Collaborative healthcare research: some ethical considerations

Striving towards true equity in global health: A checklist for bilateral research partnerships

Interest in "global health" among schools of medicine, public health, and other health disciplines in high-income countries (HIC) continues to rise. Persistent power imbalances, racism, and maintenance of colonialism/neocolonialism plague global health efforts, including global health scholarship. Scholarly projects conducted in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) by trainees at these schools in HIC often exacerbate these problems. Drawing on published literature and shared experiences, we review key inequalities within each phase of research, from design through implementation and analysis/dissemination, and make concrete and practical recommendations to improve equity at each stage. Key problems facing global health scholarship include HIC-centric nature of global health organizations, paucity of funding directly available for LMIC investigators and trainees, misplaced emphasis on HIC selected issues rather than local solutions to local problems, the dominance of English language in the scientific literature, and exploitation of LMIC team members. Four key principles lie at the foundation of all our recommendations: 1) seek locally derived and relevant solutions to global health issues, 2) create paired collaborations between HIC and LMIC institutions at all levels of training, 3) provide funding for both HIC and LMIC team members, 4) assign clear roles and responsibilities to value, leverage, and share the strengths of all team members. When funding for global health research is predicated upon more ethical and equitable collaborations, the nature of global health collaborations will evolve to be more ethical and equitable. Therefore, we propose the Douala Equity Checklist as a 20-item tool HIC and LMIC institutions can use throughout the conduct of global health projects to ensure more equitable collaborations.

Informing 'good' global health research partnerships: A scoping review of guiding principles

Background: Several sets of principles have been proposed to guide global health research partnerships and mitigate inequities inadvertently caused by them. The existence of multiple sets of principles poses a challenge for those seeking to critically engage with and develop their practice. Which of these is best to use, and why? To what extent, if any, is there agreement across proposed principles?Objective: The objectives of this review were to: (1) identify and consolidate existing documents and principles to guide global health research partnerships; (2) identify areas of overlapping consensus, if any, regarding which principles are fundamental in these partnerships; (3) identify any lack of consensus in the literature on core principles to support these partnerships.Methods: A scoping review was conducted to gather documents outlining 'principles' of good global health research partnerships. A broad search of academic databases to gather peerreviewed literature was conducted, complemented by a hand-search of key global health funding institutions for grey literature guidelines.Results: Our search yielded nine sets of principles designed to guide and support global health research partnerships. No single principle recurred across all documents reviewed. Most frequently cited were concerns with mutual benefits between partners (n = 6) and equity (n = 4). Despite a lack of consistency in the inclusion and definition of principles, all sources highlighted principles that identified attention to fairness, equity, or justice as an integral part of good global health research partnerships.Conclusions: Lack of consensus regarding how principles are defined suggests a need for further discussion on what global health researchers mean by 'core' principles. Research partnerships should seek to interpret the practical meanings and requirements of these principles through international consultation. Finally, a need exists for tools to assist with implementation of these principles to ensure their application in research practice.

Habiliter l’ergothérapeute-chercheur à résoudre les enjeux éthiques de la recherche

La recherche est une occupation propice à l’émergence d’enjeux éthiques, en outre parce qu’elle est liée à des conflits d’intérêts parfois difficiles à gérer et se réalise dans un contexte hautement compétitif qui valorise la performance. Alors que les enjeux éthiques de la pratique clinique de l’ergothérapie commencent à être documentés, les enjeux éthiques vécus par les chercheurs en ergothérapie et les moyens qu’ils utilisent pour gérer ces enjeux ne sont quasiment pas documentés. Cet article présente les résultats d’une étude qualitative qui a documenté les moyens (macro, méso et micro) qui sont proposés par des ergothérapeutes-chercheurs pour résoudre les enjeux éthiques de la recherche. Onze ergothérapeutes (n=11) ont participé à la recherche et partagent les moyens qu’ils utilisent ou envisagent pour gérer les enjeux éthiques de la recherche qu’ils vivent comme chercheur. Les moyens proposés par les ergothérapeutes rejoignent plusieurs moyens suggérés dans les écrits, quoique certains moyens proposés dans les écrits relatifs à la relation à établir avec les participants de recherche soient peu abordés par les participants, ce qui est surprenant compte tenu des valeurs humanistes au fondement de la profession d’ergothérapeute. Au final, cet article qui présente une synthèse à la fois des moyens répertoriés dans des écrits pour résoudre les enjeux éthiques de la recherche et ceux discutés par les participants vise à habiliter l’ergothérapeute-chercheur à résoudre les enjeux que pose la recherche académique tout en restant fidèle aux valeurs de la profession.

