Stuck in the middle: a systematic review of authorship in collaborative health research in Africa, 2014-2016.
academic collaboration
decolonizing global health
global health
research equity
Journal
BMJ global health
ISSN: 2059-7908
Titre abrégé: BMJ Glob Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101685275
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
18
07
2019
revised:
26
09
2019
accepted:
28
09
2019
entrez:
22
11
2019
pubmed:
22
11
2019
medline:
22
11
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Collaborations are often a cornerstone of global health research. Power dynamics can shape if and how local researchers are included in manuscripts. This article investigates how international collaborations affect the representation of local authors, overall and in first and last author positions, in African health research. We extracted papers on 'health' in sub-Saharan Africa indexed in PubMed and published between 2014 and 2016. The author's affiliation was used to classify the individual as from the country of the paper's focus, from another African country, from Europe, from the USA/Canada or from another locale. Authors classified as from the USA/Canada were further subclassified if the author was from a top US university. In primary analyses, individuals with multiple affiliations were presumed to be from a high-income country if they contained any affiliation from a high-income country. In sensitivity analyses, these individuals were presumed to be from an African country if they contained any affiliation an African country. Differences in paper characteristics and representation of local coauthors are compared by collaborative type using χ² tests. Of the 7100 articles identified, 68.3% included collaborators from the USA, Canada, Europe and/or another African country. 54.0% of all 43 429 authors and 52.9% of 7100 first authors were from the country of the paper's focus. Representation dropped if any collaborators were from USA, Canada or Europe with the lowest representation for collaborators from top US universities-for these papers, 41.3% of all authors and 23.0% of first authors were from country of paper's focus. Local representation was highest with collaborators from another African country. 13.5% of all papers had no local coauthors. Individuals, institutions and funders from high-income countries should challenge persistent power differentials in global health research. South-South collaborations can help African researchers expand technical expertise while maintaining presence on the resulting research.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Collaborations are often a cornerstone of global health research. Power dynamics can shape if and how local researchers are included in manuscripts. This article investigates how international collaborations affect the representation of local authors, overall and in first and last author positions, in African health research.
METHODS
METHODS
We extracted papers on 'health' in sub-Saharan Africa indexed in PubMed and published between 2014 and 2016. The author's affiliation was used to classify the individual as from the country of the paper's focus, from another African country, from Europe, from the USA/Canada or from another locale. Authors classified as from the USA/Canada were further subclassified if the author was from a top US university. In primary analyses, individuals with multiple affiliations were presumed to be from a high-income country if they contained any affiliation from a high-income country. In sensitivity analyses, these individuals were presumed to be from an African country if they contained any affiliation an African country. Differences in paper characteristics and representation of local coauthors are compared by collaborative type using χ² tests.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of the 7100 articles identified, 68.3% included collaborators from the USA, Canada, Europe and/or another African country. 54.0% of all 43 429 authors and 52.9% of 7100 first authors were from the country of the paper's focus. Representation dropped if any collaborators were from USA, Canada or Europe with the lowest representation for collaborators from top US universities-for these papers, 41.3% of all authors and 23.0% of first authors were from country of paper's focus. Local representation was highest with collaborators from another African country. 13.5% of all papers had no local coauthors.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
Individuals, institutions and funders from high-income countries should challenge persistent power differentials in global health research. South-South collaborations can help African researchers expand technical expertise while maintaining presence on the resulting research.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31750000
doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001853
pii: bmjgh-2019-001853
pmc: PMC6830050
doi:
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
e001853Subventions
Organisme : NIEHS NIH HHS
ID : T32 ES007142
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
Lancet. 2018 Nov 3;392(10158):1607-1609
pubmed: 30496066
Nature. 2014 Sep 18;513(7518):303
pubmed: 25230632
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2010 Dec;14(12):1650-2
pubmed: 21144255
BMJ Glob Health. 2018 May 9;3(3):e000797
pubmed: 29765777
Lancet Infect Dis. 2015 Jan;15(1):11-3
pubmed: 25477021
Nat Med. 2014 Jan;20(1):12
pubmed: 24398954
BMC Med Ethics. 2014 May 28;15:42
pubmed: 24885855
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2009 Aug;63(8):665-9
pubmed: 19414442
Nature. 2018 Jul;559(7712):23-26
pubmed: 29973734
Trop Med Int Health. 2017 Nov;22(11):1362-1370
pubmed: 28857354
BMJ. 2005 Oct 1;331(7519):705-6
pubmed: 16195259
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015 May 22;4(7):497-9
pubmed: 26188819
Nature. 2018 Feb 8;554(7691):169
pubmed: 29420486
Glob Health Action. 2016 May 12;9:31026
pubmed: 27178644
BMJ Glob Health. 2019 Mar 4;4(2):e001047
pubmed: 30899571
Lancet Glob Health. 2018 Feb;6(2):e142
pubmed: 29389534
PLoS One. 2017 Aug 8;12(8):e0182513
pubmed: 28792519
Glob Health Action. 2013 Oct 10;6:22450
pubmed: 24119660
PLoS One. 2018 Jan 31;13(1):e0191901
pubmed: 29385197
Account Res. 2017;24(4):243-267
pubmed: 28128975
Health Educ Behav. 2016 Apr;43(1 Suppl):17S-24S
pubmed: 27037144
Global Health. 2018 Mar 1;14(1):25
pubmed: 29490665
Int J Epidemiol. 2016 Dec 1;45(6):2174-2183
pubmed: 28199646
Lancet Glob Health. 2018 Jun;6(6):e593
pubmed: 29773111
Global Health. 2016 Sep 06;12(1):52
pubmed: 27600397
Int J Equity Health. 2016 Dec 12;15(1):204
pubmed: 27955670
Nature. 2018 Sep;561(7724):464
pubmed: 30250151
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Dec 21;17(Suppl 3):825
pubmed: 29297405
Br J Surg. 2019 Jan;106(2):e151-e155
pubmed: 30620062
Trop Med Int Health. 2013 Aug;18(8):1025-8
pubmed: 23718688
BMJ Glob Health. 2018 Aug 23;3(4):e000868
pubmed: 30167335
Clin Infect Dis. 2009 May 15;48(10):1420-2
pubmed: 19368501