Project description:BackgroundThe SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic has catalysed a widespread humanitarian crisis in many low- and middle-income countries around the world, with many African nations significantly impacted. The aim of this study was to quantify the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the planning and provision of international reconstructive collaborations in Africa.MethodsAn anonymous, 14-question, multiple choice questionnaire was sent to 27 non-governmental organisations who regularly perform reconstructive surgery in Africa. The survey was open to responses for four weeks, closing on the 7th of March 2021. A single reminder was sent out at 2 weeks. The survey covered four key domains: (1) NGO demographics; (2) the impact of COVID-19 on patient follow-up; (3) barriers to the safe provision of international surgical collaborations during COVID-19; (4) the impact of COVID-19 on NGO funding.ResultsA total of ten reconstructive NGOs completed the survey (response rate, 37%). Ethiopia (n = 5) and Tanzania (n = 4) were the countries where most collaborations took place. Plastic, reconstructive and burns surgery was the most common sub-speciality (n = 7). For NGOs that did not have a year-round presence in country (n = 8), only one NGO was able to perform reconstructive surgery in Africa during the pandemic. The most common barrier identified was travel restrictions (within country, n = 8 or country entry-exit, n = 7). Pre-pandemic, 1547 to ≥ 1800 patients received reconstructive surgery on international surgical collaborations. After the outbreak, 70% of NGOs surveyed had treated no patients, with approximately 1405 to ≥ 1640 patients left untreated over the last year.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic has placed huge pressures on health services and their delivery across the globe. This theme has extended into international surgical collaborations leading to increased unmet surgical needs in low- and middle-income countries.Level of evidence: Not gradable.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00238-021-01892-4.

Project description:Introduction and methodAfrica is currently host to a number of international genomics research and biobanking consortia, each with a mandate to advance genomics research and biobanking in Africa. Whilst most of these consortia promise to transform the way international health research is done in Africa, few have articulated exactly how they propose to go about this. In this paper, we report on a qualitative interviewing study in which we involved 17 genomics researchers in Africa. We describe their perceptions and expectations of international genomics research and biobanking initiatives in Africa.ResultsAll interviewees were of the view that externally funded genomics research and biobanking initiatives in Africa, have played a critical role in building capacity for genomics research and biobanking in Africa and in providing an opportunity for researchers in Africa to collaborate and network with other researchers. Whilst the opportunity to collaborate was seen as a benefit, some interviewees stressed the importance of recognizing that these collaborations carry mutual benefits for all partners, including their collaborators in HICs. They also voiced two major concerns of being part of these collaborative initiatives: the possibility of exploitation of African researchers and the non-sustainability of research capacity building efforts. As a way of minimising exploitation, researchers in Africa recommended that genuine efforts be made to create transparent and equitable international health research partnerships. They suggested that this could be achieved through,: having rules of engagement, enabling African researchers to contribute to the design and conduct of international health projects in Africa, and mutual and respectful exchange of experience and capacity between research collaborators. These were identified as hallmarks to equitable international health research collaborations in Africa.ConclusionGenomics research and biobanking initiatives in Africa such as H3Africa have gone some way in defining aspects of fair and equitable research collaborations in Africa. However, they will need to strive at achieving equitable health research collaborations if they truly aim at setting a gold standard for how international health research should be conducted in Africa.

Project description:Scientometrics enables scholars to assess and visualize emerging research trends and hot-spots in the scientific literature from a quantitative standpoint. In the last decades, Africa has nearly doubled its absolute count of scholarly output, even though its share in global knowledge production has dramatically decreased. The still-ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly impacted the way scholarly research is conducted, published, and disseminated. However, the COVID-19-related research focus, the scientific productivity, and the research collaborative network of African researchers during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic remain to be elucidated. This study aimed to clarify the COVID-19 research patterns among African researchers and estimate the strength of collaborations and partnerships between African researchers and scholars from the rest of the world during the COVID-19 pandemic, collecting data from electronic scholarly databases such as Web of Science (WoS), PubMed/MEDLINE and African Journals OnLine (AJOL), the largest and prominent platform of African-published scholarly journals. We found that COVID-19-related collaboration patterns varied among African regions. For instance, most of the scholarly partnerships occurred with formerly colonial countries (such as European or North-American countries). In other cases, scholarly ties of North African countries were above all with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In terms of number of publications, South Africa and Egypt were among the most productive countries. Bibliometrics and, in particular, scientometrics can help scholars identify research areas of particular interest, as well as emerging topics, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. With a specific focus on the still-ongoing viral outbreak, they can assist decision- and policy-makers in allocating funding and economic-financial, logistic, organizational, and human resources, based on the specific gaps and needs of a given country or research area.

Project description:BackgroundDigital innovations in medicine are disruptive technologies that can change the way diagnostic procedures and treatments are delivered. Such innovations are typically designed in teams with different disciplinary backgrounds. This paper concentrates on 2 interdisciplinary research teams with 20 members from the medicine and engineering sciences working jointly on digital health solutions.ObjectiveThe aim of this paper was to identify factors on the individual, team, and organizational levels that influence the implementation of interdisciplinary research projects elaborating on digital applications for medicine and, based on the results, to draw conclusions for the proactive design of the interdisciplinary research process to make these projects successful.MethodsTo achieve this aim, 2 interdisciplinary research teams were observed, and a small case study (response rate: 15/20, 75%) was conducted using a web-based questionnaire containing both closed and open self-report questions. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient was calculated to analyze the quantitative data. The answers to the open-ended questions were subjected to qualitative content analysis.ResultsWith regard to the interdisciplinary research projects investigated, the influencing factors of the three levels presented (individual, team, and organization) have proven to be relevant for interdisciplinary research cooperation.ConclusionsWith regard to recommendations for the future design of interdisciplinary cooperation, management aspects are addressed, that is, the installation of a coordinator, systematic definition of goals, required resources, and necessary efforts on the part of the involved interdisciplinary research partners. As only small groups were investigated, further research in this field is necessary to derive more general recommendations for interdisciplinary research teams.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00023909, https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00023909 ; German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00025077, https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00025077.

Project description:To evaluate and determine the value of monitoring models developed by the Mahidol Oxford Tropical Research Unit and the East African Consortium for Clinical Research, consider how this can be measured and explore monitors' and investigators' experiences of and views about the nature, purpose and practice of monitoring.A case study approach was used within the context of participatory action research because one of the aims was to guide and improve practice. 34 interviews, five focus groups and observations of monitoring practice were conducted.Fieldwork occurred in the places where the monitoring models are coordinated and applied in Thailand, Cambodia, Uganda and Kenya. Participants included those coordinating the monitoring schemes, monitors, senior investigators and research staff.Transcribed textual data from field notes, interviews and focus groups was imported into a qualitative data software program (NVIVO V. 10) and analysed inductively and thematically by a qualitative researcher. The initial coding framework was reviewed internally and two main categories emerged from the subsequent interrogation of the data.The categories that were identified related to the conceptual framing and nature of monitoring, and the practice of monitoring, including relational factors. Particular emphasis was given to the value of a scientific and cooperative style of monitoring as a means of enhancing data quality, trust and transparency. In terms of practice the primary purpose of monitoring was defined as improving the conduct of health research and increasing the capacity of researchers and trial sites.The models studied utilise internal and network wide expertise to improve the ethics and quality of clinical research. They demonstrate how monitoring can be a scientific and constructive exercise rather than a threatening process. The value of cooperative relations needs to be given more emphasis in monitoring activities, which seek to ensure that research protects human rights and produces reliable data.

Dataset Information

Maintaining international research collaborations in the setting of a pandemic: Approach in Indonesia.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure