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

Research culture influences in health and biomedical research: rapid scoping review and content analysis

BACKGROUND

Research culture is strongly influenced by academic incentives and pressures such as the imperative to publish in academic journals, and can influence the nature and quality of the evidence we produce.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this rapid scoping review is to capture the breadth of differential pressures and contributors to current research culture, drawing together content from empirical research specific to the health and biomedical sciences.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

PubMed and Web of Science were searched for empirical studies of influences and impacts on health and biomedical research culture, published between January 2012 and April 2024. Data charting extracted the key findings and relationships in research culture from included papers such as workforce composition; equitable access to research; academic journal trends, incentives, and reproducibility; erroneous research; questionable research practices; biases vested interests; and misconduct. A diverse author network was consulted to ensure content validity of the proposed framework of i) inclusivity, ii) transparency, iii) rigor, and iv) objectivity.

RESULTS

A growing field of studies examining research culture exists ranging from the inclusivity of the scientific workforce, the transparency of the data generated, the rigor of the methods used and the objectivity of the researchers involved. Figurative diagrams are presented to storyboard the links between research culture content and findings.

CONCLUSION

The wide range of research culture influences in the recent literature indicates the need for coordinated and sustained research culture conversations. Core principles in effective research environments should include inclusive collaboration and diverse research workforces, rigorous methodological approaches, transparency, data sharing, and reflection on scientific objectivity.

Embedding research capacity strengthening in multi-country studies in low-and middle-income countries: learnings from sexual and reproductive health research

Research capacity strengthening (RCS) can empower individuals, institutions, networks, or countries to define and prioritize problems systematically; develop and scientifically evaluate appropriate solutions; and reinforce or improve capacities to translate knowledge into policy and practice. However, how to embed RCS into multi-country studies focusing on sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) is largely undocumented. We used findings from a qualitative study, from a review of the literature, and from a validation exercise from a panel of experts from research institutions that work on SRHR RCS. We provide a framework for embedded RCS; suggest a set of seven concrete actions that research project planners, designers, implementers, and funders can utilise to guide embedded RCS activities in low- and middle-income countries; and present a practical checklist for planning and assessing embedded RCS in research projects.

Ethical considerations for referral partnerships in clinical research

Recruitment challenges in clinical research are widespread, particularly for traditionally under-represented groups. Referral relationships-in which research partners and clinical partners agree to collaborate on selected research studies or programmes, with the expectation that the clinical partners refer appropriate patients as potential participants-may help alleviate these challenges. Referral relationships allow research partners access to expanded and more diverse pools of participants by increasing the engagement of medical providers, leveraging providers' connections with patients and providing structural support for study participation. Clinical partners can also benefit from the resources offered by research involvement, and patients may benefit from improved access to studies. Yet despite their potential, referral relationships can raise ethical concerns. Here, we discuss ethical considerations for referral relationships in clinical research to address these concerns. When establishing relationships, fair participant selection should guide the sites and studies involved. When defining the terms of a relationship, partners should build trust and respect, collaborating so that health centres or hospitals and communities benefit from their research involvement with the mitigation of associated burdens. When implemented, referral relationships should continue to honour fair participant selection, reduce misunderstanding or miscommunication about research and protect patients' privacy and confidentiality. Overall, when conducted ethically, referral relationships can help address study recruitment challenges and promote fair access to research opportunities.

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.

Bibliometric Analysis of Myelomeningocele Management: National Disease Burden versus Publication Volume

BACKGROUND

Myelomeningocele (MMC) disproportionately affects low-resource areas and regions without mandatory folic acid fortification. No specific literature exists on the distribution of research output regarding neurosurgical management of myelomeningocele worldwide in relation to regional disease burden. We aimed to examine the country of origin and patient population of published papers on MMC and topics related to neurosurgical management of MMC, to determine whether these were proportionate to disease burden.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted on neurosurgical aspects of MMC care. The geographic distribution of neurosurgical MMC research output was examined against the national burden of disease. Bibliometric analysis quantified author and patient country affiliations stratified by World Bank income group classification and folic acid fortification status, juxtaposed with disease burden.

RESULTS

From 9692 titles, 1843 were included, representing 107,446 patients and 2650 authorship instances. High-income countries (HICs) constituted 3% of 2019's global neural tube defect (NTD) births, 74% of authorships, and 83% of patients represented. Upper-middle-income countries (UMICs) represented 9% of NTD births, 16% of authorships, and 9% of published patients. Lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) represented 55% of NTD births but only 8.6% of authorships and 7% of patients. Low-income countries (LICs) shouldered 32% of NTD births and contributed 1.3% of authorships and 1.6% of patients. Countries with mandatory folic acid fortification represented 75% of patients and 54% of authorships. Postnatal repair, hydrocephalus, and postoperative complications were the most frequently studied topics.

