Mapping experiences and perspectives of equity in international health collaborations: a scoping review

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.

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.

Power imbalances and equity in the day-to-day functioning of a north plus multi-south higher education institutions partnership: a case study

BACKGROUND

Partnerships between Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in the global north and south have commonly been used as a vehicle to drive global health research and initiatives. Among these initiatives, include health system strengthening, research capacity building, and human resource training in developing countries. However, the partnership functioning of many global north-south partnerships still carry legacies of colonialism through unrecognized behavior patterns, attitudes, and belief systems in how they function. Even with research literature calling for a shift from equality to equity in the functioning of these partnerships, many still struggle with issues of complex and unspoken power dynamics. To understand the successes and challenges of north-south partnerships, this paper explored partnership development and functioning of a northern and multi-southern HEIs partnership focused on nutrition education and research.

METHODS

A qualitative research approach was used; data were collected through in-depth interviews (IDIs) with questions developed from the Bergen Model of Collective Functioning (BMCF). Thirteen IDIs were conducted with partners from all institutions including stakeholders.

FINDINGS

The partnership was built on the foundation of experiences and lessons of a previous partnership. Partners used these experiences and lessons to devise strategies to improve partnership inputs, communication, leadership, roles and structures, and maintenance and communication tasks. However, these strategies had an impact on partnership functioning giving rise to issues of inequitable power dynamics. The northern partner had two roles: one as an equal partner and another as distributor of project funds; this caused a conflict in roles for this partner. The partners distinguished themselves according to partner resources - two partners were named implementing partners and two named supportive partners. Roles and partner resources were the greatest contributors to power imbalances and caused delays in project activities.

CONCLUSION

Using the BMCF to examine partnership dynamics illuminated that power imbalances caused a hierarchical stance in the partnership with northern partners having overall control and power of decision-making in the partnership. This could impact the effectiveness and sustainability of project in the southern institutions going forward.

Exploring equity in global health collaborations: a qualitative study of donor and recipient power dynamics in Liberia

IntroductionGlobal health collaborations between individuals from high-resource and low-resource settings are complex and often built on hierarchical structures and power differentials that are difficult to change. There have been many calls and frameworks developed to facilitate more equity within these collaborations, yet little is known about the lived experiences of global health donors and recipients working within such collaborations and how those experiences can facilitate more equitable collaboration. Liberia, a postconflict, post-Ebola country, provides an ideal setting to study lived experiences of global health collaborations.MethodsOur qualitative analysis used key informant interviews representing the perspectives of those working on behalf of the Liberian government, Liberian academics, foreign donors and non-governmental organisations and implementing partners. Thematic analysis guided this analysis to explore topics such as financial control, accountability and decision making.ResultsThe first phase of the analysis mapped the existing patterns of priority setting. Priority-setting power was most strongly held by those with financial control (donors), and implementation plans tended to be built on metrics that aim to meet donor expectations. The second phase of the analysis explored the interplay between underlying factors that we identified in our data associated with driving collaborative inequity: history of prior of engagement, level of transparency and patterns of accountability.ConclusionsOur findings highlight that global health collaborations in Liberia are structured to hinder equitable partnerships. The power structure tied to financial ownership offers little space for recipients to have an equitable role in collaborations, which maintains dependence on external aid and ensures that weak systems remain weak. While our study is limited to Liberia, we anticipate that these dynamics are common elsewhere and reinforce the importance of intentional efforts to ensure equitable decision making and power structures in similar settings worldwide.

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.

Recommendations for effective collaboration and capacity building in epidemiological studies on the effect of alcohol and drug use on traffic safety in low- and middle-income countries

OBJECTIVE

Alcohol or drug impairment is a major risk factor for road traffic crashes, and studies on this issue are essential to provide evidence-based data for policymakers. In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), such studies are often conducted in partnership with one or more organizations in high-income countries (HICs). The aim of this article is to provide recommendations for improving project planning and decision-making processes in epidemiological studies on alcohol, drug and traffic safety in LMICs involving HICs.

