Research for Health Justice: an ethical framework linking global health research to health equity

Co-creation of a toolkit to assist risk communication and clinical decision-making in severe preeclampsia: SPOT-Impact study design

Globally, the incidence of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, especially preeclampsia, remains high, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. The burden of adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes is particularly high for women who develop a hypertensive disorder remote from term (<34 weeks). In parallel, many women have a suboptimal experience of care. To improve the quality of care in terms of provision and experience, there is a need to support the communication of risks and making of treatment decision in ways that promote respectful maternity care. Our study objective is to co-create a tool(kit) to support clinical decision-making, communication of risks and shared decision-making in preeclampsia with relevant stakeholders, incorporating respectful maternity care, justice, and equity principles. This qualitative study detailing the exploratory phase of co-creation takes place over 17 months (Nov 2021-March 2024) in the Greater Accra and Eastern Regions of Ghana. Informed by ethnographic observations of care interactions, in-depth interviews and focus group and group discussions, the tool(kit) will be developed with survivors and women with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and their families, health professionals, policy makers, and researchers. The tool(kit) will consist of three components: quantitative predicted risk (based on external validated risk models or absolute risk of adverse outcomes), risk communication, and shared decision-making support. We expect to co-create a user-friendly tool(kit) to improve the quality of care for women with preeclampsia remote from term which will contribute to better maternal and perinatal health outcomes as well as better maternity care experience for women in Ghana.

Defending and Defining Environmental Responsibilities for the Health Research Sector

Six planetary boundaries have already been exceeded, including climate change, loss of biodiversity, chemical pollution, and land-system change. The health research sector contributes to the environmental crisis we are facing, though to a lesser extent than healthcare or agriculture sectors. It could take steps to reduce its environmental impact but generally has not done so, even as the planetary emergency worsens. So far, the normative case for why the health research sector should rectify that failure has not been made. This paper argues strong philosophical grounds, derived from theories of health and social justice, exist to support the claim that the sector has a duty to avoid or minimise causing or contributing to ecological harms that threaten human health or worsen health inequity. The paper next develops ideas about the duty's content, explaining why it should entail more than reducing carbon emissions, and considers what limits might be placed on the duty.

Establishing a Pediatric Health Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Research Review Process

Equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) research is increasing, and there is a need for a more standardized approach for methodological and ethical review of this research. A supplemental review process for EDI-related human subject research protocols was developed and implemented at a pediatric academic medical center (AMC). The goal was to ensure that current EDI research principles are consistently used and that the research aligns with the AMC's declaration on EDI. The EDI Research Review Committee, established in January 2022, reviewed EDI protocols and provided recommendations and requirements for addressing EDI-related components of research studies. To evaluate this review process, the number and type of research protocols were reviewed, and the types of recommendations given to research teams were examined. In total, 78 research protocols were referred for EDI review during the 20-month implementation period from departments and divisions across the AMC. Of these, 67 were given requirements or recommendations to improve the EDI-related aspects of the project, and 11 had already considered a health equity framework and implemented EDI principles. Requirements or recommendations made applied to 1 or more stages of the research process, including design, execution, analysis, and dissemination. An EDI review of human subject research protocols can provide an opportunity to constructively examine and provide feedback on EDI research to ensure that a standardized approach is used based on current literature and practice.

Decolonising global health research: Shifting power for transformative change

Recent debates on decolonizing global health have spurred interest in addressing the power asymmetries and knowledge hierarchies that sustain colonial ideas and relationships in global health research. This paper applies three intersecting dimensions of colonialism (colonialism within global health; colonisation of global health; and colonialism through global health) to develop a broader and more structural understanding of the policies and actions needed to decolonise global health research. It argues that existing guidelines and checklists designed to make global health research more equitable do not adequately address the underlying power asymmetries and biases that prevail across the global health research ecosystem. Beyond encouraging fairer partnerships within individual research projects, this paper calls for more emphasis on shifting the balance of decision-making power, redistributing resources, and holding research funders and other power-holders accountable to the places and peoples involved in and impacted by global health research.

