinary group of young researchers from Rwanda and other countries in the Global South with skills in basic structure, storytelling, and clarity to enhance their scientific writing. This report evaluates the design, implementation, and effectiveness of this scientific writing workshop using quantitative and qualitative data from pre- and post-workshop surveys. The evaluation focused on participants’ perceptions and reactions (Kirkpatrick’s Level One) to the program’s outcomes and the integration of user feedback for workshop adaptation. Methods Study Design This study used a mixed-methods design, combining quantitative pre- and post-workshop surveys and qualitative thematic analysis to evaluate participants’ experiences and perceived gains. Setting UGHE was founded in 2015 by the Government of Rwanda and Partners in Health, a global nonprofit organization, to provide global health sciences education. Through its flagship Master of Science in Global Health Delivery and Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery programs, UGHE aims to train global health leaders to create relevant and equitable health solutions. Training at UGHE focuses on strengthening healthcare systems for marginalized communities and addressing healthcare disparities in underserved regions ( 9 ). Rwanda has Kinyarwanda, French, and English as official languages, and only 20.9% of Rwandans aged 15 years and above are proficient in English writing ( 10 ). The most common English proficiency measures in Rwanda are the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) and the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) ( 11 , 12 ). The Duke Global Health Institute (DGHI) is committed to innovating in global health research and education. Offering programs ranging from undergraduate to Master of Global Health Science to postdoctoral fellowships, the institute strives to promote global health equity. By educating future leaders, pioneering research, influencing health policy, and forging international partnerships, it tackles health challenges facing underserved communities ( 13 ). DGHI and UGHE have previously partnered to implement several novel education programs for learners from LMICs ( 14 ). The DGHI is within the US context, where English is the primary language. Base course and curriculum The course design was adapted from an existing scientific writing workshop at DGHI. The base 6-hour workshop consisted of lectures, in-person writing exercises, and readings based on the text by Mimi Zeiger ( 15 ). The workshop emphasized that the goal of writing is clarity, and reviews how clarity can be achieved via the basic components (words, sentences, and paragraphs) as applied to each section of a biomedical research paper. The course was structured around the design of each section of a research paper and included examples of both well and poorly written components. Although students did not write any new text during the workshop, they edited numerous writing examples. Design and Contextualization A needs assessment and discussions began in 2022 between faculty at UGHE and DGHI to curate a shared scientific writing workshop as a collaborative initiative. The course was designed to equip learners and emerging researchers from UGHE and the region with applied scientific writing skills. The course contextualization and design were carried out over a series of collaborative meetings over four months involving five UGHE and two DGHI participants (learners, educators, and researchers). We used Glatthorn’s framework for analyzing the curriculum elements and guiding curriculum reform in 4 categories: structure, values, content, and process ( 16 ). We iteratively adjusted the structure, values, content, and process of the baseline DGHI writing course to reflect the context of learners from the Global South. We also used Smith’s 1996 framework, which guides curriculum developers to focus on the curriculum as a body of knowledge to be transmitted, an attempt to achieve specific end products, a focus on the process, and praxis ( 17 ). Building on Glatthorn and Smith’s models, the foundational workshop curriculum was modified to meet the needs of a diverse, multidisciplinary, and international group of learners (Fig. 1 ). Our approach took into account the body of knowledge and content to be delivered (including the number and themes of topics) alongside the process and value models we aimed to communicate. In total, we came up with 13 topics whose objectives were clearly defined (Appendix 1). Additionally, we addressed practical and technical considerations such as in-person versus remote participation, internet connectivity issues, the availability of electricity, cultural diversity, and institutional contexts. We also applied Fair-Trade Learning principles ( 18 ) to ensure equity in workshop adaptation and implementation (Table 1 ). Table 1 Application of Fair-Trade Learning Principles in Workshop Design and Implementation Common purposes The workshop was designed to be beneficial to UGHE, Duke, and the wider Rwandan scientific communities in alignment with institutional visions. Host Community Program Leadership The UGHE Institute of Global Health Equity Research and the Center for Equity in Global Surgery (CEGS) led the planning, execution, and logistics as the in-country partner. Rights of the Most Vulnerable Global South learners were the focus of the course, and the partners’ rights were protected. The decision to host the course free of charge and in person in Rwanda rather than teaching online from the U.S. was informed by this priority. Host Community Program Participation UGHE community was positioned as the primary beneficiary of the training, and the workshop was further opened by offering online involvement for individuals in the host community and beyond those who could not be in person. Theory of Change for the Community and the Participants Recognizing gaps in writing skills among LMIC researchers, we designed this course to provide accessible, context-specific training aimed at strengthening research capacity and evidence-based policy. Publications The idea for a summary publication was raised early, with a junior female Rwandan faculty member chosen to lead, highlighting gender, location, and career equity. Communication Both open and closed-loop communication were used, with Global South partners leading publicity and all facilitators acknowledged in materials. Learning Integration Rwandan and U.S. faculty designed the workshop to promote cross-cultural learning and personal growth, enabling participants to engage with diverse perspectives and enhance collaboration. Local Sourcing, Environmental Impacts, and Economic Structure All materials for the workshop were locally sourced, including information technology arrangements, audiovisual aids, etc., and the hybrid modality ensured that there was a limitation of travel for environmental sustainability. Clarity of Commitment and Evaluation of Partnership Success The UGHE-DGHI partnership has been consolidated over time, and there is evidence of clarity of commitment through a Memorandum of Understanding and other agreements. Transparency From the conceptualization of the workshop to analysis of outcomes, UGHE and DGHI ensured a balanced partnership with equal access to resources and opportunities for all members. Partnership beyond a program The UGHE–DGHI partnership extends beyond this workshop, with their co-taught Global Surgical Care course serving as a model for its design. Participant Selection Participants were eligible if they were students, early-career professionals, or researchers with an interest in scientific writing, primarily from low- and middle-income countries. The workshops were open-access, and participants self-registered through announcements posted on UGHE and DGHI social media platforms (e.g., LinkedIn, X or Twitter). Scientific writing workshop delivery The first scientific writing workshop in Rwanda was a two-day, six-hour intensive program held in January 2023, divided into 3 hours each day. The second and third courses were delivered in January 2024 and 2025, respectively, with each a two-day, five-hour intensive program divided into 2.5 hours each day. All workshops were conducted in English and offered to a broad cohort of learners and researchers from a range of biomedical fields in Global South countries. Pre-workshop preparation Before the delivery of each workshop, the UGHE and DGHI teams delivered a pre-course survey for registered participants on UGHE and DGHI social media platforms, including X and LinkedIn (Appendix 2). The pre-workshop surveys helped register participants for the workshop and collected demographic information and views of participants’ perceptions of their scientific writing abilities. Pre-reading materials and exercises were also shared with the participants in the second and third workshops to support participants’ understanding of the scientific writing concepts and to enhance their engagement and preparedness during the sessions. Workshop structure In the first part of each workshop, participants were introduced to the foundational elements of scientific writing, including word choice, sentence and paragraph structure, and the organization of the introduction and methods sections (Appendix 1). The remainder of the workshop focused on the additional components of manuscript organization, including the results, discussion, figures/tables, references, abstract, and title, with an emphasis on the cohesive integration of these sections. Interactive in-class writing exercises were increasingly incorporated in the second and third workshops to facilitate the practical application of complex concepts. The workshop was delivered in a hybrid format, allowing participants to join either via Zoom or in person at the UGHE Butaro campus as well as an array of learners from other countries. Post-workshop Following each workshop, a post-workshop survey was conducted to assess participants’ perceptions of their scientific writing skills and to gather feedback to improve the course for future iterations (Appendix 3). Participants were given post-workshop assignments in the second workshop to allow them to practice and apply the acquired scientific writing skills independently. Survey Procedures Pre- and post-workshop surveys were administered in all three years—2023, 2024, and 2025—to assess participants’ self-perceived scientific writing abilities and gather input on the workshop content and delivery. In the 2023 and 2024 workshops, surveys were collected anonymously and primarily served to guide refinements to the course structure based on participant feedback. Because individual-level responses could not be matched between pre- and post-workshop data, analyses for these years were limited to descriptive statistics and group-level comparisons. In 2025, the survey process was revised to allow for comparison of individual pre- and post-workshop responses while still maintaining participant confidentiality. This adjustment enabled a more robust analysis of changes in participants’ self-assessed writing skills. Both our pre- and post-workshop surveys were designed, administered, and analyzed in alignment with the CROSS (Checklist for Reporting Of Survey Studies) checklist, ensuring methodological rigor, transparency, and clarity in survey design ( 19 ). This approach facilitated a comprehensive evaluation of participants' perceptions of their writing abilities, as well as the effectiveness and outcomes of the workshop, while supporting the integrity of data analysis and reporting processes ( 19 ) (Appendix 4). This was a descriptive program evaluation of an educational intervention. A formal sample size calculation was not conducted. Instead, all individuals who registered and attended the workshops between 2023 and 2025 were included. The final sample size (n = 203) reflects the total number of voluntary participants across the three workshop cohorts. Outcomes and Variables The primary outcomes were participants’ self-reported scientific writing competencies, including an understanding of the manuscript structure, comfort with manuscript preparation, and ability to adapt skills for resource-constrained settings. These outcomes were measured using Likert-scale responses in pre- and post-workshop surveys. Open-ended responses provided qualitative insights. No exposures, predictors, confounders, or effect modifiers were analyzed, as the focus of this study was on evaluating an educational intervention. Measurement and Comparability of Data Data were collected through pre- and post-workshop surveys administered electronically before and after each workshop. The surveys included both closed-ended questions using a 5-point Likert scale (Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree) and open-ended questions to capture qualitative insights. The primary variables of interest were assessed through self-reported perceptions of writing competencies (Appendices 2 & 3). For the 2023 and 2024 workshops, surveys were completed anonymously, limiting comparability at the individual level. In 2025, matched responses were collected while maintaining participant confidentiality, allowing for individual-level comparison using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. All participants received the same surveys regardless of participation mode (in-person or online). No differences in administration format or question content were introduced across participant groups or years. Survey Analysis For the 2023 and 2024 workshops, descriptive statistics were used to summarize trends and percentage changes in participants’ self-reported knowledge and confidence in scientific writing. In 2025, matched pre- and post-survey data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test to assess the statistical significance of changes in participant responses. A significance level of p < 0.05 was used. Across all three workshops, data were summarized using Kirkpatrick’s Level 1 model to capture participant reactions and perceptions, and qualitative feedback was analyzed thematically to inform future improvements to the workshop. Survey data were securely stored on an encrypted platform and analyzed on password-protected and encrypted systems to prevent unauthorized access. Quantitative analysis was conducted via JASP software (Version 0.18.3) [Apple Silicon]. A thematic analysis was conducted on the free-text qualitative responses from the post-workshop survey, which focused on participants’ perceptions of their scientific writing skills after the workshop and gathered feedback to inform future improvements of the course. Open coding was carried out by one investigator and a research assistant, with any discrepancies resolved through discussion. No statistical methods were used to control for confounding, and no subgroup, interaction, or sensitivity analyses were conducted. Missing data were excluded without imputation. The study used a convenience sample without a formal sampling strategy. Ethical Considerations This study received an exemption from the UGHE Health Research Ethics Committee with reference number UGHE-IRB/2025/392-EXE, as it complied with ethical standards for quality improvement initiatives. The study strictly adhered to the ethical guidelines outlined in the Helsinki Declaration for research involving human subjects. Before filling out evaluation forms, all respondents provided documented informed consent. Participants were informed about the study’s purpose, procedures, risks, benefits, and rights before participation. They were also assured of the confidentiality of their information, with no personal identifiers collected. Participants were informed that they could withdraw at any time without negative consequences. To minimize bias and protect participants’ privacy, surveys in 2023 and 2024 were collected anonymously. In 2025, while responses were matched for pre- and post-comparison, confidentiality was maintained through de-identification and secure handling of data. This approach helped reduce social desirability and response bias. Patient and Public Involvement Patients and members of the public were not involved in the design, conduct, reporting, or dissemination plans of this research, as the study focused on evaluating an academic scientific writing workshop targeting early-career health researchers rather than addressing direct patient care or public health interventions. Results Demographics A total of 203 participants attended the three scientific writing workshops, with 129 joining online and 94 attending in person. Most participants were from Rwanda and surrounding regions (Table 2 and Fig. 2 ). Table 2 Demographic data of registered participants Demographic data N = 187 Sex Male 100 (53.5%) Female 87 (46.5%) Primary residence Rwanda 101 (54%) Others Missing 78 (41.7%) 8 (4.3%) Primary language English 124 (66.3%) Others 63 (33.7%) Highest Level of Education PhD 6 (3.2%) Master 42 (22.5%) Medical 48 (25.7%) Undergraduate 62 (33.1%) Others Missing 21 (11.2%) 8 (4.3%) Level of program enrolled in PhD 8 (4.3%) Master 94 (50.3%) Medical 11 (5.9%) Undergraduate 16 (8.5%) Other Missing 50 (26.7%) 8 (4.3%) Main career goal Clinician 5 (2.7%) Research scientist 45 (24%) Combined clinician/research 116 (62%) Others Missing 13 (7%) 8 (4.3%) Written a scientific research manuscript before Yes 52 (27.8%) No Missing 126 (67.4%) 9 (4.8) Pre-workshop Survey The pre-course survey results (n = 178) showed that most participants (79.7%) demonstrated a strong understanding of the need to adapt clinical and discipline-specific skills and practices for resource-constrained settings. Only 57.3% reported having a good understanding of the elements of a scientific paper, and 34.2% were not comfortable with preparing a scientific research manuscript for publication. Some participants who attended the in-person workshop did not complete the pre-workshop survey, as they joined without filling out the online registration form where the survey was embedded, which contributed to the missing data. Post-workshop Survey Post-workshop surveys (n = 195) revealed high levels of self-reported competencies across several areas (Table 3 ). A majority of participants (87.6%) reported a strong understanding of the need to adapt clinical or discipline-specific skills and practices for resource-constrained settings. Similarly, 88.2% expressed a good understanding of the elements involved in a scientific research paper. Table 3 Participants’ perceptions/reactions to their scientific writing abilities before and after the workshop Self-reported Scientific Writing Competencies Timing Strongly Agree n (%) Agree n (%) Neutral n (%) Disagree n (%) Strongly Disagree n (%) I have a good understanding of the need to demonstrate the ability to adapt clinical or discipline-specific skills and practice in a resource-constrained setting. Pre-course ( n = 178) 67 (37.6) 75 (42.1) 29 (16.3) 2 (1.1) 5 (2.8) Post-course ( n = 195) 91 (46.6) 80 (41) 4 ( 2 ) 7 (3.6) 13 (6.6) I have a good understanding of the elements involved in a scientific research paper. Pre-course ( n = 178) 24 (13.4) 78 (43.8) 56 (31.4) 16 (8.9) 4 (2.5) Post-course ( n = 195) 112 (57.4) 60 (30.7) 5 (2.5) 5 (2.5) 13 (6.6) I feel comfortable preparing a scientific research manuscript for publication. Pre-course ( n = 178) 17 (9.5) 44 (24.7) 62 (34.8) 41 (23%) 14 (7.8) Post-course - - - - - In terms of workshop outcome, 85% of participants indicated that the workshop fulfilled their need to improve scientific writing skills. Additionally, 83% agreed that the workshop's length, content, and style were appropriate for their needs. Pre vs. Post Workshop Comparison for 2025. Matched comparison of pre- and post-responses from the 2025 workshop was analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (Fig. 1 ). The analysis revealed statistically significant improvements in participants’ understanding of how to adapt clinical and discipline-specific skills in resource-constrained settings ( p < 0.001), understanding of the elements involved in a scientific research paper ( p < 0.001), and comfort in preparing scientific manuscripts for publication ( p < 0.001) (Fig. 3 ). The outcome estimates reported (e.g., proportions of Likert scale responses and pre/post comparisons) are unadjusted. No multivariable analyses were performed, and confidence intervals were not calculated due to the descriptive nature of the study. Qualitative analysis A thematic analysis of free-text responses on participants' perceived ability to write scientific papers was conducted among 195 respondents (Table 3 ). Most participants reported increased confidence in their ability to write scientific research papers, while others highlighted improved knowledge and skills in areas such as manuscript structure and research writing tools. Some described feeling empowered and motivated to continue writing, whereas a few emphasized the need for additional practice to fully apply what they had learned. Table 4 Thematic Summary of Participants’ Perceived Abilities to Write a Scientific Paper Post-Workshop Themes Quotes Confidence Building Many participants mentioned that they felt more confident after attending the workshop, with comments such as “confident,” “much more confident,” “more confident,” and “confidence has increased.” “I feel confident to be able to organize my thoughts and findings.” “I am now confident in my capacity to compose a comprehensive scientific research paper.” “I have now built confidence in constructing coherent paragraphs.” Knowledge and Skill Enhancement Several participants reported improved knowledge and skills in scientific writing, with gains in understanding manuscript structure, scientific concepts, and key tools. “I have improved my basic understanding in structuring a research paper, components of a manuscript, a strong understanding in the formulation of research problem and appropriate research methodology. Topped with proper referencing styles.” “I learned how to express complex scientific ideas in a straightforward manner.” “The Journal/Author Name Estimator (JANE) platform is a take-home for me from this workshop.” Empowerment and Motivation Some participants indicated that the workshop left them feeling empowered and motivated to write and grow as researchers. “I feel empowered and capable of writing a solid scientific research paper.” “I feel better prepared to write a paper now.” “I feel motivated to write on my own with some guidance.” Practical Application and Need for Practice A number of participants acknowledged the need for ongoing practice to apply what they had learned. “I believe practice makes perfect and look forward to putting this all into practice.” “I feel confident, but I will still need a bit more practice.” “While I have a better grasp of the key components of a scientific research paper, I still feel there's room for improvement. The workshop was a great starting point, but I would benefit from further practice and guidance in areas like data analysis and critical evaluation of existing literature.” Post-workshop recommendations revealed several key themes for enhancing future scientific writing workshops (Table 4 ). A prominent suggestion was to extend the duration of the workshop, with participants expressing a desire for additional days or longer sessions to allow deeper engagement with the material. Another common recommendation focused on increasing the practical components of the sessions—participants called for more hands-on exercises, writing activities, and interactive discussions to reinforce skill application. Mentorship and follow-up support also emerged as important, with several participants emphasizing the value of continued guidance beyond the workshop to help them apply what they learned in real time. Additionally, some participants highlighted logistical and accessibility challenges, such as internet connectivity issues and time constraints, and recommended that future workshops be held in person to mitigate these barriers. [Insert Table 5 Here] Workshop Adaptation Based on participant feedback, we made several key contextual modifications to enhance accessibility and inclusivity. We modified the course content, slide decks, and in-class presentations to remove non-contextual references, incorporated contextual examples, and added relatable anecdotes to make the content more accessible. To accommodate non-native English participants, we simplified the language used and slowed down the course delivery to ensure better comprehension. Additionally, we introduced a practical session with take-home assignments focused on the use of a citation manager, selecting a free and accessible application for all participants. A session on journal selection was also added, with special emphasis on applying for Article Processing Charge waivers. Although the initial workshop was delivered over two three-hour sessions on two days, the second and third workshops were shortened to 2.5-hour sessions on two days. To ensure equitable engagement between in-person and online participants, an online facilitator actively monitored the chat and interacted with participants online in parallel with the in-person discussions. Discussion We confirmed the feasibility and outcome of an intensive scientific writing workshop designed to improve the writing proficiency of young healthcare researchers from the Global South. We demonstrated that the workshop could be successfully delivered in a hybrid format to accommodate additional participants. This study showed high levels of participants’ self-reported writing competencies, and outcomes suggesting that this workshop may lead to improved research capacity for early career health researchers in the Global South. Challenges of Scientific Writing Workshops in the Global South Writing workshops are an important research capacity-building tool for empowering young researchers in the Global South ( 6 ). However, these workshops have limited effectiveness in LMICs due to several barriers. Limited funding for research capacity-building initiatives in LMICs often means that scientific writing workshops, which require resources such as materials, trainers, and infrastructure, are deprioritized ( 20 ). Additionally, there is a lack of experienced scientific mentors in LMICs who can effectively guide early-career researchers in writing and publishing scientific papers ( 21 ). Furthermore, language barriers present a substantial challenge, as many young researchers in LMICs are non-native English speakers and the majority of scientific journals are published in English ( 3 ). Our workshop sought to address these challenges by offering a hybrid format, allowing beneficiaries from the UGHE community to attend in person while also extending invitations to young researchers across Rwanda and the Global South who participated online. The hybrid format increased the accessibility of the workshop, enabling participants to join from wherever they were located and removing the burden of travel costs or accommodating those unable to attend in person owing to other constraints. We found that online facilitator was key to interacting with virtual participants and monitoring their contributions in real time. The workshop took place at the UGHE campus, which provided logistical support, including information technology and audiovisual facilitation. The trainers were from both UGHE and DGHI, with extensive experience in writing scientific papers and teaching the basic principles of scientific writing, eliminating the need to outsource trainers. Given that most participants were non-native English speakers, in the second and third iterations of the workshop the language were simplified, and the pace of the workshop was slowed to enhance comprehension. In addition, the materials were revised to make them more context-specific for better engagement and understanding, thus addressing participants’ needs. Equity in Course Design, Implementation, and Analysis Throughout all workshop conception, design, and delivery, DGHI and UGHE partners emphasized equity as a central focus. Equity has been defined as fair treatment, justice, and access to opportunities for all people ( 22 ). We recognized the need for a writing workshop to support the development of writing skills for the UGHE community and young researchers in the Global South. According to the National Science Foundation, countries in the Global North produced