Towards inclusive priority-setting for global health research projects: recommendations for sharing power with communities

Advancing hypertensive disorders of pregnancy management: insights from the 5th preeclampsia scientific symposium in Ghana

The 5th Preeclampsia Scientific Symposium (PSS2023) organized by Action on Preeclampsia (APEC) Ghana was themed: 'Realign, Refocus: Improving outcomes of Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy through Shared Decision Making, Research & Quality of Care'. It took place on the 18th and 19th of May 2023 at the Ghana College of Physicians and Surgeons (GCPS), Accra Ghana. This transdisciplinary symposium brought together a national representation of experts, policy makers, scientists, and healthcare professionals to discuss key priorities, opportunities, approaches, and strategies to improve the maternal and perinatal outcomes of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) in Ghana and the sub-region. The symposium centered around three key themes: realigning/refocusing patient-doctor decision making processes to improve outcomes of HDP; realigning/refocusing clinical care to improve outcomes of HDP; and leveraging on research to predict, recognize and manage high-risk women.This report summarizes insights from the diverse presentations and discussions held at the #PSS2023. This will form a roadmap for future research, policy, and interventions to improve outcomes of HDP in Ghana and the sub-region. The symposium provided a wealth of evidence and knowledge from various experts, highlighting the need for women-centered care, equitable re-allocation of resources, multi-sectoral and innovative approaches, capacity strengthening. Other highlights include knowledge base development and increased stakeholder and community engagement with an overall aim of improving outcomes of HDP. The symposium also fostered inclusivity, welcoming survivors of HDP and their families at a scientific platform. They provided invaluable insights into the challenges faced and the lived experiences of those affected by the disease. Trainees and students also benefited from the symposium as it provided networking opportunities with fellow researchers, and a front row to gaining insights into cutting-edge research in Ghana.

A review and analysis of accountability in global health funding, research collaborations and training: towards conceptual clarity and better practice

INTRODUCTION

Accountability is a complex idea to unpack and involves different processes in global health practice. Calls for accountability in global health would be better translated to action through a better understanding of the concept and practice of accountability in global health. We sought to analyse accountability processes in practice in global health funding, research collaborations and training.

METHODS

This study is a literature review that systematically searched PubMed and Scopus for articles on formal accountability processes in global health. We charted information on processes based on accountability lines ('who is accountable to whom') and the outcomes the processes were intended for ('accountability for what'). We visualised the representation of accountability in the articles by mapping the processes according to their intended outcomes and the levels where processes were implemented.

RESULTS

We included 53 articles representing a wide range of contexts and identified 19 specific accountability processes for various outcomes in global health funding, research collaborations and training. Target setting and monitoring were the most common accountability processes. Other processes included interinstitutional networks for peer checking, litigation strategies to enforce health-related rights, special bodies that bring actors to account for commitments, self-accountability through internal organisational processes and multipolar accountability involving different types of institutional actors. Our mapping identified gaps at the institutional, interinstitutional and broader system levels where accountability processes could be enhanced.

CONCLUSION

To rebalance power in global health, our review has shown that analysing information on existing accountability processes regarding 'who is accountable to whom' and 'accountability for what' would be useful to characterise existing lines of accountability and create lines where there are gaps. However, we also suggest that institutional and systems processes for accountability must be accompanied by political engagement to mobilise collective action and create conditions where a culture of accountability thrives in global health.

Observed consensus on research priorities for the hypertriglyceridemia patient registry

BACKGROUND

Priority setting in health research has been described as essential due to disparities within and between countries and populations. Commercial benefits to the pharmaceutical industry may increase the generation and use of regulatory Real-World Evidence which has recently been reported in the literature. Research must be steered by valuable priorities. This study's objective is to identify key gaps in the knowledge of triglyceride-induced acute pancreatitis by generating a list of potential research priorities for a Hypertriglyceridemia Patient Registry.

METHOD

The Jandhyala Method was used to observe the consensus of expert opinion from ten specialist clinicians in the treatment of triglyceride-induced acute pancreatitis across the US and EU.

RESULTS

Ten participants completed the consensus round of the Jandhyala method and generated 38 unique items which they all agreed with. The items were included in the generation of research priorities for a hypertriglyceridemia patient registry and presented a novel application of the Jandhyala method for the development of research questions, in aid of the validation of a core dataset.

