IntroductionHealth researchers from low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) are under-represented in the academic literature. Scientific writing and publishing interventions may help researchers publish their findings; however, we lack evidence about the prevalence and effectiveness of such interventions. This review describes interventions for researchers in LMICs aimed at strengthening capacity for writing and publishing academic journal articles.MethodsWe followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to report literature searches in PubMed, Embase, Global Health, Scopus and ERIC. Our keywords included LMICs, low-income and middle-income countries, health research and writing/publication support interventions, with no restrictions on publication date. Our screening process consisted of title screening, abstract review and full-text review. We collected information about the content, implementation and evaluation of each intervention, if included.ResultsWe identified 20 interventions designed to strengthen capacity for scientific writing and publishing. We summarised information from the 14 interventions that reported submitted or published papers as outcomes separately, reasoning that because they provide quantifiable metrics of success, they may offer particular insights into intervention components leading to publication. The writing and publishing components in this ‘Publications Reported’ group were an average length of 5.4 days compared with 2.5 days in the other group we refer to as ‘Other Interventions.’ Whereas all 14 Publications Reported interventions incorporated mentors, only two of five in the Other Interventions group incorporated mentors. Across interventions, leaders expressed the importance of a high ratio of mentors to participants, the need to accommodate time demands of busy researchers, and the necessity of a budget for open access fees and high-quality internet connectivity.ConclusionWriting and publishing interventions in LMICs are an underutilised opportunity for capacity strengthening. To facilitate the implementation of high-quality interventions, future writing and publishing interventions should share their experiences by publishing detailed information about the approach and effectiveness of the interventions.
The contextual knowledge and local expertise that researchers from low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) contribute to studies in these settings enrich the research process and subsequent publications. However, health researchers from LMICs are under-represented in the scientific literature. Distally, power imbalances between LMICs and high-income countries, which provide funding and set priorities for research in LMICs, create structural inequities that inhibit these authors from publishing. More proximally, researchers from LMICs often lack formal training in research project management and in publishing peer-reviewed research. Though academic journals may value research from LMICs conducted by local researchers, they have limited time and financial resources to support writing, causing them to reject manuscripts with promising results if they lack development. Pre-Publication Support Service (PREPSS) is a non-profit, non-governmental organisation that works to meet this need. PREPSS provides onsite training, peer-review and copy editing services to researchers in LMICs who wish to publish their health research in peer-reviewed journals. Authors are not charged for these services. After receiving PREPSS services, authors submit their manuscript to a peer-reviewed journal. The PREPSS model is one of many interventions necessary to restructure global health research to better support health researchers in LMICs and reduce current power imbalances.
Communicating research findings is an essential step in the research process. Often, peer-reviewed journals are the forum for such communication, yet many researchers are never taught how to write a publishable scientific paper. In this article, we explain the basic structure of a scientific paper and describe the information that should be included in each section. We also identify common pitfalls for each section and recommend strategies to avoid them. Further, we give advice about target journal selection and authorship. In the online resource 1, we provide an example of a high-quality scientific paper, with annotations identifying the elements we describe in this article.
Objectives: Schools and programs of public health are concerned about poor student writing. We determined the proportion of epidemiology courses that required writing assignments and the presence of 6 characteristics of these assignments. Methods: We requested syllabi, writing assignments, and grading criteria from instructors of graduate and undergraduate epidemiology courses taught during 2016 or 2017. We assessed the extent to which these assignments incorporated 6 characteristics of effective writing assignments: (1) a description of the purpose of the writing or learning goals of the assignment, (2) a document type (eg, article, grant) used in public health, (3) an identified target audience, (4) incorporation of tasks that support the writing process (eg, revision), (5) a topic related to a public health problem that requires critical thinking (1-5 scale, 5 = most authentic), and (6) clear assignment expectations (1-5 scale, 5 = clearest). Results: We contacted 594 instructors from 58 institutions and received at least some evaluable materials from 59 courses at 28 institutions. Of these, 47 of 53 (89%) courses required some writing. The purpose was adequately described in 11 of 36 assignments, the required document type was appropriate in 19 of 43 assignments, an audience was identified in 6 of 37 assignments, and tasks that supported a writing process were incorporated in 19 of 40 assignments. Median (interquartile range) scores were 5 (1-5) for an authentic problem that required critical thinking and 4 (2-5) for clarity of expectations. Conclusions: The characteristics of writing assignments in public health programs do not reflect best practices in writing instruction and should be improved.
