Good collaborative practice: reforming capacity building governance of international health research partnerships

Abstract

In line with the policy objectives of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, this commentary seeks to examine the extent to which provisions of international health research guidance promote capacity building and equitable partnerships in global health research. Our evaluation finds that governance of collaborative research partnerships, and in particular capacity building, in resource-constrained settings is limited but has improved with the implementation guidance of the International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research Involving Humans by The Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) (2016). However, more clarity is needed in national legislation, industry and ethics guidelines, and regulatory provisions to address the structural inequities and power imbalances inherent in international health research partnerships. Most notably, ethical partnership governance is not supported by the principal industry ethics guidelines – the International Conference on Harmonization Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceutical for Human Use (ICH) Good Clinical Practice (ICH-GCP). Given the strategic value of ICH-GCP guidelines in defining the role and responsibility of global health research partners, we conclude that such governance should stipulate the minimal requirements for creating an equitable environment of inclusion, mutual learning, transparency and accountability. Procedurally, this can be supported by i) shared research agenda setting with local leadership, ii) capacity assessments, and iii) construction of a memorandum of understanding (MoU). Moreover, the requirement of capacity building needs to be coordinated amongst partners to support good collaborative practice and deliver on the public health goals of the research enterprise; improving local conditions of health and reducing global health inequality. In this respect, and in order to develop consistency between sources of research governance, ICH-GCP should reference CIOMS ethical guidelines as the established standard for collaborative partnership. Moreover, greater commitment and support should be given to co-ordinate, strengthen and enforce local laws requiring equitable research partnerships and health system strengthening.

Current Challenges of Digital Health Interventions in Pakistan: Mixed Methods Analysis

“…The expansion of mobile and wireless technologies offers an unprecedented opportunity for global health delivery in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). Digital health innovations are addressing issues such as maternal, newborn, and child health; low immunization coverage; lack of access to life-saving medications; infectious disease outbreaks; and the increasing burden of NCDs [ 23 , 24 ]. Sub-Saharan African countries are using an SMS text messaging technology project, SMS for Life, to ensure accurate reporting of real-time facility stock data to reduce antimalarial drug stock-outs [ 25 , 26 ].…”

Clinical trials in low‐resource settings: the perspectives of caregivers of paediatric participants from Uganda, Tanzania and Kenya

“…This can be achieved through stronger engagement with local stakeholders and health systems, including strengthening the government health system . The second step is to design clinical trials in collaborative partnership with local leadership to foster local capacity building and ultimately strengthen local health capacities . Being responsive to community needs and integrating values that influence participation in research alongside local leadership can provide a more balanced conception of the risks and benefits.…”

Improving injection safety practices of Cambodian healthcare workers through training

“…The cascade model is often used in low resource settings for multiple reasons such as: cost effectiveness; rapid dissemination of knowledge; increased satisfaction; and improved skill retention [ 12 , 34 ]. Despite, the improvement seen in some aspects of injection safety, the Injection Safety Training intervention was subject to problems associated with a “cascade model” that have been well documented in prior studies such as incomplete diffusion of knowledge, the need for training to be reinforced with mentoring, and potential interruptions in supplies [ 18 , 35 ].…”

“…Despite, the improvement seen in some aspects of injection safety, the Injection Safety Training intervention was subject to problems associated with a “cascade model” that have been well documented in prior studies such as incomplete diffusion of knowledge, the need for training to be reinforced with mentoring, and potential interruptions in supplies [ 18 , 35 ]. To help mitigate some of the known issues with the cascade model, the intervention was implemented using experts in the field of injection safety, who also understood the local culture, and conducted trainings in the local language [ 34 ]. The intervention was designed in collaboration with the Cambodian MOH to ensure that the existing structure of district supervisors could continue to provide re-enforcement and mentorship for best practices.…”