Dataset Information

Decolonising global health: transnational research partnerships under the spotlight.

ABSTRACT: There are increasing calls to decolonise aspects of science, and global health is no exception. The decolonising global health movement acknowledges that global health research perpetuates existing power imbalances and aims to identify concrete ways in which global health teaching and research can overcome its colonial past and present. Using the context of clinical trials implemented through transnational research partnerships (TRPs) as a case study, this narrative review brings together perspectives from clinical research and social science to lay out specific ways in which TRPs build on and perpetuate colonial power relations. We will explore three core components of TRPs: participant experience, expertise and infrastructure, and authorship. By combining a critical perspective with recently published literature we will recommend specific ways in which TRPs can be decolonised. We conclude by discussing decolonising global health as a potential practice and object of research. By doing this we intend to frame the decolonising global health movement as one that is accessible to everyone and within which we can all play an active role.

SUBMITTER: Lawrence DS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7651076 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Decolonising global health: transnational research partnerships under the spotlight.

Lawrence David S DS Hirsch Lioba A LA

International health 20201101 6

There are increasing calls to decolonise aspects of science, and global health is no exception. The decolonising global health movement acknowledges that global health research perpetuates existing power imbalances and aims to identify concrete ways in which global health teaching and research can overcome its colonial past and present. Using the context of clinical trials implemented through transnational research partnerships (TRPs) as a case study, this narrative review brings together perspe ...[more]

PMID: 33165557

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.

Project description:BackgroundHealth care databases contain a wealth of information that can be used to develop programs and mature health care systems. There is concern that the sensitive nature of health data (eg, ethnicity, reproductive health, sexually transmitted infections, and lifestyle information) can have significant impact on individuals if misused, particularly among vulnerable and marginalized populations. As academic institutions, nongovernmental organizations, and international agencies begin to collaborate with low- and middle-income countries to develop and deploy health information technology (HIT), it is important to understand the technical and practical security implications of these initiatives.ObjectiveOur aim is to develop a conceptual framework for risk stratification of global health data partnerships and HIT projects. In addition to identifying key conceptual domains, we map each domain to a variety of publicly available indices that could be used to inform a quantitative model.MethodsWe conducted an overview of the literature to identify relevant publications, position statements, white papers, and reports. The research team reviewed all sources and used the framework method and conceptual framework analysis to name and categorize key concepts, integrate them into domains, and synthesize them into an overarching conceptual framework. Once key domains were identified, public international data sources were searched for relevant structured indices to generate quantitative counterparts.ResultsWe identified 5 key domains to inform our conceptual framework: State of HIT, Economics of Health Care, Demographics and Equity, Societal Freedom and Safety, and Partnership and Trust. Each of these domains was mapped to a number of structured indices.ConclusionsThere is a complex relationship among the legal, economic, and social domains of health care, which affects the state of HIT in low- and middle-income countries and associated data security risks. The strength of partnership and trust among collaborating organizations is an important moderating factor. Additional work is needed to formalize the assessment of partnership and trust and to develop a quantitative model of the conceptual framework that can help support organizational decision-making.

Project description:BackgroundGlobal health partnerships (GHPs) are situated in complex political and economic relationships and involve partners with different needs and interests (e.g., government agencies, non-governmental organizations, corporations, universities, professional associations, philanthropic organizations and communities). As part of a mixed methods study designed to develop an equity-sensitive tool to support more equity-centred North-South GHPs, this critical interpretive synthesis examined reported assessments of GHPs.ResultsWe examined 30 peer-reviewed articles for power dynamics, equity and inequities, and contradictions or challenges encountered in North-South partnerships. Among articles reviewed, authors most often situated GHPs around a topical focus on research, capacity-building, clinical, or health services issues, with the 'work' of the partnership aiming to foster skills or respond to community needs. The specific features of GHPs that were assessed varied widely, with consistently-reported elements including the early phases of partnering; governance issues; the day-to-day work of partnerships; the performance, impacts and benefits of GHPs; and issues of inclusion. Articles shared a general interest in partnering processes and often touched briefly on issues of equity; but they rarely accounted for the complexity of sociopolitical and historical contexts shaping issues of equity in GHPs. Further, assessments of GHPs were often reported without inclusion of voices from all partners or named beneficiaries. GHPs were frequently portrayed as inherently beneficial for Southern partners, without attention to power dynamics and inequities (North-South, South-South). Though historical and political dynamics of the Global North and South were inconsistently examined as influential forces in GHPs, such dynamics were frequently portrayed as complex and characterized by asymmetries in power and resources. Generally, assessments of GHPs paid little attention to the macroeconomic forces in the power and resource dynamics of GHPs highlights the importance of considering the broader political. Our findings suggest that GHPs can serve to entrench both inequitable relationships and unfair distributions of power, resources, and wealth within and between countries (and partners) if inequitable power relationships are left unmitigated.ConclusionsWe argue that specific practices could enhance GHPs' contributions to equity, both in their processes and outcomes. Enhancing partnering practices to focus on inclusion, responsiveness to North-South and South-South inequities, and recognition of GHPs as situated in a broader (and inequitable) political economy. A relational and equity-centred approach to assessing GHPs would place social justice, humility and mutual benefits as central practices-that is, regular, routine things that partners involved in partnering do intentionally to make GHPs function well. Practicing equity in GHPs requires continuous efforts to explicitly acknowledge and examine the equity implications of all aspects of partnering.

Project description:The emergence of global health partnerships (GHPs) towards the end of the twentieth century reflected concerns about slow progress in access to essential medicines, including vaccines. These partnerships bring together governments, private philanthropic foundations, NGOs, and international agencies. Those in the vaccine field seek to incentivise the development and manufacture of new vaccines, raise funds to pay for them and develop and support systems to deliver them to those in need. These activities became more critical during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the COVAX Facility Initiative promoting global vaccine equity. This review identifies lessons from previous experiences with GHPs. Findings contribute to understanding the emergence of GHPs, the mechanisms they leverage to support global access to vaccines, and the inherent challenges associated with their implementation. Using Arksey and O'Malley's method, we conducted a scoping review to identify and synthesise relevant articles. We analysed data thematically to identify barriers and opportunities for success. We included 68 eligible articles of 3,215 screened. Most (65 [95%]) were discussion or review articles describing partnerships or programmes they supported, and three (5%) were commentaries. Emerging themes included policy responses (e.g., immunisation mandates), different forms of partnerships arising in vaccine innovation (e.g., product development partnerships, public-private partnerships for access), and influence on global governance decision-making processes (e.g., the rising influence of foundations, diminishing authority of WHO, lack of accountability and transparency, creation of disease silos). If global health partnerships are to maximise their contributions, they should: (1) increase transparency, especially regarding their impacts; (2) address the need for health systems strengthening; and (3) address disincentives for cooperative vaccine research and development partnerships and encourage expansion of manufacturing capacity in low and middle-income countries.

Dataset Information

Decolonising global health: transnational research partnerships under the spotlight.

Publications

Decolonising global health: transnational research partnerships under the spotlight.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets