Relational practices for meaningful inclusion in health research: Results of a deliberative dialogue study.

INTRODUCTION: The importance of including people affected by research (e.g., community members, citizens or patient partners) is increasingly recognized across the breadth of institutions involved in connecting research with action. Yet, the increasing rhetoric of inclusion remains situated in research systems that tend to reward traditional dissemination and uphold power dynamics in ways that centre particular (privileged) voices over others. In research explicitly interested in doing research with those most affected by the issue or outcomes, research teams need to know how to advance meaningful inclusion. This study focused on listening to voices often excluded from research processes to understand what meaningful inclusion looks and feels like, and asked what contributes to being or feeling tokenized. METHODS: In this deliberative dialogue study, 16 participants with experience of navigating social exclusions and contributing to research activities reflected on what makes for meaningful experiences of inclusion. Using a co-production approach, with a diversely representative research team of 15 that included patient and community partners, we used critically reflective dialogue to guide an inclusive process to study design and implementation, from conceptualization of research questions through to writing. RESULTS: We heard that: research practices, partnerships and systems all contribute to experiences of inclusion or exclusion; the insufficiency or absence of standards for accountability amplifies the experience of exclusion; and inclusive practices require intention, planning, reflection and resources. CONCLUSIONS: We offer evidence-informed recommendations for the deeply relational work and practices for inclusivity, focused on promising practices for cultivating welcoming systems, spaces and relationships. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This work reflects a co-production approach, where people who use and are affected by research results actively partnered in the research process, including study design, data-generating activities, analysis and interpretation, and writing. Several of these partners are authors of this manuscript.

Turning the tide on inequity through systematic equity action-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Collective agreement about the importance of centering equity in health research, practice, and policy is growing. Yet, responsibility for advancing equity is often situated as belonging to a vague group of 'others', or delegated to the leadership of 'equity-seeking' or 'equity-deserving' groups who are tasked to lead systems transformation while simultaneously navigating the violence and harms of oppression within those same systems. Equity efforts also often overlook the breadth of equity scholarship. Harnessing the potential of current interests in advancing equity requires systematic, evidence-guided, theoretically rigorous ways for people to embrace their own agency and influence over the systems in which they are situated. ln this article, we introduce and describe the Systematic Equity Action-Analysis (SEA) Framework as a tool that translates equity scholarship and evidence into a structured process that leaders, teams, and communities can use to advance equity in their own settings. METHODS: This framework was derived through a dialogic, critically reflective and scholarly process of integrating methodological insights garnered over years of equity-centred research and practice. Each author, in a variety of ways, brought engaged equity perspectives to the dialogue, bringing practical and lived experience to conversation and writing. Our scholarly dialogue was grounded in critical and relational lenses, and involved synthesis of theory and practice from a broad range of applications and cases. RESULTS: The SEA Framework balances practices of agency, humility, critically reflective dialogue, and systems thinking. The framework guides users through four elements of analysis (worldview, coherence, potential, and accountability) to systematically interrogate how and where equity is integrated in a setting or object of action-analysis. Because equity issues are present in virtually all aspects of society, the kinds of 'things' the framework could be applied to is only limited by the imagination of its users. It can inform retrospective or prospective work, by groups external to a policy or practice setting (e.g., using public documents to assess a research funding policy landscape); or internal to a system, policy, or practice setting (e.g., faculty engaging in a critically reflective examination of equity in the undergraduate program they deliver). CONCLUSIONS: While not a panacea, this unique contribution to the science of health equity equips people to explicitly recognize and interrupt their own entanglements in the intersecting systems of oppression and injustice that produce and uphold inequities.

Faculty experiences of teaching internationally educated nurses: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of faculty teaching in programs designed to support internationally educated nurses' transition to nursing practice in Canada. METHODS: This was a qualitative study that gathered data through semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: Four themes were developed from the data: learning the learner, feeling moral unrest in my role, inviting reciprocal relationships, and finding our way. CONCLUSIONS: There is an urgent need to ensure that faculty are well prepared for their role and that the needs of internationally educated nurses, both personal and pedagogical, are central. Despite the challenges experienced by faculty, they also describe great growth as a result of their new role. IMPLICATIONS FOR AN INTERNATIONAL AUDIENCE: Findings from this study are particularly relevant for those in high income countries seeking to support internationally educated nurses. Faculty preparedness and holistic support for students are critical for ethical, high-quality education.