CONCLUSION

The TG-IAP core dataset and research priorities combined can develop a globally harmonized framework where TG-IAP patients can be observed simultaneously using the same set of indicators. This will increase knowledge of the disease and facilitate higher-quality research by addressing issues related to incomplete data sets in observational studies. Furthermore, validation of new tools will be enabled, and diagnosis and monitoring will be improved as well as the detection of changes in disease severity and subsequent disease progression, improving the management of patients with TG-IAP overall. This will inform personalized patient management plans and improve patient outcomes along with their quality of life.

Priority topics for child and family health research in community-based paediatric health care according to caregivers and health care professionals

Background

Patient-oriented research (POR) aligns research with stakeholders' priorities to improve health services and outcomes. Community-based health care settings offer an opportunity to engage stakeholders to determine the most important research topics to them. Our objectives were to identify unanswered questions that stakeholders had regarding any aspect of child and family health and prioritize their 'top 10' questions.

Methods

We followed the James Lind Alliance (JLA) priority setting methodology in partnership with stakeholders from the Northeast Community Health Centre (NECHC; Edmonton, Canada). We partnered with stakeholders (five caregivers, five health care professionals [HCPs]) to create a steering committee. Stakeholders were surveyed in two rounds (n = 125 per survey) to gather and rank-order unanswered questions regarding child and family health. A final priority setting workshop was held to finalize the 'top 10' list.

Results

Our initial survey generated 1,265 submissions from 100 caregivers and 25 HCPs. Out of scope submissions were removed and similar questions were combined to create a master list of questions (n = 389). Only unanswered questions advanced (n = 108) and were rank-ordered through a second survey by 100 caregivers and 25 HCPs. Stakeholders (n = 12) gathered for the final workshop to discuss and finalize the 'top 10' list. Priority questions included a range of topics, including mental health, screen time, COVID-19, and behaviour.

Conclusion

Our stakeholders prioritized diverse questions within our 'top 10' list; questions regarding mental health were the most common. Future patient-oriented research at this site will be guided by priorities that were most important to caregivers and HCPs.

People powered research: what do communities identify as important for happy and healthy children and young people? A multi-disciplinary community research priority setting exercise in the City of Bradford, United Kingdom (UK)

BACKGROUND

Involving communities in research priority setting can increase the relevance and efficiency of research, leading to better health outcomes. However these exercises often lack clarity in how communities are involved and the extent to which priorities are acted upon is unclear. Seldom-heard groups, for example ethnic minorities may experience barriers to participation. We report methods and outcomes of an inclusive co-produced community research priority setting exercise within the multicultural and deprived city of Bradford, UK. The aim was to identify priorities for keeping children happy and healthy and was undertaken by the Born in Bradford (BiB) research programme to inform future research agendas.

METHODS

A 12 member multi-disciplinary, multi-ethnic community steering group led the process using a modified James Lind Alliance approach between December 2018-March 2020. Research priorities were collected through a widely distributed paper and online survey. Respondents were asked to list three important things to keep children i) happy, ii) healthy and what needs to change to improve either health or happiness. Free text data were coded iteratively by community researchers, and shared priorities were co-produced in a series of workshops and meetings with the community steering group and community members.

RESULTS

Five hundred eighty-eight respondents to the survey identified 5748 priorities, which were coded into 22 themes. These covered a range of individual, social and wider socioeconomic, environmental and cultural priorities. Diet/nutrition and exercise were most commonly identified as important for health, including what needs to change to improve health. For happiness, home life and family relationships, listening to children, and education/activities were the most commonly identified. Community assets were identified as important to change for both health and happiness. From the survey response the steering group developed 27 research questions. There were mapped onto existing and planned research agendas within BiB.

CONCLUSIONS

Communities identified both structural and individual factors as important priorities for health and happiness. We demonstrate how communities can be involved in priority setting using a co-productive approach in the hope this can be used as a model for others. The resulting shared research agenda will shape future research to improve the health of families living in Bradford.