May Artificial Intelligence take health and sustainability on a honeymoon? Towards green technologies for multidimensional health and environmental justice

The application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in healthcare and epidemiology undoubtedly has many benefits for the population. However, due to its environmental impact, the use of AI can produce social inequalities and long-term environmental damages that may not be thoroughly contemplated. In this paper, we propose to consider the impacts of AI applications in medical care from the One Health paradigm and long-term global health. From health and environmental justice, rather than settling for a short and fleeting green honeymoon between health and sustainability caused by AI, it should aim for a lasting marriage. To this end, we conclude by proposing that, in the upcoming years, it could be valuable and necessary to promote more interconnected health, call for environmental cost transparency, and increase green responsibility. Highlights Using AI in medicine and epidemiology has some benefits in the short term.AI usage may cause social inequalities and environmental damage in the long term.Health justice should be rethought from the One Health perspective.Going beyond anthropocentric and myopic cost-benefit analysis would expand health justice to include an environmental dimension.Greening AI would help to reconcile public and global health measures.

Ethical Frameworks and Global Health: A Narrative Review of the "Leave No One Behind" Principle

The "Leave No One Behind" (LNOB) principle, a fundamental commitment of the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals, emphasizes the urgent need to address and reduce global health inequalities. As global health initiatives strive to uphold this principle, they face significant ethical challenges in balancing equity, resource allocation, and diverse health priorities. This narrative review critically examines these ethical dilemmas and their implications for translating LNOB into actionable global health strategies. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Semantic Scholar, covering publications from January 1990 to April 2024. The review included peer-reviewed articles, gray literature, and official reports that addressed the ethical dimensions of LNOB in global health contexts. A thematic analysis was employed to identify and synthesize recurring ethical issues, dilemmas, and proposed solutions. The thematic analysis identified 4 primary ethical tensions that complicate the operationalization of LNOB: (1) Universalism versus Targeting, where the challenge lies in balancing broad health improvements with targeted interventions for the most disadvantaged; (2) Resource Scarcity versus Equity; highlighting the ethical conflicts between maximizing efficiency and ensuring fairness; (3) Top-down versus Bottom-up Approaches, reflecting the tension between externally driven initiatives and local community needs; and (4) Short-term versus Long-term Sustainability, addressing the balance between immediate health interventions and sustainable systemic changes. To navigate these ethical challenges effectively, global health strategies must adopt a nuanced, context-sensitive approach incorporating structured decision-making processes and authentic community participation. The review advocates for systemic reforms that address the root causes of health disparities, promote equitable collaboration between health practitioners and marginalized communities, and align global health interventions with ethical imperatives. Such an approach is essential to truly operationalize the LNOB principle and foster sustainable health equity.

A toolkit for capturing a representative and equitable sample in health research

Research participants often do not represent the general population. Systematic exclusion of particular groups from research limits the generalizability of research findings and perpetuates health inequalities. Groups considered underserved by research include those whose inclusion is lower than expected based on population estimates, those with a high healthcare burden but limited research participation opportunities and those whose healthcare engagement is less than others. The REP-EQUITY toolkit guides representative and equitable inclusion in research. The toolkit was developed through a methodological systematic review and synthesis and finalized in a consensus workshop with 24 participants. The REP-EQUITY toolkit describes seven steps for investigators to consider in facilitating representative and equitable sample selection. This includes clearly defining (1) the relevant underserved groups, (2) the aims relating to equity and representativeness, (3) the sample proportion of individuals with characteristics associated with being underserved by research, (4) the recruitment goals, (5) the strategies by which external factors will be managed, (6) the methods by which representation in the final sample will be evaluated and (7) the legacy of having used the toolkit. Using the REP-EQUITY toolkit could promote trust between communities and research institutions, increase diverse participation in research and improve the generalizability of health research. National Institute for Health and Care Research PROSPERO identifier: CRD42022355391.