six times more publications than those in the Global South ( 23 ). To address this disparity, UGHE and DGHI partners took deliberate steps to empower emerging scholars from LMICs in an equitable fashion. As part of these efforts, a junior female faculty member at UGHE was supported and mentored to develop a publication that disseminated the workshop's findings. To further enhance equity in course design and delivery, we applied the Fair-Trade Learning principle to ensure the active involvement and leadership of the host community, as well as power-balanced collaboration between UGHE and DGHI. This approach is essential for the host community to take ownership of the initiative and ensure that the course aligns with their needs, values, and priorities of their learners ( 18 ). Additionally, during the course design, we ensured that all participants had opportunities for cross-cultural input through interactive sessions with learners from different countries and diverse backgrounds. This approach has been shown to enhance communication, the exchange of ideas, mutual respect, and empathy ( 24 ). Interest in Practical Components and the Need for Mentorship The feedback from workshop participants suggests that the program was well received, with participants gaining a better understanding of the elements involved in writing research papers. Participants reported increased confidence, motivation, and skills necessary to write research manuscripts for publication. Similar studies have demonstrated that writing interventions can enhance confidence and writing skills ( 25 – 27 ). Course adaptation is key to successful implementation. Many participants expressed the need for more practical components, such as in-class writing exercises and group discussions to enhance their acquired knowledge and skills. Our emphasis on short writing tasks aligns with previous experience in Australia which showed that integrating short writing tasks into a course enhanced writing skills and improved the quality of students’ final reports ( 28 ). Similarly, the effectiveness of training and mentorship in building research capacity among African researchers is highly effective in bridging research gaps ( 25 , 29 ). Limitations There are several limitations to our analysis. Although our current report focuses on short-term outcomes, we did not assess the long-term impact of this workshop on participants' scientific productivity. Tracking participants' progress would help evaluate how effectively the skills learned translate into scientific output and influence health equity through research dissemination ( 30 , 31 ). Additionally, although participants reported an increase in confidence in scientific writing, a more in-depth assessment of their writing competency would be valuable. Such an evaluation would offer a more comprehensive understanding of the workshop’s impact on participants' ability to produce high-quality research and contribute to the scientific literature. This study primarily evaluated participants’ perceptions and reactions (Kirkpatrick’s Level 1) immediately after the workshop. A more extensive analysis would provide deeper insights into how effectively the skills learned translate into concrete research outputs (Kirkpatrick’s Levels 2 and 3). Additionally, although the hybrid format provided greater accessibility for workshop participation, there may have been disparities between the experiences of in-person and online participants, particularly in terms of engagement, interaction, and the quality of learning. This could affect the consistency of outcomes for different participant groups. Furthermore, the study relies heavily on self-reported data from participants regarding their scientific writing skills and confidence. This could introduce potential biases, such as overestimation of skills, which may not accurately reflect participants' actual abilities in scientific writing. While this workshop was conducted within the context of UGHE and DGHI collaboration, the findings may be generalizable to similar institutions in low- and middle-income countries that aim to strengthen research capacity. The hybrid delivery model and contextual adaptations make the workshop scalable and replicable in other regions. However, because participation was voluntary and based on self-selection, generalizability to all early-career researchers in the Global South may be limited. Conclusion In summary, we successfully designed and implemented a scientific writing workshop tailored for researchers from the Global South. The workshop addressed important challenges faced by non-native English-speaking researchers in scientific writing and publication, such as language barriers, limited access to resources, and mentorship. Through an equitable collaboration between UGHE and DGHI, the program enhanced participants' skills in clarity, structure, and storytelling in scientific manuscripts while emphasizing the need for mentorship, practical exercises, and long-term evaluation of outcomes. This initiative exemplifies an effective approach to building research capacity and promoting equitable access to scientific knowledge dissemination. Abbreviations UGHE: University of Global Health Equity DGHI: Duke Global Health Institute LMIC: Low- and Middle-Income Countries CROSS: Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate The study received an exemption from the UGHE Health Research Ethics Committee with ref. UGHE-IRB/2025/392-EXE. Consent for publication Not applicable. Availability of data and materials The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Funding The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received for the research, authorship, and/or preparation of this manuscript. Authors' contributions This work was a collaborative effort by the UGHE and DGHI teams. BTA, HR, and EN adapted, conceptualized, and delivered this scientific writing workshop, tailoring it to meet the LMIC context based on an existing writing course at DGHI. BTA, PNM, BAF, OO, and DI wrote the manuscripts, with data analysis and interpretation conducted by PNM and GB. HR, BTA, RR, KB, and AB were instrumental in the primary and final manuscript edits. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Acknowledgements Not Applicable. References Donald L. K. Disseminating health research in sub-Saharan Africa through journal partnerships - The Lancet Global Health [Internet]. [cited 2024 Nov 13]. Available from: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X%2813%2970158-X/fulltext 7 Features of Scientific Writing (Plus Definition and Tips) | Indeed.com [Internet]. [cited 2024 Nov 13]. Available from: https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/scientific-writing The manifold costs of being a non-native English speaker in science | PLOS Biology [Internet]. [cited 2024 Nov 13]. Available from: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3002184 Ethics of Using Language Editing Services in An Era of Digital Communication and Heavily Multi-Authored Papers [Internet]. [cited 2024 Nov 13]. Available from: http://ouci.dntb.gov.ua/en/works/7X5rYBY4/ Wortman-Wunder E, Wefes I. Scientific Writing Workshop Improves Confidence in Critical Writing Skills among Trainees in the Biomedical Sciences. J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2020 Feb 28;21(1):21.1.5. Busse CE, Anderson EW, Endale T, Smith YR, Kaniecki M, Shannon C, et al. Strengthening research capacity: a systematic review of manuscript writing and publishing interventions for researchers in low-income and middle-income countries. BMJ Glob Health. 2022 Feb;7(2):e008059. The Significance of English Writing Skills on Learners’ Performance: A Case of Two Secondary Schools in Kicukiro District, Rwanda [Internet]. [cited 2024 Nov 13]. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381043851_The_Significance_of_English_Writing_Skills_on_Learners'_ Performance_A_Case_of_Two_Secondary_Schools_in_Kicukiro_District_Rwanda Deonandan R, Sangwa N, Kanters S, Nsanzimana S. Writing skills enhancement for public health professionals in Rwanda. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2017 Mar 31;8:253. Our Story [Internet]. UGHE. [cited 2024 Apr 10]. Available from: https://ughe.org/the-story-behind-the-university NISR. The Fifth Rwanda Population and Housing Census, Main Indicators Report. National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2025 May 7]. Available from: https://www.statistics.gov.rw/publication/Rwanda_population_2022 TOEFL iBT Test of English as Foreign Language in Rwanda, TOEFL Registration in Rwanda [Internet]. [cited 2025 Apr 24]. Available from: https://www.rwandaeducation.info/international-tests/toefl IELTS in Rwanda, International English Language Testing Systems in Rwanda, IELTS Date in R [Internet]. [cited 2025 Apr 24]. Available from: https://www.rwandaeducation.info/international-tests/ielts/ Our Institute [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2024 Apr 10]. Available from: https://globalhealth.duke.edu/our-institute Alayande BT, Hughes Z, Fitzgerald TN, Riviello R, Bekele A, Rice HE. With equity in mind: Evaluating an interactive hybrid global surgery course for cross-site interdisciplinary learners. PLOS Glob Public Health. 2023 May 4;3(5):e0001778. Zeiger M. Essentials of Writing Biomedical Research Papers, Second Edition. Glatthorn AA, Boschee F, Whitehead BM, Boschee BF. Curriculum leadership: strategies for development and implementation. Fifth Edition. Los Angeles: SAGE; 2018. 478 p. Smith MK. Curriculum Theory and Practice By. 2011 Jan 1 [cited 2024 Nov 13]; Available from: https://www.academia.edu/94785149/Curriculum_Theory_and_Practice_By Amerson R, Parker-Manderson J, Garrison C, Finleyson S, Kunkle M, Dominguez CRS. Fair Trade Learning Evaluation of a Global Partnership. 13(1). Sharma A, Minh Duc NT, Luu Lam Thang T, Nam NH, Ng SJ, Abbas KS, et al. A Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS). J Gen Intern Med. 2021 Oct;36(10):3179–87. Abouzeid M, Muthanna A, Nuwayhid I, El-Jardali F, Connors P, Habib RR, et al. Barriers to sustainable health research leadership in the Global South: Time for a Grand Bargain on localization of research leadership? Health Res Policy Syst. 2022 Dec 19;20(1):136. Moore AL, Chaisson NF. Development of a Scientific Writing Course to Increase Fellow Scholarship. Sch. 2022 Sep 30;3(3):390. EQUALITY VS. EQUITY | American Journal of Law and Equality | MIT Press [Internet]. [cited 2024 Nov 15]. Available from: https://direct.mit.edu/ajle/article/doi/10.1162/ajle_a_00019/107229/EQUALITY-VS-EQUITY Publications Output: U.S. Trends and International Comparisons | NSF - National Science Foundation [Internet]. [cited 2024 Nov 15]. Available from: https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20214/publication-output-by-country-region-or-economy-and-scientific-field Gyasi JF, Zheng L, Long M. Reflecting on the Past to Shape the Future: A Systematic Review on Cross-Cultural Collaborative Learning from 2011 to 2020. Sustainability. 2021 Jan;13(24):13890. Bellicoso D, Valenzano TJ, Topolovec-Vranic J. Effectiveness of a manuscript writing workshop on writing confidence amongst nursing and health disciplines clinicians. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci. 2022 Dec;53(4):S79–84. Fernández E, García AM, Serés E, Bosch F. Students’ satisfaction and perceived impact on knowledge, attitudes and skills after a 2-day course in scientific writing: a prospective longitudinal study in Spain. BMJ Open. 2018 Jan 1;8(1):e018657. Balida DAR, Guillergan VV, Hapinat HL. THE EFFECTS OF WORKSHOP INTERVENTION ON RESEARCH WRITING SKILLS. Russ Law J [Internet]. 2023 Apr 7 [cited 2025 May 7];11(3). Available from: https://russianlawjournal.org/index.php/journal/article/view/2045 Tonissen KF, Lee SE, Woods KJ, Osborne SA. Development of Scientific Writing Skills Through Activities Embedded into Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Laboratory Courses. Oronje RN, Mukiira C, Kahurani E, Murunga V. Training and mentorship as a tool for building African researchers’ capacity in knowledge translation. PLOS ONE. 2022 Mar 31;17(3):e0266106. Deeming S, Hure A, Attia J, Nilsson M, Searles A. Prioritising and incentivising productivity within indicator-based approaches to Research Impact Assessment: a commentary. Health Res Policy Syst. 2023 Dec 18;21(1):136. Panaretos J, Malesios C. Assessing a Researcher’s Scientific Productivity and Scholarly Impact. In: A Guide to the Scientific Career [Internet]. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2019 [cited 2025 May 7]. p. 69–79. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118907283.ch9 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files AdditionalFile1.xlsx Table 5 (Additional File 1). Thematic Breakdown of the Main Suggestions to Improve the Workshop for Future Learners AdditionalFile2.pdf Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 14 Feb, 2026 Read the published version in BMC Medical Education → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 05 Sep, 2025 Reviews received at journal 28 Aug, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 26 Aug, 2025 Reviews received at journal 26 Aug, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 26 Aug, 2025 Reviews received at journal 25 Aug, 2025 Reviews received at journal 25 Aug, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 21 Aug, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 19 Aug, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 18 Aug, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 13 Aug, 2025 Editor invited by journal 13 Aug, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 13 Aug, 2025 First submitted to journal 13 Aug, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7310084","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":505279460,"identity":"6b36df43-b038-4aa1-bd9e-3658cec387b9","order_by":0,"name":"Pierrette Ngutete Mukundwa","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Global Health Equity","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Pierrette","middleName":"Ngutete","lastName":"Mukundwa","suffix":""},{"id":505279461,"identity":"ad465edf-487c-4653-a7b4-ce65ed7550a6","order_by":1,"name":"Barnabas Tobi Alayande","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Global Health Equity","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Barnabas","middleName":"Tobi","lastName":"Alayande","suffix":""},{"id":505279462,"identity":"9774a559-90a6-41e2-807b-304e635e6e35","order_by":2,"name":"Divine Iradukunda","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Global Health Equity","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Divine","middleName":"","lastName":"Iradukunda","suffix":""},{"id":505279463,"identity":"065978e1-99eb-42e7-898f-1609c8f5ec87","order_by":3,"name":"Betel Amdeslassie Fenta","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Harvard University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Betel","middleName":"Amdeslassie","lastName":"Fenta","suffix":""},{"id":505279464,"identity":"98de8c01-4047-49b1-b932-441775f0ddfc","order_by":4,"name":"Georges Bucyibaruta","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Global Health Equity","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Georges","middleName":"","lastName":"Bucyibaruta","suffix":""},{"id":505279465,"identity":"3860c317-1470-4bb5-9093-8ff876717ec9","order_by":5,"name":"Oluwaseun Ojomo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Global Health Equity","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Oluwaseun","middleName":"","lastName":"Ojomo","suffix":""},{"id":505279466,"identity":"c4d57fff-1479-4b4f-a410-9dbd7ba19d5d","order_by":6,"name":"Ireri Mbogo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Global Health Equity","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ireri","middleName":"","lastName":"Mbogo","suffix":""},{"id":505279467,"identity":"7b020522-7ff0-4ed7-8e21-e2c090367f01","order_by":7,"name":"Emmanuel Ngwakongnwi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Global Health Equity","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Emmanuel","middleName":"","lastName":"Ngwakongnwi","suffix":""},{"id":505279468,"identity":"dd8c0d6d-eea1-451f-aa29-4ee86c4a2048","order_by":8,"name":"Robert Riviello","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Global Health Equity","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Robert","middleName":"","lastName":"Riviello","suffix":""},{"id":505279469,"identity":"d913aed0-7fb9-4285-b33f-892abc56ff9b","order_by":9,"name":"Abebe Bekele","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Global Health Equity","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Abebe","middleName":"","lastName":"Bekele","suffix":""},{"id":505279470,"identity":"53c5418a-005c-410b-9694-8bf369063ad1","order_by":10,"name":"Henry E. Rice","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Duke Global Health Institute","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Henry","middleName":"E.","lastName":"Rice","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-08-06 13:08:19","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7310084/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7310084/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-08811-w","type":"published","date":"2026-02-14T15:58:18+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":89988212,"identity":"647d8331-ab70-48d4-a4c0-444d393a795c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-27 07:03:22","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":355088,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSmith’s Model of Curriculum Theory and Practice (license: https://uxwing.com/license/)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7310084/v1/e7a32a1e6ea71cf6261308e3.png"},{"id":89988207,"identity":"782e1356-6e0d-47d2-b136-36b34d57fba0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-27 07:03:22","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":104832,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eWorld Map of Participants’ Cumulative Attendance (2023-2025)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7310084/v1/a37287a211a36c6ed0e20ae6.png"},{"id":89988214,"identity":"13f69c57-4f0b-4219-a54f-0586ac969a17","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-27 07:03:22","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":109510,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eParticipants' self-reported perceptions of their understanding, confidence, and satisfaction pre- and post-workshop 2025\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7310084/v1/e3a18fc05b78bff55d5ebc0f.png"},{"id":102786054,"identity":"e4f6266a-ca8b-4ddc-b3be-b01a84b18f5c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-16 16:11:35","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1768034,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7310084/v1/be07b6ce-0436-4824-b5ee-10e5d3c4e3af.pdf"},{"id":89988208,"identity":"955e09a1-acfc-4b6f-886d-8858040ddc77","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-27 07:03:22","extension":"xlsx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":11347,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 5 (Additional File 1).\u003c/strong\u003e Thematic Breakdown of the Main Suggestions to Improve the Workshop for Future Learners\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"AdditionalFile1.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7310084/v1/ad4582d53b041c6755fc307c.xlsx"},{"id":89988213,"identity":"be76a493-5959-4e21-8d37-e1e92d6cd6bb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-27 07:03:22","extension":"pdf","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":1022489,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"AdditionalFile2.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7310084/v1/0d79739667f5db3a4ebe0134.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Building Research Capacity in the Global South: Insights from a Scientific Writing Workshop","fulltext":[{"header":"Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eScientific writing is the cornerstone of the publication and dissemination of global health research (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). This form of writing is used to express and share new knowledge in a trusted format to advance scientific practice. Researchers in the Global South, particularly in non-native English-speaking regions, face significant hurdles to scientific publication. These investigators need more time to write a paper, have a 2\u0026ndash;3 times higher frequency of language-related manuscript rejection, and have a 12-fold higher frequency of language-related paper revisions (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). Although language editing services exist, they are often out of reach to researchers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) because of financial and other barriers (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). Capacity building in scientific writing for authors from the Global South is an essential component of health equity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eScientific writing workshops are an effective and affordable pathway for improving scientific writing skills in resource-constrained settings (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e). Writing workshops and other writing interventions in LMICs have been shown to enhance the quality and quantity of research output and are foundational to building long-term research capacity. However, these programs face several limitations, including the lack of LMIC-based faculty, sustainability, financial barriers, and a limited number of available writing courses (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e). A lack of effective scientific writing skills has been noted among students and researchers in Rwanda (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo address this gap, the University of Global Health Equity (UGHE), Rwanda, and the Duke Global Health Institute (DGHI), USA co-designed and implemented a scientific writing workshop focused on both the elements of English writing proficiency and the classic elements of scientific writing. The workshop provided a contextualized, hybrid (in-person and online) platform to equip a cross-cultural, multidisciplinary group of young researchers from Rwanda and other countries in the Global South with skills in basic structure, storytelling, and clarity to enhance their scientific writing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis report evaluates the design, implementation, and effectiveness of this scientific writing workshop using quantitative and qualitative data from pre- and post-workshop surveys. The evaluation focused on participants\u0026rsquo; perceptions and reactions (Kirkpatrick\u0026rsquo;s Level One) to the program\u0026rsquo;s outcomes and the integration of user feedback for workshop adaptation.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eStudy Design\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study used a mixed-methods design, combining quantitative pre- and post-workshop surveys and qualitative thematic analysis to evaluate participants\u0026rsquo; experiences and perceived gains.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eSetting\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUGHE was founded in 2015 by the Government of Rwanda and Partners in Health, a global nonprofit organization, to provide global health sciences education. Through its flagship Master of Science in Global Health Delivery and Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery programs, UGHE aims to train global health leaders to create relevant and equitable health solutions. Training at UGHE focuses on strengthening healthcare systems for marginalized communities and addressing healthcare disparities in underserved regions (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRwanda has Kinyarwanda, French, and English as official languages, and only 20.9% of Rwandans aged 15 years and above are proficient in English writing (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e). The most common English proficiency measures in Rwanda are the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) and the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Duke Global Health Institute (DGHI) is committed to innovating in global health research and education. Offering programs ranging from undergraduate to Master of Global Health Science to postdoctoral fellowships, the institute strives to promote global health equity. By educating future leaders, pioneering research, influencing health policy, and forging international partnerships, it tackles health challenges facing underserved communities (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e). DGHI and UGHE have previously partnered to implement several novel education programs for learners from LMICs (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e). The DGHI is within the US context, where English is the primary language.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eBase course and curriculum\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe course design was adapted from an existing scientific writing workshop at DGHI. The base 6-hour workshop consisted of lectures, in-person writing exercises, and readings based on the text by Mimi Zeiger (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e). The workshop emphasized that the goal of writing is clarity, and reviews how clarity can be achieved via the basic components (words, sentences, and paragraphs) as applied to each section of a biomedical research paper. The course was structured around the design of each section of a research paper and included examples of both well and poorly written components. Although students did not write any new text during the workshop, they edited numerous writing examples.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eDesign and Contextualization\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA needs assessment and discussions began in 2022 between faculty at UGHE and DGHI to curate a shared scientific writing workshop as a collaborative initiative. The course was designed to equip learners and emerging researchers from UGHE and the region with applied scientific writing skills. The course contextualization and design were carried out over a series of collaborative meetings over four months involving five UGHE and two DGHI participants (learners, educators, and researchers).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe used Glatthorn\u0026rsquo;s framework for analyzing the curriculum elements and guiding curriculum reform in 4 categories: structure, values, content, and process (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e). We iteratively adjusted the structure, values, content, and process of the baseline DGHI writing course to reflect the context of learners from the Global South. We also used Smith\u0026rsquo;s 1996 framework, which guides curriculum developers to focus on the curriculum as a body of knowledge to be transmitted, an attempt to achieve specific end products, a focus on the process, and praxis (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBuilding on Glatthorn and Smith\u0026rsquo;s models, the foundational workshop curriculum was modified to meet the needs of a diverse, multidisciplinary, and international group of learners (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Our approach took into account the body of knowledge and content to be delivered (including the number and themes of topics) alongside the process and value models we aimed to communicate. In total, we came up with 13 topics whose objectives were clearly defined (Appendix 1). Additionally, we addressed practical and technical considerations such as in-person versus remote participation, internet connectivity issues, the availability of electricity, cultural diversity, and institutional contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe also applied Fair-Trade Learning principles (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e) to ensure equity in workshop adaptation and implementation (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eApplication of Fair-Trade Learning Principles in Workshop Design and Implementation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCommon purposes\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe workshop was designed to be beneficial to UGHE, Duke, and the wider Rwandan scientific communities in alignment with institutional visions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHost Community Program Leadership\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe UGHE Institute of Global Health Equity Research and the Center for Equity in Global Surgery (CEGS) led the planning, execution, and logistics as the in-country partner.