eLetters

125 e-Letters

  • On equity in authorship. Response to Dmitris et al.

    Dear Dr Abimbola,

    We read with interest the article ‘How global is global health Research? A large-scale analysis of tends in authorship’ by Dimitris and colleagues published in BMJ Global Health January 2021.1 The authors’ research highlights the slow progress in proportion of studies with any, first, and, last authors affiliated with a low- or middle-income country (LMICs), particularly in first and last authorship. The authors welcome and have called for a thorough discussion about the implications of these findings, particularly in identifying the barriers and facilitators to diversity in authorship.

    Reflecting on our experience of international research in infectious diseases and antimicrobial resistance we present here some of the barriers we have faced together with the solutions which we have identified. Recognising however, that addressing this inequity requires broader inclusion and participation from academic institutions, scientific journals and funders, we propose remedial steps at every level which will require a different approach to scientific research funding and communication.

    There is a culture and hierarchy within academia which manifests itself in the authorship order. It is accepted that the first leads the writing and last author leads the research with all authors contributing to the final manuscript. There are of course the guidelines from the International Committee of medical Journal Editors which clearly stipulate the rol...

    Show More
  • A successful demonstration of why 'precision shielding' is impossible with high community transmission

    The article is predicated on the notion that “The ability to preferentially protect high-risk groups in COVID-19 is hotly debated.” This is a mischaracterisation of the debate. The ability to protect high-risk groups has never been questioned.
    The debate would be better characterised as the ability to focus non-pharmaceutical interventions solely on those most at risk of severe disease due to COVID-19, and removing restrictions and allowing widespread infection amongst the low risk groups. The debate has only ever been between those who advocated only applying NPIs to the highest risk cohorts ("focussed protection") and those that advocate that community wide measures are the only effective means to protect those at highest risk.
    The stated aim of this paper is to demonstrate whether ‘precision shielding’ was achieved in the first wave, and invents a metric to compare incidence and death in the high risk long-term care population vs the low risk younger population. The author uses seroprevalence data from the elderly and the young to estimate infection prevalence, but takes no account of the differing antibody response that would largely confound this approach.
    Using these metrics the author then goes on to ascribe a value judgement as “substantial shielding” or “substantial inverse protection.” Care homes and institutions are already known to be at risk environments for the spread of infectious disease, due to the close contact care work, the m...

    Show More
  • Letter to the Editor Regarding Global health education in UK medical schools: a review of undergraduate university curricula

    I congratulate the authors who successfully conducted a survey on the current provision of global health education (GHE) in United Kingdom (UK) medical schools.1 Their findings are in keeping with a recent cross-sectional study into the timetables of UK medical schools.2 In the methods section of the paper, the global health learning outcomes and competencies surveyed were listed. However, global surgery was neither surveyed nor discussed in this paper.

    This occurred despite global surgery being added as a mandatory learning objective to the national undergraduate curriculum in surgery by the Royal College of England in 2015.3 Post 2015, GHE studies2 and study protocols4 have typically strived to ensure that global surgery is assessed within their study designs. This is particularly important as global surgery often becomes the ‘neglected stepchild of global health’.5 It is easy to see why given that approximately two-thirds of UK medical courses are reported not to cover this topic within their core curriculum.2 It is not in the best interests of the population for a subject of such importance to be ignored by global health researchers and educational institutions.

    Therefore, whilst it is encouraging that a study has been done with the aim of identifying gaps in GHE teaching in UK medical schools, the study design in and of itself has resulted in the researchers missing gaps.2 This exemplifies the importance of having a diverse range of stakeholders involve...

