Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
BMJ Glob Health. 2019 October 18; Volume 4 (Issue 5); e001855.; DOI:10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001855
Mbaye R, Gebeyehu R, Hossmann S, Mbarga NF, Bih-Neh E, et al.
BMJ Glob Health. 2019 October 18; Volume 4 (Issue 5); e001855.; DOI:10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001855
INTRODUCTION
Africa contributes little to the biomedical literature despite its high burden of infectious diseases. Global health research partnerships aimed at addressing Africa-endemic disease may be polarised. Therefore, we assessed the contribution of researchers in Africa to research on six infectious diseases.
METHODS
We reviewed publications on HIV and malaria (2013-2016), tuberculosis (2014-2016), salmonellosis, Ebola haemorrhagic fever and Buruli ulcer disease (1980-2016) conducted in Africa and indexed in the PubMed database using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocol. Papers reporting original research done in Africa with at least one laboratory test performed on biological samples were included. We studied African author proportion and placement per study type, disease, funding, study country and lingua franca.
RESULTS
We included 1182 of 2871 retrieved articles that met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 1109 (93.2%) had at least one Africa-based author, 552 (49.8%) had an African first author and 41.3% (n=458) an African last author. Papers on salmonellosis and tuberculosis had a higher proportion of African last authors (p<0.001) compared with the other diseases. Most of African first and last authors had an affiliation from an Anglophone country. HIV, malaria, tuberculosis and Ebola had the most extramurally funded studies (≥70%), but less than 10% of the acknowledged funding was from an African funder.
CONCLUSION
African researchers are under-represented in first and last authorship positions in papers published from research done in Africa. This calls for greater investment in capacity building and equitable research partnerships at every level of the global health community.
Africa contributes little to the biomedical literature despite its high burden of infectious diseases. Global health research partnerships aimed at addressing Africa-endemic disease may be polarised. Therefore, we assessed the contribution of researchers in Africa to research on six infectious diseases.
METHODS
We reviewed publications on HIV and malaria (2013-2016), tuberculosis (2014-2016), salmonellosis, Ebola haemorrhagic fever and Buruli ulcer disease (1980-2016) conducted in Africa and indexed in the PubMed database using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocol. Papers reporting original research done in Africa with at least one laboratory test performed on biological samples were included. We studied African author proportion and placement per study type, disease, funding, study country and lingua franca.
RESULTS
We included 1182 of 2871 retrieved articles that met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 1109 (93.2%) had at least one Africa-based author, 552 (49.8%) had an African first author and 41.3% (n=458) an African last author. Papers on salmonellosis and tuberculosis had a higher proportion of African last authors (p<0.001) compared with the other diseases. Most of African first and last authors had an affiliation from an Anglophone country. HIV, malaria, tuberculosis and Ebola had the most extramurally funded studies (≥70%), but less than 10% of the acknowledged funding was from an African funder.
CONCLUSION
African researchers are under-represented in first and last authorship positions in papers published from research done in Africa. This calls for greater investment in capacity building and equitable research partnerships at every level of the global health community.
Conference Material > Slide Presentation
Schittecatte G, Pellechia U, Meudec M, Vanlerberghe V
MSF Scientific Days International 2022. 2022 May 12; DOI:10.57740/79m2-8h12
Conference Material > Slide Presentation
Kahn P, Burgess B, Leader C, Chaudhuri J
MSF Scientific Days International 2022. 2022 May 10; DOI:10.57740/ak50-t791
Conference Material > Video (demo)
Kahn P, Burgess B, Leader C, Chaudhuri J
MSF Scientific Days International 2022. 2022 May 10; DOI:10.57740/4q7j-xg61
English
Français
Journal Article > EditorialFull Text
Indian Journal of Surgery. 2022 February 19; Online ahead of print; 1-3.; DOI:10.1007/s12262-022-03330-6
Chawla B, Lindert J, Sharma DB
Indian Journal of Surgery. 2022 February 19; Online ahead of print; 1-3.; DOI:10.1007/s12262-022-03330-6
Conference Material > Video (demo)
Kahn P, Brooks JR, Leader C, Hoyt O
MSF Scientific Days International 2021: Innovation. 2021 May 20
English
Français
Journal Article > CommentaryFull Text
Lancet Healthy Longev
Healthy longevity. 2024 January 1; Volume 5 (Issue 1); e76-e82.; DOI:10.1016/S2666-7568(23)00244-1
van Boetzelaer E, van de Kamp J, Keating P, Sharma SK, Pellecchia U, et al.
Lancet Healthy Longev
Healthy longevity. 2024 January 1; Volume 5 (Issue 1); e76-e82.; DOI:10.1016/S2666-7568(23)00244-1
Conference Material > Abstract
Schittecatte G, Pellechia U, Meudec M, Vanlerberghe V
MSF Scientific Days International 2022. 2022 May 12; DOI:10.57740/w55h-9b93
INTRODUCTION
Community engagement (CE) rose to prominence with the Alma Ata Declaration in 1978, and remains a concept lauded by global health actors, including MSF. CE is often described as being linked with accountability, ownership, and sustainability of health programmes. It is also linked with social determinants of health through its empowering principles. Despite the recognition of its importance, challenges remain in incorporating
CE into programmes.
METHODS
We used a qualitative, case-based approach to explore how community engagement is defined, perceived, and evaluated in MSF contexts. Our aim was to identify challenges and opportunities in truly integrating communities into humanitarian health interventions. Three projects were purposively selected, in Democratic Republic of the Congo, Lebanon, and Venezuela, aiming to represent a variety of health programmes, as well as societal diversity. Document review and 55 semi-structured interviews were conducted. Participants represented different institutional levels and positions, as well as national and international staff. Interviews were transcribed and coded iteratively, as were the operational and technical documents, institutional policies, and reports included in the document reviews. The themes that emerged in the iterative coding were
then analysed.
ETHICS
This study was approved by the MSF Ethics Review Board, and by the Institutional Review Board at the Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium.
RESULTS
We found disparity between MSF institutional policy, operational documents, and incorporation of CE at programme level. While there is policy acceptance of CE as essential, interviews show that MSF barely engages with communities in a participatory process. There is little prioritisation of CE, and lack of guidance on the processes needed to involve communities in decision making. Our results also show that despite shared claims of the importance of CE, definitions, objectives, and evaluation all vary significantly. Tensions emerge between seeing communities as active participants or as passive beneficiaries. Additional tensions appeared around whether CE was perceived as an approach for promotion of quality of care and accountability of operations, or purely as an activity to reach the organisation’s goals. Finally, while field projects may establish links with communities, MSF remains the sole decision-maker on the overall medical-humanitarian strategy. Interviewees questioned the capability of MSF to work within this community engagement approach, due to inherent power asymmetries and the predominant use of western-centred biomedical approaches. Inequalities and misconceptions between international and national staff created an additional barrier to bridging with
local communities.
CONCLUSION
If MSF is interested in improving its approach to CE, there should be a concerted effort to change the way communities are viewed with respect to the organisation‘s interventions. While a single model of CE is not possible, MSF needs to set up training on CE approaches and develop frameworks and clear objectives for CE, through dedicated resources at headquarters and field levels.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
None declared.
Community engagement (CE) rose to prominence with the Alma Ata Declaration in 1978, and remains a concept lauded by global health actors, including MSF. CE is often described as being linked with accountability, ownership, and sustainability of health programmes. It is also linked with social determinants of health through its empowering principles. Despite the recognition of its importance, challenges remain in incorporating
CE into programmes.
METHODS
We used a qualitative, case-based approach to explore how community engagement is defined, perceived, and evaluated in MSF contexts. Our aim was to identify challenges and opportunities in truly integrating communities into humanitarian health interventions. Three projects were purposively selected, in Democratic Republic of the Congo, Lebanon, and Venezuela, aiming to represent a variety of health programmes, as well as societal diversity. Document review and 55 semi-structured interviews were conducted. Participants represented different institutional levels and positions, as well as national and international staff. Interviews were transcribed and coded iteratively, as were the operational and technical documents, institutional policies, and reports included in the document reviews. The themes that emerged in the iterative coding were
then analysed.
ETHICS
This study was approved by the MSF Ethics Review Board, and by the Institutional Review Board at the Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium.
RESULTS
We found disparity between MSF institutional policy, operational documents, and incorporation of CE at programme level. While there is policy acceptance of CE as essential, interviews show that MSF barely engages with communities in a participatory process. There is little prioritisation of CE, and lack of guidance on the processes needed to involve communities in decision making. Our results also show that despite shared claims of the importance of CE, definitions, objectives, and evaluation all vary significantly. Tensions emerge between seeing communities as active participants or as passive beneficiaries. Additional tensions appeared around whether CE was perceived as an approach for promotion of quality of care and accountability of operations, or purely as an activity to reach the organisation’s goals. Finally, while field projects may establish links with communities, MSF remains the sole decision-maker on the overall medical-humanitarian strategy. Interviewees questioned the capability of MSF to work within this community engagement approach, due to inherent power asymmetries and the predominant use of western-centred biomedical approaches. Inequalities and misconceptions between international and national staff created an additional barrier to bridging with
local communities.
CONCLUSION
If MSF is interested in improving its approach to CE, there should be a concerted effort to change the way communities are viewed with respect to the organisation‘s interventions. While a single model of CE is not possible, MSF needs to set up training on CE approaches and develop frameworks and clear objectives for CE, through dedicated resources at headquarters and field levels.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
None declared.
Conference Material > Slide Presentation
Kahn P, Brooks JR, Leader C, Hoyt O
MSF Scientific Days International 2021: Innovation. 2021 May 20
Journal Article > CommentaryFull Text
Can J Psychiatry. 2023 October 1; Volume 68 (Issue 10); 780-808.; DOI:10.1177/07067437231166985
Jarvis GE, Andermann L, Ayonrinde OA, Beder M, Cénat JM, et al.
Can J Psychiatry. 2023 October 1; Volume 68 (Issue 10); 780-808.; DOI:10.1177/07067437231166985