Knowledge from the global South is in the global South

Community-Wide Active Case Finding for Tuberculosis: Time to Use the Evidence We Have

Tuberculosis, caused by the Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) bacteria, is one of the world's deadliest infectious diseases. Despite being the world's oldest pandemic, tuberculosis is very much a challenge of the modern era. In high-incidence settings, all people are at risk, irrespective of whether they have common vulnerabilities to the disease warranting the current WHO recommendations for community-wide tuberculosis active case finding in these settings. Despite good evidence of effectiveness in reducing tuberculosis transmission, uptake of this strategy has been lacking in the communities that would derive greatest benefit. We consider the various complexities in eliminating tuberculosis from the first principles of the disease, including diagnostic and other challenges that must be navigated under an elimination agenda. We make the case that community-wide tuberculosis active case finding is the best strategy currently available to drive elimination forward in high-incidence settings and that no time should be lost in its implementation. Recognizing that high-incidence communities vary in their epidemiology and spatiosocial characteristics, tuberculosis research and funding must now shift towards radically supporting local implementation and operational research in communities. This "preparing of the ground" for scaling up to community-wide intervention centers the local knowledge and local experience of community epidemiology to optimize implementation practices and accelerate reductions in community-level tuberculosis transmission.

Transforming global health: decoloniality and the human condition

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

Strategies for advancing inclusive biodiversity research through equitable practices and collective responsibility

Biodiversity research is essential for addressing the global biodiversity crisis, necessitating diverse participation and perspectives of researchers from a wide range of backgrounds. However, conservation faces a significant inclusivity problem because local expertise from biodiversity-rich but economically disadvantaged regions is often underrepresented. This underrepresentation is driven by linguistic bias, undervalued contributions, parachute science practices, and capacity constraints. Although fragmented solutions exist, a unified multistakeholder approach is needed to address the interconnected and systemic conservation issues. We devised a holistic framework of collective responsibility across all research participants and tailored strategies that embrace diversity and dismantle systemic barriers to equitable collaboration. This framework delineates the diverse actors and practices required for promoting inclusivity in biodiversity research, assigning clear responsibilities to researchers, publishers, institutions, and funding bodies. Strategies for researchers include cultivating self-awareness, expanding literature searches, fostering partnerships with local experts, and promoting knowledge exchange. For institutions, we recommend establishing specialized liaison roles, implementing equitable policies, allocating resources for diversity initiatives, and enhancing support for international researchers. Publishers can facilitate multilingual dissemination, remove financial barriers, establish inclusivity standards, and ensure equitable representation in peer review. Funders must remove systemic barriers, strengthen research networks, and prioritize equitable resource allocation. Implementing these stakeholder-specific strategies can help dismantle deep-rooted biases and structural inequities in biodiversity research, catalyzing a shift toward a more inclusive and representative model that amplifies diverse perspectives and maximizes collective knowledge for effective global conservation.

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.

A shared agenda for gender and COVID-19 research: priorities based on broadening engagement in science

While the acute and collective crisis from the pandemic is over, an estimated 2.5 million people died from COVID-19 in 2022, tens of millions suffer from long COVID and national economies still reel from multiple deprivations exacerbated by the pandemic. Sex and gender biases deeply mark these evolving experiences of COVID-19, impacting the quality of science and effectiveness of the responses deployed. To galvanise change by strengthening evidence-informed inclusion of sex and gender in COVID-19 practice, we led a virtual collaboration to articulate and prioritise gender and COVID-19 research needs. In addition to standard prioritisation surveys, feminist principles mindful of intersectional power dynamics underpinned how we reviewed research gaps, framed research questions and discussed emergent findings. The collaborative research agenda-setting exercise engaged over 900 participants primarily from low/middle-income countries in varied activities. The top 21 research questions included the importance of the needs of pregnant and lactating women and information systems that enable sex-disaggregated analysis. Gender and intersectional aspects to improving vaccine uptake, access to health services, measures against gender-based violence and integrating gender in health systems were also prioritised. These priorities are shaped by more inclusive ways of working, which are critical for global health as it faces further uncertainties in the aftermath of COVID-19. It remains imperative to address the basics in gender and health (sex-disaggregated data and sex-specific needs) and also advance transformational goals to advance gender justice across health and social policies, including those related to global research.

Decolonizing Epidemiological Research: A Critical Perspective

Decolonizing epidemiological research is a crucial endeavor. Historically, colonial and imperialistic ideologies have pervaded epidemiology, leading to an emphasis on Western perspectives and the neglect of indigenous and other marginalized communities' needs and experiences. To effectively address health disparities and promote justice and equality, acknowledging and addressing these power imbalances are imperative. In this article, I highlight the need of decolonizing epidemiological research and make recommendations. These include increasing the representation of researchers from underrepresented communities, ensuring that epidemiological research is contextually relevant and responsive to the experiences of these communities, and collaborating with policymakers and advocacy groups to inform policies and practices that benefit all populations. Moreover, I underscore the importance of recognizing and valuing the knowledge and skills of marginalized populations, and integrating traditional knowledge-the distinct, culturally specific understanding unique to a particular group-into research efforts. I also emphasize the need of capacity building and equitable research collaborations and authorship as well as epidemiological journal editorship. Decolonizing epidemiology research is a continual process that requires continuing discourse, collaboration, and education.