    Show More
  • A commentary on Global Health Security Index-A guiding tool for preparing for the next pandemic

    Introduction and Brief Overview
    The Global Health Security (GHS) Index is the first comprehensive assessment and benchmarking of health security and related capabilities across the 195 countries that make up the States Parties to the International Health Regulations (IHR [2005])1. The GHS Index takes into account countries’ capability to prevent, detect, and respond to public health emergencies while also assessing the robustness of the healthcare system in each country. This index is comprehensive since it has the ability to consider political and socioeconomic risks, as well as adherence to international norms, which can influence countries’ abilities to stop outbreaks1,2. The GHS Index has been the creation of Open Philanthropy Project, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Robertson Foundation1.
    The GHS Index treats biosafety and biosecurity as critical components of global health security. As such, the tool includes numerous indicators measuring country capacities and accounts for differences in priorities between high income and low/middle income countries. The GHS index is based on 6 categories, 34 indicators, and 85 sub-indicators. The six categories comprise prevention, detection and reporting, rapid response, health system, compliance with international norms, and risk environment5.
    This article describes the practical value of the GHS Index and also explains how the methodology of assigning country ranks and scores is helpful in aidin...

    Show More
  • The role of AuthorAID in providing Pre-Publication Support Services for authors in low-income and middle-income countries

    We have read this excellent article with interest. As physicians based in Pakistan: a low-middle income country and not having English as our first language, we could relate to the challenges mentioned in this manuscript. Authors have very rightly pointed out that the issue with most of the researchers based in the low-income (LIC) and middle-income countries (LMIC) is not of poor or low-quality science. We need data and experience sharing from all parts of the world in order to complete the bigger picture and understand the issues that we face today in health, environment, and social sciences. One of the main challenges authors based in the LIC and LMIC face is the issue of presentation of that data i a presentable form. Due to the lack of training opportunities, many authors are unable to write manuscripts that meet the high standards of global scientific journals. This deprives these authors of an opportunity to publish in journals with a global audience and the world misses out on reading a different perspective from the LIC or LMIC. In this context, the introduction of PREPSS is an excellent and welcome initiative that must be supported and promoted.
    In this context, we would like to highlight the role of AuthorAID: a global platform of more than 17,000 researchers from all around the globe. We have been extensively using this platform for more than a decade to learn and now collaborate and teach other researchers based in the LIC and LMIC. AuthorAID also pr...

    Show More
  • Building on narrative rather than changing narrative

    A few thoughts on the paper.

    In relation to SAM terminology. No one could argue with the logic of acute v chronic. However, SAM is well understood at a policy level. It is however understood at above six months. The work that ENN and MAMI have done on identifying wasting at birth is a narrative change which can lay the foundation for the bridging language that the paper talks about.

    Narrative is a story that people can understand.
    As pointed out, consistency is important, but consistency must hover across the 1000 day window. Currently, our terminology for narrating fetal undernutrition is very weak. While simplistic, if children are being born wasted, then they are also wasted in utero. To fully open the curtains, we would suggest that the SAM terminology be adapted to include fetal malnutrition. The narrative neither stops nor begins at birth regardless of the terminology we use.
    In relation to the false positives and visa versa. Given current programming capacity and coverage rates well below 20% for CMAM false negatives represent only a tiny fraction of those who need treatment and do not receive it. Focus on false positives takes away from the substantive issue of low coverage rates for Essential Nutrition Actions across the 1000 day window.

    On a broader theme, it would be helpful to explore how the food system and the food system summit support people in immediate need.

    A conversation starter
    The food system belongs to...

    Show More
  • Syrian Healthcare Workers Choose the Wrong Destination

    Editor, the commentary highlights the sad situation the Levant region in the middle east has reached. The Syrian healthcare workers are most needed in Syria and not in Germany. It is their very country which is in most need for their services. Syria now has shortage of trained doctors and nurses to help fellow country men and women recover from war injuries and myriad of infectious and non-communicable diseases. Integrating in Europe is never easy for a people from Muslim countries, even if the were professionals (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8854519/Muslim-doctor-refused-s...). I have lived in London for over 30 years and still feel an outsider in the UK. How will these refugees cope with the threat of their children losing their Arabic language or Muslim identity. Careers are not everything. It just baffles me why the Syrians who came to Europe could not seek refuge in rich Arab nations. Something terribly wrong is going on in the middle east and coming to Germany is not the answer. Syrian refugees are looking for a quick fix, but they should go back to their own country and tough it out to rebuild what was demolished before someone else comes and takes their places! Britons and Germans did not run away from their countries during the two world wars! Did millions of Britons leave to America to escape WWII? Why have did almost...