How should communities be meaningfully engaged (if at all) when setting priorities for biomedical research? Perspectives from the biomedical research community

BACKGROUND

There is now rising consensus that community engagement is ethically and scientifically essential for all types of health research. Yet debate continues about the moral aims, methods and appropriate timing in the research cycle for community engagement to occur, and whether the answer should vary between different types of health research. Co-design and collaborative partnership approaches that involve engagement during priority-setting, for example, are common in many forms of applied health research but are not regular practice in biomedical research. In this study, we empirically examine the normative question: should communities be engaged when setting priorities for biomedical research projects, and, if so, how and for what purpose?

METHODS

We conducted in-depth interviews with 31 members of the biomedical research community from the UK, Australia, and African countries who had engaged communities in their work. Interview data were thematically analysed.

RESULTS

Our study shows that biomedical researchers and community engagement experts strongly support engagement in biomedical research priority-setting, except under certain circumstances where it may be harmful to communities. However, they gave two distinct responses on what ethical purpose it should serve-either empowerment or instrumental goals-and their perspectives on how it should achieve those goals also varied. Three engagement approaches were suggested: community-initiated, synergistic, and consultative. Pre-engagement essentials and barriers to meaningful engagement in biomedical research priority-setting are also reported.

CONCLUSIONS

This study offers initial evidence that meaningful engagement in priority-setting should potentially be defined slightly differently for biomedical research relative to certain types of applied health research and that engagement practice in biomedical research should not be dominated by instrumental goals and approaches, as is presently the case.

Oxford consensus on primary cam morphology and femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: part 2-research priorities on conditions affecting the young person's hip

INTRODUCTION

Primary cam morphology is highly prevalent in many athlete populations, causing debilitating hip osteoarthritis in some. Existing research is mired in confusion partly because stakeholders have not agreed on key primary cam morphology elements or a prioritised research agenda. We aimed to inform a more rigorous, inclusive and evidence-based approach to research on primary cam morphology and its natural history by working towards agreement on a set of research priorities for conditions affecting the young person's hip.

METHODS

An international expert panel-the Young Athlete's Hip Research (YAHiR) Collaborative-rated research priority statements through an online two-round Delphi exercise and met online to explore areas of tension and dissent. Panellists ranked the prioritised research statements according to the Essential National Health Research (ENHR) ranking strategy. Reporting of results followed REPRISE (REporting guideline for PRIority SEtting of health).

RESULTS

A diverse Delphi panel (n=65, Delphi rounds 1 and 2; three ENHR strategy surveys: n=49; n=44; n=42) from 18 countries representing six stakeholder groups, prioritised and ranked 18 of 38 research priority statements. The prioritised statements outlined seven research domains: (1) best practice physiotherapy, (2) rehabilitation progression and return to sport, (3) exercise intervention and load management, (4) primary cam morphology prognosis and aetiology, (5) femoroacetabular impingement syndrome prognosis and aetiology, (6) diagnostic criteria, and (7) screening. The panel recommended areas of tension and dissent for the research community to focus on immediately.

CONCLUSION

While informing more rigorous, inclusive and evidence-based research, this consensus is a roadmap for researchers, policy-makers and funders to implement research dedicated to reducing the cost and burden of hip disease related to primary cam morphology.

Equitable Design and Use of Digital Surveillance Technologies During COVID-19: Norms and Concerns

Given the unprecedented scale of digital surveillance in the COVID-19 pandemic, designing and implementing digital technologies in ways that are equitable is critical now and in future epidemics and pandemics. Yet to date there has been very limited consideration about what is necessary to promote their equitable design and implementation. In this study, literature relating to the use of digital surveillance technologies during epidemics and pandemics was collected and thematically analyzed for ethical norms and concerns related to equity and social justice. Eleven norms are reported, including procedural fairness and inclusive approaches to design and implementation, designing to rectify or avoid exacerbating inequities, and fair access. Identified concerns relate to digital divides, stigma and discrimination, disparate risk of harm, and unfair design processes. We conclude by considering what dimensions of social justice the norms promote and whether identified concerns can be addressed by building the identified norms into technology design and implementation practice.

