ReviewBMJ global health2020
Practical actions for fostering cross-disciplinary global health research: lessons from a narrative literature review.
Review in BMJ global health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Innovating for One Health: federal perspectives and key lessons on building integrative programs for wildlife in Canada.One health outlook · 2026Article
- Development of a decision tree diagram for classifying study designs in tumour pathology research: a multidisciplinary approach.The journal of pathology. Clinical research · 2026Article
- Establishing best practices guidelines for collaborative research in global surgery: developing a Delphi survey.Journal of global health · 2025Article
- Beyond statistical significance: Embracing minimal clinically important difference for better patient care.World journal of methodology · 2025Review
- Community service rehabilitation therapists' perspectives of cross-disciplinary supervision.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2025Article
- Advancing cross-disciplinarity in bone and joint infection science using the COMBINE approach: an example from Denmark.Journal of bone and joint infection · 2025Article
- Roles of researchers in inter- and transdisciplinary sustainability research: a reflection tool.Sustainability science · 2025Article
- Common criteria for evaluating cross-disciplinary research in global health: a scoping review.BMC global and public health · 2024Article
- A mixed-methods evaluation of capacity strengthening within an international conservation agriculture research consortium.F1000Research · 2023Article
- From reflection diaries to practical guidance for transdisciplinary research: learnings from a Kenyan air pollution project.Sustainability science · 2023Article
- The value, challenges and practical considerations of conducting qualitative research on antimicrobial stewardship in primary care.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2022Review
- Article
- Article
- Addressing institutional and community barriers to development and implementation of community-engaged research through competency-based academic and community training.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Joint Research Mentoring Through the Community of Young Research Peers: A Case for a Unifying Model for Research Mentorship at Higher Learning Institutions.Advances in medical education and practice · 2022Article
- Bridging research integrity and global health epidemiology (BRIDGE) guidelines: explanation and elaboration.BMJ global health · 2020Review
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
introductionGlobal health research involves disciplines within and beyond the health sciences. A cross-disciplinary collaborative research approach enables an interchange of knowledge and experience and stimulates innovative responses to complex health challenges. However, there is little robust evidence to guide the design and implementation of cross-disciplinary research in global health, hampering effective collective action. This review synthesised evidence on practical actions for fostering cross-disciplinary research to provide guidance on the design and implementation of research in global health.
methodsWe searched five electronic databases using key words. The search included original research and research notes articles in English. We used a framework adapted from the socio-ecological model and thematic synthesis for data analysis.
resultsThirty-six original research and 27 research notes articles were included in the review. These were predominantly from high-income countries and indicated that practical actions on fostering cross-disciplinary research are closely linked to leadership and teamwork which should be planned and implemented at research team and institutional levels. The publications also indicated that individual qualities such as being receptive to new ideas and funders' power and influence have practical implications for conducting cross-disciplinary research. Practical actions that individuals, research team leaders, academic institutions and funders can undertake to foster cross-disciplinary research were identified.
conclusionOur review found evidence from high-income countries, not low-and-middle-income countries, about practices that can improve cross-disciplinary research in global health. Critical knowledge gaps exist around how leadership and teamwork processes can better integrate expertise from different disciplines to make cross-disciplinary research more effective.
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.