Advancing equitable global health research partnerships in Africa

POETIC (Program for Enhanced Training in Cancer): An Initial Experience of Supporting Capacity Building for Oncology Training in Sub-Saharan Africa

BACKGROUND

Sub-Saharan Africa is simultaneously facing a rising incidence of cancer and a dearth of medical professionals because of insufficient training numbers and emigration, creating a growing shortage of cancer care. To combat this, Massachusetts General Hospital and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center partnered with institutions in South Africa, Tanzania, and Rwanda to develop a fellowship exchange program to supplement the training of African oncologists practicing in their home countries.

METHODS

In its initial year, 2018, the Program for Enhanced Training in Cancer (POETIC) hosted a pilot cohort of seven fellows for 3-week observerships in their areas of interest. Researchers distributed questionnaires for program evaluation to participants prior to arrival and upon departure; additionally, three participated in semistructured interviews.

RESULTS

Five themes emerged from the qualitative data: expectations of POETIC, differences between oncology in the U.S. and in sub-Saharan Africa, positive elements of the program, areas for improvement, and potential impact. Fellows identified several elements of Western health care that will inform their practice: patient-centered care; clinical trials; and collaboration among medical, radiation, and surgical oncologists. From the quantitative data, feedback was primarily around logistical areas for improvement.

CONCLUSION

POETIC was found to be feasible and valuable. The results from the pilot year justify the program's continuation in hopes of strengthening global health partnerships to support oncology training in Africa. One weakness is the small number of fellows, which will limit the impact of the study and the relevance of its conclusions. Future research will report on the expansion of the program and follow-up with former participants.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This work presents a novel model for fellowship exchange between lower- and higher-resourced areas. The program is a short-term observership with tumor boards and didactic teaching sessions incorporated. By attracting oncologists who aim to practice in their home countries, it facilitates international collaboration without contributing to the preexisting lack of medical professionals in low- and middle-income countries.

Investing in health R&D: where we are, what limits us, and how to make progress in Africa

Global research and development (R&D) pipelines for diseases that disproportionately affect African countries appear to be inadequate, with governments struggling to prioritise investment in R&D. This article provides insights into the sources of investment in health science research, available research capacity and level of research output in Africa. The African region comprises 15% of the world’s population, yet only accounted for 1.1% of global investments in R&D in 2016. There were substantial disparities within the continent, with Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa contributing 65.7% of the total R&D spending. In most countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the largest source of R&D funding is the private sector. R&D in Africa is mainly funded by the public sector, with significant proportions of financing in many countries coming from international funding. Challenges that limit private sector investment include unstable political environments, poor governance and corruption. Evidence suggests various research output and research capacity limitations in Africa when considering a global context. Metrics that reflect this include university rankings, number of researchers, number of publications, clinical trials networks and pharmaceutical manufacturing capacity. Within the continent there are substantial regional disparities. Incentivising investment is crucial to foster current and future research output and research capacity. This paper outlines some of the many commendable initiatives under way. Innovative and collaborative financing mechanisms can stimulate further investment. Given the vast inequalities across Africa in R&D, strategies need to reflect the different capacities of countries to address this disparity.

Contemporary issues in north-south health research partnerships: perspectives of health research stakeholders in Zambia

Background

The late 1990s and early 2000s have seen a growth in north–south health research partnerships resulting from scientific developments such as those in genetic studies and development of statistical techniques and technological requirements for the analysis of large datasets. Despite these efforts, there is inadequate information representing the voice of African researchers as stakeholders experiencing partnership arrangements, particularly in Zambia. Furthermore, very little attention has been paid to capturing the practice of guidelines within partnerships. In this paper, we present achievements and highlight challenges faced by southern partners in north–south health research partnerships.

Methods

A qualitative inquiry was employed using in-depth interviews developed using the Bergen Model of Collaborative Functioning with 20 key informants in Lusaka district in Zambia purposively sampled from a wide range of health research partnerships.

Results

Partnerships produce benefits for southern partners, including evidence generation to influence policy, improved service delivery, infrastructure development and designing interventions to improve the healthcare of populations in greatest need. Most importantly, through partnerships, there is availability of financial resources to accomplish partnership goals. For success to be achieved, there must be effective communication and leadership, values and accountability that go into the process of partnership functioning. Trust interacts with different elements that create partnerships where there is co-ownership of study rewards. Challenging aspects of the interaction are largely due to funding mechanisms where 90% of the funding for health research is from northern partners. This funding mechanism results in power imbalances that lead to publication challenges, dictation of research agenda and ownership of samples and data leading to a general lack of motivation to collaborate.

Conclusion

Mistrust has implications on joint working such that partners find it difficult to work together and produce results greater than their individual efforts. Property rights and resource sharing must be resolved early in the partnership and each partner’s contributions recognised. These findings highlight areas that partnerships need to focus on to make the most of guidelines on research partnership with developing countries.