Authorship in studies conducted in low-and-middle income countries and published by Reproductive Health: advancing equitable global health research collaborations.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Pingray V
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6993386 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Authorship in studies conducted in low-and-middle income countries and published by Reproductive Health: advancing equitable global health research collaborations.
Pingray Verónica V Ortega Vanesa V Yaya Sanni S Belizán José M JM
Reproductive health 20200130 1
Similar Datasets
Project description:An increasing amount of infectious diseases research is conducted in low-income countries (LIC) given their high burden of disease; however, the contribution of LIC investigators as measured by authorship metrics, specifically to infectious diseases research, has not been thoroughly studied. We performed a literature search for primary research conducted either within LICs or using samples from LIC participants published between 1998-2017 in the Infectious Disease Society of America-affiliated journals Clinical Infectious Diseases, Journal of Infectious Diseases, and Open Forum Infectious Diseases. Primary outcomes included proportion of LIC-affiliated first and last authors (i.e. lead authors) per year and authorship trends over time. Secondary outcomes included proportion of LIC-affiliated authorship by geographic distribution and disease focus. Among 1308 publications identified, 50% had either a first or last LIC-affiliated author. Among these authors, 48% of LIC-affiliated first authors and 52% of LIC-affiliated last authors also reported a non-LIC institutional affiliation. While the absolute number of articles by LIC-affiliated lead authors increased over the 20-year period, the proportion of articles with LIC-affiliated lead authors decreased. There is a growing literature for infectious disease research conducted in LICs yet authorship trends in a small subset of these publications demonstrate a pronounced and worsening exclusion of LIC-affiliated investigators from publishing as lead authors.
| S-EPMC10021251 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:Substantial development assistance and research funding are invested in health research capacity strengthening (HRCS) interventions in low-income and middle-income countries, yet the effectiveness, impact and value for money of these investments are not well understood. A major constraint to evidence-informed HRCS intervention has been the disparate nature of the research effort to date. This review aims to map and critically analyse the existing HRCS effort to better understand the level, type, cohesion and conceptual sophistication of the current evidence base. The overall goal of this article is to advance the development of a unified, implementation-focused HRCS science. METHODS:We used a scoping review methodology to identify peer-reviewed HRCS literature within the following databases: PubMed, Global Health and Scopus. HRCS publications available in English between the period 2000 and 2016 were included. 1195 articles were retrieved of which 172 met the final inclusion criteria. A priori thematic analysis of all included articles was completed. Content analysis of identified HRCS definitions was conducted. RESULTS:The number of HRCS publications increased exponentially between 2000 and 2016. Most publications during this period were perspective, opinion or commentary pieces; however, original research publications were the primary publication type since 2013. Twenty-five different definitions of research capacity strengthening were identified, of which three aligned with current HRCS guidelines. CONCLUSIONS:The review findings indicate that an HRCS research field with a focus on implementation science is emerging, although the conceptual and empirical bases are not yet sufficiently advanced to effectively inform HRCS programme planning. Consolidating an HRCS implementation science therefore presents as a viable option that may accelerate the development of a useful evidence base to inform HRCS programme planning. Identifying an agreed operational definition of HRCS, standardising HRCS-related terminology, developing a needs-based HRCS-specific research agenda and synthesising currently available evidence may be useful first steps.
| S-EPMC5728300 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA 'Health in All Policies' (HiAP) approach has been widely advocated as a way to involve multiple government sectors in addressing health inequalities, but implementation attempts have not always produced the expected results. Explaining how HiAP-style collaborations have been governed may offer insights into how to improve population health and reduce health inequalities.MethodsTheoretically focused systematic review. Synthesis of evidence from evaluative studies into a causal logic model.ResultsThirty-one publications based on 40 case studies from nine high-income countries were included. Intersectoral collaborations for population health and equity were multi-component and multi-dimensional with collaborative activity spanning policy, strategy, service design and service delivery. Governance of intersectoral collaboration included structural and relational components. Both internal and external legitimacy and credibility delivered collaborative power, which in turn enabled intersectoral collaboration. Internal legitimacy was driven by multiple structural elements and processes. Many of these were instrumental in developing (often-fragile) relational trust. Internal credibility was supported by multi-level collaborations that were adequately resourced and shared power. External legitimacy and credibility was created through meaningful community engagement, leadership that championed collaborations and the identification of 'win-win' strategies. External factors such as economic shocks and short political cycles reduced collaborative power.ConclusionThis novel review, using systems thinking and causal loop representations, offers insights into how collaborations can generate internal and external legitimacy and credibility. This offers promise for future collaborative activity for population health and equity; it presents a clearer picture of what structural and relational components and dynamics collaborative partners can focus on when planning and implementing HiAP initiatives. The limits of the literature base, however, does not make it possible to identify if or how this might deliver improved population health or health equity.
