Decolonising global health evaluation: Synthesis from a scoping review

Researchers' agency and the boundaries of global mental health: perspectives from and about Latin America

The decolonise global health movement has critically reassessed the field's historical and political underpinnings, urging researchers to recognise biases and power imbalances through reflexivity and action. Genuine change is seen as the outcome of the researcher's self-awareness, often leaving the underlying structures of global health-and global mental health (GMH)-in the background. Here, we problematise how expectations around agency and change have been mobilised in discussions around decolonisation, highlighting the gradual and contingent nature of international collaboration in GMH.We present three international research initiatives based in or focused on South America: RedeAmericas, the Platform for Social Research on Mental Health in Latin America and the HEalthcaRe wOrkErS project. Instead of comparing the three initiatives directly we identify and discuss common elements among them that challenge and redefine the boundaries of GMH by leveraging local leadership, creating hybrid expert profiles and implementing principles of equity and epistemic justice. Particular attention is given to the fragmentary translation of these principles into the project's concrete activities.The interplay of agency and the structural confines of GMH is examined in each initiative, expanding the notion of 'boundaries' in the field beyond geographical or institutional demarcations. Using the notion of milieu, we call for a more nuanced understanding of the field as simultaneously shaping and being shaped by the tentative collaborative infrastructures developed by researchers. We advocate for a reconceptualisation of GMH that is as diverse and complex as the issues it seeks to address.

Decolonising humanitarian health: A scoping review of practical guidance

Despite growing calls and efforts to decolonise global and humanitarian health, there is limited practical guidance for researchers, educators and practitioners on how to do so. This paper fills this gap by offering a narrative exploration of key recommendations on decolonising global/humanitarian health research, partnerships, teaching, organisational structures and other practices. We present concrete guidelines to support humanitarian actors in decolonising their work. We used a scoping review method. The search strategy was built on three overarching themes: decolonising, global health/health and humanitarian crises. We combined a MEDLINE and Web of Science database search with a grey literature search. In total, we screened abstracts and titles of 533 documents, excluding records that did not specifically refer to 'decolonising,' humanitarian and/or global health. We assessed full texts of 58 documents for eligibility, excluding documents that did not include practical recommendations. In total, 15 documents were included in this review. We identified five key themes: organisational structure, strategy and engagement; research partnerships and conceptualisations; funding for research and projects; the research lifecycle; and teaching and the curriculum. The principal finding is that humanitarian actors can decolonise their work by decentralising power, redistributing resources, critically reflecting on their work in the context of the broader socio-political landscape and recovering, centring and valuing marginalised Global South perspectives. Race was not a central analytical category in the reviewed literature, despite being an integral part of historical background narratives. Future research should reflect on practical steps towards racial justice in global/humanitarian health and be focused on ensuring that efforts towards "localisation" or "equitable partnerships" in global health are linked to decolonisation efforts, including in humanitarian health research. Our review underscores the importance of drawing on knowledge created by and for actors based in the Global South.

A more equitable approach to economic evaluation: Directly developing conceptual capability wellbeing attributes for Tanzania and Malawi

Capability wellbeing can potentially provide a holistic outcome for health economic evaluation and the capability approach seems promising for African countries. As yet there is no work that has explored the evaluative space needed for health and care decision making at the whole population level and procedures that merely translate existing measures developed in the global north to contexts in the global south risk embedding structural inequalities. This work seeks to elicit the concepts within the capability wellbeing evaluative space for general adult populations in Tanzania and Malawi. Semi-structured interviews with 68 participants across Tanzania and Malawi were conducted between October 2021 and July 2022. Analysis used thematic coding frames and the writing of analytic accounts. Interview schedules were common across the two country settings, however data collection and analysis were conducted independently by two separate teams and only brought together once it was clear that the data from the two countries was sufficiently aligned for a single analysis. Eight common attributes of capability wellbeing were found across the two countries: financial security; basic needs; achievement and personal development; attachment, love and friendship; participation in community activities; faith and spirituality; health; making decisions without unwanted interference. These attributes can be used to generate outcome measures for use in economic evaluations comparing alternative health interventions. By centring the voices of Tanzanians and Malawians in the construction of attributes that describe a good life, the research can facilitate greater equity within economic evaluations across different global settings.

Emergency medical services impact evaluation approaches in low and middle-income countries

There is a strong need to critically consider the neocolonial context when discussing the impact evaluation of Eemergency Medical Services (EMS) systems in many low to middle-income countries. Many of these countries have faced exploitation and settler colonialism, and in today's world the aftermath of these political-economic unequal power dynamics persists through neocolonialism. "Solutions" to prehospital care and related donor-driven development sector aid programs are typically orchestrated by high-income countries in the Global North, many of whom directly benefited from centuries of colonizing the Global South. This perpetuates the financial and technocratic dependency of many low to middle-income countries. Traditional Global North-led impact assessment typically revolves around mortality outcomes. This is problematic because singularly tracking mortality can obscure the influence of important factors at play beyond the emergency response incident itself, such as morbidity and socioeconomic privilege. This is why process indicators such as response times and economic impacts on first responders and communities are crucial. Hence, instead of trying to develop a one-size-fits-all impact assessment criteria for all the diverse prehospital care system contexts across the world, it is important to focus on enabling bottom-up, community-led, and participatory approaches to finding context-tailored solutions. A key element of this should be the co-creation of the measures of success themselves with the community stakeholders. Such a decolonial holistic approach may then help put the spotlight on often neglected important measures, such as the inclusion of underprivileged minorities in emergency response and the level of protection against catastrophic health care expenditure built into EMS systems. In doing so, it can encourage a monitoring and evaluation shift from short-term mortality to long-term wellbeing, taking into account cultural contexts about what "wellbeing" entails. Furthermore, it is important to challenge the taken-for-granted notion that in low to middle-income countries, EMS systems are solely for trauma and medical emergencies. It is also important to consider (with the dialogue led by the local stakeholders) what sustainability would look like, and how resources accordingly should be allocated, in those regions in low to middle-income countries where there is political and economic volatility as a consequence of continuing neocolonial hegemony.

Decolonizing global AI governance: assessment of the state of decolonized AI governance in Sub-Saharan Africa

Global artificial intelligence (AI) governance must prioritize equity, embrace a decolonial mindset, and provide the Global South countries the authority to spearhead solution creation. Decolonization is crucial for dismantling Western-centric cognitive frameworks and mitigating biases. Integrating a decolonial approach to AI governance involves recognizing persistent colonial repercussions, leading to biases in AI solutions and disparities in AI access based on gender, race, geography, income and societal factors. This paradigm shift necessitates deliberate efforts to deconstruct imperial structures governing knowledge production, perpetuating global unequal resource access and biases. This research evaluates Sub-Saharan African progress in AI governance decolonization, focusing on indicators like AI governance institutions, national strategies, sovereignty prioritization, data protection regulations, and adherence to local data usage requirements. Results show limited progress, with only Rwanda notably responsive to decolonization among the ten countries evaluated; 80% are 'decolonization-aware', and one is 'decolonization-blind'. The paper provides a detailed analysis of each nation, offering recommendations for fostering decolonization, including stakeholder involvement, addressing inequalities, promoting ethical AI, supporting local innovation, building regional partnerships, capacity building, public awareness, and inclusive governance. This paper contributes to elucidating the challenges and opportunities associated with decolonization in SSA countries, thereby enriching the ongoing discourse on global AI governance.

Equitable Partnerships and Programs to Advance Pediatric Global Health

Purpose of the Review

This review underscores the critical need for equitable collaborations to uphold robust and enduring pediatric global health programs to improve child health worldwide. We advocate for the core tenets of reciprocity, longitudinal relationships, and resource redistribution in developing equitable global child health partnerships.

Recent Findings

We reviewed evidence signifying how local and global inequities adversely affect child health. In this review, we provide three examples of successful collaborations between high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries— the Rwandan Human Resources for Health Program, the Global Initiative for Children’s Surgery, and the Baylor College of Medicine International Pediatrics AIDS Initiative— that effectively address these inequities and result in improved child health outcomes. Common themes to equitable partnerships include: (1) prioritizing community voices to inform program development and ensure local needs are met; (2) practicing intentional reciprocity; and (3) challenging outdated and harmful approaches in global health by advocating for a decolonial, socially just, and solidarity-oriented mindset.

