Background A North–South (N–S) research collaboration is one way through which research capacity of developing countries can be strengthened. Whereas N–S collaboration in HIV/AIDS area may result in research capacity strengthening of Southern partners, it is not clear what factors are associated with this type of collaboration. The study aims to characterize N–S research collaboration focusing on HIV/AIDS and to determine factors associated with such N–S research collaborations. Methods Clinical trial data on HIV/AIDS-related studies conducted between 2000 and 2019 were obtained from ClinicalTrials.gov. Using these data, we characterized N–S collaborative studies focusing on HIV/AIDS and summarized them using frequencies and percentages. To determine factors associated with these studies, we used logistic regression and reported results as adjusted odds ratios with Wald 95% confidence intervals. Results and discussion Of the 4,832 HIV/AIDS-related studies retrieved from the registry, less than one-quarter (n = 1133, 23%) involved a Southern institution, with 77% of these studies classified as N–S collaborations. Majority of these studies have single PI (50%), are conducted at single location (39%); have large sample sizes (41%); are federally-funded (32%) or receive funding from other sources (32%); are intervention studies (64%); and involve a mixture of male and female participants (58%) and adult participants (54%). Single PIs (as opposed to multiple PIs) were more likely to be from the North than South institution (odds ratio = 5.59, 95%CI: 4.16 – 11.57). Trend analyses showed that N–S research collaborations produced HIV/AIDS-related studies at a faster rate than S–S research collaborations. N–S collaborations involving female or children produced HIV/AIDS-related studies between 2000 and 2019 at a significantly faster rate than S–S collaborations involving females and children during the same period. Holding other factors constant, N–S collaborative research focusing on HIV/AIDS are associated with: multiple PIs as opposed to single PI, multiple institutions as opposed to a single institution, multiple locations as opposed to a single location, large number of participants as opposed to small sample sizes, and public funding as opposed to industry funding. Almost half of these studies had a Northern PI only, about one-third had a Southern PI only, and much fewer had PIs from both North and South. However, these studies were less likely to receive funding from other sources than industry funding. Conclusions HIV/AIDS-related research is increasingly becoming a more collaborative global research involving more N–S collaborations than S–S collaborations. Factors associated with N–S collaborative studies focusing on HIV/AIDS include multiple PIs, institutions, and locations; large sample sizes; publicly funded; and involve vulnerable populations such as women and children. Whereas almost half of these studies have a Northern PI only, about one-third have a Southern PI only, and much fewer have PIs from both North and South. Our results inform future design and implementation of N–S research collaborations in this area. Suggestions for improvement of ClinicalTrials.gov registry are provided.

IntroductionIn Africa, the prevalence of mental health problems is higher among university students than in the general population. A number of systematic reviews and recent prevalence studies have focused on prevalence of mental health issues among college. This mixed-methods systematic review, including meta-analysis and meta-synthesis, will explore: what mental health services are available to university students; the extent to which students access available services and factors associated with service access; and the degree to which students activate (use) accessible services and factors associated with service activation.Methods and analysisWe will conduct electronic literature search of the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Semantic Scholar, ERIC, Trip Database, Medline and PsycINFO. Disagreement, if any, will be resolved by a third reviewer. Two reviewers will independently assess the methodological quality of included studies using relevant tools. For cross-sectional studies, we will use the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Analytical Cross Sectional Studies whereas qualitative or mixed-methods studies will be assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. OR, risk ratio or mean difference with 95% CI will be considered as the effect size. We will assess heterogeneity between studies by appropriate subgroup analyses. Publication bias will be detected using funnel plots.Ethics and disseminationEthical clearance is not required as we are not collecting primary data. Findings will be disseminated via relevant scientific conferences and peer-reviewed publications.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42022296870.

Background: Psychological distress is prevalent among university students worldwide. Research shows that there are inadequate efforts being made to improve the mental health of university students and there is low level of accessibility of university students to mental health services. This study aimed to determine the relationship between availability of mental health services, barriers to access to the services, and utilization of the services, on psychological distress status of undergraduate students at United States International University- Africa, Kenya Methods: The research was conducted using a mixed methods research approach. Specifically, an exploratory sequential mixed methods research design was employed, including a cross-sectional survey and key informant interviews. The sample population was 249 undergraduate students at USIU-A, collected using cluster and stratified sampling procedure. Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) was used to determine psychological distress status. Results: This study found 76.8% of undergraduate students suffer from psychological distress with highest prevalence among seniors. Majority of students were aware of available sources of mental health services with three most frequently cited sources by students including counselor (87%), social support (84%), and peer counselor (80%). It was found that psychological distress status varies by students’ awareness of availability of psychologists or personal coping strategist. Association between barriers of accessibility and utilization of mental health services to psychological distress status of students i.e., peer stigma, societal stigma, and self-sufficiency. Conclusion: At USIU-A, majority of students suffer from psychological distress. Whereas several sources of mental health services are available at the institution, a good number prefer to seek informal mental health services and two major barriers to mental health service accessibility include attitudinal barriers and stigma.