Health Research Collaboration Research Articles

Our Health: exploring interdisciplinarity and community-based participatory research in a higher education science shop

This paper presents a qualitative case study of the experiences of student and community partners involved in collaborative health research in the context of an extra-curricular higher education science shop: Our Health. Our Health community partners set research questions around health and well-being, and conduct research with interdisciplinary groups of students using a community-based participatory research model. Our case study explores the benefits and challenges that this approach raises for students and community partners as they navigate the complexities of stepping beyond disciplinary boundaries and relationships to develop new research insights and methodologies. This qualitative case study draws on: grounded theory to analyse online focus groups with participating undergraduate students and community partners; semi-structured interviews with graduate students and key university staff members; and online project meetings. For the latter, we used non-participant observation to observe community members and students at work in online meetings, co-creating evolving knowledge around the lived experiences of health issues. Through these methods, we developed a deeper understanding of the relational modes of community–student collaboration in community-based participatory research. Our findings demonstrate the key role played by interdisciplinarity in the context of a community-based participatory research approach in enabling students and community partners to develop their intrapersonal skills, health research skills and knowledge integration skills, while strengthening connections between the academy and wider communities.

The impact of COVID-19 on disease epidemiology, family dynamics, and social justice in Minnesota: All that you cannot see.

The COVID-19 pandemic presented a challenge to established seed grant funding mechanisms aimed at fostering collaboration in child health research between investigators at the University of Minnesota (UMN) and Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota (Children's MN). We created a "rapid response," small grant program to catalyze collaborations in child health COVID-19 research. In this paper, we describe the projects funded by this mechanism and metrics of their success. Using seed funds from the UMN Clinical and Translational Science Institute, the UMN Medical School Department of Pediatrics, and the Children's Minnesota Research Institute, a rapid response request for applications (RFAs) was issued based on the stipulations that the proposal had to: 1) consist of a clear, synergistic partnership between co-PIs from the academic and community settings; and 2) that the proposal addressed an area of knowledge deficit relevant to child health engendered by the COVID-19 pandemic. Grant applications submitted in response to this RFA segregated into three categories: family fragility and disruption exacerbated by COVID-19; knowledge gaps about COVID-19 disease in children; and optimizing pediatric care in the setting of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. A series of virtual workshops presented research results to the pediatric community. Several manuscripts and extramural funding awards underscored the success of the program. A "rapid response" seed funding mechanism enabled nascent academic-community research partnerships during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the context of the rapidly evolving landscape of COVID-19, flexible seed grant programs can be useful in addressing unmet needs in pediatric health.

The Lyme and Tickborne Disease Dashboard: A map-based resource to promote public health awareness and research collaboration.

With the incidence of Lyme and other tickborne diseases on the rise in the US and globally, there is a critical need for data-driven tools that communicate the magnitude of this problem and help guide public health responses. We present the Johns Hopkins Lyme and Tickborne Disease Dashboard (https://www.hopkinslymetracker.org/), a new tool that harnesses the power of geography to raise awareness and fuel research and scientific collaboration. The dashboard is unique in applying a geographic lens to tickborne diseases, aiming not only to become a global tracker of tickborne diseases but also to contextualize their complicated geography with a comprehensive set of maps and spatial data sets representing a One Health approach. We share our experience designing and implementing the dashboard, describe the main features, and discuss current limitations and future directions.

A DECADE OF PROGRESS IN GLOBAL NEUROSURGERY

With an additional 23,300 neurosurgeons needed to address the over 5 million unmet essential neurosurgical cases presenting in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) each year, a global approach to safe and effective neurosurgery is essential. Global neurosurgery, defined as “an area for study, research, practice, and advocacy that places priority on improving health outcomes and achieving health equity” for neurosurgical patients worldwide, has delivered tangible progress in this challenge over the past decade. The movement has facilitated the training and education of neurosurgeons, has developed cost-effective technological solutions, and has reformed healthcare systems in LMICs. For example, the Weill Cornell Neurosurgery-Tanzania Collaboration and the Duke Neurosurgery East Africa Project have excelled in specific areas of neurosurgical training and technological innovation by working closely with local healthcare organisations. Global neurosurgical outcomes monitoring, as conducted by a UK National Institute of Health Research collaboration on traumatic brain injury, will continue to provide further insight into the areas of care that require most attention and investment. While the past ten years have brought significant progress, the prioritisation of global health outcomes and equity in neurosurgical care is a particularly valuable advancement due to the benefits yet to be gained. The appreciation of safe and effective neurosurgery as a key element of universal health coverage is highly encouraging as a sign of progress towards more equitable surgical care for patients around the world.

