KnowHub Repository
KnowHub is a corporate knowledge base that provides the system to identify, capture and publish the most critical organizational knowledge products, both tacit and explicit.
Explore Collections on KnowHub
Communities in Knowhub
Select a community to browse its collections.
Recent Submissions
Item type: Item , Access status: Metadata only , A Scholarship, a Vision, and a Web Tool: Transforming Genomic Analysis(APHRC, 2026) Neumbe, D.; Awuor, D.; Wao, H.; Waithaka, A.This article recounts the experience of Deborah Neumbe, the first recipient of the Pauline Bakibinga Memorial Scholarship, established by APHRC in 2022 to support promising female master's students in East Africa pursuing research in digital health. The scholarship-supported project, rMAP-WEB, transformed a command-line bioinformatics tool for bacterial genomic analysis into a user-friendly web platform. The tool generates antimicrobial resistance (AMR) profiles, making it a valuable resource for AMR surveillance by health workers and public health researchers. By making the tool more accessible, the project bridges the gap between data generation and practical decision-making in healthcare, supporting APHRC's vision of transforming lives in Africa through research and innovation. The author reflects on the journey from application through fellowship to completion, highlighting the technical challenges of integrating software tools, the mentorship received, and the user training workshop organized for potential end-users including bioinformatics students, medical doctors, nurses, and molecular biologists. Looking ahead, the author aspires to expand rMAP-WEB to include additional pathogens of public health importance and to pursue a PhD focusing on tools that make genomic surveillance more accessible in AfricaItem type: Item , Access status: Metadata only , Editorial Practices of African Journals: A Qualitative Analysis from Kenya, Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Mozambique(Gates Open Research, 2026) Amboka, P.; Krugman, D.; Simiyu, A.; Kariuki, H.; Ondiek, B.; Orobaton, N.; Igonya, E.; Neba, A.; Vicente-Crespo, M.; Kirimi, S. J.Information on journal visibility helps researchers decide where to publish. Some quality indicators used are directly associated with the journal's editorial practices. By understanding the barriers, challenges, and opportunities, this study aims to explore existing editorial practices among African journals, examine the underlying factors affecting those practices, and understand the views and preferences of authors regarding their choice of journals for publication. This study triangulated multiple sources of information and qualitative data-gathering techniques to allow for nuanced and deeper insights into the performance and visibility of African journals. In-depth Interviews (IDIs), Key Informant Interviews (KIIs), and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were conducted in Kenya, Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Mozambique. The study population comprised journal editors-in-chief, representatives from African-wide journal databases and indexers, institutional repository representatives, and authors. A purposive sampling technique was used to identify participants. Qualitative data from audio-recorded interviews were transcribed and exported to NVivo software for analysis using reflexive thematic analysis, with emerging concepts further analyzed using Leximancer software. Four main themes emerged from participant interviews. The study found that a large proportion of African journals are neither discoverable via Google Scholar nor included in Scopus, and that overcoming historical neglect through sustainable funding, capacity building, and technological advancement will be key to enhancing their global visibility, trust, and academic impactItem type: Item , Access status: Metadata only , Development of a Multidimensional Deprivation Index for Emerging Municipalities and Cities in Uganda(Springer, 2026) Kananura, R. M.; Birabwa, C.; Sabiti, B.; Ssanyu, J. N.; Nyandwi, A.; Mutua, M.; Faye, C. M.; Waiswa, P.This study advances the measurement of urban living standards deprivation by developing a context-specific multidimensional deprivation index and estimating the extent of deprivation in Uganda's newly gazetted municipalities and cities. The analysis draws on household listing data collected in November 2021 from 5,987 households in Jinja City and Iganga Municipality. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to identify latent deprivation dimensions and to validate the measurement structure. Using a factor loading threshold of 0.50, six interrelated dimensions of urban deprivation were identified, jointly explaining 70% of the total variance: access to electricity, financial and communication access, adequate dwelling occupancy, improved sanitation facilities, clean water access, and housing structural quality. Sampling adequacy was confirmed (Kaiser�Meyer�Olkin statistic = 0.75; Bartlett's test of sphericity, p < 0.001), and the confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated excellent model fit (Tucker�Lewis Index = 0.959; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation = 0.037). Overall, 97% and 93% of households were deprived in at least two and three dimensions, respectively. The multidimensional deprivation index was 17%, with 32% of the population classified as multidimensionally deprived and an average deprivation intensity of 52%. Substantial intra-urban variation was observed, with Jinja City recording a markedly higher level of deprivation than Iganga Municipality. Multidimensionally deprived households were predominantly characterized by residence in single-room dwellings, reliance on highly shared and unimproved sanitation facilities, substandard housing materials, and lack of electricity access. These findings reveal pervasive and overlapping deprivations in Uganda's emerging urban centers and challenge assumptions of uniform urban advantage. They underscore the need for integrated, multisectoral, and data-driven urban development strategies to ensure equitable access to essential services as urbanization accelerates, particularly in rapidly growing secondary cities.Item type: Item , Access status: Metadata only , Peer Review: A Strategic Edge for Winning High-Value Health Research Grants(APHRC, 2026) Mbuyi, M.; Ochieng, P.; Kayira, S.Securing high-value health research grants requires more than sound science it demands rigorous proposal development processes, including structured peer review. This article reflects on the experiences of researchers at the African Population and Health Research Center (APHRC), where strong proposals have at times failed at the screening stage due to misalignment with donor remits and the absence of adequate internal peer review. Peer review is defined as a structured, objective evaluation of a proposal by a multidisciplinary team that helps identify weaknesses, gaps, and misalignments that proposal authors may overlook. APHRC's Research Governance Framework (RGF) already mandates that all proposals undergo scientific review by at least two peer reviewers with relevant expertise before submission, and that proposals be submitted for review at least two weeks before the funder's deadline. The article argues that peer review should be embedded as a core institutional practice and competitive advantage, helping researchers address common causes of proposal rejection such as poor alignment with funder goals, weak methodology, unrealistic budgets, and lack of innovation. It also acknowledges that proposal success depends on a broader ecosystem of factors beyond institutional control, including shifting donor strategies, competitive funding ratios, and geopolitical considerations. The Business Development team at APHRC is positioned to mainstream peer review into proposal pipelines, develop simplified review templates, and generate data-driven evidence of the value peer review adds to grant success rates.Item type: Item , Access status: Metadata only , CARTA Fellow Leads Uganda's Clinical Trial for Twice-Yearly Injectable HIV Prevention(CARTA, 2026) Waithaka, A.; Omumbo, G.Securing high-value health research grants requires more than sound science it demands rigorous proposal development processes, including structured peer review. This article reflects on the experiences of researchers at the African Population and Health Research Center (APHRC), where strong proposals have at times failed at the screening stage due to misalignment with donor remits and the absence of adequate internal peer review. Peer review is defined as a structured, objective evaluation of a proposal by a multidisciplinary team that helps identify weaknesses, gaps, and misalignments that proposal authors may overlook. APHRC's Research Governance Framework (RGF) already mandates that all proposals undergo scientific review by at least two peer reviewers with relevant expertise before submission, and that proposals be submitted for review at least two weeks before the funder's deadline. The article argues that peer review should be embedded as a core institutional practice and competitive advantage, helping researchers address common causes of proposal rejection such as poor alignment with funder goals, weak methodology, unrealistic budgets, and lack of innovation. It also acknowledges that proposal success depends on a broader ecosystem of factors beyond institutional control, including shifting donor strategies, competitive funding ratios, and geopolitical considerations. The Business Development team at APHRC is positioned to mainstream peer review into proposal pipelines, develop simplified review templates, and generate data-driven evidence of the value peer review adds to grant success rates.