Epistemic injustice in academic global health

Achieving Equity Through Global Neurosurgery Research

Since the release of the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery report in 2015, there has been an increase in the number of published papers on global neurosurgery, gaining widespread support from major neurosurgery journals. However, there remains no consensus on what may be considered part of global neurosurgery literature. Here, we propose that global neurosurgery research encompasses all scholarly work that measure, explore, or address inequity in the care of neurosurgical disease. We describe the growth of global neurosurgery research, cite landmark papers, and discuss barriers to participation, particularly among neurosurgeons in low- and middle-income countries. We introduce the 3Rs framework, advocating for global neurosurgery research that is rigorous, responsive, and responsible. This narrative review aims to guide young neurosurgeons and other researchers interested in the field, and to provide a framework through which global neurosurgery practitioners and advocates can evaluate previously accomplished work, paving the way toward neurosurgery that is timely, safe, and affordable to all.

Transforming global health: decoloniality and the human condition

The field of global health is at a pivotal moment of transformation. Decoloniality has emerged as a critical framework to assess and transform the pathologies that mark the field. These pathologies include the inequitable sharing of resources, the power hierarchies that entrench decision-making in institutions largely based in North America and Europe and the general predisposition towards paternalistic and exploitative interactions and exchange between North and South. The energy being generated around this transformative moment is widening circles of participation in the discourse on what transformation should look like in the field. The importance of decoloniality cannot be overstated in driving the transformative agenda. At the same time, the popularity of decoloniality as a critical framework may risk omissions in our understanding of the origins of injustice and the pathways to a new global health. To complement the work being done to decolonise global health, I illustrate how the 'human condition' intersects with the transformative agenda. By human condition, I mean the universal features of humanity that lead to oppression and those that lead to cooperation, unity and a shared humanity.

Expanding Bystander Behavioral Approaches to Address Racial Violence in Health Research, Pedagogy, and Practice

A bystander to racial violence is conventionally thought of as someone who witnesses an overt act of racial oppression at the interpersonal level, such as police brutality. However, racial violence in health research, pedagogy, and practice often shows up more covertly, like through epistemic injustice, deficits-based framing, and racial essentialism. We aim to expand how we think about bystanders and perpetrators of racial violence within health institutions, and how antiracism bystander behavioral approaches can be deployed to intervene against such violence. Existing public health antiracism frameworks, such as the Public Health Critical Race Praxis and the PEN-3 Cultural Model, offer valuable constructs and processes through which health practitioners, researchers, and academics can disrupt racial violence. Such antiracism frameworks are well suited to provide individuals within public health and health care with the knowledge, skills, and efficacy to intervene as engaged bystanders against racism within their contexts. To illustrate how constructs within antiracism frameworks can be applied by bystanders in various health settings, we outline case examples of antiracism bystander interventions across three scenarios. The more bystanders there are within health institutions that are equipped with antiracism tools, the more likely normative behaviors uplifting White supremacy within these institutions can be disrupted and health equity can be actualized.

"Hope is being stirred up": Critical consciousness in gender-based violence interventions

Gender-based violence (GBV) research in public health has historically paid close attention to gender as a system of oppression, with less attention paid to the intersections between gender and other oppressive systems such as colonialism, white supremacy, and capitalism. In 2019, we adapted and pilot-tested an individual-level evidence-based sexual violence resistance intervention for university-attending women in Eswatini. We conducted a qualitative assessment of our adapted intervention's acceptability and feasibility using a critical pedagogy lens to explore how power operated in delivering an empowerment intervention, using in-depth interviews with intervention participants and facilitators. We analyzed interview transcripts thematically guided by a critical pedagogy framework and organized emergent themes into a concept map with two primary axes: participant-researcher-driven power and proximal-distal determinants. We located participant experiences with the intervention within three quadrants defined by these axes: 1) "Prescriptive," in which the researcher or facilitator primarily controls the content and delivery, with a principal focus on proximal risk reduction strategies; 2) "Solidarity," which emphasizes fostering critical consciousness among facilitators and intervention participants through dialogue, building collective power through participant-driven discussions of individual experiences; and 3) "Liberation," in which participants critically examined the power structures that underpinned their lived experiences, and expressed a desire to transform these in ways the intervention was not designed to address. These three quadrants suggest the existence of a fourth quadrant, "paternalistic," - in which the interventionist seeks to didactically educate participants about structural drivers of their own experience. Our analysis highlights a fundamental tension in the epistemology of GBV research: While there is a clear consensus that 'empowerment' is a necessary component of successful GBV interventions, "liberatory" approaches that cede power to participants are inherently antithetical to the scripted approach typically required for consistent replication in randomized control trials or other 'gold-standard' approaches for post-positivist evidence generation.

How "global" is research in early intervention for psychosis? A bibliometric analysis

INTRODUCTION

Unlike high-income countries (HICs), there are few early intervention services for psychosis in low-and middle-income countries (LAMICs). In HICs, research spurred the growth of such services. Little is known about the state of EIP research in LAMICs, which we address by examining their research output and collaborations vis-à-vis that of HICs.

METHODS

We conducted a search in Scopus database for early psychosis publications in scientific journals since 1980. Data from each record, including title, author affiliation, and date, were downloaded. For HIC-LAMIC collaborations, data on first, corresponding and last authors' affiliations, and funding were manually extracted. Descriptive statistics and social network analysis were conducted.

RESULTS

Globally, early psychosis publications increased from 24 in 1980 to 1297 in 2022. Of 16,942 included publications, 16.1 % had LAMIC authors. 71.3 % involved authors from a single country (regardless of income level). 21.9 % were collaborations between HICs, 6.6 % between HICs and LAMICs, and 0.2 % among LAMICs. For research conducted in LAMICs and involving HIC-LAMIC collaborations, the first, last, and corresponding authors were LAMIC-based in 71.8 %, 60.7 %, and 63.0 %, respectively. These positions were dominated (80 %) by authors from four LAMICs. 29.4 % of the HIC-LAMIC subset was funded solely by LAMIC funders, predominantly two LAMICs.

CONCLUSIONS

LAMICs are starkly underrepresented in the otherwise flourishing body of early psychosis research. They have far fewer collaborations and less funding than HICs. Closing these gaps in LAMICs where most of the world's youth live is imperative to generate the local knowledge needed to strengthen early psychosis services that are known to improve outcomes.

Race Dialogues and Potential Application in Clinical Environments: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Race dialogues, conversations about race and racism among individuals holding different racial identities, have been proposed as one component of addressing racism in medicine and improving the experience of racially minoritized patients. Drawing on work from several fields, we aimed to assess the scope of the literature on race dialogues and to describe potential benefits, best practices, and challenges of conducting such dialogues. Ultimately, our goal was to explore the potential role of race dialogues in medical education and clinical practice.

METHODS

Our scoping review included articles published prior to June 2, 2022, in the biomedicine, psychology, nursing and allied health, and education literatures. Ultimately, 54 articles were included in analysis, all of which pertained to conversations about race occurring between adults possessing different racial identities. We engaged in an interactive group process to identify key takeaways from each article and synthesize cross-cutting themes.

RESULTS

Emergent themes reflected the processes of preparing, leading, and following up race dialogues. Preparing required significant personal introspection, logistical organization, and intentional framing of the conversation. Leading safe and successful race dialogues necessitated trauma-informed practices, addressing microaggressions as they arose, welcoming participation and emotions, and centering the experience of individuals with minoritized identities. Longitudinal experiences and efforts to evaluate the quality of race dialogues were crucial to ensuring meaningful impact.

DISCUSSION

Supporting race dialogues within medicine has the potential to promote a more inclusive and justice-oriented workforce, strengthen relationships amongst colleagues, and improve care for patients with racially minoritized identities. Potential levers for supporting race dialogues include high-quality racial justice curricula at every level of medical education and valuation of racial consciousness in admissions and hiring processes. All efforts to support race dialogues must center and uplift those with racially minoritized identities.

Responsive public health doctoral education: experiences and reflections from a School of Public Health in South Africa

Institutional capacity for doctoral training is key to addressing the complex challenges facing the global south. In the context of the need for skilled knowledge workers in health systems and growing demand for doctoral places, we reflect on the evolution of a public health doctoral programme in a South African School of Public Health. Through this case, we aim to contribute to wider debates on the form and content of emerging public health doctoral programmes in South Africa and the African continent. Drawing on a multi-level framework of 'curriculum responsiveness' we consider responsive public health doctoral education as simultaneously engaging macro-social, institutional/cultural, disciplinary and individual learning imperatives. We assess the responsiveness of the doctoral programme against these elements, describing the growth, institutional context and systems and pedagogical strategies introduced over the last decade, and areas for further development. We conclude by proposing the multi-level capacities required for responsive public health doctoral education. We highlight the need for diversified curricula (including professional doctorates) that support a wider set of graduate attributes and career trajectories beyond academia, greater investment in doctoral infrastructures within higher education institutions, and disciplinary practices and pedagogies that centre epistemic access and justice.

Decolonization and antiracism: intersecting pathways to global health equity

In this paper, as Black scholars, we address ways that interventions designed to promote equity in health can create pathways for coupling decolonization with antiracism by drawing on the intersection of the health of Africans and African Americans. To frame this intersection, we offer the Public Health Critical Race Praxis (PHCRP) and the PEN-3 Cultural Model as antiracism and decolonization tools that can jointly advance research on colonization and racism globally. We argue that racism is a global reality; PHCRP, an antiracism framework, and PEN-3, a decolonizing framework, can guide interventions to promote equity for Africans and African Americans.

Global surgery education in Belgium: Student's knowledge, attitudes and exposure

PURPOSE

Understanding how medical students perceive global surgery will be essential in strengthening the global surgery workforce by 2030. This study investigated the knowledge, attitudes and exposure of Belgian medical students towards global surgery and identified avenues for medical institutions to include meaningful educational opportunities.

METHODS

An online survey was distributed to first to final year medical students across Belgian universities using social media. Data were collected on demographics, exposure, knowledge and attitudes towards global surgery. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 304 medical students participated from four Belgian universities. A minority reported having exposure to global surgery (24.7%), and most wanted more exposure (75.3%). Almost all respondents agreed (94.4%) that it is a relevant topic for medical students, and most agreed (71%) more compulsory education on the topic is needed. Only 13 to 44% of students could correctly answer questions testing global surgery knowledge. Personal/family responsibilities were the most important barrier to pursuing global surgery careers.

CONCLUSIONS

Global surgery knowledge and exposure is limited among Belgian medical students despite interest in the field. These results advocate for the inclusion of decolonised global surgery education alongside equitable international clinical internships in medical education worldwide.

Unfair knowledge practices in global health: a realist synthesis

Unfair knowledge practices easily beset our efforts to achieve health equity within and between countries. Enacted by people from a distance and from a position of power ('the centre') on behalf of and alongside people with less power ('the periphery'), these unfair practices have generated a complex literature of complaints across various axes of inequity. We identified a sample of this literature from 12 journals and systematized it using the realist approach to explanation. We framed the outcome to be explained as 'manifestations of unfair knowledge practices'; their generative mechanisms as 'the reasoning of individuals or rationale of institutions'; and context that enable them as 'conditions that give knowledge practices their structure'. We identified four categories of unfair knowledge practices, each triggered by three mechanisms: (1) credibility deficit related to pose (mechanisms: 'the periphery's cultural knowledge, technical knowledge and "articulation" of knowledge do not matter'), (2) credibility deficit related to gaze (mechanisms: 'the centre's learning needs, knowledge platforms and scholarly standards must drive collective knowledge-making'), (3) interpretive marginalization related to pose (mechanisms: 'the periphery's sensemaking of partnerships, problems and social reality do not matter') and (4) interpretive marginalization related to gaze (mechanisms: 'the centre's learning needs, social sensitivities and status preservation must drive collective sensemaking'). Together, six mutually overlapping, reinforcing and dependent categories of context influence all 12 mechanisms: 'mislabelling' (the periphery as inferior), 'miseducation' (on structural origins of disadvantage), 'under-representation' (of the periphery on knowledge platforms), 'compounded spoils' (enjoyed by the centre), 'under-governance' (in making, changing, monitoring, enforcing and applying rules for fair engagement) and 'colonial mentality' (of/at the periphery). These context-mechanism-outcome linkages can inform efforts to redress unfair knowledge practices, investigations of unfair knowledge practices across disciplines and axes of inequity and ethics guidelines for health system research and practice when working at a social or physical distance.

Normalising participatory health research approaches in the WHO European region for refugee and migrant health: a paradigm shift

While people's involvement in health research is increasingly the encouraged norm in many countries, the involvement of refugees and migrants in research about their health is rare. Here, we call for a paradigm shift in the field of refugee and migrant health to make participatory health research routine, i.e. normalised. To disrupt 'business as usual', we synthesise evidence about meaningful research partnerships and features of inclusive participatory spaces. We present examples of decolonial, culturally attuned methods that can be used to reimagine and reinvigorate research practice because they encourage critical reflexivity and power-sharing: arts-based research using music and singing, participatory learning and action research, Photovoice and co-design (ideas generation) workshops. We consider the consequences of not making this paradigm shift. We conclude with recommendations for specific structural and policy changes and empirical research questions that are needed to inform the normalisation of participatory health research in this field.

