Published randomized trials performed in Sub-Saharan Africa focus on high-burden diseases but are frequently funded and led by high-income countries

Global Imbalances in Funding Sources for HIV Randomized Control Trials

Improving access to grant funding is a critical aspect of strengthening research capacity outside of higher income settings, particularly in HIV/AIDS where randomized control trials (RCTs) that require substantial resources are common. In this article, we assessed recent RCTs to examine variation in how studies were funded, depending on study location and the countries where publication authors were based. We conducted a PubMed literature review to identify RCTs with HIV status or viral load endpoints published in 2019 and 2020, then analyzed cross-tabulations of funding sources by study characteristics. One hundred sixteen publications met the inclusion criteria. Research in higher income countries was most likely to be funded by biotech/pharmaceutical companies, whereas research in lower- and middle-income countries was most likely to be funded by U.S. government sources. Overall, we found the distribution of funding sources differed significantly by study and author location (χ2 = 23, p < .001). Published RCTs with HIV status or viral load endpoints are financed differently based on where studies take place and where the authors are based. As part of future research, understanding why this variation exists is critical for assessing how funding contributes to global imbalances in scientific resources.

Systematic analysis of authorship demographics in global surgery

Background

Global surgery has recently gained prominence as an academic discipline within global health. Authorship inequity has been a consistent feature of global health publications, with over-representation of authors from high-income countries (HICs), and disenfranchisement of researchers from low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). In this study, we investigated authorship demographics within recently published global surgery literature.

Methods

We performed a systematic analysis of author characteristics, including gender, seniority and institutional affiliation, for global surgery studies published between 2016 and 2020 and indexed in the PubMed database. We compared the distribution of author gender and seniority across studies related to different topics; between authors affiliated with HICs and LMICs; and across studies with different authorship networks.

Results

1240 articles were included for analysis. Most authors were male (60%), affiliated only with HICs (51%) and of high seniority (55% were fully qualified specialist or generalist clinicians, Principal Investigators, or in senior leadership or management roles). The proportion of male authors increased with increasing seniority for last and middle authors. Studies related to Obstetrics and Gynaecology had similar numbers of male and female authors, whereas there were more male authors in studies related to surgery (69% male) and Anaesthesia and Critical care (65% male). Compared with HIC authors, LMIC authors had a lower proportion of female authors at every seniority grade. This gender gap among LMIC middle authors was reduced in studies where all authors were affiliated only with LMICs.

Conclusion

Authorship disparities are evident within global surgery academia. Remedial actions to address the lack of authorship opportunities for LMIC authors and female authors are required.

Coordination and planning of clinical research on a national and global level

In reproductive medicine, the needs and desires of infertility patients drive future research, with the most important outcome being live birth of a baby. Large, multicenter, randomized clinical trials are considered the best research tool to evaluate the effectiveness of medical interventions, but they can often take a long time to find definitive answers. Advances in individual participant data (IPD) and network meta-analysis have enabled research questions to be answered more quickly, but better planning could streamline this process further. To harmonize research findings that are taking place globally in this way, it is crucial that the same outcomes are collected in clinical trials conducted in reproductive medicine. Furthermore, the conduct of clinical trials often requires collaboration on an international scale; however, individual countries have their own processes for research prioritization and delivery. We describe the perspective of high- and low-resourced settings and industry as well as the mechanisms of prioritization and coordination that are in place in different settings. In addition, we discuss the importance of the patient perspective, which can help shape the research question, clinical trial design, and the logistical operations of trial delivery. The need for increased global collaboration and coalitions within and between stakeholders is evident for the research community to accelerate advances and maximize benefits in reproductive medicine.

Lessons learned from Evidence-Informed Decision-Making in Nutrition & Health (EVIDENT) in Africa: a project evaluation

Background

Evidence-informed Decision-making in Nutrition and Health (EVIDENT) is an international partnership that seeks to identify information needs in nutrition and health in Africa and build local capacity in knowledge management to help translate the best available evidence into context-appropriate recommendations aligned to the priorities of decision-makers. This study evaluates the extent to which EVIDENT achieved its intended activities, documents the lessons learned and draws on these lessons learned to inform future activities of EVIDENT, as well as in evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) in nutrition overall.

Methods

Purposive and snowball sampling were used to identify participants that were either directly or indirectly involved with EVIDENT. An analytical framework of five key elements was developed to guide data collection from EVIDENT’s documentation, in-depth interviews (n = 20), online surveys (n = 26) and a participatory discussion. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded in NVivo 11, using deductive thematic content analysis and a phenomenological approach. Online surveys were analysed using Stata 14. Data were triangulated to address both objectives under each element of the analytical framework.

Results

EVIDENT succeeded in establishing a collaborative partnership, within which it delivered four short courses in EIDM. This capacity complemented case study activities in four partner African countries where EIDM processes were implemented and assessed. Identified barriers to these processes included little experience in EIDM, difficulties in engaging stakeholders, challenging local environments (e.g. donor influence, bureaucracy, inaccessibility to scientific research, poor internet connectivity), and limited time and funding. However, EVIDENT activities were driven by a local need for EIDM, a sheer interest and commitment to the cause, and the opportunity for the Global North and South to work together and build relationships. Future activities of EVIDENT, and EIDM in nutrition overall, should focus on sustained capacity-building in EIDM processes, leadership and functional skills across the Global South, investment in stakeholder engagement, context-specific EIDM, enhanced communication and linking, and strengthening relationships with existing stakeholder organisations.

