Dataset Information

Global health research partnerships in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Addo-Atuah J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7449894 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Global health research partnerships in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Addo-Atuah Joyce J Senhaji-Tomza Batoul B Ray Dipan D Basu Paramita P Loh Feng-Hua Ellen FE Owusu-Daaku Frances F

Research in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAP 20200827 11

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 ...[more]

PMID: 32893133

Similar Datasets

Project description:This study's objective is to examine how ASEAN countries reported their environment-related policies for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in their Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs), and a dataset of their environmental policies was developed. This is a necessary first step in analyzing the reasons for insufficient progress on the environmental dimension of the SDGs, since policies are key means of implementation. Previous studies of SDG progress and VNRs examined many aspects such as achievement levels, indicators, data, governance, and VNR preparation procedures, but surprisingly, there has been little discussion of countries' actual policy efforts. Progress on the SDGs' environmental dimensions is widely considered insufficient, including in Asia. This study showed that insufficient progress on the environmental dimension of the SDGs is not due to a lack of environmental policies or a lower prioritization of policies for environmental SDG targets. ASEAN countries included almost 600 concrete environment-related policies in their VNRs, widely distributed among most SDGs, accounting for about 40 percent of their total reported SDG-related policies. The number of environmental policies was not closely related to GDP, GDP per capita, or VNR date. Many policies appeared substantial, including national action plans, strategies, laws, and regulations, not just small projects or programs. However, some major existing environmental policies, for example on air pollution, were usually not included in the VNRs. Further research is needed to explore other possible factors such as insufficient policy implementation or effectiveness, which this study could not examine. This study's environmental policy dataset provides the necessary baseline for future research on policy implementation and effectiveness, especially to help future studies identify ASEAN countries' environmental policies in specific areas such as climate, energy, or water. This will also facilitate comparative analysis.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10668-022-02514-0.

Project description:BackgroundMeasuring the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) has been the key to verifying the evolution of health indicators worldwide. We analyse subnational GBD data for Brazil in order to monitor the performance of the Brazilian states in the last 28 years on their progress towards meeting the health-related SDGs.MethodsAs part of the GBD study, we assessed the 41 health-related indicators from the SDGs in Brazil at the subnational level for all the 26 Brazilian states and the Federal District from 1990 to 2017. The GBD group has rescaled all worldwide indicators from 0 to 100, assuming that for each one of them, the worst value among all countries and overtime is 0, and the best is 100. They also estimate the overall health-related SDG index as a function of all previously estimated health indicators and the SDI index (Socio-Demographic Index) as a function of per capita income, average schooling in the population aged 15 years or over, and total fertility rate under the age of 25 (TFU25).ResultsFrom 1990 to 2017, most subnational health-related SDGs, the SDG and SDI indexes improved considerable in most Brazilian states. The observed differences in SDG indicators within Brazilian states, including HIV incidence and health worker density, increased over time. In 2017, health-related indicators that achieved good results globally included the prevalence of child wasting, NTD, household air pollution, conflict mortality, skilled birth attendance, use of modern contraceptive methods, vaccine coverage, and health worker density, but poor results were observed for child overweight and homicide rates. The high rates of overweight, alcohol consumption, and smoking prevalence found in the historically richest regions (i.e., the South and Southeast), contrast with the high rates of tuberculosis, maternal, neonatal, and under-5 mortality and WASH-related mortality found in the poorer regions (i.e., the North and Northeast).ConclusionsThe majority of Brazil's health-related SDG indicators have substantially improved over the past 28 years. However, inequalities in health among the Brazilian states and regions remain noticeable negatively affecting the Brazilian population, which can contribute to Brazil not achieving the SDG 2030 targets.