Regionalization of congenital cardiac surgical care: what it will take.

Decentralized, inconsistent healthcare delivery results in variable outcomes and wastes nearly one trillion dollars annually in the United States (US). Congenital heart surgery (CHS) is not immune due to high, variable costs and inconsistent outcomes across hospitals. Many European countries and Canada have addressed these issues by regionalizing CHS. Centralizing resources lowers costs, reduces in-hospital mortality and improves long-term survival. Although the impact on travel distance for patients is limited, the effect on healthcare disparities requires study. This review summarizes current data and integrates these into paths to regionalization through health policy, research, and academic collaboration. There are too many CHS programs in the US with unnecessarily high densities of centers in certain regions. This distribution lowers center and surgeon case volumes, creates redundancy, and increases variation in costs and outcomes. Simultaneously, adhering to suboptimal allocation impedes the understanding of optimal regionalization models to optimize congenital cardiac care delivery. CHS regionalization models developed for the US increase surgeon and center volume, decrease healthcare spending, and improve patient outcomes without substantially increasing travel distance. Regionalization in countries with few or no existing CHS programs is yet to be explored, but may be associated with more efficient spending and procedural complexity expansion.

Perinatal mental health in India: protocol for a validation and cohort study.

ABSTRACTBackgroundCommon mental disorders (CMD) are among the largest contributors to global maternal morbidity and mortality. Although research on perinatal mental health in India has grown in recent years, important evidence gaps remain, especially regarding CMD. Our study aims to improve understanding of CMD among perinatal and non-perinatal women of reproductive age across two settings in India: Bangalore (Karnataka) and Tanda (Himachal Pradesh).MethodsThe study is embedded within the Maternal and Perinatal Health Research Collaboration India (MaatHRI). This mixed-methods observational study comprises three consecutive phases: (i) focus group discussions and individual interviews to explore women’s knowledge and seek feedback on CMD screening tools; (ii) validation of CMD screening tools; and (iii) prospective cohort study to identify CMD incidence, prevalence and risk factors among perinatal and non-perinatal women. Results of the three phases will be analyzed using inductive thematic analysis, psychometric analysis and multivariable regression analysis, respectively.ConclusionImproving understanding, detection and management of CMD among women is key to improving women’s health and promoting gender equality. This study will provide evidence of CMD screening tools for perinatal and non-perinatal women in two diverse Indian settings, produce data on CMD prevalence, incidence and risk factors and enhance understanding of the specific contribution of the perinatal state to CMD.

PD08-06 TREATMENT-RELATED TOXICITY USING PROSTATE BED VERSUS PROSTATE BED AND PELVIC LYMPH NODE RADIATION THERAPY FOLLOWING RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY: A NATIONAL POPULATION-BASED STUDY

