Moving to research partnerships in developing countries

Systematic challenges and opportunities in insect monitoring: a Global South perspective

Insect monitoring is pivotal for assessing biodiversity and informing conservation strategies. This study delves into the complex realm of insect monitoring in the Global South-world developing and least-developed countries as identified by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development-highlighting challenges and proposing strategic solutions. An analysis of publications from 1990 to 2024 reveals an imbalance in research contributions between the Global North and South, highlighting disparities in entomological research and the scarcity of taxonomic expertise in the Global South. We discuss the socio-economic factors that exacerbate the issues, including funding disparities, challenges in collaboration, infrastructure deficits, information technology obstacles and the impact of local currency devaluation. In addition, we emphasize the crucial role of environmental factors in shaping insect diversity, particularly in tropical regions facing multiple challenges including climate change, urbanization, pollution and various anthropogenic activities. We also stress the need for entomologists to advocate for ecosystem services provided by insects in addressing environmental issues. To enhance monitoring capacity, we propose strategies such as community engagement, outreach programmes and cultural activities to instill biodiversity appreciation. Further, language inclusivity and social media use are emphasized for effective communication. More collaborations with Global North counterparts, particularly in areas of molecular biology and remote sensing, are suggested for technological advancements. In conclusion, advocating for these strategies-global collaborations, a diverse entomological community and the integration of transverse disciplines-aims to address challenges and foster inclusive, sustainable insect monitoring in the Global South, contributing significantly to biodiversity conservation and overall ecosystem health. This article is part of the theme issue 'Towards a toolkit for global insect biodiversity monitoring'.

Best Practices for Developing International Academic Partnerships in Orthopaedics

ABSTRACT

Traumatic and nontraumatic orthopaedic conditions are major contributors to global morbidity and account for the majority of life-years lived with disability worldwide. Additionally, the burden of musculoskeletal injuries has increased substantially over the past 3 decades. Unfortunately, in low and middle-income countries (LMICs), access to orthopaedic care is limited, leading to a disproportionate burden of disease. The Lancet Commission on Global Surgery has emphasized the urgent need for unified international commitment and research collaboration to achieve universal access to safe and affordable surgical care. However, conducting high-quality orthopaedic research in LMICs remains challenging as a result of disparities in training, access to resources, infrastructure, and equipment availability. Partnerships between high-income countries (HICs) and LMICs have emerged in recent decades as an effective approach to combatting some of these challenges. These partnerships aim to bridge the gaps by facilitating collaborative research and knowledge exchange. The establishment of successful partnerships requires a collaborative and reciprocal approach that starts with a clear understanding of mutual research aims and the availability of resources. Despite the potential benefits, various factors can make establishing such partnerships difficult. However, these partnerships can have a substantial impact in delivering quality orthopaedic education and research training, thus improving access to care in resource-limited environments. This paper represents the collaborative effort of multiple international academic orthopaedic surgeons with extensive experience in HIC-LMIC partnerships. Our aims were to outline the best practices for conducting orthopaedic research within these relationships and to provide guidance for future successful collaborations.

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.

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.

Recommendations for effective collaboration and capacity building in epidemiological studies on the effect of alcohol and drug use on traffic safety in low- and middle-income countries

OBJECTIVE

Alcohol or drug impairment is a major risk factor for road traffic crashes, and studies on this issue are essential to provide evidence-based data for policymakers. In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), such studies are often conducted in partnership with one or more organizations in high-income countries (HICs). The aim of this article is to provide recommendations for improving project planning and decision-making processes in epidemiological studies on alcohol, drug and traffic safety in LMICs involving HICs.

METHODS

We searched Pubmed, Google Scholar, and Google Search for articles and reports in English about lessons learned when conducting collaborative research in LMIC as well as papers presenting recommendations for effective research collaboration with partners in LMICs.

RESULTS

Based on the search results, we selected 200 papers for full text examination. Few were related to studies on the effect of alcohol or drug use on road traffic safety. However, several conclusions and recommendations from other studies were found to be relevant. We combined the findings with our own experience in a narrative review. We also present a checklist for risk and quality assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

Many papers presented similar recommendations, which included the importance of addressing local needs, ensuring adequate resources, local project ownership and leadership, establishing strong partnerships among all involved stakeholders, promoting shared decision-making and planning, and implementing strategies to translate research findings into policy, practice, and publications. It is also important to avoid HIC bias, which prioritizes the interests or perspectives of HICs over those of LMICs.

Self-Determination in Global Health Practices - Voices from the Global South

Despite the commendable progress made in addressing global health challenges and threats such as child mortality, HIV/AIDS, and Tuberculosis, many global health organizations still exhibit a Global North supremacy attitude, evidenced by their choice of leaders and executors of global health initiatives in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). While efforts by the Global North to support global health practice in LMICs have led to economic development and advancement in locally led research, current global health practices tend to focus solely on intervention outcomes, often neglecting important systemic factors such as intellectual property ownership, sustainability, diversification of leadership roles, and national capacity development. This has resulted in the implementation of practices and systems informed by high-income countries (HICs) to the detriment of knowledge systems in LMICs, as they are deprived of the opportunity to generate local solutions for local problems. From their unique position as international global health fellows located in different African countries and receiving graduate education from a HIC institution, the authors of this viewpoint article assess how HIC institutions can better support LMICs. The authors propose several strategies for achieving equitable global health practices; 1) allocating funding to improve academic and research infrastructures in LMICs; 2) encouraging effective partnerships and collaborations with Global South scientists who have lived experiences in LMICs; 3) reviewing the trade-related aspects of intellectual property Rights (TRIPS) agreement; and 4) achieving equity in global health funding and education resources.

Autism research capacity building in Northern Mexico: Preliminary evaluation of an ongoing process

LAY ABSTRACT

To inform improvement of care and public policy, quality research is required. Conducting research projects requires skills and infrastructure. Research capacity building is the process by which individuals and organizations develop greater ability to conduct useful research. However, in the scientific community, research quality and productivity measures are often focused on long-term products, such as publications or grants awarded. Those measures are not helpful when measuring initial stages of research, a common situation in low- and middle-income countries. We used a six-principle framework designed by J. Cooke to assess the progress of an autism research collaborative in northern Mexico. We established 64 criteria across the six principles, and rated them as Not Started, In Progress, or Achieved, based on narratives and process documentation collected for this purpose. Ratings were established for the Years 2018, 2020, and 2022. The principles with the highest Achieved rates were "Linkages, collaborations, and partnerships" (90%), and "Infrastructure" (Principle 6, 70%). Cooke's research capacity building framework is a useful way to monitor progress of research capacity building and contribute to harmonious development of relevant principles at different levels.