Global health reciprocal innovation: ethical, legal and regulatory considerations

Global health reciprocal innovation (GHRI) is a recent and more formalised approach to conducting research that recognises and develops innovations (eg, medicines, devices, methodologies) from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). At present, studies using GHRI most commonly adapt innovations from LMICs for use in high-income countries (HICs), although some develop innovations in LMICs and HICs. In this paper, we propose that GHRI implicitly makes two ethical commitments: (1) to promote health innovations from LMICs, especially in HICs, and (2) to conduct studies on health innovations from LMICs in equitable partnerships between investigators in LMICs and HICs. We argue that these commitments take a significant step towards a more equal global health research enterprise while helping to ensure that populations and investigators in LMICs receive equitable benefits from studies using GHRI. However, studies using GHRI can raise potential ethical concerns and face legal and regulatory barriers. We propose ethical, legal and regulatory considerations to help address these concerns and barriers. We hope our recommendations will allow GHRI to move the global health research enterprise forward into an era where all people are treated equally as knowers and learners, while populations in both LMICs and HICs benefit equitably from studies using GHRI.

The Untapped Power of "We Don't Know": Epistemological Humility in the Era of COVID-19

The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic introduced many challenges and nuances that have transformed medical practice and research. The uncertainty caused by COVID-19 led to inevitable challenges to patient-provider relationships. The ever-changing landscape of COVID-19 research and policy proved to be challenging for the medical community and patients. These challenges also exacerbated long-standing issues regarding patient-provider communication and trust. On the other hand, these challenges gave voice to a burgeoning patient advocacy community. Through social media, advocacy and patient organizing, patients harnessed their power and organized over challenges relating to COVID-19 fears and concerns, ramifications of "Long COVID," and much more. During this unprecedented pandemic, there was a realization that the science and research surrounding COVID-19 is evolving and that there may be a benefit to embracing the dynamic nature of research and the scientific process. We propose that providers and the medical community should consider epistemological humility, which acknowledges insufficiencies related to the state of medical knowledge with a sense of understanding and respect for not having all of the answers. We argue that there is untapped potential in saying, "We don't know" and explaining why. There is an implicit culture that providers should be responsible for knowing everything and solving every problem. Epistemological humility challenges this culture, and inherently gives credence and voice to patient perspectives. We assert that epistemological humility is necessity when addressing contemporary health challenges such as COVID-19.

Understanding the language barriers to translating informed consent documents for maternal health trials in Zambia: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

Providing comprehensible information is essential to the process of valid informed consent. Recruitment materials designed by sponsoring institutions in English-speaking, high-income countries are commonly translated for use in global health studies in other countries; however, key concepts are often missed, misunderstood or 'lost in translation'. The aim of this study was to explore the language barriers to informed consent, focusing on the challenges of translating recruitment materials for maternal health studies into Zambian languages.

DESIGN

We used a qualitative approach, which incorporated a multistakeholder workshop (11 participants), in-depth interviews with researchers and translators (8 participants) and two community-based focus groups with volunteers from community advisory boards (20 participants). Content analysis was used to identify terms commonly occurring in recruitment materials prior to the workshop. The framework analysis approach was used to analyse interview data, and a simple inductive thematic analysis approach was used to analyse focus group data.

SETTING

The study was based in Lusaka, Zambia.

RESULTS

The workshop highlighted difficulties in translating research terms and pregnancy-specific terms, as well as widespread concern that current templates are too long, use overly formal language and are designed with little input from local teams. Framework analysis of in-depth interviews identified barriers to participant understanding relating to design and development of recruitment materials, language, local context and communication styles. Focus group participants confirmed these findings and suggested potential solutions to ensure the language and content of recruitment materials can be better understood.

CONCLUSION

Our findings demonstrate that the way in which recruitment materials are currently designed, translated and disseminated may not enable potential trial participants to fully understand the information provided. Instead of using overly complex institutional templates, recruitment materials should be created through an iterative and interactive process that provides truly comprehensible information in a format appropriate for its intended participants.

Barriers to healthcare access and experiences of stigma: Findings from a coproduced Long Covid case-finding study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Long Covid is often stigmatised, particularly in people who are disadvantaged within society. This may prevent them from seeking help and could lead to widening health inequalities. This coproduced study with a Community Advisory Board (CAB) of people with Long Covid aimed to understand healthcare and wider barriers and stigma experienced by people with probable Long Covid.

METHODS

An active case finding approach was employed to find adults with probable, but not yet clinically diagnosed, Long Covid in two localities in London (Camden and Merton) and Derbyshire, England. Interviews explored the barriers to care and the stigma faced by participants and were analysed thematically. This study forms part of the STIMULATE-ICP Collaboration.

FINDINGS

Twenty-three interviews were completed. Participants reported limited awareness of what Long Covid is and the available pathways to management. There was considerable self-doubt among participants, sometimes reinforced by interactions with healthcare professionals (HCPs). Participants questioned their deservedness in seeking healthcare support for their symptoms. Hesitancy to engage with healthcare services was motivated by fear of needing more investigation and concerns regarding judgement about the ability to carry out caregiving responsibilities. It was also motivated by the complexity of the clinical presentation and fear of all symptoms being attributed to poor mental health. Participants also reported trying to avoid overburdening the health system. These difficulties were compounded by experiences of stigma and discrimination. The emerging themes reaffirmed a framework of epistemic injustice in relation to Long Covid, where creating, interpreting and conveying knowledge has varied credibility based on the teller's identity characteristics and/or the level of their interpretive resources.

CONCLUSION

We have codeveloped recommendations based on the findings. These include early signposting to services, dedicating protected time to listening to people with Long Covid, providing a holistic approach in care pathways, and working to mitigate stigma. Regardless of the diagnosis, people experiencing new symptoms must be encouraged to seek timely medical help. Clear public health messaging is needed among communities already disadvantaged by epistemic injustice to raise awareness of Long Covid, and to share stories that encourage seeking care and to illustrate the adverse effects of stigma.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This study was coproduced with a CAB made up of 23 members including HCPs, people with lived experience of Long Covid and other stakeholders.

Proposed Principles for International Bioethics Conferencing: Anti-Discriminatory, Global, and Inclusive

This paper opens a critical conversation about the ethics of international bioethics conferencing and proposes principles that commit to being anti-discriminatory, global, and inclusive. We launch this conversation in the Section, Case Study, with a case example involving the International Association of Bioethics' (IAB's) selection of Qatar to host the 2024 World Congress of Bioethics. IAB's choice of Qatar sparked controversy. We believe it also may reveal deeper issues of Islamophobia in bioethics. The Section, Principles for International Bioethics Conferencing, sets forth and defends proposed principles for international bioethics conferencing. The Section, Applying Principles to Site Selection applies the proposed principles to the case example. The Section, Applying Principles Beyond Site Selection addresses other applications of the proposed principles. The Section, Objections responds to objections. We close (in the Section, Conclusion) by calling for a wider discussion of our proposed principles. One-Sentence Capsule Summary: How should bioethicists navigate the ethics of global bioethics conferencing?

