Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28420405›Full record

ArticleGlobalization and health2017

Do International Health Partnerships contribute to reverse innovation? a mixed methods study of THET-supported partnerships in the UK.

Kavian Kulasabanathan, Hamdi Issa, Yasser Bhatti, Matthew Prime, Jacqueline Del Castillo, Ara Darzi, Matthew Harris

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Globalization and health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kavian KulasabanathanInstitute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, 10th Floor, QEQM Building, St Marys Hospital, London, W2 1NY, UK.
Hamdi IssaInstitute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, 10th Floor, QEQM Building, St Marys Hospital, London, W2 1NY, UK.
Yasser BhattiInstitute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, 10th Floor, QEQM Building, St Marys Hospital, London, W2 1NY, UK.
Matthew PrimeInstitute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, 10th Floor, QEQM Building, St Marys Hospital, London, W2 1NY, UK.
Jacqueline Del CastilloInstitute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, 10th Floor, QEQM Building, St Marys Hospital, London, W2 1NY, UK.
Ara DarziInstitute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, 10th Floor, QEQM Building, St Marys Hospital, London, W2 1NY, UK.
Matthew HarrisInstitute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, 10th Floor, QEQM Building, St Marys Hospital, London, W2 1NY, UK. m.harris@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-0005-9710
St Mary's Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInternational health partnerships (IHPs) are changing, with an increased emphasis on mutual accountability and joint agenda setting for both the high- and the low- or middle-income country (LMIC) partners. There is now an important focus on the bi-directionality of learning however for the UK partners, this typically focuses on learning at the individual level, through personal and professional development. We sought to evaluate whether this learning also takes the shape of 'Reverse Innovation' -when an idea conceived in a low-income country is subsequently adopted in a higher-income country.

methodsThis mixed methods study used an initial scoping survey of all the UK-leads of the Tropical Health Education Trust (THET)-supported International Health Partnerships (n = 114) to ascertain the extent to which the IHPs are or have been vehicles for Reverse Innovation. The survey formed the sampling frame for further deep-dive interviews to focus on volunteers' experiences and attitudes to learning from LMICs. Interviews of IHP leads (n = 12) were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Survey data was analysed descriptively. Interview transcripts were coded thematically, using an inductive approach.

resultsSurvey response rate was 27% (n = 34). The majority (70%) strongly agreed that supporting LMIC partners best described the mission of the partnership but only 13% of respondents strongly agreed that learning about new innovations and models was a primary mission of their partnership. Although more than half of respondents reported having observed innovative practice in the LMIC, only one IHP respondent indicated that this has led to Reverse Innovation. Interviews with a sample of survey respondents revealed themes primarily around how learning is conceptualised, but also a central power imbalance between the UK and LMIC partners. Paternalistic notions of knowledge could be traced to partnership power dynamics and latent attitudes to LMICs.

conclusionsGiven the global flow of innovation, if High-income countries (HICs) are to benefit from LMIC practices, it is paramount to keep an open mind about where such learning can come from. Making the potential for learning more explicit and facilitating innovation dissemination upon return will ultimately underpin the success of adoption.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesInternational CooperationDelivery of Health CareGlobal HealthHealth PersonnelHumansQualitative ResearchSurveys and QuestionnairesTropical MedicineUnited KingdomWorkforceDevelopmentGlobal healthInternational health partnershipReverse innovation

Identifiers

PMID28420405
PMCPMC5395771
OpenAlexW2607386567

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.