Project description:BackgroundHealth insurance is among the healthcare financing reforms proposed to increase the available healthcare resources and to decrease the risk of household financial crisis. Recently, Ethiopia has been implementing community-based health insurance which mainly targets the very large rural agricultural sector and small and informal sector in urban settings. Therefore, this study was aimed to assess the coverage of health insurance and its determinants in Ethiopia.MethodsData were extracted from the 2019 mini Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey (EDHS) to assess determinants of health insurance coverage in Ethiopia. The analysis included a weighted sample of 8663 respondents. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted and the results were presented as adjusted odds ratio (AOR) at 95% confidence interval (CI), statistical significance was declared at a p-value < 0.05 in all analyses.ResultsThe health insurance coverage in Ethiopia was 28.1% (95%CI: 27.2%, 29%). Administration regions (Tigray: AOR = 16.9, 95%CI: 5.53, 51.59, Amhara: AOR = 25.8, 95%CI: 8.52, 78.02, Oromia, AOR = 4.27, 95%CI: 1.41, 12.92, Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples region, AOR = 4.06, 95%CI: 1.34, 12.32, Addis Ababa, AOR = 4.65, 95%CI: 1.46, 14.78), place of residence (rural, AOR = 1.38, 95%CI: 1.17, 1.63), sex of household head (male; AOR = 1.23, 95%CI: 1.07, 1.41), wealth index (middle, AOR = 1.75, 95%CI: 1.46, 2.09, richer, AOR = 1.86, 95%CI: 1.55, 2.24), family size (≥ 5 members, AOR = 1.17, 95%CI: 1.03, 1.33), having under-five children (AOR = 1.22, 95%CI: 1.076, 1.38), and age of household head (31-40 years, AOR = 1.71, 95%CI: 1.45, 2.01, 41-64 years, AOR = 2.49, 95%CI: 2.12, 2.92, 65 + years, AOR = 2.43, 95%CI: 2.01, 2.93) were factors associated with health insurance coverage.ConclusionsLess than one-third of Ethiopians were covered by health insurance. Socio-economic factors and demographic factors were found to associate with health insurance coverage in Ethiopia. Therefore, enhancing health insurance coverage through contextualized implementation strategies would be emphasized.

Project description:BackgroundThere is an established body of evidence linking systems of social protection to health systems and health outcomes. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide further emphasis on this linkage as necessary to achieving health and non-health goals. Existing literature on social protection and health has focused primarily on cash transfers. We sought to identify potential research priorities concerning social protection and health in low and middle-income countries, from multiple perspectives.MethodsPriority research questions were identified through two sources: 1) research reviews on social protection interventions and health, 2) interviews with 54 policy makers from Ministries of Health, multi-lateral or bilateral organizations, and NGOs. Data was collated and summarized using a framework analysis approach. The final refining and ranking of the questions was completed by researchers from around the globe through an online platform.ResultsThe overview of reviews identified 5 main categories of social protection interventions: cash transfers; financial incentives and other demand side financing interventions; food aid and nutritional interventions; parental leave; and livelihood/social welfare interventions. Policy-makers focused on the implementation and practice of social protection and health, how social protection programs could be integrated with other sectors, and how they should be monitored/evaluated. A collated list resulted in 31 priority research questions. Scale and sustainability of social protection programs ranked highest. The top 10 research questions focused heavily on design, implementation, and context, with a range of interventions that included cash transfers, social insurance, and labor market interventions.ConclusionsThere is potentially a rich field of enquiry into the linkages between health systems and social protection programs, but research within this field has focused on a few relatively narrowly defined areas. The SDGs provide an impetus to the expansion of research of this nature, with priority setting exercises such as this helping to align funder investment with researcher effort and policy-maker evidence needs.

Project description:ObjectivesAchieving the Sustainable Development Goals will require data-driven public health action. There are limited publications on national health information systems that continuously generate health data. Given the need to develop these systems, we summarised their current status in low-income and middle-income countries.SettingThe survey team jointly developed a questionnaire covering policy, planning, legislation and organisation of case reporting, patient monitoring and civil registration and vital statistics (CRVS) systems. From January until May 2017, we administered the questionnaire to key informants in 51 Centers for Disease Control country offices. Countries were aggregated for descriptive analyses in Microsoft Excel.ResultsKey informants in 15 countries responded to the questionnaire. Several key informants did not answer all questions, leading to different denominators across questions. The Ministry of Health coordinated case reporting, patient monitoring and CRVS systems in 93% (14/15), 93% (13/14) and 53% (8/15) of responding countries, respectively. Domestic financing supported case reporting, patient monitoring and CRVS systems in 86% (12/14), 75% (9/12) and 92% (11/12) of responding countries, respectively. The most common uses for system-generated data were to guide programme response in 100% (15/15) of countries for case reporting, to calculate service coverage in 92% (12/13) of countries for patient monitoring and to estimate the national burden of disease in 83% (10/12) of countries for CRVS. Systems with an electronic component were being used for case reporting, patient monitoring, birth registration and death registration in 87% (13/15), 92% (11/12), 77% (10/13) and 64% (7/11) of responding countries, respectively.ConclusionsMost responding countries have a solid foundation for policy, planning, legislation and organisation of health information systems. Further evaluation is needed to assess the quality of data generated from systems. Periodic evaluations may be useful in monitoring progress in strengthening and harmonising these systems over time.

Dataset Information

Global health research partnerships in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Publications

Global health research partnerships in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets