Last mile research: a conceptual map.

Background: The term 'last mile' has been used across disciplines to refer to populations who are farthest away, most difficult to reach, or last to benefit from a program or service. However, last mile research lacks a shared understanding around its conceptualization.Objectives: This project used a concept mapping process to answer the questions: what is last mile research in global health and, how can it be used to make positive change for health equity in the last mile?Methods: Between July and December 2019, a five-stage concept mapping exercise was undertaken using online concept mapping software and an in-person consensus meeting. The stages were: establishment of an expert group and focus prompt; idea generation; sorting and rating; initial analysis and final consensus meeting.Results: A group of 15 health researchers with experience working with populations in last mile contexts and who were based at the Matariki Network institutions of Queen's University, CAN and Dartmouth College, USA took part. The resulting concept map had 64 unique idea statements and the process resulted in a map with five clusters. These included: (1) Last mile populations; (2) Research methods and approaches; (3) Structural and systemic factors; (4) Health system factors, and (5) Broader environmental factors. Central to the map were the ideas of equity, human rights, health systems, and contextual sensitivity.Conclusion: This is the first time 'last mile research' has been the focus of a formal concept mapping exercise. The resulting map showed consensus about who last mile populations are, how research should be undertaken in the last mile and why last mile health disparities exist. The map can be used to inform research training programs, however, repeating this process with researchers and members from different last mile populations would also add further insight.

Decolonizing Global Health Education: Rethinking Institutional Partnerships and Approaches.

Global health often entails partnerships between institutions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) that were previously colonized and high-income countries (HICs) that were colonizers. Little attention has been paid to the legacy of former colonial relationships and the influence they have on global health initiatives. There have been recent calls for the decolonization of global health education and the reexamination of assumptions and practices under pinning global health partnerships. Medicine's role in colonialism cannot be ignored and requires critical review. There is a growing awareness of how knowledge generated in HICs defines practices and informs thinking to the detriment of knowledge systems in LMICs. Additionally, research partnerships often benefit the better-resourced partner. In this article, the authors offer a brief analysis of the intersections between colonialism, medicine, and global health education and explore the lingering impact of colonialist legacies on current global health programs and partnerships. They describe how "decolonized" perspectives have not gained sufficient traction and how inequitable power dynamics and neocolonialist assumptions continue to dominate. They discuss 5 approaches, and highlight resources, that challenge colonial paradigms in the global health arena. Furthermore, they argue for the inclusion of more transfor mative learning approaches to promote change in attitudes and practice. They call for critical reflection and concomitant action to shift colonial paradigms toward more equitable partnerships in global education.

Health Professional Training and Capacity Strengthening Through International Academic Partnerships: The First Five Years of the Human Resources for Health Program in Rwanda.

BACKGROUND: The Rwanda Human Resources for Health Program (HRH Program) is a 7-year (2012-2019) health professional training initiative led by the Government of Rwanda with the goals of training a large, diverse, and competent health workforce and strengthening the capacity of academic institutions in Rwanda. METHODS: The data for this organizational case study was collected through official reports from the Rwanda Ministry of Health (MoH) and 22 participating US academic institutions, databases from the MoH and the College of Medicine and Health Sciences (CMHS) in Rwanda, and surveys completed by the co-authors. RESULTS: In the first 5 years of the HRH Program, a consortium of US academic institutions has deployed an average of 99 visiting faculty per year to support 22 training programs, which are on track to graduate almost 4600 students by 2019. The HRH Program has also built capacity within the CMHS by promoting the recruitment of Rwandan faculty and the establishment of additional partnerships and collaborations with the US academic institutions. CONCLUSION: The milestones achieved by the HRH Program have been substantial although some challenges persist. These challenges include adequately supporting the visiting faculty; pairing them with Rwandan faculty (twinning); ensuring strong communication and coordination among stakeholders; addressing mismatches in priorities between donors and implementers; the execution of a sustainability strategy; and the decision by one of the donors not to renew funding beyond March 2017. Over the next 2 academic years, it is critical for the sustainability of the 22 training programs supported by the HRH Program that the health-related Schools at the CMHS significantly scale up recruitment of new Rwandan faculty. The HRH Program can serve as a model for other training initiatives implemented in countries affected by a severe shortage of health professionals.

The future of global health education: training for equity in global health.

