Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31478019›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2019

It takes a community: a landscape analysis of global health research consortia.

Amelia VanderZanden, Etienne V Langlois, Abdul Ghaffar, Asaf Bitton, Jocelyn Fifield, Lisa R Hirschhorn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ global health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors.

Amelia VanderZandenAriadne Labs, Brigham and Women's Hospital & Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6984-2132
Etienne V LangloisAlliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, WHO, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-4853-2511
Abdul GhaffarAlliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, WHO, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-8629-4526
Asaf BittonAriadne Labs, Brigham and Women's Hospital & Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3633-3806
Jocelyn FifieldAriadne Labs, Brigham and Women's Hospital & Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9521-1465
Lisa R HirschhornAriadne Labs, Brigham and Women's Hospital & Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe increased recognition of the core role of effective primary healthcare has identified large gaps in the knowledge of components of high-quality primary healthcare systems and the need for resources positioned to better understand them. Research consortia are an effective approach to generate evidence needed to address knowledge and evidence gaps and accelerate change. However, the optimal design of consortia and guidance on design decisions is not well studied. We report on a landscape analysis to understand global health research consortium models and major design decisions that inform model choice.

methodsWe conducted a landscape analysis to identify health-related research consortia typologies and explore decision processes leading to their design and implementation. We identified and reviewed 195 research consortia, extracted data on organisation, characteristics and operations for 115 and conducted 14 key informant interviews representing 13 consortia. We analysed interviews using thematic content analysis using results to develop categories of major design choices and research consortia models, structures and processes.

resultsAcross a wide range of research consortia, the structure and function were determined by nine key design decisions that were mapped to three domains: scope: including mission and area of focus; organisational structure: including role and location of the core entity, choice of leader, governance and membership eligibility and responsibility; and funding decisions: including the funding source for research consortia operations and the funding sources and process for consortium research. DISCUSSION: Research consortia showed important heterogeneity across the nine decision points studied and based on their goals, needs and resources. These decisions and the three emerging domains (scope, organisation and funding) offer a potential framework for new research consortia and inform the design of a proposed primary health care research consortium intended to accelerate research to improve primary health care in LMICs.

Indexed as

landscape analysisprimary health careresearch consortiumresearch network

Identifiers

PMID31478019
PMCPMC6703292

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.