You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Localized: Radiation Therapy (PD08)1 Sep 2021PD08-06 TREATMENT-RELATED TOXICITY USING PROSTATE BED VERSUS PROSTATE BED AND PELVIC LYMPH NODE RADIATION THERAPY FOLLOWING RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY: A NATIONAL POPULATION-BASED STUDY Matthew Parry, Arunan Sujenthiran, Julie Nossiter, Melanie Morris, Brendan Berry, Paul Cathcart, Noel Clarke, Heather Payne, Jan van der Meulen, and Ajay Aggarwal Matthew ParryMatthew Parry More articles by this author , Arunan SujenthiranArunan Sujenthiran More articles by this author , Julie NossiterJulie Nossiter More articles by this author , Melanie MorrisMelanie Morris More articles by this author , Brendan BerryBrendan Berry More articles by this author , Paul CathcartPaul Cathcart More articles by this author , Noel ClarkeNoel Clarke More articles by this author , Heather PayneHeather Payne More articles by this author , Jan van der MeulenJan van der Meulen More articles by this author , and Ajay AggarwalAjay Aggarwal More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001976.06AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: There is debate about the effectiveness and toxicity of pelvic lymph node (PLN) irradiation when used for disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy. This study compared the toxicity of radiation therapy (RT) to the prostate bed and pelvic lymph nodes (PBPLN-RT) with prostate-bed only radiation therapy (PBO-RT). METHODS: Patients with prostate cancer who underwent post-prostatectomy RT in the English National Health Service between 2010-2016 were identified by using data from the Cancer Registry, the National Radiotherapy Dataset, and Hospital Episode Statistics, an administrative database of all hospital admissions. Follow-up was available up to December 31, 2018. Validated indicators were used to identify patients with ≥ Grade 2 gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity according to the presence of both a procedure code and diagnostic code in patient Hospital Episode Statistics records. A competing risks regression analysis, with adjustment for patient and tumour characteristics, estimated subdistribution hazard ratios by comparing GI and GU toxicity for PBPLN-RT vs PBO-RT. RESULTS: 5-year cumulative incidences in the PBO-RT (n= 5,087) and PBPLN-RT (n= 593) groups was 18.2% and 15.9% for GI toxicity, respectively. For GU toxicity it was and 19.1% and 20.7%, respectively. There was no difference in GI or GU toxicity between PBO-RT and PBPLN-RT (GI: adjusted sHR, 0.90, 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.19; p= 0.45); (GU: adjusted sHR, 1.18, 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.44; p= 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Including PLNs in the radiation field following radical prostatectomy is not associated with a significant increase in rates of ≥ Grade 2 GI or GU toxicity at 5 years. Source of Funding: M.G.P. was supported by the National Institute of Health Research (DRF-2018-11-ST2-036). T.E.C. was supported by the Medical Research Council (MR/S020470/1). B.B. was partly supported by the NHS National Institute for Health Research through an Academic Clinical Fellowship. H.P. was supported by the University College London Hospitals/University College London Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre. J.v.d.M. was partly supported by the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care North Thames at Bart’s Health NHS Trust. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e115-e116 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Matthew Parry More articles by this author Arunan Sujenthiran More articles by this author Julie Nossiter More articles by this author Melanie Morris More articles by this author Brendan Berry More articles by this author Paul Cathcart More articles by this author Noel Clarke More articles by this author Heather Payne More articles by this author Jan van der Meulen More articles by this author Ajay Aggarwal More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...

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

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

Pearls on science, collaboration, and mentorship in health research: A masterclass conversation with Dr. John Ioannidis

Effective collaboration and mentorship are essential to success in a career of health research. We summarize our conversation with Dr. John Ioannidis, professor at Stanford University, author of the most accessed manuscript in the history of the Public Library of Science, and one of the most cited scientists in history. Dr. Ioannidis was invited for a question and answer session as part of a graduate-level course on biostatistical collaboration hosted at McMaster University in December 2020. This text provides insight into the experiences and pearls he shared, that we hope will inspire and guide other researchers early or junior in their careers. He emphasized the importance of passion, enthusiasm and a sincere pursuit for high quality research as being the cornerstones to success and continued productivity in this field.

