Germany, the G7, and global health

Yamey, Gavin; Campe, Sabine; Fewer, Sara

doi:10.1136/bmj.h1210

Cited by 10 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There will be no quick fixes in tackling such complex issues in the future of Pakistan. The building of robust healthcare systems is an area where many low- and middle-income countries have been underperforming [ 52 ]. These systems will require stronger health infrastructure, more health workers, greater access to medical products, more responsive health services, and more equitable access to these services.…”

Section: The Futurementioning

confidence: 99%

Bridging evidence, policy, and practice to strengthen health systems for improved maternal and newborn health in Pakistan

Hirose

Hall²,

Memon³

et al. 2015

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Policy and decision making should be based on evidence, but translating evidence into policy and practice is often sporadic and slow. It is recognised that the relationship between research and policy uptake is complex and that dissemination of research findings is necessary, but insufficient, for policy uptake. Political, social, and economic context, use of (credible) data and dialogues between and across networks of researchers and policymakers play important roles in evidence uptake. Advocacy is the process of mobilising political and public opinions to achieve specific aims and its role is crucial in mobilising key actors to push for policy uptake. Advocacy and research groups (i.e. those who would like to see research evidence used by policymakers) may use different approaches and tools to stimulate the diffusion of research findings. The use of mass- and social media, communication with study participants, and the involvement of stakeholders at the early stages of research development are examples of the approaches that can be employed to stimulate diffusion of evidence and increase evidence uptake. The Research and Advocacy Fund (RAF) for Maternal and Newborn Health (MNH) worked within the health system context in Pakistan with the aim of espousing the principles of evidence, advocacy, and dissemination to improve MNH outcomes. The articles included in this special issue are outputs of RAF and highlight where RAF’s approaches contributed to MNH policy reforms. The papers discuss critical health system issues facing Pakistan, including service delivery components, demand creation, equitable access, transportation interventions for improved referrals, availability of medicines and equipment, and health workforce needs. In addition to these tangible elements, the health system ‘software’, i.e. the power and the political and social contexts, is also represented in the collection. These articles highlight three considerations for the future: the growing importance of implementation research, the crucial need for participation and ownership, and the recognition that policymaking can be ‘informed’ by rather than ‘based-on’ evidence. The future challenge will be to continue the momentum RAF has created and to welcome a new era of health, wealth, and growth for Pakistan.

show abstract

Section: The Futurementioning

confidence: 99%

Bridging evidence, policy, and practice to strengthen health systems for improved maternal and newborn health in Pakistan

Hirose

Hall²,

Memon³

et al. 2015

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Current German government policy clearly pursues an increasing role in global health, and recent studies have acknowledged a growth in German public sector funding [ 22 ], even labeling Germany as an ‘emerging leader’, though its own funding program for NTD research expired at the end of 2014 and a renewed call for proposals is pending for 2015. It remains to be seen if and how the German government's political will, as expressed for example by putting neglected and poverty-related diseases on the agenda for the G7 Summit in Germany in June 2015 [ 42 ], is going to be reflected in measurable research output from Germany. As it hands over the G7 presidency to Japan, we urge the German Government to make good on the promises made in the G7 leaders' declaration [ 43 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Co-authorship Networks to Map and Analyse Global Neglected Tropical Disease Research with an Affiliation to Germany

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundResearch on Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs) has increased in recent decades, and significant need-gaps in diagnostic and treatment tools remain. Analysing bibliometric data from published research is a powerful method for revealing research efforts, partnerships and expertise. We aim to identify and map NTD research networks in Germany and their partners abroad to enable an informed and transparent evaluation of German contributions to NTD research.Methodology/Principal FindingsA SCOPUS database search for articles with German author affiliations that were published between 2002 and 2012 was conducted for kinetoplastid and helminth diseases. Open-access tools were used for data cleaning and scientometrics (OpenRefine), geocoding (OpenStreetMaps) and to create (Table2Net), visualise and analyse co-authorship networks (Gephi). From 26,833 publications from around the world that addressed 11 diseases, we identified 1,187 (4.4%) with at least one German author affiliation, and we processed 972 publications for the five most published-about diseases. Of those, we extracted 4,007 individual authors and 863 research institutions to construct co-author networks. The majority of co-authors outside Germany were from high-income countries and Brazil. Collaborations with partners on the African continent remain scattered. NTD research within Germany was distributed among 220 research institutions. We identified strong performers on an individual level by using classic parameters (number of publications, h-index) and social network analysis parameters (betweenness centrality). The research network characteristics varied strongly between diseases.Conclusions/SignificanceThe share of NTD publications with German affiliations is approximately half of its share in other fields of medical research. This finding underlines the need to identify barriers and expand Germany’s otherwise strong research activities towards NTDs. A geospatial analysis of research collaborations with partners abroad can support decisions to strengthen research capacity, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, which were less involved in collaborations than high-income countries. Identifying knowledge hubs within individual researcher networks complements traditional scientometric indicators that are used to identify opportunities for collaboration. Using free tools to analyse research processes and output could facilitate data-driven health policies. Our findings contribute to the prioritisation of efforts in German NTD research at a time of impending local and global policy decisions.

show abstract

“…Germany used its presidencies of the G7 and G20 summits in 2015 and 2017 to give more prominence to Global Health 41 42. Yet, Global Health has largely fallen off the EU research agenda 22 27 28…”

Section: Eu Efforts On Global Health In the Last Decadementioning

confidence: 99%

Where is the ‘global’ in the European Union’s Health Research and Innovation Agenda?

Berner-Rodoreda

Rehfuess²,

Klipstein‐Grobusch

et al. 2019

BMJ Glob Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global Health has not featured as prominently in the European Union (EU) research agenda in recent years as it did in the first decade of the new millennium, and participation of low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) in EU health research has declined substantially. The Horizon Europe Research and Innovation Framework adopted by the European Parliament in April 2019 for the period 2021–2027 will serve as an important funding instrument for health research, yet the proposed health research budget to be finalised towards the end of 2019 was reduced from 10% in the current framework, Horizon 2020, to 8% in Horizon Europe. Our analysis takes the evolvement of Horizon Europe from the initial framework of June 2018 to the framework agreed on in April 2019 into account. It shows that despite some improvements in terms of Global Health and reference to the Sustainable Development Goals, European industrial competitiveness continues to play a paramount role, with Global Health research needs and relevant health research for LMICs being only partially addressed. We argue that the globally interconnected nature of health and the transdisciplinary nature of health research need to be fully taken into account and acted on in the new European Research and Innovation Framework. A facilitated global research collaboration through Horizon Europe could ensure that Global Health innovations and solutions benefit all parts of the world including EU countries.

show abstract

Germany, the G7, and global health

Cited by 10 publications

References 8 publications

Bridging evidence, policy, and practice to strengthen health systems for improved maternal and newborn health in Pakistan

Bridging evidence, policy, and practice to strengthen health systems for improved maternal and newborn health in Pakistan

Using Co-authorship Networks to Map and Analyse Global Neglected Tropical Disease Research with an Affiliation to Germany

Where is the ‘global’ in the European Union’s Health Research and Innovation Agenda?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About