Global Health Partnerships for Continuing Medical Education: Lessons from Successful Partnerships

Sriharan, Abi; Harris, Janet; Davis, Dave; Clarke, Mike

doi:10.1080/23288604.2016.1220776

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Authorship lists were interdisciplinary in thirteen articles [ 29 , 34 , 35 , 37 , 39 , 42 – 49 ] and included Southern partners in sixteen articles [ 29 , 34 – 37 , 39 , 41 – 44 , 46 – 51 ]. Where all authors’ primary geographic affiliations could be identified ( n = 29 articles, 152 authors), 120 (79%) authors were affiliated with institutions located in the global North - Canada [ 32 , 35 , 37 , 39 , 41 , 44 , 48 , 52 ]; Europe (Switzerland, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands) [ 30 , 31 , 38 , 40 , 45 , 50 , 53 , 54 ]; the United States [ 29 , 33 , 34 , 36 , 49 , 55 – 58 ]; Australia [ 51 ] - and 32 (21%) were located in the global South (Kenya [ 46 ], Nepal [ 47 ], Rwanda [ 43 ], and Uganda [ 42 ]).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Common among all thirty articles was at least some attention to the interpersonal experience of being involved in GHPs. Many described relational concepts such as mutual trust [ 28 , 36 , 37 , 42 , 45 , 47 , 56 , 57 ], respect, and understanding [ 28 , 36 , 47 , 55 ] as central to their findings. Some authors directly described the value of building personal relationships and friendships in GHPs [ 28 , 30 , 39 , 41 , 55 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly, Steenhoff et al [ 34 ] proposed that GHPs pay careful consideration to why, when, and how to partner, and who benefits from partnering. These authors, among others, found that the day-to-day behaviours, attitudes, and practices of the people involved in GHPs were instrumental in how well they worked [ 32 , 35 , 39 , 41 , 45 , 48 , 51 , 52 , 56 , 57 , 63 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Assessing how global health partnerships function: an equity-informed critical interpretive synthesis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Global health partnerships (GHPs) are situated in complex political and economic relationships and involve partners with different needs and interests (e.g., government agencies, non-governmental organizations, corporations, universities, professional associations, philanthropic organizations and communities). As part of a mixed methods study designed to develop an equity-sensitive tool to support more equity-centred North-South GHPs, this critical interpretive synthesis examined reported assessments of GHPs. Results We examined 30 peer-reviewed articles for power dynamics, equity and inequities, and contradictions or challenges encountered in North-South partnerships. Among articles reviewed, authors most often situated GHPs around a topical focus on research, capacity-building, clinical, or health services issues, with the ‘work’ of the partnership aiming to foster skills or respond to community needs. The specific features of GHPs that were assessed varied widely, with consistently-reported elements including the early phases of partnering; governance issues; the day-to-day work of partnerships; the performance, impacts and benefits of GHPs; and issues of inclusion. Articles shared a general interest in partnering processes and often touched briefly on issues of equity; but they rarely accounted for the complexity of sociopolitical and historical contexts shaping issues of equity in GHPs. Further, assessments of GHPs were often reported without inclusion of voices from all partners or named beneficiaries. GHPs were frequently portrayed as inherently beneficial for Southern partners, without attention to power dynamics and inequities (North-South, South-South). Though historical and political dynamics of the Global North and South were inconsistently examined as influential forces in GHPs, such dynamics were frequently portrayed as complex and characterized by asymmetries in power and resources. Generally, assessments of GHPs paid little attention to the macroeconomic forces in the power and resource dynamics of GHPs highlights the importance of considering the broader political. Our findings suggest that GHPs can serve to entrench both inequitable relationships and unfair distributions of power, resources, and wealth within and between countries (and partners) if inequitable power relationships are left unmitigated. Conclusions We argue that specific practices could enhance GHPs’ contributions to equity, both in their processes and outcomes. Enhancing partnering practices to focus on inclusion, responsiveness to North-South and South-South inequities, and recognition of GHPs as situated in a broader (and inequitable) political economy. A relational and equity-centred approach to assessing GHPs would place social justice, humility and mutual benefits as central practices—that is, regular, routine things that partners involved in partnering do intentionally to make GHPs function well. Practicing equity in GHPs requires continuous efforts to explicitly acknowledge and examine the equity implications of all aspects of partnering.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessing how global health partnerships function: an equity-informed critical interpretive synthesis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Authorship of articles was of interest to us as a marker of who is granted authority or responsibility for reporting on a GHP. Authorship lists were interdisciplinary in thirteen articles (29,34,35,37,39,(42)(43)(44)(45)(46)(47)(48)(49) How did authors portray the contexts in which their GHPs were situated?…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many described relational concepts such as mutual trust(28,36,37,42,45,47,56,57), respect, and understanding (28,36,47,55) as central to their ndings. Some Similarly, many authors described the establishment of shared values, goals, mission, and vision early in the partnership as foundational(31,33,36,39,46,48,55,57).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing How Global Health Partnerships Function: An equity-informed critical interpretive synthesis