Summary

Global pediatric health partnerships must be based on equity to be effective and sustainable. Examples exist whereby programs prioritize community engagement and in-country ownership throughout, ensure reciprocity, and build longitudinal relationships that consider context, historical legacies, systemic inequalities, and promote necessary resource redistribution. These criteria should be used to assess current global child health partnerships and to train the next generation of pediatric global health practitioners, thereby paving the way for a more equitable and sustainable future in pediatric global health.

Guiding Principles for Community Building in Global Oncology

With the escalating incidence and prevalence of cancer worldwide disproportionately affecting low- and middle-income countries, there is an urgent need for the global oncology community to foster bidirectional partnerships and an equitable exchange of knowledge, resources, and expertise. A dedicated Global Oncology Community of Practice (CoP) can serve as a self-organizing, grassroots approach for members, with common goals and values, to coordinate efforts, maximize impact, and ensure sustainable outcomes. It is imperative, however, when outlining goals and priorities to adhere to an ethical and appropriate framework during community building efforts to avoid perpetuating inequities and power imbalances. This article reviews the core guiding principles for ASCO's Global Oncology CoP which includes responsibility, amplification, accessibility, sustainability, and decolonization.

Why and how is photovoice used as a decolonising method for health research with Indigenous communities in the United States and Canada? A scoping review

Globally, including in North America, Indigenous populations have poorer health than non-Indigenous populations. This health disparity results from inequality and marginalisation associated with colonialism. Photovoice is a community-based participatory research method that amplifies the voices of research participants. Why and how photovoice has been used as a decolonising method for addressing Indigenous health inequalities has not been mapped. A scoping review of the literature on photovoice for Indigenous health research in the United States and Canada was carried out. Five electronic databases and the grey literature were searched, with no time limit. A total of 215 titles and abstracts and 97 full texts were screened resulting in 57 included articles. Analysis incorporated Lalita Bharadwaj's Framework For Building Research Partnerships with First Nations Communities. Photovoice was selected to improve knowledge mobilisation and participant empowerment and engagement. Studies incorporated relationship building, meaningful data collection, and public dissemination but had a lesser focus on the inclusion of Indigenous peer researchers or participant involvement in analysis. For photovoice to truly realise its decolonising potential, it must be incorporated into a broader participatory and decolonising research paradigm. In addition, more resources are required to support the involvement of Indigenous people in the research process.

Applying a Power Analysis to Everything We Do: A Qualitative Inquiry to Decolonize the Global Health and Development Project Cycle

BACKGROUND

Global health and development (GHD) systems that centralize power in the Global North were conceived during colonialism. As a result, they often replicate unequal power structures, maintaining dogged inequities. Growing and historic calls to decolonize GHD advocate for the transfer of power to actors in the Global South. This article identifies examples of colonial legacies in today's GHD projects and offers actionable strategies to decolonize.

METHODS

From August 2021 to March 2022, 20 key informants across 15 organizations participated in interviews about their experiences and perspectives relating to the decolonization of GHD. We used deductive thematic coding to identify examples of challenges and strategies to address them across 3 project life cycle phases: conceptualization and contracting, program planning and implementation, and program evaluation and dissemination.

RESULTS

Participants described how power is maintained in the Global North, sharing countless examples across the project life cycle, including agenda-setting with minimal local participation or partnership, onerous requirements that limit grantee eligibility, Global North ownership of data collected by and in the Global South, and dissemination in languages and formats that are not easily accessible to Global South audiences. Proposed strategies to decolonize GHD projects include having built-in participatory processes and accountability mechanisms; aligning solicitations with existing local strategies; adapting the process for awarding, contracting, and evaluating investments to increase the representation and competitiveness of Global South entities; creating trusting, respectful relationships with Global South partners; and systematically applying power analyses to each step of the project life cycle.

CONCLUSIONS

GHD practitioners suggested project life cycle-based strategies for shifting power and redistributing resources, which we argue will ultimately enhance the value, impact, and sustainability of GHD programming.

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.