The Lancet and colonialism: past, present, and future

The historical and contemporary alignment of medical and health journals with colonial practices needs elucidation. Colonialism, which sought to exploit colonised people and places, was justified by the prejudice that colonised people's ways of knowing and being are inferior to those of the colonisers. Institutions for knowledge production and dissemination, including academic journals, were therefore central to sustaining colonialism and its legacies today. This invited Viewpoint focuses on The Lancet, following its 200th anniversary, and is especially important given the extent of The Lancet's global influence. We illuminate links between The Lancet and colonialism, with examples from the past and present, showing how the journal legitimised and continues to promote specific types of knowers, knowledge, perspectives, and interpretations in health and medicine. The Lancet's role in colonialism is not unique; other institutions and publications across the British empire cooperated with empire-building through colonisation. We therefore propose investigations and raise questions to encourage broader contestation on the practices, audience, positionality, and ownership of journals claiming leadership in global knowledge production.

Ethical challenges in global research on health system responses to violence against women: a qualitative study of policy and professional perspectives

BACKGROUND

Studying global health problems requires international multidisciplinary teams. Such multidisciplinarity and multiculturalism create challenges in adhering to a set of ethical principles across different country contexts. Our group on health system responses to violence against women (VAW) included two universities in a European high-income country (HIC) and four universities in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). This study aimed to investigate professional and policy perspectives on the types, causes of, and solutions to ethical challenges specific to the ethics approval stage of the global research projects on health system responses to VAW.

METHODS

We used the Network of Ethical Relationships model, framework method, and READ approach to analyse qualitative semi-structured interviews (n = 18) and policy documents (n = 27). In March-July 2021, we recruited a purposive sample of researchers and members of Research Ethics Committees (RECs) from the five partner countries. Interviewees signposted policies and guidelines on research ethics, including VAW.

RESULTS

We developed three themes with eight subthemes summarising ethical challenges across three contextual factors. The global nature of the group contributed towards power and resource imbalance between HIC and LMICs and differing RECs' rules. Location of the primary studies within health services highlighted differing rules between university RECs and health authorities. There were diverse conceptualisations of VAW and vulnerability of research participants between countries and limited methodological and topic expertise in some LMIC RECs. These factors threatened the timely delivery of studies and had a negative impact on researchers and their relationships with RECs and HIC funders. Most researchers felt frustrated and demotivated by the bureaucratised, uncoordinated, and lengthy approval process. Participants suggested redistributing power and resources between HICs and LMICs, involving LMIC representatives in developing funding agendas, better coordination between RECs and health authorities and capacity strengthening on ethics in VAW research.

CONCLUSIONS

The process of ethics approval for global research on health system responses to VAW should be more coordinated across partners, with equal power distribution between HICs and LMICs, researchers and RECs. While some of these objectives can be achieved through education for RECs and researchers, the power imbalance and differing rules should be addressed at the institutional, national, and international levels. Three of the authors were also research participants, which had potential to introduce bias into the findings. However, rigorous reflexivity practices mitigated against this. This insider perspective was also a strength, as it allowed us to access and contribute to more nuanced understandings to enhance the credibility of the findings. It also helped to mitigate against unequal power dynamics.

Ineffective responses to unlikely outbreaks: Hypothesis building in newly-emerging infectious disease outbreaks

Over the last 30 years, there has been significant investment in research and infrastructure aimed at mitigating the threat of newly emerging infectious diseases (NEID). Core epidemiological processes, such as outbreak investigations, however, have received little attention and have proceeded largely unchecked and unimproved. Using ethnographic material from an investigation into a cryptic encephalitis outbreak in the Brong-Ahafo Region of Ghana in 2010-2013, in this paper we trace processes of hypothesis building and their relationship to the organizational structures of the response. We demonstrate how commonly recurring features of NEID investigations produce selective pressures in hypothesis building that favor iterations of pre-existing "exciting" hypotheses and inhibit the pursuit of alternative hypotheses, regardless of relative likelihood. These findings contribute to the growing anthropological and science and technology studies (STS) literature on the epistemic communities that coalesce around suspected NEID outbreaks and highlight an urgent need for greater scrutiny of core epidemiological processes.

Representations of an Ebola 'outbreak' through Story Technologies

BACKGROUND

Attempts to understand biosocial phenomena using scientific methods are often presented as value-neutral and objective; however, when used to reduce the complexity of open systems such as epidemics, these forms of inquiry necessarily entail normative considerations and are therefore fashioned by political worldviews (ideologies). From the standpoint of poststructural theory, the character of these representations is at most limited and partial. In addition, these modes of representation (as stories) do work (as technologies) in the service of, or in resistance to, power.

METHODS

We focus on a single Ebola case cluster from the 2013-2016 outbreak in West Africa and examine how different disciplinary forms of knowledge production (including outbreak forecasting, active epidemiological surveillance, post-outbreak serosurveys, political economic analyses, and ethnography) function as Story Technologies. We then explore how these technologies are used to curate 'data,' analysing the erasures, values, and imperatives evoked by each.

RESULTS

We call attention to the instrumental-in addition to the descriptive-role Story Technologies play in ordering contingencies and establishing relationships in the wake of health crises.

DISCUSSION

By connecting each type of knowledge production with the systems of power it reinforces or disrupts, we illustrate how Story Technologies do ideological work. These findings encourage research from pluriversal perspectives and advocacy for measures that promote more inclusive modes of knowledge production.

Is qualitative social research in global health fulfilling its potential?: a systematic evidence mapping of research on point-of-care testing in low- and middle-income contexts

BACKGROUND

Qualitative social research has made valuable contributions to understanding technology-based interventions in global health. However, we have little evidence of who is carrying out this research, where, how, for what purpose, or the overall scope of this body of work. To address these questions, we undertook a systematic evidence mapping of one area of technology-focused research in global health, related to the development, deployment and use of point-of-care tests (POCTs) for low-and middle-income countries (LMICs).

METHODS

We conducted an exhaustive search to identify papers reporting on primary qualitative studies that explore the development, deployment, and use of POCTs in LMICs and screened results to identify studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Data were extracted from included studies and descriptive analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-eight studies met our inclusion criteria, with numbers increasing year by year. Funding of studies was primarily credited to high income country (HIC)-based institutions (95%) and 64% of first authors were affiliated with HIC-based institutions. Study sites, in contrast, were concentrated in a small number of LMICs. Relatively few studies examined social phenomena related to POCTs that take place in HICs. Seventy-one percent of papers reported on studies conducted within the context of a trial or intervention. Eighty percent reported on studies considering POCTs for HIV and/or malaria. Studies overwhelmingly reported on POCT use (91%) within primary-level health facilities (60%) or in hospitals (30%) and explored the perspectives of the health workforce (70%).

CONCLUSIONS

A reflexive approach to the role, status, and contribution of qualitative and social science research is crucial to identifying the contributions it can make to the production of global health knowledge and understanding the roles technology can play in achieving global health goals. The body of qualitative social research on POCTs for LMICs is highly concentrated in scope, overwhelmingly focuses on testing in the context of a narrow number of donor-supported initiatives and is driven by HIC resources and expertise. To optimise the full potential of qualitative social research requires the promotion of open and just research ecosystems that broaden the scope of inquiry beyond established public health paradigms and build social science capacity in LMICs.

Estimates of use of preferred contraceptive method in the United States: a population-based study

Background

In the U.S. and globally, dominant metrics of contraceptive access focus on the use of certain contraceptive methods and do not address self-defined need for contraception; therefore, these metrics fail to attend to person-centeredness, a key component of healthcare quality. This study addresses this gap by presenting new data from the U.S. on preferred contraceptive method use, a person-centered contraceptive access indicator. Additionally, we examine the association between key aspects of person-centered healthcare access and preferred contraceptive method use.

Methods

We fielded a nationally representative survey in the U.S. in English and Spanish in 2022, surveying non-sterile 15-44-year-olds assigned female sex at birth. Among current and prospective contraceptive users (unweighted n = 2119), we describe preferred method use, reasons for non-use, and differences in preferred method use by sociodemographic characteristics. We conduct logistic regression analyses examining the association between four aspects of person-centered healthcare access and preferred contraceptive method use.

Findings

A quarter (25.2%) of current and prospective users reported there was another method they would like to use, with oral contraception and vasectomy most selected. Reasons for non-use of preferred contraception included side effects (28.8%), sex-related reasons (25.1%), logistics/knowledge barriers (18.6%), safety concerns (18.3%), and cost (17.6%). In adjusted logistic regression analyses, respondents who felt they had enough information to choose appropriate contraception (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] 3.31; 95% CI 2.10, 5.21), were very (AOR 9.24; 95% CI 4.29, 19.91) or somewhat confident (AOR 3.78; 95% CI 1.76, 8.12) they could obtain desired contraception, had received person-centered contraceptive counseling (AOR 1.72; 95% CI 1.33, 2.23), and had not experienced discrimination in family planning settings (AOR 1.58; 95% CI 1.13, 2.20) had increased odds of preferred contraceptive method use.

Interpretation

An estimated 8.1 million individuals in the U.S. are not using a preferred contraceptive method. Interventions should focus on holistic, person-centered contraceptive access, given the implications of information, self-efficacy, and discriminatory care for preferred method use.

Funding

Arnold Ventures.

Using co-design to develop the Adolescent Health Literacy Questionnaire for adolescents in Ireland

Health literacy measurement studies are important for the success of health promotion efforts targeting adolescents. However, the majority of health literacy measurement tools were originally developed for adult populations and may not be reflective of health literacy in the context of adolescence. The present study sought to co-design a health literacy questionnaire and vignettes for adolescents in Ireland aged 12-18 years. This article describes the qualitative phase of the study. In 2019-2021, eight adolescents from the Irish Heart Foundation's Youth Advisory Panel participated in two concept mapping workshops during which they defined healthy living. Results of the thematic analysis indicated that adolescents defined 'healthy living' as a life that was balanced, prioritizing mental health and sleep. According to their definition, healthy living was comprised of six main constructs, namely, knowledge; sources of quality health information; facilitators and barriers; influence of others; self-efficacy, self-management and resilience; and citizenship and communication. These constructs were used to develop vignettes and items for the Adolescent Health Literacy Questionnaire (AHLQ). These were tested on a sample of 80 adolescents to check whether the respondents understood the items and vignettes as intended. Results of the nine cognitive interviews indicated that the adolescents understood the content of the 10 vignettes and 41 items. While the vignettes and AHLQ were developed with Irish adolescents, the approaches taken can be generalized to adolescents living in other countries. This will allow for the development of tailored and relevant solutions for health literacy development and health promotion for this sub-population.

Rapid ethnographic appraisal of community concepts of and responses to joint pain in Kilimanjaro, Tanzania

INTRODUCTION

Musculoskeletal disorders, experienced as joint pain, are a significant global health problem, but little is known about how joint pain is categorised and understood in Tanzania. Understanding existing conceptualisations of and responses to joint pain is important to ensure both research and interventions are equitable and avoid biomedical imposition.

METHODS

Rapid ethnographic appraisal was conducted in a periurban and rural community in Kilimanjaro, documenting language used to describe joint pain, ideas about causes, understandings of who experiences such pain, the impacts pain has and how people respond to it. We conducted 66 interviews with community leaders, traditional healers, community members and pharmacists.Photographs were taken and included in fieldnotes to supplement the interview data and develop thick descriptions. Data were analysed by constant comparison using QDA Miner software.

RESULTS

Across the sample, dominant concepts of joint pain were named ugonjwa wa baridi, cold disease; ugonjwa wa uzee, old age disease; rimatizim, disease of the joints; and gauti, gout. Causes mentioned included exposure to the cold, old age, alcohol and red meat consumption, witchcraft, demons and injuries/falls. Age, gender and occupation were seen as important factors for developing joint pain. Perceived impacts of joint pain included loss of mobility, economic and family problems, developing new health conditions, death, reduction in sexual functioning and negative self-perceptions. Responses to joint pain blended biomedical treatments, herbal remedies, consultations with traditional healers and religious rituals.

CONCLUSIONS

Conceptualisations of and responses to joint pain in the two communities were syncretic, mixing folk and biomedical practices. Narratives about who is affected by joint pain mirror emerging epidemiological findings, suggesting a strong 'lay epidemiology' in these communities. Anthropological methods can support the decolonisation of global health by decentring the imposition of English language biomedicine and pursuing synthetic, dignified languages of care.

Reflective questioning to guide socially just global health reform: a narrative review and expert elicitation

Recent research has highlighted the impacts of colonialism and racism in global health, yet few studies have presented concrete steps toward addressing the problems. We conducted a narrative review to identify published evidence that documented guiding frameworks for enhancing equity and inclusion in global health research and practice (GHRP). Based on this narrative review, we developed a questionnaire with a series of reflection questions related on commonly reported challenges related to diversity, inclusion, equity, and power imbalances. To reach consensus on a set of priority questions relevant to each theme, the questionnaire was sent to a sample of 18 global health experts virtually and two rounds of iterations were conducted. Results identified eight thematic areas and 19 reflective questions that can assist global health researchers and practitioners striving to implement socially just global health reforms. Key elements identified for improving GHRP include: (1) aiming to understand the historical context and power dynamics within the areas touched by the program; (2) promoting and mobilizing local stakeholders and leadership and ensuring measures for their participation in decision-making; (3) ensuring that knowledge products are co-produced and more equitably accessible; (4) establishing a more holistic feedback and accountability system to understand needed reforms based on local perspectives; and (5) applying systems thinking to addressing challenges and encouraging approaches that can be sustained long-term. GHRP professionals should reflect more deeply on how their goals align with those of their in-country collaborators. The consistent application of reflective processes has the potential to shift GHRP towards increased equity.

Assessing unConventional Evidence (ACE) tool: development and content of a tool to assess the strengths and limitations of 'unconventional' source materials

BACKGROUND

When deciding whether to implement an intervention, decision-makers typically have questions on feasibility and acceptability and on factors affecting implementation. Descriptions of programme implementation and of policies and systems are rich sources of information for these questions. However, this information is often not based on empirical data collected using explicit methods. To use the information in unconventional source materials in syntheses or other decision support products, we need methods of assessing their strengths and limitations. This paper describes the development and content of the Assessing unConventional Evidence (ACE) tool, a new tool to assess the strengths and limitations of these sources.

METHODS

We developed the ACE tool in four stages: first, we examined existing tools to identify potentially relevant assessment criteria. Second, we drew on these criteria and team discussions to create a first draft of the tool. Third, we obtained feedback on the draft from potential users and methodologists, and through piloting the tool in evidence syntheses. Finally, we used this feedback to iteratively refine the assessment criteria and to improve our guidance for undertaking the assessment.

RESULTS

The tool is made up of 11 criteria including the purpose and context of the source; the completeness of the information presented; and the extent to which evidence is provided to support the findings made. Users are asked to indicate whether each of the criteria have been addressed. On the basis of their judgements for each criterion, users then make an overall assessment of the limitations of the source, ranging from no or very minor concerns to serious concerns. These assessments can then facilitate appropriate use of the evidence in decision support products.

CONCLUSIONS

Through focussing on unconventional source materials, the ACE tool fills an important gap in the range of tools for assessing the strengths and limitations of policy-relevant evidence and supporting evidence-informed decision-making.

Is the commercial determinants conversation confined to the health sciences? Potentially, and that's a problem

The commercial determinants of health (CDoH) are attracting increased interest and are of great importance when discussing how trade affects health. Through a citation analysis of recent foundational CDoH documents (a Lancet paper series and an Oxford University textbook), we find that fully 71% of all citations reference the health sciences. The health sciences may be well suited to documenting the specific pathways of how commercial (by)products and practices harm human health. However, to operationalize upstream solutions for mitigating these harms, our citation analysis suggests that the field can engage political scientists, economists, sociologists, the trade law and business, as well as advocates in civil society and journalism, more so than it currently does. With CDoH explicitly referring to the interaction between commerce and health, CDoH researchers might be uniquely positioned to get health on the agenda of others, which requires that CDoH methods, datasets, evidence reviews, and proposed interventions are drawn from the widest possible range of sources.

Epistemic inclusion in the Qanuilirpitaa? Nunavik Inuit health survey: developing an Inuit model and determinants of health and well-being

OBJECTIVE

At the request of Nunavik Inuit health authorities and organizations, the Qanuilirpitaa? 2017 Nunavik regional health survey included an innovative "community component" alongside youth and adult epidemiological cohort studies. The community component objective was to identify and describe community and culturally relevant concepts and processes that lead to health and well-being.

METHODS

A qualitative, community-based research process involving workshops and semi-structured interviews was used to generate a corpus of data on health concepts and processes specific to Inuit communities in Nunavik. Thematic analysis and repeated community validation allowed for the identification of three key dimensions of health salient to Inuit experience and eight community-level health determinants.

RESULTS

The health model consists of three linked concepts: ilusirsusiarniq, qanuinngisiarniq, and inuuqatigiitsianiq, which reflect distinct dimensions of Inuit health phenomenology. The determinants community, family, identity, food, land, knowledge, economy, and services were generated through analysis and reflect community-level sources of health and well-being.

CONCLUSION

The development of the culturally grounded health models and determinants is an exercise of epistemic inclusivity through which researchers and Indigenous communities may form new and equitable paths of knowledge creation.

Review of health research and data on/with racially minoritised groups: Implications for addressing racism and racial disparities in public health practice and policies in Europe: a study protocol

Historically, across Europe, data and research on/with racially minoritised groups have not been collected or carried out in a sufficient, adequate, or appropriate manner. Yet, to understand emerging and existing health disparities among such groups, researchers and policymakers must obtain and use data to build evidence that informs decision-making and action on key structural and social determinants of health. This systematic search and review aims to contribute to closing this gap and promote a race-conscious approach to health research, strengthening the utilisation and deployment of data and research on/with racially minoritised groups in Europe. Its ultimate goal is to improve equality and equity in health*. Concretely, the study will do so by reviewing and critically analysing the usage of the concepts of race, ethnicity, and their related euphemisms and proxies in health-related research. It will examine the collection, use, and deployment of data and research on/with racially minoritised groups in this area. The study will focus on Belgium, France, and the Netherlands, three countries with graphical proximity and several similarities, one of which is the limited attention that is given to racism and racial inequalities in health in research and policy. This choice is also justified by practical knowledge of the context and languages. The results of the review will be used to develop guidance on how to use and deploy data and research on/with racially minoritised groups. The review is part of a larger project which aims to promote race-conscious research and data. The project does this by a three-pronged approach which: 1) highlights the need for a race-conscious approach when collecting and using data, carrying out research on/with racially minoritised groups; 2) builds expertise for their effective use and deployment, and; 3) creates a knowledge network and community of practice for public health researchers working in Europe.

Towards achieving transnational research partnership equity: lessons from implementing adaptive platform trials in low- and middle-income countries

Background

Use of adaptive clinical trials, particularly adaptive platform trials, has grown exponentially in response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Implementation of these trials in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has been fostered through the formation or modification of transnational research partnerships, typically between research groups from LMICs and high-income countries (HICs). While these partnerships are important to promote collaboration and overcome the structural and economic disadvantages faced by LMIC health researchers, it is critical to focus attention on the multiple dimensions of partnership equity.

Methods

Based on informal literature reviews and a meeting with leaders of one of the multinational COVID-19 adaptive platform trials, we describe some important considerations about research partnership equity in this context.

Results

We organize these considerations into eight thematic categories: 1) epistemic structures, 2) funding, 3) ethics oversight, 4) regulatory oversight, 5) leadership, 6) post-trial access to interventions, data, and specimens, 7) knowledge translation and dissemination, and 8) research capacity strengthening and maintenance. Within each category we review normative claims that support its relevance to research partnership equity followed by discussion of how adaptive platform trials highlight new dimensions, considerations, or challenges.

Conclusion

In aggregate, these observations provide insight into procedural and substantive equity-building measures within transnational global health research partnerships more broadly.

Leveraging national and global political determinants of health to promote equity in cancer care

Health and politics are deeply intertwined. In the context of national and global cancer care delivery, political forces-the political determinants of health-influence every level of the cancer care continuum. We explore the "3-I" framework, which structures the upstream political forces that affect policy choices in the context of actors' interests, ideas, and institutions, to examine how political determinants of health underlie cancer disparities. Borrowing from the work of PA Hall, M-P Pomey, CJ Ho, and other thinkers, interests are the agendas of individuals and groups in power. Ideas represent beliefs or knowledge about what is or what should be. Institutions define the rules of play. We provide examples from around the world: Political interests have helped fuel the establishment of cancer centers in India and have galvanized the 2022 Cancer Moonshot in the United States. The politics of ideas underlie global disparities in cancer clinical trials-that is, in the distribution of epistemic power. Finally, historical institutions have helped perpetuate disparities related to racist and colonialist legacies. Present institutions have also been used to improve access for those in greatest need, as exemplified by the Butaro Cancer Center of Excellence in Rwanda. In providing these global examples, we demonstrate how interests, ideas, and institutions influence access to cancer care across the breadth of the cancer continuum. We argue that these forces can be leveraged to promote cancer care equity nationally and globally.

Barriers to Surgical Outcomes Research in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Scoping Review

INTRODUCTION

Systematic collection and analysis of surgical outcomes data is a cornerstone of surgical quality improvement. Unfortunately, there remains a dearth of surgical outcomes data from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). To improve surgical outcomes in LMICs, it is essential to have the ability to collect, analyze, and report risk-adjusted postoperative morbidity and mortality data. This study aimed to review the barriers and challenges to developing perioperative registries in LMIC settings.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review of all published literature on barriers to conducting surgical outcomes research in LMICs using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and GoogleScholar. Keywords included 'surgery', 'outcomes research', 'registries', 'barriers', and synonymous Medical Subject Headings derivatives. Articles found were subsequently reference-mined. All relevant original research and reviews published between 2000 and 2021 were included. The performance of routine information system management framework was used to organize identified barriers into technical, organizational, or behavioral factors.

RESULTS

Twelve articles were identified in our search. Ten articles focused specifically on the creation, success, and obstacles faced during the implementation of trauma registries. Technical factors reported by 50% of the articles included limited access to a digital platform for data entry, lack of standardization of forms, and complexity of said forms. 91.7% articles mentioned organizational factors, including the availability of resources, financial constraints, human resources, and lack of consistent electricity. Behavioral factors highlighted by 66.6% of the studies included lack of team commitment, job constraints, and clinical burden, which contributed to poor compliance and dwindling data collection over time.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a paucity of published literature on barriers to developing and maintaining perioperative registries in LMICs. There is an immediate need to study and understand barriers and facilitators to the continuous collection of surgical outcomes in LMICs.

Health systems research in burn care: an evidence gap map

BACKGROUND

Burn injury is associated with significant mortality and disability. Resilient and responsive health systems are needed for optimal response and care for people who sustain burn injuries. However, the extent of health systems research (HSR) in burn care is unknown. This review aimed to systematically map the global HSR related to burn care.

METHODS

An evidence gap map (EGM) was developed based on the World Health Organization health systems framework. All major medical, health and injury databases were searched. A standard method was used to develop the EGM.

RESULTS

A total of 6586 articles were screened, and the full text of 206 articles was reviewed, of which 106 met the inclusion criteria. Most included studies were cross-sectional (61%) and were conducted in hospitals (71%) with patients (48%) or healthcare providers (29%) as participants. Most studies were conducted in high-income countries, while only 13% were conducted in low-and middle-income countries, accounting for 60% of burns mortality burden globally. The most common health systems areas of focus were service delivery (53%), health workforce (33%) and technology (19%). Studies on health policy, governance and leadership were absent, and there were only 14 qualitative studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Major evidence gaps exist for an integrated health systems response to burns care. There is an inequity between the burden of burn injuries and HSR. Strengthening research capacity will facilitate evidence-informed health systems and policy reforms to sustainably improve access to affordable, equitable and optimal burn care and outcomes.

A sweet deal for domestic industry: the political economy and framing of Vanuatu's sugar-sweetened beverage tax

INTRODUCTION

The Government of Vanuatu introduced an excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) in 2015. While lauded for its alignment with the WHO's Best Buys recommendations for addressing non-communicable diseases (NCDs), little is known about the tax's adoption process or whose interests it serves.

METHODS

Using case study methodology, this study examined how and why Vanuatu's SSB tax was introduced. Policy documents, key informant interviews (n=33) and direct observations were analysed using theories of policy analysis, power analysis and postcolonial theory to map the policy's adoption, surrounding political economy and the ideas, interests and institutions that shaped the tax and its framing.

RESULTS

The SSB tax emerged during a politically and economically unstable time in Vanuatu's history. The tax's links to the national health agenda were tenuous despite its ostensible framing as a way to combat NCDs. Rather, the tax was designed to respond to tightening economic and trade conditions. Spearheaded by several finance-focused bureaucrats, and with limited input from health personnel, the tax targeted less frequently consumed carbonated SSBs (which are mostly imported) without any revenue reinvestments into health. Driven by the desire to generate much-needed government revenue and instal domestic protections via selective implementation and carve-outs for local producers, the Vanuatu SSB tax did meet national objectives, just not the dual health and economic 'win-win' projected by the NCD Best Buys.

CONCLUSION

Vanuatu's SSB tax adoption process reveals the limitations of decontextualised policy recommendations, such as the NCD Best Buys, whose framing may be overcome by local political realities. This research highlights the need for further political economy considerations in global health recommendations, since contextual forces and power dynamics are key to shaping both how and why policies are enacted and also whose interest they serve.

Authorship equity in global health research: who gets the credit at University of California, San Francisco?