Plamondon

Brisbois

Dubent

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global health partnerships (GHPs) are situated in complex political and economic relationships and involve partners with different needs and interests (e.g., government agencies, non-governmental organizations, corporations, universities, professional associations, philanthropic organizations and communities). As part of a mixed methods study designed to develop an equity-sensitive tool to support more equity-centred North-South GHPs, this critical interpretive synthesis examined reported assessments of GHPs. We examined 30 peer-reviewed articles for power dynamics, equity and inequities, and contradictions or challenges encountered in North-South partnerships. Among articles reviewed, authors most often situated GHPs around a topical focus on research, capacity-building, clinical, or health services issues, with the ‘work’ of the partnership aiming to foster skills or respond to community needs. The specific features of GHPs that were assessed varied widely, with consistently-reported elements including the early phases of partnering; governance issues; the day-to-day work of partnerships; the performance, impacts and benefits of GHPs; and issues of inclusion. Articles shared a general interest in partnering processes and often touched briefly on issues of equity; but they rarely accounted for the complexity of sociopolitical and historical contexts shaping issues of equity in GHPs. Further, assessments of GHPs were often reported without inclusion of voices from all partners or named beneficiaries. GHPs were frequently portrayed as inherently beneficial for Southern partners, without attention to power dynamics and inequities (North-South, South-South). Though historical and political dynamics of the Global North and South were inconsistently examined as influential forces in GHPs, such dynamics were frequently portrayed as complex and characterized by asymmetries in power and resources. Generally, assessments of GHPs paid little attention to the macroeconomic forces in the power and resource dynamics of GHPs highlights the importance of considering the broader political. Our findings suggest that GHPs can serve to entrench both inequitable relationships and unfair distributions of power, resources, and wealth within and between countries (and partners) if inequitable power relationships are left unmitigated. We argue that specific practices could enhance GHPs’ contributions to equity, both in their processes and outcomes. Enhancing partnering practices to focus on inclusion, responsiveness to North-South and South-South inequities, and recognition of GHPs as situated in a broader (and inequitable) political economy. A relational and equity-centred approach to assessing GHPs would place social justice, humility and mutual benefits as central practices —that is, regular, routine things that partners involved in partnering do intentionally to make GHPs function well. Practicing equity in GHPs requires continuous efforts to explicitly acknowledge and examine the equity implications of all aspects of partnering.

show abstract

Twelve Lessons Learned for Effective Research Partnerships Between Patients, Caregivers, Clinicians, Academic Researchers, and Other Stakeholders

Witteman

Dansokho

Colquhoun³

et al. 2018

J GEN INTERN MED

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research increasingly means that patients, caregivers, health professionals, other stakeholders, and academic investigators work in partnership. This requires effective collaboration rooted in mutual respect, involvement of all participants, and good communication.Having conducted such partnered research over multiple projects, and having recently completed a project together funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, we collaboratively developed a list of 12 lessons we have learned about how to ensure effective research partnerships. To foster a culture of mutual respect, hold early in-person meetings, with introductions focused on motivation, offer appropriate orientation for everyone, and maintain awareness of individual and project goals. To actively involve all team members, it is important to ensure sufficient funding for everyone's participation, to ask for and recognize diverse contributions, and to seek the input of quiet members. To facilitate good communication, teams should carefully consider labels, avoid jargon and acronyms, judiciously use homogeneous and heterogeneous subgroups, and keep progress visible. In offering pragmatic, actionable lessons we have learned through our separate and shared experiences, we hope to help foster more patient-centered research via productive and enjoyable research collaborations. INTRODUCTIONHealth research teams increasingly include patients, caregivers, clinicians, and other stakeholders whose primary careers are not health research. This may occur because team leaders are convinced of the merits of such an approach, because funders or publishers require it, or both. 1-4 Such partnerships are intended to increase the relevance of research to those who might benefit from it and thus to reduce research waste. 5 This is an excellent and laudable aim; however, there is relatively little practical guidance available about how to effectively conduct such partnered research.Previous reviews and evaluations demonstrate four points about conducting partnered research. First, research teams with patients, caregivers, and other stakeholder team members tend to involve these stakeholders more at earlier stages in the project than at later stages. 6,7 Second, people coming into projects without a research background may require orientation in order to participate fully. 8 Third, benefits of partnership may be difficult to formally assess. 9 Fourth, time requirements are a frequent concern for everyone. 7,10 These reviews offer valuable evidence syntheses relevant to partnership, as do recommendations from long-standing traditions of methods 558JGIM such as community-based participatory research 11 and participatory action research. 12 However, as partnered research expands across research types and funding opportunities, more people are engaging in team structures that are new to them. Available frameworks suggest structures for partnerships, [13][14][15][16] and literature promotes broad principles such as addressing issues of power and equity [17][18][19...

show abstract

Global Health Partnerships for Continuing Medical Education: Lessons from Successful Partnerships

Cited by 7 publications

References 47 publications

Assessing how global health partnerships function: an equity-informed critical interpretive synthesis

Assessing how global health partnerships function: an equity-informed critical interpretive synthesis

Assessing How Global Health Partnerships Function: An equity-informed critical interpretive synthesis

Twelve Lessons Learned for Effective Research Partnerships Between Patients, Caregivers, Clinicians, Academic Researchers, and Other Stakeholders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About