Upper Extremity Trauma in Costa Rica - Evaluating Epidemiology and Identifying Opportunities

Background

Traffic accidents and musculoskeletal injuries represent a major cause of morbidity and mortality in Costa Rica. To inform capacity building efforts, we conducted a survey study of hand and upper extremity (UE) fellowship-trained surgeons in Costa Rica to evaluate the epidemiology, complications, and challenges in care of UE trauma.

Methods

Aiming to capture all hand and UE trained surgeons in Costa Rica, we compiled a list of nine surgeons and sent a survey in Spanish using Qualtrics. Assessment questions were developed to understand the burden, complications, practice patterns, challenges, and capacity associated with care of UE trauma. Questions were designed to focus on opportunities for future investigation. Questions were translated and adapted by two bilingual speakers. Data were reported descriptively and open-ended responses were analyzed using content analysis.

Results

Nine (100%) surgeons completed the survey. Distal radius fractures, hand and finger fractures, and tendon injuries are the most frequently noted conditions. Stiffness and infection are the most common complications. About 29% of patients are unable to get necessary therapy and 13% do not return for follow-up care with monetary, distance, and transportation limitations being the greatest challenges.

Conclusions

The burden of UE trauma in Costa Rica is high. Identifying common conditions, complications, challenges, and capacity allows for a tailored approach to partnership and capacity building (e.g. directing capacity building and/or research infrastructure toward distal radius fractures). These insights represent opportunities to inform community-driven care improvement and research initiatives, such as Delphi consensus approaches to identify priorities or the development of outcome measurement systems.

World Workshop on Oral Medicine VIII: Barriers to research in oral medicine: results from a global survey

OBJECTIVES

To explore factors influencing research interest and productivity and perceived barriers to conducting research in Oral Medicine (OM).

METHODS

Invitations to participate in an online survey were e-mailed to a network of international OM practitioners and related professional organizations. Questions captured respondents' demographic/professional variables and gauged research interest, productivity, and perceived barriers to conducting research specifically in OM. Statistical analysis was conducted via descriptive, logistic regression, and multivariate modeling.

RESULTS

Five hundred and ninety-three OM practitioners from 55 countries completed the survey, with 54%, 25%, and 21% practicing in high, upper-middle, and lower-middle-income countries, respectively. Eighty-six percent of respondents were interested in conducting research. Age (less interest with an increase in age), working in academia, and practicing in a lower-middle vs high-income country were significant predictors of research interest. Self-reported research productivity was significantly greater among males, those working in academia, and those who graduated from programs that mandated research presentation/publication. Obtaining research funding was a significant barrier among respondents from lower and upper-middle-income countries, whereas finding time for research was a reported barrier by respondents from high-income countries.

CONCLUSION

The results of this survey identified perceived barriers to conducting research in OM and highlighted solutions to address such barriers.

Capacity Assessment Tool to Promote Capacity Building in Global Orthopaedic Surgical Outreach

BACKGROUND

A growing number of nongovernmental organizations from high-income countries aim to provide surgical outreach for patients in low- and middle-income countries in a manner that builds capacity. There remains, however, a paucity of measurable steps to benchmark and evaluate capacity-building efforts. Based on a framework for capacity building, the present study aimed to develop a Capacity Assessment Tool for orthopaedic surgery (CAT-os) that could be utilized to evaluate and promote capacity building.

METHODS

To develop the CAT-os tool, we utilized methodological triangulation-an approach that incorporates multiple different types of data. We utilized (1) the results of a systematic review of capacity-building best practices in surgical outreach, (2) the HEALTHQUAL National Organizational Assessment Tool, and (3) 20 semistructured interviews to develop a draft of the CAT-os. We subsequently iteratively used a modified nominal group technique with a consortium of 8 globally experienced surgeons to build consensus, which was followed by validation through member-checking.

RESULTS

The CAT-os was developed and validated as a formal instrument with actionable steps in each of 7 domains of capacity building. Each domain includes items that are scaled for scoring. For example, in the domain of partnership, items range from no formalized plans for sustainable, bidirectional relationships (no capacity) to local surgeons and other health-care workers independently participating in annual meetings of surgical professional societies and independently creating partnership with third party organizations (optimal capacity).

CONCLUSIONS

The CAT-os details steps to assess capacity of a local facility, guide capacity-improvement efforts during surgical outreach, and measure the impact of capacity-building efforts. Capacity building is a frequently cited and commendable approach to surgical outreach, and this tool provides objective measurement to aid in improving the capacity in low and middle-income countries through surgical outreach.

After biosovereignty: The material transfer agreement as technology of relations

Increasingly, countries in the Global South-notably South Africa, Brazil, and Indonesia-are introducing material transfer agreements (MTAs) into their domestic laws for the exchange of scientific material. The MTA is a contract securing the legal transfer of tangible research material between organizations such as laboratories, pharmaceutical companies, or universities. Critical commentators argue that these agreements in the Global North have come to fulfill an important role in the expansion of dominant intellectual property regimes. Taking Indonesia as a case, this article examines how MTAs are enacted and implemented differently in the context of research involving the Global South. Against the conventionally understood forms of contract that commodify and commercialize materials and knowledge, the MTA in the South can be understood as a legal technology appropriated to translate a formerly relational economy of the scientific gift to a market system of science. As a way of gaining leverage in the uneven space of the global bioeconomy, the MTA functions as a technology for 'reverse appropriation', a reworking of its usage and meaning as a way of countering some of the global power inequalities experienced by Global South countries. The operation of this reverse appropriation, however, is hybrid, and reveals a complex reconfiguration of scientific exchange amidst a growing push for 'open science'.

Challenges Facing Arab Researchers in Publishing Scientific Research: A Qualitative Interview Study

Background

Studies have shown an underrepresentation of researchers from lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in the research literature compared with their counterparts in high-income countries. We aimed to explore Arab researchers' challenges regarding conducting and publishing research in peer-reviewed journals.

Methods

We used a descriptive qualitative study design of semi-structured in-depth interviews. Using purposive sampling, we recruited participants from four Arab countries in the Middle East and North Africa. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and translated to English if the original language was Arabic or French. We analyzed the transcripts using reflexive thematic analysis. Several authors independently coded the transcripts and agreed on the identified codes, themes, and subthemes.

Results

We performed 17 interviews: three from Egypt, six from Jordan, four from Morocco, and four from Sudan. Our participants' comments were divided into three broad categories with associated themes and subthemes. The first regards the conduct of research (themes of inadequate quality of research, insufficient research resources, and nonsuppurative research environment). The second category involves the publishing process (themes of poor scientific writing skills and difficulties navigating the publishing and peer-reviewed system). The third regards international collaborations and the final category recommends methods to address the challenges. Our recommendations include: enhancing the institutional research culture, increasing funding mechanisms, establishing mentoring programs and workshops on research methodology and scientific writing, and increasing the representation of LMICs on the editorial staff.

Conclusions

Identifying the challenges of Arab researchers in publishing original and quality research would guide programs tailored and targeted toward Arab scholars' needs.

