We would like to congratulate Suman PN Rao et al on this very important and useful work.
On behalf of the Global Newborn Society would strongly advocate unrestricted access of parents to their infants and to skin to skin care.

Current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic-related restrictions on skin-to-skin contact (SSC) and parental involvement in neonatal care, in place in many parts of the world, are not based on clinical evidence. Hospitals and neonatal units have, to varying degrees, restricted parental access and SSC without due consideration of the harms this might cause on multiple fronts (1). Based on current evidence a ‘blanket ban’ on SSC by various maternity and neonatal services across the globe is unfortunate, not evidence based and needs to be reviewed on an urgent basis.

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends skin-to-skin contact (SSC) following delivery in babies weighing 2000 grams or less at birth, as soon as they are clinically stable to prevent hypothermia (2). In low resource settings lack of initiation of early SSC is an independent predictor of hypothermia, contributing to neonatal mortality and morbidity (3). The United Nations Children’s Fund Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative recommends immediate SSC after birth based on physiological, social, and psychological benefits for both mother and baby (4).

The risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in neonates both vertical and horizontal is relatively low with no significant mortality (5), however lack of SSC and parental involvement will lead to increased mortality and additional adverse long term outcomes (6). Systematic reviews and guidelines have already provided guidance on the treatment and management of COVID-19 positive mothers and their infants (7, 8).

All these restrictions, largely knee jerk reactions to the pandemic, will only serve to negate a lot of the hard work invested in best practice guidance and standards outlined for both low and high income countries (9, 10,11).

Recently, in response to suboptimal practice during the pandemic, both professional and parent organizations have joined the call to re-establish parents as essential partners in care, and not to be considered as visitors, which they most definitely aren’t. (12, 13).

We recommend that neonatal organizations, hospitals and health services all across the world urgently advocate on this important issue and ensure that we encourage unrestricted SSC and zero separation of infants and parents, to prevent significant long term collateral damage.

References:
1. Rao SPN, et al. Small and sick newborn care during the COVID-19 pandemic: global survey and thematic analysis of healthcare providers' voices and experiences. BMJ Glob Health. 2021 Mar;6(3):e004347. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-004347.2.
2. World Health Organization. (2015). WHO recommendations on interventions to improve preterm birth outcomes.
3. Moore ER, Bergman N, Anderson GC,et al. Early skin-to-skin contact for mothers and their healthy newborn infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Nov 25;11:CD0035193.
4. Brimdyr K, Cadwell K, Steevens J, Takahashi Y. An implementation algorithm to improve skin-to-skin practice in the first hour after birth. Matern Child Nutr. 2018;14(2):e12571.
5. Mullins E, Hudak ML, Banerjee J, et al. Pregnancy and neonatal outcomes of COVID-19: co-reporting of common outcomes from PAN-COVID and AAP SONPM registries. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Feb 23. doi: 10.1002/uog.23619.
6. Bergman NJ. Birth practices: Maternal-neonate separation as a source of toxic stress. Birth Defects Res 2019; 111:1087–109.
7. RCPCH/BAPM Paediatric COVID-19 guidance. Available online: https://www.rcpch.ac.uk/resources/covid-19-guidance-paediatric-services
8. American Academy of Paediatrics: COVID-19 guidance. Available online: https://services.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19-infect...
9. EFCNI. European Standards of Care for Newborn Health. 2018.
10. WHO (World Health Organization). Survive & thrive: Transforming care for every small and sick newborn. 2019.
11. Global Alliance for Newborn Care - GLANCE [Internet]. [cited 2020 Jul 8]. Available online: https://www.glance-network.org/
12. British Association of Perinatal Medicine: Family Integrated Care for COVID-19. Available online: https://hubble-live-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/bapm/redactor2_assets/files/...
13. Bliss. Bliss Statement: COVID-19 and parental involvement on neonatal units. Available online: https://www.bliss.org.uk/health-professionals/information-and-resources/...

