Search

There are critical disparities in the neurosurgical care provided around the globe due to challenges in resource allocation, training, and infrastructure. Global neurosurgical collaborations have replaced classical mission trips to address these disparities. However, the development of these collaborations and the impact of research funding on their growth have not yet been systematically studied. In this article, we use a graph theoretical approach to investigate trends in funding and co-authorship between and among authors from high-income countries (HICs) and authors from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). A bibliometric search of the global neurosurgical literature returned 307 articles between 1985 and 2020. A connectivity analysis was conducted to compute the number of co-authorships between HIC-HIC, LMIC-HIC, and LMIC-LMIC authors. The number of connections, summarized as either a global sum of connections or an average number of connections per manuscript, were analyzed in the context of time and funding through parametric statistical tests. An exponential increase in co-authorship collaboration was observed over time, especially after 2015. Notably, LMIC-LMIC collaborations appear to be rising at over twice the rate of other collaboration types. The presence of funding, in general, was associated with increased co-authorship of manuscripts by LMIC and HIC authors together (P = 0.033). A significant majority of the funding associated with LMIC-HIC co-authorships was supplied through charitable organizations and government grants (P = 0.034, P = 0.009, respectively). Most LMIC-LMIC co-authorships had no funding. This work shows significant and rapid growth in international neurosurgical partnerships, especially in HIC-LMIC and LMIC-LMIC collaborations. Also, a significant positive relationship exists between research funding and LMIC-HIC co-authorship trends. This work encourages us as a community to continue to expand our translational collaborations with LMIC neurosurgeons and establish funding mechanisms independent of HIC authors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 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.

BackgroundData science approaches have proved crucial for generating major insights to address public health challenges. While such approaches have played significant roles during the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been limited investment in capacity building in data science skills and infrastructure for health researchers in LMICs.ObjectivesThis review aims to identify current health data science capacity building initiatives and gaps in Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), to support knowledge sharing and collaborations, and inform future initiatives and associated investment.MethodsWe conducted a literature review using PubMed and Scopus, supplemented by a grey literature search on Google to identify relevant initiatives. Articles were screened based on inclusion criteria.FindingsFrom 212 records, 85 met inclusion criteria, with 20 from PubMed and Scopus, and 65 from grey literature. The majority of programmes are tailored to specific disease areas, varying by region. Despite these efforts, there are limited initiatives with a clear, documented strategy on data science capacity building to accelerate global research insights, with the majority adopting a fragmented approach.Conclusion and future directionsDespite the integration of data science approaches into health research initiatives in LMICs, there is a need for a standardised framework on data science capacity building to facilitate multidisciplinary and global collaboration. Structured approaches, inter-disciplinary, inter-regional connections and robust impact measurement will all be vital for advancing health research insights in these settings.

Background: Traditional medicine (TM) plays a significant role in healthcare either as part of the primary healthcare system or as an adjunct to conventional medicine. This study aimed to map systematic reviews (SRs) of TM modalities across health conditions and identify gaps in the research literature to facilitate priority setting in future TM research. Methods: We searched 17 databases from January 2018 to December 2022. Reviewers in pairs independently performed the database search, screened each record for inclusion, extracted data, and performed quality assessments using the AMSTAR 2 - A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews. To be included in this evidence map, the studies had to be SRs of clinical studies that evaluated the effectiveness of a TM modalities. The included SRs were analyzed according to TM modality, ICD-11 disease classification, and health outcomes, and visualized using graphical plots. Results: We retrieved 241,509 records. After excluding duplicate records, 181,616 titles and abstracts were screened and 20,856 records were selected for full-text assessment, of which 18,137 records were further excluded. The final 2719 included SRs were primarily in adults (2591) with only 128 SRs in the pediatric population. The most commonly evaluated health conditions were diseases of the digestive system, circulatory system, and genitourinary system, with herbal medicine (n = 1867) and acupuncture (n = 471) being the most investigated TM modalities in treating these illnesses. Based on AMSTAR 2 criteria, the methodology quality of the included SRs is considerably low. Conclusion: This evidence map provides a comprehensive overview of the extent and nature of the available research onTM modalities across health conditions. It provides an initial step towards characterizing the global evidence base and outlining gaps in the existing evidence. We regard this study as laying the basis for future research of TM modalities. Registration: The protocol of this map is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023416355).

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]

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 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.

Background: The recent outbreaks of novel endemic and pandemic diseases have highlighted the importance of collaborative networks in rapid response to emerging pathogens. Over the last two decades International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI), with the support of United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and other international donors, has invested in research capacity and infrastructure in Africa. A significant portion of this support has facilitated establishing regional centers of excellence for African scientists to develop and lead a collaborative research agenda, implemented within the IAVI-led Accelerate the Development of Vaccines and New Technologies to Combat the AIDS Epidemic (ADVANCE) program. One such regional center is the University of Nairobi’s Kenya AIDS Vaccine Initiative-Institute of Clinical Research (KAVI-ICR). Objective: We designed and implemented a development program to foster inter-institutional South-South technology transfer within Africa, and address a capacity gap in mucosal research. Methods: KAVI-ICR and IAVI developed standardized mucosal sample collection, processing and technical assay methods; these were subsequently applied into several observational studies, and Phase I HIV vaccines, Varicella zoster virus vaccine, and broadly neutralizing antibodies clinical trials at KAVI-ICR. Thereafter, KAVI-ICR facilitated the technology transfer of the methods, by training staff at regional establishments in Africa. Results: Twelve standardized methodologies were developed for the collection, processing and storage of 10 mucosal sample types. Subsequently, eight regional research centers received training for a variety of clinical and laboratory methodologies; the centers later applied the techniques in follow-up collaborative research. Additionally, the training fostered collaboration while allowing the development of local networks of research groups. Conclusion: By such South-South initiatives, supported by international donors, the development of regional capacity and expertise is realizable. The established expertise can be leveraged when needed, and builds the capability for African scientists to engage at an international level, actively participating in driving internationally relevant research.