Strengthening the Operational Research Capacity of National Tuberculosis Control Programs: Necessity or Luxury?

'How to get research into practice: first get practice into research [...].

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.

Exploring HIV/AIDS investigator perceptions of equity within research partnerships between low-and middle-income and high-income countries: a pilot survey

BACKGROUND

Recommendations for research partnerships between low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and high-income countries (HICs) stress the importance of equity within the collaboration. However, there is limited knowledge of the practical challenges and successes involved in establishing equitable research practices. This study describes the results of a pilot survey assessing key issues on LMIC/HIC partnership equity within HIV/AIDS research collaborations and compares perspectives of these issues between LMIC- and HIC-based investigators.

METHODS

Survey participants were selected using clustered, random sampling and snowball sampling. Responses were compared between LMIC and HIC respondents using standard descriptive statistics. Qualitative respondent feedback was analyzed using a combination of exploratory and confirmatory thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The majority of categories within four themes (research interests and resources; leadership, trust, and communication; cultural and ethical competence; representation and benefits) demonstrated relative consensus between LMIC and HIC respondents except for 'lack of trust within the partnership' which was rated as a more pronounced challenge by LMIC respondents. However, subcategories within some of the themes had significant differences between respondent groups including: equitable setting of the research agenda, compromise within a partnership, the role of regulatory bodies in monitoring partnerships for equity, and post-study access to research technology.

CONCLUSIONS

These efforts serve as a proof-of-concept survey characterizing contemporary issues around international research partnership equity. The frequency and severity of specific equity issues can be assessed, highlighting similarities versus differences in experiences between LMIC and HIC partners as potential targets for further discussion and evaluation.

A Framework and Blueprint for Building Capacity in Global Orthopaedic Surgical Outreach

BACKGROUND

Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) from high-income countries provide surgical outreach for patients in low and middle-income countries (LMICs); however, these efforts lack a coordinated measurement of their ability to build capacity. While the World Health Organization and others recommend outreach trips that aim to build the capacity of the local health-care system, no guidance exists on how to accomplish this. The objective of this paper is to establish a framework and a blueprint to guide the operations of NGOs that provide outreach to build orthopaedic surgical capacity in LMICs.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative analysis of semistructured interviews with 16 orthopaedic surgeons and administrators located in 7 countries (6 LMICs) on the necessary domains for capacity-building; the analysis was guided by a literature review of capacity-building frameworks. We subsequently conducted a modified nominal group technique with a consortium of 10 U.S.-based surgeons with expertise in global surgical outreach, which was member-checked with 8 new stakeholders from 4 LMICs.

RESULTS

A framework with 7 domains for capacity-building in global surgical outreach was identified. The domains included professional development, finance, partnerships, governance, community impact, culture, and coordination. These domains were tiered in a hierarchical system to stratify the level of capacity for each domain. A blueprint was developed to guide the operations of an organization seeking to build capacity.

CONCLUSIONS

The developed framework identified 7 domains to address when building capacity during global orthopaedic surgical outreach. The framework and its tiered system can be used to assess capacity and guide capacity-building efforts in LMICs. The developed blueprint can inform the operations of NGOs toward activities that focus on building capacity in order to ensure a measured and sustained impact.

Decolonizing Global Health Research: Perspectives from US and International Global Health Trainees

Background

"Decolonizing global health" (DGH) may help global health trainees understand and remediate the effects of historical colonialism on global health, but little is known regarding how trainees perceive DGH. Understanding their perspectives is critical for designing educational interventions tailored to their needs.

Objectives

To understand how trainees perceive DGH research and to determine if perspectives differ between trainees from high- (HICs) versus low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

Methods

An online survey of all 2017-2022 pre-doctoral and post-doctoral trainees (n = 111) and mentors (n = 91) within a multi-university program that supports US and international investigators in one-year mentored global health research. The survey evaluated individuals' self-reported knowledge and attitudes toward DGH and their perceptions of historical colonialism's impact on eight aspects of global health.

Findings

The response rate to trainee surveys was 56%. Trainees from LMICs were less aware of the concept of DGH; 5/25 (20%) had never heard of DGH and 16/25 (64%) reported that they "know a little," whereas all HIC trainees had heard of DGH and 29/36 (81%) reported that they "know a little" (p = 0.019). For three aspects of global health (i.e., which research questions get asked; development of collaborative relationships; and data/statistical analyses), trainees from LMICs were more likely to report positive effects of colonialism. However, in open-ended responses, no thematic differences existed between how LMIC and HIC trainees defined DGH (i.e., actively eliminating power imbalances; prioritizing local needs; promoting local leadership; providing equitable opportunities; and ensuring programs are culturally appropriate).

Conclusions

Different perspectives surrounding what DGH means suggest a shared understanding may be needed and is arguably prerequisite to designing educational interventions to help global health trainees recognize, understand, and act in global health. Future research is needed to understand perspectives on decolonization across diverse contexts with attention to constructs such as race, ethnicity, and gender.

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

Interest in "global health" among schools of medicine, public health, and other health disciplines in high-income countries (HIC) continues to rise. Persistent power imbalances, racism, and maintenance of colonialism/neocolonialism plague global health efforts, including global health scholarship. Scholarly projects conducted in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) by trainees at these schools in HIC often exacerbate these problems. Drawing on published literature and shared experiences, we review key inequalities within each phase of research, from design through implementation and analysis/dissemination, and make concrete and practical recommendations to improve equity at each stage. Key problems facing global health scholarship include HIC-centric nature of global health organizations, paucity of funding directly available for LMIC investigators and trainees, misplaced emphasis on HIC selected issues rather than local solutions to local problems, the dominance of English language in the scientific literature, and exploitation of LMIC team members. Four key principles lie at the foundation of all our recommendations: 1) seek locally derived and relevant solutions to global health issues, 2) create paired collaborations between HIC and LMIC institutions at all levels of training, 3) provide funding for both HIC and LMIC team members, 4) assign clear roles and responsibilities to value, leverage, and share the strengths of all team members. When funding for global health research is predicated upon more ethical and equitable collaborations, the nature of global health collaborations will evolve to be more ethical and equitable. Therefore, we propose the Douala Equity Checklist as a 20-item tool HIC and LMIC institutions can use throughout the conduct of global health projects to ensure more equitable collaborations.

Barriers to sustainable health research leadership in the Global South: Time for a Grand Bargain on localization of research leadership?

BACKGROUND

Strong Global South (GS) health research leadership, itself both dependent on and a requisite for strong health research systems, is essential to generate locally relevant research and ensure that evidence is translated into policy and practice. Strong GS health research systems and leadership are important for health development and in turn for strong health systems. However, many GS countries struggle to produce research and to improve performance on widely used research metrics measuring productivity and reflecting leadership. Drawing on literature from a rapid review, this viewpoint paper considers the barriers to GS health research leadership and proposes strategies to address these challenges.

