Not enough traction: Barriers that aspiring researchers from low- and middle-income countries face in global health research

Shumba, Constance; Lusambili, Adelaide

doi:10.52872/001c.25802

Cited by 32 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Barriers to publication and access to journal subscriptions are well documented, forcing many LMIC authors to publish in non-peer-reviewed "grey literature". 22,23,24 With a paucity of journals originating in LMICs, with decreased access to professional societies, with barriers to research and publication, it is di cult for LMIC providers to become peer-reviewers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Blended-Learning Course for a Global Health Workforce: Evaluation of Quality Indicators and a Peer-Review Process for Online Learning

Crawford

Changoor

Rubio-Martinez³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Inequities in health outcomes across contexts are in part attributable to gaps in available medical training programs particularly impacting low- and middle-income countries. Shifting education resources online presents an opportunity to democratize access but presents challenges. Quality in digital scholarship is crucial to prevent learners’ consumption of misinformation, while ensuring continued scholarly contribution from medical educators. Quality indicators typical for journals do not neatly apply to online resources and remain biased against those facing resource constraints. Similarly, widely applied peer-review processes for online learning content are lacking or inconsistent. Methods: Partners developed and implemented a 12-month, case-based discussion webinar series addressing Oxygen Therapy and Critical Care for healthcare workers facing the COVID-19 pandemic. Using the survey responses from webinar panelists across the globe, this project evaluated whether 3 criteria were met by panelists to serve as peer-reviewers and evaluated the quality of the blended-learning program by applying Glassick’s standards of scholarship and the 13 quality indicators for online content developed by Lin et.al.Results: There was a response rate of 72%. Fifty-six percent of respondents were from high-income countries and 44% were from low- and middle-income countries. Most panelists met criteria set for peer-reviewers, although criteria were met more often by those from high-income countries. Most respondents perceived preparation of materials for the blended -learning sessions as extremely adequate, appropriate, and effective. The online content was evaluated highly across the three domains of content, credibility, and design.Conclusions: The Oxygen Therapy and Critical Care series was well-received by learners and panelists alike. Quality across all indicators was deemed high for both the blended-learning and the online learning components. Defining quality indicators assists in both prospective design of online learning and during peer-review processes. The process of using webinar panelists as peer-reviewers is feasible, appropriate and presents opportunities for experts from low- and middle-income countries.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Blended-Learning Course for a Global Health Workforce: Evaluation of Quality Indicators and a Peer-Review Process for Online Learning

Crawford

Changoor

Rubio-Martinez³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Power differentials encourage inequitable research partnerships, conflicting research priorities, and disparities in funding, authorship, and recognition. (Shumba & Lusambili, 2021; Faure, Munung, Ntusi, Pratt, & de Vries, 2021) The absence of LMIC representation within funding organizations and review committees perpetuates inequality within the sector. Furthermore, incompatibilities across different levels and systems within the research ecosystem result in substantial discrimination, but a lack of understanding or prioritization by powerful actors means such incompatibilities persist.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Global health research funding is often awarded to or routed through high-income country (HIC) institutions even when research is being conducted within low and middle-income countries (LMICs) (Shumba & Lusambili, 2021). HIC researchers frequently enter LMICs and establish HIC-led and staffed facilities to extract research, which often results in a limited impact on the LMIC’s health systems or research capacity (Eichbaum et al, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decolonizing WASH Research: Results of a qualitative study and consensus-building process to develop principles for increasing equity in WASH Research

