The international partner universities of East African health professional programmes: why do they do it and what do they value?

BACKGROUND: Globalization and funding imperatives drive many universities to internationalize through global health programmes. University-based global health researchers, advocates and programmes often stress the importance of addressing health inequity through partnerships. However, empirical exploration of perspectives on why universities engage in these partnerships and the benefits of them is limited. OBJECTIVE: To analyse who in international partner universities initiated the partnerships with four East African universities, why the partnerships were initiated, and what the international partners value about the partnerships. METHODS: Fifty-nine key informants from 26 international universities partnering with four East African universities in medicine, nursing and/or public health participated in individual in-depth interviews. Transcripts were analysed thematically. We then applied Burton Clark's framework of "entrepreneurial" universities characterized by an "academic heartland", "expanded development periphery", "managerial core" and "expanded funding base", developed to examine how European universities respond to the forces of globalization, to interpret the data through a global health lens. RESULTS: Partnerships that were of interest to universities' "academic heartland" - research and education - were of greatest interest to many international partners, especially research intensive universities. Some universities established and placed coordination of their global health activities within units consistent with an expanded development periphery. These units were sometimes useful for helping to establish and support global health partnerships. Success in developing and sustaining the global health partnerships required some degree of support from a strengthened steering or managerial core. Diversified funding in the form of third-stream funding, was found to be essential to sustain partnerships. Social responsibility was also identified as a key ethos required to unite the multiple elements in some universities and sustain global health partnerships. CONCLUSION: Universities are complex entities. Various elements determine why a specific university entered a specific international partnership and what benefits it accrues. Ultimately, integration of the various elements is required to grow and sustain partnerships potentially through embracing social responsibility as a common value.

What Makes International Global Health University Partnerships Higher-Value? An Examination of Partnership Types and Activities Favoured at Four East African Universities.

BACKGROUND: There are many interuniversity global health partnerships with African universities. Representatives of these partnerships often claim partnership success in published works, yet critical, contextualized, and comparative assessments of international, cross-border partnerships are few. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this paper are to describe partnerships characterized as higher-value for building the capacity of four East African universities and identify why they are considered so by these universities. METHODS: Forty-two senior representatives of four universities in East Africa described the value of their partnerships. A rating system was developed to classify the value of the 125 international partnerships they identified, as the perceived value of some partnerships varied significantly between representatives within the same university. An additional 88 respondents from the four universities and 59 respondents from 25 of the international partner universities provided further perspectives on the partnerships identified. All interviews were transcribed and analysed in relation to the classification and emergent themes. FINDINGS: Thirty-one (25%) of the partnerships were perceived as higher-value, 41 (33%) medium-value, and 53 (42%) lower-value for building the capacity of the four focus universities. Thirteen (42%) of the higher-value partnerships were over 20 years old, while 8 (26%) were between 3 and 5 years old. New international partners were able to leapfrog some of the development phases of partnerships by coordinating with existing international partners and/or by building on the activities of or filling gaps in older partnerships. Higher-valued partnerships supported PhD obtainment, the development of new programmes and pedagogies, international trainee learning experiences, and infrastructure development. The financial and prestige value of partnerships were important but did not supersede other factors such as fit with strategic needs, the development of enduring results, dependability and reciprocity. Support of research or service delivery were also considered valuable but, unless education components were also included, the results were deemed unlikely to last. CONCLUSION: International partnerships prioritizing the needs of the focus university, supporting it in increasing its long-term capacity and best ensuring that capacity benefits realized favour the focus university are valued most. How best to achieve this so all partners still benefit sufficiently requires further exploration.

Mapping International University Partnerships Identified by East African Universities as Strengthening Their Medicine, Nursing, and Public Health Programs.

BACKGROUND: International university partnerships are recommended for increasing the capacity of sub-Saharan African universities. Many publications describe individual partnerships and projects, and tools are available for guiding collaborations, but systematic mappings of the basic, common characteristics of partnerships are scarce. OBJECTIVE: To document and categorize the international interuniversity partnerships deemed significant to building the capacity of medicine, nursing, and public health programs of 4 East African universities. METHODS: Two universities in Kenya and 2 in Tanzania were purposefully selected. Key informant interviews, conducted with 42 senior representatives of the 4 universities, identified partnerships they considered significant for increasing the capacity of their institutions' medicine, nursing, and public health programs in education, research, or service. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed. Partners were classified by country of origin and corresponding international groupings, duration, programs, and academic health science components. FINDINGS: One hundred twenty-nine university-to-university partnerships from 23 countries were identified. Each university reported between 25 and 36 international university partners. Seventy-four percent of partnerships were with universities in high-income countries, 15% in low- and middle-income countries, and 11% with consortia. Seventy percent included medicine, 37% nursing, and 45% public health; 15% included all 3 programs. Ninety-two percent included an education component, 47% research, and 24% service; 12% included all 3 components. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the rapid growth of interuniversity cross-border health partnerships this century. It also finds, however, that there is a pool of established international partnerships from numerous countries at each university. Most partnerships that seek to strengthen universities in East Africa should likely ensure they have a significant education component. Universities should make more systematic information about past and existing partnerships available publicly.