FINDINGS

GS researchers and institutions face numerous barriers that undermine health research leadership potential. Barriers internal to the GS include researcher-level barriers such as insufficient mentorship, limited financial incentives and time constraints. Institutional barriers include limited availability of resources, restrictive and poorly developed research infrastructures, weak collaboration and obstructive policies and procedures. Structural barriers include political will, politicization of research and political instability. External barriers relate to the nature and extent of Global North (GN) activities and systems and include allocation and distribution of funding and resources, characteristics and focus of GN-GS research collaborations, and publication and information dissemination challenges.

CONCLUSIONS

Strengthening GS health research leadership requires acknowledgement of the many barriers, and adoption of mitigating measures by a range of actors at the institutional, national, regional and global levels. Particularly important are leadership capacity development integrating researcher, institutional and systems initiatives; new GN-GS partnership models emphasizing capacity exchange and shared leadership; supporting GS research communities to set, own and drive their research agendas; addressing biases against GS researchers; ensuring that GS institutions address their internal challenges; enhancing South-South collaborations; diversifying research funding flow to the GS; and learning from models that work. The time has come for a firm commitment to improving localization of research leadership, supported by adequate funding flow, to ensure strong and sustainable research systems and leadership in and from the GS. Just as the humanitarian donor and aid community adopted the Grand Bargain commitment to improve funding flow through local and national responders in times of crisis, we strongly urge the global health research community to adopt a Grand Bargain for research leadership.

Peer mentorship to build research capacity among members of the International Student Surgical Network (InciSioN): a proof of concept study

BACKGROUND

International Student Surgical Network (InciSioN) is the largest student and trainee global surgery interest group worldwide and its members have contributed significantly to global surgery research. The InciSioN Research Capacity-Building (IReCaB) program aimed to enhance the research skills and confidence of participants via a peer mentorship model.

METHODS

After an open call to members of InciSioN to enroll, participants' knowledge of research methods and the process was evaluated through a test to assign mentor and mentee roles, with mentors being those who scored ≥ 20/25. Mentors then delivered a series of four webinars to help disseminate research methodology to mentees. Finally, mentees were tested on their knowledge of research and their satisfaction with the program was also evaluated.

RESULTS

Fifty-two participants, mostly from LMICs (n = 23/52, 44.2%) were enrolled, and 36 completed the program. There was a significant improvement in the proportion of questions answered correctly on the post-program test (R = 0.755, p < 0.001). Post-IReCaB test scores were greater than pre-IReCaB scores (p < 0.001). The difference in confidence after the course was also significant (p < 0.001). IReCaB participants successfully designed, implemented, and published an international cross-sectional study.

CONCLUSION

This study showed improvements in participants' understanding of theoretical components of scientific research. We offer a model for research capacity building that can be implemented, modeled, and further refined by similar organizations with academic research goals.

Combatting neo-Colonialism in Health Research: What can Aboriginal Health Research Ethics and Global Health Research Ethics Teach Each Other?

The ethics of research involving Aboriginal populations and low and middle-income country populations each developed out of a long history of exploitative research projects and partnerships. Commonalities and differences between the two fields have not yet been examined. This study undertook two independent literature searches for Aboriginal health research ethics and global health research ethics. Content analysis identified shared and differently emphasised ethical principles and concepts between the two fields. Shared ethical concepts like "benefit" and "capacity development" have been developed to guide collaborations in both Aboriginal health research and global health research. However, Aboriginal health research ethics gives much greater prominence to ethical principles that assist in decolonising research practice such as "self-determination", "community-control", and "community ownership". The paper argues that global health research ethics would benefit from giving greater emphasis to these principles to guide research practice, while justice as approached in global health research ethics may inform Aboriginal health research practice. With increasing attention being drawn to the need to decolonise global health research, the lessons Aboriginal health research ethics can offer may be especially timely.

The Core Concepts, Competencies and Grand Challenges of Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy and Morphology

Core concepts offer coherence to the discourse of a scientific discipline and facilitate teaching by identifying large unifying themes that can be tailored to the level of the class and expertise of the instructor. This approach to teaching has been shown to encourage deeper learning that can be integrated across subdisciplines of biology and has been adopted by several other biology subdisciplines. However, Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy, although one of the oldest biological areas of study, has not had its core concepts identified. Here, we present five core concepts and seven competencies (skills) for Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy that came out of an iterative process of engagement with the broader community of vertebrate morphologists over a 3-year period. The core concepts are (A) evolution, (B) structure and function, (C) morphological development, (D) integration, and (E) human anatomy is the result of vertebrate evolution. The core competencies students should gain from the study of comparative vertebrate anatomy are (F) tree thinking, (G) observation, (H) dissection of specimens, (I) depiction of anatomy, (J) appreciation of the importance of natural history collections, (K) science communication, and (L) data integration. We offer a succinct description of each core concept and competency, examples of learning outcomes that could be used to assess teaching effectiveness, and examples of relevant resources for both instructors and students. Additionally, we pose a grand challenge to the community, arguing that the field of Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy needs to acknowledge racism, androcentrism, homophobia, genocide, slavery, and other influences in its history and address their lingering effects in order to move forward as a thriving discipline that is inclusive of all students and scientists and continues to generate unbiased knowledge for the betterment of humanity. Despite the rigorous process used to compile these core concepts and competencies, we anticipate that they will serve as a framework for an ongoing conversation that ensures Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy remains a relevant field in discovery, innovation, and training of future generations of scientists.

Strengthening research capacity: a systematic review of manuscript writing and publishing interventions for researchers in low-income and middle-income countries

INTRODUCTION

Health researchers from low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) are under-represented in the academic literature. Scientific writing and publishing interventions may help researchers publish their findings; however, we lack evidence about the prevalence and effectiveness of such interventions. This review describes interventions for researchers in LMICs aimed at strengthening capacity for writing and publishing academic journal articles.

METHODS

We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to report literature searches in PubMed, Embase, Global Health, Scopus and ERIC. Our keywords included LMICs, low-income and middle-income countries, health research and writing/publication support interventions, with no restrictions on publication date. Our screening process consisted of title screening, abstract review and full-text review. We collected information about the content, implementation and evaluation of each intervention, if included.

RESULTS

We identified 20 interventions designed to strengthen capacity for scientific writing and publishing. We summarised information from the 14 interventions that reported submitted or published papers as outcomes separately, reasoning that because they provide quantifiable metrics of success, they may offer particular insights into intervention components leading to publication. The writing and publishing components in this 'Publications Reported' group were an average length of 5.4 days compared with 2.5 days in the other group we refer to as 'Other Interventions.' Whereas all 14 Publications Reported interventions incorporated mentors, only two of five in the Other Interventions group incorporated mentors. Across interventions, leaders expressed the importance of a high ratio of mentors to participants, the need to accommodate time demands of busy researchers, and the necessity of a budget for open access fees and high-quality internet connectivity.

