Nambiar Devaki, Sankar D Hari, Kakoti Misimi
George Institute for Global Health India, 308 Elegance Tower, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi, 110025, India.
University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Int J Equity Health. 2025 Aug 8;24(1):218. doi: 10.1186/s12939-025-02593-1.
There have been many calls globally to intentionally incorporate equity-oriented practices into health research to effectively tackle structural inequalities and prevent the creation of new ones. Several toolkits, guidelines, and training modules have emerged to help research teams integrate equity into research conduct. The adoption of these resources and conversion to practice is varied. Developing a deeper understanding of what these variations are and what drives them may help improve both tools and practice in the global research space. Our aim was to document lessons from diverse ongoing public health research projects on how equity is integrated across research stages, what this entails, and what challenges remain.
Following an institute-wide appraisal process, we identified five research projects carried out from a networked group of research institutes in India and Australia that offered lessons on addressing equity in the conduct of research. We developed five case studies of these projects using an equity in research heuristic by carrying out 22 in depth interviews and one yarning session (an indigenous knowledge generation and exchange method). We spoke with Principal Investigators, research team members, partner organization members, and community representatives. The interviews covered various aspects, such as the context of the study, team building, study design, and analysis. We asked both about strategies for as well as challenges faced when embedding equity into research processes and phases. We analyzed the transcripts using ATLAS.ti version 23, relying on a deductive coding approach aligned with an existing 8quity heuristic.
Across stages of a research project, efforts were made to integrate equity considerations in all five of our case studies, whether explicitly equity focused (N = 2) or not (N = 3). All studies attempted to locate research in context. For non-equity focussed studies, this was done even when not desired by donors; it was common across project types to have longstanding engagement in particular communities and topic areas. This in turn shaped the formulation of research questions. Equity focused projects invested in inclusion of community members as research team members, while other forms of diversity were prioritised by other teams. All studies placed emphasis on capacity strengthening-for team members (especially those newly joining and not from the community), community members, and health providers. Governance of studies employed strategies like being embedded/living in communities, ensuring engagement (on weekends and evenings), and informal outreach, even as this was sometimes challenging to operationalise. Equity focused projects were concerned with power and coloniality and made explicit efforts to reflect upon and address this. Analysis across studies was concerned with disaggregated analysis; in equity studies, intersectionality approaches were adopted, as was foregrounding indigenous research methods and ensuring respect in attribution of analysis. Marshalling science for better health and greater social justice was a proposition common to all studies, although equity focused studies focused not just on the "what" of their question, but the "how" of conducting research. Impact was an imperative of all case studies, research was seen with a long -term view; the research institution itself having to change to support equity focused and equity in projects.
Case studies of equity integration in research revealed strategies as well as challenges. Many strategies as well as challenges were shared across studies, whether focused on health equity as a topic or not. Overall equity-focused projects had more leeway to focus on process related aspects within study scope, although all studies found ways to change "how" research was done. There is a critical need to frame equity integration not merely as an individual project exercise, but also something that requires institutional backstopping and support.
全球范围内有许多呼声,要求在健康研究中有意纳入以公平为导向的做法,以有效应对结构性不平等问题,并防止产生新的不平等。已经出现了几个工具包、指南和培训模块,以帮助研究团队将公平纳入研究过程。这些资源的采用情况以及转化为实践的情况各不相同。深入了解这些差异是什么以及驱动因素是什么,可能有助于改进全球研究领域的工具和实践。我们的目的是记录来自不同正在进行的公共卫生研究项目的经验教训,内容涉及如何在研究的各个阶段整合公平性、这意味着什么以及仍然存在哪些挑战。
在全机构范围的评估过程之后,我们从印度和澳大利亚的一组联网研究机构开展的研究项目中确定了五个项目,这些项目为在研究中解决公平问题提供了经验教训。我们通过进行22次深入访谈和一次交流会议(一种本土知识生成和交流方法),使用研究中的公平启发法对这些项目进行了五个案例研究。我们与首席研究员、研究团队成员、合作组织成员和社区代表进行了交谈。访谈涵盖了各个方面,如研究背景、团队建设、研究设计和分析。我们询问了将公平纳入研究过程和阶段时的策略以及面临的挑战。我们使用ATLAS.ti 23版本对访谈记录进行了分析,采用了与现有的公平启发法相一致的演绎编码方法。
在一个研究项目的各个阶段,我们的所有五个案例研究都努力将公平考虑因素纳入其中,无论是否明确以公平为重点(明确以公平为重点的有2个,不明确的有3个)。所有研究都试图将研究置于具体背景中。对于不以公平为重点的研究,即使捐赠者不希望这样做,也会这样做;在各类项目中,长期参与特定社区和主题领域是很常见的。这反过来又影响了研究问题的形成。以公平为重点的项目致力于将社区成员纳入研究团队,而其他团队则优先考虑其他形式的多样性。所有研究都强调能力建设,包括团队成员(特别是新加入且非来自社区的成员)、社区成员和卫生服务提供者。研究的治理采用了一些策略,如融入/生活在社区、确保参与(在周末和晚上)以及进行非正式宣传,尽管有时实施起来具有挑战性。以公平为重点的项目关注权力和殖民性,并明确努力对此进行反思和应对。各项研究的分析都关注分类分析;在公平研究中,采用了交叉性方法,还突出了本土研究方法并确保在分析归因方面受到尊重。利用科学促进更好的健康和更大的社会正义是所有研究的共同主张,尽管以公平为重点的研究不仅关注问题的“是什么”,还关注开展研究的“如何做”。影响是所有案例研究的当务之急,研究要有长远眼光;研究机构本身必须进行变革,以支持以公平为重点的项目以及项目中的公平性。
研究中公平整合的案例研究揭示了策略和挑战。无论是否以健康公平为主题,许多策略和挑战在各项研究中都有共性。总体而言,以公平为重点的项目在研究范围内更有空间关注与过程相关的方面,尽管所有研究都找到了改变“如何”开展研究的方法。迫切需要将公平整合不仅视为单个项目的工作,还视为需要机构支持和保障的事情。