CONCLUSIONS

The global literature concerning neurosurgical management of myelomeningocele originates predominantly from HICs. Published experiences of myelomeningocele patients from LICs/LMICs are scarce, even though they constitute the majority of the affected population. Neurosurgeons and other health professionals must address this mismatch between disease burden and publication volume in order to inform practice, policy, and advocacy for MMC care worldwide.

Advancing scaling science in health and social care: a scoping review and appraisal of scaling frameworks

BACKGROUND

Scaling is typically discussed as a way to amplify or expand a health innovation. However, there is limited knowledge about the specific techniques that can enhance access to or improve the quality of innovations, aiming to increase their positive impacts for the public good. We sought to identify, compare, and contrast scaling frameworks to advance the science and practice of scaling.

METHODS

Using a scoping review we asked: 1) What are the attributes of scaling frameworks for innovations that support health outcomes? and 2) What are the similarities and differences of these attributes? Inclusion criteria were 1) primary studies or review articles, 2) a primary focus on scaling innovations for health and social care, 3) articles that developed a framework, and 4) articles were concerned with a health outcome. Starting from an umbrella review, we identified relevant studies and extracted data about the characteristics of the articles, attributes of framework development, attributes of framework components, transferability, and the framework's underlying ethical lens. Grey literature was included through expert consultation. Data were summarized using frequencies and qualitative description.

RESULTS

From 94 potentially eligible articles, we identified 9 unique frameworks and included 4 additional frameworks from the grey literature, resulting in a total of 13 frameworks. Seven frameworks include a definition of scaling, and eight are designed for public health settings. Five of the frameworks were developed for the US/Canada/UK and Australia. Six of the lead authors' primary institutional affiliation are from North America. Framework developers involved diverse stakeholders in a number of ways to develop their framework. Eight frameworks were developed, but not yet tested or applied, while the remaining frameworks were in the process of being applied or had already been applied to cases. All frameworks use a consequentialist-utilitarian ethical lens. Lastly, a comparison between frameworks found in the grey or published literature show important differences.

CONCLUSION

Much may be learned through further support for, and development of, scaling frameworks by primary authors affiliated with the Global South. Important aspects of framework development were identified, especially understanding the nuances of diverse stakeholder involvement in development.

How to design equitable digital health tools: A narrative review of design tactics, case studies, and opportunities

With a renewed focus on health equity in the United States driven by national crises and legislation to improve digital healthcare innovation, there is a need for the designers of digital health tools to take deliberate steps to design for equity in their work. A concrete toolkit of methods to design for health equity is needed to support digital health practitioners in this aim. This narrative review summarizes several health equity frameworks to help digital health practitioners conceptualize the equity dimensions of importance for their work, and then provides design approaches that accommodate an equity focus. Specifically, the Double Diamond Model, the IDEAS framework and toolkit, and community collaboration techniques such as participatory design are explored as mechanisms for practitioners to solicit input from members of underserved groups and better design digital health tools that serve their needs. Each of these design methods requires a deliberate effort by practitioners to infuse health equity into the approach. A series of case studies that use different methods to build in equity considerations are offered to provide examples of how this can be accomplished and demonstrate the range of applications available depending on resources, budget, product maturity, and other factors. We conclude with a call for shared rigor around designing digital health tools that deliver equitable outcomes for members of underserved populations.

Radiologists' Role in Decolonizing Global Health

The colonial origins and power imbalances between Western high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are barriers to self-reliance and sustained structural improvements to health care systems. Radiologists working in global health (global radiologists) are tasked with improving the state of imaging in LMICs while mitigating the effects of colonial structures and processes. To accomplish this, we need to be aware of factors such as colonialism, neocolonialism, parachute research, and brain drain that contribute to global health inequities. Potential solutions to decolonizing global radiology include commitment to understanding local context; strengthening local capacity for technology advancement, research, and development; and policies and educational programs to combat medical brain drain from LMICs. In this article, we describe how the legacies of colonialism can interfere with improving health in LMICS, despite the best intentions, and provide a call to action for decolonizing our field with intentional approaches and equitable partnerships that emphasize investments in sustainable infrastructure, robust training of personnel, and policies that support self-reliance to match true health system strengthening with our passion for addressing health equity.

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.

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.

Mobilizing knowledge about urban change for equity and sustainability: developing 'Change Stories', a multi-country transdisciplinary study

Background

Health-focused research funders increasingly support multi-country research partnerships that study health, urban development and equity in global settings. To develop new knowledge that benefits society, these grants require researchers to integrate diverse knowledges and data, and to manage research-related aspects of coloniality, such as power imbalances and epistemic injustices. We conducted research to develop a transdisciplinary study proposal with partners in multiple middle and high income countries, aiming to embed equity into the methodology and funding model.

Methods

Parallel to literature review, we used participatory and social research methods to identify case study cities for our primary study and to inform our study design. We conducted semi-structured interviews with informed and consented sustainable urban development experts in the USA (n=23). We co-developed our research approach with our global advisory group (n=14) and conducted a participatory workshop (n=30) to identify case study sites, also informed by conversations with international academic experts in sustainable development (n=27).

Results

Through literature review we found that there is a need to study the contextual pre-conditions of urban transformation, the influence of coloniality on understandings of how cities can change and the failure of standard development practices to meet the needs of all residents and the planet. Through expert input and literature we found that decolonial and storytelling methods may help us show the complexities behind stories of urban transformation, particularly the role of marginalized populations in creating long-term change.

Conclusions

There are multiple benefits of conducting research to develop an equitably designed multi-country research collaboration. We built new partnerships and co-developed our research approach, creating new understanding of diverse collaborators' disciplinary perspectives and institutional requirements. By investigating the informational needs of U.S. sustainable development actors and designing our study to meet these needs, we have increased the likelihood that our research will create impact.

Leveraging qualitative approaches to guide sustainable international research collaborations

Qualitative research approaches were used to launch an international research collaboration between the U. S. and Cambodia. Cambodian officials requested assistance in learning qualitative approaches to complement the research skills of Cambodian mental health providers. This article provides a description of how U. S. researchers responded to that request and engaged with Cambodian psychiatrists to explore mental health needs and interventions in both countries and initiate a sustainable relationship. The early focus on qualitative research methodologies may be an avenue that mitigates some of the challenges that can characterize international research. In this study, early communications involved developing a plan to teach qualitative methods while also collecting and analyzing data in both countries that would address the mental health concerns experienced by respective care providers. A case study exemplar was embedded with a scripted focus group guide to collect data from U. S. focus groups, then share with Cambodian psychiatrists. Components of hermeneutic phenomenological interviewing and descriptive content analysis were used to simultaneously teach and enact the research methods, gather data in both countries to analyze, and inspire participants to replicate the methods in their ongoing work. Cambodian psychiatrists were able to demonstrate competence in facilitating focus groups after being participant-observers. Researcher/practitioners from both U. S. and Cambodian teams gained new understandings about the mental health needs of their patients. The mutual engagement of a research focus is an effective way to establish cross-cultural relationships. The challenges of staying with stable teams over times remain, but the content shared and learned in a participatory structure yields understandings that cross cultural boundaries. Anticipated and unexpected challenges may be offset by an intention of reciprocity and mutual engagement. The use of qualitative methodologies, early and repeatedly, can facilitate relational understanding.

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.

Mentorship as an overlooked dimension of research capacity strengthening: how to embed value-driven practices in global health

Mentorship in global health remains an overlooked dimension of research partnerships. Commitment to effective mentorship models requires value-driven approaches. This includes having an understanding of (1) what mentorship means across different cultural and hierarchical boundaries in the health research environment, and (2) addressing entrenched power asymmetries across different aspects including funding, leadership, data and outputs, and capacity strengthening. Existing guidance towards equity and sustainability fails to inform how to navigate complex relationships which hinder effective mentorship models. We focus this perspective piece on human capacity strengthening in research partnerships through mentorship. Using a case study of a research partnership, we describe the lessons learnt and the challenges faced in the mentor mentee relationship while maintaining an effective and sustainable partnership. Human capacity strengthening must research projects and collaborations, and recognise local leadership and ownership. To be transformative and effective, practices need to be driven by common values across research teams.

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.

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.

Lessons learned in implementing the Low Birthweight Infant Feeding Exploration study: A large, multi-site observational study

OBJECTIVE

Globally, early and optimal feeding practices and strategies for small and vulnerable infants are limited. We aim to share the challenges faced and implementation lessons learned from a complex, mixed methods research study on infant feeding.

DESIGN

A formative, multi-site, observational cohort study using convergent parallel, mixed-methods design.

SETTING

Twelve tertiary/secondary, public/private hospitals in India, Malawi and Tanzania.

