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

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.

Decolonization of Global Health in Haiti: A Call for Equity, Partnerships, Scholarship, and Informed Action

Haiti’s current global health research architecture, led and implemented by foreigners far removed from Haiti, demonstrates the sector’s “non-global” nature. Decolonization in Haiti must start by addressing the vast inequities that comprise this structure.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

What constitutes equitable data sharing in global health research? A scoping review of the literature on low-income and middle-income country stakeholders' perspectives

INTRODUCTION

Despite growing consensus on the need for equitable data sharing, there has been very limited discussion about what this should entail in practice. As a matter of procedural fairness and epistemic justice, the perspectives of low-income and middle-income country (LMIC) stakeholders must inform concepts of equitable health research data sharing. This paper investigates published perspectives in relation to how equitable data sharing in global health research should be understood.

METHODS

We undertook a scoping review (2015 onwards) of the literature on LMIC stakeholders' experiences and perspectives of data sharing in global health research and thematically analysed the 26 articles included in the review.

RESULTS

We report LMIC stakeholders' published views on how current data sharing mandates may exacerbate inequities, what structural changes are required in order to create an environment conducive to equitable data sharing and what should comprise equitable data sharing in global health research.

CONCLUSIONS

In light of our findings, we conclude that data sharing under existing mandates to share data (with minimal restrictions) risks perpetuating a neocolonial dynamic. To achieve equitable data sharing, adopting best practices in data sharing is necessary but insufficient. Structural inequalities in global health research must also be addressed. It is thus imperative that the structural changes needed to ensure equitable data sharing are incorporated into the broader dialogue on global health research.

Striving towards true equity in global health: A checklist for bilateral research partnerships

Interest in "global health" among schools of medicine, public health, and other health disciplines in high-income countries (HIC) continues to rise. Persistent power imbalances, racism, and maintenance of colonialism/neocolonialism plague global health efforts, including global health scholarship. Scholarly projects conducted in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) by trainees at these schools in HIC often exacerbate these problems. Drawing on published literature and shared experiences, we review key inequalities within each phase of research, from design through implementation and analysis/dissemination, and make concrete and practical recommendations to improve equity at each stage. Key problems facing global health scholarship include HIC-centric nature of global health organizations, paucity of funding directly available for LMIC investigators and trainees, misplaced emphasis on HIC selected issues rather than local solutions to local problems, the dominance of English language in the scientific literature, and exploitation of LMIC team members. Four key principles lie at the foundation of all our recommendations: 1) seek locally derived and relevant solutions to global health issues, 2) create paired collaborations between HIC and LMIC institutions at all levels of training, 3) provide funding for both HIC and LMIC team members, 4) assign clear roles and responsibilities to value, leverage, and share the strengths of all team members. When funding for global health research is predicated upon more ethical and equitable collaborations, the nature of global health collaborations will evolve to be more ethical and equitable. Therefore, we propose the Douala Equity Checklist as a 20-item tool HIC and LMIC institutions can use throughout the conduct of global health projects to ensure more equitable collaborations.

The Application of Human-Centered Design Approaches in Health Research and Innovation: A Narrative Review of Current Practices

Background

Human-centered design (HCD) approaches to health care strive to support the development of innovative, effective, and person-centered solutions for health care. Although their use is increasing, there is no integral overview describing the details of HCD methods in health innovations.

Objective

This review aims to explore the current practices of HCD approaches for the development of health innovations, with the aim of providing an overview of the applied methods for participatory and HCD processes and highlighting their shortcomings for further research.

Methods

A narrative review of health research was conducted based on systematic electronic searches in the PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Sociological Abstracts (2000-2020) databases using keywords related to human-centered design, design thinking (DT), and user-centered design (UCD). Abstracts and full-text articles were screened by 2 reviewers independently based on predefined inclusion criteria. Data extraction focused on the methodology used throughout the research process, the choice of methods in different phases of the innovation cycle, and the level of engagement of end users.

Results

This review summarizes the application of HCD practices across various areas of health innovation. All approaches prioritized the user’s needs and the participatory and iterative nature of the design process. The design processes comprised several design cycles during which multiple qualitative and quantitative methods were used in combination with specific design methods. HCD- and DT-based research primarily targeted understanding the research context and defining the problem, whereas UCD-based work focused mainly on the direct generation of solutions. Although UCD approaches involved end users primarily as testers and informants, HCD and DT approaches involved end users most often as design partners.

Conclusions

We have provided an overview of the currently applied methodologies and HCD guidelines to assist health care professionals and design researchers in their methodological choices. HCD-based techniques are challenging to evaluate using traditional biomedical research methods. Previously proposed reporting guidelines are a step forward but would require a level of detail that is incompatible with the current publishing landscape. Hence, further development is needed in this area. Special focus should be placed on the congruence between the chosen methods, design strategy, and achievable outcomes. Furthermore, power dimensions, agency, and intersectionality need to be considered in co-design sessions with multiple stakeholders, especially when including vulnerable groups.