CONCLUSION

Writing and publishing interventions in LMICs are an underutilised opportunity for capacity strengthening. To facilitate the implementation of high-quality interventions, future writing and publishing interventions should share their experiences by publishing detailed information about the approach and effectiveness of the interventions.

What Makes Working Together Work? A Scoping Review of the Guidance on North-South Research Partnerships

At their best, research partnerships provide a mechanism to optimize each partner’s strengths, make scientific discoveries and achieve development goals. Each partner stands to gain from the relationship and perceives it to be fair. However, partnerships between institutions in the global North and the global South have been beleaguered by structural inequalities and power imbalances, and Northern stakeholders have been criticized for perpetuating paternalistic or neo-colonial behaviours. As part of efforts to redress imbalances and achieve equity and mutual benefit, various principles, guidelines, frameworks and models for partnership have been developed. This scoping review maps the literature and summarizes key features of the guidelines for North–South research partnerships. The review was conducted between October 2020 and January 2021. Three academic journal databases and Google were searched, and additional resources were identified through a hand search of reference lists and expert recommendation. Twenty-two guidelines were identified published between 1994 and 2021 and originating predominantly in the fields of international development and global health. The themes addressed within the guidelines were aggregated using NVivo qualitative analysis software to code the content of each guideline. Topics featuring most prominently in the guidelines were: partner roles, responsibilities and ways of working; capacity strengthening; motivation and goals; resource contributions; agenda setting and study design; governance structures and institutional agreements; dissemination; respect for affected populations; data handling and ownership; funding and long-term commitments. The current study reinforces many of the themes from two recent scoping reviews specific to the field of global health, but gaps remain, which need to be addressed: Southern stakeholders continue to be under-represented in guideline development, and there is limited evidence of how guidelines are used in practice. Further exploration is needed of Southern stakeholder priorities and whether and how guidelines are operationalized.

Measuring health science research and development in Africa: mapping the available data

BACKGROUND

In recent years there have been calls to strengthen health sciences research capacity in African countries. This capacity can contribute to improvements in health, social welfare and poverty reduction through domestic application of research findings; it is increasingly seen as critical to pandemic preparedness and response. Developing research infrastructure and performance may reduce national economies' reliance on primary commodity and agricultural production, as countries strive to develop knowledge-based economies to help drive macroeconomic growth. Yet efforts to date to understand health sciences research capacity are limited to output metrics of journal citations and publications, failing to reflect the complexity of the health sciences research landscape in many settings.

METHODS

We map and assess current capacity for health sciences research across all 54 countries of Africa by collecting a range of available data. This included structural indicators (research institutions and research funding), process indicators (clinical trial infrastructures, intellectual property rights and regulatory capacities) and output indicators (publications and citations).

RESULTS

While there are some countries which perform well across the range of indicators used, for most countries the results are varied-suggesting high relative performance in some indicators, but lower in others. Missing data for key measures of capacity or performance is also a key concern. Taken as a whole, existing data suggest a nuanced view of the current health sciences research landscape on the African continent.

CONCLUSION

Mapping existing data may enable governments and international organizations to identify where gaps in health sciences research capacity lie, particularly in comparison to other countries in the region. It also highlights gaps where more data are needed. These data can help to inform investment priorities and future system needs.

Oncology training and education initiatives in low and middle income countries: a scoping review

Background

The global cancer burden falls disproportionately on low and middle-income countries (LMICs). One significant barrier to adequate cancer control in these countries is the lack of an adequately trained oncology workforce. Oncology education and training initiatives are a critical component of building the workforce. We performed a scoping review of published training and education initiatives for health professionals in LMICs to understand the strategies used to train the global oncology workforce.

Methods

We searched Ovid MEDLINE and Embase from database inception (1947) to 4 March 2020. Articles were eligible if they described an oncology medical education initiative (with a clear intervention and outcome) within an LMIC. Articles were classified based on the target population, the level of medical education, degree of collaboration with another institution and if there was an e-learning component to the intervention.

Findings

Of the 806 articles screened, 25 met criteria and were eligible for analysis. The majority of initiatives were targeted towards physicians and focused on continuing medical education. Almost all the initiatives were done in partnership with a collaborating organisation from a high-income country. Only one article described the impact of the initiative on patient outcomes. Less than half of the initiatives involved e-learning.

Conclusions

There is a paucity of oncology training and education initiatives in LMICs published in English. Initiatives for non-physicians, efforts to foster collaboration within and between LMICs, knowledge sharing initiatives and studies that measure the impact of these initiatives on developing an effective workforce are highly recommended.

Consensus statement on measures to promote equitable authorship in the publication of research from international partnerships

Despite the acknowledged injustice and widespread existence of parachute research studies conducted in low‐ or middle‐income countries by researchers from institutions in high‐income countries, there is currently no pragmatic guidance for how academic journals should evaluate manuscript submissions and challenge this practice. We assembled a multidisciplinary group of editors and researchers with expertise in international health research to develop this consensus statement. We reviewed relevant existing literature and held three workshops to present research data and holistically discuss the concept of equitable authorship and the role of academic journals in the context of international health research partnerships. We subsequently developed statements to guide prospective authors and journal editors as to how they should address this issue. We recommend that for manuscripts that report research conducted in low‐ or middle‐income countries by collaborations including partners from one or more high‐income countries, authors should submit accompanying structured reflexivity statements. We provide specific questions that these statements should address and suggest that journals should transparently publish reflexivity statements with accepted manuscripts. We also provide guidance to journal editors about how they should assess the structured statements when making decisions on whether to accept or reject submitted manuscripts. We urge journals across disciplines to adopt these recommendations to accelerate the changes needed to halt the practice of parachute research.

Considering equity in global health collaborations: A qualitative study on experiences of equity

International collaborations have become the standard model for global health research and often include researchers and institutions from high income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). While such collaborations are important for generating new knowledge that will help address global health inequities, there is evidence to suggest that current forms of collaboration may reproduce unequal power relations. Therefore, we conducted a qualitative study with scientists, researchers and those involved in research management, working in international health collaborations. Interviews were conducted between October 2019 and March 2020. We conducted 13 interviews with 15 participants. From our findings, we derive three major themes. First, our results reflect characteristics of equitable, collaborative research relationships. Here we find both relational features, specifically trust and belonging, and structural features, including clear contractual agreements, capacity building, inclusive divisions of labour, and the involvement of local communities. Second, we discuss obstacles to develop equitable collaborations. These include exclusionary labour practices, donor-driven research agendas, overall research culture, lack of accountability and finally, the inadequate financing of indirect costs for LMIC institutions. Third, we discuss the responsibilities for promoting science equity of funders, LMIC researchers, LMIC institutions, and LMIC governments. While other empirical studies have suggested similar features of equity, our findings extend these features to include local communities as collaborators in research projects and not only as beneficiaries. We also suggest the importance of funders paying for indirect costs, without which the capacity of LMIC institutions will continually erode. And finally, our study shows the responsibilities of LMIC actors in developing equitable collaborations, which have largely been absent from the literature.