Community stakeholder-driven technology solutions towards rural health equity: A concept mapping study in Western Canada.

BACKGROUND: Technology holds great potential for promoting health equity for rural populations, who have more chronic illnesses than their urban counterparts but less access to services. Yet, more participatory research approaches are needed to gather community-driven health technology solutions. The purpose was to collaboratively identify and prioritize action strategies for using technology to promote rural health equity through community stakeholder engagement. METHODS: Concept mapping, a quantitative statistical technique, embedded within a qualitative approach, was used to identify and integrate technological solutions towards rural health equity from community stakeholders in three steps: (1) idea generation; (2) sorting and rating feasibility/importance and (3) group interpretation. Purposeful recruitment strategies were used to recruit key stakeholders and organizational representatives from targeted rural communities. RESULTS: Overall, 34 rural community stakeholders from western Canada (76% female, mean age = 55.4 years) participated in the concept mapping process. In Step 1, 84 ideas were generated that were reduced to a pool of 30. Multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis resulted in a six-cluster map representing how technological solutions can contribute toward rural health equity. The clusters of ideas included technological solutions and applications, but also ideas to make health care more accessible regardless of location, training and support in the use of technology, ensuring digital tools are simplified for ease of use, technologies to support collaboration among healthcare professionals and ideas for overcoming challenges to data sharing across health systems/networks. Each cluster included ideas that were rated as equally important and feasible. Key themes included organizational and individual-level solutions and connecting patients to newly developed technologies. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the grouping of solutions revealed that technological applications require not only access but also support and collaboration. Concept mapping is a tool that can engage rural community stakeholders in the identification of technological solutions for promoting rural health equity. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Rural community stakeholders were involved in the generation and interpretation of technological solutions towards rural health equity in a three-step process: (1) individual brainstorming of ideas, (2) sorting and rating all ideas generated and (3) collective interpretation and group consensus on final results.

Internet access is a necessity: a latent class analysis of COVID-19 related challenges and the role of technology use among rural community residents.

BACKGROUND: Rural and remote communities faced unique access challenges to essential services such as healthcare and highspeed infrastructure pre-COVID, which have been amplified by the pandemic. This study examined patterns of COVID-related challenges and the use of technology among rural-living individuals during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A sample of 279 rural residents completed an online survey about the impact of COVID-related challenges and the role of technology use. Latent class analysis was used to generate subgroups reflecting the patterns of COVID-related challenges. Differences in group membership were examined based on age, gender, education, race/ethnicity, and living situation. Finally, thematic analysis of open-ended qualitative responses was conducted to further contextualize the challenges experienced by rural-living residents. RESULTS: Four distinct COVID challenge impact subgroups were identified: 1) Social challenges (35%), 2) Social and Health challenges (31%), 3) Social and Financial challenges (14%), and 4) Social, Health, Financial, and Daily Living challenges (19%). Older adults were more likely to be in the Social challenges or Social and Health challenges groups as compared to young adults who were more likely to be in the Social, Health, Financial, and Daily Living challenges group. Additionally, although participants were using technology more frequently during the COVID-19 pandemic to address challenges, they were also reporting issues with quality and connectivity as a significant barrier. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses found four different patterns of impact related to social, health, financial, and daily living challenges in the context of COVID. Social needs were evident across the four groups; however, we also found nearly 1 in 5 rural-living individuals were impacted by an array of challenges. Access to reliable internet and devices has the potential to support individuals to manage these challenges.

Equity at a time of pandemic.

Health promotion has long aspired for a world where all people can live to their full potential. Yet, COVID-19 illuminates dramatically different consequences for populations bearing heavy burdens of systemic disadvantage within countries and between the Global South and Global North. Many months of pandemic is entrenching inequities that reveal themselves in the vastly differential distribution of hospitalization and mortality, for example, among racialized groups in the USA. Amplified awareness of the intimate relationship between health, social structures, and economy opens a window of opportunity to act on decades of global commitments to prioritize health equity. Choices to act (or not act) are likely to accelerate already vast inequities within and between countries as rapidly as the COVID-19 pandemic itself. Recognizing the inherently global nature of this pandemic, this article explores how determinants of equity are embedded in global responses to it, arguing that these determinants will critically shape our global futures. This article aims to stimulate dialogue about equity-centered health promoting action during a pandemic, using the Canadian Coalition for Global Health Research (CCGHR) Principles for Global Health Research to examine equity considerations at a time of pandemic. Attentiveness to power and the relationship between political economy and health are argued as central to identifying and examining issues of equity. This article invites dialogue about how equity-centered planning, decision-making and action could leverage this massive disruption to society to spark a more hopeful, just, and humane collective future.

Assessing how global health partnerships function: an equity-informed critical interpretive synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Global health partnerships (GHPs) are situated in complex political and economic relationships and involve partners with different needs and interests (e.g., government agencies, non-governmental organizations, corporations, universities, professional associations, philanthropic organizations and communities). As part of a mixed methods study designed to develop an equity-sensitive tool to support more equity-centred North-South GHPs, this critical interpretive synthesis examined reported assessments of GHPs. RESULTS: We examined 30 peer-reviewed articles for power dynamics, equity and inequities, and contradictions or challenges encountered in North-South partnerships. Among articles reviewed, authors most often situated GHPs around a topical focus on research, capacity-building, clinical, or health services issues, with the 'work' of the partnership aiming to foster skills or respond to community needs. The specific features of GHPs that were assessed varied widely, with consistently-reported elements including the early phases of partnering; governance issues; the day-to-day work of partnerships; the performance, impacts and benefits of GHPs; and issues of inclusion. Articles shared a general interest in partnering processes and often touched briefly on issues of equity; but they rarely accounted for the complexity of sociopolitical and historical contexts shaping issues of equity in GHPs. Further, assessments of GHPs were often reported without inclusion of voices from all partners or named beneficiaries. GHPs were frequently portrayed as inherently beneficial for Southern partners, without attention to power dynamics and inequities (North-South, South-South). Though historical and political dynamics of the Global North and South were inconsistently examined as influential forces in GHPs, such dynamics were frequently portrayed as complex and characterized by asymmetries in power and resources. Generally, assessments of GHPs paid little attention to the macroeconomic forces in the power and resource dynamics of GHPs highlights the importance of considering the broader political. Our findings suggest that GHPs can serve to entrench both inequitable relationships and unfair distributions of power, resources, and wealth within and between countries (and partners) if inequitable power relationships are left unmitigated. CONCLUSIONS: We argue that specific practices could enhance GHPs' contributions to equity, both in their processes and outcomes. Enhancing partnering practices to focus on inclusion, responsiveness to North-South and South-South inequities, and recognition of GHPs as situated in a broader (and inequitable) political economy. A relational and equity-centred approach to assessing GHPs would place social justice, humility and mutual benefits as central practices-that is, regular, routine things that partners involved in partnering do intentionally to make GHPs function well. Practicing equity in GHPs requires continuous efforts to explicitly acknowledge and examine the equity implications of all aspects of partnering.

Promoting "Zest for Life": A Systematic Literature Review of Resiliency Factors to Prevent Youth Suicide.

Suicide is a leading cause of death among youth globally. In this critical interpretive synthesis, we examined literature on resiliency factors and suicidality. Systematic searches identified 474 articles, 37 of which were included. Results revealed internal (positive self-appraisal, zest for life, personal traits, and coping skills) and external factors (social support system and inclusive environments) contribute to resilience among youth, with age, sex and gender, and Indigenous identity as important intersecting considerations. Findings validated fostering resilience as primary suicide prevention among youth, with little explanation for how these factors may work to protect youth from suicidality. Continued research in this area requires a focus on how to promote resilience at the community and systems levels.

A tool to assess alignment between knowledge and action for health equity.

Advancing health equity is a central goal and ethical imperative in public and global health. Though the commitment to health equity in these fields and among the health professions is clear, alignment between good equity intentions and action remains a challenge. This work regularly encounters the same power structures that are known to cause health inequities. Despite consensus about causes, health inequities persist-illustrating an uncomfortable paradox: good intentions and good evidence do not necessarily lead to meaningful action. This article describes a theoretically informed, reflective tool for assessing alignment between knowledge and action for health equity. It is grounded in an assumption that progressively more productive action toward health inequities is justified and desired and an explicit acceptance of the evidence about the socioeconomic, political, and power-related root causes of health inequities. Intentionally simple, the tool presents six possible actions that describe ways in which health equity work could respond to causes of health inequities: discredit, distract, disregard, acknowledge, illuminate, or disrupt. The tool can be used to assess or inform any kind of health equity work, in different settings and at different levels of intervention. It is a practical resource against which practice, policy, or research can be held to account, encouraging steps toward equity- and evidence-informed action. It is meant to complement other tools and training resources to build capacity for allyship, de- colonization, and cultural safety in the field of health equity, ultimately contributing to growing awareness of how to advance meaningful health equity action.

