Search

Aim: Research is key to the development of any nation, with health research being of high value to society. Research provides data that is useful for the generation and provision of knowledge needed for policy making, planning and strategic management to develop nations. Despite the African population accounting for nearly 14% of the world's population, little published research originates from African scholars. Purpose: The purpose of this article is to highlight the reasons for the lack of robust research by scientists from African low-and-middle-income countries and to emphasize the inequity experienced by African scientists in global health research. Possible solutions to the dearth in African global health research are equally explored. Findings: Insufficient research has led to poor growth, development and advancements in health in Africa. A significant gap in African-led and published research, lack of mentorship, inequitable access to research funding and grant eligibility, and increased dependency on foreign organizations have contributed to the lack of sustainability and failure of African research. Conclusion: Research is crucial for national development, especially in health. However, African researchers are underrepresented in global publications. To optimize research, local needs and African researchers must be prioritized, and research systems in African institutions must be strengthened. Additionally, the international community must respect, be transparent, and support research development in Africa. These efforts are essential for fostering a robust research environment, addressing global health challenges, and promoting sustainable development across Africa and LMICs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Carefully planned research is critical to developing policies and interventions that counter physical, psychological and social challenges faced by young people living with HIV/AIDS, without increasing burdens. Such studies, however, must navigate a 'vulnerability paradox', since including potentially vulnerable groups also risks unintentionally worsening their situation. Through embedded social science research, linked to a cohort study involving Adolescents Living with HIV/AIDS (ALH) in Kenya, we develop an account of researchers' responsibilities towards young people, incorporating concepts of vulnerability, resilience, and agency as 'interacting layers'. Methods: Using a qualitative, iterative approach across three linked data collection phases including interviews, group discussions, observations and a participatory workshop, we explored stakeholders' perspectives on vulnerability and resilience of young people living with HIV/AIDS, in relation to home and community, school, health care and health research participation. A total of 62 policy, provider, research, and community-based stakeholders were involved, including 27 ALH participating in a longitudinal cohort study. Data analysis drew on a Framework Analysis approach; ethical analysis adapts Luna's layered account of vulnerability. Results: ALH experienced forms of vulnerability and resilience in their daily lives in which socioeconomic context, institutional policies, organisational systems and interpersonal relations were key, interrelated influences. Anticipated and experienced forms of stigma and discrimination in schools, health clinics and communities were linked to actions undermining ART adherence, worsening physical and mental health, and poor educational outcomes, indicating cascading forms of vulnerability, resulting in worsened vulnerabilities. Positive inputs within and across sectors could build resilience, improve outcomes, and support positive research experiences. Conclusions: The most serious forms of vulnerability faced by ALH in the cohort study were related to structural, inter-sectoral influences, unrelated to study participation and underscored by constraints to their agency. Vulnerabilities, including cascading forms, were potentially responsive to policy-based and interpersonal actions. Stakeholder engagement supported cohort design and implementation, building privacy, stakeholder understanding, interpersonal relations and ancillary care policies. Structural forms of vulnerability underscore researchers' responsibilities to work within multi-sectoral partnerships to plan and implement studies involving ALH, share findings in a timely way and contribute to policies addressing known causes of vulnerabilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Germany has increased its political and financial commitment for global health, but this needs to be backed by a robust global health research ecosystem with strong partnerships in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Objective: This article suggests pathways for empowering researchers to operate beyond their disciplinary silos and strengthen partnerships across sectors and countries. The authors identify barriers and enablers of operations from a nascent research network in Germany, trusting that this experience can inform other initiatives seeking to stoke interdisciplinary and collaborative global health research. Methods: This article represents the culmination of extensive reflections spanning the initial four years of the German Alliance for Global Health Research (GLOHRA). The insights have additionally been informed by an analysis of publicly available reports, internal procedural records, and externally conducted studies based on interviews with researchers and policymakers. Results: GLOHRA has developed a toolbox of practices that foster interdisciplinary research and support capacity-building. Insights indicate that highly interdisciplinary and diverse governance structures and seed-funding for interdisciplinary and cross-sector research with appropriate review processes represent a critical step for achieving these aims. Additionally, inclusive training sessions and networking events help to bridge disciplinary boundaries, equipping researchers to envision the broader context of their work. Conclusions: Despite achievements, challenges persist. Wider support, especially from universities and research institutions, is necessary to make global health research an attractive career path and to reduce bureaucratic barriers for collaborators in LMICs. Sustained, longer-term federal funding mechanisms will also be essential for ongoing progress. Paper context: Main findings: Germany's increased commitment to global health includes federal support for initiatives such as the nascent German Alliance for Global Health Research, a 1000+ member network which aims to foster interdisciplinary and collaborative global health research. Added knowledge: This article reveals the structures, funding mechanisms, and capacity-building initiatives that have bolstered progress on network aims. Global health impact for policy and action: Challenges persist and there is a need for sustained federal funding and wider institutional support for global health careers as well as improved conditions to support more equitable research endeavors with partners in low- and middle-income countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research partnerships between institutions in the Global North and institutions in the Global South have many potential benefits, including sharing of knowledge and resources. However, such partnerships are traditionally exploitative to varying degrees. In order to promote equity in South‐North research partnerships, it is necessary to learn from the experiences of researchers collaborating internationally. This study analyzed transcripts from eleven semi‐structured qualitative interviews with researchers working at Clínica de Familia La Romana, an institution in the Dominican Republic with decades of experience with research and research partnerships with institutions from the Global North. The findings of this study suggest that respect for resources invested in research, as well as for the researchers and institutions themselves, are vital components to a successful global health research partnership. These findings have implications for individual research partnerships, as well as the policies of journals and institutions providing funding that affect these