Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34618864›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Considering equity in global health collaborations: A qualitative study on experiences of equity.

Marlyn C Faure, Nchangwi S Munung, Ntobeko A B Ntusi, Bridget Pratt, Jantina de Vries

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Periodontal diseases in Africa.Periodontology 2000 · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Marlyn C FaureDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0003-4135-8925
Nchangwi S MunungDivision of Human Genetics, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0003-1498-3602
Ntobeko A B NtusiDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Bridget PrattCentre for Health Equity, School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Jantina de VriesDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0001-7192-2633
University of Cape Town · ZAThe University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

International collaborations have become the standard model for global health research and often include researchers and institutions from high income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). While such collaborations are important for generating new knowledge that will help address global health inequities, there is evidence to suggest that current forms of collaboration may reproduce unequal power relations. Therefore, we conducted a qualitative study with scientists, researchers and those involved in research management, working in international health collaborations. Interviews were conducted between October 2019 and March 2020. We conducted 13 interviews with 15 participants. From our findings, we derive three major themes. First, our results reflect characteristics of equitable, collaborative research relationships. Here we find both relational features, specifically trust and belonging, and structural features, including clear contractual agreements, capacity building, inclusive divisions of labour, and the involvement of local communities. Second, we discuss obstacles to develop equitable collaborations. These include exclusionary labour practices, donor-driven research agendas, overall research culture, lack of accountability and finally, the inadequate financing of indirect costs for LMIC institutions. Third, we discuss the responsibilities for promoting science equity of funders, LMIC researchers, LMIC institutions, and LMIC governments. While other empirical studies have suggested similar features of equity, our findings extend these features to include local communities as collaborators in research projects and not only as beneficiaries. We also suggest the importance of funders paying for indirect costs, without which the capacity of LMIC institutions will continually erode. And finally, our study shows the responsibilities of LMIC actors in developing equitable collaborations, which have largely been absent from the literature.

Indexed as

Global HealthHealth EquityInternational CooperationQualitative ResearchDeveloping CountriesHealthcare DisparitiesHumansIncomeResearch Personnel

Identifiers

PMID34618864
PMCPMC8496851
OpenAlexW3204099474

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.