Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39979073›Full record

ArticleGlobal public health2025

Perpetuating global inequalities in the knowledge economy: The case of HIV social science research in East Africa.

Daniel Wight

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Daniel WightMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1234-3110

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00022/1Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/14Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/9
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite almost a century's research capacity strengthening in Africa, HIV/AIDS research has been dominated by high-income countries (HICs), illustrating broader inequalities in the global knowledge economy. The perpetuation of weak social science capacity in east Africa is analysed as part of a complex system with multiple causes at different socio-ecological levels. Furthermore, although primarily driven by HIC/ neo-colonialist interests, causes also stem from low-income countries (LICs), and individual actions reproduce macro-level structures. Most factors link to global economic inequalities, and the extraction of data and intellectual capacity from east Africa operates akin to Dependency Theory, but this is exacerbated by African governments. At the meso-level, HIC institutions prioritise revenue and publications over strengthening LIC research capacity, whatever their rhetoric, while serious impediments exist in east African institutions. At the micro-level, HIC researchers perpetuate inequalities through, e.g., prioritising output, maintaining dependency, and choosing HIC rather than LIC conferences and journals. Multiple responses are needed, particularly at the macro-level, especially long-term, tailored funding. Meso-level responses include meritocratic career structures and institutional research consultancies. Individual HIC researchers should, ideally, prioritise training and mentoring, but this risks career advancement. Above all, honesty is required about motives and conflicting interests, at institutional and individual levels.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchHIV InfectionsSocial SciencesAfrica, EasternCapacity BuildingDeveloping CountriesHumansSocioeconomic FactorsAfricadependency theoryGlobal healthHIVresearch capacity strengtheningSDG 10: Reduced inequalitiesSDG 16: Peace, justice and strong institutionsSDG 3: Good health and well-beingSDG 4: Quality education

Identifiers

PMID39979073
PMCPMC12306724

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.