partnerships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores a case of mistrust in global health research and community engagement. It uses ethnographic material collected in 2014 and 2016 in Kenya, concerning community engagement by a HIV vaccine research group working with men who have sex with men and transgender women. In 2010, the research group was attacked by members of the wider community. Following the attack, the research group set up an engagement program to reduce mistrust and re-build relationships. Analysis focusing on mistrust shows the dynamics underlying the conflict: Norms around gender and sexuality, political support for LGBTIQ+ rights, and resources disparities were all at stake for those embroiled in the conflict, including researchers, study participants, religious leaders, and LGBTIQ+ activists in the region. Rather than a normative good with liberatory potential, community engagement in this paper is discussed as a relational tool with which mistrust was managed, highlighting the fragility of participation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The decentralised clinical trial (DCT) model has been popularised given its remote or virtual design, permitting expanded participant enrolment into community settings. Clinical research nurses (CRNs) are specially trained in the management of clinical trials; however, the utilisation of the research nurse role relating to decentralised trial conduct is not well-established. Aims: A literature review was conducted to describe the role of the research nurse in the conduct of DCTs and the current utilisation of this nurse specialty for decentralised trial management. Methods: Use of keywords 'DCT' or 'virtual trial' and 'nursing' were used to identify full-text, peer-reviewed literature in the English language and published within the last 10 years that described the clinical research nursing role. Results: Of the 102 pre-screened articles identified across five databases, 11 articles were eligible for full-text analysis. Thematic groupings of common discussion elements included Variance in Decentralised Clinical Trial Model Implementation, CRN Involvement in Decentralised Trial Conduct and Reporting and Shared Challenges of Decentralised Trial Implementation Affecting the CRN Role. Conclusions: Implications of this literature review include expanded trial sponsor awareness of the support requirements to facilitate research nurse utilisation and optimal decentralised trial conduct. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research capacity-strengthening is recognized as an important component of global health partnership working, and as such merits monitoring and evaluation. Early career researchers are often the recipients of research capacity-strengthening programmes, but there is limited literature regarding their experience. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study as part of an internal evaluation of the capacity-strengthening programme of the international HERA (HEalthcare Responding to violence and Abuse) research group. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with group members, and thematic analysis was undertaken. Results: Eighteen group members participated; nine of these were early career researchers, and nine were other research team members, including mid-career and senior researchers. Key themes were identified which related to their engagement with and experience of a research capacity-strengthening programme. We explored formal/planned elements of our programme: mentoring and supervision; training and other opportunities; funding and resources. Participants also discussed informal/unplanned elements which acted as important facilitators and/or barriers to engaging with research capacity-strengthening: English language; open relationships and communication; connection and disconnection; and diversity. The sustainability of the programme was also discussed. Conclusions: Our study gives voice to the early career researcher experience of engaging with a research capacity-strengthening programme in a global health group. We highlight some important elements that have informed adaptations to our programme and may be relevant for consideration by other global health research capacity-strengthening programmes. Our findings contribute to the growing literature and important discussions around research capacity-strengthening and how this relates to the future directions of global health partnership working. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Global Health is a young discipline with equity of health and services as its core value. The discipline has a tradition of close links between practice and research in line with the 'Health for All' declaration launched by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1978. The multitude of existential health crises facing mankind require a research agenda in line with Global Health Research core values and methods, such as transdisciplinary collaboration, long time series of population-based observations and multifaceted interventions. Knowledge gaps cover climate effects on health and mechanisms for global spread and control of antibiotic resistance across species. Such health threats are preferably studied at Health and Demographic Surveillance Sites, a scientific infrastructure for Global Health Research in Africa and Asia, that gains to expand and monitor climate parameters and include sites in the northern hemisphere. Global Health Scientists together with science societies can ensure long-term funding of a global network of population-based health-climate sites. Global Health Scientists and scientific journals should jointly provide data and evidence on global health to governance bodies on regional, national and global levels, in particular to WHO and United Nations in charge of the programme with Sustainable Development Goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Several countries allocate official development assistance (ODA) for research on global health and development issues that is initiated in the donor country. The integration of such research within domestic research systems aligns with efforts to coordinate ODA investments with science, technology and innovation policies towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).Methods: Through a document synthesis and interviews with research funders in ODA donor and recipient countries, we evaluated the performance of this funding approach across seven donor-country programmes from five donor countries and examined the institutional design elements that increase its chances of advancing development goals and addressing global challenges.Results: We found that carefully designed programmes provide a promising pathway to producing valuable and contextually relevant knowledge on global health and development issues. To achieve these outcomes and ensure they benefit ODA-receiving countries, programmes should focus on recipient-country priorities and absorptive capacity; translate research on global public goods into context-appropriate technologies; plan and monitor pathways to impact; structure equitable partnerships; strengthen individual and institutional capacity; and emphasize knowledge mobilization.Conclusions: Global health and development research programmes and partnerships have an important role to play in achieving the SDGs and addressing global challenges. Governments should consider the potential of ODA-funded research programmes to address gaps in their global health and development frameworks. In the absence of concrete evidence of development impact, donor countries should consider making increases in ODA allocations for research additional to more direct investments that have demonstrated effectiveness in ODA-receiving countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: As Canadian global health researchers who conducted a qualitative study with adults with and without disabilities in Uganda, we obtained ethics approval from four institutional research ethics boards (two in Canada and two in Uganda). In Canada, research ethics boards and researchers follow the research ethics norms of the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS2), and the National Guidelines for Research Involving Humans as Research