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

Barriers and pathways to environmental surveillance of antibiotic resistance in middle- and low-income settings: a qualitative exploratory key expert study

BACKGROUND

Local and global surveillance of antibiotic resistance (ABR) has proven a challenge to implement effectively in low- and middleincome (LMI) settings. Environmental surveillance solutions are increasingly highlighted as a strategy to help overcome such problems, and thus to promote global health as well as the local management of ABR in LMI countries. While technical and scientific aspects of such solutions are being probed continuously, no study has investigated their practical feasibility.

OBJECTIVE

Explore practical barriers for environmental surveillance of ABR in LMI countries, and pathways for surveillance experts to manage these.

METHODS

To start charting this unknown territory, we conducted an explorative, qualitative interview study with key informants, applying a constructivist grounded theory approach to analyze the results.

RESULTS

Barriers were identified across infrastructural, institutional and social dimensions, and pathways to manage them were mostly counterproductive from an ABR management perspective, including avoiding entire regions, applying substandard methods and failing to include local collaborators.

CONCLUSION

The research community as well as international agencies, organizations and states have key roles and responsibilities for improving the prospects of feasible environmental ABR surveillance in LMI-settings.

Interview study exploring how global health partnership principles are enacted and recommendations for practice

BACKGROUND

Effective global health partnerships can strengthen and improve health and healthcare systems across the world; however, establishing and maintaining effective partnerships can be challenging. Principles of Partnerships have been developed to improve the quality and effectiveness of health partnerships. It is unclear how principles are enacted in practice, and current research has not always included the voices of low-income and middle-income country partners. This study aimed to explore how The Tropical Health and Education Trust's nine Principles of Partnership are enacted in practice, from the points of view of partners from low-income, middle-income and high-income countries, to help improve partnerships' quality and sustainability.

METHODS

People who had been a part of previous and/or ongoing health partnerships were interviewed virtually. Participants were purposefully sampled and interviews were conducted using an appreciative inquiry approach. Audio recordings were transcribed and deductive framework analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

13 participants from 8 partnerships were interviewed. Six participants were based in the low-income or middle-income countries and seven in the UK. Key findings identified strategies that enacted 'successful' and 'effective' partnerships within the Principles of Partnerships. These included practical techniques such as hiring a project manager, managing expectations and openly sharing information about the team's expertise and aspirations. Other strategies included the importance of consulting behavioural science to ensure the partnerships consider longevity and sustainability of the partnership.

DISCUSSION

Core principles to effective partnerships do not work in isolation of each other; they are intertwined and are complimentary to support equitable partnerships. Good communication and relationships built on trust which allow all partners to contribute equally throughout the project are core foundations for sustainable partnerships. Recommendations for established and future partnerships include embedding behavioural scientists/psychologists to support change to improve the quality and sustainability of health partnerships.

A multi-step analysis and co-produced principles to support equitable partnership with Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, 125 years on

Transboundary health partnerships are shaped by global inequities. Perspectives from the "global South" are critical to understand and redress power asymmetries in research partnerships yet are not often included in current guidelines. We undertook research with partners working with the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine (LSTM) to inform LSTM's equitable partnership strategy and co-develop principles for equitable partnerships as an entry point towards broader transformative action on research partnerships. We applied mixed-methods and participatory approaches. An online survey (n = 21) was conducted with LSTM's transboundary partners on fairness of opportunity, fair process, and fair sharing of benefits, triangulated with key informant interviews (n = 12). Qualitative narratives were analysed using the thematic framework approach. Findings were presented in a participatory workshop (n = 11) with partners to co-develop principles, which were refined and checked with stakeholders. Early inclusion emerged as fundamental to equitable partnerships, reflected in principle one: all partners to input into research design, agenda-setting and outputs to reflect priorities. Transparency is highlighted in principle two to guide all stages including agenda-setting, budgeting, data ownership and authorship. Principle three underscores the importance of contextually embedded knowledge for relevant and impactful research. Multi-directional capacity strengthening across all cadres is highlighted in principle four. Principle five includes LSTM leveraging their position for strategic and deliberate promotion of transboundary partners in international forums. A multi-centric model of partnership with no centralised power is promoted in principle six. Finally, principle seven emphasises commitment to the principles and Global Code of Conduct values: Fairness, Respect, Care, Honesty. The co-developed principles are part of ongoing reflections and dialogue to improve and undo harmful power structures that perpetuate coloniality within global health. While this process was conducted with LSTM-Liverpool's existing partners, the principles to strengthen equity are applicable to other institutions engaged in transboundary research partnerships and relevant for funders.

