Applying the ICMJE authorship criteria to operational research in low-income countries: the need to engage programme managers and policy makers

Quality of Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions to Antimicrobials Improved Following Operational Research: A before-and-after Study in Sierra Leone (2017-2023)

Background: The quality of pharmacovigilance data is important for guiding medicine safety and clinical practice. In baseline and follow-up studies after introducing interventions to improve the quality of reporting of Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSRs) in Sierra Leone, we compared (a) timeliness and completeness of reporting and (b) patient outcomes classified as 'recovering'. Methods: Baseline (January 2017-December 2021) and follow-up (June 2022-April 2023) studies of ICSRs in the national pharmacovigilance database. Interventions introduced following recommendations from the baseline study included: updating standard operating procedures and guidelines, setting performance targets follow-up of patient outcomes, and training. Results: There were 566 ICSRs in the baseline study and 59 in the follow-up study. Timelines (reporting < 30 days) improved by five-fold (10% at baseline to 47% in follow-up). For the completeness of variables in ICSRs (desired threshold ≥ 90%),this was 44% at baseline and increased to 80% in the follow-up study. 'Recovering' outcomes reduced from 36% (baseline study) to 3% (follow-up study, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Significant improvements in timeliness, completeness, and validation of ICSRs were observed following operational research in Sierra Leone. While enhancing pharmacovigilance and patient safety, this study highlights the important synergistic role operational research can play in improving monitoring and evaluation systems.

Improvement in Infection Prevention and Control Performance Following Operational Research in Sierra Leone: A Before (2021) and After (2023) Study

INTRODUCTION

Infection prevention and control (IPC) is crucial to limit health care-associated infections and antimicrobial resistance. An operational research study conducted in Sierra Leone in 2021 reported sub-optimal IPC performance and provided actionable recommendations for improvement.

METHODS

This was a before-and-after study involving the national IPC unit and all twelve district-level secondary public hospitals. IPC performance in 2021 (before) and in 2023 (after) was assessed using standardized World Health Organization checklists. IPC performance was graded as: inadequate (0-25%), basic (25.1-50%), intermediate (50.1-75%), and advanced (75.1-100%).

RESULTS

The overall IPC performance in the national IPC unit moved from intermediate (58%) to advanced (78%), with improvements in all six core components. Four out of six components achieved advanced levels when compared to the 2021 levels. The median score for hospitals moved from basic (50%) to intermediate (59%), with improvements in six of eight components. Three of four gaps identified in 2021 at the national IPC unit and four of seven at hospitals had been addressed by 2023.

CONCLUSIONS

The study highlights the role of operational research in informing actions that improved IPC performance. There is a need to embed operational research as part of the routine monitoring of IPC programs.

What Do Global Health Practitioners Think about Decolonizing Global Health?

The growing awareness of colonialism’s role in global health partnerships between HICs and LMICs and the associated calls for decolonization in global health has led to discussion for a paradigm shift that would lead to new ways of engagement and partnerships, as well as an acknowledgement that colonialism, racism, sexism, and capitalism contribute to inequity. While there is general agreement among those involved in global health partnerships that the current system needs to be made more equitable, suggestions for how to address the issue of decolonization vary greatly, and moving from rhetoric to reform is complicated. Based on a comprehensive (but not exhaustive) review of the literature, there are several recurring themes that should be addressed in order for the inequities in the current system to be changed. The degree to which decolonization of global health will be successful depends on how the global health community in both the HICs and LMICs move forward to discuss these issues. Specifically, as part of a paradigm shift, attention needs to be paid to creating a more equal and equitable representation of researchers in LMICs in decision-making, leadership roles, authorship, and funding allocations. There needs to be agreement in defining basic principles of best practices for global partnership, including a universal definition of ‘decolonization of global health’; the extent to which current policies allow the perpetuation of power imbalance between HICs and LMICs; a set of principles, best practices, and models for equitable sharing of funds and institutional costs among partners; a mechanism to monitor progress prospectively the equitable sharing of credits (e.g., leadership, authorship), including a set of principles, best practices, and models; and, a mechanism to monitor progress prospectively the extent to which decolonialization will contribute to strengthening institutional capacity in the LMIC institutions.

Reimagining authorship guidelines to promote equity in co-produced academic collaborations

Authorship of academic papers is a currency that can bring career advantages in academia and other industries. How authorship should be decided is not always clear, particularly in co-produced research with non-academic collaborators, for which existing authorship guidelines are largely silent. In this paper, we critically reflect on what constitutes written authorship in the context of co-produced health research. We present examples from our own work to illustrate the argument we make, including publishing a co-authored paper with non-academic partners. We consider questions of what constitutes authorship and how it is mutually understood. We discuss some of the opportunities and limits to participation and how these might translate into academic authorship as a collaborative research output. Finally, we explore the potential of authorship guidelines as a resource for critical reflection on what we mean by co-produced work and how we recognise contributions to global health research. We suggest that authorship guidelines should be adapted to encourage attribution of co-produced research to include non-academic as well as academic collaborators, and we provide a draft guideline for how this might be done.

