A systematic mapping of funders of maternal health intervention research 2000-2012

Shifting patterns and competing explanations for infectious disease priority in global health agenda setting arenas

The highly decentralized nature of global health governance presents significant challenges to conceptualizing and systematically measuring the agenda status of diseases, injuries, risks and other conditions contributing to the collective disease burden. An arenas model for global health agenda setting was recently proposed to help address these challenges. Further developing the model, this study aims to advance more robust inquiry into how and why priority levels may vary among the array of stakeholder arenas in which global health agenda setting occurs. We analyse order and the magnitude of changes in priority for eight infectious diseases in four arenas (international aid, scientific research, pharmaceutical industry and news media) over a period of more than two decades in relation to five propositions from scholarship. The diseases vary on burden and prominence in United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 3 for health and well-being, including four with specific indicators for monitoring and evaluation (HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, hepatitis) and four without (dengue, diarrhoeal diseases, measles, meningitis). The order of priority did not consistently align with the disease burden or international development goals in any arena. Additionally, using new methods to measure the scale of annual change in resource allocations that are indicative of priority reveals volatility at the disease level in all arenas amidst broader patterns of stability. Insights around long-term patterns of priority within and among arenas are integral to strengthening analyses that aim to identify pivotal causal mechanisms, to clarify how arenas interact, and to measure the effects they produce.

Protocol of an individual participant data meta-analysis to quantify the impact of high ambient temperatures on maternal and child health in Africa (HE2AT IPD)

INTRODUCTION

Globally, recognition is growing of the harmful impacts of high ambient temperatures (heat) on health in pregnant women and children. There remain, however, major evidence gaps on the extent to which heat increases the risks for adverse health outcomes, and how this varies between settings. Evidence gaps are especially large in Africa. We will conduct an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis to quantify the impacts of heat on maternal and child health in sub-Saharan Africa. A detailed understanding and quantification of linkages between heat, and maternal and child health is essential for developing solutions to this critical research and policy area.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will use IPD from existing, large, longitudinal trial and cohort studies, on pregnant women and children from sub-Saharan Africa. We will systematically identify eligible studies through a mapping review, searching data repositories, and suggestions from experts. IPD will be acquired from data repositories, or through collaboration with data providers. Existing satellite imagery, climate reanalysis data, and station-based weather observations will be used to quantify weather and environmental exposures. IPD will be recoded and harmonised before being linked with climate, environmental, and socioeconomic data by location and time. Adopting a one-stage and two-stage meta-analysis method, analytical models such as time-to-event analysis, generalised additive models, and machine learning approaches will be employed to quantify associations between exposure to heat and adverse maternal and child health outcomes.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by ethics committees. There is minimal risk to study participants. Participant privacy is protected through the anonymisation of data for analysis, secure data transfer and restricted access. Findings will be disseminated through conferences, journal publications, related policy and research fora, and data may be shared in accordance with data sharing policies of the National Institutes of Health.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022346068.

Expert consensus on novel medicines to prevent preterm birth and manage preterm labour: Target product profiles

OBJECTIVE

To develop target product profiles (TPPs) for new medicines for preterm birth prevention and preterm labour management that address the real-world need of women and healthcare providers, informed by views and agreement amongst globally diverse stakeholders.

DESIGN

Mixed methods.

SETTING

Global (with a focus on low- and middle-income countries, LMICs).

SAMPLE

Global stakeholders with diverse expertise in preterm labour/birth and drug development.

METHODS

Following an initial literature review, diverse stakeholders were invited to participate in an online international survey and in-depth interviews. The level of stakeholder agreement with TPPs was assessed, and findings from interviews were synthesised to inform the final TPPs.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

Level of stakeholder agreement on the minimum and preferred requirements for preterm labour/birth medicines.