METHODS

We searched Pubmed, Google Scholar, and Google Search for articles and reports in English about lessons learned when conducting collaborative research in LMIC as well as papers presenting recommendations for effective research collaboration with partners in LMICs.

RESULTS

Based on the search results, we selected 200 papers for full text examination. Few were related to studies on the effect of alcohol or drug use on road traffic safety. However, several conclusions and recommendations from other studies were found to be relevant. We combined the findings with our own experience in a narrative review. We also present a checklist for risk and quality assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

Many papers presented similar recommendations, which included the importance of addressing local needs, ensuring adequate resources, local project ownership and leadership, establishing strong partnerships among all involved stakeholders, promoting shared decision-making and planning, and implementing strategies to translate research findings into policy, practice, and publications. It is also important to avoid HIC bias, which prioritizes the interests or perspectives of HICs over those of LMICs.

Authorship inequalities in global health research: the IeDEA Southern Africa collaboration

BACKGROUND

The International epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS conducts research in several regions, including in Southern Africa. We assessed authorship inequalities for the Southern African region, which is led by South African and Swiss investigators.

METHODS

We analysed authorships of publications from 2007 to 2020 by gender, country income group, time and citation impact. We used 2020 World Bank categories to define income groups and the relative citation ratio (RCR) to assess citation impact. Authorship parasitism was defined as articles without authors from the countries where the study was conducted. A regression model examined the probability of different authorship positions.

RESULTS

We included 313 articles. Of the 1064 contributing authors, 547 (51.4%) were women, and 223 (21.0%) were from 32 low-income/lower middle-income countries (LLMICs), 269 (25.3%) were from 13 upper middle-income countries and 572 (53.8%) were from 25 high-income countries (HICs). Most articles (150/157, 95.5%) reporting data from Southern Africa included authors from all participating countries. Women were more likely to be the first author than men (OR 1.74; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.83) but less likely to be last authors (OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.99). Compared with HIC, LLMIC authors were less likely to publish as first (OR 0.21; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.41) or last author (OR 0.20; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.42). The proportion of women and LLMIC first and last authors increased over time. The RCR tended to be higher, indicating greater impact, if first or last authors were from HIC (p=0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis of a global health collaboration co-led by South African and Swiss investigators showed little evidence of authorship parasitism. There were stark inequalities in authorship position, with women occupying more first and men more last author positions and researchers from LLMIC being 'stuck in the middle' on the byline. Global health research collaborations should monitor, analyse and address authorship inequalities.

Towards achieving transnational research partnership equity: lessons from implementing adaptive platform trials in low- and middle-income countries

Background

Use of adaptive clinical trials, particularly adaptive platform trials, has grown exponentially in response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Implementation of these trials in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has been fostered through the formation or modification of transnational research partnerships, typically between research groups from LMICs and high-income countries (HICs). While these partnerships are important to promote collaboration and overcome the structural and economic disadvantages faced by LMIC health researchers, it is critical to focus attention on the multiple dimensions of partnership equity.

Methods

Based on informal literature reviews and a meeting with leaders of one of the multinational COVID-19 adaptive platform trials, we describe some important considerations about research partnership equity in this context.

Results

We organize these considerations into eight thematic categories: 1) epistemic structures, 2) funding, 3) ethics oversight, 4) regulatory oversight, 5) leadership, 6) post-trial access to interventions, data, and specimens, 7) knowledge translation and dissemination, and 8) research capacity strengthening and maintenance. Within each category we review normative claims that support its relevance to research partnership equity followed by discussion of how adaptive platform trials highlight new dimensions, considerations, or challenges.

Conclusion

In aggregate, these observations provide insight into procedural and substantive equity-building measures within transnational global health research partnerships more broadly.