    Show More
  • Citation rates of Retracted Publications

    Candal-Pedreira and colleagues showed that for 304 retracted papers, overall citations increased not decreased following retraction, but citations did seem to decrease for retracted papers in higher impact journals and those with higher citation rates, although that decrease might have been temporary.1 It is disturbing that retracted papers continue to be cited.

    We approached the issue of changes in citations rates after retraction in a different way. We assessed citation rates of retracted and unretracted publications from individuals with more than one retracted publication in the Retraction Watch database.2 Using this approach, we found that, overall, citations for 989 retracted publications declined after the retraction and citations for 9671 unretracted papers also declined after the author’s first retraction, but the decline was greater for retracted papers. For example, for retracted publications, 671 papers had 3566 citations in the 3rd year before their retraction and 831 papers had 1575 citations in the 3rd year after their retraction. In contrast, 5311 unretracted papers had 17935 citations in the 3rd year before the author’s first retraction, and 7388 papers had 17252 citations in the 3rd year after the author’s first retraction.

    Part of the difficulty in conducting and interpreting such analyses is the different lengths of time pre-and post-retraction for different papers. To try to address that issue, we calculated the slope of the citations/yea...

    Show More
  • An integrated primary health care response to COVID-19 in Siaya, Kenya

    Title: An integrated primary health care response to COVID-19 in Siaya, Kenya

    Authors: Neema Kaseje, Andy Haines, Kennedy Oruenjo, Dan Kaseje, and Marcel Tanner.

    We note that the article makes a strong case for the critical role of community health workers (CHWs) in pandemics, and we would like to outline the experience of rapid scale up of a programme to support CHWs in Siaya, Western Kenya.

    On November 6th 2020, the Kenya Ministry of Health (MOH) reported a total of 59’595 COVID-19 cases and 1072 deaths due to COVID-19 (1).

    In the last 4 months, to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, we deployed CHWs, equipped with mobile technology, and accompanied by young university graduates under 30 years old. They visited households door to door and screened community members for symptoms of COVID-19. They isolated, tested, and managed suspected cases of COVID-19. Symptomatic testing was performed at home (by the Siaya rapid response team) and in health facilities (by clinicians). Youth were included to build their capacity in health interventions and provide them with practical experience during the lockdown period in Kenya. They were selected based on their academic credentials, their interest in working with CHWs, and their ability to use digital tools. CHWs and youth educated households about preventive measures including frequent handwashing, universal mask wearing (indoors when visitors are present and outdoors), and home management of mild case...

    Show More
  • Response letter

    We thank Hanson and colleagues for their editorial response1 to our paper, Health system redesign for maternal and newborn survival: rethinking care models to close the global equity gap2. Reassessment of care models for childbirth in low-income countries is urgently needed to change stubbornly flat trajectories of maternal and newborn mortality. The central point of our paper is that the current childbirth care model that sends one-third or more of pregnant women to deliver in under-equipped, understaffed, low-volume health clinics in the highest mortality countries is not evidence-based, ethical or equitable and that convergence with global best practice—delivery in highly skilled facilities—is long overdue.

    Hanson and colleagues note that primary care facilities might perform better if they were “staffed and equipped to standard”, but evidence does not support this strategy3. For example, the most rigorous randomized study in this field, the Better Birth Study, showed that despite extensive coaching and support, primary care facilities in India failed to reduce mortality over control facilities4. High and middle-income countries have long determined that low birth volumes and lack of surgical and advanced care make primary care delivery unadvisable. This clinical reality is no different in low-income settings.

    Other points that Hanson and colleagues make align with the core arguments we offer for health system redesign. We agree that redesign should focus...

    Show More

Pages