Informing 'good' global health research partnerships: A scoping review of guiding principles

Background: Several sets of principles have been proposed to guide global health research partnerships and mitigate inequities inadvertently caused by them. The existence of multiple sets of principles poses a challenge for those seeking to critically engage with and develop their practice. Which of these is best to use, and why? To what extent, if any, is there agreement across proposed principles?

Objective: The objectives of this review were to: (1) identify and consolidate existing documents and principles to guide global health research partnerships; (2) identify areas of overlapping consensus, if any, regarding which principles are fundamental in these partnerships; (3) identify any lack of consensus in the literature on core principles to support these partnerships.

Methods: A scoping review was conducted to gather documents outlining ‘principles’ of good global health research partnerships. A broad search of academic databases to gather peerreviewed literature was conducted, complemented by a hand-search of key global health funding institutions for grey literature guidelines.

Results: Our search yielded nine sets of principles designed to guide and support global health research partnerships. No single principle recurred across all documents reviewed. Most frequently cited were concerns with mutual benefits between partners (n = 6) and equity (n = 4). Despite a lack of consistency in the inclusion and definition of principles, all sources highlighted principles that identified attention to fairness, equity, or justice as an integral part of good global health research partnerships.

Conclusions: Lack of consensus regarding how principles are defined suggests a need for further discussion on what global health researchers mean by ‘core’ principles. Research partnerships should seek to interpret the practical meanings and requirements of these principles through international consultation. Finally, a need exists for tools to assist with implementation of these principles to ensure their application in research practice.

Southern exposure: levelling the Northern tilt in global medical and medical humanities education

Global medical education is dominated by a Northern tilt. Global universities' faculty and students dominate research, scholarship and teaching about what is termed global education. This tilt has been fixed in global biomedical education with some acknowledgement from the Global South of the comparative benefits of global exchange. Student exchange is predominantly North to South. Students from the Global South are less likely to visit the North on global medical education visits. Global indigenous and traditional ways of knowing rooted may be suppressed, hidden or misappropriated and repackaged for consumption in the Global South with Global North ways of knowing as a reference point. A global history of colonization has shaped this trend influencing postcolonial theorists and decolonial activists to question the legitimacy and depose the influence of dominant Global North ideas. This is evident in how communication skills, reflective practice and narratives are presented and taught. Global North students must be introduced to Global South ways of knowing before visiting the Global South from a position of critical consciousness. Emancipatory education is best led by transformative Global North-South dialogue.

Co-development, co-production and co-dissemination of scientific research: a case study to demonstrate mutual benefits

Inadequate and inequitable distribution of research capacity and resources limits both the opportunity for leadership and participation in science. It also results in biases of effort, poor and misinterpretation of global patterns and the availability of limited usable knowledge for current challenges. Increased participation in ocean research and decision-making is needed to account for many stressors and challenges. The current intergovernmental attention on the ocean (e.g. UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development) and the development of technologies that permit exploration and accelerate exploitation suggest that it is timely to focus on the ocean and its stewardship. Employing the principles of co-development, co-production and co-dissemination, this paper uses a case study of a deep reef project in Seychelles to illustrate some activities that can be employed to magnify research outcomes and legacy. We provide examples that range from ministerial briefings and planning meetings to joint fieldwork, grant allocation and co-authoring outputs. These activities helped us to align priorities, promote authentic interactions and focus on equitable science. Finally, reflecting on our experiences, we acknowledge the benefits brought by respectful and long-term partnerships, the variety of activities needed to develop these and challenges of maintaining them. In the future, we also want to include more opportunities for regional peer-to-peer learning and technology transfer.

The IHAT-GUT Iron Supplementation Trial in Rural Gambia: Barriers, Facilitators, and Benefits

Introduction: In most sub-Saharan African countries iron deficiency anaemia remains highly prevalent in children and this has not changed in the last 25 years. Supplementation with iron hydroxide adipate tartrate (IHAT) was being investigated in anaemic children in a phase two clinical trial (termed IHAT-GUT), conducted at the Medical Research Council Unit the Gambia at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) (abbreviated as MRCG hereof). This qualitative study aimed to explore the personal perceptions of the trial staff in relation to conducting a clinical trial in such settings in order to highlight the health system specific needs and strengths in the rural, resource-poor setting of the Upper River Region in the Gambia. Methods: Individual interviews (n = 17) were conducted with local trial staff of the IHAT-GUT trial. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Results: Potential barriers and facilitators to conducting this clinical trial were identified at the patient, staff, and trial management levels. Several challenges, such as the rural location and cultural context, were identified but noted as not being long-term inhibitors. Participants believed the facilitators and benefits outnumbered the barriers, and included the impact on education and healthcare, the ambitious and knowledgeable locally recruited staff, and the local partnership. Conclusions: While facilitators and barriers were identified to conducting this clinical trial in a rural, resource-poor setting, the overall impact was perceived as beneficial, and this study is a useful example of community involvement and partnership for further health improvement programs. To effectively implement a nutrition intervention, the local health systems and context must be carefully considered through qualitative research beforehand.

Global and Latin American female participation in evidence-based software engineering: a systematic mapping study

Context

While the digital economy requires a new generation of technology for scientists and practitioners, the software engineering (SE) field faces a gender crisis. SE research is a global enterprise that requires the participation of both genders for the advancement of science and evidence-based practice. However, women across the world tend to be significantly underrepresented in such research, receiving less funding and less participation, frequently, than men as authors in research publications. Data about this phenomenon is still sparse and incomplete; particularly in evidence-based software engineering (EBSE), there are no studies that analyze the participation of women in this research area.

Objective

The objective of this work is to present the results of a systematic mapping study (SM) conducted to collect and evaluate evidence on female researchers who have contributed to the area of EBSE.

Method

Our SM was performed by manually searching studies in the major conferences and journals of EBSE. We identified 981 studies and 183 were authored/co-authored by women and, therefore, included.

Results

Contributions from women in secondary studies have globally increased over the years, but it is still concentrated in European countries. Additionally, collaboration among research groups is still fragile, based on a few women as a bridge. Latin American researchers contribute a great deal to the field, despite they do not collaborate as much within their region.

Conclusions

The findings from this study are expected to be aggregated to the existing knowledge with respect to women’s contribution to the EBSE area. We expect that our results bring up a reflection on the gender issue and motivate actions and policies to attract female researchers to this area.

