Applying a global justice lens to health systems research ethics: an initial exploration

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion on Editorial Boards of Global Health Journals

Journals have been described as “duty bearers” of upholding fundamental ethical principles that are essential for maintaining the ethical integrity of newly generated and disseminated knowledge. To play our part, we evaluated diversity and inclusion in the leadership and management of global and international health journals. We developed Journal Diversity Index (JDI) to measure three parameters of diversity and representation (gender, geographic, socioeconomic status). Relevant information regarding editorial board members of systematically screened journals was sequentially extracted and job titles were categorized into five editorial roles. Chi-squared test was utilized to study associations between gender and geographic distribution of editors along with the Medline indexing of the journal and its impact factor. Out of 43 journals included, 62.7% were published from two high-income countries. Women comprised 44% of the total editors. Among all the editorial board members, we did not find any information suggesting the representation of non-binary and transgender individuals. Furthermore, 68.2% of editors were based in high-income countries with 67.3% of the editors belonging to the Global North. This disparity in geographic region and socioeconomic level was observed across all five editorial roles. Among all women editors, more than 70% worked in non-Medline and non-impact factor journals. Only two journals scored “excellent” on JDI. Despite the continuous evolution of the definition of global health ethics, marginalized individuals, and their perspectives remain underrepresented in this field. Thus, we call for swift action regarding the decentralization and redistribution of global and international health journal editorial boards.

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.

Ethical Dimensions of Public Health Actions and Policies With Special Focus on COVID-19

During pandemics, the ethicists, public health professionals, and human rights advocates raise a red flag about different public health actions that should, at best, be addressed through integrated, global policies. How to rationalize the healthcare resources and prioritize the cases is not a recent challenge but the serious concern about that is how to achieve this while not increasing the vulnerability of the disadvantaged population. Healthcare professionals use different scoring systems as a part of their decision-making so the medical teams and triage committees can allocate resources for predictable health outcomes and prognosis as well as to appropriately triage the patients accordingly. However, the value of the existing scoring systems to manage COVID-19 cases is not well-established yet. Part of this problem includes managing non-COVID patients with chronic medical conditions like non-communicable diseases and addressing their medical needs during the pandemic complex context in a way to avoid worsening their conditions and, on the other hand, avoid hindering the establishment of comprehensive standards for dealing with COVID-19. In this article, we discuss this dilemma as well as how preexisting ethical standards were challenged by COVID-19. We also discuss how monitoring the consistent application of ethical standards during the medical trials of new medications, vaccines, or unproven medical interventions is also a critical issue.

Operationalizing the Ethical Review of Global Health Policy and Systems Research: A Proposed Checklist

There has been growing consensus to develop relevant guidance to improve the ethical review of global health policy and systems research (HPSR) and address the current absence of formal ethics guidance.

Championing Equity, Empowerment, and Transformational Leadership in (Mental Health) Research Partnerships: Aligning Collaborative Work With the Global Development Agenda

Through a narrative synthesis of existing literature on research partnerships, the paper underscores four core values championed in public policy and practice: equity, empowerment, transformational leadership, and treating mental health research as a cooperative inquiry. Building on these values, the author maps the challenges before mental health researchers in forging resilient, egalitarian, and committed Global North-South partnerships within the context of current global development agenda. Reports appraising the UN Millennium Development Goals lament how the goal of developing global partnerships to combat health, gender, and economic inequities has remained under-realized. Emphasis has been placed on the great need to augment Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) in ways where partnership processes would drive development and human rights agenda for the most afflicted, under-resourced, and marginalized in the world. Global North-South partnerships result in fewer lasting benefits to Global South-a regressive trend that is critically analyzed. The need for Global North to adopt ethical and responsible stances while creating/curating new knowledge is discussed. Being responsible is not only imperative for Global North researchers; it is imperative for both North and South researchers to adopt a dialogical approach in clarifying and sharing roles, responsibilities, access, and leadership in developing scholarship and praxis in mental health. The importance of de-centering hierarchies, valuing reciprocity in one another, improving communication, demonstrating empathy, and sharing resources and benefits are found to be key components in the narrative synthesis towards achieving greater empowerment and equity. The paper reflects on the potential problems in engagement and development of de-centered and transformational leadership in partnerships and implications for research ethics in the context of lower-and-middle-income countries. Lastly, the author in a bid to encourage global partnerships suggests that engaging in transparent and bi-directional conversations regarding these issues and realigning research priorities along the four core values will contribute to greater success in research collaborations (across cultural contexts) and more so in the global mental health field.

Exploring the ethics of global health research priority-setting

BACKGROUND

Thus far, little work in bioethics has specifically focused on global health research priority-setting. Yet features of global health research priority-setting raise ethical considerations and concerns related to health justice. For example, such processes are often exclusively disease-driven, meaning they rely heavily on burden of disease considerations. They, therefore, tend to undervalue non-biomedical research topics, which have been identified as essential to helping reduce health disparities. In recognition of these ethical concerns and the limited scholarship and dialogue addressing them, we convened an international workshop in September 2015. The workshop aimed to initiate discussion on the appropriate relationship between global and national levels of health research priority-setting and to begin exploring what might be ethically required for priority-setting at each of those levels.

