Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
BMJ Glob Health. 28 October 2020; Volume 5 (Issue 10); e003236.; DOI:10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003236
Alba S, Verdonck K, Lenglet AD, Rumisha SF, Wienia M, et al.
BMJ Glob Health. 28 October 2020; Volume 5 (Issue 10); e003236.; DOI:10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003236
BACKGROUND
Research integrity and research fairness have gained considerable momentum in the past decade and have direct implications for global health epidemiology. Research integrity and research fairness principles should be equally nurtured to produce high-quality impactful research—but bridging the two can lead to practical and ethical dilemmas. In order to provide practical guidance to researchers and epidemiologist, we set out to develop good epidemiological practice guidelines specifically for global health epidemiology, targeted at stakeholders involved in the commissioning, conduct, appraisal and publication of global health research.
METHODS
We developed preliminary guidelines based on targeted online searches on existing best practices for epidemiological studies and sought to align these with key elements of global health research and research fairness. We validated these guidelines through a Delphi consultation study, to reach a consensus among a wide representation of stakeholders.
RESULTS
A total of 45 experts provided input on the first round of e-Delphi consultation and 40 in the second. Respondents covered a range of organisations (including for example academia, ministries, NGOs, research funders, technical agencies) involved in epidemiological studies from countries around the world (Europe: 19; Africa: 10; North America: 7; Asia: 5; South-America: 3 Australia: 1). A selection of eight experts were invited for a face-to-face meeting. The final guidelines consist of a set of 6 standards and 42 accompanying criteria including study preparation, protocol development, data collection, data management, data analysis, dissemination and communication.
CONCLUSION
While guidelines will not by themselves guard global health from questionable and unfair research practices, they are certainly part of a concerted effort to ensure not only mutual accountability between individual researchers, their institutions and their funders but most importantly their joint accountability towards the communities they study and society at large.
Research integrity and research fairness have gained considerable momentum in the past decade and have direct implications for global health epidemiology. Research integrity and research fairness principles should be equally nurtured to produce high-quality impactful research—but bridging the two can lead to practical and ethical dilemmas. In order to provide practical guidance to researchers and epidemiologist, we set out to develop good epidemiological practice guidelines specifically for global health epidemiology, targeted at stakeholders involved in the commissioning, conduct, appraisal and publication of global health research.
METHODS
We developed preliminary guidelines based on targeted online searches on existing best practices for epidemiological studies and sought to align these with key elements of global health research and research fairness. We validated these guidelines through a Delphi consultation study, to reach a consensus among a wide representation of stakeholders.
RESULTS
A total of 45 experts provided input on the first round of e-Delphi consultation and 40 in the second. Respondents covered a range of organisations (including for example academia, ministries, NGOs, research funders, technical agencies) involved in epidemiological studies from countries around the world (Europe: 19; Africa: 10; North America: 7; Asia: 5; South-America: 3 Australia: 1). A selection of eight experts were invited for a face-to-face meeting. The final guidelines consist of a set of 6 standards and 42 accompanying criteria including study preparation, protocol development, data collection, data management, data analysis, dissemination and communication.
CONCLUSION
While guidelines will not by themselves guard global health from questionable and unfair research practices, they are certainly part of a concerted effort to ensure not only mutual accountability between individual researchers, their institutions and their funders but most importantly their joint accountability towards the communities they study and society at large.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 10 April 2012; Volume 6 (Issue 4); DOI:10.1371/journal.pntd.0001617
van den Bogaart E, Berkhout MMZ, Adams ER, Mens PF, Sentongo E, et al.
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 10 April 2012; Volume 6 (Issue 4); DOI:10.1371/journal.pntd.0001617
Due to geographic overlap of malaria and visceral leishmaniasis (VL), co-infections may exist but have been poorly investigated. To describe prevalence, features and risk factors for VL-malaria co-infections, a case-control analysis was conducted on data collected at Amudat Hospital, Uganda (2000-2006) by Médecins sans Frontières. Cases were identified as patients with laboratory-confirmed VL and malaria at hospital admission or during hospitalization; controls were VL patients with negative malaria smears. A logistic regression analysis was performed to study the association between patients' characteristics and the occurrence of the co-infection.