RESULTS

We performed 21 interviews. Interview participants demonstrated strong agreement on room temperature stability, no additional drug-specific clinical monitoring, and affordability in LMICs being the minimal acceptable requirements. Points of discussion were raised around the target population. Survey respondents included clinicians, researchers, funding agency staff, international public organisation staff, programme implementers, policymakers, representatives of consumer advocacy organisations and other relevant stakeholders from maternal health systems. Survey results indicated strong agreement amongst stakeholders, with only one variable in each TPP not reaching consensus (i.e. 25% disagree or strongly disagree).

CONCLUSIONS

There is strong consensus within the preterm labour/birth community on the characteristics that new medicines for preterm birth prevention and preterm labour management must achieve. These TPPs provide necessary guidance to evaluate new candidates and their potential for implementation in a range of settings.

New medicines for spontaneous preterm birth prevention and preterm labour management: landscape analysis of the medicine development pipeline

BACKGROUND

There are few medicines in clinical use for managing preterm labor or preventing spontaneous preterm birth from occurring. We previously developed two target product profiles (TPPs) for medicines to prevent spontaneous preterm birth and manage preterm labor. The objectives of this study were to 1) analyse the research and development pipeline of medicines for preterm birth and 2) compare these medicines to target product profiles for spontaneous preterm birth to identify the most promising candidates.

METHODS

Adis Insight, Pharmaprojects, WHO international clinical trials registry platform (ICTRP), PubMed and grant databases were searched to identify candidate medicines (including drugs, dietary supplements and biologics) and populate the Accelerating Innovations for Mothers (AIM) database. This database was screened for all candidates that have been investigated for preterm birth. Candidates in clinical development were ranked against criteria from TPPs, and classified as high, medium or low potential. Preclinical candidates were categorised by product type, archetype and medicine subclass.

RESULTS

The AIM database identified 178 candidates. Of the 71 candidates in clinical development, ten were deemed high potential (Prevention: Omega-3 fatty acid, aspirin, vaginal progesterone, oral progesterone, L-arginine, and selenium; Treatment: nicorandil, isosorbide dinitrate, nicardipine and celecoxib) and seven were medium potential (Prevention: pravastatin and lactoferrin; Treatment: glyceryl trinitrate, retosiban, relcovaptan, human chorionic gonadotropin and Bryophyllum pinnatum extract). 107 candidates were in preclinical development.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis provides a drug-agnostic approach to assessing the potential of candidate medicines for spontaneous preterm birth. Research should be prioritised for high-potential candidates that are most likely to meet the real world needs of women, babies, and health care professionals.

Analysis of a maternal health medicines pipeline database 2000-2021: New candidates for the prevention and treatment of fetal growth restriction

OBJECTIVE

The Accelerating Innovation for Mothers project established a new database of candidate medicines under development between 2000 and 2021 for five pregnancy-related conditions, including fetal growth restriction. The objective was to assess medicines for fetal growth restriction and their potential for clinical use globally.

DESIGN

Landscape analysis.

SETTING

Global (focus on low- and middle-income countries, LMICs).

SAMPLE

Drugs, dietary supplements and biologics under investigation for prevention or treatment of fetal growth restriction.

METHODS

A research pipeline database of medicines was created through searching AdisInsight, PubMed and various grant and clinical trial databases. Analysis of clinical and preclinical candidates were descriptive.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

Fetal growth restriction candidates in clinical development were identified and ranked as high, medium or low potential based on prespecified criteria, including efficacy, safety and accessibility.

RESULTS

Of the 444 unique candidates in the database across all five pregnancy-related conditions, 63 were for fetal growth restriction. Of these, 31 were in clinical development (phases I, II or III) and 32 were in preclinical development. Three candidates, aspirin, l-arginine and vitamin D, were ranked as having high potential as preventive agents. There were no high-potential candidates for treating fetal growth restriction, although five candidates were ranked as having medium potential: allylestrenol, dalteparin, omega-3 fatty acids, tadalafil, and United Nations International Multiple Micronutrient Antenatal Preparation (UNIMMAP).

