BackgroundIncreasing evidence shows that health inequalities exist between and within countries, and emphasis has been placed on strengthening the production and use of the global health inequalities research, so as to improve capacities to act. Yet, a comprehensive overview of this evidence base is still needed, to determine what is known about the global and historical scientific production on health inequalities to date, how is it distributed in terms of country income groups and world regions, how has it changed over time, and what international collaboration dynamics exist.MethodsA comprehensive bibliometric analysis of the global scientific production on health inequalities, from 1966 to 2015, was conducted using Scopus database. The historical and global evolution of the study of health inequalities was considered, and through joinpoint regression analysis and visualisation network maps, the preceding questions were examined.Findings159 countries (via authorship affiliation) contributed to this scientific production, three times as many countries than previously found. Scientific output on health inequalities has exponentially grown over the last five decades, with several marked shift points, and a visible country-income group affiliation gradient in the initiation and consistent publication frequency. Higher income countries, especially Anglo-Saxon and European countries, disproportionately dominate first and co-authorship, and are at the core of the global collaborative research networks, with the Global South on the periphery. However, several country anomalies exist that suggest that the causes of these research inequalities, and potential underlying dependencies, run deeper than simply differences in country income and language.ConclusionsWhilst the global evidence base has expanded, Global North-South research gaps exist, persist and, in some cases, are widening. Greater understanding of the structural determinants of these research inequalities and national research capacities is needed, to further strengthen the evidence base, and support the long term agenda for global health equity.

Overall, there remains insufficient evidence to conclude that any intervention may increase or decrease trust in doctors. This may be due in part to the sensitivity of trust instruments, and a ceiling effect, as trust in doctors is generally high. It may be that current measures of trust are insufficiently sensitive. Further trials are required to explore the impact of doctors' specific training or the use of a patient-centred or decision-sharing approach on patients' trust, especially in the areas of healthcare provider choice, and induction into healthcare organisation. International trials would be of particular benefit. The review was constrained by the lack of consistency between trust measurements, timeframes and populations.

Criteria for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) and partially responsive depression (PRD) as subtypes of major depressive disorder (MDD) are not unequivocally defined. In the present document we used a Delphi-method-based consensus approach to define TRD and PRD and to serve as operational criteria for future clinical studies, especially if conducted for regulatory purposes. We reviewed the literature and brought together a group of international experts (including clinicians, academics, researchers, employees of pharmaceutical companies, regulatory bodies representatives, and one person with lived experience) to evaluate the state-of-the-art and main controversies regarding the current classification. We then provided recommendations on how to design clinical trials, and on how to guide research in unmet needs and knowledge gaps. This report will feed into one of the main objectives of the EUropean Patient-cEntric clinicAl tRial pLatforms, Innovative Medicines Initiative (EU-PEARL, IMI) MDD project, to design a protocol for platform trials of new medications for TRD/PRD.

Background Despite increasing evidence on health inequalities over the past decades, further efforts to strengthen capacities to produce research on this topic are still urgently needed to inform effective interventions aiming to address these inequalities. To strengthen these research capacities, an initial comprehensive understanding of the health inequalities research production process is vital. However, most existing research and models are focused on understanding the relationship between health inequalities research and policy, with less focus on the health inequalities research production process itself. Existing conceptual frameworks provide valuable, yet limited, advancements on this topic; for example, they lack the capacity to comprehensively explain the health (and more specifically the health inequalities) research production process at the local level, including the potential pathways, components and determinants as well as the dynamics that might be involved. This therefore reduces their ability to be empirically tested and to provide practical guidance on how to strengthen the health inequalities research process and research capacities in different settings. Several scholars have also highlighted the need for further understanding and guidance in this area to inform effective action. Methods Through a critical review, we developed a novel conceptual model that integrates the social determinants of health and political economy perspectives to provide a comprehensive understanding of how health inequalities research and the related research capacities are likely to be produced (or inhibited) at local level. Results Our model represents a global hypothesis on the fundamental processes involved, and can serve as a heuristic tool to guide local level assessments of the determinants, dynamics and relations that might be relevant to better understand the health inequalities research production process and the related research capacities. Conclusions This type of knowledge can assist researchers and decision-makers to identify any information gaps or barriers to be addressed, and establish new entry points to effectively strengthen these research capacities. This can lead to the production of a stronger evidence base, both locally and globally, which can be used to inform strategic efforts aimed at achieving health equity.

BackgroundIt is desirable that health researchers have the ability to conduct research on health equity and contribute to the development of their national health system and policymaking processes. However, in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), there is a limited capacity to conduct this type of research due to reasons mostly associated with the status of national (health) research systems. Building sustainable research capacity in LMICs through the triangulation of South–North-South (S-N-S) collaborative networks seems to be an effective way to maximize limited national resources to strengthen these capacities. This article describes how a collaborative project (SDH-Net), funded by the European Commission, has successfully designed a study protocol and a S-N-S collaborative network to effectively support research capacity building in LMICs, specifically in the area of social determinants of health (SDH); this project seeks to elaborate on the vital role of global collaborative networks in strengthening this practice.MethodsThe implementation of SDH-Net comprised diverse activities developed in three phases. Phase 1: national level mapping exercises were conducted to assess the needs for SDH capacity building or strengthening in local research systems. Four strategic areas were defined, namely research implementation and system performance, social appropriation of knowledge, institutional and national research infrastructure, and research skills and training/networks. Phase 2: development of tools to address the identified capacity building needs, as well as knowledge management and network strengthening activities. Phase 3: identifying lessons learned in terms of research ethics, and how policies can support the capacity building process in SDH research.ResultsThe implementation of the protocol has led the network to design innovative tools for strengthening SDH research capacities, under a successful S-N-S collaboration that included national mapping reports, a global open-access learning platform with tools and resources, ethical guidelines for research, policy recommendations, and academic contributions to the global SDH discourse.ConclusionsThe effective triangulation of S-N-S partnerships can be of high value in building sustainable research capacity in LMICs. If designed appropriately, these multicultural, multi-institutional, and multidisciplinary collaborations can enable southern and northern academics to contextualize global research according to their national realities.