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRights of the Most Vulnerable\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGlobal South learners were the focus of the course, and the partners\u0026rsquo; rights were protected. The decision to host the course free of charge and in person in Rwanda rather than teaching online from the U.S. was informed by this priority.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHost Community Program Participation\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUGHE community was positioned as the primary beneficiary of the training, and the workshop was further opened by offering online involvement for individuals in the host community and beyond those who could not be in person.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTheory of Change for the Community and the Participants\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRecognizing gaps in writing skills among LMIC researchers, we designed this course to provide accessible, context-specific training aimed at strengthening research capacity and evidence-based policy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePublications\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe idea for a summary publication was raised early, with a junior female Rwandan faculty member chosen to lead, highlighting gender, location, and career equity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCommunication\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBoth open and closed-loop communication were used, with Global South partners leading publicity and all facilitators acknowledged in materials.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLearning Integration\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRwandan and U.S. faculty designed the workshop to promote cross-cultural learning and personal growth, enabling participants to engage with diverse perspectives and enhance collaboration.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLocal Sourcing, Environmental Impacts, and Economic Structure\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll materials for the workshop were locally sourced, including information technology arrangements, audiovisual aids, etc., and the hybrid modality ensured that there was a limitation of travel for environmental sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eClarity of Commitment and Evaluation of Partnership Success\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe UGHE-DGHI partnership has been consolidated over time, and there is evidence of clarity of commitment through a Memorandum of Understanding and other agreements.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTransparency\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrom the conceptualization of the workshop to analysis of outcomes, UGHE and DGHI ensured a balanced partnership with equal access to resources and opportunities for all members.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePartnership beyond a program\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe UGHE\u0026ndash;DGHI partnership extends beyond this workshop, with their co-taught Global Surgical Care course serving as a model for its design.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eParticipant Selection\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants were eligible if they were students, early-career professionals, or researchers with an interest in scientific writing, primarily from low- and middle-income countries. The workshops were open-access, and participants self-registered through announcements posted on UGHE and DGHI social media platforms (e.g., LinkedIn, X or Twitter).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eScientific writing workshop delivery\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first scientific writing workshop in Rwanda was a two-day, six-hour intensive program held in January 2023, divided into 3 hours each day. The second and third courses were delivered in January 2024 and 2025, respectively, with each a two-day, five-hour intensive program divided into 2.5 hours each day. All workshops were conducted in English and offered to a broad cohort of learners and researchers from a range of biomedical fields in Global South countries.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePre-workshop preparation\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore the delivery of each workshop, the UGHE and DGHI teams delivered a pre-course survey for registered participants on UGHE and DGHI social media platforms, including X and LinkedIn (Appendix 2). The pre-workshop surveys helped register participants for the workshop and collected demographic information and views of participants\u0026rsquo; perceptions of their scientific writing abilities. Pre-reading materials and exercises were also shared with the participants in the second and third workshops to support participants\u0026rsquo; understanding of the scientific writing concepts and to enhance their engagement and preparedness during the sessions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eWorkshop structure\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the first part of each workshop, participants were introduced to the foundational elements of scientific writing, including word choice, sentence and paragraph structure, and the organization of the introduction and methods sections (Appendix 1). The remainder of the workshop focused on the additional components of manuscript organization, including the results, discussion, figures/tables, references, abstract, and title, with an emphasis on the cohesive integration of these sections. Interactive in-class writing exercises were increasingly incorporated in the second and third workshops to facilitate the practical application of complex concepts. The workshop was delivered in a hybrid format, allowing participants to join either via Zoom or in person at the UGHE Butaro campus as well as an array of learners from other countries.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003ePost-workshop\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eFollowing each workshop, a post-workshop survey was conducted to assess participants\u0026rsquo; perceptions of their scientific writing skills and to gather feedback to improve the course for future iterations (Appendix 3). Participants were given post-workshop assignments in the second workshop to allow them to practice and apply the acquired scientific writing skills independently.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eSurvey Procedures\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003ePre- and post-workshop surveys were administered in all three years\u0026mdash;2023, 2024, and 2025\u0026mdash;to assess participants\u0026rsquo; self-perceived scientific writing abilities and gather input on the workshop content and delivery. In the 2023 and 2024 workshops, surveys were collected anonymously and primarily served to guide refinements to the course structure based on participant feedback. Because individual-level responses could not be matched between pre- and post-workshop data, analyses for these years were limited to descriptive statistics and group-level comparisons. In 2025, the survey process was revised to allow for comparison of individual pre- and post-workshop responses while still maintaining participant confidentiality. This adjustment enabled a more robust analysis of changes in participants\u0026rsquo; self-assessed writing skills.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBoth our pre- and post-workshop surveys were designed, administered, and analyzed in alignment with the CROSS (Checklist for Reporting Of Survey Studies) checklist, ensuring methodological rigor, transparency, and clarity in survey design (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e). This approach facilitated a comprehensive evaluation of participants' perceptions of their writing abilities, as well as the effectiveness and outcomes of the workshop, while supporting the integrity of data analysis and reporting processes (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e) (Appendix 4).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis was a descriptive program evaluation of an educational intervention. A formal sample size calculation was not conducted. Instead, all individuals who registered and attended the workshops between 2023 and 2025 were included. The final sample size (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;203) reflects the total number of voluntary participants across the three workshop cohorts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eOutcomes and Variables\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe primary outcomes were participants\u0026rsquo; self-reported scientific writing competencies, including an understanding of the manuscript structure, comfort with manuscript preparation, and ability to adapt skills for resource-constrained settings. These outcomes were measured using Likert-scale responses in pre- and post-workshop surveys. Open-ended responses provided qualitative insights. No exposures, predictors, confounders, or effect modifiers were analyzed, as the focus of this study was on evaluating an educational intervention.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMeasurement and Comparability of Data\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eData were collected through pre- and post-workshop surveys administered electronically before and after each workshop. The surveys included both closed-ended questions using a 5-point Likert scale (Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree) and open-ended questions to capture qualitative insights. The primary variables of interest were assessed through self-reported perceptions of writing competencies (Appendices 2 \u0026amp; 3).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor the 2023 and 2024 workshops, surveys were completed anonymously, limiting comparability at the individual level. In 2025, matched responses were collected while maintaining participant confidentiality, allowing for individual-level comparison using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll participants received the same surveys regardless of participation mode (in-person or online). No differences in administration format or question content were introduced across participant groups or years.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eSurvey Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor the 2023 and 2024 workshops, descriptive statistics were used to summarize trends and percentage changes in participants\u0026rsquo; self-reported knowledge and confidence in scientific writing. In 2025, matched pre- and post-survey data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test to assess the statistical significance of changes in participant responses. A significance level of \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05 was used. Across all three workshops, data were summarized using Kirkpatrick\u0026rsquo;s Level 1 model to capture participant reactions and perceptions, and qualitative feedback was analyzed thematically to inform future improvements to the workshop. Survey data were securely stored on an encrypted platform and analyzed on password-protected and encrypted systems to prevent unauthorized access. Quantitative analysis was conducted via JASP software (Version 0.18.3) [Apple Silicon].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA thematic analysis was conducted on the free-text qualitative responses from the post-workshop survey, which focused on participants\u0026rsquo; perceptions of their scientific writing skills after the workshop and gathered feedback to inform future improvements of the course. Open coding was carried out by one investigator and a research assistant, with any discrepancies resolved through discussion.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNo statistical methods were used to control for confounding, and no subgroup, interaction, or sensitivity analyses were conducted. Missing data were excluded without imputation. The study used a convenience sample without a formal sampling strategy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eEthical Considerations\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e This study received an exemption from the UGHE Health Research Ethics Committee with reference number UGHE-IRB/2025/392-EXE, as it complied with ethical standards for quality improvement initiatives. The study strictly adhered to the ethical guidelines outlined in the Helsinki Declaration for research involving human subjects. Before filling out evaluation forms, all respondents provided documented informed consent. Participants were informed about the study\u0026rsquo;s purpose, procedures, risks, benefits, and rights before participation. They were also assured of the confidentiality of their information, with no personal identifiers collected. Participants were informed that they could withdraw at any time without negative consequences. To minimize bias and protect participants\u0026rsquo; privacy, surveys in 2023 and 2024 were collected anonymously. In 2025, while responses were matched for pre- and post-comparison, confidentiality was maintained through de-identification and secure handling of data. This approach helped reduce social desirability and response bias.