CONCLUSIONS

l-Arginine, aspirin and vitamin D are promising, high-potential preventative agents for fetal growth restriction. Based on the medicines pipeline, new pharmacological agents for fetal growth restriction are unlikely to emerge in the near future.

Systematic evaluation of the pre-eclampsia drugs, dietary supplements and biologicals pipeline using target product profiles

BACKGROUND

The Accelerating Innovation for Mothers (AIM) project established a database of candidate medicines in research and development (R&D) between 2000 and 2021 for five pregnancy-related conditions, including pre-eclampsia. In parallel, we published target product profiles (TPPs) that describe optimal characteristics of medicines for use in preventing/treating pre-eclampsia. The study objective was to use systematic double screening and extraction to identify all candidate medicines being investigated for pre-eclampsia prevention/treatment and rank their potential based on the TPPs.

METHODS

Adis Insight, Pharmaprojects, WHO international clinical trials registry platform (ICTRP), PubMed and grant databases were searched (Jan-May 2021). The AIM database was screened for all candidates being investigated for pre-eclampsia. Candidates in clinical development were evaluated against nine prespecified criteria from TPPs identified as key for wide-scale implementation, and classified as high, medium or low potential based on matching to the TPPs. Preclinical candidates were categorised by product type, archetype and medicine subclass.

RESULTS

The AIM database identified 153 candidates for pre-eclampsia. Of the 87 candidates in clinical development, seven were classified as high potential (prevention: esomeprazole, L-arginine, chloroquine, vitamin D and metformin; treatment: sulfasalazine and metformin) and eight as medium potential (prevention: probiotic lactobacilli, dalteparin, selenium and omega-3 fatty acid; treatment: sulforaphane, pravastatin, rosuvastatin and vitamin B3). Sixty-six candidates were in preclinical development, the most common being amino acid/peptides, siRNA-based medicines and polyphenols.

CONCLUSIONS

This is a novel, evidence-informed approach to identifying promising candidates for pre-eclampsia prevention and treatment - a vital step in stimulating R&D of new medicines for pre-eclampsia suitable for real-world implementation.

Measuring the funding landscape of COVID-19 research

Purpose

The purpose of the study is to map the funding status of COVID-19 research. The various aspects, such as funding ratio, geographical distribution of funded articles, journals publishing funded research and institutions that sponsor the COVID-19 research are studied. To visualize the country collaboration network and research trends/hotspots in the field of COVID-19 funded research, keyword analysis is also performed. The open-access (OA) status of the funded research on COVID-19 is also discussed.

Design/methodology/approach

The leading indexing and abstracting database, i.e. Web of Science (WoS), was used to retrieve the funded articles published on the topic COVID-19. The scientometric approach, more particularly “funding acknowledgment analysis (FAA),” was used to study the research funding.

Findings

A total of 5,546 publications of varied nature have been published on COVID-19, of which 1,760 are funded, thus indicating a funding ratio of 32%. China is the leading producer of funded research (760, 43.182%) on COVID-19 followed by the USA (482, 27.386%), England (179, 10.17%), Italy (119, 6.761%), Germany (107, 6.08%) and Canada (107, 6.08%). China is also in lead in terms of the funding ratio (60.94%). However, the funding ratio of the USA (31.54%) is at 11th rank behind Canada (40.68%), Germany (34.18%) and England (35.87%). The USA occupies a central position in the collaboration network having the highest score of articles with other countries (n = 489), with the USA–China collaboration ranking first (n = 123). National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) is the largest source of funding for COVID-19 research, supporting 342 (19.432%) publications, followed by the United States Department of Health Human Services (DHHS) and National Institute of Health (NIH), USA with 211 (11.989%) and 200 (11.364%) publications, respectively. However, China's National Key Research and Development Program achieves the highest citation impact (80.24) for its funded publications. Journal of Medical Virology, Science of the Total Environment and EuroSurveillance are the three most prolific journals publishing 63 (3.58%), 35 (1.989%) and 32 (1.818%), respectively, of the sponsored research articles on the COVID-19. A total of 3,138 institutions produce funded articles with Huazhong University of Science Technology and Wuhan University from China at the forefront publishing 92 (5.227%) and 83 (4.716%) publications, respectively. The funded research on COVID-19 is largely available in OA mode (1,674, 95.11%) and mainly through the Green and Bronze routes. The keyword clustering reveals that the articles mainly focus on the impact, structure and clinical characteristics of the virus.

