Conference equity in global health: a systematic review of factors impacting LMIC representation at global health conferences

Abstract

IntroductionGlobal health conferences are important platforms for knowledge exchange, decision-making and personal and professional growth for attendees. Neocolonial patterns in global health at large and recent opinion reports indicate that stakeholders from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) may be under-represented at such conferences. This study aims to describe the factors that impact LMIC representation at global health conferences.MethodsA systematic review of articles reporting factors determining global health conference attendance was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Articles presenting conference demographics and data on the barriers and/or facilitators to attendance were included. Articles were screened at title and abstract level by four independent reviewers. Eligible articles were read in full text, analysed and evaluated with a risk of bias assessment.ResultsAmong 8765 articles screened, 46 articles met inclusion criteria. Thematic analysis yielded two themes: ‘barriers to conference attendance’ and ‘facilitators to conference attendance’. In total, 112 conferences with 254 601 attendees were described, of which 4% of the conferences were hosted in low-income countries. Of the 98 302 conference attendees, for whom affiliation was disclosed, 38 167 (39%) were from LMICs.Conclusion‘Conference inequity’ is common in global health, with LMIC attendees under-represented at global health conferences. LMIC attendance is limited by systemic barriers including high travel costs, visa restrictions and lower acceptance rates for research presentations. This may be mitigated by relocating conferences to visa-friendly countries, providing travel scholarships and developing mentorship programmes to enable LMIC researchers to participate in global conferences.

Reform of research funding processes could pave the way for progress in global health

“…1 The growing calls to decolonise global health point to imbalances that contribute to the status quo in global health knowledge production: insufficient funding for research capacity building in the Global South, 2 domination of research activities by institutions and researchers from the Global North, 3 lack of fair credit to and representation of local authors in research publications, 4 prohibitive publication costs and little interest in local issues from global health journals, 5 and barriers faced by researchers from the Global South to participation in international conferences. 6 But more pernicious than all of these imbalances is the underlying and pervasive dehumanisation of Black and Brown (and other) people, 7 and the persistent white saviour mentality and related white or northern supremacy. 1 Although somewhat under the radar, the instrumental role of research funders in the perpetuation of the status quo in global health research must be addressed.…”

Priorities for sexually transmitted infection vaccine research and development: Results from a survey of global leaders and representatives

“…Unequal attendance at academic conferences has been documented. A recent systematic review by Velin and colleagues demonstrated that those from LMICs looking to attend global health conferences faced inequities related to cost, visas, and limited speaking opportunities that were less commonly encountered by attendees from HICs [40] . Given these limitations, the generalizability of the results may be limited.…”

Research Equity in Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery

“…10 Inequalities in research output from LMICs may stem from multiple causes, ranging from limited funding, lack of research infrastructure, language barriers, limited research training, and competing clinical demands. 6,11,12 The preference for English in international journals may prevent nonnative speakers from more broadly disseminating their research. 13 The skill needed to thoroughly research a clinical question, the costs of accessing literature for background research, as well as the open access publishing fees may be additional barriers.…”