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003ePatient and Public Involvement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003ePatients and members of the public were not involved in the design, conduct, reporting, or dissemination plans of this research, as the study focused on evaluating an academic scientific writing workshop targeting early-career health researchers rather than addressing direct patient care or public health interventions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eDemographics\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA total of 203 participants attended the three scientific writing workshops, with 129 joining online and 94 attending in person. Most participants were from Rwanda and surrounding regions (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e and Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDemographic data of registered participants\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDemographic data\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eN\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;187\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSex\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100 (53.5%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e87 (46.5%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrimary residence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRwanda\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e101 (54%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOthers\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMissing\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e78 (41.7%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e8 (4.3%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrimary language\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEnglish\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e124 (66.3%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOthers\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e63 (33.7%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"4\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHighest Level of Education\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePhD\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6 (3.2%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMaster\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e42 (22.5%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMedical\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e48 (25.7%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUndergraduate\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e62 (33.1%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOthers\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMissing\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e21 (11.2%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e8 (4.3%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"4\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLevel of program enrolled in\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePhD\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8 (4.3%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMaster\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e94 (50.3%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMedical\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11 (5.9%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUndergraduate\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e16 (8.5%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOther\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMissing\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e50 (26.7%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e8 (4.3%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMain career goal\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eClinician\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5 (2.7%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eResearch scientist\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e45 (24%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCombined clinician/research\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e116 (62%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOthers\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMissing\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13 (7%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e8 (4.3%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWritten a scientific research manuscript before\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e52 (27.8%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMissing\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e126 (67.4%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e9 (4.8)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003ePre-workshop Survey\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe pre-course survey results (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;178) showed that most participants (79.7%) demonstrated a strong understanding of the need to adapt clinical and discipline-specific skills and practices for resource-constrained settings. Only 57.3% reported having a good understanding of the elements of a scientific paper, and 34.2% were not comfortable with preparing a scientific research manuscript for publication.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSome participants who attended the in-person workshop did not complete the pre-workshop survey, as they joined without filling out the online registration form where the survey was embedded, which contributed to the missing data.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003ePost-workshop Survey\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003ePost-workshop surveys (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;195) revealed high levels of self-reported competencies across several areas (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). A majority of participants (87.6%) reported a strong understanding of the need to adapt clinical or discipline-specific skills and practices for resource-constrained settings. Similarly, 88.2% expressed a good understanding of the elements involved in a scientific research paper.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants\u0026rsquo; perceptions/reactions to their scientific writing abilities before and after the workshop\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSelf-reported Scientific Writing Competencies\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTiming\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStrongly Agree\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e (%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAgree\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e (%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNeutral\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e (%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDisagree\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e (%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStrongly Disagree\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e (%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eI have a good understanding of the need to demonstrate the ability to adapt clinical or discipline-specific skills and practice in a resource-constrained setting.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePre-course (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;178)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e67 (37.6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e75 (42.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e29 (16.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2 (1.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5 (2.8)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePost-course (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;195)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e91 (46.6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e80 (41)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4 (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7 (3.6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13 (6.6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eI have a good understanding of the elements involved in a scientific research paper.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePre-course (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;178)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e24 (13.4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e78 (43.8)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e56 (31.4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e16 (8.9)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4 (2.5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePost-course (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;195)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e112 (57.4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e60 (30.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5 (2.5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5 (2.5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13 (6.6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eI feel comfortable preparing a scientific research manuscript for publication.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePre-course (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;178)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e17 (9.5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e44 (24.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e62 (34.8)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e41 (23%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14 (7.8)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePost-course\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn terms of workshop outcome, 85% of participants indicated that the workshop fulfilled their need to improve scientific writing skills. Additionally, 83% agreed that the workshop's length, content, and style were appropriate for their needs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePre vs. Post Workshop Comparison for 2025.\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMatched comparison of pre- and post-responses from the 2025 workshop was analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). The analysis revealed statistically significant improvements in participants\u0026rsquo; understanding of how to adapt clinical and discipline-specific skills in resource-constrained settings (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), understanding of the elements involved in a scientific research paper (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), and comfort in preparing scientific manuscripts for publication (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe outcome estimates reported (e.g., proportions of Likert scale responses and pre/post comparisons) are unadjusted. No multivariable analyses were performed, and confidence intervals were not calculated due to the descriptive nature of the study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eQualitative analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA thematic analysis of free-text responses on participants' perceived ability to write scientific papers was conducted among 195 respondents (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). Most participants reported increased confidence in their ability to write scientific research papers, while others highlighted improved knowledge and skills in areas such as manuscript structure and research writing tools. Some described feeling empowered and motivated to continue writing, whereas a few emphasized the need for additional practice to fully apply what they had learned.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThematic Summary of Participants\u0026rsquo; Perceived Abilities to Write a Scientific Paper Post-Workshop\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThemes\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuotes\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eConfidence Building\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMany participants mentioned that they felt more confident after attending the workshop, with comments such as \u0026ldquo;confident,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;much more confident,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;more confident,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;confidence has increased.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I feel confident to be able to organize my thoughts and findings.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I am now confident in my capacity to compose a comprehensive scientific research paper.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I have now built confidence in constructing coherent paragraphs.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eKnowledge and Skill Enhancement\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSeveral participants reported improved knowledge and skills in scientific writing, with gains in understanding manuscript structure, scientific concepts, and key tools.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I have improved my basic understanding in structuring a research paper, components of a manuscript, a strong understanding in the formulation of research problem and appropriate research methodology. Topped with proper referencing styles.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I learned how to express complex scientific ideas in a straightforward manner.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;The Journal/Author Name Estimator (JANE) platform is a take-home for me from this workshop.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eEmpowerment and Motivation\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSome participants indicated that the workshop left them feeling empowered and motivated to write and grow as researchers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I feel empowered and capable of writing a solid scientific research paper.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I feel better prepared to write a paper now.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I feel motivated to write on my own with some guidance.