Research limitations/implications

The study's main limitation is that the results are based on the publications indexed by WoS, which has limited coverage compared to other databases. Moreover, all the funding agencies do not require or authors miss to acknowledge funding sources in their publications, which ultimately undermines the number of funded publications. The research publications on COVID-19 are also proliferating; thus, the study's findings shall be valid for a minimum period.

Practical implications

The funding of research on the COVID-19 is highly essential to accelerate innovative research and help countries fight against the global pandemic. The study's findings reflect the efforts made by nations and institutions to remove the financial and accessibility hurdles. It not only underscores the lead of the USA in the research on COVID-19, but also shows China as a forerunner in sponsoring the research, thus, helping to know the contribution of nations toward understanding the dynamics of pandemic and controlling it. The study will help healthcare practitioners and policymakers recognize the areas that remain the focus of sponsored research on COVID-19 and other left-out areas that need to be taken up and thus may help in policy formulation. It further highlights the impact of prolific funding agencies so that efforts may be initiated to increase the impact and thereby the returns of investment. The study can help to map the scientific structure of COVID-19 through the lens of funded research and recognize core inclinations of its development. Overall, a comprehensive analysis has been performed to present the detailed characteristics of sponsored research on emerging area of COVID-19, and it is informative, useful and one of its kind on the theme.

Originality/value

The study explores the funding support of research on COVID-19 and its other aspects, along with the mode of availability.

The rise and fall of global health issues: an arenas model applied to the COVID-19 pandemic shock

Background

The global health agenda is ill-defined as an analytical construct, complicating attempts by scholars and proponents to make claims about the agenda status of issues. We draw on Kingdon’s definition of the agenda and Hilgartner and Bosk’s public arenas model to conceptualize the global health agenda as those subjects or problems to which collectivities of actors operating nationally and globally are paying serious attention at any given time. We propose an arenas model for global health agenda setting and illustrate its potential utility by assessing priority indicators in five arenas, including international aid, pharmaceutical industry, scientific research, news media and civil society. We then apply the model to illustrate how the status of established (HIV/AIDS), emergent (diabetes) and rising (Alzheimer’s disease) issues might be measured, compared and change in light of a pandemic shock (COVID-19).

Results

Coronavirus priority indicators rose precipitously in all five arenas in 2020, reflecting the kind of punctuation often caused by focusing events. The magnitude of change varied somewhat by arena, with the most pronounced shift in the global news media arena. Priority indicators for the other issues showed decreases of up to 21% and increases of up to 41% between 2019 and 2020, with increases suggesting that the agenda for global health issues expanded in some arenas in 2020— COVID-19 did not consistently displace priority for HIV/AIDS, diabetes or Alzheimer’s disease, though it might have for other issues.

Conclusions

We advance an arenas model as a novel means of addressing conceptual and measurement challenges that often undermine the validity of claims concerning the global health agenda status of problems and contributing causal factors. Our presentation of the model and illustrative analysis lays the groundwork for more systematic investigation of trends in global health agenda setting. Further specification of the model is needed to ensure accurate representation of vital national and transnational arenas and their interactions, applicability to a range of disease-specific, health systems, governance and policy issues, and sensitivity to subtler influences on global health agenda setting than pandemic shocks.