Strengthening capacity for cancer research in conflict settings: key informant insights from the Middle East

Background

Management of cancer in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region is accompanied by multiple challenges including heterogeneous access to early detection and treatment options and limited implementation of national cancer control plans. Furthermore, protracted armed conflicts across the region have had dramatic effects, including disruption of healthcare systems and the migration of healthcare professionals. Strengthening capacity for cancer research has been identified as a key intervention to correct data poverty, inform policy, manage limited resources and improve health outcomes.

Objective

The main objective of this study is to gain insights into the landscape, barriers and enablers of cancer training, research and care in the MENA region.

Method

We utilised purposive sampling to interview 16 key informants from a diverse academic, medical and research background originating from countries affected by conflicts, such as Lebanon, and from active conflict zones including Iraq and Syria.

Results

The themes that emerged from the interviews focused on the barriers to cancer care, barriers to cancer research and training, strengths and importance of cancer research and training recommendations. The detrimental effect of conflict on cancer provision and research was a cross-cutting sub-theme disrupting cancer care provision and research due to unsafe environments, fragmented facilities, absence of drugs and migration of personnel. When asked about perceived optimal training format for cancer research, most informants recommended a post-graduate, face-to-face training focusing on cancer research methods and concepts.

Conclusion

This study offers a unique insight into the barriers affecting cancer research and capacity-strengthening priorities from oncologists and researchers working in conflict-affected areas of the MENA region. These data will form the base for future capacity-strengthening initiatives addressing specific regional challenges.

Mapping experiences and perspectives of equity in international health collaborations: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Whilst global health research often involves international collaborations, achieving or promoting equity within collaborations remains a key challenge, despite established conceptual approaches and the development of frameworks and guidelines to promote equity. There have also been several empirical studies documenting researchers' experiences of inequity and views on what is required to advance equity in global health collaborations. While these empirical studies provide critical insights, there has been no attempt to systematically synthetize what constitutes equity and how it can be achieved. To address this gap, we conducted a scoping review of qualitative studies, opinion and editorial pieces about what equity is and how it can be promoted in international collaborations.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review to explore domains of equity in international health collaborations. This review included qualitative studies and opinion pieces or editorial pieces on equity in international health collaborations. We mapped the data and identified common themes using a thematic analysis approach.

RESULTS

This initial search retrieved a total of 7611 papers after removing duplicates. A total of 11 papers were included in this review, 10 empirical studies and 1 editorial piece. We conducted our search between October - November 2019. We identified 10 key domains which are important for promoting equity in international collaborations: funding; capacity building; authorship; sample ownership and export; trust; research agreement; acknowledging inequality; recognition and communication.

DISCUSSION

Our findings suggest that for international collaborations to be considered more equitable, it must at least consider the 10 domains we highlighted. The 10 domains map onto five key aspects of social justice theory, namely avoiding unequal power relations like subordination, group recognition and affirmation, promoting the well-being of all, inclusion in decision-making and ensuring self-development.

Decolonising global health: transnational research partnerships under the spotlight

There are increasing calls to decolonise aspects of science, and global health is no exception. The decolonising global health movement acknowledges that global health research perpetuates existing power imbalances and aims to identify concrete ways in which global health teaching and research can overcome its colonial past and present. Using the context of clinical trials implemented through transnational research partnerships (TRPs) as a case study, this narrative review brings together perspectives from clinical research and social science to lay out specific ways in which TRPs build on and perpetuate colonial power relations. We will explore three core components of TRPs: participant experience, expertise and infrastructure, and authorship. By combining a critical perspective with recently published literature we will recommend specific ways in which TRPs can be decolonised. We conclude by discussing decolonising global health as a potential practice and object of research. By doing this we intend to frame the decolonising global health movement as one that is accessible to everyone and within which we can all play an active role.

Challenges and opportunities in conducting health services research through international collaborations: A review of personal experiences

There is increasing attention to international collaborations in health services research with a number of benefits. For developing and nurturing international collaboration, a growing number of funding opportunities are available globally. Having observed and experienced the growth of international collaborations in the global health research field, the authors reflect upon their own experiences in international collaboration between the United Kingdom and many different countries in the process of health services and educational research and discuss challenges and opportunities to conduct impactful research in international settings. The commentary also highlights key issues and strategies for learning and achieving more impact from global health research, including: communication, co-creation, strong leadership and sustainability.

Community organisation-researcher partnerships: what concerns arise for community organisations and how can they be mitigated?

Universities and research funders' growing emphasis on community partnerships, engagement and outreach has seen a rise in collaborations between university researchers and staff of community organisations (COs) on research projects. What ethical issues and concerns are experienced as part of these collaborations has largely not been described, particularly from the perspective of COs As part of a recent, broader qualitative study, several concerns arising during health research collaborations between COs and university researchers were captured during thematic analysis. The concerns were described in semistructured interviews by four staff of three COs that work with marginalised groups (ie, migrants and refugees, women who experience domestic violence, indigenous populations) in a high-income country. In this paper, the three concerns are taken as the starting point for ethical analysis. Interview data are first used to illustrate the three concerns: being restricted to a recruitment role in studies, reinforcement of stereotypes of marginalised groups and weakening CO-community relationships. The paper then explores why the concerns are morally troubling and demonstrates how each concern generates feelings of disrespect, creates harm(s), and/or reflects or reinforces unfairness or injustice. It concludes by proposing three ethical criteria for CO-researcher partnerships: fair division of labour, balancing CO advocacy goals with research goals and balancing CO service goals with research goals. Where researchers and COs discuss how to meet these criteria at the start and during research collaborations, it can potentially help mitigate or prevent the occurrence of the concerns described in this paper.

Bridging research integrity and global health epidemiology (BRIDGE) statement: guidelines for good epidemiological practice

BACKGROUND

Research integrity and research fairness have gained considerable momentum in the past decade and have direct implications for global health epidemiology. Research integrity and research fairness principles should be equally nurtured to produce high-quality impactful research-but bridging the two can lead to practical and ethical dilemmas. In order to provide practical guidance to researchers and epidemiologist, we set out to develop good epidemiological practice guidelines specifically for global health epidemiology, targeted at stakeholders involved in the commissioning, conduct, appraisal and publication of global health research.

METHODS

We developed preliminary guidelines based on targeted online searches on existing best practices for epidemiological studies and sought to align these with key elements of global health research and research fairness. We validated these guidelines through a Delphi consultation study, to reach a consensus among a wide representation of stakeholders.

RESULTS

A total of 45 experts provided input on the first round of e-Delphi consultation and 40 in the second. Respondents covered a range of organisations (including for example academia, ministries, NGOs, research funders, technical agencies) involved in epidemiological studies from countries around the world (Europe: 19; Africa: 10; North America: 7; Asia: 5; South-America: 3 Australia: 1). A selection of eight experts were invited for a face-to-face meeting. The final guidelines consist of a set of 6 standards and 42 accompanying criteria including study preparation, protocol development, data collection, data management, data analysis, dissemination and communication.

