Aligning the principles and practice of research integrity and research fairness in global health: a mixed-methods study.

INTRODUCTION: In the past decade, global health research has seen a growing emphasis on research integrity and fairness. The concept of research integrity emerged in response to the reproducibility crisis in science during the late 2000s. Research fairness initiatives aim to enhance ownership and inclusivity in research involving partners with varying powers, decision-making roles and resource capacities, ultimately prioritising local health research needs. Despite extensive academic discussions, empirical data on these aspects, especially in the context of global health, remain limited. METHODS: To address this gap, we conducted a mixed-methods study focusing on research integrity and fairness. The study included an online frequency survey and in-depth key informant interviews with researchers from international research networks. The dual objectives were to quantify the frequency of practices related to research integrity and fairness and explore the determinants influencing these practices in global health. RESULTS: Out of 145 participants in the quantitative survey (8.4% response rate), findings indicate that global health researchers generally adhere to principles of research integrity and fairness, with variations in reported behaviours. The study identified structural, institutional and individual factors influencing these patterns, including donor landscape rigidity, institutional investments in relationship building, guidelines, mentoring and power differentials among researchers. CONCLUSION: This research highlights that, despite some variations, there is a substantial alignment between research integrity and fairness, with both sharing similar determinants and the overarching goal of enhancing research quality and societal benefits. The study emphasises the potential to explicitly recognise and leverage these synergies, aligning both agendas to further advance global health research.

Bridging research integrity and global health epidemiology (BRIDGE) statement: guidelines for good epidemiological practice.

BACKGROUND: Research integrity and research fairness have gained considerable momentum in the past decade and have direct implications for global health epidemiology. Research integrity and research fairness principles should be equally nurtured to produce high-quality impactful research-but bridging the two can lead to practical and ethical dilemmas. In order to provide practical guidance to researchers and epidemiologist, we set out to develop good epidemiological practice guidelines specifically for global health epidemiology, targeted at stakeholders involved in the commissioning, conduct, appraisal and publication of global health research. METHODS: We developed preliminary guidelines based on targeted online searches on existing best practices for epidemiological studies and sought to align these with key elements of global health research and research fairness. We validated these guidelines through a Delphi consultation study, to reach a consensus among a wide representation of stakeholders. RESULTS: A total of 45 experts provided input on the first round of e-Delphi consultation and 40 in the second. Respondents covered a range of organisations (including for example academia, ministries, NGOs, research funders, technical agencies) involved in epidemiological studies from countries around the world (Europe: 19; Africa: 10; North America: 7; Asia: 5; South-America: 3 Australia: 1). A selection of eight experts were invited for a face-to-face meeting. The final guidelines consist of a set of 6 standards and 42 accompanying criteria including study preparation, protocol development, data collection, data management, data analysis, dissemination and communication. CONCLUSION: While guidelines will not by themselves guard global health from questionable and unfair research practices, they are certainly part of a concerted effort to ensure not only mutual accountability between individual researchers, their institutions and their funders but most importantly their joint accountability towards the communities they study and society at large.