Authorship inequity exists in global health research and can be representative of unequal partnerships. Previous studies showed that low-income and middle-income country (LMIC) authors are under-represented in publications from global collaborative research between LMIC and high-income countries (HIC). However, there are little data on trends for how specific HIC institutions are performing concerning equitable authorship. We used Web of Science to find published articles affiliated with the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), where an LMIC was referred to in the title, abstract or keywords from 2008 to 2021. The country affiliation of each author for all included articles was grouped based on World Bank data. A total of 5805 articles were included. On average, 53.6% (n=3109) of UCSF affiliated articles had at least one low-income country (LIC) or LMIC author; however, this number increased from 43.2% (n=63) in 2008 to 63.3% (n=421) in 2021. Overall, 16.3% (n=948) of UCSF affiliated articles had an LIC or LMIC researcher as the first author, 18.8% (n=1,059) had an LIC or LMIC researcher as second author, and 14.2% (n=820) had an LIC or LMIC researcher as last author. As long as manuscripts produced by UCSF have no LIC or LMIC authors included the university's commitment to authentic equity is undermined. Global health partnerships cannot be equitable without changing authorship trends between HIC and LMIC institutions.

Claims in the clinic: A qualitative group interview study on healthcare communication about unestablished side effects of the copper IUD

BACKGROUND

Lay online communication about health-related issues has in recent years largely been associated with the spread of misinformation and decreased trust in healthcare. Such communication has included claims about systemic side effects of the copper IUD. In Sweden, a social media group centered on this issue now gathers around 8,700 members. This study aimed to use the case of reported yet unestablished side effects of the copper IUD to investigate experiences of and reasoning about healthcare encounters between caregivers and patients contesting established medical knowledge.

METHODS

We conducted qualitative, semi-structured, digital group interviews with members of the social media group (seven groups, n = 23) and with midwives and gynecologists (six groups, n = 15). We also gathered essays written by social media group members (n = 23). The material was analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

The participant accounts pointed towards tensions related to principles of evidence-based medicine, i.e., perceived insufficiency of research on the safety of the copper IUD and lack of clarity in routines for reporting and following up suspected side effects, and of patient-centered care, i.e., listening respectfully to patients. Tension between caregivers' obligation to adhere to evidence-based medicine while also providing patient-centered care was noted.

CONCLUSION

Healthcare providers' efforts to assess and address patient claims contesting established medical knowledge should include ensuring and communicating sufficient research, clarifying procedures for reporting suspected side effects, and improving person-centered care. This can increase the quality of care while contributing to the mitigation of distrust in healthcare and the spreading of health-related misinformation.

Using participatory action research to empower district hospital staff to deliver quality-assured essential surgery to rural populations in Malawi, Zambia, and Tanzania

Background

In 2017 the SURG-Africa project set out to institute a surgical, obstetric, trauma and anesthesia (SOTA) care capacity-building intervention focused on non-specialist providers at district hospitals in Zambia, Malawi and Tanzania. The aim was to scale up quality-assured SOTA care for rural populations. This paper reports the process of developing the intervention and our experience of initial implementation, using a participatory approach.

Methods

Participatory Action Research workshops were held in the 3 countries in July-October 2017 and in October 2018-July 2019, involving representatives of key local stakeholder groups: district hospital (DH) surgical teams and administrators, referral hospital SOTA specialists, professional associations and local authorities. Through semi-structured discussions, qualitative data were collected on participants' perceptions and experiences of barriers to the provision of SOTA care at district level, and on the training and supervision needs of district surgical teams. Data were compared for themes across countries and across surgical team cadres.

Results

All groups reported a lack of in-service training to develop essential skills to manage common SOTA cases; use and care of equipment; essential anesthesia care including resuscitation skills; and infection prevention and control. Very few district surgical teams had access to supervision. SOTA providers at DHs reported a demand for more feedback on referrals. Participants prioritized training needs that could be addressed through regular in-service training and supervision visits from referral hospital specialists to DHs. These data were used by participants in an action-planning cycle to develop site-specific training plans for each research site.

Conclusion

The inclusive, participatory approach to stakeholder involvement in SOTA system strengthening employed by this study supported the design of a locally relevant and contextualized intervention. This study provides lessons on how to rebalance power dynamics in Global Surgery, through giving a voice to district surgical teams.

What research evidence can support the decolonisation of global health? Making space for deeper scholarship in global health journals

Much of the current global health publishing landscape is restricted in its epistemological diversity, relying heavily on a biomedical lens to examine and report on global health issues. In this Viewpoint, we argue that the space within global health journals needs to be expanded to include diverse forms of research scholarship, thereby shifting the kinds of stories that get told in these spaces. We particularly call for the inclusion of deeper research that values the tacit, experiential knowledge possessed by actors (eg, communities, health-care workers, policy makers, activisits, and researchers) in low-income and middle-income countries, and legitimises the perspectives of local doers and thinkers; research that pays careful attention to context, and does not treat local realities as mere background occurrences; and research that draws on alternative, counter-dominant epistemologies, that allow for the crucial examination of power imbalances, and that challenge hegemonic discourses in global health. To decolonise academic work in the global health field, we should look beyond diversity in research authorship. We need to tackle other unconscious biases such as presumptions about the superiority of particular forms of evidence over others, and thereby expand the plurality of perspectives in global health.

Towards a bidirectional decoloniality in academic global health: insights from settler colonialism and racial capitalism

This Viewpoint considers the implications of incorporating two interdisciplinary and burgeoning fields of study, settler colonialism and racial capitalism, as prominent frameworks within academic global health. We describe these two modes of domination and their historical and ongoing roles in creating accumulated advantage for some groups and disadvantage for others, highlighting their relevance for decolonial health approaches. We argue that widespread epistemic and material injustice, long noted by marginalised communities, is more apparent and challengeable with the consistent application of these two frameworks. With examples from the USA, Brazil, and Zimbabwe, we describe the health effects of settler colonial erasure and racial capitalist exploitation, also revealing the rich legacies of resistance that highlight potential paths towards health equity. Because much of the global health knowledge production is constructed from unregenerate contexts of settler colonialism and racial capitalism and yet focused transnationally, we offer instead an approach of bidirectional decoloniality. Recognising the broader colonial world system at work, bidirectional decoloniality entails a truly global health community that confronts Global North settler colonialism and racial injustice as forcefully as the various colonialisms perpetrated in the Global South.

Confronting Epistemic Injustice and Inequity in IDD Research: The Value of Theorizing Beyond Dominant Culture's Perspective

This commentary highlights pervasive challenges related to the science of intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), which we often take for granted. We argue that social power asymmetry and entrenched patterns of epistemic injustices undermine our science and call attention to the need to maximize our efforts to undo these unfair practices to enhance future care and research in IDD.