ArticleBMJ global health2022
How to identify epistemic injustice in global health research funding practices: a decolonial guide.
Article in BMJ global health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
39 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 65 citations in OpenAlex.
- Research Priority Setting Exercises in Neglected Tropical Diseases: A Systematic Mapping Review.Journal of epidemiology and global health · 2026Pooled it
- Mapping global inequities in telemedicine implementation: An umbrella review of barriers and facilitators.PloS one · 2026Pooled it
- Racialized migrant women's discrimination in maternal care: a scoping review.International journal for equity in health · 2025Pooled it
- Identifying critical gaps in research to advance global surgery by 2030: a systematic mapping review.BMC health services research · 2023Pooled it
- Systemic path to global health 2050.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2026Article
- Strengthening an Ethical Framework and Research Practice to Better Link Global Health Research to Health Equity : A Case Study of the SPOT-Impact Consortium.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- A Manifesto for Universal Healthcare: Reconstituting Primary Care Through Digital Innovation, Microbial Technologies and Empowered Citizenship.Microbial biotechnology · 2026Article
- How do global health research actors conceptualise inclusion in response to decolonisation calls? A scoping review.BMJ global health · 2026Article
- WHO's criteria for ethical health research priority-setting in the context of climate change.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2026Article
- Meanings and practices of solidarity in global health: a qualitative investigation - study protocol.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Connecting biospecimens and data: a scoping review-informed conceptual framework for digital infrastructure in biobanking and genomic research in low- and middle-income countries.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Addressing historical biases and the limits of biomedical commodities in vector-borne disease control in Africa.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Perceived barriers for accessing international research funding among Latin American researchers.PloS one · 2026Article
- Decolonising global health evaluations: A scoping review of methodological frameworks.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Global Surgery as an emerging discipline: Why it thrives despite barriers-And what must happen next.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Decolonizing global health: a scoping review of its key components, proposed actions, and contributors.Global health research and policy · 2025Article
- Establishing best practices guidelines for collaborative research in global surgery: developing a Delphi survey.Journal of global health · 2025Article
- Why should we be concerned by internalised racism in global health?BMJ global health · 2025Review
- Enforceable Commitments to Global Health Needed to Fulfill Rights.Health and human rights · 2025Article
- Creating different global health futures: mapping the health research ecosystem and taking decolonial action.BMC health services research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Epistemic injustice is a growing area of study for researchers and practitioners working in the field of global health. Theoretical development and empirical research on epistemic injustice are crucial for providing more nuanced understandings of the mechanisms and structures leading to the exclusion of local and marginalised groups in research and other knowledge practices. Explicit analysis of the potential role of epistemic injustice in policies and practices is currently limited with the absence of methodological starting points. This paper aims to fill this gap in the literature by providing a guide for individuals involved in the design and review of funding schemes wishing to conduct epistemic injustice analysis of their processes using a decolonial lens. Placing contemporary concerns in a wider historical, political and social context and building from the intertwined issues of coloniality of power, coloniality of knowledge and coloniality of being that systematically exclude non-Western epistemic groups, this practice paper presents a three-step decolonial approach for understanding the role and impact of epistemic injustices in global health research funding. It starts with an understanding of how power operates in setting the aim of a call for research proposals. Then, the influence of pose and gaze in the review process is analysed to highlight the presence of epistemological colonisation before discussing methods to address the current funding asymmetries by supporting new ways of being and doing focused on knowledge plurality. Expanding research on how epistemic wrongs manifest in global health funding practices will generate key insights needed to address underlying drivers of inequities within global health project conception and delivery.
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.