Background While some evidence shows that neighborhood deprivation is associated with greater subclinical atherosclerosis, prior studies have not identified what aspects of deprived neighborhoods were driving the association. Methods We investigated whether social and physical neighborhood characteristics are related to progression of subclinical atherosclerosis in 5,950 adult participants of the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) over a 12 year follow-up period. We assessed subclinical disease using coronary artery calcium (CAC). Neighborhood features examined included density of recreational facilities, density of healthy food stores, and survey based measures of availability of healthy foods, walking environment, and social environment. We used econometric fixed effects models to investigate how change in a given neighborhood exposure is related to simultaneous change in subclinical atherosclerosis. Results Increases in density of neighborhood healthy food stores were associated with decreases in CAC [mean changes in CAC Agatston units per SD increase in neighborhood exposures: −19.99 (−35.21, −4.78] after adjusting for time-varying demographic confounders and computed tomography (CT) scanner type. This association remained similar in magnitude after additionally adjusting for time-varying behavioral risk factors and depression. The addition of time-varying biomedical factors attenuated associations with CAC slightly [mean changes in CAC per SD increase in neighborhood exposures: −17.60 (−32.71, −2.49)]. Changes across time in other neighborhood measures were not significantly associated with within-person change in CAC. Conclusions Results from this longitudinal study provide suggestive evidence that greater access to neighborhood healthy food resources may slow the development of coronary atherosclerosis in middle-aged and older adults.
The term "global health equity" has become more visible in recent years, yet we were unable to find a formal definition of the term. Our Viewpoint addresses this gap by offering a discussion of this need and proposing a definition. We define global health equity as mutually beneficial and power-balanced partnerships and processes leading to equitable human and environmental health outcomes (which we refer to as "products") on a global scale. Equitable partnerships actively work against racism and supremacy. Such partnerships foster processes with these same dynamics; for example, sharing lead authorship responsibilities with meaningful roles for host country researchers to frame relevant questions and to provide context and interpretation for the research findings. Equitable products, such as access to technology and tailored delivery of interventions effective in the specific context, are the fruits of these partnerships and processes.
Interprofessional education (IPE) is based on the concept that health professional students are best trained on the skills, knowledge, and attitudes that promote population health when they learn with and about others from diverse health science fields. Previously, IPE has focused almost exclusively on the clinical context. This study piloted and evaluated an IPE learning experience that emphasizes population health in a sample of public health undergraduate students. We hypothesized that students who completed the 2-hour online asynchronous module would better understand the value of public health's role in interprofessional teams, the benefit of interprofessional teamwork in improving health outcomes, and the value of collaborative learning with other interprofessional students. Students engaged in pre- and post-training assessments and individual reflections throughout the module. Sixty-seven undergraduate public health students completed the module and assessments. After completion, a greater proportion strongly agreed that students from different health science disciplines should be educated in the same setting to form collaborative relationships with one another (19 vs. 39% before and after completion, respectively). A greater proportion also strongly agreed that care delivered by an interprofessional team would benefit the health outcomes of a patient/client after the training (60 vs. 75% before and after, respectively). Mean scores describing how strongly students agreed with the above two statements significantly increased post-training. A greater proportion of students strongly agreed that incorporating the public health discipline as part of an interprofessional team is crucial to address the social determinants of health for individual health outcomes after taking the training (40 vs. 55% before and after, respectively). There was little change in attitudes about the importance of incorporating public health as part of an interprofessional team to address social determinants of health for population health outcomes, which were strongly positive before the training. Most students reported being satisfied with the module presentation and felt their understanding of interprofessional practice improved. This training may be useful for students from all health disciplines to recognize the benefits of engaging with and learning from public health students and to recognize the important role of public health in interprofessional practices.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.