Overcoming structural barriers to sharing power with communities in global health research priority-setting: Lessons from the Participation for Local Action project in Karnataka, India

Community engagement is gaining prominence in global health research. But communities rarely have a say in the agendas or conduct of the very health research projects that aim to help them. This paper provides new evidence on how to share power in priority-setting in ways that seek to overcome structural constraints created by the funding environment. The five strategies were identified through case study research on the Participation for Local Action project in Karnataka, India. That project was carried out by researchers in partnership with the Zilla Budakattu Girijana Abhivrudhhi Sangha, an indigenous community development organisation representing the Solega people. The paper describes each identified strategy for sharing power in priority-setting, followed by a report of the pitfalls and challenges that arose when implementing it. Thus, the study also demonstrates that even where actions and strategies are used to address power imbalances, pitfalls will arise that need to be navigated. Given those challenges, considerations to reflect upon before employing the identified strategies are suggested. Ultimately, the paper aims to communicate strategies for sharing power during and after priority-setting and lessons on how to implement them effectively that can be used by global health researchers in the current funding environment.

Life-Course Marginalities of Positive Health and Aging: A Participatory Approach Integrating the Lived Experiences of Older Irish Travelers and Older Homeless Adults in Multistakeholder Research Processes

There is increased emphasis on adopting positive health and aging policy goals for heterogeneous older populations, and recognition of the role that participatory research approaches can play in supporting their implementation. However, questions remain about how to represent the marginalized experiences of some older populations within such processes. With a focus on older Irish ethnic Travelers and older homeless adults as two vulnerable populations in Ireland, this article presents and critically discusses a participatory approach developed to integrate marginalized older adult perspectives on positive health and aging in a multistakeholder research and development process. The qualitative methodology is first detailed, incorporating methods that harness collaboratively derived views and individual narratives (e.g., focus groups; consultation forums; in-depth interviews). Critical reflections on research implementation and specific considerations relevant to these populations are presented (e.g., trust building; one-to-one facilitation), with lessons then drawn for the design of multistakeholder participatory approaches with marginalized older populations.

'Working relationships' across difference - a realist review of community engagement with malaria research

Background: Community engagement (CE) is increasingly accepted as a critical aspect of health research, because of its potential to make research more ethical, relevant and well implemented. While CE activities linked to health research have proliferated in Low and Middle Income Countries (LMICs), and are increasingly described in published literature, there is a lack of conceptual clarity around how engagement is understood to 'work', and the aims and purposes of engagement are varied and often not made explicit. Ultimately, the evidence base for engagement remains underdeveloped. Methods: To develop explanations for how and why CE with health research contributes to the pattern of outcomes observed in published literature , we conducted a realist review of CE with malaria research - a theory driven approach to evidence synthesis. Results: We found that community engagement relies on the development of provisional 'working relationships' across differences, primarily of wealth, power and culture. These relationships are rooted in interactions that are experienced as relatively responsive and respectful, and that bring tangible research related benefits. Contextual factors affecting development of working relationships include the facilitating influence of research organisation commitment to and resources for engagement, and constraining factors linked to the prevailing 'dominant health research paradigm context', such as: differences of wealth and power between research centres and local populations and health systems; histories of colonialism and vertical health interventions; and external funding and control of health research. Conclusions: The development of working relationships contributes to greater acceptance and participation in research by local stakeholders, who are particularly interested in research related access to health care and other benefits. At the same time, such relationships may involve an accommodation of some ethically problematic characteristics of the dominant health research paradigm, and thereby reproduce this paradigm rather than challenge it with a different logic of collaborative partnership.

Achieving inclusive research priority-setting: what do people with lived experience and the public think is essential?

Background

Engagement of people with lived experience and members of the public is an ethically and scientifically essential component of health research. Authentic engagement means they are involved as full partners in research projects. Yet engagement as partnership is uncommon in practice, especially during priority-setting for research projects. What is needed for agenda-setting to be shared by researchers and people with lived experience and/or members of the public (or organisations representing them)? At present, little ethical guidance exists on this matter, particularly that which has been informed by the perspectives of people with lived experience and members of the public. This article provides initial evidence about what they think are essential foundations and barriers to shared decision-making in health research priority-setting and health research more broadly.

Methods

An exploratory, qualitative study was conducted in 2019. 22 semi-structured interviews were performed with key informants from the UK and Australia.

Results

Three main types of foundations were thought to be essential to have in place before shared decision-making can occur in health research priority-setting: relational, environmental, and personal. Collectively, the three types of foundations addressed many (but not all) of the barriers to power sharing identified by interviewees.

Conclusions

Based on study findings, suggestions are made for what researchers, engagement practitioners, research institutions, and funders should do in their policy and practice to support meaningful engagement. Finally, key international research ethics guidelines on community engagement are considered in light of study findings.