African based researchers' output on models for the transmission dynamics of infectious diseases and public health interventions: A scoping review

Background

Applied epidemiological models are used in predicting future trends of diseases, for the basic understanding of disease and health dynamics, and to improve the measurement of health indicators. Mapping the research outputs of epidemiological modelling studies concerned with transmission dynamics of infectious diseases and public health interventions in Africa will help to identify the areas with substantial levels of research activities, areas with gaps, and research output trends.

Methods

A scoping review of applied epidemiological models of infectious disease studies that involved first or last authors affiliated to African institutions was conducted. Eligible studies were those concerned with the transmission dynamics of infectious diseases and public health interventions. The review was consistent with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews. Four electronic databases were searched for peer-reviewed publications up to the end of April 2020.

Results

Of the 5927 publications identified, 181 met the inclusion criteria. The review identified 143 publications with first authors having an African institutional affiliation (AIA), while 81 had both first and last authors with an AIA. The publication authors were found to be predominantly affiliated with institutions based in South Africa and Kenya. Furthermore, human immunodeficiency virus, malaria, tuberculosis, and Ebola virus disease were found to be the most researched infectious diseases. There has been a gradual increase in research productivity across Africa especially in the last ten years, with several collaborative efforts spread both within and beyond Africa.

Conclusions

Research productivity in applied epidemiological modelling studies of infectious diseases may have increased, but there remains an under-representation of African researchers as leading authors. The study findings indicate a need for the development of research capacity through supporting existing institutions in Africa and promoting research funding that will address local health priorities.

"Get us partnerships!" - a qualitative study of Angolan and Mozambican health academics' experiences with North/South partnerships

BACKGROUND

Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 17 focuses on North/South partnerships for sustainable development. Literature on research partnerships and capacity -building often neglects how these processes are carried out in practice, their social impacts and participants' subjective experiences. Recognizing the increasingly global dimensions of Higher Education Institutions, the University Development and Innovation - Africa project (UDI-A) was designed to train lecturers and administrative staff of Angolan and Mozambican Universities through collaborations with European institutions, aiming at strengthening African academic and social landscapes through knowledge translation and dissemination. This paper examines potential outcomes of UDI-A on participants' academic pathways, investigating the conflict between different imaginaries of capacity-building and partnerships, focusing on how Angolan and Mozambican health sciences researchers experience international collaborations.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven health academics, as well as a focus group discussion involving all participants. These were recorded, fully transcribed, anonymized and coded to identify common themes. A consent form was signed by all participants.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

UDI-A was considered innovative, fostering the improvement of pedagogical skills and increasing social entrepreneurship activities. Participants arrived with a specific institutional mandate and believed that the training received should be incorporated into institutional practices to "modernize" these specific Portuguese speaking African Universities and the health sector. The institutional mechanisms put in place to attain this goal, Centres for Academic Development and Innovation ("CADIs"), were considered potential research and development hubs and drivers of academic and societal transformation. Nevertheless, participants shared a sense of asymmetry (infrastructural, financial, in terms of access to information) between them and European trainers. Although this asymmetry was the underlying basis of this capacity-building project, they argued that UDI-A did not fully acknowledge their local contexts, compromising the prospective development of partnerships in the health field.

CONCLUSIONS

More attention should be devoted to understanding how participants experience capacity building processes, integrating the diversity of their aspirations and perceptions into subsequent phases of the project, requiring the development of methodological innovations to increase the impact of these programs.

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.

Developing and Pilot Testing an Integrated Technology-Moderated Institutional Health Promotion Model Using Operational Research Approach

The study aimed to develop and pilot test an Integrated Technology-Moderated Institutional Health Promotion Model for university staff in Nigeria. An operational research approach using mixed concurrent design was adopted to develop the model, and pretest-posttest method was used to evaluate the utilization and effectiveness of the developed model. The participants in the study were university staff. Health-promoting lifestyle behavior and health status were measured via the adapted Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile II instrument. The emerging model (an Integrated Technology-Moderated Institutional Health Promotion Model, which is an Android phone app named Tertiary Staff Health Promotion App) was deployed. Data were collected before and 12 weeks after the app deployment. The quantitative and qualitative data findings were combined to develop an integrated technology-moderated institutional health promotion model as a means to enhance health-promoting lifestyle behavior and health status of staff. The result of the pilot testing of the model showed that the model enhances health-promoting lifestyle behaviors and improves the health status of staff. Nurses, especially in community/public health nursing practice, can provide innovative interventions to drive and enhance health-promoting lifestyle behavior and improve health status of workers and other population groups through effective use of information and communication technology.

Evaluating capacity-building for mental health system strengthening in low- and middle-income countries for service users and caregivers, service planners and researchers

Efforts to support the scale-up of integrated mental health care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) need to focus on building human resource capacity in health system strengthening, as well as in the direct provision of mental health care. In a companion editorial, we describe a range of capacity-building activities that are being implemented by a multi-country research consortium (Emerald: Emerging mental health systems in low- and middle-income countries) for (1) service users and caregivers, (2) service planners and policy-makers and (3) researchers in six LMICs (Ethiopia, India, Nepal, Nigeria, South Africa and Uganda). In this paper, we focus on the methodology being used to evaluate the impact of capacity-building in these three target groups. We first review the evidence base for approaches to evaluation of capacity-building, highlighting the gaps in this area. We then describe the adaptation of best practice for the Emerald capacity-building evaluation. The resulting mixed method evaluation framework was tailored to each target group and to each country context. We identified a need to expand the evidence base on indicators of successful capacity-building across the different target groups. To address this, we developed an evaluation plan to measure the adequacy and usefulness of quantitative capacity-building indicators when compared with qualitative evaluation. We argue that evaluation needs to be an integral part of capacity-building activities and that expertise needs to be built in methods of evaluation. The Emerald evaluation provides a potential model for capacity-building evaluation across key stakeholder groups and promises to extend understanding of useful indicators of success.

Rationale for the prevention of oral diseases in primary health care: an international collaborative study in oral health education

Ensuring that members of society are healthy and reaching their full potential requires the prevention of oral diseases through the promotion of oral health and well-being. The present article identifies the best policy conditions of effective public health and primary care integration and the actors who promote and sustain these efforts. In this review, arguments and recommendations are provided to introduce an oral health collaborative promotion programme called Live.Learn.Laugh. phase 2, arising from an unique partnership between FDI World Dental Federation, the global company Unilever plc and an international network of National Dental Associations, health-care centres, schools and educators populations.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Promoting operational research through fellowships: a case study from the South-East Asia Union Office

In 2009, the International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease (The Union) and Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) jointly developed a new paradigm for operational research (OR) capacity building and started a new process of appointing and supporting OR fellows in the field. This case study describes 1) the appointment of two OR fellows in The Union South-East Asia Office (USEA), New Delhi, India; 2) how this led to the development of an OR unit in that organisation; 3) achievements over the 5-year period from June 2009 to June 2014; and 4) challenges and lessons learnt. In June 2009, the first OR fellow in India was appointed on a full-time basis and the second was appointed in February 2012-both had limited previous experience in OR. From 2009 to 2014, annual research output and capacity building initiatives rose exponentially, and included 1) facilitation at 61 OR training courses/modules; 2) publication of 96 papers, several of which had a lasting impact on national policy and practice; 3) providing technical assistance in promoting OR; 4) building the capacity of medical college professionals in data management; 5) support to programme staff for disseminating their research findings; 6) reviewing 28 scientific papers for national or international peer-reviewed journals; and 7) developing 45 scientific abstracts for presentation at national and international conferences. The reasons for this success are highlighted along with ongoing challenges. This experience from India provides good evidence for promoting similar models elsewhere.

Operational research leading to rapid national policy change: tuberculosis-diabetes collaboration in India

In 2011, bi-directional screening for tuberculosis (TB) and diabetes mellitus (DM) was recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO), although how best to implement the activity was not clear. In India, with early engagement of national programme managers and all important stakeholders, a countrywide, multicentre operational research (OR) project was designed in October 2011 and completed in 2012. The results led to a rapid national policy decision to routinely screen all TB patients for DM in September 2012. The process, experience and enablers of implementing this unique and successful collaborative model of operational research are presented.

Authorship ethics in global health research partnerships between researchers from low or middle income countries and high income countries

BACKGROUND

Over the past two decades, the promotion of collaborative partnerships involving researchers from low and middle income countries with those from high income countries has been a major development in global health research. Ideally, these partnerships would lead to more equitable collaboration including the sharing of research responsibilities and rewards. While collaborative partnership initiatives have shown promise and attracted growing interest, there has been little scholarly debate regarding the fair distribution of authorship credit within these partnerships.

DISCUSSION

In this paper, we identify four key authorship issues relevant to global health research and discuss their ethical and practical implications. First, we argue that authorship guidance may not adequately apply to global health research because it requires authors to write or substantially revise the manuscript. Since most journals of international reputation in global health are written in English, this would systematically and unjustly exclude non-English speaking researchers even if they have substantially contributed to the research project. Second, current guidance on authorship order does not address or mitigate unfair practices which can occur in global health research due to power differences between researchers from high and low-middle income countries. It also provides insufficient recognition of "technical tasks" such as local participant recruitment. Third, we consider the potential for real or perceived editorial bias in medical science journals in favour of prominent western researchers, and the risk of promoting misplaced credit and/or prestige authorship. Finally, we explore how diverse cultural practices and expectations regarding authorship may create conflict between researchers from low-middle and high income countries and contribute to unethical authorship practices. To effectively deal with these issues, we suggest: 1) undertaking further empirical and conceptual research regarding authorship in global health research; 2) raising awareness on authorship issues in global health research; and 3) developing specific standards of practice that reflect relevant considerations of authorship in global health research.

SUMMARY

Through review of the bioethics and global health literatures, and examination of guidance documents on ethical authorship, we identified a set of issues regarding authorship in collaborative partnerships between researchers from low-middle income countries and high income countries. We propose several recommendations to address these concerns.