Co-constructing collaboration: An evidence-based approach to advance and evaluate equitable global public health research partnerships
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Amos V
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10593218 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Cellular immunotherapies promise to transform cancer care. However, they must overcome serious challenges, including: (1) the need to identify and characterize novel cancer antigens to expand the range of therapeutic targets; (2) the need to develop strategies to minimize serious adverse events, such as cytokine release syndrome and treatment-related toxicities; and (3) the need to develop efficient production/manufacturing processes to reduce costs. Here, we discuss whether these challenges might better be addressed through forms of public-private research collaborations, including public-private partnerships (PPPs), or whether these challenges are best addressed by way of standard market transactions. We reviewed 14 public-private relationships and 25 underlying agreements for the clinical development of cancer cellular immunotherapies in the US. Most were based on bilateral research agreements and pure market transactions in the form of service contracts and technology licenses, which is representative of the commercialization focus of the field. We make the strategic case that multiparty PPPs may better advance cancer antigen discovery and characterization and improved cell processing/manufacturing and related activities. In the rush toward the competitive end of the translational continuum for cancer cellular immunotherapy and the attendant focus on commercialization, many gaps have appeared in our understanding of cellular biology, immunology, and bioengineering. We conclude that the model of bilateral agreements between leading research institutions and the private sector may be inadequate to efficiently harness the interdisciplinary skills and knowledge of the public and private sectors to bring these promising therapies to the clinic for the benefit of cancer patients.
| S-EPMC5561330 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Antimicrobial Resistance is recognized as a major threat to global health security. The WHO Southeast Asia region is dubbed a "global hub for AMR emergence", as it runs the highest risk for AMR emergence among all WHO regions in Asia. Hence, there is a need for Asia-centric, collaborative AMR research aligned with the true needs and priorities of the region. This study aimed to identify and understand the challenges and opportunities for such collaborative endeavors to enhance equitable partnerships. This qualitative study adopted an interpretative approach involving a thematic analysis of 15 semi-structured interviews with AMR experts conducting research in the region. The study identified several factors influencing research collaborations, such as the multi-dimensional nature of AMR, limited or lack of funds, different AMR research priorities in Asian countries, absence of Asia-centric AMR leadership, lack of trust and, unequal power relationships between researchers, and the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in research collaborations. It also identified some opportunities, such as the willingness of researchers to collaborate, the formation of a few networks, and the prioritization by many academics of the One Health paradigm for framing AMR research. Participants reported that the initiation of stronger cross-discipline and cross-country networks, the development of Asia-centric AMR leadership, flexible research agendas with shared priorities, transparent and transferable funds, and support to enhance research capacity in LMICs could assist in developing more equitable collaborative research in Asia.
| S-EPMC9219997 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8420943 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The complexity of issues addressed by research for development (R4D) requires collaborations between partners from a range of disciplines and cultural contexts. Power asymmetries within such partnerships may obstruct the fair distribution of resources, responsibilities and benefits across all partners. This paper presents a cross-case analysis of five R4D partnership evaluations, their methods and how they unearthed and addressed power asymmetries. It contributes to the field of R4D partnership evaluations by detailing approaches and methods employed to evaluate these partnerships. Theory-based evaluations deepened understandings of how equitable partnerships contribute to R4D generating impact and centring the relational side of R4D. Participatory approaches that involved all partners in developing and evaluating partnership principles ensured contextually appropriate definitions and a focus on what partners value.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1057/s41287-023-00578-w.
| S-EPMC9947878 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Equitable health research requires actively engaging communities in producing new knowledge to advocate for their health needs. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) relies on the coproduction of contextual and grounded knowledge between researchers, programme implementers and community partners with the aim of catalysing action for change. Improving coproduction competencies can support research quality and validity. Yet, frameworks and guidance highlighting the ideal competencies and conditions needed for all research partners to contribute meaningfully and equitably are lacking. This paper aims to advance CBPR by laying out seven core competencies and conditions that can promote power sharing in knowledge production, application and dissemination at the individual, community, organisational and systems levels.Competencies were developed through an iterative process, that synthesised pre-existing literature and frameworks with a wide range of tacit knowledge from researchers, activists, implementation partners and community researchers from Bangladesh, India, Kenya, Sierra Leone and the UK.The seven core competencies and conditions are: (1) capacity to interpret and respond to individual and relational identity, connection, uniqueness and inequities; (2) ability of communities and partners to work in the most suitable, inclusive and synergistic way; (3) aptitude for generating safe and inclusive spaces for multidirectional knowledge and skills exchange that goes beyond the research focus; (4) expertise in democratic leadership and/or facilitation to balance competing priorities and ensure shared decision-making; (5) capacity to analyse readiness for action, successes and areas for improvements throughout the research process; (6) ability to instigate sustainable change processes within the political dimensions of systems, policies and practices using advocacy, lobbying or activism approaches and (7) skills to interpret and disseminate findings and outputs that are understandable, respectful and promote community ownership. We present core competency and condition areas, individual and collective expertise associated with competencies, likely outcomes, examples of activities and sources of evidence.
