Are we there yet? Principles in advancing equity though global public health research.

Canadian engagement in global and public health includes a long history of centering issues of equity in practice, policy, and research. In 2015, through a series of deliberative dialogues about what ethical standards should guide how people engage in global health research, the Canadian Coalition for Global Health Research (CCGHR) released a set of six equity-centred principles and critically reflective questions. These principles offered a platform for identifying equity implications and choices about theories, methods, approaches, partnerships, or practices in global and public health. In 2022, as questions of how to unsettle systems of power and move beyond rhetorical efforts to advance equity action continue to grow, Canada's global public health research community is turning a critically reflexive gaze at our own practices and ways of working, recognizing excellence as necessarily integrating equity in research pursuits, processes, and outcomes. In this commentary, we reflect on the contexts that led to the evolution of the CCGHR Principles for Global Health Research and highlight their current reach and impact, including their integration in the Canadian Institutes Framework for Action on Global Health Research. We invite others to embrace a lifelong commitment to equity work as an act of solidarity and investment in our collective futures.

RéSUMé: La participation canadienne à la santé mondiale et publique est depuis longtemps centrée sur les questions d'équité dans les pratiques, les politiques et la recherche. En 2015, au moyen d'une série de dialogues délibératifs sur les normes éthiques qui devraient guider la façon dont les gens participent à la recherche en santé mondiale, la Coalition canadienne pour la recherche en santé mondiale (CCRSM) a publié six principes et questions de réflexion critique centrés sur l'équité. Ces principes ont constitué une plateforme pour déterminer les répercussions de théories, de méthodes, d'approches, de partenariats ou de pratiques en santé mondiale et publique sur l'équité ­ et les choix à faire. En 2022, alors qu'il se pose de plus en plus de questions sur la façon d'ébranler les systèmes de pouvoir et d'aller au-delà des efforts rhétoriques pour faire avancer les mesures d'équité, la communauté de recherche en santé publique mondiale du Canada porte un regard critique et réflexif sur ses propres pratiques et façons de travailler, en reconnaissant l'excellence comme intégrant nécessairement l'équité dans les activités, les processus et les résultats de recherche. Dans ce commentaire, nous réfléchissons aux contextes qui ont fait évoluer les Principes de recherche en santé mondiale CCRSM et nous soulignons leur portée et leurs effets actuels, y compris leur intégration dans le Cadre d'action pour la recherche en santé mondiale des Instituts de recherche en santé du Canada. Nous lançons à d'autres l'invitation d'adopter un engagement à vie en faveur de l'équité, par solidarité et pour investir dans notre avenir collectif.

Facing a Paradigm Shift in the Sustainable Development Goal Era.

The Sustainable Development Goals challenge us to step beyond traditional development approaches and to consider strategies that are evidence informed and innovative. The concepts are familiar; themes aligned with Harmonization, Primary Healthcare, Leadership, Public Private Partnerships, Community Engagement, and Integrated Technologies. However, to optimize resources and overcome today's challenge with sustainable solutions, we must capture lessons learned and apply evidence developed to inform and expand the thinking to shape and inform new paradigms. The tools, the experience, and the evidence are at our finger-tips. We must hold ourselves accountable to turn that rudder and hold the line so that the ship can advance toward universal health coverage that ensures healthy lives and promotes wellbeing for all at all ages. Health is where economic well-being, labour opportunities, educational advancement, gender equity and access to food, water, clean air come together to advance the wellbeing of all. This juncture is most significant at community level, where health systems intertwine with the social and cultural fabric and health workers stand at the interface between the health system and the people it serves. In these manuscripts, thought leaders in the health sector share evidence and experience to help us consider how we will use this intersection to push all nations to achieve all the SDGs.

Making a commitment to ethics in global health research partnerships: a practical tool to support ethical practice.