Ethical challenges of conducting and reviewing human genomics research in Malaysia: An exploratory study

Even though there is a significant amount of scholarly work examining the ethical issues surrounding human genomics research, little is known about its footing in Malaysia. This study aims to explore the experience of local researchers and research ethics committee (REC) members in developing it in Malaysia. In-depth interviews were conducted from April to May 2021, and the data were thematically analysed. In advancing this technology, both genomics researchers and REC members have concerns over how this research is being developed in the country especially the absence of a clear ethical and regulatory framework at the national level as a guidance. However, this study argues that it is not a salient issue as there are international guidelines in existence and both researchers and RECs will benefit from a training on the guidelines to ensure genomics research can be developed in an ethical manner.

Relationship Building between International Healthcare Volunteers and Local Healthcare Providers in Ethiopia: Real-Life Experiences in Low-Income Country

BACKGROUND

The number of international healthcare volunteers in low-income countries that need trained human resources has been increasing. However, migrating to a foreign country requires adapting to its environment and culture. The purpose of this study was to explore the international healthcare volunteers' experiences in Ethiopia in building relationships with local healthcare providers.

METHODS

Six participants were enrolled in the study, and data were collected through individual in-depth interviews conducted between September and October 2018. The collected data were analyzed using Colaizzi's phenomenological method.

RESULTS

Ten subthemes emerged from five themes: "facing new situations", "accepting myself as an outsider in Ethiopia", "impact on the wall of prejudice", "adapting to a new culture", and "positive outlook".

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that international healthcare volunteers in Ethiopia experienced challenges in building relationships with local healthcare providers due to linguistic and cultural gaps. Nevertheless, they strived to accept the culture and play their part as helpers in providing healthcare services.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Towards achieving transnational research partnership equity: lessons from implementing adaptive platform trials in low- and middle-income countries

Background: Use of adaptive clinical trials, particularly adaptive platform trials, has grown exponentially in response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Implementation of these trials in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has been fostered through the formation or modification of transnational research partnerships, typically between research groups from LMICs and high-income countries (HICs). While these partnerships are important to promote collaboration and overcome the structural and economic disadvantages faced by LMIC health researchers, it is critical to focus attention on the multiple dimensions of partnership equity. Methods: Based on informal literature reviews and meetings with leaders of one of the multinational COVID-19 adaptive platform trials, we describe what can be learned about research partnership equity from these experiences. Results: We organize these considerations into eight thematic categories: 1) epistemic structures, 2) funding, 3) ethics oversight, 4) regulatory oversight, 5) leadership, 6) post-trial access to interventions, data, and specimens, 7) knowledge translation, and 8) research capacity strengthening and maintenance. Within each category we review the normative claims that support its relevance to research partnership equity followed by discussion of how adaptive platform trials highlight new dimensions, considerations, or challenges. Conclusion: These observations provide insight into procedural and substantive equity-building measures within transnational global health research partnerships more broadly.

With equity in mind: Evaluating an interactive hybrid global surgery course for cross-site interdisciplinary learners

There is limited understanding of the role of transcultural, cross-site educational partnerships for global surgery training between high- and low- or middle-income country (LMIC) institutions. We describe the development, delivery, and appraisal of a hybrid, synchronous, semester-long Global Surgical Care course by global health collaborators from widely different contexts, and evaluate the equity of the collaboration. The course was collaboratively modified by surgical educators and public health professionals with emphasis on collaboration ethics. Faculty from high-income and LMICs were paired to deliver lectures. To collaborate internationally, students and faculty participated either onsite or online. Perceptions and knowledge gained were quantitatively evaluated through participant and faculty cross-sectional surveys, using Likert scales, prioritization rankings, and free text responses analysed qualitatively. Equity was assessed using the Fair Trade Learning rubric and additional probes. Thirty-five learners from six institutions participated. Teams produced mock National, Surgical, Obstetric, and Anaesthesia Plans (NSOAPs) for selected LMICs, and reported a 9% to 65% increase in self-reported global health competencies following the course. Online learners had favourable perceptions of learning, but experienced connectivity challenges. Barriers to effective group work included time differences and logistics of communication for dispersed team members. Individuals taking the course for academic credit scored significantly higher than other learners in peer assessments of participation (8.56±1.53 versus 5.03±3.14; p<0.001). Using the Fair Trade Rubric, 60% of equity indicators were ideal, and no respondents perceived neo-colonialism in the partnership. Blended, synchronous, interdisciplinary global surgery courses based on "North-South" partnerships with a focus on equity in design and delivery are feasible but require careful and deliberate planning to minimize epistemic injustice. Such programs should address surgical systems strengthening, and not create dependency. Equity in such engagements should be evaluated and monitored in an ongoing fashion to stimulate discussion and continuous improvement.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Supplementary Information

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

What are the expectations and experiences of a GMH research programme delivered in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Colombia and Uganda? A prospective longitudinal qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

Global health research collaborations between partners in high-income countries and low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) aim to generate new evidence, strengthen research capacity, tackle health inequalities and improve outcomes. Previous evaluations of such programmes have identified areas for improvement but consisted only of retrospective experiences. We conducted the first prospective study to assess the initial expectations as well as the final experiences of participants of a global health research programme.

DESIGN, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS

This study adopted a prospective longitudinal qualitative study, 38 participants of a global mental health research programme with partners in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Colombia, Uganda and the (UK). The interviewees included senior investigators, coordinators and researchers. Framework analysis was used to analyse the data.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Participants were interviewed about their initial expectations at the inception of the research programme and their final experiences at the end.

RESULTS

Many of the original expectations were later reported as met or even exceeded. They included experiences of communication, relationships, developed research expertise, further research opportunities and extending networks. However, other expectations were not met or only partially met, mainly on developing local leadership, strengthening institutional research capacity and opportunities for innovation and for mutual learning. Around equity of partnership and ownership of research the views of participants in the UK tended to be more critical than those of partners in LMICs.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that global health research programmes can achieve several of their aims, and that partners in LMICs feel equity has been established in the partnership despite the imbalance of the funding arrangement. Aims of global health research projects should have a realistic focus and be proportionate to the parameters of the funding arrangement. More resources and longer time scales may be required to address sustainable structural capacity and long-standing local leadership sufficiently.

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

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

Systematic analysis of authorship demographics in global surgery

Background

Global surgery has recently gained prominence as an academic discipline within global health. Authorship inequity has been a consistent feature of global health publications, with over-representation of authors from high-income countries (HICs), and disenfranchisement of researchers from low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). In this study, we investigated authorship demographics within recently published global surgery literature.

Methods

We performed a systematic analysis of author characteristics, including gender, seniority and institutional affiliation, for global surgery studies published between 2016 and 2020 and indexed in the PubMed database. We compared the distribution of author gender and seniority across studies related to different topics; between authors affiliated with HICs and LMICs; and across studies with different authorship networks.

Results

1240 articles were included for analysis. Most authors were male (60%), affiliated only with HICs (51%) and of high seniority (55% were fully qualified specialist or generalist clinicians, Principal Investigators, or in senior leadership or management roles). The proportion of male authors increased with increasing seniority for last and middle authors. Studies related to Obstetrics and Gynaecology had similar numbers of male and female authors, whereas there were more male authors in studies related to surgery (69% male) and Anaesthesia and Critical care (65% male). Compared with HIC authors, LMIC authors had a lower proportion of female authors at every seniority grade. This gender gap among LMIC middle authors was reduced in studies where all authors were affiliated only with LMICs.

Conclusion

Authorship disparities are evident within global surgery academia. Remedial actions to address the lack of authorship opportunities for LMIC authors and female authors are required.