Participants of Uganda (NGRU) in Uganda. The preparation and implementation of this qualitative research raised specific ethical issues related to research participant privacy and the importance of availability and management of financial resources.Main Body: Our field experience highlights three main issues for reflection. First, we demonstrate that, in a global health research context, methodological and logistic adjustments were necessary throughout the research implementation process to ensure the protection of study participants' privacy, especially that of people with disabilities, despite having followed the prescribed Canadian and Ugandan ethics norms. Data collection and management plans were adapted iteratively based on local realities. Second, securing financial support as a key aspect of financial management was critical to ensure privacy through disability-sensitive data collection strategies. Without adequate funding, the recruitment of research participants based on disability type, sex, and region or the hiring of local sign language interpreters would not have been possible. Third, although the TCPS2 and NGRU underscore the significance of participants' privacy, none of these normative documents clearly express this issue in the context of global health research and disability, nor broadly discuss the ethical issue related to financial availability and management.Conclusions: Conducting research in resource limited settings and with study participants with different needs calls for a nuanced and respectful implementation of research ethics in a global health context. We recommend a greater integration in both the TCPS2 and NGRU of global health research, disability, and responsible conduct of research. This integration should also be accompanied by adequate training which can further guide researchers, be they senior, junior, or students, and funding agencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Through collating observations from various studies and complementing these findings with one author's study, a detailed overview of the benefits and drawbacks of asynchronous email interviewing is provided. Through this overview, it is evident there is great potential for asynchronous email interviews in the broad field of health, particularly for studies drawing on expertise from participants in academia or professional settings, those across varied geographical settings (i.e. potential for global public health research), and/or in circumstances when face-to-face interactions are not possible (e.g. COVID-19). Results: Benefits of asynchronous email interviewing and additional considerations for researchers are discussed around: (i) access transcending geographic location and during restricted face-to-face communications; (ii) feasibility and cost; (iii) sampling and inclusion of diverse participants; (iv) facilitating snowball sampling and increased transparency; (v) data collection with working professionals; (vi) anonymity; (vii) verification of participants; (viii) data quality and enhanced data accuracy; and (ix) overcoming language barriers. Similarly, potential drawbacks of asynchronous email interviews are also discussed with suggested remedies, which centre around: (i) time; (ii) participant verification and confidentiality; (iii) technology and sampling concerns; (iv) data quality and availability; and (v) need for enhanced clarity and precision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The term 'last mile' has been used across disciplines to refer to populations who are farthest away, most difficult to reach, or last to benefit from a program or service. However, last mile research lacks a shared understanding around its conceptualization. Objectives: This project used a concept mapping process to answer the questions: what is last mile research in global health and, how can it be used to make positive change for health equity in the last mile? Methods: Between July and December 2019, a five-stage concept mapping exercise was undertaken using online concept mapping software and an in-person consensus meeting. The stages were: establishment of an expert group and focus prompt; idea generation; sorting and rating; initial analysis and final consensus meeting. Results: A group of 15 health researchers with experience working with populations in last mile contexts and who were based at the Matariki Network institutions of Queen's University, CAN and Dartmouth College, USA took part. The resulting concept map had 64 unique idea statements and the process resulted in a map with five clusters. These included: (1) Last mile populations; (2) Research methods and approaches; (3) Structural and systemic factors; (4) Health system factors, and (5) Broader environmental factors. Central to the map were the ideas of equity, human rights, health systems, and contextual sensitivity. Conclusion: This is the first time 'last mile research' has been the focus of a formal concept mapping exercise. The resulting map showed consensus about who last mile populations are, how research should be undertaken in the last mile and why last mile health disparities exist. The map can be used to inform research training programs, however, repeating this process with researchers and members from different last mile populations would also add further insight. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Funders (located primarily in high‐income countries) and high‐income country researchers have historically dominated decision‐making within global health research collaborations: from setting agendas and research design to determining how data are collected and analysed and what happens with findings and outputs. The ethical principle of shared decision‐making has been proposed as a way to help address these imbalances within collaborations and to reduce semicolonial and exploitative forms of global health research. It is important to be clear about what shared decision‐making means in order to ensure that it is not done in a tokenistic, shallow way. Thus far, the principle's content has not been examined and articulated in detail. This paper aims to start the process of delineating a concept of fair shared decision‐making as a minimum standard for global health research. Using two hypothetical case examples, the paper will demonstrate that global health research practice is often inconsistent with ideal shared decision‐making. In such instances, it can be difficult to decide whether shared decision‐making within collaborations is fair. The paper describes how the two cases do not meet criteria for unfair or non‐ideal shared decision‐making, despite having potentially morally troubling features. The nuances of these examples of research practice help to generate clearer ideas about how to judge fairness in shared decision‐making. The paper concludes by presenting ideas about when soft power can be fairly employed between high‐income‐country and low‐ and middle‐income‐country partners and what fair compromise agreements may look like in shared decision‐making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Thoughtful and equitable engagement with international partners is key to successful research. STRIPE, a consortium of 8 academic and research institutions across the globe whose objective is to map, synthesize, and disseminate lessons learned from polio eradication, conducted a process evaluation of this partnership during the project's first year which focused on knowledge mapping activities.Methods: The STRIPE consortium is led by Johns Hopkins University (JHU) in partnership with 6 universities and 1 research consultancy organization in polio free, at-risk, and endemic countries. In December 2018 JHU team members submitted written reflections on their experiences (n = 9). We held calls with each consortium member to solicit additional feedback (n = 7). To establish the partnership evaluation criteria we conducted preliminary analyses based on Blackstock's framework evaluating participatory research. In April 2019, an in-person consortium meeting was held; one member from each institution was asked to join a process evaluation working group. This group reviewed the preliminary criteria, adding, subtracting, and combining as needed; the final evaluation criteria were