Epidemiology and Demography Department, KEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Kilifi, Kenya.
Institute of Economic and Social Research, University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia.
Int J Equity Health. 2022 Aug 17;21(1):111. doi: 10.1186/s12939-022-01707-3.
Global health research partnerships have been scrutinised for how they operate and criticised for perpetuating inequities. Guidance to inform fair partnership practice has proliferated and the movement to decolonise global health has added momentum for change. In light of this evolving context, we sought in this study to document contemporary experiences of partnership from the perspective of stakeholders in four sub-Saharan African research institutions.
We conducted qualitative interviews with 20 stakeholders at research institutions in four countries in anglophone eastern and southern Africa. Interview questions were informed by published guidance on equitable research partnerships. Data was analysed through an iterative process of inductive and deductive coding, supported by NVivo software.
Early-career, mid-career and senior researchers and research administrators from four sub-Saharan African research institutions described wide-ranging experiences of partnership with high-income country collaborators. Existing guidelines for partnership provided good coverage of issues that participants described as being the key determinants of a healthy partnership, including mutual respect, role clarity and early involvement of all partners. However, there was almost no mention of guidelines being used to inform partnership practice. Participants considered the key benefits of partnership to be capacity strengthening and access to research funding. Meanwhile, participants continued to experience a range of well-documented inequities, including exclusion from agenda setting, study design, data analysis and authorship; and relationships that were exploitative and dominated by high-income country partners' interests. Participants also reported emerging issues where their institution had been the prime recipient of funds. These included high-income country partners being unwilling to accept a subordinate role and failing to comply with reporting requirements.
Insights from stakeholders in four sub-Saharan African research institutions suggest that contemporary global health research partnerships generate considerable benefits but continue to exhibit longstanding inequities and reveal emerging tensions. Our findings suggest that long-term support targeted towards institutions and national research systems remains essential to fulfil the potential of research led from sub-Saharan Africa. High-income country stakeholders need to find new roles in partnerships and stakeholders from sub-Saharan Africa must continue to tackle challenges presented by the resource-constrained contexts in which they commonly operate.
全球卫生研究伙伴关系的运作方式受到了严格审查，并因延续不平等而受到批评。指导公平伙伴关系实践的指南大量涌现，去殖民化全球卫生的运动为变革增添了动力。鉴于这种不断变化的背景，我们在这项研究中试图从撒哈拉以南非洲四个研究机构的利益相关者的角度记录当前伙伴关系的经验。
我们对来自四个国家的四个非洲研究机构的 20 名利益相关者进行了定性访谈。访谈问题是根据关于公平研究伙伴关系的已发表指南制定的。数据通过 NVivo 软件支持的归纳和演绎编码的迭代过程进行分析。
来自撒哈拉以南非洲四个研究机构的初、中、高级研究人员和研究管理人员描述了与高收入国家合作者广泛的伙伴关系经验。现有的伙伴关系准则很好地涵盖了参与者描述为健康伙伴关系的关键决定因素的问题，包括相互尊重、角色明确和所有合作伙伴的早期参与。然而，几乎没有提到使用准则来指导伙伴关系实践。参与者认为伙伴关系的主要好处是能力建设和获得研究资金。与此同时，参与者继续经历一系列有充分记录的不平等现象，包括被排除在议程设定、研究设计、数据分析和作者身份之外；以及由高收入国家合作伙伴的利益主导的剥削性关系。参与者还报告了新兴问题，即他们的机构是资金的主要接受者。其中包括高收入国家的合作伙伴不愿意接受次要角色，也不遵守报告要求。
来自撒哈拉以南非洲四个研究机构的利益相关者的观点表明，当代全球卫生研究伙伴关系带来了巨大的利益，但仍存在长期存在的不平等现象，并揭示了新出现的紧张局势。我们的研究结果表明，针对机构和国家研究系统的长期支持仍然是发挥非洲撒哈拉以南地区主导研究潜力的关键。高收入国家的利益相关者需要在伙伴关系中找到新的角色，而撒哈拉以南非洲的利益相关者必须继续应对他们通常运作的资源有限的环境所带来的挑战。