MAIN TEXT

This paper comprises our reflections following the workshop. Its main objective is to launch a research agenda for the ethics of global health research priority-setting. We identify three domains of global health research priority-setting-scope, underlying values and substantive requirements, and procedural considerations. For each domain, specific research questions are highlighted and why they need to be explored is explained. Some preliminary thoughts and normative arguments as to how the research questions might be answered are also offered. For example, we provide initial ideas about the appropriate relationship between different priority-setting levels and what values and substantive considerations should guide or underpin global health research priority-setting as a matter of justice.

CONCLUSION

We anticipate that framing a new research agenda for the ethics of global health research priority-setting will spur ethicists, researchers, and policymakers to refocus their efforts on developing more rigorous and ethically sound approaches to priority-setting.

Clinical stroke research in resource limited settings: Tips and hints

Background Most stroke research is conducted in high income countries, yet most stroke occurs in low- and middle-income countries. There is an urgent need to build stroke research capacity in low- and middle-income countries. Aims To review the global health literature on how to improve research capacity in low- and middle-income countries, provide additional data from the recently completed ATTEND Trial and provide examples from our own experience. Summary of review The main themes from our literature review were: manpower and workload, research training, research question and methodology and research funding. The literature and our own experience emphasized the importance of local stakeholders to ensure that the research was appropriate, that there were robust local ethics and regulatory processes, and research was conducted by trained personnel. Research training opportunities can be developed locally, or internationally, with many international schemes available to help support new researchers from low- and middle-income country settings. International collaboration can successfully leverage funding from high income countries that not only generate data for the local country, but also provide new data appropriate to high income countries. Conclusions Building stroke research capacity in low- and middle-income countries will be vital in improving global health given the huge burden of stroke in these countries.

The elusive ideal of inclusiveness: lessons from a worldwide survey of neurologists on the ethical issues raised by whole-genome sequencing

The anticipation of ethical issues that may arise with the clinical use of genomic technologies is crucial to envision their future implementation in a manner sensitive to local contexts. Yet, populations in low- and middle-income countries are underrepresented in studies that aim to explore stakeholders’ perspectives on the use of such technologies. Within the framework of a research project entitled “Personalized medicine in the treatment of epilepsy”, we sought to increase inclusiveness by widening the reach of our survey, inviting neurologists from around the world to share their views and practices regarding the use of whole-genome sequencing in clinical neurology and its associated ethics. We discuss herein the compelling scientific and ethical reasons that led us to attempt to recruit neurologists worldwide, despite the lack, in many low- or middle-income countries, of access to genomic technologies. Recruitment procedures and their results are presented and discussed, as well as the barriers we faced. We conclude that inclusive recruitment remains a challenging, albeit necessary and legitimate, endeavour.

Governance of Transnational Global Health Research Consortia and Health Equity

Global health research partnerships are increasingly taking the form of consortia of institutions from high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries that undertake programs of research. These partnerships differ from collaborations that carry out single projects in the multiplicity of their goals, scope of their activities, and nature of their management. Although such consortia typically aim to reduce health disparities between and within countries, what is required for them to do so has not been clearly defined. This article takes a conceptual approach to explore how the governance of transnational global health research consortia should be structured to advance health equity. To do so, it applies an account called shared health governance to derive procedural and substantive guidance. A checklist based on this guidance is proposed to assist research consortia determine where their governance practices strongly promote equity and where they may fall short.

Towards deep inclusion for equity-oriented health research priority-setting: A working model

Growing consensus that health research funders should align their investments with national research priorities presupposes that such national priorities exist and are just. Arguably, justice requires national health research priority-setting to promote health equity. Such a position is consistent with recommendations made by the World Health Organization and at global ministerial summits that health research should serve to reduce health inequalities between and within countries. Thus far, no specific requirements for equity-oriented research priority-setting have been described to guide policymakers. As a step towards the explication and defence of such requirements, we propose that deep inclusion is a key procedural component of equity-oriented research priority-setting. We offer a model of deep inclusion that was developed by applying concepts from work on deliberative democracy and development ethics. This model consists of three dimensions--breadth, qualitative equality, and high-quality non-elite participation. Deep inclusion is captured not only by who is invited to join a decision-making process but also by how they are involved and by when non-elite stakeholders are involved. To clarify and illustrate the proposed dimensions, we use the sustained example of health systems research. We conclude by reviewing practical challenges to achieving deep inclusion. Despite the existence of barriers to implementation, our model can help policymakers and other stakeholders design more inclusive national health research priority-setting processes and assess these processes' depth of inclusion.