Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39663123›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2024

Research capacity strengthening methods and meanings: negotiating power in a global health programme on violence against women.

Nerissa Tilouche, Beatriz Kalichman, Sandi Dheensa, Evelina Rossi, Claire Hawcroft, Ana Flavia d'Oliveira, Heba Owda, Loraine J Bacchus

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ global health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

8 authors.

Nerissa TiloucheFaculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK nerissa.tilouche@lshtm.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2668-8881
Beatriz KalichmanFaculty of Medicine, Sao Paulo University, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Sandi DheensaBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6412-696X
Evelina RossiFaculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Claire HawcroftBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Ana Flavia d'OliveiraFaculty of Medicine, Sao Paulo University, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Heba OwdaFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, An-Najah National University, Nablus, West Bank, State of Palestine.
Loraine J BacchusFaculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9966-8208

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere has been much critical reflection among global health researchers about how power imbalances between high-income countries and low- and middle-income country collaborators are perpetuated through research programmes. Research capacity strengthening (RCS) is considered both a mechanism through which to redress structural power imbalances in global health research and a vehicle for their perpetuation. This paper examines the RCS programme of a multi-county study on violence against women, focussing on how it addressed power imbalances between countries and the challenges involved in doing so. It provides specific examples and lessons learnt.

methods18 semi-structured interviews were conducted online with group members from all five countries involved in the collaboration between April and June 2020. Reflexive thematic analysis, with inductive and deductive approaches was adopted.

findingsParticipants articulated their understandings of RCS as an opportunity for (1) mutual learning, understanding and collaboration and (2) personal and team career development. Participants perceived the RCS programme activities to simultaneously reinforce and challenge power asymmetries within global health research. Power dynamics within the RCS programme operated across three levels; the global health research environment, the research group level and within individual country teams. Participants described structural barriers at all three levels, but felt there were more opportunities to challenge power imbalances at the research group level.

conclusionDespite a strong commitment to addressing power imbalances through the RCS programme, progress was often hampered by the fact that these inequalities reflected broader structural issues in global health, as seen within Healthcare Responding to Violence and Abuse. The programme faced tensions between enhancing researchers' careers while building capacity under the current model, which sometimes conflicted with creating social value or challenging epistemic and normative structures. Participants clearly expressed concerns about power imbalances within the partnership and were keen to address them through the RCS programme. This led to a steep learning curve and significant adaptations within the RCS programme to navigate these issues within existing structural limitations.

Indexed as

Capacity BuildingGlobal HealthFemaleGender-Based ViolenceHumansInterviews as TopicNegotiatingPower, PsychologicalGlobal HealthQualitative study

Identifiers

PMID39663123
PMCPMC11647364

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.