ArticleBMJ global health2024
Research capacity strengthening methods and meanings: negotiating power in a global health programme on violence against women.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring understandings and approaches to decolonisation in the field of violence against women and girls: Towards conceptual clarity and actionable strategies for funding, programming and research.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- An emerging TIMER-2C framework for addressing barriers to research culture and productivity among local healthcare providers in the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa: A qualitative study and modified Delphi approach.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Understanding global health research collaborations: an Indigenous realist evaluation of the African Research Initiative for Scientific Excellence programme.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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.