Overview of Tools and Measures Investigating Vaccine Hesitancy in a Ten Year Period: A Scoping Review.

The challenge of vaccine hesitancy, a growing global concern in the last decade, has been aggravated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The need for monitoring vaccine sentiments and early detection of vaccine hesitancy in a population recommended by the WHO calls for the availability of contextually relevant tools and measures. This scoping review covers a ten year-period from 2010-2019 which included the first nine years of the decade of vaccines and aims to give a broad overview of tools and measures, and present a summary of their nature, similarities, and differences. We conducted the review using the framework for scoping reviews by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) and reported it following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews' guidelines. Of the 26 studies included, only one was conducted in the WHO African Region. Measures for routine childhood vaccines were found to be the most preponderant in the reviewed literature. The need for validated, contextually relevant tools in the WHO Africa Region is essential, and made more so by the scourge of the ongoing pandemic in which vaccination is critical for curtailment.

Tuberculosis treatment intervention trials in Africa: A cross-sectional bibliographic study and spatial analysis.

BACKGROUND: Mycobacterium Tuberculosis (TB) poses a substantial burden in sub-Saharan Africa and is the leading cause of death amongst infectious diseases. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are regarded as the gold standard for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions. We aimed to describe published TB treatment trials conducted in Africa. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study of published TB trials conducted in at least one African country. In November 2019, we searched three databases using the validated Africa search filter and Cochrane's sensitive trial string. Published RCTs conducted in at least one African country were included for analysis. Records were screened for eligibility. Co-reviewers assisted with duplicate data extraction. Extracted data included: the country where studies were conducted, publication dates, ethics statement, trial registration number, participant's age range. We used Cochrane's Risk of Bias criteria to assess methodological quality. RESULTS: We identified 10,495 records; 175 trials were eligible for inclusion. RCTs were published between 1952 and 2019. The median sample size was 206 participants (interquartile range: 73-657). Most trials were conducted in South Africa (n = 83) and were drug therapy trials (n = 130). First authors were from 30 countries globally. South Africa had the most first authors (n = 55); followed by the United States of America (USA) (n = 28) and Great Britain (n = 14) with fewer other African countries contributing to the first author tally. Children under 13 years of age eligible to participate in the trials made up 17/175 trials (9.71%). International governments (n = 29) were the most prevalent funders. Ninety-four trials provided CONSORT flow diagrams. Methodological quality such as allocation concealment and blinding were poorly reported or unclear in most trials. CONCLUSIONS: By mapping African TB trials, we were able to identify potential research gaps. Many of the global north's researchers were found to be the lead authors in these African trials. Few trials tested behavioural interventions compared to drugs, and far fewer tested interventions on children compared to adults to improve TB outcomes. Lastly, funders and researchers should ensure better methodological quality reporting of trials.

Current tools available for investigating vaccine hesitancy: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Vaccine hesitancy, defined as the delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccination despite availability of vaccination services is responsible in part for suboptimal levels of vaccination coverage worldwide. The WHO recommends that countries incorporate plans to measure and address vaccine hesitancy into their immunisation programmes. This requires that governments and health institutions be able to detect concerns about vaccination in the population and monitor changes in vaccination behaviours. To do this effectively, tools to detect and measure vaccine hesitancy are required. The purpose of this scoping review is to give a broad overview of currently available vaccine hesitancy measuring tools and present a summary of their nature, similarities and differences. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The review will be conducted using the framework for scoping review proffered by Arksey and O'Malley. It will comply with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews' guidelines. The broader research question of this review is: what vaccine hesitancy measuring tools are currently available?Search strategies will be developed using controlled vocabulary and selected keywords. PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and reference lists of relevant publications will be searched. Titles and abstracts will be independently screened by two authors and data from full-text articles meeting the inclusion criteria will be extracted independently by two authors using a pretested data charting form. Discrepancies will be resolved by discussion and consensus. Results will be presented using descriptive statistics such as percentages, tables, charts and flow diagrams as appropriate. Narrative analysis will be used to summarise the findings of the review. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for the review. It will be submitted as part of a doctoral thesis, presented at conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: https://osf.io/x8fjk/.

Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations.

BACKGROUND: Excessive drinking is a significant cause of mortality, morbidity and social problems in many countries. Brief interventions aim to reduce alcohol consumption and related harm in hazardous and harmful drinkers who are not actively seeking help for alcohol problems. Interventions usually take the form of a conversation with a primary care provider and may include feedback on the person's alcohol use, information about potential harms and benefits of reducing intake, and advice on how to reduce consumption. Discussion informs the development of a personal plan to help reduce consumption. Brief interventions can also include behaviour change or motivationally-focused counselling.This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2007. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of screening and brief alcohol intervention to reduce excessive alcohol consumption in hazardous or harmful drinkers in general practice or emergency care settings. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and 12 other bibliographic databases to September 2017. We searched Alcohol and Alcohol Problems Science Database (to December 2003, after which the database was discontinued), trials registries, and websites. We carried out handsearching and checked reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of brief interventions to reduce hazardous or harmful alcohol consumption in people attending general practice, emergency care or other primary care settings for reasons other than alcohol treatment. The comparison group was no or minimal intervention, where a measure of alcohol consumption was reported. 'Brief intervention' was defined as a conversation comprising five or fewer sessions of brief advice or brief lifestyle counselling and a total duration of less than 60 minutes. Any more was considered an extended intervention. Digital interventions were not included in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We carried out subgroup analyses where possible to investigate the impact of factors such as gender, age, setting (general practice versus emergency care), treatment exposure and baseline consumption. MAIN RESULTS: We included 69 studies that randomised a total of 33,642 participants. Of these, 42 studies were added for this update (24,057 participants). Most interventions were delivered in general practice (38 studies, 55%) or emergency care (27 studies, 39%) settings. Most studies (61 studies, 88%) compared brief intervention to minimal or no intervention. Extended interventions were compared with brief (4 studies, 6%), minimal or no intervention (7 studies, 10%). Few studies targeted particular age groups: adolescents or young adults (6 studies, 9%) and older adults (4 studies, 6%). Mean baseline alcohol consumption was 244 g/week (30.5 standard UK units) among the studies that reported these data. Main sources of bias were attrition and lack of provider or participant blinding. The primary meta-analysis included 34 studies (15,197 participants) and provided moderate-quality evidence that participants who received brief intervention consumed less alcohol than minimal or no intervention participants after one year (mean difference (MD) -20 g/week, 95% confidence interval (CI) -28 to -12). There was substantial heterogeneity among studies (I² = 73%). A subgroup analysis by gender demonstrated that both men and women reduced alcohol consumption after receiving a brief intervention.We found moderate-quality evidence that brief alcohol interventions have little impact on frequency of binges per week (MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.02; 15 studies, 6946 participants); drinking days per week (MD -0.13, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.04; 11 studies, 5469 participants); or drinking intensity (-0.2 g/drinking day, 95% CI -3.1 to 2.7; 10 studies, 3128 participants).We found moderate-quality evidence of little difference in quantity of alcohol consumed when extended and no or minimal interventions were compared (-14 g/week, 95% CI -37 to 9; 6 studies, 1296 participants). There was little difference in binges per week (-0.08, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.12; 2 studies, 456 participants; moderate-quality evidence) or difference in days drinking per week (-0.45, 95% CI -0.81 to -0.09; 2 studies, 319 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Extended versus no or minimal intervention provided little impact on drinking intensity (9 g/drinking day, 95% CI -26 to 9; 1 study, 158 participants; low-quality evidence).Extended intervention had no greater impact than brief intervention on alcohol consumption, although findings were imprecise (MD 2 g/week, 95% CI -42 to 45; 3 studies, 552 participants; low-quality evidence). Numbers of binges were not reported for this comparison, but one trial suggested a possible drop in days drinking per week (-0.5, 95% CI -1.2 to 0.2; 147 participants; low-quality evidence). Results from this trial also suggested very little impact on drinking intensity (-1.7 g/drinking day, 95% CI -18.9 to 15.5; 147 participants; very low-quality evidence).Only five studies reported adverse effects (very low-quality evidence). No participants experienced any adverse effects in two studies; one study reported that the intervention increased binge drinking for women and two studies reported adverse events related to driving outcomes but concluded they were equivalent in both study arms.Sources of funding were reported by 67 studies (87%). With two exceptions, studies were funded by government institutes, research bodies or charitable foundations. One study was partly funded by a pharmaceutical company and a brewers association, another by a company developing diagnostic testing equipment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found moderate-quality evidence that brief interventions can reduce alcohol consumption in hazardous and harmful drinkers compared to minimal or no intervention. Longer counselling duration probably has little additional effect. Future studies should focus on identifying the components of interventions which are most closely associated with effectiveness.