Evaluating Global Surgery Partnerships From Low and Middle Income Country Perspectives

INTRODUCTION

Little is known about perceptions of low-income and middle-income country (LMIC) partners regarding global surgery collaborations with high-income countries (HICs).

METHODS

A survey was distributed to surgeons from LMICs to assess the nature and perception of collaborations, funding, benefits, communication, and the effects of COVID-19 on partnerships.

RESULTS

We received 19 responses from LMIC representatives in 12 countries on three continents. The majority (83%) had participated in collaborations within the past 5 y with 39% of collaborations were facilitated virtually. Clinical and educational partnerships (39% each) were ranked most important by respondents. Sustainability of the partnership was most successfully achieved in domains of education/training (78%) and research (61%). The majority (77%) of respondents reported expressing their needs before HIC team arrival. However, 54% of respondents were the ones to initiate the conversation and only 47% said HIC partners understood the overall environment well at arrival to LMIC. Almost all participants (95%) felt a formal process of collaboration and a structured partnership would benefit all parties in assessing needs. During the COVID-19 pandemic, 87% of participants reported continued collaborations; however, 44% of partners felt that relationships were weaker, 31% felt relationships were stronger, and 25% felt they were unchanged.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study provides a snapshot of LMIC surgeons' perspectives on collaboration in global surgery. Independent of location, LMIC partners cite inadequate structure for long-term collaborations. We propose a formal pathway and initiation process to assess resources and needs at the outset of a partnership.

Achieving equitable leadership in Global Health partnerships: barriers experienced and strategies to improve grant funding for early- and mid-career researchers

Calls to decolonize global health have highlighted the continued existence of colonial structures in research into diseases of public health importance particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). A key step towards restructuring the system and shaping it to local needs is equitable leadership in global health partnerships. This requires ensuring that researchers in LMICs are given the opportunity to successfully secure grant funding to lead and drive their own research based on locally defined priorities. In February 2022, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine hosted a workshop aimed at bringing together funders and early- and mid-career researchers (EMCRs) to identify funder initiatives that have worked to improve equitable leadership, to better understand barriers faced by researchers, and collectively brainstorm approaches to overcome these barriers. The workshop transcript was analyzed using a deductive thematic approach based on the workshop topic to identify key emerging themes. Barriers identified were the lack of individual and institutional level support and flawed funding structures for EMCRs in LMIC settings. Strategies on how equitable leadership can be further facilitated include institutional reforms for funders to facilitate equity, diversity, and inclusion in their partners through consultative engagement and in addition, reshaping how research priorities are defined; diversified funding streams for research organizations, building partnerships and dedicated funding for capacity building of EMCRs. Intentional advances to overcome funding barriers in global health speak directly to its decolonization. Urgently required and complex changes in practice must be intentional and do require uncomfortable shifts which will take time.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s44263-024-00047-4.

Bilateral Exchange: Enteral Nutrition Clinical Decision Making in Pediatric Surgery Patients

INTRODUCTION

Evidence-based medicine guides clinical decision-making; however, promoting enteral nutrition has historically followed a dogmatic approach in which patients graduate from clear liquids to full liquids to a regular diet after return of bowel function. Enhanced recovery after surgery has demonstrated that early enteral nutrition initiation is associated with shorter hospital stays. We aimed to understand postoperative pediatric nutrition practices in Kenya and the United States.

METHODS

We completed a prospective observational study of pediatric surgery fellows during clinical rounds in a pediatric referral center in Kenya (S4A) and one in the United States (Riley). Fellow-patient interactions were observed from postoperative day one to discharge or postoperative day 30, whichever happened first. Patient demographic, operative information, and daily observations including nutritional status were collected via REDCap.

RESULTS

We included 75 patients with 41 (54.7%) from Kenya; patients in Kenya were younger with 40% of patients in Kenya presenting as neonates. Median time to initiation and full enteral nutrition was shorter for the patients at Riley when compared to their counterparts at S4A. In the neonatal subgroup, patients at S4A initiated enteral nutrition sooner, but their hospital length of stays were not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

Studying current nutrition practices may guide early enteral nutrition protocols. Implementing these protocols, particularly in a setting where enteral nutrition alternatives are minimal, may provide evidence of success and overrule dogmatic nutrition advancement. Studying implementation of these protocols in resource-constrained areas, where patient length of stay is often related to socioeconomic factors, may identify additional benefits to patients.

