Cargando…

Informing ‘good’ global health research partnerships: A scoping review of guiding principles

Background: Several sets of principles have been proposed to guide global health research partnerships and mitigate inequities inadvertently caused by them. The existence of multiple sets of principles poses a challenge for those seeking to critically engage with and develop their practice. Which of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Monette, Erynn M., McHugh, David, Smith, Maxwell J., Canas, Eugenia, Jabo, Nicole, Henley, Phaedra, Nouvet, Elysée
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Taylor & Francis 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7954413/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33704024
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2021.1892308
_version_ 1783664073960849408
author Monette, Erynn M.
McHugh, David
Smith, Maxwell J.
Canas, Eugenia
Jabo, Nicole
Henley, Phaedra
Nouvet, Elysée
author_facet Monette, Erynn M.
McHugh, David
Smith, Maxwell J.
Canas, Eugenia
Jabo, Nicole
Henley, Phaedra
Nouvet, Elysée
author_sort Monette, Erynn M.
collection PubMed
description Background: Several sets of principles have been proposed to guide global health research partnerships and mitigate inequities inadvertently caused by them. The existence of multiple sets of principles poses a challenge for those seeking to critically engage with and develop their practice. Which of these is best to use, and why? To what extent, if any, is there agreement across proposed principles? Objective: The objectives of this review were to: (1) identify and consolidate existing documents and principles to guide global health research partnerships; (2) identify areas of overlapping consensus, if any, regarding which principles are fundamental in these partnerships; (3) identify any lack of consensus in the literature on core principles to support these partnerships. Methods: A scoping review was conducted to gather documents outlining ‘principles’ of good global health research partnerships. A broad search of academic databases to gather peerreviewed literature was conducted, complemented by a hand-search of key global health funding institutions for grey literature guidelines. Results: Our search yielded nine sets of principles designed to guide and support global health research partnerships. No single principle recurred across all documents reviewed. Most frequently cited were concerns with mutual benefits between partners (n = 6) and equity (n = 4). Despite a lack of consistency in the inclusion and definition of principles, all sources highlighted principles that identified attention to fairness, equity, or justice as an integral part of good global health research partnerships. Conclusions: Lack of consensus regarding how principles are defined suggests a need for further discussion on what global health researchers mean by ‘core’ principles. Research partnerships should seek to interpret the practical meanings and requirements of these principles through international consultation. Finally, a need exists for tools to assist with implementation of these principles to ensure their application in research practice.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7954413
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Taylor & Francis
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79544132021-03-23 Informing ‘good’ global health research partnerships: A scoping review of guiding principles Monette, Erynn M. McHugh, David Smith, Maxwell J. Canas, Eugenia Jabo, Nicole Henley, Phaedra Nouvet, Elysée Glob Health Action Review Article Background: Several sets of principles have been proposed to guide global health research partnerships and mitigate inequities inadvertently caused by them. The existence of multiple sets of principles poses a challenge for those seeking to critically engage with and develop their practice. Which of these is best to use, and why? To what extent, if any, is there agreement across proposed principles? Objective: The objectives of this review were to: (1) identify and consolidate existing documents and principles to guide global health research partnerships; (2) identify areas of overlapping consensus, if any, regarding which principles are fundamental in these partnerships; (3) identify any lack of consensus in the literature on core principles to support these partnerships. Methods: A scoping review was conducted to gather documents outlining ‘principles’ of good global health research partnerships. A broad search of academic databases to gather peerreviewed literature was conducted, complemented by a hand-search of key global health funding institutions for grey literature guidelines. Results: Our search yielded nine sets of principles designed to guide and support global health research partnerships. No single principle recurred across all documents reviewed. Most frequently cited were concerns with mutual benefits between partners (n = 6) and equity (n = 4). Despite a lack of consistency in the inclusion and definition of principles, all sources highlighted principles that identified attention to fairness, equity, or justice as an integral part of good global health research partnerships. Conclusions: Lack of consensus regarding how principles are defined suggests a need for further discussion on what global health researchers mean by ‘core’ principles. Research partnerships should seek to interpret the practical meanings and requirements of these principles through international consultation. Finally, a need exists for tools to assist with implementation of these principles to ensure their application in research practice. Taylor & Francis 2021-03-11 /pmc/articles/PMC7954413/ /pubmed/33704024 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2021.1892308 Text en © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review Article
Monette, Erynn M.
McHugh, David
Smith, Maxwell J.
Canas, Eugenia
Jabo, Nicole
Henley, Phaedra
Nouvet, Elysée
Informing ‘good’ global health research partnerships: A scoping review of guiding principles
title Informing ‘good’ global health research partnerships: A scoping review of guiding principles
title_full Informing ‘good’ global health research partnerships: A scoping review of guiding principles
title_fullStr Informing ‘good’ global health research partnerships: A scoping review of guiding principles
title_full_unstemmed Informing ‘good’ global health research partnerships: A scoping review of guiding principles
title_short Informing ‘good’ global health research partnerships: A scoping review of guiding principles
title_sort informing ‘good’ global health research partnerships: a scoping review of guiding principles
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7954413/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33704024
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2021.1892308
work_keys_str_mv AT monetteerynnm informinggoodglobalhealthresearchpartnershipsascopingreviewofguidingprinciples
AT mchughdavid informinggoodglobalhealthresearchpartnershipsascopingreviewofguidingprinciples
AT smithmaxwellj informinggoodglobalhealthresearchpartnershipsascopingreviewofguidingprinciples
AT canaseugenia informinggoodglobalhealthresearchpartnershipsascopingreviewofguidingprinciples
AT jabonicole informinggoodglobalhealthresearchpartnershipsascopingreviewofguidingprinciples
AT henleyphaedra informinggoodglobalhealthresearchpartnershipsascopingreviewofguidingprinciples
AT nouvetelysee informinggoodglobalhealthresearchpartnershipsascopingreviewofguidingprinciples