applied to STRIPE's research process and partnership and illustrative examples were provided.Results: Twelve evaluation criteria were defined and applied by each member of the consortium to their experience in the project. These included access to resources, expectation setting, organizational context, external context, quality of information, relationship building, transparency, motivation, scheduling, adaptation, communication and engagement, and capacity building. For each criteria members of the working group reflected on general and context-specific challenges and potential strategies to overcome them. Teams suggested providing more time for recruitment, training, reflection, pre-testing. and financing to alleviate resource constraints. Given the large scope of the project, competing priorities, and shifting demands the working group also suggested a minimum of one full-time project coordinator in each setting to manage resources.Conclusion: Successful management of multi-country, multicentered implementation research requires comprehensive communication tools (which to our knowledge do not exist yet or are not readily available), expectation setting, and institutional support. Capacity building activities that address human resource needs for both individuals and their institutions should be incorporated into early project planning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Global Forum for Health Research (GFHR) was founded in 1998. It was the culmination of an advocacy movement started in 1987 to campaign for the expansion and coordination of health research benefitting low- and middle-income countries. It was largely funded by the World Bank and embraced that institution's emphasis on cost effectiveness. But its small budget prevented it from assuming the central role in global health research that its supporters had envisaged. It took on more modest tasks, focusing on advocacy, organising an annual conference and monitoring research funding. In 2010, it was absorbed amid general indifference by another small organization, the Council on Health Research for Development (COHRED) and eventually disappeared from sight. We argue in this paper that its fate had two major causes. First, it resulted from operational and budgetary problem and its inability to attract the new money that was pouring into Global Health (GH). Second, it reflected the aggressive efforts by the WHO to reclaim leadership in this domain. Underlying this failure, however, was the inherent difficulty of coordinating the ideologically fragmented and individualistically oriented GH research domain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Global mental health is a widely used term describing initiatives in policies, research and practice to improve the mental health of people worldwide. It has been gaining momentum over the last 10 years, reflected in increasing funding opportunities, training programmes, and publications. In light of the rising importance of global mental health and the various uncertainties about its future directions, this paper explores what the future may hold for global mental health in 30 years' time. Method: A scenario planning method was used, involving a workshop with experts from four continents and a range of backgrounds, including clinical and academic psychiatry, psychology, art and music therapy, service user advisory role, funder of global health research and post-graduate students. Results: Six distinct scenarios that describe potential future situations were developed: universal standards for care; worldwide coordination of research; making use of diversity; focus on social factors; globalised care through technology; mental health as a currency in global politics. Conclusions: These scenarios consider different social, economic, scientific and technological drivers and focus on distinct aspects. Some reflect a global application of possible trends in mental health, whilst others apply general global developments to mental health care. They are not fixed forecasts, but instead may help to promote discussion and debate about further developments and decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social justice has been identified as a foundational moral commitment for global health research ethics. Yet what a commitment to social justice means for community engagement in such research has not been critically examined. This paper draws on the rich social justice literature from political philosophy to explore the normative question: What should the ethical goals of community engagement be if it is to help connect global health research to social justice? Five ethical goals for community engagement are proposed that promote well-being, agency, and self-development, particularly for those considered disadvantaged and marginalized. The paper also considers how key terms used in the proposed goals should be defined using existing theories of health and social justice. This analysis is done to give global health researchers and their partners a better idea of what the ethical goals mean. Patterns of convergence amongst different theories are identified that support relying on particular definitions of key terms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Collaborations in global health research are on the rise because they enhance productivity, facilitate capacity building, accelerate output and make tackling big, multifactorial research questions possible. In this paper, I examine the concepts of trust and reliance in scientific collaborations in general, but also in the particular context of collaborations in global health research between high‐income countries and low‐and‐middle income countries (LMIC). I propose and defend the argument that given the particular characteristics of collaborations and demands of trust relationships, reliance is a better relational mode for successful collaborations. Although reliance can be difficult to establish in situations where asymmetry of power exists, trust should not be the only relational mode available to LMIC researchers because of the type of vulnerability it introduces to the relationship. I conclude that the promotion of good collaborations requires addressing the power imbalances between partners, and establishing an even playing field in global health research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Community engagement is gaining prominence in global health research. So far, a philosophical rationale for why researchers should perform community engagement during such research has not been provided by ethics scholars. Its absence means that conducting community engagement is still often viewed as no more than a ‘good idea’ or ‘good practice’ rather than ethically required. In this article, we argue that shared health governance can establish grounds for requiring the engagement of low‐ and middle‐income country (LMIC) community members in global health research, where such research aims to help reduce health disparities. This philosophical basis has important implications for the ethical goals ascribed to engagement and the approach adopted to undertake it. We suggest the ethical goals of engagement in equity‐oriented global health research should include: (a) generating research topics and questions that reflect the key problems disadvantaged groups face in accessing healthcare, services and broader social determinants of health and (b) promoting the translation of research findings into policy and practice in ways that benefit the health of disadvantaged groups. We propose engagement practice should have the following features: deliberation with LMIC community members to make a range of project decisions, beginning with setting research topics and questions; inclusion of members of disadvantaged groups and those with the power to change policy and practice to benefit them; and purposeful structuring of deliberations to minimize the impact of power disparities between LMIC community members. Finally, we reflect on how these features differ from those typical of much current community engagement practice in LMICs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In line with the policy objectives of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, this commentary seeks to examine the extent to which provisions of international health research guidance promote capacity building and equitable partnerships in global health research. Our evaluation finds that governance of collaborative research partnerships, and in particular capacity building, in resource-constrained settings is limited but has improved with the implementation guidance of the International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research Involving Humans by The Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) (2016). However, more clarity is needed in national legislation, industry and ethics guidelines, and regulatory provisions to address the structural inequities and power imbalances inherent in international health research partnerships. Most notably, ethical partnership governance is not supported by the principal industry ethics guidelines - the International Conference on Harmonization Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceutical for Human Use (ICH) Good Clinical Practice (ICH-GCP). Given the strategic value of ICH-GCP guidelines in defining the role and responsibility of global health research partners, we conclude that such governance should stipulate the minimal requirements for creating an equitable environment of inclusion, mutual learning, transparency and accountability. Procedurally, this can be supported by i) shared research agenda setting with local leadership, ii) capacity assessments, and iii) construction of a memorandum of understanding (MoU). Moreover, the requirement of capacity building needs to be coordinated amongst partners to support good collaborative practice and deliver on the public health goals of the research enterprise; improving local conditions of health and reducing global health inequality. In this respect, and in order to develop consistency between sources of research governance, ICH-GCP should reference CIOMS ethical guidelines as the established standard for collaborative partnership. Moreover, greater commitment and support should be given to co-ordinate, strengthen and enforce local laws requiring equitable research partnerships and health system strengthening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recognising radical shifts in the global health research (GHR) environment, participants in a 2013 deliberative dialogue called for careful consideration of equity-centred principles that should inform Canadian funding polices. This study examined the existing funding structures and policies of Canadian and international funders to inform the future design of a responsive GHR funding landscape.Methods: We used a three-pronged analytical framework to review the ideas, interests and institutions implicated in publically accessible documents relevant to GHR funding. These data included published literature and organisational documents (e.g. strategic plans, progress reports, granting policies) from Canadian and other comparator funders. We then used a deliberative approach to develop recommendations with the research team, advisors, industry informants and low- and middle-income country (LMIC) partners.Results: In Canada, major GHR funders invest an estimated CA$90 M per annum; however, the post-2008 re-organization of funding structures and policies resulted in an uncoordinated and inefficient Canadian strategy. Australia, Denmark, the European Union, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States of America invest proportionately more in GHR than Canada. Each of these countries has a national strategic plan for global health, some of which have dedicated benchmarks for GHR funding and policy to allow funds to be held by partners outside of Canada. Key constraints to equitable GHR funding included (1) funding policies that restrict financial and cost burden aspects of partnering for GHR in LMICs; and (2) challenges associated with the development of effective governance mechanisms. There were, however, some Canadian innovations in funding research that demonstrated both unconventional and equitable approaches to supporting GHR in Canada and abroad. Among the most promising were found in the International Development Research Centre and the (no longer active) Global Health Research Initiative.Conclusion: Promoting equitable GHR funding policies and practices in Canada requires cooperation and actions by multiple stakeholders, including government, funding agencies, academic institutions and researchers. Greater cooperation and collaboration among these stakeholders in the context of recent political shifts present important opportunities for advancing funding policies that enable and encourage more equitable investments in GHR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In 1982, the Annals of Virology published a paper showing how Liberia has a highly endemic potential of Ebola warning health authorities of the risk for potential outbreaks; this journal is only available by subscription. Limiting the accessibility of such knowledge may have reduced information propagation toward public health actors who were indeed surprised by and unprepared for the 2014 epidemic. Open access (OA) publication can allow for increased access to global health research (GHR). Our study aims to assess the use, cost and impact of OA diffusion in the context of GHR.Method: A total of 3366 research articles indexed under the Medical Heading Subject Heading "Global Health" published between 2010 and 2014 were retrieved using PubMed to (1) quantify the uptake of various types of OA, (2) estimate the article processing charges (APCs) of OA, and (3) analyse the relationship between different types of OA, their scholarly impact and gross national income per capita of citing countries.Results: Most GHR publications are not available directly on the journal's website (69%). Further, 60.8% of researchers do not self-archive their work even when it is free and in keeping with journal policy. The total amount paid for APCs was estimated at US$1.7 million for 627 papers, with authors paying on average US$2732 per publication; 94% of APCs were paid to journals owned by the ten most prominent publication houses from high-income countries. Researchers from low- and middle-income countries are generally citing less expensive types of OA, while researchers in high-income countries are citing the most expensive OA.Conclusions: Although OA may help in building global research capacity in GHR, the majority of publications remain subscription only. It is logical and cost-efficient for institutions and researchers to promote OA by self-archiving publications of restricted access, as it not only allows research to be cited by a broader audience, it also augments citation rates. Although OA does not ensure full knowledge transfer from research to practice, limiting public access can negatively impact implementation and outcomes of health policy and reduce public understanding of health issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines three locations where entomologists engage in the experimental observation of mosquitoes: the insectary, the semifield station, and the outdoors. We approach each of these settings as creating a distinct mode of interiority, a particular room-space. This concept resets the investigative encounter in terms of an aesthetic of attention, and offers a counterpoint to the ideals of control and containment that dominate biosecurity understandings of infectious disease research. An ethnographic foray into the compositional logics of entomological experiments serves to illuminate the dialectics of caring and killing that characterize scientific inquiry into animals that pose a public health risk. [mosquitoes; vector control; entomology; multispecies ethnography; global health research] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The demand to use information and communications technology (ICT) in education and research has grown fast among researchers and educators working in global health. However, access to ICT resources and the capacity to use them in global health research remains limited among developing country faculty members. In order to address the global health needs and to design an ICT-related training course, we herein explored the Chinese health science faculty members' perceptions and learning needs for ICT use.Methods: Nine focus groups discussions (FGDs) were conducted during December 2015 to March 2016, involving 63 faculty members working in areas of health sciences from six universities in China. All FGDs were audio recorded and analysed thematically.Results: The findings suggest that the understandings of ICT were not clear among many researchers; some thought that the concept of ICT was too wide and ambiguous. Most participants were able to cite examples of ICT application in their research and teaching activities. Positive attitudes and high needs of ICT use and training were common among most participants. Recommendations for ICT training included customised training programmes focusing on a specific specialty, maintaining a balance between theories and practical applications, more emphasis on the application of ICT, and skills in finding the required information from the bulk information available in the internet. Suggestions regarding the format and offering of training included short training programmes, flexible timing, lectures with practicum opportunities, and free of charge or with very minimal cost to the participants. Two participants suggested the linking of ICT-related training courses with faculty members' year-end assessment and promotion.Conclusions: This study among health sciences faculty members in China demonstrated a high level of need and interest in learning about ICT use in research and training. The results have important implications for the design and implementation of ICT-related educational programmes in China and other developing countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Swedish Global Health Research Conference held in Stockholm, 18–19 April 2018, convened researchers from across Sweden's universities to foster collaboration and new research. In response to the theme of the conference, How can Sweden contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals? From research to action, many of the plenary and keynote speakers highlighted the importance of interdisciplinary research and teaching. This commentary draws upon a workshop discussing interdisciplinarity, which took place at the conference. Participants included senior professors, lecturers, students and collaborators from the private sector and civil society and we discussed the conceptual and structural challenges that prevent engagement in interdisciplinary research. Although the workshop focused on the Swedish context, issues will be familiar to researchers working outside of Sweden. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals highlight the grand challenges for global society and are intertwined, with progress in one affecting progress in all others. With this starting point, we argue that interdisciplinary research is the way to achieve them. Accordingly, we need to overcome the conceptual and structural challenges that can hinder it. We therefore argue for a paradigm shift of how we value knowledge. We also call for fundamental changes in external and internal (university-level) funding structures, and for the strengthening of interdisciplinary global health teaching. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mentoring experiences and programmes are becoming increasingly recognised as important by those engaged in capacity strengthening in global health research. Using a primarily qualitative study design, we studied three experiences of mentorship and eight mentorship programmes for early career global health researchers based in high-income and low- and middle-income countries. For the latter, we drew upon programme materials, existing unpublished data and more formal mixed-method evaluations, supplemented by individual email questionnaire responses. Research team members wrote stories, and the team assembled and analysed them for key themes. Across the diverse experiences and programmes, key emergent themes included:great mentors inspire othersin an inter-generational cascade, mentorship is transformativein personal and professional development and involvesreciprocity, andfinding the right balancein mentoring relationships and programmes includesresponding creatively to failure.Among the challenges encountered were: struggling for morelevel playing fieldsfor new health researchers globally,changing mindsetsin institutions that do not have a culture of mentorship and buildingcollaboration not competition.Mentoring networks spanning institutions and countries using multiple virtual and face-to-face methods are a potential avenue for fostering organisational cultures supporting quality mentorship in global health research. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Deliberative dialogue (DD) is a knowledge translation strategy that can serve to generate rich data and bridge health research with action. An intriguing alternative to other modes of generating data, the purposeful and evidence-informed conversations characteristic of DD generate data inclusive of collective interpretations. These data are thus dialogic, presenting complex challenges for qualitative analysis. In this article, we discuss the nature of data generated through DD, orienting ourselves toward a theoretically grounded approach to analysis. We offer an integrated framework for analysis, balancing analytical strategies of categorizing and connecting with the use of empathetic and suspicious interpretive lenses. In this framework, data generation and analysis occur in concert, alongside engaging participants and synthesizing evidence. An example of application is provided, demonstrating nuances of the framework. We conclude with reflections on the strengths and limitations of the framework, suggesting how it may be relevant in other qualitative health approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Strengthening health research capacity in low- and middle-income countries remains a major policy goal. The Health Research Capacity Strengthening (HRCS) Global Learning (HGL) program of work documented experiences of HRCS across sub-Saharan Africa. Methods: We reviewed findings from HGL case studies and reflective papers regarding the dynamics of HRCS. Analysis was structured with respect to common challenges in such work, identified through a multi-dimensional scaling analysis of responses from 37 participants at the concluding symposium of the program of work. Results: Symposium participants identified 10 distinct clusters of challenges: engaging researchers, policymakers, and donors; securing trust and cooperation; finding common interest; securing long-term funding; establishing sustainable models of capacity strengthening; ensuring Southern ownership; accommodating local health system priorities and constraints; addressing disincentives for academic engagement; establishing and retaining research teams; and sustaining mentorship and institutional support. Analysis links these challenges to three key and potentially competing drivers of the political economy of health research: an enduring model of independent researchers and research leaders, the globalization of knowledge and the linked mobility of (elite) individuals, and institutionalization of research within universities and research centres and, increasingly, national research and development agendas. Conclusions: We identify tensions between efforts to embrace the global 'Community of Science' and the promotion and protection of national and institutional agendas in an unequal global health research environment. A nuanced understanding of the dynamics and implications of the uneven global health research landscape is required, along with a willingness to explore pragmatic models that seek to balance these competing drivers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives/Hypothesis Determine trends in global health-related publication in otolaryngology. Study Design A review of research databases. Methods A search of publications available on PubMed and nine additional databases was undertaken reviewing two time periods 10 years apart for the timeframes 1998 to 2002 (early time period) and 2008 to 2012 (recent time period) using specific search terms to identify global health-related publications in otolaryngology. Publications were examined for region of origin, subspecialty, type