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.

Evolving academic and research partnerships in global health: a capacity-building partnership to assess primary healthcare in the Philippines

Building fair, equitable, and beneficial partnerships between institutions collaborating in research in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) and high-income countries (HIC) has become an integral part of research capacity building in global health in recent years. In this paper, we offer an example of an academic collaboration between the University of California Los Angeles, Center for Health Policy and Research (UCLA CHPR) and the University of Philippines, Manila, College of Public Health (UPM CPH) that sought to build an equitable partnership between research institutions. The partnership was built on a project to build capacity for research and produce data for policy action for the prevention and care of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) through primary healthcare in the Philippines. The specific objectives of the project were to: (1) locally adapt the Primary Care Assessment Tool for the Philippines and use the adapted tool to measure facility-level primary care delivery, (2) conduct focus group discussions (FGDs) to gather qualitative observations regarding primary care readiness and capacity, and (3) conduct a comprehensive population-based health survey among adults on NCDs and prior healthcare experience. We describe here the progression of the partnership between these institutions to carry out the project and the elements that helped build a stronger connection between the institutions, such as mutual goal setting, cultural bridging, collaborative teams, and capacity building. This example, which can be used as a model depicting new directionality and opportunities for LMIC-HIC academic partnerships, was written based on the review of shared project documents, including study protocols, and written and oral communications with the project team members, including the primary investigators. The innovation of this partnership includes: LMIC-initiated project need identification, LMIC-based funding allocation, a capacity-building role of the HIC institution, and the expansion of scope through jointly offered courses on global health.

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.

Exploring HIV/AIDS investigator perceptions of equity within research partnerships between low-and middle-income and high-income countries: a pilot survey

BACKGROUND

Recommendations for research partnerships between low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and high-income countries (HICs) stress the importance of equity within the collaboration. However, there is limited knowledge of the practical challenges and successes involved in establishing equitable research practices. This study describes the results of a pilot survey assessing key issues on LMIC/HIC partnership equity within HIV/AIDS research collaborations and compares perspectives of these issues between LMIC- and HIC-based investigators.

METHODS

Survey participants were selected using clustered, random sampling and snowball sampling. Responses were compared between LMIC and HIC respondents using standard descriptive statistics. Qualitative respondent feedback was analyzed using a combination of exploratory and confirmatory thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The majority of categories within four themes (research interests and resources; leadership, trust, and communication; cultural and ethical competence; representation and benefits) demonstrated relative consensus between LMIC and HIC respondents except for 'lack of trust within the partnership' which was rated as a more pronounced challenge by LMIC respondents. However, subcategories within some of the themes had significant differences between respondent groups including: equitable setting of the research agenda, compromise within a partnership, the role of regulatory bodies in monitoring partnerships for equity, and post-study access to research technology.

CONCLUSIONS

These efforts serve as a proof-of-concept survey characterizing contemporary issues around international research partnership equity. The frequency and severity of specific equity issues can be assessed, highlighting similarities versus differences in experiences between LMIC and HIC partners as potential targets for further discussion and evaluation.

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 meetings with leaders of one of the multinational COVID-19 adaptive platform trials, we describe what can be learned about research partnership equity from these experiences. 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 8) research capacity strengthening and maintenance. Within each category we review the 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: These observations provide insight into procedural and substantive equity-building measures within transnational global health research partnerships more broadly.

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.

"We should be at the table together from the beginning": perspectives on partnership from stakeholders at four research institutions in sub-Saharan Africa

Background

Global health research partnerships have been scrutinised for how they operate and criticised for perpetuating inequities. Guidance to inform fair partnership practice has proliferated and the movement to decolonise global health has added momentum for change. In light of this evolving context, we sought in this study to document contemporary experiences of partnership from the perspective of stakeholders in four sub-Saharan African research institutions.

Methods

We conducted qualitative interviews with 20 stakeholders at research institutions in four countries in anglophone eastern and southern Africa. Interview questions were informed by published guidance on equitable research partnerships. Data was analysed through an iterative process of inductive and deductive coding, supported by NVivo software.