Connecting knowledge with action for health equity: a critical interpretive synthesis of promising practices.

Connecting knowledge with action (KWA) for health equity involves interventions that can redistribute power and resources at local, national, and global levels. Although there is ample and compelling evidence on the nature, distribution, and impact of health inequities, advancing health equity is inhibited by policy arenas shaped by colonial legacies and neoliberal ideology. Effective progress toward health equity requires attention to evidence that can promote the kind of socio-political restructuring needed to address root causes of health inequities. In this critical interpretive synthesis, results of a recent scoping review were broadened to identify evidence-informed promising practices for KWA for health equity. Following screening procedures, 10 literature reviews and 22 research studies were included in the synthesis. Analysis involved repeated readings of these 32 articles to extract descriptive data, assess clarity and quality, and identify promising practices. Four distinct kinds of promising practices for connecting KWA for health equity were identified and included: ways of structuring systems, ways of working together, and ways of doing research and ways of doing knowledge translation. Our synthesis reveals that advancing health equity requires greater awareness, dialogue, and action that aligns with the what is known about the causes of health inequities. By critically reflecting on dominant discourses and assumptions, and mobilizing political will from a more informed and transparent democratic exercise, knowledge to action for health equity can be achieved.

Blending integrated knowledge translation with global health governance: an approach for advancing action on a wicked problem.

BACKGROUND: The persistence of health inequities is a wicked problem for which there is strong evidence of causal roots in the maldistribution of power, resources and money within and between countries. Though the evidence is clear, the solutions are far from straightforward. Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) ought to be well suited for designing evidence-informed solutions, yet current frameworks are limited in their capacity to navigate complexity. Global health governance (GHG) also ought to be well suited to advance action, but a lack of accountability, inclusion and integration of evidence gives rise to politically driven action. Recognising a persistent struggle for meaningful action, we invite contemplation about how blending IKT with GHG could leverage the strengths of both processes to advance health equity. DISCUSSION: Action on root causes of health inequities implicates disruption of structures and systems that shape how society is organised. This infinitely complex work demands sophisticated examination of drivers and disrupters of inequities and a vast imagination for who (and what) should be engaged. Yet, underlying tendencies toward reductionism seem to drive superficial responses. Where IKT models lack consideration of issues of power and provide little direction for how to support cohesive efforts toward a common goal, recent calls from the field of GHG may provide insight into these issues. Additionally, though GHG is criticised for its lack of attention to using evidence, IKT offers approaches and strategies for collaborative processes of generating and refining knowledge. Contemplating the inclusion of governance in IKT requires re-examining roles, responsibilities, power and voice in processes of connecting knowledge with action. We argue for expanding IKT models to include GHG as a means of considering the complexity of issues and opening new possibilities for evidence-informed action on wicked problems. CONCLUSION: Integrated learning between these two fields, adopting principles of GHG alongside the strategies of IKT, is a promising opportunity to strengthen leadership for health equity action.

Promoting equitable global health research: a policy analysis of the Canadian funding landscape.

BACKGROUND: Recognising radical shifts in the global health research (GHR) environment, participants in a 2013 deliberative dialogue called for careful consideration of equity-centred principles that should inform Canadian funding polices. This study examined the existing funding structures and policies of Canadian and international funders to inform the future design of a responsive GHR funding landscape. METHODS: We used a three-pronged analytical framework to review the ideas, interests and institutions implicated in publically accessible documents relevant to GHR funding. These data included published literature and organisational documents (e.g. strategic plans, progress reports, granting policies) from Canadian and other comparator funders. We then used a deliberative approach to develop recommendations with the research team, advisors, industry informants and low- and middle-income country (LMIC) partners. RESULTS: In Canada, major GHR funders invest an estimated CA$90 M per annum; however, the post-2008 re-organization of funding structures and policies resulted in an uncoordinated and inefficient Canadian strategy. Australia, Denmark, the European Union, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States of America invest proportionately more in GHR than Canada. Each of these countries has a national strategic plan for global health, some of which have dedicated benchmarks for GHR funding and policy to allow funds to be held by partners outside of Canada. Key constraints to equitable GHR funding included (1) funding policies that restrict financial and cost burden aspects of partnering for GHR in LMICs; and (2) challenges associated with the development of effective governance mechanisms. There were, however, some Canadian innovations in funding research that demonstrated both unconventional and equitable approaches to supporting GHR in Canada and abroad. Among the most promising were found in the International Development Research Centre and the (no longer active) Global Health Research Initiative. CONCLUSION: Promoting equitable GHR funding policies and practices in Canada requires cooperation and actions by multiple stakeholders, including government, funding agencies, academic institutions and researchers. Greater cooperation and collaboration among these stakeholders in the context of recent political shifts present important opportunities for advancing funding policies that enable and encourage more equitable investments in GHR.