Visualization of knowledge flow in interpersonal scientific collaboration network endocrinology and metabolism research institute

Purpose

Research collaborations can help to increase scientific productivity. The purpose of the present study was to draw up the knowledge flow network of the Endocrinology and Metabolism Research Institute (EMRI) affiliated to Tehran University of Medical Sciences.

Methods

The present study is a descriptive cross-sectional study on the publications of the EMRI. Web of Science Core collection databases were searched for the EMRI publications between 2002 to November 2019. Besides, publications were classified and visualized based on authorships (institutes and country of affiliation), and keywords (co-occurrence and trend). Scientometric methods including VOSviewer and HistCite were used for descriptive statistics and data analysis.

Results

Total citations to the records were 47,528 and papers were published in 916 journals. The annual growth rate of publications and the citation was 14.2% and 18.9%, respectively. A total of 9466 authors from 136 countries collaborated in the publications. The co-authorship patterns showed that the average co-authorship and collaboration coefficient was 3.3 and 0.19.

Conclusion

Knowledge flow between EMRI researchers with international collaborations, engagement with leading countries, and interdisciplinary collaborations have an increasing trend. To develop a full picture of co-authorship, using social network analysis indicators are suggested for future studies.

The Role of Collaborative Healthcare in Improving Social Sustainability: A Conceptual Framework

Healthcare systems around the world face both increasing demands and inequality in service distribution. The current trend is for collaboration among healthcare actors, named as collaborative healthcare, in order to address challenges such as these to improve the social sustainability of the system. That is to provide accessible and equitable healthcare services to meet people’s health and well-being needs. Based on an integrative literature review, this study aims at crafting a conceptual framework to explore how collaborative healthcare networks contribute to social sustainability and the specific actors involved in these collaborations. It identifies relationships between different collaborative healthcare networks and social sustainability. Interprofessional networks have been the most studied in relation to social sustainability. Communication and sharing information or knowledge have been identified as used collaborative healthcare practices. This study contributes theoretically by considering a new model of the healthcare organization in which collaborative networks play a central role in improving social sustainability. In terms of practical implications, the study provides managers and policy makers with investment insights on a range of collaborative networks and practices.

Fieldwork challenges: lessons learned from a north-south public health research partnership

The value of collaborative international research in addressing global public health challenges is increasingly recognized. However, little has been written about lessons learned regarding fieldwork to help guide future collaborative efforts. Through a research partnership between two Northern universities, one Southern university, and a Southern faith-based organization, we evaluated a school-based HIV prevention intervention with South African adolescents. In this article, we highlight the seven key fieldwork-related challenges experienced and identify the lessons learned. The underlying theme is that of reconciling a structured and reasoned "desk" planning process with the more fluid and unpredictable reality of conducting fieldwork. This concern is particularly significant in resource-deprived environments and/or contexts that are less familiar to Northern partners. Fieldwork is unpredictable, but obstacles can be minimized through meaningful participation in both planning and field research. Sharing practical lessons from the field can prove a useful resource for both researchers and practitioners.

Research ethics II: Mentoring, collaboration, peer review, and data management and ownership

PURPOSE

In this series of articles--Research Ethics I, Research Ethics II, and Research Ethics III--the authors provide a comprehensive review of the 9 core domains for the responsible conduct of research (RCR) as articulated by the Office of Research Integrity. In Research Ethics II, the authors review the RCR domains of mentoring, collaboration, peer review, and data management and ownership.

METHOD

They relied on authoritative documents, both historical and contemporary, insightful commentary, and empirical research in order to identify current issues and controversies of potential interest to both faculty and students.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors close by urging readers to stay abreast of the manifold ethics issues facing today's community of scientists, policymakers, and research institutions, and to adhere to best practices as they evolve.