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]

Abstract 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.

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]

Abstract 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 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.

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]

Abstract 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.

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]

Abstract 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 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 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

Background: The human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) epidemic is a typical global health concern. The impact of HIV/AIDS is global, and we cannot effectively solve the problem without a global effort. In this study, we report our research on global HIV/AIDS control with an innovative four-dimensional approach. Methods: Countries (n = 148) with data available on area size, total population, and the total number of persons living with HIV (PLWH) were included. The HIV epidemic across the globe was described using 4 indicators, including the total count, population-based P rate, geographic area-based G rate, and population and geographic area-based PG rate. Results: A total of 35,426,911 PLWH were included, with a global prevalence rate of 0.51 per 1,000 persons. The total PLWH count provided data on resource allocation in individual countries to improve HIV/AIDS care; and the top five countries with the highest PLWH counts were South Africa (7,000), Nigeria (3,500), India (2,100), Kenya (1,500), and Mozambique (1,500). The other three indicators provide a measure to assess the global risk profile of HIV transmission and to provide information on HIV/AIDS prevention strategies. The top five countries with the highest P rates (per 1,000 persons) were Swaziland (170.9), Botswana (154.7), Lesotho (145.2), South Africa (127.4), and Zimbabwe (89.7); the top five countries with the highest G rates (per 100 km2) were Swaziland (1,279.1), Malawi (1,039.5), Lesotho (1,021.1), Rwanda (810.7), and Uganda (748.1); and the top five countries with highest PG rates (per 1,000,000 persons per 100 km2) were Barbados (2,127.9), Swaziland (993.8), Lesotho (478.3), Malta (375.0), and Mauritius (319.7). With PG rate, we detected countries in two hotspots (south and middle Africa and the Caribbean region) and one belt across the Euro-Asian region with high risks of HIV transmission. Conclusions: This study expanded the conventional measures by adding two new indicators, thus forming a new four-dimensional framework to quantify the global HIV epidemic. In addition to gaining a better insight into the epidemic than before, study findings provide new data on country-level and global efforts to end the AIDS epidemic by 2030.

Copyright of African Journal of Reproductive Health is the property of Women's Health & Action Research Centre and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

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 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 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. Summary 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.

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]

This themed issue on global health research has come at an opportune time in the middle of the ongoing global public health crisis arising from the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic which has claimed nearly 756,000 lives in 210 countries and territories around the world as of August 15, 2020. The public health crisis underscores the importance of global health research partnerships and collaborations to develop and evaluate the requisite health technologies to assist in containing COVID-19, other diseases, and health-related concerns that defy national borders. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted by the member countries of the United Nations in September 2015, provide a framework for global development efforts including global health research. SDG3, which promotes health and well-being for the world populations across the age spectrum, highlights disease areas for special focus which can be adapted in specific global health research programs to serve local health needs. SDG17 promotes partnerships between high income (HIC) and low and middle-income countries (LMIC) for sustainable and equitable global development. However, given the wide disparities in fiscal and overall capacity for research between researchers in HIC and their counterparts in LMIC as well as the greater vulnerabilities of the LMIC communities when serving as research locations, a spotlight on the nature of such global health research partnerships in the context of the SDGs is desirable. This is to ensure that they are meaningful and mutually-beneficial partnerships which address local health concerns and promote long-term value for the communities involved. The objective of this commentary is, therefore, to provide a brief overview of the SDGs by way of context; explore the power differences at play when researchers from HIC are seeking research opportunities in LMIC; examine the social determinants of health and the disproportionate burden of global diseases carried by populations in LMIC to establish their vulnerability; discuss global research partnerships; and attempt to make a case for why community-based participatory research may be the preferred type of global health research partnership in the context of the SDGs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Global health partnerships (GHPs) can be the cornerstone for advancing research and public health. The steps to build a global research partnership focus on sharing a common research agenda, identifying key partners in the community, and establishing goals and expectations for partnerships. Moreover, upholding important values, such as communication, trust, and transparency is essential for building successful partnerships. Ethical dilemmas can propose challenges to researchers in global health. These challenges can be overcome by creating a shared vision for a research agenda, maintaining communication, and providing bidirectional training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As opportunities and interests in international partnerships and research continue to grow in pharmacy, so, too, does the likelihood of encountering ethical challenges. We posit that the chance of encountering an ethical challenge in global health is almost inevitable. This commentary serves as an introduction to a series of four papers highlighting ethical issues in global health research for pharmacists. The authors draw on core ethical principles to guide collaborative global research in working to advance the health of people and populations worldwide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Acquiring funding for global health research within pharmacy can be challenging, particularly for new investigators who may have a strong interest in resolving global dilemmas related to health. Moreover, there can be inherent imbalances and ethical issues when navigating the funding process for global partnerships. There exists a lack of literature providing ethical guidance for mitigating dilemmas that may arise. This commentary discusses current funding streams for investigators interested in global pharmacy research, as well as specific recommendations for the funding process. These recommendations include managing award funds, ethical considerations for funding research partnerships, and balancing power between low to middle income countries and high-income countries. Lastly, case examples of funding partnerships involving pharmacy are highlighted, emphasizing important lessons learned. This commentary addresses the critical need for providing global health researchers with both important considerations and experience-based recommendations for navigating global funding partnerships using an ethical approach. [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]

Abstract 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 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 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 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.

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]