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePractical Application and Need for Practice\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA number of participants acknowledged the need for ongoing practice to apply what they had learned.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I believe practice makes perfect and look forward to putting this all into practice.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I feel confident, but I will still need a bit more practice.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;While I have a better grasp of the key components of a scientific research paper, I still feel there's room for improvement. The workshop was a great starting point, but I would benefit from further practice and guidance in areas like data analysis and critical evaluation of existing literature.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePost-workshop recommendations revealed several key themes for enhancing future scientific writing workshops (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). A prominent suggestion was to extend the duration of the workshop, with participants expressing a desire for additional days or longer sessions to allow deeper engagement with the material. Another common recommendation focused on increasing the practical components of the sessions\u0026mdash;participants called for more hands-on exercises, writing activities, and interactive discussions to reinforce skill application.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMentorship and follow-up support also emerged as important, with several participants emphasizing the value of continued guidance beyond the workshop to help them apply what they learned in real time. Additionally, some participants highlighted logistical and accessibility challenges, such as internet connectivity issues and time constraints, and recommended that future workshops be held in person to mitigate these barriers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e[Insert Table\u0026nbsp;5 Here]\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eWorkshop Adaptation\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eBased on participant feedback, we made several key contextual modifications to enhance accessibility and inclusivity. We modified the course content, slide decks, and in-class presentations to remove non-contextual references, incorporated contextual examples, and added relatable anecdotes to make the content more accessible. To accommodate non-native English participants, we simplified the language used and slowed down the course delivery to ensure better comprehension. Additionally, we introduced a practical session with take-home assignments focused on the use of a citation manager, selecting a free and accessible application for all participants. A session on journal selection was also added, with special emphasis on applying for Article Processing Charge waivers. Although the initial workshop was delivered over two three-hour sessions on two days, the second and third workshops were shortened to 2.5-hour sessions on two days. To ensure equitable engagement between in-person and online participants, an online facilitator actively monitored the chat and interacted with participants online in parallel with the in-person discussions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eWe confirmed the feasibility and outcome of an intensive scientific writing workshop designed to improve the writing proficiency of young healthcare researchers from the Global South. We demonstrated that the workshop could be successfully delivered in a hybrid format to accommodate additional participants. This study showed high levels of participants\u0026rsquo; self-reported writing competencies, and outcomes suggesting that this workshop may lead to improved research capacity for early career health researchers in the Global South.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eChallenges of Scientific Writing Workshops in the Global South\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWriting workshops are an important research capacity-building tool for empowering young researchers in the Global South (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e). However, these workshops have limited effectiveness in LMICs due to several barriers. Limited funding for research capacity-building initiatives in LMICs often means that scientific writing workshops, which require resources such as materials, trainers, and infrastructure, are deprioritized (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, there is a lack of experienced scientific mentors in LMICs who can effectively guide early-career researchers in writing and publishing scientific papers (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, language barriers present a substantial challenge, as many young researchers in LMICs are non-native English speakers and the majority of scientific journals are published in English (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur workshop sought to address these challenges by offering a hybrid format, allowing beneficiaries from the UGHE community to attend in person while also extending invitations to young researchers across Rwanda and the Global South who participated online. The hybrid format increased the accessibility of the workshop, enabling participants to join from wherever they were located and removing the burden of travel costs or accommodating those unable to attend in person owing to other constraints. We found that online facilitator was key to interacting with virtual participants and monitoring their contributions in real time. The workshop took place at the UGHE campus, which provided logistical support, including information technology and audiovisual facilitation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe trainers were from both UGHE and DGHI, with extensive experience in writing scientific papers and teaching the basic principles of scientific writing, eliminating the need to outsource trainers. Given that most participants were non-native English speakers, in the second and third iterations of the workshop the language were simplified, and the pace of the workshop was slowed to enhance comprehension. In addition, the materials were revised to make them more context-specific for better engagement and understanding, thus addressing participants\u0026rsquo; needs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eEquity in Course Design, Implementation, and Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThroughout all workshop conception, design, and delivery, DGHI and UGHE partners emphasized equity as a central focus. Equity has been defined as fair treatment, justice, and access to opportunities for all people (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e). We recognized the need for a writing workshop to support the development of writing skills for the UGHE community and young researchers in the Global South. According to the National Science Foundation, countries in the Global North produced six times more publications than those in the Global South (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e). To address this disparity, UGHE and DGHI partners took deliberate steps to empower emerging scholars from LMICs in an equitable fashion. As part of these efforts, a junior female faculty member at UGHE was supported and mentored to develop a publication that disseminated the workshop's findings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo further enhance equity in course design and delivery, we applied the Fair-Trade Learning principle to ensure the active involvement and leadership of the host community, as well as power-balanced collaboration between UGHE and DGHI. This approach is essential for the host community to take ownership of the initiative and ensure that the course aligns with their needs, values, and priorities of their learners (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, during the course design, we ensured that all participants had opportunities for cross-cultural input through interactive sessions with learners from different countries and diverse backgrounds. This approach has been shown to enhance communication, the exchange of ideas, mutual respect, and empathy (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec27\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eInterest in Practical Components and the Need for Mentorship\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe feedback from workshop participants suggests that the program was well received, with participants gaining a better understanding of the elements involved in writing research papers. Participants reported increased confidence, motivation, and skills necessary to write research manuscripts for publication. Similar studies have demonstrated that writing interventions can enhance confidence and writing skills (\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR26\" citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCourse adaptation is key to successful implementation. Many participants expressed the need for more practical components, such as in-class writing exercises and group discussions to enhance their acquired knowledge and skills. Our emphasis on short writing tasks aligns with previous experience in Australia which showed that integrating short writing tasks into a course enhanced writing skills and improved the quality of students\u0026rsquo; final reports (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, the effectiveness of training and mentorship in building research capacity among African researchers is highly effective in bridging research gaps (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec28\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eLimitations\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere are several limitations to our analysis. Although our current report focuses on short-term outcomes, we did not assess the long-term impact of this workshop on participants' scientific productivity. Tracking participants' progress would help evaluate how effectively the skills learned translate into scientific output and influence health equity through research dissemination (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, although participants reported an increase in confidence in scientific writing, a more in-depth assessment of their writing competency would be valuable. Such an evaluation would offer a more comprehensive understanding of the workshop\u0026rsquo;s impact on participants' ability to produce high-quality research and contribute to the scientific literature.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study primarily evaluated participants\u0026rsquo; perceptions and reactions (Kirkpatrick\u0026rsquo;s Level 1) immediately after the workshop. A more extensive analysis would provide deeper insights into how effectively the skills learned translate into concrete research outputs (Kirkpatrick\u0026rsquo;s Levels 2 and 3). Additionally, although the hybrid format provided greater accessibility for workshop participation, there may have been disparities between the experiences of in-person and online participants, particularly in terms of engagement, interaction, and the quality of learning. This could affect the consistency of outcomes for different participant groups. Furthermore, the study relies heavily on self-reported data from participants regarding their scientific writing skills and confidence. This could introduce potential biases, such as overestimation of skills, which may not accurately reflect participants' actual abilities in scientific writing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile this workshop was conducted within the context of UGHE and DGHI collaboration, the findings may be generalizable to similar institutions in low- and middle-income countries that aim to strengthen research capacity. The hybrid delivery model and contextual adaptations make the workshop scalable and replicable in other regions. However, because participation was voluntary and based on self-selection, generalizability to all early-career researchers in the Global South may be limited.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn summary, we successfully designed and implemented a scientific writing workshop tailored for researchers from the Global South. The workshop addressed important challenges faced by non-native English-speaking researchers in scientific writing and publication, such as language barriers, limited access to resources, and mentorship. Through an equitable collaboration between UGHE and DGHI, the program enhanced participants' skills in clarity, structure, and storytelling in scientific manuscripts while emphasizing the need for mentorship, practical exercises, and long-term evaluation of outcomes. This initiative exemplifies an effective approach to building research capacity and promoting equitable access to scientific knowledge dissemination.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eUGHE:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eUniversity of Global Health Equity\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDGHI:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eDuke Global Health Institute\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLMIC:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eLow- and Middle-Income Countries\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCROSS:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eChecklist for Reporting of Survey Studies\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e The study received an exemption from the UGHE Health Research Ethics Committee with ref. UGHE-IRB/2025/392-EXE.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e Not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/strong\u003e The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e The\u0026nbsp;authors declare that they have no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received for the research, authorship, and/or preparation of this manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors' contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis work was a collaborative effort by the UGHE and DGHI teams. BTA, HR, and EN adapted, conceptualized, and delivered this scientific writing workshop, tailoring it to meet the LMIC context based on an existing writing course at DGHI. BTA, PNM, BAF, OO, and DI wrote the manuscripts, with data analysis and interpretation conducted by PNM and GB. HR, BTA, RR, KB, and AB were instrumental in the primary and final manuscript edits. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e Not Applicable.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDonald L. K. Disseminating health research in sub-Saharan Africa through journal partnerships - The Lancet Global Health [Internet]. [cited 2024 Nov 13]. Available from: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X%2813%2970158-X/fulltext\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e7 Features of Scientific Writing (Plus Definition and Tips) | Indeed.com [Internet]. [cited 2024 Nov 13]. Available from: https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/scientific-writing\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThe manifold costs of being a non-native English speaker in science | PLOS Biology [Internet]. [cited 2024 Nov 13]. Available from: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3002184\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEthics of Using Language Editing Services in An Era of Digital Communication and Heavily Multi-Authored Papers [Internet]. [cited 2024 Nov 13]. Available from: http://ouci.dntb.gov.ua/en/works/7X5rYBY4/\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWortman-Wunder E, Wefes I. Scientific Writing Workshop Improves Confidence in Critical Writing Skills among Trainees in the Biomedical Sciences. J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2020 Feb 28;21(1):21.1.5.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBusse CE, Anderson EW, Endale T, Smith YR, Kaniecki M, Shannon C, et al. Strengthening research capacity: a systematic review of manuscript writing and publishing interventions for researchers in low-income and middle-income countries. BMJ Glob Health. 2022 Feb;7(2):e008059.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThe Significance of English Writing Skills on Learners\u0026rsquo; Performance: A Case of Two Secondary Schools in Kicukiro District, Rwanda [Internet]. [cited 2024 Nov 13]. Available from:\u003cbr\u003ehttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/381043851_The_Significance_of_English_Writing_Skills_on_Learners\u0026apos;_\u003cbr/\u003ePerformance_A_Case_of_Two_Secondary_Schools_in_Kicukiro_District_Rwanda\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDeonandan R, Sangwa N, Kanters S, Nsanzimana S. Writing skills enhancement for public health professionals in Rwanda. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2017 Mar 31;8:253.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOur Story [Internet]. UGHE. [cited 2024 Apr 10]. Available from: https://ughe.org/the-story-behind-the-university\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNISR. The Fifth Rwanda Population and Housing Census, Main Indicators Report. National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2025 May 7]. Available from: https://www.statistics.gov.rw/publication/Rwanda_population_2022\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTOEFL iBT Test of English as Foreign Language in Rwanda, TOEFL Registration in Rwanda [Internet]. [cited 2025 Apr 24]. Available from: https://www.rwandaeducation.info/international-tests/toefl\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIELTS in Rwanda, International English Language Testing Systems in Rwanda, IELTS Date in R [Internet]. [cited 2025 Apr 24]. Available from: https://www.rwandaeducation.info/international-tests/ielts/\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOur Institute [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2024 Apr 10]. Available from: https://globalhealth.duke.edu/our-institute\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAlayande BT, Hughes Z, Fitzgerald TN, Riviello R, Bekele A, Rice HE. With equity in mind: Evaluating an interactive hybrid global surgery course for cross-site interdisciplinary learners. PLOS Glob Public Health. 2023 May 4;3(5):e0001778.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZeiger M. Essentials of Writing Biomedical Research Papers, Second Edition.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGlatthorn AA, Boschee F, Whitehead BM, Boschee BF. Curriculum leadership: strategies for development and implementation. Fifth Edition. Los Angeles: SAGE; 2018. 478 p.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSmith MK. Curriculum Theory and Practice By. 2011 Jan 1 [cited 2024 Nov 13]; Available from: https://www.academia.edu/94785149/Curriculum_Theory_and_Practice_By\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAmerson R, Parker-Manderson J, Garrison C, Finleyson S, Kunkle M, Dominguez CRS. Fair Trade Learning Evaluation of a Global Partnership. 13(1).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSharma A, Minh Duc NT, Luu Lam Thang T, Nam NH, Ng SJ, Abbas KS, et al. A Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS). J Gen Intern Med. 2021 Oct;36(10):3179\u0026ndash;87.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAbouzeid M, Muthanna A, Nuwayhid I, El-Jardali F, Connors P, Habib RR, et al. Barriers to sustainable health research leadership in the Global South: Time for a Grand Bargain on localization of research leadership? Health Res Policy Syst. 2022 Dec 19;20(1):136.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMoore AL, Chaisson NF. Development of a Scientific Writing Course to Increase Fellow Scholarship. Sch. 2022 Sep 30;3(3):390.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEQUALITY VS. EQUITY | American Journal of Law and Equality | MIT Press [Internet]. [cited 2024 Nov 15]. Available from: https://direct.mit.edu/ajle/article/doi/10.1162/ajle_a_00019/107229/EQUALITY-VS-EQUITY\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePublications Output: U.S. Trends and International Comparisons | NSF - National Science Foundation [Internet]. [cited 2024 Nov 15]. Available from: https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20214/publication-output-by-country-region-or-economy-and-scientific-field\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGyasi JF, Zheng L, Long M. Reflecting on the Past to Shape the Future: A Systematic Review on Cross-Cultural Collaborative Learning from 2011 to 2020. Sustainability. 2021 Jan;13(24):13890.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBellicoso D, Valenzano TJ, Topolovec-Vranic J. Effectiveness of a manuscript writing workshop on writing confidence amongst nursing and health disciplines clinicians. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci. 2022 Dec;53(4):S79\u0026ndash;84.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFern\u0026aacute;ndez E, Garc\u0026iacute;a AM, Ser\u0026eacute;s E, Bosch F. Students\u0026rsquo; satisfaction and perceived impact on knowledge, attitudes and skills after a 2-day course in scientific writing: a prospective longitudinal study in Spain. BMJ Open. 2018 Jan 1;8(1):e018657.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBalida DAR, Guillergan VV, Hapinat HL. THE EFFECTS OF WORKSHOP INTERVENTION ON RESEARCH WRITING SKILLS. Russ Law J [Internet]. 2023 Apr 7 [cited 2025 May 7];11(3). Available from: https://russianlawjournal.org/index.php/journal/article/view/2045\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTonissen KF, Lee SE, Woods KJ, Osborne SA. Development of Scientific Writing Skills Through Activities Embedded into Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Laboratory Courses.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOronje RN, Mukiira C, Kahurani E, Murunga V. Training and mentorship as a tool for building African researchers\u0026rsquo; capacity in knowledge translation. PLOS ONE. 2022 Mar 31;17(3):e0266106.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDeeming S, Hure A, Attia J, Nilsson M, Searles A. Prioritising and incentivising productivity within indicator-based approaches to Research Impact Assessment: a commentary. Health Res Policy Syst. 2023 Dec 18;21(1):136.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePanaretos J, Malesios C. Assessing a Researcher\u0026rsquo;s Scientific Productivity and Scholarly Impact. In: A Guide to the Scientific Career [Internet]. John Wiley \u0026amp; Sons, Ltd; 2019 [cited 2025 May 7]. p. 69\u0026ndash;79. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118907283.ch9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-medical-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"meed","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Medical Education](http://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/meed/default.aspx","title":"BMC Medical Education","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Scientific writing, research capacity, Global South, LMICs, manuscript preparation, health equity","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7310084/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7310084/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eIntroduction:\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eHealth researchers in the Global South face many barriers to scientific publication, including language limitations, lack of access to mentorship, and minimal training opportunities. Scientific writing workshops offer an affordable and effective method for building research capacity. We aimed to evaluate the design, implementation, and effectiveness of a scientific writing workshop implemented by the University of Global Health Equity (UGHE) in Rwanda and the Duke Global Health Institute (DGHI) for early-career researchers in Rwanda and surrounding regions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e We conducted a mixed-methods program evaluation of a contextualized scientific writing workshop co-designed by UGHE and DGHI from 2023 to 2025 using Glatthorn\u0026rsquo;s and Smith\u0026rsquo;s curriculum frameworks and Fair-Trade Learning principles and delivered three times Pre- and post-workshop surveys assessed participant perceptions (Kirkpatrick Level 1). Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05); qualitative responses underwent thematic analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA total of 203 participants attended (129 online, 94 in person). Pre-workshop data (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;178) showed that 57.3% had a good understanding of scientific writing, and 34.2% felt comfortable preparing a manuscript. Post-workshop surveys (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;195) data showed 87.6% reported having a strong understanding of adapting skills to resource-limited settings, and 88.2% had a good understanding of the manuscript components. Emerging themes included increased confidence, skill enhancement, motivation, and the need for more practice. Participants recommended extending workshop time, adding practical components, and providing mentorship.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e This collaborative workshop enhanced the scientific writing skills and confidence among early-career health researchers in Rwanda and surrounding regions. Grounded in equity and contextual relevance, the workshop addresses barriers in scientific publishing and offers a scalable model for research capacity strengthening in resource-limited settings.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Building Research Capacity in the Global South: Insights from a Scientific Writing Workshop","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-08-27 07:03:17","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7310084/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-09-05T07:34:59+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-08-28T17:25:36+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"327702291523030203086448767497637161313","date":"2025-08-26T07:44:57+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-08-26T05:40:16+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"301990587352281931731783655407386613549","date":"2025-08-26T04:43:47+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-08-25T13:00:47+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-08-25T05:19:07+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"289478717723536953598879489576375841057","date":"2025-08-22T03:49:56+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"94621593374508469356268694138517175683","date":"2025-08-19T06:42:28+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-08-18T18:52:04+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-08-14T03:52:04+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2025-08-13T12:32:32+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-08-13T12:06:52+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Medical Education","date":"2025-08-13T12:03:44+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-medical-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"meed","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Medical Education](http://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/meed/default.aspx","title":"BMC Medical Education","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"cbcb7eb0-316c-4942-a996-86e1628b8f9c","owner":[],"postedDate":"August 27th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-02-16T16:06:55+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-7310084","link":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-08811-w","journal":{"identity":"bmc-medical-education","isVorOnly":false,"title":"BMC Medical Education"},"publishedOn":"2026-02-14 15:58:18","publishedOnDateReadable":"February 14th, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-08-27 07:03:17","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1186/s12909-026-08811-w","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-08811-w","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7310084","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7310084","identity":"rs-7310084","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}