We congratulate the authors on their systematic review of conference equity in global health (1) and agree that this is a key step towards decolonising global health research. Their review identifies barriers and facilitators impacting attendance from low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs). The authors have identified many solutions to improve the equity of conferences but did not mention online conferences. These have rapidly become the norm during the COVID-19 pandemic and could offer a feasible solution. (2)

The global pandemic forced the Global Women’s Research Society (GLOW) society conference to go online for the first time and it had dramatic impacts on the reach of the conference. We have run the annual UK-based GLOW conferences in global reproductive, maternal and new-born health since 2012, with a typical attendance of 70-140. In 2020, however, the pandemic forced us to pivot to an online conference. We fundraised £25,700 to provide the online platform and recordings, allowing free attendance for anyone from around the world. As a result, over 1300 people from 70 countries registered, with up to 1076 live views at one time. This works out at just £20 per registrant. During 2 days of the conference, there were a total of 3347 views, with 546 of those from LMICs. Additionally, there have been nearly 500 views of the videos on the YouTube channel since the September conference. We estimate costs of over £1,000,000 if all registrants and presenters had attended in person. This works out at nearly £800 per person, or more if attendance is lower. Further details will be reported in a separate publication.

Feedback from 226 attendees clearly demonstrated that the online format overcame several barriers presented in this review. 83% rated the conference as very good or outstanding. Attendees’ feedback highlighted the benefits of no visa, travel and subsistence costs. It is likely that political barriers and unconscious bias inhibiting attendance and engagement may have also been reduced.

Nevertheless, there are several ongoing concerns with the virtual format. These include poor internet access and unstable connections, technological challenges, co-ordination across time zones and underdeveloped conference platforms and tools. Additionally, virtual conferences cannot offer the same networking opportunities, informal feedback and opportunities for focused attention for the entire event. (3)

We believe that online conferences or hybrid events offer one solution to reducing conference inequity. This requires purposeful action from conference organisers and funders to increase accessibility to those in LMICs. Further comprehensive evaluation of the impact of the virtual format, aimed at exploring whether this format reduces conference inequity, is required.

1. Velin L, Lartigue J-W, Johnson SA, et al. Conference equity in global health: a systematic review of factors impacting LMIC representation at global health conferences. BMJ Global Health 2021;6(1):e003455. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003455
2. Sarabipour S. Virtual conferences raise standards for accessibility and interactions. Elife 2020;9 doi: 10.7554/eLife.62668 [published Online First: 2020/11/05]
3. Falk MT, Hagsten E. When international academic conferences go virtual. Scientometrics 2020:1-18. doi: 10.1007/s11192-020-03754-5 [published Online First: 2020/11/25]

Many thanks to Dominic Pimenta for the interesting comment. I respect Pimenta’s well-intentioned activism during the COVID-19 crisis, but here he polarizes the discussion between two schools of thought by using a strawman argument, i.e. that one of the two schools wants to promote high community transmission. Such strawman arguments are prevalent in social media and the blogosphere, but they do not serve scientific discourse for resolution of major questions. I have signed neither the Great Barrington Declaration nor the John Snow Memorandum, so I cannot become an insider apologist for either (1). However, my reading of both documents suggests that neither of them advocates to promote high community transmission. If they do, this is certainly not what I would personally advocate.

Pimenta draws a correlation from 10 observations on the data that I present on nursing home shielding factors (my Table 3) reaching the conclusion that precision shielding is impossible under high community transmission. This is a precarious exercise with rushed conclusions. These are ecological, whole-country data including only 4 observations with high community transmission. Drawing firm causal inferences from an ecological regression with effective sample size of n=4 is impossible. Sadly, over-confident, stretched causal inferences are common during the COVID-19 crisis. A similar look at the age-stratified data on Table 2 shows that shielding of the elderly was achieved in countries with high community transmission (e.g. UK and USA), while it was probably not achieved in Hungary, despite low community transmission. China exemplifies significant inverse protection, even though it managed to practically bring community transmission to almost zero.

For the 4 countries with high S values in nursing homes and high community transmission (Spain, UK, Belgium, and Sweden), there are many other explanations for high S values, as I explain in my article. With limited testing of staff, suboptimal infection control, poor living conditions, and with staff making shifts across multiple nursing homes, disaster is expected. Not only nursing home residents, but also their staff should be handled as high-risk individuals. Unfortunately, the opposite happened, perhaps because of flawed over-confidence that general population measures would suffice. Rational efforts to reduce community transmission are most welcome, provided that they do not do more harm on several other aspects of health and societal well-being (2). However, it is naïve to expect that simply taking community measures will salvage nursing homes without additional, draconian, focused measures. To use an analogy, when a known serial murderer has declared his clear intention to kill someone, the specific candidate victim should be immediately, actively, specifically protected. Dispatching more policemen at random locations around the country or preaching to a community congregation to love each other will not save his life.