Analyzing Data Generated Through Deliberative Dialogue: Bringing Knowledge Translation Into Qualitative Analysis.

Deliberative dialogue (DD) is a knowledge translation strategy that can serve to generate rich data and bridge health research with action. An intriguing alternative to other modes of generating data, the purposeful and evidence-informed conversations characteristic of DD generate data inclusive of collective interpretations. These data are thus dialogic, presenting complex challenges for qualitative analysis. In this article, we discuss the nature of data generated through DD, orienting ourselves toward a theoretically grounded approach to analysis. We offer an integrated framework for analysis, balancing analytical strategies of categorizing and connecting with the use of empathetic and suspicious interpretive lenses. In this framework, data generation and analysis occur in concert, alongside engaging participants and synthesizing evidence. An example of application is provided, demonstrating nuances of the framework. We conclude with reflections on the strengths and limitations of the framework, suggesting how it may be relevant in other qualitative health approaches.

Defining equity, its determinants, and the foundations of equity science.

Advancing equity as a priority is increasingly declared in response to decades of evidence showing the association between poorer health outcomes and the unfair distribution of resources, power, and wealth across all levels of society. Quandries present, however, through incongruence, vagueness and disparate interpretations of the meaning of equity dilute and fragment efforts across research, policy and practice. Progress on reducing health inequities is, in this context, unsurprisingly irresolute. In this article, we make a case for equity science that reimagines the ways in which we (as researchers, as systems leaders, as teachers and mentors, and as citizens in society) engage in this work. We offer a definition of equity, its determinants, and the paradigmatic foundations of equity science, including the assumptions, values, and processes., and methods of this science. We argue for an equity science that can more meaningfully promote coherent alignment between intention, knowledge and action within and beyond the health sciences to spark a more equitable future.

Grappling With the Inclusion of Patients and the Public in Consensus Building: A Commentary on Inclusion, Safety, and Accessibility Comment on "Evaluating Public Participation in a Deliberative Dialogue: A Single Case Study".

Deliberative dialogue (DD) may be relatively new in health research but has a rich history in fostering public engagement in political issues. Dialogic approaches are future-facing, comprising structured discussions and consensus building activities geared to the collective identification of actionable and contextualized solutions. Relying heavily on a need for co-production and shared leadership, these approaches seek to garner meaningful collaborations between researchers and knowledge users, such as healthcare providers, decision-makers, patients, and the public. In this commentary, we explore some of the challenges, successes, and opportunities arising from public engagement in DD, drawing also upon insights gleaned from our own research, along with the case study presented by Scurr and colleagues. Specifically, we seek to expand discussions related to inclusion, power, and accessibility in DD, highlight the need for scholarship that addresses the epistemic, methodological, and practical aspects of patient and public engagement within dialogic methods, and identify promising practices.

Pandemics, intellectual property and 'our economy': A worldview analysis of Canada's role in compromising global access to COVID-19 vaccines.

Despite self-congratulatory rhetoric, Canada compromised COVID-19 vaccine equity with policies impeding a proposed global waiver of vaccine intellectual property (IP) rules. To learn from Canada's vaccine nationalism we explore the worldview - a coherent textual picture of the world - in a sample of Government of Canada communications regarding global COVID-19 vaccine sharing. Analysed documents portray risks and disparities as unrelated to the dynamics and power relations of the Canadian and international economies. Against this depoliticised backdrop, economic growth fueled by strict IP rules and free trade is advanced as the solution to inequities. Global vaccine access and distribution are pursued via a charity-focused public-private-partnership approach, with proposals to relax international IP rules dismissed as unhelpful. Rather than a puzzling lapse by a good faith 'middle power', Canada's obstruction of global COVID-19 vaccine equity is a logical and deliberate extension of dominant neoliberal economic policy models. Health sector challenges to such models must prioritise equity in global pandemic governance via politically assertive and less conciliatory stances towards national governments and multilateral organisations. Mobilisation for health equity should transform the overall health-damaging macroeconomic model, complementing efforts based on specific individual health determinants or medical technologies.