Identifying research priorities to improve the health of incarcerated populations: results of citizens' juries in Australian prisons

Health disparities in incarcerated populations should guide investment in the health care and research of these communities. Although users of health-care services are important in providing input into decisions about research, the voices of people in prison are absent regarding research into their health. In this Health Policy paper, we present priorities for research into the health of people in prison according to people in prison themselves. By use of a deliberative research approach, citizens' juries were conducted in six prisons (three men's and three women's prisons) in Australia. Participants were selected following submissions of expression of interest forms that were distributed within the prisons. Prerecorded information by experts in the health of incarcerated people was shown to participants. Participants deliberated for up to 4 h before agreeing on five research priorities. All citizens' juries endorsed mental health as a number one research priority. Prison health-care services, alcohol and other drug use, education, and infectious diseases were identified as research priorities by most citizens' juries. Focal points within priorities included serious mental illness; grief and trauma; medication management; health-care service access, quality, and resources; drug withdrawal and peer support; prison-based needle and syringe programmes; and health and life skills education. If endeavours in research priority setting are to consider health equity goals, the views of our most health affected citizens need to be included.

Sharing power in global health research: an ethical toolkit for designing priority-setting processes that meaningfully include communities

To promote social justice and equity, global health research should meaningfully engage communities throughout projects: from setting agendas onwards. But communities, especially those that are considered disadvantaged or marginalised, rarely have a say in the priorities of the research projects that aim to help them. So far, there remains limited ethical guidance and resources on how to share power with communities in health research priority-setting. This paper presents an "ethical toolkit" for academic researchers and their community partners to use to design priority-setting processes that meaningfully include the communities impacted by their projects. An empirical reflective equilibrium approach was employed to develop the toolkit. Conceptual work articulated ethical considerations related to sharing power in g0l0o0bal health research priority-setting, developed guidance on how to address them, and created an initial version of the toolkit. Empirical work (51 in-depth interviews, 1 focus group, 2 case studies in India and the Philippines) conducted in 2018 and 2019 then tested those findings against information from global health research practice. The final ethical toolkit is a reflective project planning aid. It consists of 4 worksheets (Worksheet 1- Selecting Partners; Worksheet 2- Deciding to Partner; Worksheet 3- Deciding to Engage with the Wider Community; Worksheet 4- Designing Priority-setting) and a Companion Document detailing how to use them. Reflecting on and discussing the questions in Worksheets 1 to 4 before priority-setting will help deliver priority-setting processes that share power with communities and projects with research topics and questions that more accurately reflect their healthcare and system needs.

What are Important Ways of Sharing Power in Health Research Priority Setting? Perspectives From People With Lived Experience and Members of the Public

Community engagement (patient and public involvement) is gaining prominence in health research worldwide. But there remains limited ethical guidance on how to share power with communities in health research priority setting, particularly that which has been informed by the perspectives of those being engaged. This article provides initial evidence about what they think are important ways to share power when setting health research projects' topics and questions. Twenty-two people with lived experience, engagement practitioners, and members of the public who have been engaged in health research in the United Kingdom and Australia were interviewed. Thematic analysis identified 15 key ways to share power, many of which are relational. This study further demonstrates that tensions exist between certain ways of sharing power in health research priority setting. More research is needed to determine how to navigate those tensions.

Prevention of road traffic collisions and associated neurotrauma in Colombia: An exploratory qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

Neurotrauma is an important but preventable cause of death and disability worldwide, with the majority being associated with road traffic collisions (RTCs). The greatest burden is seen in low -and middle- income countries (LMICs) where variations in the environment, infrastructure, population and habits can challenge the success of conventional preventative approaches. It is therefore necessary to understand local perspectives to allow for the development and implementation of context-specific strategies which are effective and sustainable.

METHODS

This study took place in Colombia where qualitative data collection was carried out with ten key informants between October and November 2019. Semi-structured interviews were conducted and explored perceptions on RTCs and neurotrauma, preventative strategies and interventions, and the role of research in prevention. Interview transcripts were analysed by thematic analysis using a framework approach.

