Growing research in global surgery with an eye towards equity

Evaluating Global Surgery Partnerships From Low and Middle Income Country Perspectives

INTRODUCTION

Little is known about perceptions of low-income and middle-income country (LMIC) partners regarding global surgery collaborations with high-income countries (HICs).

METHODS

A survey was distributed to surgeons from LMICs to assess the nature and perception of collaborations, funding, benefits, communication, and the effects of COVID-19 on partnerships.

RESULTS

We received 19 responses from LMIC representatives in 12 countries on three continents. The majority (83%) had participated in collaborations within the past 5 y with 39% of collaborations were facilitated virtually. Clinical and educational partnerships (39% each) were ranked most important by respondents. Sustainability of the partnership was most successfully achieved in domains of education/training (78%) and research (61%). The majority (77%) of respondents reported expressing their needs before HIC team arrival. However, 54% of respondents were the ones to initiate the conversation and only 47% said HIC partners understood the overall environment well at arrival to LMIC. Almost all participants (95%) felt a formal process of collaboration and a structured partnership would benefit all parties in assessing needs. During the COVID-19 pandemic, 87% of participants reported continued collaborations; however, 44% of partners felt that relationships were weaker, 31% felt relationships were stronger, and 25% felt they were unchanged.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study provides a snapshot of LMIC surgeons' perspectives on collaboration in global surgery. Independent of location, LMIC partners cite inadequate structure for long-term collaborations. We propose a formal pathway and initiation process to assess resources and needs at the outset of a partnership.

Beyond the Ivory Tower: Perception of academic global surgery by surgeons in low- and middle-income countries

Interest in global surgery has surged amongst academics and practitioners in high-income countries (HICs), but it is unclear how frontline surgical practitioners in low-resource environments perceive the new field or its benefit. Our objective was to assess perceptions of academic global surgery amongst surgeons in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We conducted a cross-sectional e-survey among surgical trainees and consultants in 62 LMICs, as defined by the World Bank in 2020. This paper is a sub-analysis highlighting the perception of academic surgery and the association between practice setting and responses using Pearson's Chi-square test. Analyses were completed using Stata15. The survey received 416 responses, including 173 consultants (41.6%), 221 residents (53.1%), 8 medical graduates (1.9%), and 14 fellows (3.4%). Of these, 72 responses (17.3%) were from low-income countries, 137 (32.9%) from lower-middle-income countries, and 207 (49.8%) from upper-middle-income countries. 286 respondents (68.8%) practiced in urban areas, 34 (8.2%) in rural areas, and 84 (20.2%) in both rural and urban areas. Only 185 (44.58%) were familiar with the term "global surgery." However, 326 (79.3%) agreed that collaborating with HIC surgeons for research is beneficial to being a global surgeon, 323 (78.8%) agreed that having an HIC co-author improves likelihood of publication in a reputable journal, 337 (81.6%) agreed that securing research funding is difficult in their country, 195 (47.3%) agreed that their institutions consider research for promotion, 252 (61.0%) agreed that they can combine research and clinical practice, and 336 (82%) are willing to train HIC medical students and residents. A majority of these LMIC surgeons noted limited academic incentives to perform research in the field. The academic global surgery community should take note and foster equitable collaborations to ensure that this critical segment of stakeholders is engaged and has fewer barriers to participation.

Publishing Trends in International Humanitarian Cleft Lip and Palate Care: A Systematic Review

Background: Humanitarian outreach delivers essential cleft lip and palate (CLP) care in low- and middle-income countries. Objective: To review the literature regarding humanitarian CLP care and determine if a shift toward more sustainable care delivery is observed. Methods: A systematic review was performed on articles describing CLP repair in humanitarian settings from 1985 to 2020. Publications were categorized into trip reports, outcomes, teaching, and public health. Articles were stratified into three 12-year intervals (T1-T3) for analysis. Results: A total of 246 publications were included. Average annual publications increased 15.4-fold from T1 to T3 (p < 0.001). Among publications focused on delivering CLP-related care, descriptive trip report articles trended downward (58% in T1 vs. 42% in T3), whereas outcome-focused publications trended upward (42% in T1 vs. 58% T3). Public health research represented the greatest percentage of publications in T3 (50%). There were 22 teaching-related publications in T3 and only one in prior years. Conclusion: Research trends demonstrate a shift away from focusing solely on the number of surgical cases completed and toward more sustainable models of care delivery that address barriers to receiving longitudinal care.

