Working in the wake: transformative global health in an imperfect world

Unfair knowledge practices in global health: a realist synthesis

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

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.

The struggle for the social: rejecting the false separation of 'social' worlds in mental health spaces

How are we to best grapple with the notion of the Social in mental health landscapes? This piece of speculative work explores a series of tensions that emerge in our attempt to contemplate, engage with, and address the social in mental health spaces. First, I will explore the tensions created by disciplinary demands for specialisation, questioning the value of this with regard to treating social and emotional bodies which continually reject such fragmentation. This line of inquiry then leads to reflection on the value of a social topology-enabled through the application of intersectionality principles, Black Sociological analytical frameworks, including the worldview approach, and societal psychological perspectives on knowledge and action. I argue the possibilities in actioning these approaches emerge through the application of a social-political economy of mental health, that holds the complexity presented by the totality of social life as it potentially relates to mental health. The piece seeks to advance a space of thinking on how we transition global mental health projects to be more effectively situated in a needed commitment for social justice as a remedy and repair to broken social worlds.

Mutuality as a method: advancing a social paradigm for global mental health through mutual learning

PURPOSE

Calls for "mutuality" in global mental health (GMH) aim to produce knowledge more equitably across epistemic and power differences. With funding, convening, and publishing power still concentrated in institutions in the global North, efforts to decolonize GMH emphasize the need for mutual learning instead of unidirectional knowledge transfers. This article reflects on mutuality as a concept and practice that engenders sustainable relations, conceptual innovation, and queries how epistemic power can be shared.

METHODS

We draw on insights from an online mutual learning process over 8 months between 39 community-based and academic collaborators working in 24 countries. They came together to advance the shift towards a social paradigm in GMH.

RESULTS

Our theorization of mutuality emphasizes that the processes and outcomes of knowledge production are inextricable. Mutual learning required an open-ended, iterative, and slower paced process that prioritized trust and remained responsive to all collaborators' needs and critiques. This resulted in a social paradigm that calls for GMH to (1) move from a deficit to a strength-based view of community mental health, (2) include local and experiential knowledge in scaling processes, (3) direct funding to community organizations, and (4) challenge concepts, such as trauma and resilience, through the lens of lived experience of communities in the global South.

CONCLUSION

Under the current institutional arrangements in GMH, mutuality can only be imperfectly achieved. We present key ingredients of our partial success at mutual learning and conclude that challenging existing structural constraints is crucial to prevent a tokenistic use of the concept.

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.

An Exploratory Study of Physical Therapists From High-Income Countries Practising Outside of Their Scope in Low and Middle-Income Countries

PURPOSE

To quantify how often physical therapists from high-income countries (HIC) travelling to low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) practise outside their scope of practice, in what circumstances, and their likelihood of doing the same in the future.

METHODS

An exploratory descriptive study using a survey.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-six licensed physical therapists from around the world participated. Physical therapists typically spent less than a month (73.8 per cent) in LMIC; 67.5 per cent believed that physical therapists practise outside of their scope, and 31.7 per cent reported doing so. Reasons were believing that something is better than nothing (47.5 per cent ), a mismatch between the physical therapist's and host's expectations (40.0 per cent ), and preserving their relationship with the host (25.0 per cent ). It was deemed appropriate by 64.5 per cent to practise outside of their scope in some situations and 53.8% considered repeating the activity in the future. Half of the respondent's first experience in LMIC occurred as a student or in their first decade of practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Working in LMIC requires a keen understanding of the risks and challenges associated with such experiences. To ensure best practice, a skill set that consists of critical self-reflection, systems thinking, and structural competency combined with clinical competency and accountability is imperative.

Developing relevant community mental health programmes in North India: five questions we ask when co-producing knowledge with experts by experience

Knowledge co-production can improve the quality and accessibility of health, and also benefit service users, allowing them to be recognised as skilled and capable. Yet despite these clear benefits, there are inherent challenges in the power relations of co-production, particularly when experts by experience (EBE) are structurally disadvantaged in communication skills or literacy. The processes of how knowledge is co-produced and negotiated are seldom described. This paper aims to describe processes of co-production building on the experiences of EBE (people with lived experience of psychosocial or physical disability), practitioners and researchers working together with a non-profit community mental health programme in North India. We describe processes of group formation, relationship building, reflexive discussion and negotiation over a 7-year period with six diverse EBE groups. Through a process of discussion and review, we propose these five questions which may optimise co-production processes in communities: (1) Who is included in co-production? (2) How can we optimise participation by people with diverse sociodemographic identities? (3) How do we build relationships of trust within EBE groups? (4) How can we combine psychosocial support and knowledge co-production agendas in groups? and (5) How is the expertise of experts by experience acknowledged?