POPULATION OR SAMPLE

Moderately low birthweight infants (MLBW; 1.50-2.49 kg).

METHODS

We assessed infant feeding and care practices through: (1) assessment of in-facility documentation of 603 MLBW patient charts; (2) intensive observation of 148 MLBW infants during facility admission; and (3) prospective 1-year follow-up of 1114 MLBW infants. Focus group discussions and in-depth interviews gathered perspectives on infant feeding among clinicians, families, and key stakeholders.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The outcomes of the primary study were: (1) To understand the current practices and standard of care for feeding LBW infants; (2) To define and document the key outcomes (including growth, morbidity, and lack of success on mother's own milk) for LBW infants under current practices; (3) To assess the acceptability and feasibility of a system-level Infant and Young Child Feeding (IYCF) intervention and the proposed infant feeding options for LBW infants.

RESULTS

Hospital-level guidelines and provision of care for MLBW infants varied across and within countries. In all, 89% of charts had missing data on time to first feed and 56% lacked discharge weights. Among 148 infants observed in-facility, 18.5% were discharged prior to meeting stated weight goals. Despite challenges during COVID, 90% of the prospective cohort was followed until 12 months of age.

CONCLUSIONS

Enrolment and follow-up of this vulnerable population required additional effort from researchers and the community. Using a mixed-methods exploratory study allowed for a comprehensive understanding of MLBW health and evidence-based planning of targeted large-scale interventions. Multi-site partnerships in global health research, which require active and equal engagement, are instrumental in avoiding duplication and building a stronger, generalisable evidence base.

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.

Tracking global resources and capacity for health research: time to reassess strategies and investment decisions

The COVID-19 pandemic and more recently the Monkeypox outbreak emphasize the urgency and importance of improving the availability and equitable distribution of resources for health research across rich and poor countries. Discussions about the persistent imbalances in resource allocation for health research between rich and poor countries are not new, but little or no progress has been made in redressing these imbalances over the years. This is critical not only for emergency preparedness, but for the worlds' ability to improve population health in an equitable manner. Concerned with the lack of progress in this area, Member States of the World Health Organization requested the establishment of a Global Observatory on Health Research and Development, with the aim of consolidating, monitoring and analyzing relevant information on health research and development, with a view to informing the coordination and prioritization of new investments. In this commentary, we highlight some of the striking disparities from the Observatory's analysis over the 5 years since its establishment and reflect on what is needed to overturn stagnant progress.

A mixed-methods evaluation of capacity strengthening within an international conservation agriculture research consortium

Background: The Strengthening Capacity in Environmental Physics, Hydrogeology and Statistics for conservation agriculture research (CEPHaS) consortium sought to to strengthen research capacity among a network of African and UK researchers, and their respective institutions, to fill knowledge gaps on the impacts of conservation agriculture practices on the water cycle in cultivated soils. We examined experiences of consortium membership and, drawing on this information, determined key recommendations for future programmes with similar objectives. Methods: A mixed methods study encompassing an online survey (N=40) and semi-structured interviews (N=19) completed between June 2021 and February 2022 with CEPHaS consortium members from Malawi, UK, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Survey and interview data were analysed separately, using univariate statistics and framework synthesis respectively Results: Survey and interview findings were generally aligned, with both revealing a wide range of reported capacity strengthening gains resulting from CEPHaS engagement at both an individual and institutional level. Participants consistently expressed their CEPHaS involvement in positive terms with praise for the applied 'learn by doing' approach underpinning many of the activities as well as the engaging and highly inclusive leadership. There was evidence that the various trainings and resources provided through CEPHaS were valued, frequently utilised, and often transferred beyond the immediate CEPHaS membership for wider benefit. Resource provision and staff training were seen as foundational for long-term institutional benefits. Some challenges and suggested areas for improvement were reported by participants as were potential opportunities to facilitate greater impact. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the basic 'template' of the CEPHaS consortium provided a strong basis for research capacity strengthening in Conservation Agriculture, especially at the level of individual researchers, and that this template could be further enhanced in any future iteration of the same or similar programme. Recommendations for replicating and enhancing CEPHaS programme strengths are presented.

The Changing Landscape of Global Child Health Education in the United States and the Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Civil Unrest

The events of recent years have affected the landscape of global child health education (GCHE) in the United States. War, racism, forced displacement, and the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic had global repercussions that reached US GCHE. The aim of this article is to examine the effect of these events on the landscape of GCHE in the US. Key areas of GCHE have been reframed, reshaped, and accelerated by these events. Travel restrictions accelerated virtual learning opportunities. Core curriculum needed to be reconsidered to address antiracism, equity, and decolonization. Expansion of GCHE activities, including local-global electives, was needed to meet increased resident demand and help address local community needs. Inequities in international partnerships were further highlighted, requiring new approaches. Global research education and practices were also affected with a rapid expansion in virtual opportunities and further development of education in equitable research practices. [Pediatr Ann. 2023;52(9):e324-e329.].