Global Cancer Surgery: pragmatic solutions to improve cancer surgery outcomes worldwide

The first Lancet Oncology Commission on Global Cancer Surgery was published in 2015 and serves as a landmark paper in the field of cancer surgery. The Commission highlighted the burden of cancer and the importance of cancer surgery, while documenting the many inadequacies in the ability to deliver safe, timely, and affordable cancer surgical care. This Commission builds on the first Commission by focusing on solutions and actions to improve access to cancer surgery globally, developed by drawing upon the expertise from cancer surgery leaders across the world. We present solution frameworks in nine domains that can improve access to cancer surgery. These nine domains were refined to identify solutions specific to the six WHO regions. On the basis of these solutions, we developed eight actions to propel essential improvements in the global capacity for cancer surgery. Our initiatives are broad in scope, pragmatic, affordable, and contextually applicable, and aimed at cancer surgeons as well as leaders, administrators, elected officials, and health policy advocates. We envision that the solutions and actions contained within the Commission will address inequities and promote safe, timely, and affordable cancer surgery for every patient, regardless of their socioeconomic status or geographic location.

How international are the editorial boards in the field of hand research? A cross-sectional study of leading subspecialty hand journals

BACKGROUND

Although low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) have great disease burden, but the lack of studies from LMIC have been shown in several fields. Multiple researchers from LMIC perceive editorial bias against their studies. Editorial board members (EBMs) from LMIC are under-represented across many medical journals. It is still unclear whether this phenomenon exists in the field of hand research. The purpose of this study was to investigate the composition of EBMs in leading subspecialty hand journals, and to reveal the international representation of EBMs in the field of hand research.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study included seven leading subspecialty hand journals. The EBMs were obtained from the journals' websites. The country affiliations of EBMs were categorized based on their locations and economy status. The composition of EBMs was investigated.

RESULTS

There were 211 EBMs in the seven journals. A total of 185 EBMs (87.7%) were affiliated with high-income countries (HIC), 18 (8.5%) with upper middle-income countries, and 8 (3.8%) with lower middle-income countries. None EBMs were affiliated with low income countries. The EBMs were affiliated with 30 countries. The biggest number of EBMs were affiliated with the USA 74 (35.07%), followed by the United Kingdom (45, 21.33%), and France (13, 6.16%). Most of EBMs were based in Europe and Central Asia (86, 40.8%) and North America (81, 38.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

The EBMs of leading subspecialty hand journals are dominated by HIC with a very low representation of LMIC. There is a need to make the editorial boards more international in the field of hand research.

Poor Representation of Developing Countries in Editorial Boards of Leading Obstetrics and Gynaecology Journals

Evidence suggests a limited contribution to the total research output in leading obstetrics and gynaecology journals by researchers from the developing world. Editorial bias, quality of scientific research produced and language barriers have been attributed as possible causes for this phenomenon. The aim of this study was to understand the prevalence of editorial board members based out of low and lower-middle income countries in leading journals in the field of obstetrics and gynaecology. The top 21 journals in the field of obstetrics and gynaecology were selected based on their impact factor, SCImago ranking and literature search. The composition of the editorial boards of these journals was studied based on World Bank Income Criteria to understand the representation status of researchers from low and lower-middle income countries. A total of 1315 board members make up the editorial composition of leading obstetrics and gynaecology journals. The majority of these editors belong to high-income countries (n = 1148; 87.3%). Low (n = 6; 0.45%) and lower-middle income (n = 55; 4.18%) countries make up for a very minuscule proportion of editorial board members. Only a meagre 9 out of 21 journals have editorial board members from these countries (42.85%). Low and low-middle countries have poor representation in the editorial boards of leading obstetrics and gynaecology journals. Poor representation in research from these countries has grave consequences for a large proportion of the global population and multidisciplinary collaborative efforts must be taken to rapidly change this statistic with immediate effect.

