Bibliometric study of global health research from Indonesia in international journals

Equity in Global Health Research.

The last two decades have witnessed a growing acknowledgment of the importance of research on mental health in the global health context. The 1995 edited volume, World Mental Health [1], the 1996 publication of the Global Burden of Disease Study [2], and the 2001 World Health Report [3] powerfully utilized mental health data or underscored the role of research in achieving gains in mental health around the world. By 2007, the World Health Organization and the Global Forum for Health Research released their report on research capacity for mental health, demonstrating the dearth of mental health research from low- and middle-income countries, in particular, as well as the need to bridge the gap between research, practice, and policy [4]. That same year, the Lancet special issue on global mental health galvanized the global mental health community, outlining concrete actions to advance the field [5]. The series Call to Action underscored the importance of research as a means to expand the global evidence base and to make the case for mental health care delivery reform, especially in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) [5]. At the time, however, medical students and residents from high-, middle-, and low-income countries, alike, would have noted a dearth of funding to support research training focused on global mental health themes. Despite this, by 2009, new global health programs at universities were rapidly appearing in the USA and providing more opportunities for training in global health [6], but few had well-developed mental health components—either research or clinically focused. At the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), a reevaluation of the institute’s role in global health research was also underway. By mid-2009, NIMH began reorganizing the Office for Special Populations and the Office of Global Mental Health to create the Office for Research on Disparities and Global Mental Health (ORDGMH) in 2010. Consistent with the NIMH mission, the new office underscored (1) the critical need to mount an inclusive global effort to expand research—and the capacity to conduct research—on preventing and treating mental illness, (2) the centrality of eliminating disparities as part and parcel of this effort, and (3) the value of recognizing that local contexts around the globe share commonalities that can provide insights into equitably reducing the suffering associated with mental illness. An explicit goal of ORDGMH was to create a research career path in global mental health for US investigators, while also supporting research capacity building in low- and middle-income countries as a route to building high-quality collaborative research. To achieve this goal, ORDGMH expanded collaborations with the Fogarty International Center (FIC)—the NIH center tasked with supporting and facilitating global health research and research training—and, where indicated, developed new targeted initiatives for research capacity development in mental health. In this article, we briefly describe NIMH activities in support of global mental health research training and future directions for research training in global mental health.

Promoting Global Health: The World Association of Medical Editors Position on Editors' Responsibility.

Reform of research funding processes could pave the way for progress in global health

Evaluation of the National Institute for Health and Care Research’s (NIHR) Global Health Research (GHR) Portfolio - Inception Report

1 Netherlands Society for Tropical Medicine and International Health (NVTG), Wageningen, The Netherlands 1 2 Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, ErasmusMC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands 3 Department of Public Health, University Medical Centre Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands 4 ETC Crystal, Leusden, The Netherlands 5 Institute of Health Policy and Management, ErasmusMC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

IntroductionAlthough women’s health is prioritised in global research, few studies have identified structural barriers and strategies to promote female leadership and gender equality in the global health research workforce, especially...

Voices in the wilderness: how exclusionist article processing charge policies of academic journals underscore what is wrong with global health

BackgroundThere has been considerable progress in developing global health education and research in China. Nevertheless, evidence of the progress of Chinese universities’ contributions to global health research is limited. More efforts are needed to depict the progress Chinese universities have collectively made in advancing the field of global health. This study aimed to examine Chinese universities’ collective contributions to global health research by describing the longitudinal trends in global health research publications, uncovering research themes in global health, and exploring collaboration patterns.MethodsA comprehensive bibliometric analysis was conducted for original research studies of the ten founding members of the China Consortium of Universities for Global Health, one of the largest networks of global health research and education in China.ResultsWe found that (1) the number of research publications in the field of global health has steadily increased from 2014 to 2020, (2) non-communicable disease was the most popular research topic, accounting for over one-third of total publications, followed by maternal and child health and neurological and mental disorders and diseases, (3) less than one-fifth of papers involved primary data collection, with the majority of the study populations from low-income and lower-middle-income countries in Asia and Africa, and (4) a sizable collaboration network has been established with co-authors from over 200 oversea universities or organizations, with about one third from the US.ConclusionsDespite a variety of challenges and barriers, Chinese universities have been playing an increasingly important role in global health research as assessed by peer-reviewed publications over the last decade. More concerted efforts by multiple stakeholders, including government, private sectors, funding agencies, academic institutions, and researchers, are needed to advance the development of global health research in China.

Stakeholder engagement is increasingly required by global health funders as a means to enhance research impact and bridge the gap between knowledge generation and its application in local health systems. However, global health researchers often face structural and operational barriers that limit meaningful stakeholder engagement. We present a practical model developed by a global respiratory health research programme implemented in four low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) – Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, and Pakistan. The model centred on designating in-country stakeholder engagement champions – locally based professionals with strong communication skills and contextual understanding of the health system and stakeholders. These champions were supported through mentorship, peer exchange, and capacity-building activities delivered by a central community and stakeholder engagement platform comprising experts and researchers. The champions had autonomy to design context-specific engagement strategies, allocate resources, and lead interactions with stakeholders throughout the research lifecycle. This decentralised approach enabled tailored engagement, fostered south-south learning, and created leadership opportunities for LMIC researchers. Despite successes, challenges included managing power imbalances, limited institutional capacity, and increased workloads. The model offers a promising approach for advancing equitable partnerships and local leadership in global health research, aligning with broader efforts to decolonise global health and promote meaningful, context-driven stakeholder engagement.