John P.A. Ioannidis, MD, DSc
Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. E-mail: jioannid@stanford.edu

1. Ioannidis JP. Scientific petitions and open letters in the era of covid-19. BMJ. 2020 Oct 26;371:m4048.
2. Ioannidis JPA. Global perspective of COVID-19 epidemiology for a full-cycle pandemic. Eur J Clin Invest. 2020 Oct 7:e13423.

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 roles of authors and contributors.2 Writing manuscripts requires not only the skills to undertake research but to communicate it. Barriers to inclusion of LMICs first and last authors often is due to the inexperience of junior researchers writing research to a standard that is accepted by mainstream scientific journals, the majority of which are in English. Hence, writing scientific literature requires not only expertise in research but also in English. In collaborative, international research projects it is imperative to enable space for growth, learning and capacity building within country, and move away from the culture of well-funded high income research institutes dispatching researchers to LMICs to conduct research, leaving little opportunity for knowledge exchange and development. To do this effectively capacity building must be core to research collaborations, including investment in workforce and training.3 We have found success in developing mentorship programmes in our research collaborations which ensure that researchers are employed locally and trained by the extended research team. The mentorship has included supporting junior researchers to participate in writing research papers and have the opportunity to be first authors on work that they have driven locally. This has meant a conscious effort to consistently scrutinise and evaluate the equity and balance in representation in every piece of work that is submitted. As a rule of thumb a baseline expectation should be to ensure that one of either first or last authorship is assigned to LMICs partners for work being carried out in or in collaboration with LMICs. This means that from the outset there are clear expectations on work from each partner and decisions about authorship are not left to the last minute. This approach also clarifies the level of involvement and work that each person in the research team has to contribute to be acknowledged as an author. To do this effectively and sustainably there has to be capacity building in place to ensure that knowledge and skills are developed alongside data gathering and analysis (Figure 1).

Figure 1 The steps required to address barrier to and facilitate equity in authorship of global health research

Another barrier which is increasingly more difficult to address is the costs of publication and unfamiliarity with the submission process, which means that much of the world is not equitably represented in academic publishing. Additionally, the current predominantly anonymised peer review process limits the learning potential from the academic peer review dialogue that often helps transform manuscripts into published articles. Publication costs are an enormous barrier, particularly in LMICs where institutions often do not benefit from the block funding available to many high-income academic institutions to cover costs of publication for their researchers. What this means that occasionally the LMICs researchers have to rely on out-of-pocket expenses which range between £1200 to over £2000 for open access publishing. As we write this letter, we are in the process of trying to reverse one such cost inflicted on colleagues who were invited to submit research undertaken in Uganda. The solution to this lies in part with scientific journals, academic institutions, and funders. Scientific journals need to have clear policies for submitted research from LMICs where there is no institutional support for open access funding, with reduced LMICs fees and options for waiving publication fees from researchers who do not have grant funding or institutional support. Reviewers and editors need to call out academic manuscripts which do not have equitable representation of authors from countries where the research is conducted, and question submitting authors on this. Academic institutions in high income countries need to relax their rules around funding research articles for publications where the first, last, and/or corresponding author is not from their institution. Funders should stipulate a condition of their grant to be that for research that involves LMICs partners the authorship should be equitable and balanced in first, last, and corresponding authorship. Furthermore, they need to recognise that capacity building and research communication costs need to be adequately detailed and costed in international grant applications and be part of the monitoring and evaluation process.

Only when the need for equitable funding is recognised at all these levels, can we address the current disparities in representation in research from LMICs partners.

References
1. Dimitris MC, Gittings M, King N. How global is global health Research? A large-scale analysis of tends in authorship. BMJ Global Health 2021;6:e003758.
2. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Defining the role of Authors and Contributors. Website: http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/d... Date accessed: 05 February 2021
3. P Veepanattu, S Singh, M Mendelson, V Nampoothiri, F Edathadatil, S Surendran, C Bonaconsa, O Mbamalu, S Ahuja, G Birgand, C Tarrant, N Sevdalis, R Ahmad, A Holmes, E Charani. Building resilient and responsive research collaborations to tackle antimicrobial resistance – lessons learnt from India, South Africa and UK. Int J of Infect Dis 2020;100:278-282.