ContextTo assess the global burden of late and/or poor management of severe neonatal jaundice (SNJ), a common problem worldwide, which may result in death or irreversible brain damage with disabilities in survivors. Population-based data establishing the global burden of SNJ has not been previously reported.ObjectiveDetermine the burden of SNJ in all WHO regions, as defined by clinical jaundice associated with clinical outcomes including acute bilirubin encephalopathy/kernicterus and/or exchange transfusion (ET) and/or jaundice-related death.Data sourcesPubMed, Scopus and other health databases were searched, without language restrictions, from 1990 to 2017 for studies reporting the incidence of SNJ.Study selection/data extractionStratification was performed for WHO regions and results were pooled using random effects model and meta-regression.ResultsOf 416 articles including at least one marker of SNJ, only 21 reported estimates from population-based studies, with 76% (16/21) of them conducted in high-income countries. The African region has the highest incidence of SNJ per 10 000 live births at 667.8 (95% CI 603.4 to 738.5), followed by Southeast Asian, Eastern Mediterranean, Western Pacific, Americas and European regions at 251.3 (132.0 to 473.2), 165.7 (114.6 to 238.9), 9.4 (0.1 to 755.9), 4.4 (1.8 to 10.5) and 3.7 (1.7 to 8.0), respectively. The incidence of ET per 10 000 live births was significantly higher for Africa and Southeast Asian regions at 186.5 (153.2 to 226.8) and 107.1 (102.0 to 112.5) and lower in Eastern Mediterranean (17.8 (5.7 to 54.9)), Americas (0.38 (0.21 to 0.67)), European (0.35 (0.20 to 0.60)) and Western Pacific regions (0.19 (0.12 to 0.31). Only 2 studies provided estimates of clear jaundice-related deaths in infants with significant jaundice [UK (2.8%) and India (30.8%).ConclusionsLimited but compelling evidence demonstrates that SNJ is associated with a significant health burden especially in low-income and middle-income countries.

No abstract

Abstractobjectives Interest in global health has increased greatly in the past two decades. Concomitantly, the number and complexity of research partnerships between high-income (HIC) and low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) has grown. We aimed to determine whether there is authorship parity (equitable representation and author order) or parasitism (no authors from study countries) in paediatric research conducted in LMICs.methods We reviewed all articles published from 2006 to 2015 in the four paediatric journals with the highest Eigenfactor scores. We limited our review to articles from LMICs and abstracted information on author affiliation and order, funding source and study design. We calculated Student's t-tests and chi-square using Fisher's exact test with Monte Carlo estimates.

Academic global health collaborations have the potential to improve joint understanding of health issues in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). Our objective was to elucidate perceptions of benefits and challenges of academic global health collaborations as well as areas for improving collaborative research conducted in LMICs. This cross-sectional, mixed-methods study surveyed investigators' perceptions of benefits and challenges of pediatric academic global health collaborations. Authors of articles from four pediatric journals reporting pediatric research conducted in LMICs published between 2006 and 2015 were surveyed. Responses of LMIC investigators were compared with those of investigators in high-income countries (HICs). Responses to open-ended questions were analyzed using a combined thematic and content analysis approach. Of 1,420 potential respondents, 252 (17.7%) responded to the survey. Collaborative research with investigators from other countries was perceived as beneficial by 88.5% of respondents (n = 223), although this perception was more common among HIC respondents (n = 110, 94.0%) than LMIC respondents (n = 113, 83.7%) (p = 0.014). Sixty-seven percent (n = 170) of respondents perceived that HIC investigators had set the research agenda in work conducted in a LMIC. Respondents identified several critical factors to improve academic global health collaborations, including research capacity building, communication, and early involvement of LMIC investigators with shared decision-making during study conception and grant writing. Pediatric academic global health collaboration was widely perceived as positive. However, despite calls for capacity building and locally generated research ideas, many respondents felt that HIC investigators set the research agenda for work conducted in LMICs. This study provides suggestions for improving collaboration among pediatric academicians globally.