Health Research Conducting Quality Perceptions of Medical Postgraduate Trainees

Background: Health researchers in medical universities are surrounded by existing hurdles to the health research during the process of conduction which may affect the quality of conduction of health research undertaken by the medical trainees. The current study is conducted to determine the effects of barriers on the quality of conduction of health research.
 Study Design: Descriptive cross-sectional study.
 Place and Duration of Study: Research conducting postgraduate trainees in various disciplines in Liaqaut University of Medical & Health Sciences, Jamshoro from 1st September 2018 to 31st December 2018.
 Methodology: Two hundred & sixteen health research trainees were recruited for study through stratified sampling technique; the subjects included 79 males &137 females of age bracket of 24-50 years. After taking the consent, data was collected on a preformed questionnaire and analyzed in SPSS version 23.0 by computing proportions, mean ± standard deviation and using Chi-square test as statistical test of significance with the p-value of 0.05 taken as level of significance.
 Results: Overall, two hundred and fifty subjects were approached to obtain the complete response of the required sample of two hundred and sixteen. The response rate was 86.4%. The 72 (33.3%) trainees in medicine and allied sciences, 66 (92%) trainees experienced various barriers in quality of conducting of health research. From 42 (19.4%) trainees in surgery and allied sciences, 22 (51.2%) perceived effects of barriers on their health research conducting (HRC) quality. Amongst 33 (15.3%) trainees in basic sciences, 15 (45%) faced various hurdles while going through their research; surprisingly all the trainees conducting research in field of pharmacology faced various barriers during research process. Out of 67 (31.0%) postgraduate trainees in dentistry, 60 (90%) reported various barriers (p= 0.03).
 Conclusion: Quality conduction of health research affected by barriers is experienced by majority of medical researchers and trainees during their postgraduate training. The majority of the postgraduate trainees conducting research from clinical fields face more effects on their research conducting quality as compared to the basic sciences researchers.
 Recommendation: Quality assessment protocol should be incorporated during research conducting process. Actions should be taken for reducing the barriers related to HRC quality. Collaborative health research amongst clinical and basic sciences fields can be done to improve the quality.

Bats, Parachutes and Bridges: How Can Epidemiologists Improve Global Health Research Practice?

Abstract Epidemiologist Sandra Alba is part of a team that developed a new set of guidelines to address issues of research integrity and fairness in international health research collaborations. She explains what the guidelines hope to achieve, and how

Commodification of biomaterials and data when funding is contingent to transfer in biobank research.

It is common practice for biobanks and biobank researchers to seek funding from agencies that are independent of the biobank that often stipulate conditions requiring researchers to grant access and share biomaterials and data as part of the agreement, in particular, in international collaborative health research. As yet, to the author's knowledge, there has been no study conducted to examine whether these conditions could result in the commercialization of biomaterials and data and whether such practice is considered ethical. This paper therefore seeks to answer the question ofwhether such sharing of biomaterials and data for biobank research in exchange for funding from sponsors and funders in collaborative health research is ethically justified. The central idea of this paper is based on an argument against commodification of the body and its parts, which includes biomaterials and data and holds that it is ethically wrong to commodify humans and their body parts. The arguments against commodification of biomaterials and data explored are the Kantian approach argument as it relates to interference of commodification with human dignity which is linked to a diminished sense of personhood, an argument against commodification that is based on a dilution of altruism and lastly the communitarian approach anti-commodification argument which emphasizes a social responsibility to the common good. Arguments in support of commodification based on liberal individualism and consequentialism are also discussed.

The value of involving patients and public in health services research and evaluation: a qualitative study

BackgroundPublic and Patient Involvement, Engagement and Participation research encompasses working with patients/service users (people with a medical condition receiving health service treatment), public members, caregivers and communities (who use services or care for patients). The Partner Priority Programme (PPP) was developed by the National Health Service [NHS] and National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care [NIHR CLAHRC] NWC to share information and experience on evaluating new services being offered to patients that were seeking to reduce health inequalities, improve people’s health and wellbeing and reduce emergency hospital admissions. This paper seeks to explore an approach developed for involving the public as equal partners within the evaluation and decision-making processes of health and social care services research. The aim of this study was to identify how public advisors were included, the impact of their involvement, and how change occurred within the organisations following their involvement.MethodsA qualitative approach using focus group discussions was adopted to explore the experiences of two cohorts of participants involved in PPP project teams. Focus groups were held with public advisors (n = 9), interns (n = 9; staff or public who received a funded internship for a PPP project), NHS and Local Authority initiative leads (n = 10), and academic facilitators (n = 14). These were transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic approach.ResultsThirty-two public advisors were recruited to support 25 PPP projects across the Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and CLAHRC North West Coast [NWC] partner organisations. Three inter-related themes were conceptualised: 1)“Where it all started - involving public advisors” identified the varying journeys to recruitment and experiences of becoming a public advisor; 2)“Steps toward active involvement and engagement” related to public advisors becoming core team members; and 3) “Collaborative working to enhance public and patient involvement” relayed how projects identified the benefits of working jointly with the public advisors, particularly for those who had not experienced this style of working before.ConclusionsThe findings indicate that the PPP model is effective for embedding Public and Patient Involvement [PPI] within health services research, and recommends that PPI is integrated at the earliest opportunity within research projects and service evaluations through the use of support-led and facilitative programmes.