Conclusions

In its first 3 years, EVIDENT developed and strengthened partnership, capacity and visibility on EIDM in Africa. Innovative and long-term capacity-building, dedicated leadership, further stakeholder engagement and sustainable financing, are needed for future activities of EVIDENT and EIDM in nutrition.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-019-0413-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A scoping review describes methods used to identify, prioritize and display gaps in health research

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Different methods to examine research gaps have been described, but there are still no standard methods for identifying, prioritizing, or reporting research gaps. This study aimed to describe the methods used to identify, prioritize, and display gaps in health research.

METHODS

A scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework was carried out. We included all study types describing or reporting on methods to identify, prioritize, and display gaps or priorities in health research. Data synthesis is both quantitative and qualitative.

RESULTS

Among 1,938 identified documents, 139 articles were selected for analysis; 90 (65%) aimed to identify gaps, 23 (17%) aimed to determine research priorities, and 26 (19%) had both aims. The most frequent methods in the review were aimed at gap identification and involved secondary research, which included knowledge synthesis (80/116 articles, 69%), specifically systematic reviews and scoping reviews (58/80, 73%). Among 49 studies aimed at research prioritization, the most frequent methods were both primary and secondary research, accounting for 24 (49%) reports. Finally, 52 (37%) articles described methods for displaying gaps and/or priorities in health research.

CONCLUSION

This study provides a mapping of different methods used to identify, prioritize, and display gaps or priorities in health research.

A mapping of 115,000 randomized trials revealed a mismatch between research effort and health needs in non-high-income regions

BACKGROUND

Concerns exist as to whether the allocation of resources in clinical research is aligned with public health needs. We evaluated the alignment between the effort of clinical research through the conduct of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and health needs measured as the burden of diseases for all regions and a broad range of diseases.

METHODS

We grouped countries into seven regions and diseases into 27 groups. We mapped all RCTs initiated between 2006 and 2015 that were registered at the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to regions and diseases. The burden of diseases in 2005 was mapped as disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), based on the 2010 Global Burden of Diseases study. Within regions, we defined a research gap when the proportion of RCTs concerning a disease in the region was less than half the relative burden of the disease.

RESULTS

We mapped 117,180 RCTs planning to enroll 42.6 million patients and 2,220 million DALYs. In high- versus non-high-income countries, 130.9 versus 6.9 RCTs per million DALYs were conducted. We did not identify any research gap in high-income countries. We identified research gaps for all other regions. In particular, for Sub-Saharan Africa, we identified research gaps for common infectious diseases (CID) and neonatal disorders (ND): 5.8% (95% uncertainty interval 4.7-6.9) and 2.0% (0.9-4.5) of RCTs in Sub-Saharan Africa concerned CID and ND, although these diseases represented 22.9% and 11.6% of the burden in the region, respectively. For South Asia, we identified research gaps for the same two groups of diseases.

CONCLUSIONS

In non-high-income regions, the conduct of RCTs was misaligned with the distribution of major causes of burden, in particular infectious diseases and neonatal disorders in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.

Avoidable waste related to inadequate methods and incomplete reporting of interventions: a systematic review of randomized trials performed in Sub-Saharan Africa

Background

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to improve health care in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). However, inadequate methods and incomplete reporting of interventions can prevent the transposition of research in practice which leads waste of research. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the avoidable waste in research related to inadequate methods and incomplete reporting of interventions in RCTs performed in SSA.

Methods

We performed a methodological systematic review of RCTs performed in SSA and published between 1 January 2014 and 31 March 2015. We searched PubMed, the Cochrane library and the African Index Medicus to identify reports. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and for each risk of bias item, determined whether easy adjustments with no or minor cost could change the domain to low risk of bias. The reporting of interventions was assessed by using standardized checklists based on the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials, and core items of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication. Corresponding authors of reports with incomplete reporting of interventions were contacted to obtain additional information. Data were descriptively analyzed.

Results

Among 121 RCTs selected, 74 (61%) evaluated pharmacological treatments (PTs), including drugs and nutritional supplements; and 47 (39%) nonpharmacological treatments (NPTs) (40 participative interventions, 1 surgical procedure, 3 medical devices and 3 therapeutic strategies). Overall, the randomization sequence was adequately generated in 76 reports (62%) and the intervention allocation concealed in 48 (39%). The primary outcome was described as blinded in 46 reports (38%), and incomplete outcome data were adequately addressed in 78 (64%). Applying easy methodological adjustments with no or minor additional cost to trials with at least one domain at high risk of bias could have reduced the number of domains at high risk for 24 RCTs (19%). Interventions were completely reported for 73/121 (60%) RCTs: 51/74 (68%) of PTs and 22/47 (46%) of NPTs. Additional information was obtained from corresponding authors for 11/48 reports (22%).

Conclusion

Inadequate methods and incomplete reporting of published SSA RCTs could be improved by easy and inexpensive methodological adjustments and adherence to reporting guidelines.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2034-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.