Task shifting from doctors to non-doctors for initiation and maintenance of antiretroviral therapy.

BACKGROUND: The high levels of healthcare worker shortage is recognised as a severe impediment to increasing patients' access to antiretroviral therapy. This is particularly of concern where the burden of disease is greatest and the access to trained doctors is limited.This review aims to better inform HIV care programmes that are currently underway, and those planned, by assessing if task-shifting care from doctors to non-doctors provides both high quality and safe care for all patients requiring antiretroviral treatment. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the quality of initiation and maintenance of HIV/AIDS care in models that task shift care from doctors to non-doctors. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search to identify all relevant studies regardless of language or publication status (published, unpublished, in press, and in progress) from 1 January 1996 to 28 March 2014, with major HIV/AIDS conferences searched 23 May 2014. We had also contacted relevant organizations and researchers. Key words included MeSH terms and free-text terms relevant to 'task shifting', 'skill mix', 'integration of tasks', 'service delivery' and 'health services accessibility'. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included controlled trials (randomised or non-randomised), controlled-before and after studies, and cohort studies (prospective or retrospective) comparing doctor-led antiretroviral therapy delivery to delivery that included another cadre of health worker other than a doctor, for initiating treatment, continuing treatment, or both, in HIV infected patients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts and descriptor terms of the results of the electronic search and applied our eligibility criteria using a standardized eligibility form to full texts of potentially eligible or uncertain abstracts. Two reviewers independently extracted data on standardized data extraction forms. Where possible, data were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. We assessed evidence quality with GRADE methodology. MAIN RESULTS: Ten studies met our inclusion criteria, all of which were conducted in Africa. Of these four were randomised controlled trials while the remaining six were cohort studies.From the trial data, when nurses initiated and provided follow-up HIV therapy, there was high quality evidence of no difference in death at one year, unadjusted risk ratio was 0.96 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.12), one trial, cluster adjusted n = 2770. There was moderate quality evidence of lower rates of losses to follow-up at one year, relative risk of 0.73 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.97). From the cohort data, there was low quality evidence that there may be an increased risk of death in the task shifting group, relative risk 1.23 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.33, two cohorts, n = 39 160) and very low quality data reporting no difference in patients lost to follow-up between groups, relative risk 0.30 (95% CI 0.05 to 1.94).From the trial data, when doctors initiated therapy and nurses provided follow-up, there was moderate quality evidence that there is probably no difference in death compared with doctor-led care at one year, relative risk of 0.89 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.32), two trials, cluster adjusted n = 4332. There was moderate quality evidence that there is probably no difference in the numbers of patients lost to follow-up at one year, relative risk 1.27 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.77), P = 0.15. From the cohort data, there is very low quality data that death at one year may be lower in the task shifting group, relative risk 0.19 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.78), one cohort, n = 2772, and very low quality evidence that loss to follow-up was reduced, relative risk 0.34 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.66).From the trial data, for maintenance therapy delivered in the community there was moderate quality evidence that there is probably no difference in mortality when doctors deliver care in the hospital or specially trained field workers provide home-based maintenance care and antiretroviral therapy at one year, relative risk 1.0 (95% CI 0.62 to 1.62), 1 trial, cluster adjusted n = 559. There is moderate quality evidence from this trial that losses to follow-up are probably no different at one year, relative risk 0.52 (0.12 to 2.3), P = 0.39. The cohort studies did not report on one year follow-up for these outcomes.Across the studies that reported on virological and immunological outcomes, there was no clear evidence of difference whether a doctor or nurse or clinical officer delivered therapy. Three studies report on costs to patients, indicating a reduction in travel costs to treatment facilities where task shifting was occurring closer to patients homes. There is conflicting evidence regarding the relative cost to the health system, as implementation of the strategy may increase costs. The two studies reporting the patient and staff perceptions of the quality of care, report good acceptability of the service by patients, and general acceptance by doctors of the shifting of roles. One trial reported on the time to initiation of antiretroviral therapy, finding no clear evidence of a difference between groups. The same trial reports on new diagnosis of tuberculosis which favours nurse initiation of HIV care for increasing the numbers of diagnoses of tuberculosis made. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our review found moderate quality evidence that shifting responsibility from doctors to adequately trained and supported nurses or community health workers for managing HIV patients probably does not decrease the quality of care and, in the case of nurse initiated care, may decrease the numbers of patients lost to follow-up.