Lue

Bah

Grant

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There have long been critiques of colonial legacies influencing global health. In recent years with growing public awareness of unjust systems, a new wave of calls for anti-racist initiatives and decolonization of the sector has emerged. This study examined research inequities in the water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) sector, centering the perspectives of researchers from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), to catalyze collective action in a sub-sector of global health. Nineteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with researchers of different backgrounds regarding nationality, gender, and research experience. Researchers from eight countries were asked about their experiences and direct observations of discrimination across various stages of the research process. Five interviews were conducted with key WASH research funders to assess perceptions of obstacles faced by LMIC researchers, successes achieved, and challenges faced by these organizations when working towards more equitable research processes within the WASH sector. The results were analyzed using an emergent framework that categorized experiences based on power differentials and abuse of power; structural barriers due to organizational policies; institutional and individual indifference; othering speech, action, and practices; and context-specific discrimination. The Socio-Ecological Model was also combined with this framework to identify the types of actors and level of coordination needed to address these issues. Respondents were often reluctant to describe actions as discriminatory unless there was clear intent. Researchers who worked in both LMICs and HICs at different career stages were particularly aware of discrimination. Ensuring pro-equity authorship and funding practices were identified as two significant actions to catalyze change within the sector. Sector-wide efforts must center LMIC voices when identifying research questions, conducting research, and dissemination. Individuals, organizations, and the entire WASH sector must examine how they participate in upholding inequitable systems of power to begin to dismantle the system through the intentional yielding of power and resources.

show abstract

“…Even at the highest levels of leadership in non-academic environments, the 2021 Global Health 50/50 report showed that women CEOs in global health organizations face an average annual pay gap of $45,000 compared to their male colleagues, even after controlling for organizations’ revenue in 2021 [ 10 ]. These disparities are even more pronounced for women from low- and middle-income countries [ 11 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategies to Improve Women’s Leadership Preparation for Early Career Global Health Professionals: Suggestions from Two Working Groups

Harrison

Tran

Pena

et al. 2022

Annals of Global Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Despite advances in gender equality, women still experience inequitable gaps in global health leadership, and barriers to women’s advancement as leaders in global health have been well described in the literature. In 2021, the Johns Hopkins Center for Global Health conducted two virtual working groups for emerging women leaders to share challenges and suggest solutions to advance women’s leadership in global health. In this paper, we present emerging themes from the working groups, provide a framework for the results, and discuss strategies for advancing women’s leadership in global health. Objectives: The objective of this paper is to synthesize and share the themes of the two working group sessions to provide strategies for improving women’s leadership training and opportunities in the field of global health. Methods: Approximately 182 women in the global health field participated in two virtual working group sessions hosted by the Johns Hopkins Center for Global Health using the Zoom platform. Participants were divided into virtual breakout rooms and discussed pre-assigned topics related to women’s leadership in global health. The participants then returned to share their ideas in a plenary session. Notes from the breakout rooms and transcripts from the plenary session were analyzed through a participatory and iterative thematic analysis approach. Findings: We found that the working group participants identified two overarching themes that were critical for emerging women leaders to find success in global health leadership. First, the acquisition of individual essential skills is necessary to advance in their careers. Second, the institutional environments should be setup to encourage and enable women to enter and succeed in leadership roles. The participants also shared suggestions for improving women’s leadership opportunities such as including the use of virtual technologies to increase training and networking opportunities, intersectionality in mentorship and sponsorship, combatting impostor syndrome, and the importance of work-life balance. Conclusions: Investing in women and their leadership potential has the promise to improve health and wealth at the individual, institutional, and community levels. This manuscript offers lessons and proposes solutions for increasing women’s leadership through improving individual level essential skills and fostering environments in which women leaders can emerge and thrive.

show abstract

Not enough traction: Barriers that aspiring researchers from low- and middle-income countries face in global health research

Cited by 32 publications

References 6 publications

A Blended-Learning Course for a Global Health Workforce: Evaluation of Quality Indicators and a Peer-Review Process for Online Learning

A Blended-Learning Course for a Global Health Workforce: Evaluation of Quality Indicators and a Peer-Review Process for Online Learning

Decolonizing WASH Research: Results of a qualitative study and consensus-building process to develop principles for increasing equity in WASH Research

Strategies to Improve Women’s Leadership Preparation for Early Career Global Health Professionals: Suggestions from Two Working Groups

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About