Laura Dean

Promoting sustainable research partnerships: a mixed-method evaluation of a United Kingdom–Africa capacity strengthening award scheme

BackgroundResearch partnerships between high-income countries (HICs) and low- or middle-income countries (LMICs) are a leading model in research capacity strengthening activities. Although numerous frameworks and guiding principles for effective research partnerships exist, few include the perspective of the LMIC partner. This paper draws out lessons for establishing and maintaining successful research collaborations, based on partnership dynamics, from the perspectives of both HIC and LMIC stakeholders through the evaluation of a research capacity strengthening partnership award scheme.MethodsA mixed-method retrospective evaluation approach was used. Initially, a cross-sectional survey was administered to all award holders, which focused on partnership outputs and continuation. Fifty individuals were purposively selected to participate in interviews or focus group discussions from 12 different institutions in HICs and LMICs; the sample included the research investigators, research assistants, laboratory scientists and post-doctoral students. The evaluation collected data on critical elements of research partnership dynamics such as research outputs, nature of the partnership, future plans and research capacity. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively and qualitative data were analysed using an iterative framework approach.ResultsThe majority of United Kingdom and African award holders stated they would like to pursue future collaborations together. Key aspects within partnerships that appeared to influence this were; the perceived benefits of the partnership at the individual and institutional level such as publication of papers or collaborative grants; ability to influence ‘research culture’ and instigate critical thinking among mid-career researchers; previous working relationships, for example supervisor-student relationships; and equity within partnerships linked to partnership formation and experience of United Kingdom partners within LMICs. Factors which may hinder development of long term partnerships were also identified such as financial control or differing expectations of partners.ConclusionsThis paper provides evidence of what encourages international research partnerships for capacity strengthening to continue past award tenure, from the perspective of researchers in high and LMICs. Although every partnership is unique and individual experiences subjective, this paper provides extension and support of key principles and mechanisms that can contribute to successful research partnerships between researchers.

Advancing the science of health research capacity strengthening in low-income and middle-income countries: a scoping review of the published literature, 2000–2016

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.

‘You’re disabled, why did you have sex in the first place?’ An intersectional analysis of experiences of disabled women with regard to their sexual and reproductive health and rights in Gujarat State, India

ABSTRACT Background: Globally, disabled people have significant unmet needs in relation to sexual and reproductive health (SRH). Disabled women in India face multiple discrimination: social exclusion, lack of autonomy with regard to their SRH, vulnerability to violence, and lack of access to SRH care. While they may face shared challenges, an intersectional perspective suggests that considering disabled women as a uniform and ‘vulnerable’ group is likely to mask multiple differences in their lived experiences. Objective: To explore commonality and heterogeneity in the experiences of disabled women in relation to their SRH needs and rights in Gujarat State, India. Methods: We conducted 22 in-depth qualitative interviews with women between the ages of 18 and 49 with any form of self-identified disability. Intersectionality was used as a lens for analysis and in sampling. Results: Findings explore the experiences of disabled women in a number of different spheres related to decision making and SRH service use. Conclusions: Recognising heterogeneity is critical to inform rights-based approaches to promote SRH and rights for all disabled women. This suggests a need to encourage strategic alliances between social movements for gender equity and SRH and disability rights, in which common interests and agendas can be pursued whilst recognising and respecting differences.

20 years of gender mainstreaming in health: lessons and reflections for the neglected tropical diseases community

Neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) affect the poorest of the poor. NTD programmes can and should rise to the challenge of playing a part in promoting more gender equitable societies. Gender equity shapes poverty and the experience of disease in multiple ways; yet to date, there has been little attention paid to gender equity in NTD control efforts. Drawing on a synthesis of relevant literature, the tacit knowledge and experience of the authors, and discussions at a meeting on women, girls and NTDs, this analysis paper distills five key lessons from over 20 years of gender mainstreaming in health. The paper links this learning to NTDs and Mass Drug Administration (MDA). Our first lesson is that tailored gender frameworks support gender analysis within research and programming. We present a gender review framework focusing on different MDA strategies. Second, gender interplays with other axes of inequality, such as disability and geographical location; hence, intersectionality is important for inclusive and responsive NTD programmes. Third, gender, power and positionality shape who is chosen as community drug distributors (CDDs). How CDDs interact with communities and how this interface role is valued and practised needs to be better understood. Fourth, we need to unpack the gender and power dynamics at household level to assess how this impacts MDA coverage and interactions with CDDs. Finally, we need to collect and use sex disaggregated data to support the development of more equitable and sustainable NTD programmes.

Catalyzing NTD gender and equity research: A call for papers

1 Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America, 2 Bruyère Research Institute and School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottowa, Canada, 3 Department of International Public Health, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom, 4 Department of Control of Neglected Tropical Diseases, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 5 Uniting to Combat NTDs Support Centre, Brighton and Hove, United Kingdom, 6 Schistosomiasis Control Initiative, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, United Kingdom, 7 EquiACT, Lyon, France