ArticleGlobal health action2019
Research collaboration on community health worker programmes in low-income countries: an analysis of authorship teams and networks.
Article in Global health action, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hepatitis B Research in Peru, 1988-2023: Geographic Inequities, Thematic Gaps, and Misalignment with Disease Burden.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Network analysis of cross-income-level collaboration on multiple myeloma in sub-Saharan Africa.npj health systems · 2025Article
- Analysis of Iranian health workforce emigration based on a system dynamics approach: a study protocol.Global health action · 2024Article
- Reflective questioning to guide socially just global health reform: a narrative review and expert elicitation.International journal for equity in health · 2024Review
- Systematic analysis of authorship demographics in global surgery.BMJ global health · 2021Article
- Increasing collaborative research output between early-career health researchers in Africa: lessons from the CARTA fellowship program.Global health action · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGlobal health research partnerships, which promote the exchange of ideas, knowledge and expertise across countries, are considered key to addressing complex challenges facing health systems. Yet, many studies report inequalities in these partnerships, particularly in those between high and low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs).
objectiveThis paper examines global research collaborations on community health worker (CHW) programmes, specifically analysing the structures of authorship teams and networks in publications reporting research on CHW programmes in low-income countries (LICs).
methodsA sub-set of 206 indexed journal articles reporting on CHW programmes in LICs was purposefully selected from a prior review of research authorship on CHW programmes in all LMICs over a five year period (2012-2016). Data on country and primary organisational affiliation and number of publications for all individual authors, programme area (e.g. maternal child health) and total citations per paper were extracted and coded in excel spreadsheets. Data were then exported and analysed in Stata/ICV.14 and Gephi.
resultsThe 206 papers were authored by 1045 authors from 299 institutions, based in 43 countries. Half (50.1%) the authors came from LIC-based institutions, 43.8% from high-income country (HIC) institutions, 2.9% from middle-income country (MIC) institutions and 3.2% had different first affiliations in different publications. Authors based in the USA (302) and UK (68) accounted for just over a third (35.4%) of all authors. Partnership patterns revealed a primary mode of North-South collaboration with authors from the US, and to a lesser extent the UK, playing central bridging roles between institutions. Strong network clusters of multiple-affiliated authors were evident in research on MCH and HIV/TB aspects of CHW programmes.
conclusionKnowledge production on CHW programmes in LICs flows predominantly through a pool of connected HIC authors and North-South collaborations. There is a need for strategies harnessing more diverse, including South-South, forms of partnership.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.