Research Capacity Building: How Training and Mentorship Influence Grant Funding Success Among Health Researchers
Coaching, mentorship and methods training can raise grant submissions and awards, but only if institutions give researchers time and measure the right outcomes. Here is what the evidence shows.
- Who it is for
- Research offices, department heads and early-career health researchers
- Strongest evidence
- Group grant-writing coaching: 41% of submitters funded (US, 545 participants)
- Main weakness of programmes
- Measuring attendance instead of submissions and awards
- What makes it last
- Protected time and institutional support
Quick answer
- Research capacity building means training, mentorship and institutional support that help researchers design, fund and deliver studies.
- In a US programme of 545 early-career investigators, 59% submitted a grant after coaching and 41% of those were funded.
- Most programmes do not track funding outcomes, so their effect is hard to show.
- Results last when institutions add protected time, a grants office and long-term mentoring.
01What research capacity building means
Research capacity building is investment in the skills, structures and relationships that let people and institutions do good research. Cooke’s framework, widely used in health care, assesses it at four levels (individual, team, organisation and network) and against principles such as building skills and confidence, linking research to practice, partnerships, infrastructure and sustainability [1].
For a university or hospital research office, the practical question is narrower: does paying for training and mentoring change how many researchers apply for funding, and how many win it?
02What the evidence shows about grant funding success
The clearest data come from the US National Research Mentoring Network’s Grant Writing Coaching Program, which combined an in-person group session with 4 to 12 months of coaching for early-career investigators [2].
| Measure | Result |
|---|---|
| Early-career investigators coached | 545, from 187 institutions |
| Submitted at least one grant application | 324 (59% of participants) |
| Funded, among those who submitted | 134 (41% of submitters) |
| Grants awarded in total | 164, of which 93 (56%) from the NIH |
| NIH R01-type proposals funded | 16 of 74 (22%), above NIH new-R01 success rates for 2016–2018 |
The study had no control group, so it shows what coached researchers achieved rather than proving the coaching caused it. Still, the award rate for major NIH proposals was above the national benchmark, and the model worked across institutions [2].
Elsewhere the evidence is thinner. A review of 668 indicators used to evaluate research capacity strengthening found that 40% measured outputs, 59.5% outcomes and only 0.5% impact, and just 1% of outcome and impact indicators met basic quality criteria [4]. Most programmes, in other words, cannot show whether they changed funding success.
03Which interventions to fund, and how to measure them
Each grant writing training or research mentorship programme should be set up with an indicator from the start; otherwise its effect on health research funding cannot be shown later.
| Intervention | Intended change | Indicator to track |
|---|---|---|
| Grant-writing coaching in groups | Better proposals and more submissions | Submissions and awards per participant, 12–18 months after |
| Research mentorship | Independence and research leadership | Applications as lead investigator; mentee publications |
| Research methods and biostatistics training | Stronger study design in proposals | Reviewer comments on methods; resubmission success |
| Scientific writing training | Publication record that supports applications | Peer-reviewed outputs per researcher |
| Institutional support (protected time, grants office) | Capacity that outlasts individuals | Grant income and number of active applicants over time |
04Institutional factors that decide whether it works
- Protected time: training without time to write produces skills, not applications.
- A grants office: budgeting, compliance and internal deadlines handled centrally.
- Research collaboration: access to experienced co-investigators and multidisciplinary teams.
- Career stage: early-career researchers usually gain most from coaching and mentorship.
A systematic review of 14 institutional programmes in low- and middle-income countries found that most relied on formal training, a research-friendly environment and research support systems, and most reported publications and PhD numbers as outcomes; none used a theory of change to assess them [3].
05Challenges: resources and sustainability
Programmes need funding, experienced trainers and administrative support, which are hardest to find where capacity is weakest [3]. Many run on short-term grants, so mentoring networks fade when the funding ends. Building research skills development into institutional budgets, and tracking indicators beyond attendance, is what makes the investment visible [3, 4].
Questions
What is research capacity building?
Investment in the skills, structures and partnerships that let people and institutions carry out high-quality research, assessed at individual, team, organisation and network level.
Does grant writing training improve funding success?
Evidence from a large US coaching programme shows high submission and award rates among participants, but without a control group. Few programmes measure funding outcomes at all.
How should institutions measure capacity-building programmes?
Track grant submissions, awards and grant income per participant over 12 to 18 months, not just attendance or satisfaction.
References
- Cooke J. A framework to evaluate research capacity building in health care. BMC Fam Pract. 2005;6:44. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-6-44
- Weber-Main AM, McGee R, Eide Boman K, et al. Grant application outcomes for biomedical researchers who participated in the National Research Mentoring Network’s Grant Writing Coaching Programs. PLoS One. 2020;15(11):e0241851. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241851
- Vicente-Crespo M, Agunbiade O, Eyers J, Thorogood M, Fonn S. Institutionalizing research capacity strengthening in LMICs: a systematic review and meta-synthesis. AAS Open Res. 2021;3:43. https://doi.org/10.12688/aasopenres.13116.3
- Pulford J, Price N, Amegee Quach J, Bates I. Measuring the outcome and impact of research capacity strengthening initiatives: a review of indicators used or described in the published and grey literature. F1000Research. 2020;9:517. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.24144.1
Update log
- Published by Pubrica
How to cite this article
Dr. Charlie. (2026, November 10). Research Capacity Building: How Training and Mentorship Influence Grant Funding Success Among Health Researchers. Pubrica. https://pubrica.com/academy/grant-writing/research-capacity-building-grant-funding-success/
This article is general information for researchers, not legal, regulatory or funding advice. Check the current requirements of your journal, funder, ethics committee or regulator before you act on it.