CONCLUSION

While guidelines will not by themselves guard global health from questionable and unfair research practices, they are certainly part of a concerted effort to ensure not only mutual accountability between individual researchers, their institutions and their funders but most importantly their joint accountability towards the communities they study and society at large.

Solidarity and Community Engagement in Global Health Research

Community engagement (CE) is gaining prominence in global health research. A number of ethical goals-spanning the instrumental, intrinsic, and transformative-have been ascribed to CE in global health research. This paper draws attention to an additional transformative value that CE is not typically linked to but that seems very relevant: solidarity. Both are concerned with building relationships and connecting parties that are distant from one another. This paper first argues that furthering solidarity should be recognized as another ethical goal for CE in global health research. It contends that, over time, CE can build the bases of solidaristic relationships-moral imagination, recognition, understanding, empathy-between researchers and community members. Applying concepts from existing accounts of solidarity, the paper develops preliminary ideas about who should be engaged and how to advance solidarity. The proposed approach is compared to current CE practice in global health research. Finally, the paper briefly considers how solidaristic CE could affect how global health research is performed.

Restricting Access to Pathogen Samples and Epidemiological Data: A Not-So-Brief History of “Viral Sovereignty” and the Mark It Left on the World

In 2007 the Indonesian government claimed sovereignty over the H5N1 influenza virus samples isolated within Indonesia’s territories, refusing to share those samples with the World Health Organisation. Indonesia’s sovereignty claims conflicted with the decades-long practice of sharing influenza samples with the WHO, and was seen as an affront to scientific norms of cooperation and openness. The conflict was ostensibly resolved in 2011 with the introduction of the WHO’s Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Framework (PIP Framework), which was intended to secure access to influenza viruses from around the world and effect a fairer distribution of vaccines and other benefits associated with the use of pandemic influenza samples. The problem is, the PIP Framework did not resolve the issues created with the concept of viral sovereignty. In fact, by recognising the sovereign rights of states over this subset of pathogens, the PIP Framework legitimised viral sovereignty as a broader legal norm. Instead of resisting this concept, the WHO quietly acceded to it and reinforced a set of perverse incentives for countries to restrict access to pathogens precisely when those pathogens embody the greatest value: during a public health emergency. This chapter demonstrates that the concept of viral sovereignty did not begin with Indonesia in 2007, and more importantly, it did not end with the PIP Framework in 2011. Despite the term “viral sovereignty” fading into relative obscurity, the concept itself is now an established legal norm that could delay efforts to save lives during epidemics and pandemics.

Towards inclusive priority-setting for global health research projects: recommendations for sharing power with communities

Global health research priority-setting is dominated by funders and researchers, often from high-income countries. Engaging communities that are considered disadvantaged and marginalized in priority-setting is essential to making their voices and concerns visible in global health research projects' topics and questions. However, without attention to power dynamics, their engagement can often lead to presence without voice and voice without influence. Global health research priority-setting must be designed to share power with such communities to ensure that research projects' topics and questions reflect the health care and system inequities they face. To better understand what sharing 'power over' priority-setting requires, 29 in-depth, semi-structured interviews and one focus group were undertaken with researchers, ethicists, community engagement practitioners and community-based organization staff. The study shows that, before moving ahead with priority-setting for global health research projects, it is vital to assess whether contextual factors necessary for meaningful engagement between researchers and marginalized communities are present or can be built in the research setting. Study findings describe several such contextual factors and 12 features of priority-setting that affect how processes are run, who participates in them, and who influences their outputs. During priority-setting for global health research projects, it is essential to implement ways of sharing power with communities in relation to these features. Study findings describe a multitude of such strategies that are employed in practice. After priority-setting, it is important to demonstrate respect and accountability to communities.

Impact of North American Institutions on Orthopedic Research in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

There exists an unmet need for locally relevant and sustainable orthopedic research in low- and middle-income countries. Partnerships between high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries can bridge gaps in resources, knowledge, infrastructure, and skill. This article presents a select list of models for high-income countries/low- and middle-income countries research partnerships including academic partnerships, international research consortia, professional society-associated working groups, and nongovernmental organization partnerships. Models that produce research with lasting legacy are those that promote mutually beneficial partnerships over individual gains.

Challenges for microcirculation research in developing countries

BACKGROUND

Microvascular dysfunction is a main contributor to morbidity and mortality worldwide. Sophisticated technical tools (e.g. miniaturized hardware, automated software), along with skilled personnel are the prerequisite for quantitative observations of the microvasculature.

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to get an overview about on-going microcirculatory research in developing countries, particularly of the South-East Asia region for the last five years and to project the challenges faced in microcirculation research in developing countries.

METHODS

Original research articles originating from 194 countries were searched in PubMed database on the field of microcirculation research for the last five years.

RESULTS

Our findings showed that around 1800 articles have been published from developing countries compared to more than 5000 from developed countries on different aspects of microcirculation. The overall publication per million populations for developing countries was found to be 0.37 where for developed countries it was 3.62.

CONCLUSIONS

Initiation and execution of sophisticated research in microcirculation is a demand of the time. Such research, initially, may seem unmanageable in developing countries with limited resources and infrastructure settings. Collaborative scientific projects may aid in establishing networks for microvascular research in developing countries.

Fostering a Diverse Pool of Global Health Academic Leaders Through Mentorship and Career Path Planning

Established in 2011, the Global Emergency Medicine Academy (GEMA) aims "to improve the global delivery of emergency care through research, education, and mentorship." Global health remains early in its development as an academic track in emergency medicine, and there are only a small number of global emergency medicine academic faculty in most institutions. Consequently, GEMA focused its efforts at the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) Annual Meeting in 2019 on developing a diverse pool of global health academics and leaders in emergency medicine. Current and previous members of the GEMA Executive Committee convened to appraise and describe how current GEMA efforts situate within existing knowledge in the arenas of professional development and mentorship. The 2019 SAEM Annual Meeting unveiled the Global Emergency Medicine Roadmap, a joint venture between GEMA and the residents and medical students (RAMS) group. The roadmap guides medical students, residents, and fellows in the exploration of global emergency medicine and career development. GEMA's mentorship roundtable complemented this effort by providing a version of speed mentoring across several critical areas: work-life balance, identifying near-peer and long-distance mentoring opportunities, negotiating with your Chair, finding funding, networking, and teaching abroad. Finally, the GEMA-sponsored panel "Empowering Women through Emergency Care Development in LMICs" underscored the potential for empowering women through global emergency medicine development, including policy advocacy, inclusive research approaches, and mentorship and sponsorship. In summary, GEMA is committed to developing a diverse group of future global health leaders to guide the expansion of emergency medicine worldwide. Our work indicates critical future directions in global emergency medicine education and training including building innovative mentoring networks across institutions and countries. Further, we will continue to focus on growing faculty diversity, empowering underrepresented populations through emergency care development, and supporting rising global emergency medicine faculty in their pursuit of advancement and promotion.