Maternal and neonatal data collection systems in low- and middle-income countries for maternal vaccines active safety surveillance systems: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Most post-licensure vaccine pharmacovigilance in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are passive reporting systems. These have limited utility for maternal immunization pharmacovigilance in LMIC settings and need to be supplemented with active surveillance. Our study's main objective was to identify existing perinatal data collection systems in LMICs that collect individual information on maternal and neonatal health outcomes and could be developed to inform active safety surveillance of novel vaccines for use during pregnancy.

METHODS

A scoping review was performed following the Arksey and O'Malley six-stage approach. We included studies describing electronic or mixed paper-electronic data collection systems in LMICs, including research networks, electronic medical records, and custom software platforms for health information systems. Medline PubMed, EMBASE, Global Health, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Bibliography of Asian Studies (BAS), and CINAHL were searched through August 2019. We also searched grey literature including through Google and websites of existing relevant perinatal data collection systems, as well as contacted authors of key studies and experts in the field to validate the information and identify additional sources of relevant unpublished information.

RESULTS

A total of 11,817 records were identified. The full texts of 264 records describing 96 data collection systems were assessed for eligibility. Eight perinatal data collection systems met our inclusion criteria: Global Network's Maternal Newborn Health Registry, International Network for the Demographic Evaluation of Populations and their Health; Perinatal Informatic System; Pregnancy Exposure Registry & Birth Defects Surveillance; SmartCare; Open Medical Record System; Open Smart Register Platform and District Health Information Software 2. These selected systems were qualitatively characterized according to seven different domains: governance; system design; system management; data management; data sources, outcomes and data quality.

CONCLUSION

This review provides a list of active maternal and neonatal data collection systems in LMICs and their characteristics as well as their outreach, strengths, and limitations. Findings could potentially help further understand where to obtain population-based high-quality information on outcomes to inform the conduct of maternal immunization active vaccine safety surveillance activities and research in LMICs.

Funding acknowledgements in scientific publications: A literature review

The topic of acknowledgements has produced abundant research since the 1970s, though, as previous studies point out, the value of acknowledgements has not yet been demonstrated and further research is limited by lack of conceptualization. This study focuses on funding acknowledgements (FAs), considering that funding represents an important input in the scientific process. In this context, 183 scientific publications retrieved from Scopus from the 1970s until June 2020 were analyzed, with the aim of systematizing conceptually this body of research and contributing to a theory of acknowledgements. Results are summarized into the following main themes: the meaning of FAs; data sources for acknowledgements; the process of funding; association of funding with productivity, impact, and collaboration; and other aspects affected by funding. The literature reviewed shows that a theory of acknowledgements based on the reward triangle, as in previous studies, is unable to capture the extreme complexity of the scientific activity affecting and being affected by FAs. Funding bodies appear as clear and influential actors in the scientific communication system, making important decisions on the research that is supported, and influencing the type of knowledge produced. Funding agencies hold a responsibility regarding the data that they may collect on their programs, as well as the normalization policies they need to develop so that funded authors can reference with less ambiguity the financial source of their projects. Finally, the need to assess the impact of research funding beyond the scientific community that is, the societal impact, is also addressed.

Analysing the global health agenda: A comparison of priority for diabetes and oral diseases

Many claims are made concerning which issues are on the global health agenda and which are neglected. Scholarship is inconsistent and generally vague about how an issue's status is (or should be) measured, however, leaving such claims open to questions about their validity. This inquiry explores a novel way of addressing the largely overlooked matter of how to comparatively assess the agenda status of health issues systematically, over time and in consideration of a global health context that lacks centralised authority. We draw upon a model from sociology which proposes that collective definitions of social problems and public attention evolve in multiple, interacting institutional arenas, each of which has the capacity to give robust attention to a limited number of issues. We systematically track status indicators for two significant global health issues, diabetes and oral diseases, in three arenas since 2000. Oral health's status declined while diabetes rose in international representation, international organisation and scientific research arenas during the past decade. This article sets out some preliminary contours of an analytical approach that holds promise for enhancing understanding of causal mechanisms and outcomes across a wider set of global health issues and agenda setting arenas.