Pandemics- One Health preparedness for the next

The majority of emerging infectious diseases originate in animals. Current routine surveillance is focused on known diseases and clinical syndromes, but the increasing likelihood of emerging disease outbreaks shows the critical importance of early detection of unusual illness or circulation of pathogens - prior to human disease manifestation. In this Viewpoint, we focus on one key pillar of preparedness—the need for early warning surveillance at the human, animal, environmental interface. The COVID-19 pandemic has revolutionized the scale of sequencing of pathogen genomes, and the current investments in global genomic surveillance offer great potential for a novel, truly integrated Disease X (with epidemic or pandemic potential) surveillance arm provided we do not make the mistake of developing them solely for the case at hand. Generic tools include metagenomic sequencing as a catch-all technique, rather than detection and sequencing protocols focusing on what we know. Developing agnostic or more targeted metagenomic sequencing to assess unusual disease in humans and animals, combined with random sampling of environmental samples capturing pathogen circulation is technically challenging, but could provide a true early warning system. Rather than rebuilding and reinforcing the pre-existing silo's, a real step forward would be to take the lessons learned and bring in novel essential partnerships in a One Health approach to preparedness.

Considering equity in global health collaborations: A qualitative study on experiences of equity

International collaborations have become the standard model for global health research and often include researchers and institutions from high income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). While such collaborations are important for generating new knowledge that will help address global health inequities, there is evidence to suggest that current forms of collaboration may reproduce unequal power relations. Therefore, we conducted a qualitative study with scientists, researchers and those involved in research management, working in international health collaborations. Interviews were conducted between October 2019 and March 2020. We conducted 13 interviews with 15 participants. From our findings, we derive three major themes. First, our results reflect characteristics of equitable, collaborative research relationships. Here we find both relational features, specifically trust and belonging, and structural features, including clear contractual agreements, capacity building, inclusive divisions of labour, and the involvement of local communities. Second, we discuss obstacles to develop equitable collaborations. These include exclusionary labour practices, donor-driven research agendas, overall research culture, lack of accountability and finally, the inadequate financing of indirect costs for LMIC institutions. Third, we discuss the responsibilities for promoting science equity of funders, LMIC researchers, LMIC institutions, and LMIC governments. While other empirical studies have suggested similar features of equity, our findings extend these features to include local communities as collaborators in research projects and not only as beneficiaries. We also suggest the importance of funders paying for indirect costs, without which the capacity of LMIC institutions will continually erode. And finally, our study shows the responsibilities of LMIC actors in developing equitable collaborations, which have largely been absent from the literature.

One hundred years of zoonoses research in the Horn of Africa: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

One Health is particularly relevant to the Horn of Africa where many people's livelihoods are highly dependent on livestock and their shared environment. In this context, zoonoses may have a dramatic impact on both human and animal health, but also on country economies. This scoping review aimed to characterise and evaluate the nature of zoonotic disease research in the Horn region. Specifically, it addressed the following questions: (i) what specific zoonotic diseases have been prioritised for research, (ii) what data have been reported (human, animal or environment), (iii) what methods have been applied, and (iv) who has been doing the research?

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We used keyword combinations to search online databases for peer-reviewed papers and theses. Screening and data extraction (disease, country, domain and method) was performed using DistillerSR. A total of 2055 studies focusing on seven countries and over 60 zoonoses were included. Brucellosis attracted the highest attention in terms of research while anthrax, Q fever and leptospirosis have been comparatively under-studied. Research efforts did not always align with zoonoses priorities identified at national levels. Despite zoonoses being a clear target for 'One Health' research, a very limited proportion of studies report data on the three domains of human, animal and environment. Descriptive and observational epidemiological studies were dominant and only a low proportion of publications were multidisciplinary. Finally, we found that a minority of international collaborations were between Global South countries with a high proportion of authors having affiliations from outside the Horn of Africa.

CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE

There is a growing interest in zoonoses research in the Horn of Africa. Recommendations arising from this scoping review include: (i) ensuring zoonoses research aligns with national and global research agendas; (ii) encouraging researchers to adopt a holistic, transdisciplinary One Health approach following high quality reporting standards (COHERE, PRISMA, etc.); and (iii) empowering local researchers supported by regional and international partnerships to engage in zoonoses research.