| S-EPMC10105187 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA substantial proportion of the psychiatric burden of disease falls on the world's poorest nations. Despite this, relatively little is known about the quality and content of clinical research undertaken in these countries, or the relevance of the interventions evaluated and specifically that of randomised trials. This project aims to survey the content, quality and accessibility of a sample of trials relevant to mental health conducted within low and middle-income countries; to compare these with studies conducted in high-income countries; and to assess their relevance for the needs of low and middle-income countries.MethodsAn extensive search for all trials, or possible trials, published in 1991, 1995 and 2000 with participants in low and middle-income countries has already been conducted. Studies evaluating prevention or treatment of a mental health problem within these three years will be identified and further searches conducted to assess completeness of the initial search. Data on study quality and characteristics will be extracted from each report. Accessibility will be estimated based on whether each citation is available on MEDLINE. Trials relevant to schizophrenia will be compared with a random sample of schizophrenia trials from high-income countries in the same years. Topics covered by the trials will be compared with the estimated burden of disease.ConclusionTrials and systematic reviews of trials are the gold standard of evaluation of care and increasingly provide the basis for recommendations to clinicians, to providers of care and to policy makers. Results from this study will present the first assessment of the scope, quality and accessibility of mental health trials in low and middle-income countries.
| S-EPMC1609111 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceScientific publication is an important tool for knowledge dissemination and career advancement, but authors affiliated with institutions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are historically underrepresented on publications.ObjectiveTo assess the country income level distribution of author affiliations for publications resulting from National Cancer Institute (NCI)-supported extramural grants between 2015 and 2019, with international collaborating institutions exclusively in 1 or more LMICs.Design and settingThis cross-sectional study assessed authorship on publications resulting from NCI-funded grants between October 1, 2015, and September 30, 2019. Grants with collaborators in LMICs were identified in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Query/View/Report and linked to publications using Dimensions for NIH, published between 2011 and 2020. Statistical analysis was performed from May 2021 to July 2022.Main outcomes and measuresAuthor institutional affiliation was used to classify author country and related income level as defined by the World Bank. Relative citation ratio and Altmetric data from Dimensions for NIH were used to compare citation impact measures using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.ResultsIn this cross-sectional study, 159 grants were awarded to US institutions with collaborators in LMICs, and 5 grants were awarded directly to foreign institutions. These 164 grants resulted in 2428 publications, of which 1242 (51%) did not include any authors affiliated with an institution in an LMIC. In addition, 1884 (78%) and 2009 (83%) publications had a first or last author, respectively, affiliated with a high-income country (HIC). Publications with HIC-affiliated last authors also demonstrated greater citation impact compared with publications with LMIC-affiliated last authors as measured by relative citation ratios and Altmetric Attention Scores; publications with HIC-affiliated first authors also had higher Altmetric Attention Scores.Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional study suggests that LMIC-affiliated authors were underrepresented on publications resulting from NCI-funded grants involving LMICs. It is critical to promote equitable scientific participation by LMIC institutions in cancer research, including through current and planned programs led by the NCI.
| S-EPMC10980966 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Disparities in access to health care are persistent and contribute to poor health outcomes for many populations around the world. Barriers to access are often similar across countries, despite differences in how health systems are structured. Health care leaders can work to address these barriers through bold, evidence-based actions. The Future of Health (FOH), an international community of senior health leaders, collaborated with the Duke-Margolis Institute for Health Policy to identify priority organizational and policy actions needed to improve equitable access to health care through a consensus-building exercise, a targeted literature review, and an expert discussion group. This paper describes four key action areas for health care leaders that FOH members identified as critical to enabling the future of equitable access to health care: ensuring prioritization of and accountability for equitable access to care; establishing comprehensive, organization-wide strategies to address barriers to access; clearly defining and incentivizing improvement on key measures related to reducing disparities in access; and establishing cross-sector partnerships to improve equitable access.