Mapping of research on maternal health interventions in low- and middle-income countries: a review of 2292 publications between 2000 and 2012

Background

Progress in achieving maternal health goals and the rates of reductions in deaths from individual conditions have varied over time and across countries. Assessing whether research priorities in maternal health align with the main causes of mortality, and those factors responsible for inequitable health outcomes, such as health system performance, may help direct future research. The study thus investigated whether the research done in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) matched the principal causes of maternal deaths in these settings. 

Methods

Systematic mapping was done of maternal health interventional research in LMICs from 2000 to 2012. Articles were included on health systems strengthening, health promotion; and on five tracer conditions (haemorrhage, hypertension, malaria, HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs)). Following review of 35,078 titles and abstracts in duplicate, data were extracted from 2292 full-text publications.

Results

Over time, the number of publications rose several-fold, especially in 2004–2007, and the range of methods used broadened considerably. More than half the studies were done in sub-Saharan Africa (55.4 %), mostly addressing HIV and malaria. This region had low numbers of publications per hypertension and haemorrhage deaths, though South Asia had even fewer. The proportion of studies set in East Asia Pacific dropped steadily over the period, and in Latin America from 2008 to 2012. By 2008–2012, 39.1 % of articles included health systems components and 30.2 % health promotion. Only 5.4 % of studies assessed maternal STI interventions, diminishing with time. More than a third of haemorrhage research included health systems or health promotion components, double that of HIV research.

Conclusion

Several mismatches were noted between research publications, and the burden and causes of maternal deaths. This is especially true for South Asia; haemorrhage and hypertension in sub-Saharan Africa; and for STIs worldwide. The large rise in research outputs and range of methods employed indicates a major expansion in the number of researchers and their skills. This bodes well for maternal health if variations in research priorities across settings and topics are corrected.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12992-016-0189-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Perspectives on the methods of a large systematic mapping of maternal health interventions

Background

Mapping studies describe a broad body of literature, and differ from classical systematic reviews, which assess more narrowly-defined questions and evaluate the quality of the studies included in the review. While the steps involved in mapping studies have been described previously, a detailed qualitative account of the methodology could inform the design of future mapping studies.

Objectives

Describe the perspectives of a large research team on the methods used and collaborative experiences in a study that mapped the literature published on maternal health interventions in low- and middle-income countries (2292 full text articles included, after screening 35,048 titles and abstracts in duplicate).

Methods

Fifteen members of the mapping team, drawn from eight countries, provided their experiences and perspectives of the study in response to a list of questions and probes. The responses were collated and analysed thematically following a grounded theory approach.

Results

The objectives of the mapping evolved over time, posing difficulties in ensuring a uniform understanding of the purpose of the mapping among the team members. Ambiguity of some study variables and modifications in data extraction codes were the main threats to the quality of data extraction. The desire for obtaining detailed information on a few topics needed to be weighed against the benefits of collecting more superficial data on a wider range of topics. Team members acquired skills in systematic review methodology and software, and a broad knowledge of maternal health literature. Participation in analysis and dissemination was lower than during the screening of articles for eligibility and data coding. Though all respondents believed the workload involved was high, study outputs were viewed as novel and important contributions to evidence. Overall, most believed there was a favourable balance between the amount of work done and the project’s outputs.

Conclusions

A large mapping of literature is feasible with a committed team aiming to build their research capacity, and with a limited, simplified set of data extraction codes. In the team’s view, the balance between the time spent on the review, and the outputs and skills acquired was favourable. Assessments of the value of a mapping need, however, to take into account the limitations inherent in such exercises, especially the exclusion of grey literature and of assessments of the quality of the studies identified.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12992-016-0191-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Local and foreign authorship of maternal health interventional research in low- and middle-income countries: systematic mapping of publications 2000-2012

BACKGROUND

Researchers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are under-represented in scientific literature. Mapping of authorship of articles can provide an assessment of data ownership and research capacity in LMICs over time and identify variations between different settings.

METHODS

Systematic mapping of maternal health interventional research in LMICs from 2000 to 2012, comparing country of study and of affiliation of first authors. Studies on health systems or promotion; community-based activities; and haemorrhage, hypertension, HIV/STIs and malaria were included. Following review of 35,078 titles and abstracts, 2292 full-text publications were included. Data ownership was measured by the proportion of articles with an LMIC lead author (author affiliated with an LMIC institution).

RESULTS

The total number of papers led by an LMIC author rose from 45.0/year in 2000-2003 to 98.0/year in 2004-2007, but increased only slightly thereafter to 113.1/year in 2008-2012. In the same periods, the proportion of papers led by a local author was 58.4 %, 60.8 % and 60.1 %, respectively. Data ownership varies markedly between countries. A quarter of countries led more than 75 % of their research; while in 10 countries, under 25 % of publications had a local first author. Researchers at LMIC institutions led 56.6 % (1297) of all papers, but only 26.8 % of systematic reviews (65/243), 29.9 % of modelling studies (44/147), and 33.2 % of articles in journals with an Impact Factor ≥5 (61/184). Sub-Saharan Africa authors led 54.2 % (538/993) of studies in the region, while 73.4 % did in Latin America and the Caribbean (223/304). Authors affiliated with United States (561) and United Kingdom (207) institutions together account for a third of publications. Around two thirds of USAID and European Union funded studies had high-income country leads, twice as many as that of Wellcome Trust and Rockefeller Foundation.

CONCLUSIONS

There are marked gaps in data ownership and these have not diminished over time. Increased locally-led publications, however, does suggest a growing capacity in LMIC institutions to analyse and articulate research findings. Differences in author attribution between funders might signal important variations in funders' expectations of authorship and discrepancies in how funders understand collaboration. More stringent authorship oversight and reconsideration of authorship guidelines could facilitate growth in LMIC leadership. Left unaddressed, deficiencies in research ownership will continue to hinder alignment between the research undertaken and knowledge needs of LMICs.

Mapping the use of research to support strategies tackling maternal and child health inequities: evidence from six countries in Africa and Latin America

Background

Striving to foster collaboration among countries suffering from maternal and child health (MCH) inequities, the MASCOT project mapped and analyzed the use of research in strategies tackling them in 11 low- and middle-income countries. This article aims to present the way in which research influenced MCH policies and programs in six of these countries – three in Africa and three in Latin America.

Methods

Qualitative research using a thematic synthesis narrative process was used to identify and describe who is producing what kind of research, how research is funded, how inequities are approached by research and policies, the countries’ research capacities, and the type of evidence base that MCH policies and programs use. Four tools were designed for these purposes: an online survey for researchers, a semi-structured interview with decision makers, and two content analysis guides: one for policy and programs documents and one for scientific articles.

Results

Three modalities of research utilization were observed in the strategies tackling MCH inequities in the six included countries – instrumental, conceptual and symbolic. Instrumental utilization directly relates the formulation and contents of the strategies with research results, and is the least used within the analyzed policies and programs. Even though research is considered as an important input to support decision making and most of the analyzed countries count five or six relevant MCH research initiatives, in most cases, the actual impact of research is not clearly identifiable.

Conclusions

While MCH research is increasing in low- and middle-income countries, the impact of its outcomes on policy formulation is low. We did not identify a direct relationship between the nature of the financial support organizations and the kind of evidence utilization within the policy process. There is still a visible gap between researchers and policymakers regarding their different intentions to link evidence and decision making processes.