BACKGROUND: Among academic institutions in the United States, interest in global health has grown substantially: by the number of students seeking global health opportunities at all stages of training, and by the increase in institutional partnerships and newly established centers, institutes, and initiatives to house global health programs at undergraduate, public health and medical schools. Witnessing this remarkable growth should compel health educators to question whether the training and guidance that we provide to students today is appropriate, and whether it will be applicable in the next decade and beyond. Given that "global health" did not exist as an academic discipline in the United States 20 years ago, what can we expect it will look like 20 years from now and how can we prepare for that future? DISCUSSION: Most clinicians and trainees today recognize the importance of true partnership and capacity building in both directions for successful international collaborations. The challenge is in the execution of these practices. There are projects around the world where this is occurring and equitable partnerships have been established. Based on our experience and observations of the current landscape of academic global health, we share a perspective on principles of engagement, highlighting instances where partnerships have thrived, and examples of where we, as a global community, have fallen short. CONCLUSIONS: As the world moves beyond the charity model of global health (and its colonial roots), it is evident that the issue underlying ethical global health practice is partnership and the pursuit of health equity. Thus, achieving equity in global health education and practice ought to be central to our mission as educators and advisors when preparing trainees for careers in this field. Seeking to eliminate health inequities wherever they are ingrained will reveal the injustices around the globe and in our own cities and towns.

Beyond Visas and Vaccines: Preparing Students for Domestic and Global Health Engagement.

At campuses across the United States, scores of students are embarking on global health experiences in low- and middle-income countries. The desire to improve the health of poor communities while preparing for future health careers is often the main driver. The spotlight on domestic health issues also has fueled a resurgence of interest in underserved communities in the United States. Regardless of the destination, rigorous preparation is needed to ensure that the students' presence benefits the communities they aim to serve. Development of mutually beneficial programs with host communities coupled with thoughtful preparation of students is essential to the future of these university programs but, more importantly, to achieve the goal of shared learning and capacity building across borders. US program leaders may not fully consider the potential risks that can occur to their programs from involving poorly prepared students, or these risks may appear largely theoretical. However, many experienced practitioners and their international collaborators can relate examples of damaged partnerships, adverse consequences on community structures, dangers to patient safety, and harmed professional reputations and credibility. Domestic health experiences do not require a visa or vaccines but bring students in contact with many of the same ethical, professional, and cross-cultural challenges as overseas endeavors. Fortunately, best practices for preparing students to confront these challenges have emerged from years of experience in domestic and global contexts alike. It all begins with establishing institutional partnerships built on principles of reciprocity and respect. Through careful program design, universities can align missions, goals, and expectations to best serve all invested parties: local partners, students, faculty, staff, and the communities where they will be working. A second critical component is appropriate student selection. Matching student skills with partner needs can optimize benefits for both the host organization and student. Finally, universities can prepare students to navigate in cross-cultural settings in a professional and ethical manner through careful training. Just as negative experiences can have lasting negative consequences, the best ones can lead to strengthened partnerships; durable benefits for local and global communities; and optimal learning for students, their supervisors, and hosts.

Pediatric therapeutics and medicine administration in resource-poor settings: a review of barriers and an agenda for interdisciplinary approaches to improving outcomes.

The lack of affordable, available pediatric drug formulations presents serious global health challenges. This article argues that successful pharmacotherapy for children demands an interdisciplinary approach. There is a need to develop new medicines to address acute and chronic illnesses of children, but also to produce formulations of essential medicines to optimize stability, bioavailability, palatability, cost, accurate dosing and adherence. This, in turn, requires an understanding of the social ecologies in which treatment occurs. Understanding health worker, caregiver and patient practices, limitations, and expectations with regard to medicines is crucial to guiding effective drug development and administration. Using literature on pediatric tuberculosis as a reference, this review highlights sociocultural, pharmacological, and structural barriers that impede the delivery of medicines to children. It serves as a basis for the development of an intensive survey of patient, caregiver, and health care worker understandings of, and preferences for, pediatric formulations in three East African countries.

Health department costs of managing persons with suspected and noncounted tuberculosis in New York City, Three Texas counties, and Massachusetts.

OBJECTIVES: To describe persons with suspected (did not meet the national tuberculosis [TB] surveillance case definition) and noncounted TB (met the TB case definition but transferred and were counted by another jurisdiction) and estimate costs incurred by public health departments for managing them. METHODS: We reviewed TB registry, medical records, budgets, bills, salaries, organizational charts, and travel/activity logs from the year 2000 at health departments in New York City (NYC), three Texas (TX) counties (El Paso, Hidalgo, and Webb), and Massachusetts (MA). We also interviewed or observed personnel to estimate the time spent on activities for these patients. RESULTS: In 2000, NYC and MA had more persons with suspected (n = 2,996) and noncounted (n = 163) TB than with counted (n = 1,595) TB. TX counties had more persons with counted TB (n = 179) than with suspected (n = 55) and noncounted (n = 15) TB. Demographic and clinical characteristics varied widely. For persons with suspected TB, NYC spent an estimated $1.7 million, with an average cost of $636 for each person; TX counties spent $60,928 ($1,108 per patient); and MA spent $1.1 million ($3,330 per patient). For persons with noncounted TB, NYC spent $303,148 ($2,180 per patient), TX counties spent $40,002 ($2,667 per patient), and MA spent $84,603 ($3,525 per patient). CONCLUSIONS: Health departments incurred substantial costs in managing persons with suspected and noncounted TB. These costs should be considered when allocating TB program resources.