What Chicago community organizations needed to implement COVID-19 interventions: lessons learned in 2021

Introduction

As the COVID-19 pandemic placed a spotlight on the health inequities in the United States, this study aimed to determine the local programmatic needs of community organizations (CO) delivering COVID-19 interventions across Chicago.

Methods

In the summer of 2021, the Chicagoland CEAL Program interviewed 34 COs that were providing education, testing, and/or vaccinations in communities experiencing poor COVID-19 outcomes. The interviews were analyzed thematically and organized around logistical challenges and funding/resource needs.

Results

The COs routinely offered testing (50%) or vaccinations (74%), with most (56%) employing some programmatic evaluation. Programs utilizing trusted-messenger systems were deemed most effective, but resource-intensive. CO specific needs clustered around sustaining effective outreach strategies, better CO coordination, wanting comprehensive trainings, improving program evaluation, and promoting services and programs.

Conclusion

The COs reached populations with low-vaccine confidence using trusted messengers to overcome mistrust. However, replenishment of the resources needed to sustain such strategies should be prioritized. Leveraging the Chicagoland CEAL Program to help negotiate community organizations' interorganizational coordination, create training programs, and provide evaluation expertise are deliverable supports that may bolster COVID-19 prevention.

Policy implications

Achieving health justice requires that all institutions of power participate in meaningful community engagement, help build community capacity, and infuse health equity throughout all aspects of the research and program evaluation processes.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion on Editorial Boards of Global Health Journals

Journals have been described as “duty bearers” of upholding fundamental ethical principles that are essential for maintaining the ethical integrity of newly generated and disseminated knowledge. To play our part, we evaluated diversity and inclusion in the leadership and management of global and international health journals. We developed Journal Diversity Index (JDI) to measure three parameters of diversity and representation (gender, geographic, socioeconomic status). Relevant information regarding editorial board members of systematically screened journals was sequentially extracted and job titles were categorized into five editorial roles. Chi-squared test was utilized to study associations between gender and geographic distribution of editors along with the Medline indexing of the journal and its impact factor. Out of 43 journals included, 62.7% were published from two high-income countries. Women comprised 44% of the total editors. Among all the editorial board members, we did not find any information suggesting the representation of non-binary and transgender individuals. Furthermore, 68.2% of editors were based in high-income countries with 67.3% of the editors belonging to the Global North. This disparity in geographic region and socioeconomic level was observed across all five editorial roles. Among all women editors, more than 70% worked in non-Medline and non-impact factor journals. Only two journals scored “excellent” on JDI. Despite the continuous evolution of the definition of global health ethics, marginalized individuals, and their perspectives remain underrepresented in this field. Thus, we call for swift action regarding the decentralization and redistribution of global and international health journal editorial boards.

Connections and Biases in Health Equity and Culture Research: A Semantic Network Analysis

Health equity is a rather complex issue. Social context and economical disparities, are known to be determining factors. Cultural and educational constrains however, are also important contributors to the establishment and development of health inequities. As an important starting point for a comprehensive discussion, a detailed analysis of the literature corpus is thus desirable: we need to recognize what has been done, under what circumstances, even what possible sources of bias exist in our current discussion on this relevant issue. By finding these trends and biases we will be better equipped to modulate them and find avenues that may lead us to a more integrated view of health inequity, potentially enhancing our capabilities to intervene to ameliorate it. In this study, we characterized at a large scale, the social and cultural determinants most frequently reported in current global research of health inequity and the interrelationships among them in different populations under diverse contexts. We used a data/literature mining approach to the current literature followed by a semantic network analysis of the interrelationships discovered. The analyzed structured corpus consisted in circa 950 articles categorized by means of the Medical Subheadings (MeSH) content-descriptor from 2014 to 2021. Further analyses involved systematic searches in the LILACS and DOAJ databases, as additional sources. The use of data analytics techniques allowed us to find a number of non-trivial connections, pointed out to existing biases and under-represented issues and let us discuss what are the most relevant concepts that are (and are not) being discussed in the context of Health Equity and Culture.