| S-EPMC11332265 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPriority setting is increasingly recognised as essential for directing finite resources to support research that maximizes public health benefits and drives health equity. Priority setting processes have been undertaken in a number of low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings, using a variety of methods. We undertook a critical review of reports of these processes.Methods and findingsWe searched electronic databases and online for peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed literature. We found 91 initiatives that met inclusion criteria. The majority took place at the global level (46%). For regional or national initiatives, most focused on Sub Saharan Africa (49%), followed by East Asia and Pacific (20%) and Latin America and the Caribbean (18%). A quarter of initiatives aimed to cover all areas of health research, with a further 20% covering communicable diseases. The most frequently used process was a conference or workshop to determine priorities (24%), followed by the Child Health and Nutrition Initiative (CHNRI) method (18%). The majority were initiated by an international organization or collaboration (46%). Researchers and government were the most frequently represented stakeholders. There was limited evidence of any implementation or follow-up strategies. Challenges in priority setting included engagement with stakeholders, data availability, and capacity constraints.ConclusionsHealth research priority setting (HRPS) has been undertaken in a variety of LMIC settings. While not consistently used, the application of established methods provides a means of identifying health research priorities in a repeatable and transparent manner. In the absence of published information on implementation or evaluation, it is not possible to assess what the impact and effectiveness of health research priority setting may have been.
| S-EPMC4183511 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) bear the brunt of communicable and non-communicable diseases and experience higher mortality and poor health outcomes compared to resource-rich countries. Chronic resource deficits in LMICs impede their ability to successfully address vexing health issues. Implementation science provides researchers with an approach to develop specific interventions that can generate and/or maximize resources to facilitate the implementation of other public health interventions, in resource-constrained LMIC settings. Resources generated from these interventions could be in the form of increased health workers' skills, task shifting to free up higher-skilled health workers, increasing laboratory capacity, and using supply chain innovations to make medications available. Pivotal to the success of such interventions is ensuring feasibility in the LMIC context. We selected and appraised three case studies of evidence-based resource-generating health interventions based in LMICs (Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Madagascar), which generated or maximized resources to facilitate ongoing health services. We used a determinant implementation framework-Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify and map contextual factors that are reported to influence implementation feasibility in an LMIC setting. Contextual factors influencing the feasibility of these interventions included leadership engagement, local capacity building and readiness for research and implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs), infrastructural support for multilevel scale-up, and cultural and contextual adaptations. These factors highlight the importance of utilizing implementation science frameworks to evaluate, guide, and execute feasible public health interventions and projects in resource-limited settings. Within LMICs, we recommend EBPs incorporate feasible resource-generating components in health interventions to ensure improved and sustained optimal health outcomes.
| S-EPMC7970459 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Climate change is expected to undermine population health and well-being in low- and middle-income countries, but relatively few analyses have directly examined these effects using individual-level data at global scales, particularly for reproductive-age women. To address this lacuna, we harmonize nationally representative data from the Demographic and Health Surveys on reproductive health, body mass index (BMI), and temporary migration from 2.5 million adult women (ages 15 to 49) in approximately 109,000 sites across 59 low- and middle-income countries, which we link to high-resolution climate data. We use this linked dataset to estimate fixed-effect logistic regression models of demographic and health outcomes as a function of climate exposures, woman-level and site-level characteristics, seasonality, and regional time trends, allowing us to plausibly isolate climate effects from other influences on health and migration. Specifically, we measure the effects of recent exposures to temperature and precipitation anomalies on the likelihood of having a live birth in the past year, desire for another child, use of modern contraception, underweight (BMI < 18.5), and temporary migration, and subsequently allow for nonlinearity as well as heterogeneity across education, rural/urban residence, and baseline climate. This analysis reveals that exposures to high temperatures increase live births, reduce desire for another child, increase underweight, and increase temporary migration, particularly in rural areas. The findings represent clear evidence that anthropogenic temperature increases contribute to temporary migration and are a significant threat to women's health and reproductive autonomy in low- and middle-income countries.
| S-EPMC10945799 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThis study aimed to provide an overview of the research landscape and to identify research gaps linking climate change events and sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), where the negative impacts of climate change are most severe.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review to map research studies that link climate change events or factors and SRHR aspects in LMICs. We performed a structured literature search across six databases to identify relevant peer-reviewed publications between January 1994 and 6 September 2023. The literature search yielded 14 674 peer-reviewed articles. After screening, 75 articles were included, spanning 99 countries across the globe.ResultsClimate change events such as extreme temperatures, drought, rainfall shocks, cyclones and floods were found to be associated with negative maternal and newborn health outcomes ranging from reduced or low birth weight, preterm births and low Apgar scores, to lack of pregnancy care, pregnancy complications, stillbirths, and newborn and maternal deaths. Associations were also found between climate-related events and increased gender-based violence and HIV prevalence, as well as fertility decisions and harmful practices such as female genital mutilations and early and forced marriages. About two-thirds (48/75) of the articles were from the African or Western Pacific regions. The main research gaps on climate change-related events and SRHR included abortion, reproductive cancers and contraception use.ConclusionComplementing existing evidence with targeted research to fill these knowledge gaps could enhance mitigation programmes and policies.
| S-EPMC11816306 | biostudies-literature