Collaboration in Health Research

Collaboration in Health Research

Working ‘upstream’ to reduce social inequalities in health: a qualitative study of how partners in an applied health research collaboration interpret the metaphor

ABSTRACT Evidence suggests that despite the popularity and influence of key health equity concepts, they often fail to shift the thinking and actions of health workforces towards the social and structural determinants of health inequalities. These findings tend to be attributed to institutional constraints, along with the role of influential discourses which promote a focus on individuals and behaviours. However, questions have also been raised about the clarity and utility of the concepts themselves, and the extent to which the language they use works (or indeed fails to work) in reorienting thinking and action. The purpose of this study was to explore how partners in an applied health research collaboration in England interpreted the popular ‘upstream-downstream’ story, and what it means to work ‘upstream’ to reduce health inequalities. Where participants were not familiar with its academic or technical usage, the story was taken to be a metaphor for prevention generally, or it prompted a root cause analysis of the more discrete ways in which inequalities were encountered in participants’ research or work. Even in instances where participants did hold more socio-political perspectives, these were often not evoked by the metaphor itself. Two of the 18 participants were unable to equate the metaphor with particular actions or ways of working, while others found it to be a poor fit with how they understood inequalities. The study findings illustrate and explain the challenges that arise when technical metaphors from the health equity literature are opened-up to interpretation by wider audiences.

The effect of autism on information sampling during decision-making: An eye-tracking study

This research was funded by a Wellcome Trust (grant RG76641) and Isaac Newton Trust grant (Grant RG70368). GF was also supported by a Wellcome ISSF award (204796/Z/16/Z). PS was supported by the Autism Research Trust and the Wellcome Trust. SBC received funding from the Wellcome Trust 214322/Z/18/Z. In addition, SBC received funding from Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking (JU) under grant agreement No 777394. The JU receives support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme and EFPIA and AUTISM SPEAKS, Autistica, SFARI. SBC also received funding from the Autism Research Trust, SFARI, the Templeton World Charitable Fund, SFARI, and the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre. The research was supported by the (U.K.) National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care East of England at Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust.

From fringe to centre-stage: experiences of mainstreaming health equity in a health research collaboration

BackgroundAction to address the structural determinants of health inequalities is prioritized in high-level initiatives such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and many national health strategies. Yet, the focus of much local policy and practice is on behaviour change. Research shows that whilst lifestyle approaches can improve population health, at best they fail to reduce health inequalities because they fail to address upstream structural determinants of behaviour and health outcomes. In health research, most efforts have been directed at three streams of work: understanding causal pathways; evaluating the equity impact of national policy; and developing and evaluating lifestyle/behavioural approaches to health improvement. As a result, there is a dearth of research on effective interventions to reduce health inequalities that can be developed and implemented at a local level.ObjectiveTo describe an initiative that aimed to mainstream a focus on health equity in a large-scale research collaboration in the United Kingdom and to assess the impact on organizational culture, research processes and individual research practice.MethodsThe study used multiple qualitative methods including semi-structured interviews, focus groups and workshops (n = 131 respondents including Public Advisers, university, National Health Service (NHS), and local and document review.Resultsutilizing Extended Normalization Process Theory (ENPT) and gender mainstreaming theory, the evaluation illuminated (i) the processes developed by Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care North West Coast to integrate ways of thinking and acting to tackle the upstream social determinants of health inequities (i.e. to mainstream a health equity focus) and (ii) the factors that promoted or frustrated these efforts.ConclusionsFindings highlight the role of contextual factors and processes aimed at developing and implementing a robust strategy for mainstreaming health equity as building blocks for transformative change in applied health research.