of publication, and evidence of international collaboration. χ and t test analyses were used to identify trends. Results In the 1998 to 2002 time period, a total of 26 publications met inclusion criteria for the study, with a mean of 5.2 ± 2.8 publications per year. In the 2008 to 2012 time period, a total of 61 publications met inclusion criteria, with a mean of 12.3 ± 5.6 publications per year. The 235% increase in global health-related publications identified between the two study periods was statistically significant ( P = .02). The absolute number of publications in which collaboration occurred between countries increased from three in the early time period to nine the recent time period. Conclusions There has been a significant increase in the volume of global health-related publications in English language otolaryngology journals over the past decade, providing strong evidence of the increasing trend of global health as an academic pursuit within the field of otolaryngology. Level of Evidence NA Laryngoscope, 125:848-851, 2015 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Strengthening health research capacity in low- and middle-income countries remains a major policy goal. The Health Research Capacity Strengthening (HRCS) Global Learning (HGL) program of work documented experiences of HRCS across sub-Saharan Africa. Methods: We reviewed findings from HGL case studies and reflective papers regarding the dynamics of HRCS. Analysis was structured with respect to common challenges in such work, identified through a multi-dimensional scaling analysis of responses from 37 participants at the concluding symposium of the program of work. Results: Symposium participants identified 10 distinct clusters of challenges: engaging researchers, policymakers, and donors; securing trust and cooperation; finding common interest; securing long-term funding; establishing sustainable models of capacity strengthening; ensuring Southern ownership; accommodating local health system priorities and constraints; addressing disincentives for academic engagement; establishing and retaining research teams; and sustaining mentorship and institutional support. Analysis links these challenges to three key and potentially competing drivers of the political economy of health research: an enduring model of independent researchers and research leaders, the globalization of knowledge and the linked mobility of (elite) individuals, and institutionalization of research within universities and research centres and, increasingly, national research and development agendas. Conclusions: We identify tensions between efforts to embrace the global 'Community of Science'and the promotion and protection of national and institutional agendas in an unequal global health research environment. A nuanced understanding of the dynamics and implications of the uneven global health research landscape is required, along with a willingness to explore pragmatic models that seek to balance these competing drivers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Strengthening health research capacity in low- and middle-income countries remains a major policy goal. The Health Research Capacity Strengthening (HRCS) Global Learning (HGL) program of work documented experiences of HRCS across sub-Saharan Africa. Methods We reviewed findings from HGL case studies and reflective papers regarding the dynamics of HRCS. Analysis was structured with respect to common challenges in such work, identified through a multi-dimensional scaling analysis of responses from 37 participants at the concluding symposium of the program of work. Results Symposium participants identified 10 distinct clusters of challenges: engaging researchers, policymakers, and donors; securing trust and cooperation; finding common interest; securing long-term funding; establishing sustainable models of capacity strengthening; ensuring Southern ownership; accommodating local health system priorities and constraints; addressing disincentives for academic engagement; establishing and retaining research teams; and sustaining mentorship and institutional support. Analysis links these challenges to three key and potentially competing drivers of the political economy of health research: an enduring model of independent researchers and research leaders, the globalization of knowledge and the linked mobility of (elite) individuals, and institutionalization of research within universities and research centres and, increasingly, national research and development agendas. Conclusions We identify tensions between efforts to embrace the global 'Community of Science' and the promotion and protection of national and institutional agendas in an unequal global health research environment. A nuanced understanding of the dynamics and implications of the uneven global health research landscape is required, along with a willingness to explore pragmatic models that seek to balance these competing drivers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Over the past two decades, the promotion of collaborative partnerships involving researchers from low and middle income countries with those from high income countries has been a major development in global health research. Ideally, these partnerships would lead to more equitable collaboration including the sharing of research responsibilities and rewards. While collaborative partnership initiatives have shown promise and attracted growing interest, there has been little scholarly debate regarding the fair distribution of authorship credit within these partnerships. Discussion In this paper, we identify four key authorship issues relevant to global health research and discuss their ethical and practical implications. First, we argue that authorship guidance may not adequately apply to global health research because it requires authors to write or substantially revise the manuscript. Since most journals of international reputation in global health are written in English, this would systematically and unjustly exclude non-English speaking researchers even if they have substantially contributed to the research project. Second, current guidance on authorship order does not address or mitigate unfair practices which can occur in global health research due to power differences between researchers from high and low-middle income countries. It also provides insufficient recognition of "technical tasks" such as local participant recruitment. Third, we consider the potential for real or perceived editorial bias in medical science journals in favour of prominent western researchers, and the risk of promoting misplaced credit and/or prestige authorship. Finally, we explore how diverse cultural practices and expectations regarding authorship may create conflict between researchers from low-middle and high income countries and contribute to unethical authorship practices. To effectively deal with these issues, we suggest: 1) the need for further empirical and conceptual research regarding authorship in global health research; 2) raising awareness on authorship issues in global health research; and 3) developing specific standards of practice that reflect relevant considerations of authorship in global health research. Summary Through review of the bioethics and global health literatures, and examination of guidance documents on ethical authorship, we identified a set of issues regarding authorship in collaborative partnerships between researchers from low-middle income countries and high income countries. We propose several recommendations to address these concerns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The country of Zambia's Sixth National Development Plan includes many objectives related to participation and health that align with values underlying occupational therapy. Given this link, occupational therapy research has the potential to advance the Sixth National Development Plan and thereby enhance the participation and health of Zambians. However, there is neither a school of occupational therapy nor many occupational therapists working in Zambia. Using an example of a global research partnership between Canadian occupational therapy researchers and Zambian researchers, this paper examines the partnership using four criteria for global health research in order to derive lessons for future occupational therapy research partnerships. Implications for future occupational therapy research partnerships include the need for partners to combine their complementary skills and knowledge so that they may collaborate in mutually beneficial ways to address global health challenges and expand the reach of occupational therapy perspectives. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Identities ascribed to research staff in face-to-face encounters with participants have been raised as key ethical challenge in transnational health research. 'Misattributed' identities that do not just deviate from researchers' self-image, but obscure unequivocal aspects of researcher identity - e.g. that they are researchers - are a case of such ethical problem. Yet, the reasonable expectation of unconcealed identity can conflict with another ethical premise: confidentiality; this poses challenges to staff visiting participants at home. We explore these around a case study of 'follow-up' staff, observed during an ethnographic study of a Kenyan HIV 'trial community', which included participant observation, conversations, and interviews with staff (n = 79) and participants (n = 89). We found that because of the need to maintain confidentiality and because of some suspicions towards researchers, research staff drew upon alternative identities - presenting themselves to non-participants as relatives or friends, rather than as researchers. Several staff experienced this as necessary but uncomfortable. Simultaneously, staff and participants forged close relations in line with their fictional identities, which however also posed challenges because they entailed personal responsibilities that were difficult to live up to, due to limited resources, and the trial's limited duration. Similar challenges may arise in transnational HIV treatment programmes and should be explored further in that context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Faculty from the University of Calgary's bachelor of health sciences (BHSc) Global Health Program argue for the development of global health research competencies to prepare students for international placements in low- and middle-income countries. These competencies include the ability to define and describe (a) how to use the concept of health research systems to investigate and describe health research activities in a given country, (b) the concept of health research capacity building, (c) the importance of building equitable and sustainable research partnerships, and (d) the role of knowledge mobilization and translation in health research. This article begins by outlining a rationale for preparing students for global health research activities and the BHSc Global Health Research Program. It then outlines these competencies and provides practical guidance to assist faculty and mentors preparing students for international placements. Finally, a case study of a student-led investigation of the health research system in Ethiopia is presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Information and communications technology (ICT) has been suggested as an important tool for improving global health education and building research capacity in developing countries. However, the existing curricula do not have adequate emphasis on global health research and training. This study was carried out to examine health sciences postgraduates' attitudes and practices regarding curriculum for ICT use in global health research and training in China. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among health sciences postgraduates from six universities in southern China, during December 2016 to March 2017. A self-administered online questionnaire was used to collect data through an online survey platform. Data were analyzed using SPSS for Windows 13.0. Results: A total of 1065 participants successfully completed the questionnaires. More than 90% of the students have not had any training about ICT, three quarters have not taken an online course, and 31% of the students do not use ICT in their current research. More than 65% thought that, in an ICT research training curriculum, it was important to learn: ICT utilization related knowledge, ICT research methods/resources, knowledge of databases, ways of data use and acquisition, and informatics search methods (ICT users compared to non-users were more likely to agree to these learning components (all p < 0.05)). Many of the respondents used or planned to use mobile phones (80%), Internet (59%), use computer and WeChat (> 40%), and QQ (a popular chat tool in China) (30%) as ICT tools in research activities. ICT users compared to non-users were more likely to consider using ICT and/or biomedical informatics methods in decision-support or support for information seeking, healthcare delivering, academic research, data gathering, and facilitating collaboration (all p < 0.05). Conclusions: The findings of this study showed that ICT utilization was very important to health sciences postgraduates for their research activities in China, but they lacked ICT-related training. The results suggested the need for specialized curriculum related to ICT use in global health research for health sciences postgraduates in China. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite recent developments aimed at creating international guidelines for ethical global health research, critical disconnections remain between how global health research is conducted in the field and the institutional ethics frameworks intended to guide research practice.Discussion: In this paper we attempt to map out the ethical tensions likely to arise in global health fieldwork as researchers negotiate the challenges of balancing ethics committees' rules and bureaucracies with actual fieldwork processes in local contexts. Drawing from our research experiences with an implementation and evaluation project in Jamaica, we argue that ethical research is produced through negotiated spaces and reflexivity practices that are centred on relationships between researchers and study participants and which critically examine issues of positionality and power that emerge at multiple levels. In doing so, we position ethical research practice in global health as a dialectical movement between the spoken and unspoken, or, more generally, between operationalized rules and the embodied relational understanding of persons. Global health research ethics should be premised not upon passive accordance with existing guidelines on ethical conduct, but on tactile modes of knowing that rely upon being engaged with, and responsive to, research participants. Rather than focusing on the operationalization of ethical practice through forms and procedures, it is crucial that researchers recognize that each ethical dilemma encountered during fieldwork is unique and rooted in social contexts, interpersonal relationships, and personal narratives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the past decade, the Institute of Community and Public Health at Birzeit University has focused on youth psychosocial mental health research with special attention given to protective factors and forms of resilience adopted by people coping with extraordinary and violent times. The authors take a critical view of the predominantly biomedical interventions adopted by humanitarian aid agencies and question the utility of therapeutic forms of interventions introduced by Western medicine. In a context of collective exposure to violence, individual healing methods based on one-to-one counselling generally have little effect. An alternative approach is proposed that views Palestinian mental health within the historical and political context of loss and injustice, while acknowledging the lack of human security and social justice as a determining factor. In building an argument for the development of psychosocial mental health interventions that are contextually appropriate to the Palestinian situation and collective in nature, the authors present an example of an intervention designed and developed in joint cooperation between a Palestinian academic institution and a Palestinian partner in the field. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]