| S-EPMC11574420 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite the acknowledged injustice and widespread existence of parachute research studies conducted in low- or middle-income countries by researchers from institutions in high-income countries, there is currently no pragmatic guidance for how academic journals should evaluate manuscript submissions and challenge this practice. We assembled a multidisciplinary group of editors and researchers with expertise in international health research to develop this consensus statement. We reviewed relevant existing literature and held three workshops to present research data and holistically discuss the concept of equitable authorship and the role of academic journals in the context of international health research partnerships. We subsequently developed statements to guide prospective authors and journal editors as to how they should address this issue. We recommend that for manuscripts that report research conducted in low- or middle-income countries by collaborations including partners from one or more high-income countries, authors should submit accompanying structured reflexivity statements. We provide specific questions that these statements should address and suggest that journals should transparently publish reflexivity statements with accepted manuscripts. We also provide guidance to journal editors about how they should assess the structured statements when making decisions on whether to accept or reject submitted manuscripts. We urge journals across disciplines to adopt these recommendations to accelerate the changes needed to halt the practice of parachute research.
| S-EPMC9293237 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There are increasing calls to decolonise aspects of science, and global health is no exception. The decolonising global health movement acknowledges that global health research perpetuates existing power imbalances and aims to identify concrete ways in which global health teaching and research can overcome its colonial past and present. Using the context of clinical trials implemented through transnational research partnerships (TRPs) as a case study, this narrative review brings together perspectives from clinical research and social science to lay out specific ways in which TRPs build on and perpetuate colonial power relations. We will explore three core components of TRPs: participant experience, expertise and infrastructure, and authorship. By combining a critical perspective with recently published literature we will recommend specific ways in which TRPs can be decolonised. We conclude by discussing decolonising global health as a potential practice and object of research. By doing this we intend to frame the decolonising global health movement as one that is accessible to everyone and within which we can all play an active role.
| S-EPMC7651076 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This column describes a process for adapting an evidence-based practice in community clinics in which researchers and community providers participated and the resulting framework for implementation of the practice-Replicating Effective Programs-Facilitation. A two-day meeting for the Recovery-Oriented Collaborative Care study was conducted to elicit input from more than 50 stakeholders, including community providers, health care administrators, and implementation researchers. The process illustrates an effective researcher-community partnership in which stakeholders worked together not only to adapt the evidence-based practice to the needs of the clinical settings but also to develop the implementation strategy.
| S-EPMC5721667 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe effectiveness of community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships to address health inequities is well documented. CBPR integrates knowledge and perspectives of diverse communities throughout the research process, following principles that emphasize trust, power sharing, co-learning, and mutual benefits. However, institutions and funders seldom provide the time and resources needed for the critical stage of equitable partnership formation and development.MethodsSince 2011, the Detroit Urban Research Center, collaborating with other entities, has promoted the development of new community-academic research partnerships through two grant programs that combine seed funding with capacity building support from community and academic instructors/mentors experienced in CBPR. Process and outcomes were evaluated using mixed methods.ResultsFrom 2011 to 2021, 50 partnerships received grants ranging from $2,500 to $30,000, totaling $605,000. Outcomes included equitable partnership infrastructure and processes, innovative pilot research, translation of findings to interventions and policy change, dissemination to multiple audiences, new proposals and projects, and sustained community-academic research partnerships. All partnerships continued beyond the program; over half secured additional funding.ConclusionsKeys to success included participation as community-academic teams, dedicated time for partnership/relationship development, workshops to develop equity-based skills, relationships, and projects, expert community-academic instructor guidance, and connection to additional resources. Findings demonstrate that small amounts of seed funding for newly forming community-academic partnerships, paired with capacity building support, can provide essential time and resources needed to develop diverse, inclusive, equity-focused CBPR partnerships. Building such support into funding initiatives and through academic institutions can enhance impact and sustainability of translational research toward advancing health equity.
| S-EPMC9879886 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn 2019-2020, with National Cancer Institute funding, seven implementation laboratory (I-Lab) partnerships between scientists and stakeholders in 'real-world' settings working to implement evidence-based interventions were developed within the Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) consortium. This paper describes and compares approaches to the initial development of seven I-Labs in order to gain an understanding of the development of research partnerships representing various implementation science designs.MethodsIn April-June 2021, members of the ISC3 Implementation Laboratories workgroup interviewed research teams involved in I-Lab development in each center. This cross-sectional study used semi-structured interviews and case-study-based methods to collect and analyze data about I-Lab designs and activities. Interview notes were analyzed to identify a set of comparable domains across sites. These domains served as the framework for seven case descriptions summarizing design decisions and partnership elements across sites.ResultsDomains identified from interviews as comparable across sites included engagement of community and clinical I-Lab members in research activities, data sources, engagement methods, dissemination strategies, and health equity. The I-Labs use a variety of research partnership designs to support engagement including participatory research, community-engaged research, and learning health systems of embedded research. Regarding data, I-Labs in which members use common electronic health records (EHRs) leverage these both as a data source and a digital implementation strategy. I-Labs without a shared EHR among partners also leverage other sources for research or surveillance, most commonly qualitative data, surveys, and public health data systems. All seven I-Labs use advisory boards or partnership meetings to engage with members; six use stakeholder interviews and regular communications. Most (70%) tools or methods used to engage I-Lab members such as advisory groups, coalitions, or regular communications, were pre-existing. Think tanks, which two I-Labs developed, represented novel engagement approaches. To disseminate research results, all centers developed web-based products, and most (n = 6) use publications, learning collaboratives, and community forums. Important variations emerged in approaches to health equity, ranging from partnering with members serving historically marginalized populations to the development of novel methods.ConclusionsThe development of the ISC3 implementation laboratories, which represented a variety of research partnership designs, offers the opportunity to advance understanding of how researchers developed and built partnerships to effectively engage stakeholders throughout the cancer control research lifecycle. In future years, we will be able to share lessons learned for the development and sustainment of implementation laboratories.
| S-EPMC9942028 | biostudies-literature