Pharmaceutical industry, academia and people with experience of mental illness as partners in research: a need for ethical guidance

Background: Several social and policy developments have led to research partnerships in mental health research, which depart from traditional research models. One form of such partnerships is among Research institutions, Industry (pharmaceutical and biotech) and People with lived experience of mental illness (RIPs) in the NIHR services. There are several benefits but also challenges in such partnerships. An ethics-based approach to anticipating and addressing such problems is lacking. Given the expansion of RIPs in treatment development for mental health illness, guidance to support ethical and effective collaborations in NIHR-funded mental health research is essential. Methods: To develop a moral framework for evaluating the ethics of RIPs, we systematically searched PubMed for peer-reviewed literature discussing good practices in research partnerships. Searches were also conducted in websites of known organizations supporting patient engagement with industry in mental health research and in the references of short-listed articles. Following application of exclusion criteria, remaining articles were critically examined and summarised to synthesise principles for ethical RIPs and inform clear guidance and practices. Results: Critical analysis and synthesis of the short-listed articles highlighted the need for two sets of principles to guide ethical RIPs: principles for (a) RIPs as a trustworthy enterprise and (b) fair RIPs. We discuss the application of these principles in problem-solving strategies that can support best practice in establishing fair and effective research partnerships among research institutions, industry and people with lived experience of mental illness in the NIHR services. Conclusions: Ethical guidance is needed to prevent and address challenges in RIPs and to promote the scientific and social benefits of these new research partnership models in mental health research in the NIHR services. We show how the proposed moral framework can guide research partners in designing, sustaining and assessing ethical and effective mental health research collaborations.

A conversation on health research collaborations and career with Dr. Gordon Guyatt: A commentary

This text builds on a conversation with Dr. Gordon Guyatt who provided guidance to trainees on interdisciplinary collaboration and work-life balance as part of a graduate-level biostatistics course in September 2020. The participants in the conversation comprised a group of clinicians, methodologists and biostatisticians, ranging from junior trainees to world-renowned established researchers. Biostatisticians, methodologists and clinicians often collaborate in conducting clinical research, calling upon interpersonal soft skills that are rarely explicitly addressed in undergraduate and graduate coursework. Acquiring such skills are essential for allowing seamless collaboration and communication within a multidisciplinary team and are therefore key to career advancement for young researchers, which was the focus of this session. As an invited guest, Dr. Guyatt shares his experiences after decades of leadership and successful international collaborations. He emphasizes the importance finding the right mentor, forming productive collaborations, developing self-awareness, and strategies for achieving a work-life balance.

Maternal and perinatal Health Research Collaboration, India (MaatHRI): methodology for establishing a hospital-based research platform in a low and middle income country setting

Background: Maternal and perinatal Health Research collaboration, India (MaatHRI) is a research platform that aims to improve evidence-based pregnancy care and outcomes for mothers and babies in India, a country with the second highest burden of maternal and perinatal deaths. The objective of this paper is to describe the methods used to establish and standardise the platform and the results of the process. Methods: MaatHRI is a hospital-based collaborative research platform. It is adapted from the UK Obstetric Surveillance System (UKOSS) and built on a pilot model (IndOSS-Assam), which has been extensively standardised using the following methods: (i) establishing a network of hospitals; (ii) setting up a secure system for data collection, storage and transfer; (iii) developing a standardised laboratory infrastructure; and (iv) developing and implementing regulatory systems. Results: MaatHRI was established in September 2018. Fourteen hospitals participate across four states in India – Assam, Meghalaya, Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra. The research team includes 20 nurses, a project manager, 16 obstetricians, two pathologists, a public health specialist, a general physician and a paediatrician. MaatHRI has advanced standardisation of data and laboratory parameters, real-time monitoring of data and participant safety, and secure transfer of data. Four observational epidemiological studies are presently being undertaken through the platform. MaatHRI has enabled bi-directional capacity building. It is overseen by a steering committee and a data safety and monitoring board, a process that is not normally used, but was found to be highly effective in ensuring data safety and equitable partnerships in the context of low and middle income countries (LMICs). Conclusion: MaatHRI is the first prototype of UKOSS and other similar platforms in a LMIC setting. The model is built on existing methods but applies new standardisation processes to develop a collaborative research platform that can be replicated in other LMICs.