Search

Community engagement is gaining prominence in global health research. But communities rarely have a say in the agendas or conduct of the very health research projects that aim to help them. This paper provides new evidence on how to share power in priority-setting in ways that seek to overcome structural constraints created by the funding environment. The five strategies were identified through case study research on the Participation for Local Action project in Karnataka, India. That project was carried out by researchers in partnership with the Zilla Budakattu Girijana Abhivrudhhi Sangha, an indigenous community development organisation representing the Solega people. The paper describes each identified strategy for sharing power in priority-setting, followed by a report of the pitfalls and challenges that arose when implementing it. Thus, the study also demonstrates that even where actions and strategies are used to address power imbalances, pitfalls will arise that need to be navigated. Given those challenges, considerations to reflect upon before employing the identified strategies are suggested. Ultimately, the paper aims to communicate strategies for sharing power during and after priority-setting and lessons on how to implement them effectively that can be used by global health researchers in the current funding environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Global health research partnerships are increasingly taking the form of consortia. Recent scholarship has proposed what features of governance may be necessary for these consortia to advance justice in global health. That guidance purports three elements of global health research consortia are essential — their research priorities, research capacity development strategies, research translation strategies — and should be structured to promote the health of the worst-off globally. This paper adopted a reflective equilibrium approach, testing the proposed ethical guidance against the experience of a global health research consortium with equity objectives. Case study research was performed with Future Health Systems (FHS), a health systems research consortium funded over two phases. Data on FHS Phase-2 were gathered through in-depth interviews with steering committee members and junior researchers and collection of consortium-related documents. Thematic analysis of the data for consistency with the proposed guidance generated recommendations for how the guidance might be better articulated and identified areas where it could usefully be expanded. Factors facilitating FHS alignment with the ethical guidance were also identified, including early engagement and partnership with low and middle-income country stakeholders, the learning developed during FHS Phase-1, and aspects of the grant program funding it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study explores decision makers’ perspectives on evidence-based policy (EBP) development using the case of TB/HIV co-infection in India. Twelve in-depth interviews were conducted with purposively selected key national and international policy decision makers in India. Verbatim transcripts were processed and analysed thematically using QSR (NUD*IST 6). The decision makers were unequivocal in recognizing the TB/HIV co-infection as an important public health issue in India and stated the problem to be different than Africa. The need of having a “third programme” for co-infection was not felt. According to them, the public health management of this co-infection must be within the realm of these two programmes. The study also emphasized on decision makers’ perspectives on evidence and the process of utilization of evidence for decision-making for co-infection. Study findings showed global evidence was not always accepted by the decision makers and study shows several examples of decision makers demanding local evidence for policy decisions. Decision makers did make interim policies based on global evidence but most of the time their mandate was to get local evidence. Thus, operations research/implementation science especially multi-centric studies emerge as important strategy for EBP development. Researcher–policy maker interface was a gap where role of researcher as aggressive communicator of research findings was expected. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]