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.

Recognition of knowledge translation practice in Canadian health sciences tenure and promotion: A content analysis of institutional policy documents.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: There has been growing emphasis on increasing impacts of academic health research by integrating research findings in healthcare. The concept of knowledge translation (KT) has been widely adopted in Canada to guide this work, although lack of recognition in tenure and promotion (T&P) structures have been identified as barrier to researchers undertaking KT. Our objective was to explore how KT is considered in institutional T&P documentation in Canadian academic health sciences. METHODS: We conducted content analysis of T&P documents acquired from 19 purposively sampled research-intensive or largest regional Canadian institutions in 2020-2021. We coded text for four components of KT (synthesis, dissemination, exchange, application). We identified clusters of related groups of documents interpreted together within the same institution. We summarized manifest KT content with descriptive statistics and identified latent categories related to how KT is considered in T&P documentation. RESULTS: We acquired 89 unique documents from 17 institutions that formed 48 document clusters. Most of the 1057 text segments were categorized as dissemination (n = 851, 81%), which was included in 47 document clusters (98%). 15 document clusters (31%) included all four KT categories, while one (2%) did not have any KT categories identified. We identified two latent categories: primarily implicit recognition of KT; and an overall lack of clarity on KT. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis of T&P documents from primarily research-intensive Canadian universities showed a lack of formal recognition for a comprehensive approach to KT and emphasis on traditional dissemination. We recommend that institutions explicitly and comprehensively consider KT in T&P and align documentation and procedures to reflect these values.

Prioritizing gender equity and intersectionality in Canadian global health institutions and partnerships.

Despite governmental efforts to close the gender gap and global calls including Sustainable Development Goal 5 to promote gender equality, the sobering reality is that gender inequities continue to persist in Canadian global health institutions. Moreover, from health to the economy, security to social protection, COVID-19 has exposed and heightened pre-existing inequities, with women, especially marginalized women, being disproportionately impacted. Women, particularly women who face bias along multiple identity dimensions, continue to be at risk of being excluded or delegitimized as participants in the global health workforce and continue to face barriers in career advancement to leadership, management and governance positions in Canada. These inequities have downstream effects on the policies and programmes, including global health efforts intended to support equitable partnerships with colleagues in low- and middle- income countries. We review current institutional gender inequities in Canadian global health research, policy and practice and by extension, our global partnerships. Informed by this review, we offer four priority actions for institutional leaders and managers to gender-transform Canadian global health institutions to accompany both the immediate response and longer-term recovery efforts of COVID-19. In particular, we call for the need for tracking indicators of gender parity within and across our institutions and in global health research (e.g., representation and participation, pay, promotions, training opportunities, unpaid care work), accountability and progressive action.

The Equity Tool for Valuing Global Health Partnerships.

Global health partnerships (GHPs) involve complex relationships between individuals and organizations, often joining partners from high-income and low- or middle-income countries around work that is carried out in the latter. Therefore, GHPs are situated in the context of global inequities and their underlying sociopolitical and historical causes, such as colonization. Equity is a core principle that should guide GHPs from start to end. How equity is embedded and nurtured throughout a partnership has remained a constant challenge. We have developed a user-friendly tool for valuing a GHP throughout its lifespan using an equity lens. The development of the EQT was informed by 5 distinct elements: a scoping review of scientific published peer-reviewed literature; an online survey and follow-up telephone interviews; workshops in Canada, Burkina Faso, and Vietnam; a critical interpretive synthesis; and a content validation exercise. Findings suggest GHPs generate experiences of equity or inequity yet provide little guidance on how to identify and respond to these experiences. The EQT can guide people involved in partnering to consider the equity implications of all their actions, from inception, through implementation and completion of a partnership. When used to guide reflective dialogue with a clear intention to advance equity in and through partnering, this tool offers a new approach to valuing global health partnerships. Global health practitioners, among others, can apply the EQT in their partnerships to learning together about how to cultivate equity in their unique contexts within what is becoming an increasingly diverse, vibrant, and responsive global health community.