Proportionate translation of study materials and measures in a multinational global health trial: methodology development and implementation

OBJECTIVES

Current translation guidelines do not include sufficiently flexible translation approaches for different study materials. We aimed to develop a proportionate methodology to inform translation of all types of study materials in global health trials.

DESIGN

The design included three stages: (1) categorisation of study materials, (2) integration of existing translation frameworks and (3) methodology implementation (Germany, India, Israel, Tanzania and Uganda) and refinement.

PARTICIPANTS

The study population comprised 27 mental health service users and 27 mental health workers who were fluent in the local language in stage 7 (pretesting), and 54 bilingual mental health service users, aged 18 years or over, and able to give consent as judged by a clinician for step 9 (psychometric evaluation).

SETTING

The study took place in preparation for the Using Peer Support in Developing Empowering Mental Health Services (UPSIDES) randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN26008944).

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary outcome measure was the Social Inclusion Scale (SIS).

RESULTS

The typology identifies four categories of study materials: local text, study-generated text, secondary measures and primary measure. The UPSIDES Proportionate Translation Methodology comprises ten steps: preparation, forward translation, reconciliation, back translation, review, harmonisation, pretesting, finalisation, psychometric evaluation and dissemination. The translated primary outcome measure for the UPSIDES Trial (SIS) demonstrated adequate content validity (49.3 vs 48.5, p=0.08), convergent validity and internal consistency (0.73), with minimal floor/ceiling effects.

CONCLUSION

This methodology can be recommended for translating, cross-culturally adapting and validating all study materials, including standardised measures, in future multisite global trials. The methodology is particularly applicable to multi-national studies involving sites with differing resource levels. The robustness of the psychometric findings is limited by the sample sizes for each site. However, making this limitation explicit is preferable to the typical practice of not reporting adequate details about measure translation and validation.

TRAIL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN26008944.

Decolonising global health evaluation: Synthesis from a scoping review

As decolonisation awareness and activism amplifies in the mainstream masses and within academic realms across a variety of fields, the time is right to converge parallel movements to decolonise the fields of global health and evaluation by restructuring relations of dependency and domination reified through the "foreign gaze"1 or "white gaze." We conducted a review of relevant records with the following inclusion criteria-they define or advocate for the decolonisation of global health evaluation or explicate methods, policies or interventions to decolonise global health evaluation published by advocates of the decolonisation movement from both fields. These records were derived following a systematic article search by the lead autthor on Google, Google Scholar, NewsBank, and PubMed using the following keywords: "decolonising" and "global health," "evaluation," or "global health evaluation" replicating a digital search strategy utilized by scoping reviews across a variety of topics. Because the topic of interest is nascent and still emerging, the date range was not restricted. The lead author screened abstracts retrieved from the search. In total, 57 records, ranging in publication date from 1994 to 2020, were selected and charted for this review. We reviewed these records to identify socio-ecological factors that influence the decolonisation of global health evaluation, such as decolonising minds; reorienting funders and reforming funding mechanisms; and investing in sustainable capacity exchange. In doing so, we reflected on our positionality as well as our internalisation and potential reinforcement of colonial relations in the process of reporting our results. In the context of turmoil and transition due to the COVID-19 pandemic, our scoping review offers a starting point to embark on a journey first to transform and decolonise global health evaluation and then to achieve the greater goal of equity and justice.

Addressing conflicts of interest of ethical reviewers of health planning, management, policy and systems research proposals

Steering health systems towards universal health coverage requires research on themes that are of particular interest to health planning, management, policy and systems researchers. Some issues, such as strikes regarded as illegal and health sector corruption, because of their social and political sensitivity have, for too long, remained outside adequate research inquiry. Their emergence in the research agenda raises some challenges for Human Research Ethics Committees, particularly related to their conflicts of interests as reviewers, that need clarification.