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

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

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

Decolonising global health research: Shifting power for transformative change

Recent debates on decolonizing global health have spurred interest in addressing the power asymmetries and knowledge hierarchies that sustain colonial ideas and relationships in global health research. This paper applies three intersecting dimensions of colonialism (colonialism within global health; colonisation of global health; and colonialism through global health) to develop a broader and more structural understanding of the policies and actions needed to decolonise global health research. It argues that existing guidelines and checklists designed to make global health research more equitable do not adequately address the underlying power asymmetries and biases that prevail across the global health research ecosystem. Beyond encouraging fairer partnerships within individual research projects, this paper calls for more emphasis on shifting the balance of decision-making power, redistributing resources, and holding research funders and other power-holders accountable to the places and peoples involved in and impacted by global health research.

Leveraging qualitative approaches to guide sustainable international research collaborations

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

Exploring equity in global health collaborations: a qualitative study of donor and recipient power dynamics in Liberia

IntroductionGlobal health collaborations between individuals from high-resource and low-resource settings are complex and often built on hierarchical structures and power differentials that are difficult to change. There have been many calls and frameworks developed to facilitate more equity within these collaborations, yet little is known about the lived experiences of global health donors and recipients working within such collaborations and how those experiences can facilitate more equitable collaboration. Liberia, a postconflict, post-Ebola country, provides an ideal setting to study lived experiences of global health collaborations.MethodsOur qualitative analysis used key informant interviews representing the perspectives of those working on behalf of the Liberian government, Liberian academics, foreign donors and non-governmental organisations and implementing partners. Thematic analysis guided this analysis to explore topics such as financial control, accountability and decision making.ResultsThe first phase of the analysis mapped the existing patterns of priority setting. Priority-setting power was most strongly held by those with financial control (donors), and implementation plans tended to be built on metrics that aim to meet donor expectations. The second phase of the analysis explored the interplay between underlying factors that we identified in our data associated with driving collaborative inequity: history of prior of engagement, level of transparency and patterns of accountability.ConclusionsOur findings highlight that global health collaborations in Liberia are structured to hinder equitable partnerships. The power structure tied to financial ownership offers little space for recipients to have an equitable role in collaborations, which maintains dependence on external aid and ensures that weak systems remain weak. While our study is limited to Liberia, we anticipate that these dynamics are common elsewhere and reinforce the importance of intentional efforts to ensure equitable decision making and power structures in similar settings worldwide.

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.

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

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

Authorship inequalities in global health research: the IeDEA Southern Africa collaboration

BACKGROUND

The International epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS conducts research in several regions, including in Southern Africa. We assessed authorship inequalities for the Southern African region, which is led by South African and Swiss investigators.

METHODS

We analysed authorships of publications from 2007 to 2020 by gender, country income group, time and citation impact. We used 2020 World Bank categories to define income groups and the relative citation ratio (RCR) to assess citation impact. Authorship parasitism was defined as articles without authors from the countries where the study was conducted. A regression model examined the probability of different authorship positions.

RESULTS

We included 313 articles. Of the 1064 contributing authors, 547 (51.4%) were women, and 223 (21.0%) were from 32 low-income/lower middle-income countries (LLMICs), 269 (25.3%) were from 13 upper middle-income countries and 572 (53.8%) were from 25 high-income countries (HICs). Most articles (150/157, 95.5%) reporting data from Southern Africa included authors from all participating countries. Women were more likely to be the first author than men (OR 1.74; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.83) but less likely to be last authors (OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.99). Compared with HIC, LLMIC authors were less likely to publish as first (OR 0.21; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.41) or last author (OR 0.20; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.42). The proportion of women and LLMIC first and last authors increased over time. The RCR tended to be higher, indicating greater impact, if first or last authors were from HIC (p=0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis of a global health collaboration co-led by South African and Swiss investigators showed little evidence of authorship parasitism. There were stark inequalities in authorship position, with women occupying more first and men more last author positions and researchers from LLMIC being 'stuck in the middle' on the byline. Global health research collaborations should monitor, analyse and address authorship inequalities.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

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

SETTING

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

POPULATION OR SAMPLE

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

METHODS

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

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Applying a Power Analysis to Everything We Do: A Qualitative Inquiry to Decolonize the Global Health and Development Project Cycle

BACKGROUND

Global health and development (GHD) systems that centralize power in the Global North were conceived during colonialism. As a result, they often replicate unequal power structures, maintaining dogged inequities. Growing and historic calls to decolonize GHD advocate for the transfer of power to actors in the Global South. This article identifies examples of colonial legacies in today's GHD projects and offers actionable strategies to decolonize.

METHODS

From August 2021 to March 2022, 20 key informants across 15 organizations participated in interviews about their experiences and perspectives relating to the decolonization of GHD. We used deductive thematic coding to identify examples of challenges and strategies to address them across 3 project life cycle phases: conceptualization and contracting, program planning and implementation, and program evaluation and dissemination.

RESULTS

Participants described how power is maintained in the Global North, sharing countless examples across the project life cycle, including agenda-setting with minimal local participation or partnership, onerous requirements that limit grantee eligibility, Global North ownership of data collected by and in the Global South, and dissemination in languages and formats that are not easily accessible to Global South audiences. Proposed strategies to decolonize GHD projects include having built-in participatory processes and accountability mechanisms; aligning solicitations with existing local strategies; adapting the process for awarding, contracting, and evaluating investments to increase the representation and competitiveness of Global South entities; creating trusting, respectful relationships with Global South partners; and systematically applying power analyses to each step of the project life cycle.

CONCLUSIONS

GHD practitioners suggested project life cycle-based strategies for shifting power and redistributing resources, which we argue will ultimately enhance the value, impact, and sustainability of GHD programming.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

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