Academic Global Surgery: Creating Opportunities, Equity, and Diversity

A workforce trained in the development and delivery of equitable surgical care is critical in reducing the global burden of surgical disease. Academic global surgery aims to address the present inequities through collaborative partnerships that foster research, education, advocacy and training to support and increase the surgical capacity in settings with limited resources. Barriers include a deficiency of resources, personnel, equipment, and funding, a lack of communication, and geographical challenges. Multi-level partnerships remain fundamental; these types of partnerships include a wide range of trainees, professionals, institutions, and nations, yet care must be taken to avoid falling into the trap of surgical "voluntourism" and undermining the expertise and practice of long-standing frontline providers. Academic global surgery has the benefit of developing a community of surgeons who possess the tools needed to collaborate on individual, institutional, and international levels to address inequities in surgery that are spread variously across the globe. However, challenges for surgeons pursuing a career in global surgery include balancing clinical responsibilities while integrating global surgery as a career during training. This is due in part to the lack of mentorship, research time, grant funding, support to attend conferences, and a limitation of resources, all of which are significantly more pronounced for surgeons from low-resource countries.

The Scope, Growth, and Inequities of the Global Neurosurgery Literature: A Bibliometric Analysis

BACKGROUND

Here, we evaluate the evolution and growth of global neurosurgery publications over time, further focusing on the contributions and impact of authors in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

METHODS

In this systematic bibliometric analysis, we conducted a two-stage blinded screening process of global neurosurgery publications from 5 databases from inception through July 2021. Articles involving multi-national/multi-institutional research collaborations, detailing any area of global neurosurgery collaboration, or influencing global neurosurgery practice were included. Statistical hypothesis testing was conducted to analyze trends and hypotheses of LMIC authorship contributions.

RESULTS

The number of global neurosurgery publications has soared in the last decade. Overall, authors from HIC countries were most commonly from the US (41.1%), Canada (4.0%), and the UK (3.9%), while authors from LMIC countries were most commonly from Uganda (4.2%), Tanzania (2.6%), Cameroon (1.8%), and India (1.8%). Over a quarter (28%) of publications had no LMIC authors, while only 11% had 3 or more LMIC authors. The proportion of LMIC authors (LMIC-R) was not correlated with the citation rate of individual articles or with the year of publication, and a positive trend emerged when the LMIC-R of top-publishing LMICs was individually examined and compared to the year of publication.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite recent growth, the number of global neurosurgery publications arising from LMICs pales in comparison to those from HICs. Collaborative efforts between certain HICs and LMICs have likely contributed to the observed increase in LMIC author independence over time.

Surgical research in Colombia part 1: Scientific and academic productivity of the Colombian research groups in surgery

Introduction

Global surgery has become the undisputed starting point for addressing a myriad of problems in surgery today. Therefore, it is necessary to constantly evaluate the scientific productivity in surgery, its behavior, validity and impact. In Latin America, specifically in Colombia, there are no studies that have analyzed this production.

Methods

A retrospective cross-sectional bibliometric study was carried out, in which the Colombian Ministry of Science database was consulted with the validated results up to July 2021. In the search section for research groups, the key word “Surgery” was used, and all associated GrupLAC (platform where the information of the research groups can be found) and their registered products were reviewed.

Results

40 groups were included. Only 5 (12.5%) were registered in surgery as main line of research. The great majority of the groups were in the medium-low category, 50% in category C and 22.5% in category B. The vast majority of surgical groups are located in Bogotá (19; 47.5%). The first surgery group in the country was created in 1994 and the last one in 2017. In 27 years of surgical research, a total of 4121 registered scientific articles were found, 83 books, 713 book chapters, 2891 products associated with participation in scientific events, 1221 theses directed, and 1670 projects in colombian surgical research groups. There was evidence of a high rate of underreporting of data, due to duplication of products and incomplete registration of data.