RESULTS

Participants' confirmed that RTCs are a significant problem in Colombia with neurotrauma as an important outcome. Human and organisational factors were identified as key causes of the high rates of RTCs. Participants described the current local preventative strategies, but were quick to discuss limitations and challenges to their success. Key barriers reported were poor attitudes and knowledge, particularly in the community. Suggestions were provided on ways to improve prevention through better education and awareness, stricter enforcement and new policies on prevention, proper budgeting and resource allocation, as well as through collaboration and changes in attitudes and leadership. Participants identified four key research areas they felt would influence prevention of RTCs and associated neurotrauma: causes of RTCs; consequences and impact of RTCs; public involvement in research; improving prevention.

CONCLUSION

RTCs are a major problem in Colombia despite the current preventative strategies and interventions. Findings from this study have a potential to influence policy, practice and research by illustrating different solutions to the challenges surrounding prevention and by highlighting areas for further research.

Setting a research agenda to improve community health: An inclusive mixed-methods approach in Northern Uganda

BACKGROUND

The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals stress the importance of equitable partnerships in research and practice that integrate grass-roots knowledge, leadership, and expertise. However, priorities for health research in low-and-middle income countries are set almost exclusively by external parties and priorities, while end-users remain "researched on" not "researched with". This paper presents the first stage of a Community-Based Participatory Research-inspired project to engage communities and public-health end-users in setting a research agenda to improve health in their community.

METHODS

Photovoice was used in Kuc, Gulu District, Uganda to engage community members in the selection of a research topic for future public health research and intervention. Alcohol-Use Disorders emerged from this process the health issue that most negatively impacts the community. Following identification of this issue, a cross-sectional survey was conducted using the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (n = 327) to triangulate Photovoice findings and to estimate the prevalence of Alcohol-Use Disorders in Kuc. Logistic regression was used to test for associations with demographic characteristics and Alcohol-Use Disorders.

RESULTS

Photovoice generated four prominent themes, including alcohol related issues, sanitation and compound cleanliness, water quality and access, and infrastructure. Alcohol-Use Disorders were identified by the community as the most important driver of poor health. Survey results indicated that 23.55% of adults in Kuc had a probable Alcohol Use Disorder, 16.45 percentage points higher than World Health Organization estimates for Uganda.

CONCLUSIONS

Community members engaged in the participatory, bottom-up approach offered by the research team to develop a research agenda to improve health in the community. Participants honed in on the under-researched and underfunded topic of Alcohol-Use Disorders. The findings from Photovoice were validated by survey results, thereby solidifying the high prevalence of Alcohol-Use Disorders as the health outcome that will be targeted through future long-term research and partnership.

Defining Optimal Post-prison Care for Those With Psychosis: A Delphi Study

Background: Early treatment (considered as early contact with community mental health services) and treatment retention are associated with reduced reoffending among those with a previous diagnosis of psychosis, yet the attributes of care required to best achieve this is largely unexplored for people with psychosis leaving prison. This study sought consensus from a sample of experts and consumers regarding the attributes of an "optimal model of care" for those with a prior episode of psychosis leaving prison in New South Wales, Australia. Methods: A Delphi method was used, which involved establishing a consensus from a panel of 25 experts and consumers. Following three meetings, 34 model of care attributes and 168 attribute levels were generated for two rounds of online scoring. All attributes and levels were included in the final model if they scored "very important" or "extremely important;" or if the attribute was agreed on by 70% or more of participants. The participant retention rate across scoring rounds was 96% for Round 1 and 84% for Round 2, where consensus was reached. Two "member checking" procedures were undertaken to enhance the integrity of findings: a model "stress test" and an online consumer poll. Results: Thirty-two attributes and 72 attribute levels were included in the final model across four components: pre-release care planning and coordination; treatments in community; diversion from prison; and evaluation. Member checking endorsed a person-centered approach with carers and peer-support central to care. Conclusions: Participants agreed that an optimal model of care should involve a specialized team who works independent of community health service teams to directly deliver certain treatments and services while helping consumers to access external social an economic supports and services.

Developing a toolkit for engagement practice: sharing power with communities in priority-setting for global health research projects

Background

Communities’ engagement in priority-setting is a key means for setting research topics and questions of relevance and benefit to them. However, without attention to dynamics of power and diversity, their engagement can be tokenistic. So far, there remains limited ethical guidance on how to share power with communities, particularly those considered disadvantaged and marginalised, in global health research priority-setting. This paper generates a comprehensive, empirically-based “ethical toolkit” to provide such guidance, further strengthening a previously proposed checklist version of the toolkit. The toolkit places community engagement and power-sharing at the heart of priority-setting for global health research projects.