Global health research partnerships have many benefits, including the development of research capacity and improving the production and use of evidence to improve global health equity. These partnerships also include many challenges, with power and resource differences often leading to inequitable and unethical partnership dynamics. Responding to these challenges and to important gaps in partnership scholarship, the Canadian Coalition for Global Health Research (CCGHR) conducted a three-year, multi-regional consultation to capture the research partnership experiences of stakeholders in South Asia, Latin America, and sub-Saharan Africa. The consultation participants described persistent inequities in the conduct of global health research partnerships and called for a mechanism through which to improve accountability for ethical conduct within partnerships. They also called for a commitment by the global health research community to research partnership ethics. The Partnership Assessment Toolkit (PAT) is a practical tool that enables partners to openly discuss the ethics of their partnership and to put in place structures that create ethical accountability. Clear mechanisms such as the PAT are essential to guide ethical conduct to ensure that global health research partnerships are beneficial to all collaborators, that they reflect the values of the global health endeavor more broadly, and that they ultimately lead to improvements in health outcomes and health equity.

Mentoring, training and support to global health innovators: a scoping review.

Global health innovators must navigate substantial complexities to successfully develop, implement and sustain global health innovations with impact through application of an Integrated InnovationTM approach. We sought to examine the nature of the literature and evidence around mentoring, training and support of global health innovators. We conducted a scoping review searching eight databases with terms capturing different kinds of innovation and support. Assessment of relevance and mapping was completed by two reviewers, with interpretation by the review team. Twenty-eight relevant papers provided perspectives on fostering global health innovators and innovation. Fifteen included empirical data on supports to global health innovators involving a wide range of innovators. Eight included documentation of outcomes but without designs to determine effectiveness. The diverse mentoring, training and support activities included: business incubators, support organizations and centres for entrepreneurship, technology transfer and intellectual property management, internship programs for business skill development, initiatives to bridge industry and researchers, and platforms for South-led innovation for global health. We propose the cultivation of a pipeline of global health innovators to increase the number of appropriate, sustainable innovations with impact in global health. Further empirical work on how to effectively support global health innovators is needed.

Funding agencies in low- and middle-income countries: support for knowledge translation.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to describe how selected health research funding agencies active in low- and middle-income countries promote the translation of their funded research into policy and practice. METHODS: We conducted inductive analysis of semi-structured interviews with key informants from a purposive sample of 23 national and international funding agencies that fund health research in Brazil, Colombia, India, the Philippines, South Africa and Thailand. We also surveyed web sites. FINDINGS: We found a commitment to knowledge translation in the mandate of 18 of 23 agencies. However, there was a lack of common terminology. Most of the activities were traditional efforts to disseminate to a broad audience, for example using web sites and publications. In addition, more than half (13 of 23) of the agencies encouraged linkage/exchange between researchers and potential users, and 6 of 23 agencies described "pull" activities to generate interest in research from decision-makers. One-third (9 of 23) of funding agencies described a mandate to enhance health equity through improving knowledge translation. Only 3 of 23 agencies were able to describe evaluation of knowledge translation activities. Furthermore, we found national funding agencies made greater knowledge translation efforts when compared to international agencies. CONCLUSION: Funding agencies are engaged in a wide range of creative knowledge translation activities. They might consider their role as knowledge brokers, with an ability to promote research syntheses and a focus on health equity. There is an urgent need to evaluate the knowledge translation activities of funding agencies.

Creating and testing the concept of an academic NGO for enhancing health equity: a new mode of knowledge production?

CONTEXT: Collaborative action is required to address persistent and systematic health inequities which exist for most diseases in most countries of the world. OBJECTIVES: The Academic NGO initiative (ACANGO) described in this paper was set up as a focused network giving priority to twinned partnerships between Academic research centres and community-based NGOs. ACANGO aims to capture the strengths of both in order to build consensus among stakeholders, engage the community, focus on leadership training, shared management and resource development and deployment. METHODS: A conceptual model was developed through a series of community consultations. This model was tested with four academic-community challenge projects based in Kenya, Canada, Thailand and Rwanda and an online forum and coordinating hub based at the University of Ottawa. FINDINGS: Between February 2005 and February 2007, each of the four challenge projects was able to show specific outputs, outcomes and impacts related to enhancing health equity through the relevant production and application of knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: The ACANGO initiative model and network has demonstrated success in enhancing the production and use of knowledge in program design and implementation for vulnerable populations.