Conclusions

There is a high rate of underreporting of products and data in the GrupLAC of Colombian surgical research groups. Most of the production is located in the Andes region (Antioquia, Valle del Cauca and Bogotá), and is predominantly composed of scientific articles and products associated with participation in scientific events.

•

There is a high rate of underreporting of data in the Colombian surgical research groups.

•

Most of the production is composed of articles and participation in scientific events.

•

Surgical production in Colombia is centralized in the Andean region.

Retrospective review of Google Trends to gauge the popularity of global surgery worldwide: A cross-sectional study

Introduction

Global surgery is a growing movement worldwide, but its expansion has not been quantified. Google Search is the most popular search engine worldwide, and Google Trends analyzes its queries to determine popularity trends. We used Google Trends to analyze the regional and temporal popularity of global surgery (GS). Furthermore, we compared GS with global health (GH) to understand if the two were correlated.

Methods

This is a retrospective cross-sectional study examining Google Trends of GS and GH. We searched the terms "global surgery" and "global health" on Google Trends (Google Inc., CA, USA) from January 2004 to May 2021. We identified time trends and compared the two search terms using SPSS v26 (IBM, WA, USA) to run summary descriptive analyses and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.

Results

The ten countries most interested in GS were India (5.0%), the United Kingdom (5.0%), Ireland (4.0%), the United States (4.0%), Australia (3.0%), Canada (3.0%), New Zealand (3.0%), Germany (2.0%), South Africa (2.0%), and Nigeria (1.0%). GS became more popular after 2015 (2.3% vs. 1.3%, P < 0.001) and was consistently less popular than GH (1.6% vs. 45.3%, P = 0.04). The difference between GS and GH interest levels increased after 2015 (45.4% vs. 42.9%, P = 0.04).

Conclusion

GS is less popular than GH, more popular in high-income countries, and has become more popular after 2015 when the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery published its seminal report. The World Health Organization passed resolution WHA 68.15. Future advocacy efforts should target low- and middle-income countries primarily.

Global Surgery Fellowships-An Investigation of Opportunities, Outcomes, and Applicants

Following the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery in 2015, the Global Surgery Fellowships have risen in popularity, advertised as formalized opportunities for surgical trainees who have an interest in international surgical care. There is currently no up-to-date review of all fellowships available and an urgently needed overview of these opportunities is presented, including critical appraisal of their accessibility, funding, and outcomes. Detailed searches were conducted on the web engine Google, using the term "global surgery fellowship" and iterations. From the 547 resulting links, after applying exclusion criteria, 69 relevant fellowships were included in analysis. The majority of fellowships based in the United States (55%) and arranged by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or universities (>70%). Also, 60% of fellowships had a duration of 1 year or longer. Only a quarter of the fellowships was open solely to trainees from low- or middle-income countries (LMIC), with over 80% of these being full funded. But 40% of the fellowships were advertised as open to trainees from any country, though only one-third of these provided full funding. Key themes across the fellowships' outcomes included "Professional Development," "Research," and "LMIC Quality Improvement." Almost all of the fellowships (95%) stated international travel opportunities. Twelve of the fellowships offered higher degrees, with the most common being a Masters of Public Health. The global distribution of fellowships and reduced funding opportunities for trainees from LMIC limit accessibility of the Global Surgery Fellowships. It is, however, still promising that most of key themes and high rates of international work are in line with The Lancet Commission's recommendations. This overview of the Global Surgery Fellowships highlights the need for collaboration between institutions and has illustrated points for consideration when introducing new and the value of established fellowships.

Research Equity in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery

Equitable research collaborations benefit the quality and relevance of global otolaryngology-head and neck surgery research. However, analyses of existing global health literature have shown disproportionate representation by foreign authors. To avert this inequity and improve global otolaryngology-head and neck surgery research, we propose a framework that emphasizes local representation and capacity building in research.

Developing Research Potential and Building Partnerships: A Report of the Fundamentals of Surgical Research Course at the College of Surgeons of East, Central, and Southern Africa

BACKGROUND

Approximately a decade after the inaugural Fundamentals of Surgical Research Course (FSRC) at the West African College of Surgeons meeting (2008), the Association for Academic Surgery expanded the course offering to the annual meeting of the College of Surgeons of East, Central and Southern Africa (COSECSA). After the second annual offering of the course in 2019, participants were surveyed to assess the impact of the course.

METHODS

A survey was distributed to the attendees of the 2019 second COSECSA FSRC course, held in December 2019 in Kampala, Uganda. Approximately 80 people attended at least a portion of the full-day course. Forty-nine participants completed the voluntary survey questionnaire distributed to assess each session of the course at course completion.

RESULTS

Ten different countries were represented among the attendees. Of the 49 evaluations, 35 respondents were male and six were female. Eight respondents did not identify a gender. Surgical residents comprised 19 of the 49 attendees, and one of the 49 attendees was a medical student. Thirty-five respondents indicated that their views of surgical research had changed after attending the course.

CONCLUSIONS

The second annual FSRC at COSECSA confirmed significant interest in building research skills and partnerships in sub-Saharan Africa. A wide variety of learners attended the course, and a majority of the sessions received overwhelmingly positive feedback. Multiple conference attendees expressed interest in serving as faculty for the course moving forward, highlighting a viable path for sustainability as the Association for Academic Surgery develops an international research education platform.

Closing the Gender Gap in Global Surgery: Trends at the Academic Surgical Congress

INTRODUCTION

Female researchers are underrepresented in academic surgery. While they are increasingly producing original research, they lag male researchers in productivity. This disparity is not well understood within the nascent field of global surgery. The following study examines gender parity in global surgery research presented at the Academic Surgical Congress and within subsequent publications.

METHODS

Abstracts presented at the Academic Surgical Congress (ASC) between 2015 and 2019 in "Global Surgery" sessions were reviewed to obtain title, the first author (FA) and senior author (SA). The authors were classified by gender. The Scopus database was queried by two reviewers for abstracts with corresponding publications, citations, and journal impact factors. Statistical analysis was conducted using chi-square analysis and t-tests where appropriate.

RESULTS

Of a total of 6635 abstracts, 218 global surgery abstracts over a 5-year period were identified. Of these abstracts, 96 (44%) had female FAs, while 56 (26%) had female SAs. When comparing gender, female (44%) FAs and male (56%) FAs were equally represented. While SAs were significantly less likely to be female (26% versus 74%, P < 0.0001), female senior authorship increased significantly within the study period. Output with respect to publications, citations, and journal impact factors were equal by gender.

CONCLUSIONS

This study presents 5 y of gender trends in global surgery scholarly work presented at the ASC. Despite an overall predominance of male senior authors, the paradigm is shifting with a recent trend to gender parity. Male and female authors have equal output and are equally impactful. Findings of gender equity in academic global surgery are encouraging, and further study of other disciplines are warranted.

Fostering Trauma and Emergency Research Capacity in Rwanda Through Collaboration

OBJECTIVES

Access to effective emergent care would prevent 45% of all deaths in LMICs, however, trauma and emergency care remain largely neglected. Our collaboration in Rwanda to build prehospital trauma care led us to create a research mentorship program to enhance the ability of the local team to evaluate their system.

METHODS

NIH grant funding had been previously obtained to establish standards for prehospital trauma care in Rwanda and build local research capacity. We created a research mentorship program that involved a surgical resident embedded locally tasked with 1) giving lectures on research, study design, interpretation, and writing, 2) providing mentorship for data interpretation and 3) supporting the development of abstracts, presentations, and publications.

RESULTS

Four research teams identified high priority areas for quality improvement research. Research group meetings were held and involved mentored literature searches, critical review of published works, basics of study design, abstract writing and manuscript development. Abstracts were submitted and accepted to three international conferences. At this time 3 manuscripts have been accepted and are in production, 2 abstracts and 1 manuscript has been published. Eleven staff enrolled in master's degree programs in critical and nursing, epidemiology, public health and global health equity across three institutions.

CONCLUSIONS

Responsive health care systems need capacity for ongoing quality improvement and research. This is especially true to address the massive global burden of disease of trauma and emergency conditions. US academic surgical collaborations have tremendous research expertise that can contribute to improving health system capacity globally. Such collaborations offer the opportunity to set up the foundations of future academic productivity.

Improving Pediatric Academic Global Health Collaborative Research and Agenda Setting: A Mixed-Methods Study

Academic global health collaborations have the potential to improve joint understanding of health issues in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Our objective was to elucidate perceptions of benefits and challenges of academic global health collaborations as well as areas for improving collaborative research conducted in LMICs. This cross-sectional, mixed-methods study surveyed investigators' perceptions of benefits and challenges of pediatric academic global health collaborations. Authors of articles from four pediatric journals reporting pediatric research conducted in LMICs published between 2006 and 2015 were surveyed. Responses of LMIC investigators were compared with those of investigators in high-income countries (HICs). Responses to open-ended questions were analyzed using a combined thematic and content analysis approach. Of 1,420 potential respondents, 252 (17.7%) responded to the survey. Collaborative research with investigators from other countries was perceived as beneficial by 88.5% of respondents (n = 223), although this perception was more common among HIC respondents (n = 110, 94.0%) than LMIC respondents (n = 113, 83.7%) (p = 0.014). Sixty-seven percent (n = 170) of respondents perceived that HIC investigators had set the research agenda in work conducted in a LMIC. Respondents identified several critical factors to improve academic global health collaborations, including research capacity building, communication, and early involvement of LMIC investigators with shared decision-making during study conception and grant writing. Pediatric academic global health collaboration was widely perceived as positive. However, despite calls for capacity building and locally generated research ideas, many respondents felt that HIC investigators set the research agenda for work conducted in LMICs. This study provides suggestions for improving collaboration among pediatric academicians globally.

Stuck in the middle: a systematic review of authorship in collaborative health research in Africa, 2014-2016

Background

Collaborations are often a cornerstone of global health research. Power dynamics can shape if and how local researchers are included in manuscripts. This article investigates how international collaborations affect the representation of local authors, overall and in first and last author positions, in African health research.

Methods

We extracted papers on 'health' in sub-Saharan Africa indexed in PubMed and published between 2014 and 2016. The author's affiliation was used to classify the individual as from the country of the paper's focus, from another African country, from Europe, from the USA/Canada or from another locale. Authors classified as from the USA/Canada were further subclassified if the author was from a top US university. In primary analyses, individuals with multiple affiliations were presumed to be from a high-income country if they contained any affiliation from a high-income country. In sensitivity analyses, these individuals were presumed to be from an African country if they contained any affiliation an African country. Differences in paper characteristics and representation of local coauthors are compared by collaborative type using χ² tests.

Results

Of the 7100 articles identified, 68.3% included collaborators from the USA, Canada, Europe and/or another African country. 54.0% of all 43 429 authors and 52.9% of 7100 first authors were from the country of the paper's focus. Representation dropped if any collaborators were from USA, Canada or Europe with the lowest representation for collaborators from top US universities-for these papers, 41.3% of all authors and 23.0% of first authors were from country of paper's focus. Local representation was highest with collaborators from another African country. 13.5% of all papers had no local coauthors.

Discussion

Individuals, institutions and funders from high-income countries should challenge persistent power differentials in global health research. South-South collaborations can help African researchers expand technical expertise while maintaining presence on the resulting research.

A realized vision of access to safe, affordable surgical and anaesthesia care

Where is the funding?