Global health and the elite capture of decolonization: On reformism and the possibilities of alternate paths

Global Health is experiencing a moment of reckoning over the field's legacy and current structuring in a world facing multiple, intersecting challenges to health. While "decolonization" has emerged as the dominant frame to imagine change in the field, what the concept refers to and entails has become increasingly unclear. Despite warnings, the concept is now being used by elite Global North institutions and organization to imagine their reformation. In this article, I attempt to provide clarity to the issue of conceptualizing change in Global Health. By first outlining a brief history of decolonial thought and then exploring the current state of the decolonizing global health literature, I show a profound disjuncture between popularized calls for decolonization in Global Health and other theorizations of the term. I then argue that the diluting of "decolonization" into a depoliticized vision of reforming the inherently colonial and capitalistic institutions and organizations of Global Health is an example of "elite capture"-the coopting and reconfiguration of radical, liberatory theories and concepts then used by elites for their own gain. Showing how this elite capture has facilitated harm within the field and beyond, I conclude by calling for resistance to elite capture in all its forms.

Whose knowledge counts? Involving communities in intervention and trial design using community conversations

BACKGROUND

Current debates in Global Health call for expanding methodologies to allow typically silenced voices to contribute to processes of knowledge production and intervention design. Within trial research, this has typically involved small-scale qualitative work, with limited opportunities for citizens to contribute to the structure and nature of the trial. This paper reports on efforts to move past typical formative trial work, through adaptation of community conversations (CCs) methodology, an action-oriented approach that engages large numbers of community members in dialogue. We applied the CC method to explore community perspectives about pneumonia and managing the health of children under-5 in Northern Nigeria to inform our pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial evaluating a complex intervention to reduce under-5 mortality in Nigeria.

METHODS

We conducted 12 rounds of community conversations with a total of 320 participants, in six administrative wards in Kiyawa Local Government Area, Jigawa state, our intervention site. Participants were male and female caregivers of children under five. Conversations were structured around participatory learning and action activities, using drawings and discussion to reduce barriers to entry. During activities participants were placed in subgroups: younger women (18-30 years of age), older women (31-49 years) and men (18 years above). Discussions were conducted over three 2-h sessions, facilitated by community researchers. Following an initial analysis to extract priority issues and perspectives on intervention structure, smaller focus group discussions were completed with participants in five new sites to ensure all 11 administrative wards in our study site contributed to the design.

RESULTS

We identified enabling and limiting factors which could shape the future trial implementation, including complex power relationships within households and wider communities shaping women's health decision-making, and the gendered use of space. We also noted the positive engagement of participants during the CC process, with many participants valuing the opportunity to express themselves in ways they have not been able to in the past.

CONCLUSIONS

CCs provide a structured approach to deep meaningful engagement of everyday citizens in intervention and trial designs, but require appropriate resources, and commitment to qualitative research in trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN39213655. Registered on 11 December 2019.

Precarious engagements and the politics of knowledge production: Listening to calls for reorienting hegemonic social psychology

In this paper, we invite psychologists to reflect on and recognize how knowledge is produced in the field of social psychology. Engaging with the work of decolonial, liberation and critical psychology scholars, we provide a six-point lens on precarity that facilitates a deeper understanding of knowledge production in hegemonic social psychology and academia at large. We conceptualize knowledge (re)production in psychology as five interdependent 'cogs' within the neoliberal machinery of academia, which cannot be viewed in isolation; (1) its epistemological foundations rooted in coloniality, (2) the methods and standards it uses to understand human thoughts, feelings and behaviours, (3) the documentation of its knowledge, (4) the dissemination of its knowledge and (5) the universalization of psychological theories. With this paper we also claim our space in academia as early career researchers of colour who inhabit the margins of hegemonic social psychology. We join scholars around the world in calling for a much-needed disciplinary shift that centres solutions to the many forms of violence that are inflicted upon marginalized members of the global majority. To conclude, we offer four political-personal intentions for the reorientation for the discipline of hegemonic social psychology with the aim to disrupt the politics of knowledge production and eradicate precarity.