Results

Early-career, mid-career and senior researchers and research administrators from four sub-Saharan African research institutions described wide-ranging experiences of partnership with high-income country collaborators. Existing guidelines for partnership provided good coverage of issues that participants described as being the key determinants of a healthy partnership, including mutual respect, role clarity and early involvement of all partners. However, there was almost no mention of guidelines being used to inform partnership practice. Participants considered the key benefits of partnership to be capacity strengthening and access to research funding. Meanwhile, participants continued to experience a range of well-documented inequities, including exclusion from agenda setting, study design, data analysis and authorship; and relationships that were exploitative and dominated by high-income country partners’ interests. Participants also reported emerging issues where their institution had been the prime recipient of funds. These included high-income country partners being unwilling to accept a subordinate role and failing to comply with reporting requirements.

Conclusions

Insights from stakeholders in four sub-Saharan African research institutions suggest that contemporary global health research partnerships generate considerable benefits but continue to exhibit longstanding inequities and reveal emerging tensions. Our findings suggest that long-term support targeted towards institutions and national research systems remains essential to fulfil the potential of research led from sub-Saharan Africa. High-income country stakeholders need to find new roles in partnerships and stakeholders from sub-Saharan Africa must continue to tackle challenges presented by the resource-constrained contexts in which they commonly operate.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12939-022-01707-3.

The Equity Tool for Valuing Global Health Partnerships

There is a need to more comprehensively identify and respond to equity in global health partnerships. The Equity Tool can support dialogue at any stage of a partnership, by individuals at any level. This assists partnerships to embrace ways of recognizing, understanding, and advancing equity in all their processes.

Global health partnerships (GHPs) involve complex relationships between individuals and organizations, often joining partners from high-income and low- or middle-income countries around work that is carried out in the latter. Therefore, GHPs are situated in the context of global inequities and their underlying sociopolitical and historical causes, such as colonization. Equity is a core principle that should guide GHPs from start to end. How equity is embedded and nurtured throughout a partnership has remained a constant challenge. We have developed a user-friendly tool for valuing a GHP throughout its lifespan using an equity lens. The development of the EQT was informed by 5 distinct elements: a scoping review of scientific published peer-reviewed literature; an online survey and follow-up telephone interviews; workshops in Canada, Burkina Faso, and Vietnam; a critical interpretive synthesis; and a content validation exercise. Findings suggest GHPs generate experiences of equity or inequity yet provide little guidance on how to identify and respond to these experiences. The EQT can guide people involved in partnering to consider the equity implications of all their actions, from inception, through implementation and completion of a partnership. When used to guide reflective dialogue with a clear intention to advance equity in and through partnering, this tool offers a new approach to valuing global health partnerships. Global health practitioners, among others, can apply the EQT in their partnerships to learning together about how to cultivate equity in their unique contexts within what is becoming an increasingly diverse, vibrant, and responsive global health community.

What Makes Working Together Work? A Scoping Review of the Guidance on North-South Research Partnerships

At their best, research partnerships provide a mechanism to optimize each partner’s strengths, make scientific discoveries and achieve development goals. Each partner stands to gain from the relationship and perceives it to be fair. However, partnerships between institutions in the global North and the global South have been beleaguered by structural inequalities and power imbalances, and Northern stakeholders have been criticized for perpetuating paternalistic or neo-colonial behaviours. As part of efforts to redress imbalances and achieve equity and mutual benefit, various principles, guidelines, frameworks and models for partnership have been developed. This scoping review maps the literature and summarizes key features of the guidelines for North–South research partnerships. The review was conducted between October 2020 and January 2021. Three academic journal databases and Google were searched, and additional resources were identified through a hand search of reference lists and expert recommendation. Twenty-two guidelines were identified published between 1994 and 2021 and originating predominantly in the fields of international development and global health. The themes addressed within the guidelines were aggregated using NVivo qualitative analysis software to code the content of each guideline. Topics featuring most prominently in the guidelines were: partner roles, responsibilities and ways of working; capacity strengthening; motivation and goals; resource contributions; agenda setting and study design; governance structures and institutional agreements; dissemination; respect for affected populations; data handling and ownership; funding and long-term commitments. The current study reinforces many of the themes from two recent scoping reviews specific to the field of global health, but gaps remain, which need to be addressed: Southern stakeholders continue to be under-represented in guideline development, and there is limited evidence of how guidelines are used in practice. Further exploration is needed of Southern stakeholder priorities and whether and how guidelines are operationalized.