ArticleBMJ global health2025
Understanding global health research collaborations: an Indigenous realist evaluation of the African Research Initiative for Scientific Excellence programme.
Article in BMJ global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionGlobal North-South research collaborations are complex and dynamic despite their centrality to global health research. We conducted an Indigenous-inspired realist evaluation to examine how and why research collaborations under the 'African Research Initiative for Scientific Excellence' programme work to strengthen African researchers' health research capacity. With funding from a Global North partner, the programme supports multiple research projects, each led by an African principal investigator (PI).
methodsWe adopted a multicase study design with three cases covering laboratory-based, policy-based and innovation-based health research projects. Realist-informed qualitative methods were used to test an initial programme theory (IPT). We conducted 32 realist interviews with the PIs, collaborators, research support staff, masters/PhD trainees and 4 programme-level staff. Retroductive theorising guided the testing of the IPT through context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOs). We adopted a realist approach to thematic analysis, identifying experiential, inferential and dispositional themes to formulate CMOs. Through retrodiction-theoretical abstraction-we refined the IPT using CMOs from the within-case theories.
resultsMultiple mechanisms (ie, trust, empowerment, motivation, inspiration, sense of agency and responsibility, and psychological readiness for policy leadership) were triggered to generate varied outcomes (ie, equitable research collaboration established, improved knowledge exchange and learning and appointment of the PI to policy leadership role) across the three cases. Where the African PI has autonomy over research resources, but research expertise and equipment are locally unavailable, the PI's access to research funding and liberty to choose collaborators from anywhere enacts a sense of agency to establish equitable, collaborative relationships with Global North partners to leverage resources. A longstanding relationship between the PI and the collaborator engenders trust, while a sense of responsibility is enacted if the collaborator is committed and renowned in their research field. Also, continued government engagement motivates and engenders 'psychological readiness for policy leadership', leading to meaningful collaborations.
conclusionIncreasing direct funding support to African PIs and giving them the autonomy to define research priorities and implement their research initiatives can enhance their ability to conduct impactful research addressing local health concerns.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.