The use, misuse and overuse of the ‘low-income and middle-income countries’ category

Lencucha, Raphael; Neupane, Sujaya

doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2022-009067

Cited by 55 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The labelling of countries has been acknowledged as problematic since terminology that creates dichotomies can construct false hierarchies and notions of superiority between countries, attribute value to some lives over others, and perpetuate exploitation (Khan et al, 2022). For instance, an ‘unreflexive reliance on income classification’ can in fact obscure and divide rather than provide meaningful understand differences between settings (Lencucha & Neupane, 2022). While the catchy term ‘WEIRD’ captures the issue of available resources in wealthier, Western countries, and highlights Western‐centric thinking prevalent in the field of child development, it can oversimplify the distribution of resources within countries.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Publishing child development research from around the world: An unfair playing field resulting in most of the world's child population under‐represented in research

Draper

Barnett

Cook

et al. 2022

Infant and Child Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has become increasingly apparent that publishing research on child development from certain countries is especially challenging. These countries have been referred to collectively as the Majority World, the Global South, non‐WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic), or low‐ and middle‐income countries. The aim of this paper is to draw attention to these persistent challenges, and provide constructive recommendations to contribute to better representation of children from these countries in child development research. In this paper, we outline the history of publication bias in developmental science, and issues of generalization of research from these countries and hence where it ‘fits’ in terms of publishing. The importance of explaining context is highlighted, including for research on measurement child development outcomes, and attention is drawn to the vicious publication‐funding cycle that further exacerbates the challenges of publishing this research. Specific recommendations are made to assist child development journals achieve their stated goals of creating a more inclusive, equitable, diverse, and global field of child development.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Publishing child development research from around the world: An unfair playing field resulting in most of the world's child population under‐represented in research

Draper

Barnett

Cook

et al. 2022

Infant and Child Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The World Bank classifies countries into four income groups (low‐income countries, lower‐middle‐income countries and upper‐middle income countries and high‐income countries) yet in the bulk of this study we have simplified this into two categories: LMIC and HIC. Whilst this is common in global health research, there is a growing movement to use more “targeted categorization.” 24 Without stratifying into the four income groups as per Figure 6 we would not be able to appreciate the significant skew towards upper‐middle income countries in LMIC group and the absence of any low‐income countries. Ideally, we would have been able to conduct further analysis on the LMIC population, however we were limited by the statistical significance of such a small cohort.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whilst this is common in global health research, there is a growing movement to use more "targeted categorization." 24 Without stratifying into the four income groups as per Figure 6 we would not be able to appreciate the significant skew towards upper-middle income countries in LMIC group and the absence of any low-income countries. Ideally, we would have been able to conduct further analysis on the LMIC population, however we were limited by the statistical significance of such a small cohort.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Female and low‐ and middle‐income authorship trends in high‐impact ENT journals (2011–2020)

Jashek‐Ahmed

Daudu

Heer

et al. 2023

Laryngoscope Investig Oto

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Despite a recent drive to increase diversity, the global academic workforce is skewed in favor of authors from high‐income countries, and women are under‐represented in the published medical literature. Objectives To explore the trends in authorship of three high‐impact otolaryngology journals over a ten‐year period (2011–2020). Methods Journals selected: JAMA Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery , The Laryngoscope and Rhinology. Articles were reviewed from four issues per journal per year, and data was collected on: time of publication; subspeciality; number of authors; sex of first and last authors; country of practice of first author and country where each study was conducted. Trends were examined though univariate and multivariate logistic regression models. Results 2998 articles were included. 93.9% of first authors and 94.2% of studies were from high‐income countries. Women were first authors in 31.5% ( n = 912) and senior authors in 18.4% ( n = 524) of articles. Female first authorship significantly increased between 2011 and 2020 however female senior authorship remained the same. There have been no significant changes in the proportion of published articles from low‐and middle‐income countries (LMIC) over time ( p = .65). Amongst the LMIC articles, 72% came from Brazil, Turkey or China and there were no published papers from countries with a low‐income economy (gross national income per capita of $1085 or less). Conclusions Although female first authorship has increased in the last decade, there has been minimal other demographic change in authorship over this time. High‐impact otolaryngology journals poorly represent academia in low‐and‐middle income countries. There is a need for increased advocacy promoting gender and geographical research equity in academic medicine. Level of Evidence III.

show abstract

“…In line with these pertinent questions, this systematic literature review sought to understand the nature of CE processes in health research environments in Lower Middle-Income Countries (LMICs). LMICs refer to those countries defined by the World Bank based on the countries’ Gross National Income as having “low-income economies,” “lower middle-income economies” or “upper middle-income economies” as may be amended from time to time [ 21 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Community engagement processes in low- and middle-income countries health research settings: a systematic review of the literature

Mthembu

Mogaka

Chimbari

2023

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Community Engagement is an important ethical imperative in research. Although substantial research emphasizes its real value and strategic importance, much of the available literature focuses primarily on the success of community participation, with little emphasis given to specific community engagement processes, mechanisms and strategies in relation to intended outcomes in research environments. The systematic literature review’s objective was to explore the nature of community engagement processes, strategies and approaches in health research settings in low- and middle-income countries. Methods The systematic literature review design was informed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched for peer-reviewed, English-language literature published between January 2011 and December 2021 through three databases on the internet (PubMed, Web of Science and Google Scholar). The terms "community engagement," "community involvement," "participation," "research settings," and "low- and middle-income countries" were merged in the search. Results The majority of publications [8/10] were led by authors from low- and middle-income countries, with many of them, [9/10] failing to continuously include important aspects of study quality. Even though consultation and information sessions were less participatory, articles were most likely to describe community engagement in these types of events. The articles covered a wide range of health issues, but the majority were concerned with infectious diseases such as malaria, human immunodeficiency virus, and tuberculosis, followed by studies on the environment and broader health factors. Articles were largely under-theorized. Conclusions Despite the lack of theoretical underpinnings for various community engagement processes, strategies and approaches, community engagement in research settings was variable. Future studies should go deeper into community engagement theory, acknowledge the power dynamics underpin community engagement, and be more practical about the extent to which communities may participate.

show abstract

The use, misuse and overuse of the ‘low-income and middle-income countries’ category

Cited by 55 publications

References 29 publications

Publishing child development research from around the world: An unfair playing field resulting in most of the world's child population under‐represented in research

Publishing child development research from around the world: An unfair playing field resulting in most of the world's child population under‐represented in research

Female and low‐ and middle‐income authorship trends in high‐impact ENT journals (2011–2020)

Community engagement processes in low- and middle-income countries health research settings: a systematic review of the literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About