Search

Introduction: Unlike high-income countries (HICs), there are few early intervention services for psychosis in low-and middle-income countries (LAMICs). In HICs, research spurred the growth of such services. Little is known about the state of EIP research in LAMICs, which we address by examining their research output and collaborations vis-à-vis that of HICs., Methods: We conducted a search in Scopus database for early psychosis publications in scientific journals since 1980. Data from each record, including title, author affiliation, and date, were downloaded. For HIC-LAMIC collaborations, data on first, corresponding and last authors' affiliations, and funding were manually extracted. Descriptive statistics and social network analysis were conducted., Results: Globally, early psychosis publications increased from 24 in 1980 to 1297 in 2022. Of 16,942 included publications, 16.1 % had LAMIC authors. 71.3 % involved authors from a single country (regardless of income level). 21.9 % were collaborations between HICs, 6.6 % between HICs and LAMICs, and 0.2 % among LAMICs. For research conducted in LAMICs and involving HIC-LAMIC collaborations, the first, last, and corresponding authors were LAMIC-based in 71.8 %, 60.7 %, and 63.0 %, respectively. These positions were dominated (80 %) by authors from four LAMICs. 29.4 % of the HIC-LAMIC subset was funded solely by LAMIC funders, predominantly two LAMICs., Conclusions: LAMICs are starkly underrepresented in the otherwise flourishing body of early psychosis research. They have far fewer collaborations and less funding than HICs. Closing these gaps in LAMICs where most of the world's youth live is imperative to generate the local knowledge needed to strengthen early psychosis services that are known to improve outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Against a backdrop of historic inequities between Northern and Southern scholars, the UK's Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) calls for "meaningful and equitable" research partnerships between UK-based academics and partners in the Global South. This paper draws on qualitative data from three workshops in the Ethiopia, Rwanda and the UK to interrogate GCRF funding criteria from the perspectives of African-based research partners. The GCRF criteria are considered with respect to African partners' experiences of, and aspirations from, such international research partnerships in order to enrich and extend ongoing debates about power relations in development research. The study finds that GCRF criteria do address many of the familiar historic concerns of African partners, while also identifying ways in which this and similar funding schemes may unintentionally reproduce structural inequities within the South. In highlighting these less visible equity concerns, the paper draws lessons for funders, academics and others concerned with establishing genuinely equitable research partnerships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to support research work is becoming increasingly common. This study set out to establish how ICTs are being used to support collaborative research in Kenya, and identify factors within the ICT ecosystem that contribute to their adoption and use. A mixed methods research design, involving 248 academic scientists in 4 disciplines across 4 major Kenyan universities, was employed. We find little diversity in forms of ICTs used to support collaborative research within the studied population. Several factors affect adoption and use practices, including availability and access to ICT resources, nature of the work, national and institutional ICT and research environments and the social cultural practices of researchers. We explain our findings using Venkatesh et al.’s Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology model, which identifies four main constructs that affect adoption of technology such as performance expectancy, effort expectancy, facilitating conditions and social influence. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article repots on the research collaboration that existed between individuals and institutions in the north and south. The research collaboration was described by many as scientific colonialism. It was the northern collaborator who dictated the scientific agenda and its execution, as funding came mainly from northern institutions. Developing country researchers were left at the mercy of their northern partners. The types of collaborations that evolved over time may vary, but the lack of control exerted by southern collaborators has remained remarkably consistent. There was the colonial era collaboration during which collection of data was an integral part of the health service.