Understanding global health ethics requires insight into factors that influence inequalities in global health such as economic disparities, extreme poverty, limits on human rights, political oppression, and unequal distribution of research funding. We review some ethical issues related to global health, focusing on global infectious disease research. Significant ethical concerns include inequities and disparities in national and institutional capacity to conduct global health research on infectious diseases because these can influence the extent to which low-resource countries benefit from the research. Research funding for global health or infectious disease often comes from the governments and institutions of developed countries. It is allocated based on their institutional priorities, which may not align with those of the developing country. When they do align, developing countries may lack the necessary research, manufacturing, and logistical capacity to discover, produce, and distribute medicines and/or vaccines for infectious diseases within their countries. Research ethics guidelines evolve iteratively to help global health practitioners and researchers navigate concerns involving global health and infectious disease. There is an ongoing need for legal and regulatory frameworks, support for research capacity building—including ethics capacity, and systems to audit the impacts of capacity-building programs. While partnerships are essential to carrying out global health research, inequities between high- and low-resource countries drive ethical challenges in global health and infectious disease work. Recognizing and mitigating these inequities is a core challenge in global health research ethics supported by wider efforts toward decolonization.

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.

With the development and deepening of the process of global integration, global health is gaining increasing attention. An increasing number of studies have examined global health from diverse perspectives to promote the realization of global public health. The purpose of this research is to systematically and comprehensively evaluate the knowledge structure, knowledge domain, and evolution trend in the field of global health research. Based on the 14,692 document data retrieved from Web of Science Core Collection from 1996 to 2019, this article carried out a visual analysis of global health research from the perspective of scientific output characteristics, scientific research cooperation networks, keywords, and highly cited literature. The results show that scholars’ interest in global health research is increasing, especially after the outbreak of SARS. USA, England, Canada, Australia, and China have the most prominent contributions to global health research. Significant authors, high impact journals and core institutions also identified. The study found that “global health governance”, “global health diplomacy”, “medical education”, “global health education” and “antimicrobial resistance” are the research frontiers and hot spots. This study provides an overview and valuable guidance for researchers and related personnel to find the research direction and practice of global health.

Global child health research plays a pivotal role in addressing inequities in children’s health and development worldwide. To achieve this goal, research must be based on sound scientific and ethical principles. This chapter focuses on ethics in child health research in low-, middle-, and high-income countries. It reflects on the key principles underlying ethical research in general and in global health research and child health research in particular. This is followed by a detailed discussion of 3 core principles underlying child health research: respect, benefit, and justice. Research with children poses important and universal ethical issues across world contexts, including establishing consent, protection from harm, privacy, and payment and gifts. Cultural, social, political, and economic factors that can interact to pose particular challenges with regard to these issues in different contexts, especially in low- and middle-income settings, are explored. As methodology and ethics are integrally linked, this chapter also examines the ways in which children have been included in health research studies: research on children, research with children, and research by children. This is followed by a brief discussion of ethical mechanisms that are in place to ensure that ethical standards are met and maintained in research on global child health. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the many positive changes in ethical research involving children in recent years. Emerging ethical challenges in the fields of genetics and genomics are highlighted.

Public health recommendations are usually based on a mixture of empirical evidence and normative arguments: to argue that authorities ought to implement an intervention that has proven effective in improving people’s health requires a normative position confirming that the authorities are responsible for improving people’s health. While public health (at the national level) is based on a widely accepted normative starting point – namely, that it is the responsibility of the state to improve people’s health – there is no widely accepted normative starting point for international health or global health. As global health recommendations may vary depending on the normative starting point one uses, global health research requires a better dialogue between researchers who are trained in empirical disciplines and researchers who are trained in normative disciplines. Global health researchers with a background in empirical disciplines seem reluctant to clarify the normative starting point they use, perhaps because normative statements cannot be derived directly from empirical evidence, or because there is a wide gap between present policies and the normative starting point they personally support. Global health researchers with a background in normative disciplines usually do not present their work in ways that help their colleagues with a background in empirical disciplines to distinguish between what is merely personal opinion and professional opinion based on rigorous normative research. If global health researchers with a background in empirical disciplines clarified their normative starting point, their recommendations would become more useful for their colleagues with a background in normative disciplines. If global health researchers who focus on normative issues used adapted qualitative research guidelines to present their results, their findings would be more useful for their colleagues with a background in empirical disciplines. Although a single common paradigm for all scientific disciplines that contribute to global health research may not be possible or desirable, global health researchers with a background in empirical disciplines and global health researchers with a background in normative disciplines could present their ‘truths’ in ways that would improve dialogue. This paper calls for an exchange of views between global health researchers and editors of medical journals.