Bibliometric and content analysis of the Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field specialized register of controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The identification of eligible controlled trials for systematic reviews of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) interventions can be difficult. To increase access to these difficult to locate trials, the Cochrane Collaboration Complementary Medicine Field (CAM Field) has established a specialized register of citations of CAM controlled trials. The objective of this study is to describe the sources and characteristics of citations included in the CAM Field specialized register. METHODS: Between 2006 and 2011, regular searches for citations of CAM trials in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were supplemented with contributions of controlled trial citations from international collaborators. The specialized register was 'frozen' for analysis in 2011, and frequencies were calculated for publication date, language, journal, presence in MEDLINE, type of intervention, and type of medical condition. RESULTS: The CAM Field specialized register increased in size from under 5,000 controlled trial citations in 2006 to 44,840 citations in 2011. Most citations (60%) were from 2000 or later, and the majority (71%) were reported in English; the next most common language was Chinese (23%). The journals with the greatest number of citations were CAM journals published in Chinese and non-CAM nutrition journals published in English. More than one-third of register citations (36%) were not indexed in MEDLINE. The most common CAM intervention type in the register was non-vitamin, non-mineral dietary supplements (e.g., glucosamine, fish oil) (34%), followed by Chinese herbal medicines (e.g., Astragalus membranaceus, Schisandra chinensis) (27%). CONCLUSIONS: The availability of the CAM Field specialized register presents both opportunities and challenges for CAM systematic reviewers. While the register provides access to thousands of difficult to locate trial citations, many of these trials are of low quality and may overestimate treatment effects. When including these trials in systematic reviews, adequate analysis of their risk of bias is of utmost importance.

Randomized controlled trials of HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment in Africa: results from the Cochrane HIV/AIDS Specialized Register.

INTRODUCTION: To effectively address HIV/AIDS in Africa, evidence on preventing new infections and providing effective treatment is needed. Ideally, decisions on which interventions are effective should be based on evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Our previous research described African RCTs of HIV/AIDS reported between 1987 and 2003. This study updates that analysis with RCTs published between 2004 and 2008. OBJECTIVES: To describe RCTs of HIV/AIDS conducted in Africa and reported between 2004 and 2008. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane HIV/AIDS Specialized Register in September 2009. Two researchers independently evaluated studies for inclusion and extracted data using standardized forms. Details included location of trials, interventions, methodological quality, location of principal investigators and funders. RESULTS: Our search identified 834 RCTs, with 68 conducted in Africa. Forty-three assessed prevention-interventions and 25 treatment-interventions. Fifteen of the 43 prevention RCTs focused on preventing mother-to-child HIV transmission. Thirteen of the 25 treatment trials focused on opportunistic infections. Trials were conducted in 16 countries with most in South Africa (20), Zambia (12) and Zimbabwe (9). The median sample size was 628 (range 33-9645). Methods used for the generation of the allocation sequence and allocation concealment were adequate in 38 and 32 trials, respectively, and 58 reports included a CONSORT recommended flow diagram. Twenty-nine principal investigators resided in the United States of America (USA) and 18 were from African countries. Trials were co-funded by different agencies with most of the funding obtained from USA governmental and non-governmental agencies. Nineteen pharmaceutical companies provided partial funding to 15 RCTs and African agencies co-funded 17 RCTs. Ethical approval was reported in 65 trials and informed consent in 61 trials. CONCLUSION: Prevention trials dominate the trial landscape in Africa. Of note, few principal investigators and funders are from Africa. These findings mirror our previous work and continue to indicate a need for strengthening trial research capacity in Africa.

Interventions for the prevention and management of oropharyngeal candidiasis associated with HIV infection in adults and children.

BACKGROUND: Oral candidiasis (OC) associated with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection occurs commonly and recurs frequently, often presenting as an initial manifestation of the disease. Left untreated, these lesions contribute considerably to the morbidity associated with HIV infection. Interventions aimed at preventing and treating HIV-associated oral candidal lesions form an integral component of maintaining the quality of life for affected individuals. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of any intervention in preventing or treating OC in children and adults with HIV infection. SEARCH STRATEGY: The search strategy was based on that of the Cochrane HIV/AIDS Review Group. The following electronic databases were searched for randomised controlled trials for the years 1982 to 2005: Medline, AIDSearch, EMBASE and CINAHL. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were also searched through May 2005. The abstracts of relevant conferences, including the International Conferences on AIDS and the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, as indexed by AIDSLINE, were also reviewed. The strategy was iterative, in that references of included studies were searched for additional references. All languages were included.The updated database search was done for the period 2005 up to 2009. The following databases were searched: Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library. AIDSearch was not searched for the updated search as it ceased publication during 2008. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of palliative, preventative or curative therapy were considered, irrespective of whether the control group received a placebo. Participants were HIV positive adults and children. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the methodological quality of the trials and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional data where necessary. MAIN RESULTS: For the first publication of the review in 2006, forty studies were retrieved. Twenty eight trials (n=3225) met inclusion criteria. During the update search for the review a, further six studies were identified. Of these, five met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The review now includes 33 studies (n=3445): 22 assessing treatment and 11 assessing prevention of oropharyngeal candidiasis. Six studies were done in developing countries, 16 in the United States of America and the remainder in Europe.Treatment Treatment was assessed in the majority of trials looking at both clinical and mycological cures. In the majority of comparisons there was only one trial. Compared to nystatin, fluconazole favoured clinical cure in adults (1 RCT; n=167; RR 1.69; 95% CI 1.27 to 2.23). There was no difference with regard to clinical cure between fluconazole compared to ketoconazole (2 RCTs; n=83; RR 1.27; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.66), itraconazole (2 RCTs; n=434; RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.16), clotrimazole (2 RCTs; n=358; RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.42) or posaconazole (1 RCT; n=366; RR1.32; 95% CI 0.36 to 4.83). Two trials compared different dosages of fluconazole with no difference in clinical cure. When compared with clotrimazole, both fluconazole (2 RCTs; n=358; RR 1.47; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.87) and itraconazole (1 RCT; n=123; RR 2.20; 95% CI 1.43 to3.39) proved to be better for mycological cure. Both gentian violet (1 RCT; n=96; RR 5.28; 95% CI 1.23 to 22.55) and ketoconazole (1 RCT; n=92; RR 5.22; 95% CI 1.21 to 22.53) were superior to nystatin in bringing about clinical cure. A single trial compared gentian violet with lemon juice and lemon grass with no significant difference in clinical cure between the groups. Prevention Successful prevention was defined as the prevention of a relapse while receiving prophylaxis. Fluconazole was compared with placebo in five studies (5 RCTs; n=599; RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.5 to 0.74) and with no treatment in another (1 RCT; n=65; RR 0.16; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.34). In both instances the prevention of clinical episodes was favoured by fluconazole. Comparing continuous fluconazole treatment with intermittent treatment (2 RCTs; n=891; RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.23 to 1.83), there was no significant difference between the two treatment arms. Chlorhexidine was compared with normal saline in a single study with no significant difference between the treatment arms. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Five new studies were added to the review, but their results do not alter the final conclusion of the review.Implications for practice Due to there being only one study in children, it is not possible to make recommendations for treatment or prevention of OC in children. Amongst adults, there were few studies per comparison. Due to insufficient evidence, no conclusion could be made about the effectiveness of clotrimazole, nystatin, amphotericin B, itraconazole or ketoconazole with regard to OC prophylaxis. In comparison to placebo, fluconazole is an effective preventative intervention. However, the potential for resistant Candida organisms to develop, as well as the cost of prophylaxis, might impact the feasibility of implementation. No studies were found comparing fluconazole with other interventions. The direction of findings suggests that ketoconazole, fluconazole, itraconazole and clotrimazole improved the treatment outcomes.Implications for research It is encouraging that low-cost alternatives are being tested, but more research needs to be on in this area and on interventions like gentian violet and other less expensive anti-fungal drugs to treat OC. More well-designed treatment trials with larger samples are needed to allow for sufficient power to detect differences in not only clinical, but also mycological, response and relapse rates. There is also a strong need for more research to be done on the treatment and prevention of OC in children as it is reported that OC is the most frequent fungal infection in children and adolescents who are HIV positive. More research on the effectiveness of less expensive interventions also needs to be done in resource-poor settings. Currently few trials report outcomes related to quality of life, nutrition, or survival. Future researchers should consider measuring these when planning trials. Development of resistance remains under-studied and more work must be done in this area. It is recommended that trials be more standardised and conform more closely to CONSORT.

International collaboration, funding and association with burden of disease in randomized controlled trials in Africa.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess whether randomized controlled trials conducted in Africa with collaborators from outside Africa were more closely associated with health conditions that have a burden of disease that is of specific importance to Africa than with conditions of more general global importance or with conditions important to developed countries. We also assessed whether the source of funding influenced a study's relevance to Africa. METHODS: We compared randomized controlled trials performed in Africa that looked at diseases specifically relevant to Africa (as determined by burden of disease criteria) with trials classified as looking at diseases of global importance or diseases important to developed countries in order to assess differences in collaboration and funding. FINDINGS: Of 520 trials assessed, 347 studied diseases that are specifically important to Africa; 99 studied globally important diseases and 74 studied diseases that are important to developed countries. The strongest independent predictor of whether a study was of specifically African or global importance was the corresponding author's country of origin: African importance was negatively associated with a corresponding author being from South Africa (odds ratio (OR) = 0.04; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.02-0.10) but there was little difference between corresponding authors from other African countries and corresponding authors from countries outside Africa. The importance of a study to Africa was independently associated with having more non-African authors (OR per author = 1.31; 95% CI = 1.08-1.58), fewer trial sites (OR per site = 0.69; 95% CI = 0.50-0.96), and reporting of funding (OR = 2.14; 95% CI = 1.15-4.00). Similar patterns were present in the comparisons of trials studying diseases important to Africa versus those studying diseases important to developed countries with stronger associations overall. When funding was reported, private industry funding was negatively associated with African importance compared with global importance (OR = 0.31, P= 0.008 for African importance and OR = 0.51, P= 0.57 for importance for developed countries). CONCLUSION: The relevance to Africa of trials conducted in Africa was not adversely affected by collaboration with non-African researchers but funding from private industry was associated with a decreased emphasis on diseases relevant to Africa.