ArticlePLOS global public health2023
Co-constructing collaboration: An evidence-based approach to advance and evaluate equitable global public health research partnerships.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Stronger together: advancing equity in global health research partnerships.BMJ global health · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Equitable global health partnerships are essential to promote innovative research and strengthen research capacity to address critical public health challenges, but how to optimally evaluate such collaborations is unclear. This was a sequential, multi-method study that utilized an electronic survey informed by the literature followed by semi-structured interviews to comprehensively evaluate the experience of participating in a global research-capacity building collaboration between Nepal and U.S. clinicians and investigators. De-identified quantitative survey were analyzed to calculate descriptive and summary statistics, along with crosstabs of each variable by group. Groups were defined based on country-of-origin and Chi Square statistics calculated to assess for statistically significant differences (p<0.05) between groups. Interviews were analyzed using a descriptive qualitative approach to develop an overall thematic map. 22 survey responses (52.4% response rate) were analyzed; 13 (59.1%) from Nepal, 9 (40.9%) from the U.S. Eight participants (4 Nepal; 4 U.S.) were interviewed. Over the course of the project, all participants reported gaining experience and confidence with research. The majority of participants "strongly agreed" there was a shared understanding of goals, priorities and strategies (Nepal, 58.3%, n = 7; U.S., 88.9%, n = 8;) and that power was shared equally (Nepal, 58.3%, n = 7; U.S., 55.6%, n = 5). The over-arching theme that emerged from the interviews was the importance of 'establishing community' which participants discussed within the broader context of COVID-19. Overall, team members reported strong bi-directional benefit and a greater emphasis on perceived benefits versus challenges. Our survey tool and interview guide, designed to holistically evaluate the impact of a global partnership across various levels of the Social Ecological Model, with particular attention to power dynamics and equity, can be adapted and used by others engaged in similar research capacity collaborations.
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.