Redefining Cancer Research Priorities in Low- and Middle-Income Countries in the Post-COVID-19 Global Context: A Modified Delphi Consensus Process

PURPOSE

The post-COVID-19 funding landscape for cancer research globally has become increasingly challenging, particularly in resource-challenged regions (RCRs) lacking strong research ecosystems. We aimed to produce a list of priority areas for cancer research in countries with limited resources, informed by researchers and patients.

METHODS

Cancer experts in lower-resource health care systems (as defined by the World Bank as low- and middle-income countries; N = 151) were contacted to participate in a modified consensus-seeking Delphi survey, comprising two rounds. In round 1, participants (n = 69) rated predetermined areas of potential research priority (ARPs) for importance and suggested missing ARPs. In round 2, the same participants (n = 49) rated an integrated list of predetermined and suggested ARPs from round 1, then undertook a forced choice priority ranking exercise. Composite voting scores (T-scores) were used to rank the ARPs. Importance ratings were summarized descriptively. Findings were discussed with international patient advocacy organization representatives.

RESULTS

The top ARP was research into strategies adapting guidelines or treatment strategies in line with available resources (particularly systemic therapy) (T = 83). Others included cancer registries (T = 62); prevention (T = 52); end-of-life care (T = 53); and value-based and affordable care (T = 51). The top COVID-19/cancer ARP was strategies to incorporate what has been learned during the pandemic that can be maintained posteriorly (T = 36). Others included treatment schedule interruption (T = 24); cost-effective reduction of COVID-19 morbidity/mortality (T = 19); and pandemic preparedness (T = 18).

CONCLUSION

Areas of strategic priority favored by cancer researchers in RCRs are related to adaptive treatment guidelines; sustainable implementation of cancer registries; prevention strategies; value-based and affordable cancer care; investments in research capacity building; epidemiologic work on local risk factors for cancer; and combatting inequities of prevention and care access.

Precision Nutrition Opportunities to Help Mitigate Nutrition and Health Challenges in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: An Expert Opinion Survey

Precision nutrition involves several data collection methods and tools that aim to better inform nutritional recommendations and improve dietary intake, nutritional status, and health outcomes. While the benefits of collecting precise data and designing well-informed interventions are vast, it is presently unclear whether precision nutrition is a relevant approach for tackling nutrition challenges facing populations in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), considering infrastructure, affordability, and accessibility of approaches. The Swiss Food & Nutrition Valley (SFNV) Precision Nutrition for LMIC project working group assessed the relevance of precision nutrition for LMIC by first conducting an expert opinion survey and then hosting a workshop with nutrition leaders who live or work in LMIC. The experts were interviewed to discuss four topics: nutritional problems, current solutions, precision nutrition, and collaboration. Furthermore, the SFNV Precision Nutrition for LMIC Virtual Workshop gathered a wider group of nutrition leaders to further discuss precision nutrition relevance and opportunities. Our study revealed that precision public health nutrition, which has a clear focus on the stratification of at-risk groups, may offer relevant support for nutrition and health issues in LMIC. However, funding, affordability, resources, awareness, training, suitable tools, and safety are essential prerequisites for implementation and to equitably address nutrition challenges in low-resource communities.

The implications of decolonization on China's academic global health: a dialogue with Stephen Gloyd at the Luhu Global Health Salon

The call for decolonization in global health is growing alongside China's increasing involvement in the field. This perspective paper presents and extends with a further literature review of a dialogue with Stephen Gloyd, a global health professor from the University of Washington, conducted in July 2022 at the Luhu Global Health Salon. Drawing from Gloyd's four decades of experiences in low- and middle-income countries, as well as his role in creating the University of Washington's global health department, the doctoral program in implementation science, and the non-governmental organization, Health Alliance International, this paper delves into the concept of decolonization in global health and explores how Chinese universities can expand their participation in global health while striving for equity and justice. Focusing on China's academic global health research, education, and practice, the paper proposes specific recommendations for building an equity-focused global health curriculum, addressing power imbalances and inequalities in university-affiliated organizations, and strengthening South-South cooperation in practice. The paper offers implications for Chinese universities on expanding future global health cooperation, promoting global health governance, and avoiding recolonization.