Methods

A two part method was used to generate a revised toolkit. Part one was conceptual, consisting of novel analysis of empirical data (previously collected as part of the same overall project) to identify additional concepts relevant to power-sharing between researchers and communities in global health research priority-setting. Part two was empirical, seeking feedback on the initial checklist version of the toolkit in interviews with researchers, ethicists, community engagement practitioners, and community organisation staff.

Results

The conceptual process identified two additional components of engagement and six additional features that affect who defines, who participates, and who is heard in research priority-setting. New ethical considerations related to sharing power in global health research priority-setting are articulated in relation to those components and features. Interviewees provided suggestions for revising the toolkit’s content and language. The implications of these suggestions and the analytic process for the toolkit are described.

Conclusions

The resultant toolkit is a reflective project planning aid for researchers and their community partners to employ before priority-setting is undertaken for global health research projects. It consists of three worksheets (to be completed collectively) and a companion document detailing how to use them. It is more comprehensive than the initial toolkit, as worksheet questions for discussion cover all phases of priority-setting.

Fostering a Diverse Pool of Global Health Academic Leaders Through Mentorship and Career Path Planning

Established in 2011, the Global Emergency Medicine Academy (GEMA) aims "to improve the global delivery of emergency care through research, education, and mentorship." Global health remains early in its development as an academic track in emergency medicine, and there are only a small number of global emergency medicine academic faculty in most institutions. Consequently, GEMA focused its efforts at the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) Annual Meeting in 2019 on developing a diverse pool of global health academics and leaders in emergency medicine. Current and previous members of the GEMA Executive Committee convened to appraise and describe how current GEMA efforts situate within existing knowledge in the arenas of professional development and mentorship. The 2019 SAEM Annual Meeting unveiled the Global Emergency Medicine Roadmap, a joint venture between GEMA and the residents and medical students (RAMS) group. The roadmap guides medical students, residents, and fellows in the exploration of global emergency medicine and career development. GEMA's mentorship roundtable complemented this effort by providing a version of speed mentoring across several critical areas: work-life balance, identifying near-peer and long-distance mentoring opportunities, negotiating with your Chair, finding funding, networking, and teaching abroad. Finally, the GEMA-sponsored panel "Empowering Women through Emergency Care Development in LMICs" underscored the potential for empowering women through global emergency medicine development, including policy advocacy, inclusive research approaches, and mentorship and sponsorship. In summary, GEMA is committed to developing a diverse group of future global health leaders to guide the expansion of emergency medicine worldwide. Our work indicates critical future directions in global emergency medicine education and training including building innovative mentoring networks across institutions and countries. Further, we will continue to focus on growing faculty diversity, empowering underrepresented populations through emergency care development, and supporting rising global emergency medicine faculty in their pursuit of advancement and promotion.

Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE)

BACKGROUND

Research priority setting with stakeholders can help direct the limited resources for health research toward priority areas of need. Ensuring transparency of the priority setting process can strengthen legitimacy and credibility for influencing the research agenda. This study aims to develop a reporting guideline for priority setting of health research.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases and relevant websites for sources (frameworks, guidelines, or models for conducting, appraising, reporting or evaluating health research priority setting, and reviews (including systematic reviews)), and primary studies of research priority setting to July 2019. We inductively developed a list of reporting items and piloted the preliminary guideline with a diverse range of 30 priority setting studies from the records retrieved.

RESULTS

From 21,556 records, we included 26 sources for the candidate REPRISE framework and 455 primary research studies. The REporting guideline for PRIority SEtting of health research (REPRISE) has 31 reporting items that cover 10 domains: context and scope, governance and team, framework for priority setting, stakeholders/participants, identification and collection of priorities, prioritization of research topics, output, evaluation and feedback, translation and implementation, and funding and conflict of interest. Each reporting item includes a descriptor and examples.

CONCLUSIONS

The REPRISE guideline can facilitate comprehensive reporting of studies of research priority setting. Improved transparency in research priority setting may strengthen the acceptability and implementation of the research priorities identified, so that efforts and funding are invested in generating evidence that is of importance to all stakeholders.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable.