ArticleBMJ global health2026
How do global health research actors conceptualise inclusion in response to decolonisation calls? A scoping review.
Article in BMJ global health, 2026. 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
backgroundThere are growing calls to decolonise global health research (GHR). One way actors respond to these calls is through placing greater emphasis on inclusion. However, there is persistent confusion concerning the inclusion forms that address the decolonisation calls in GHR, the way they do, as well as the specific areas that should be targeted (and why) for the inclusion work.
methodsThis scoping review contributes towards clarifying inclusion forms that respond to the calls to decolonise GHR by reviewing 90 texts using thematic analysis.
resultsThe review identified power imbalances as a key target for inclusion in GHR. Power imbalances manifest in five intersecting ways: intersecting gender-based and race-based inequalities, inequitable participation in knowledge production, inequitable GHR partnerships, unfair GHR funding allocation, and a non-diverse GHR publication landscape. There are also five intersecting inclusion forms: transactional inclusion, epistemic inclusivity, democratic inclusion, decentralising inclusion and demographic diversity. These forms address power imbalances at micro, meso and macro levels.
conclusionsWhile progress has been made towards realising a more inclusive GHR, power imbalances will likely persist if (1) power relations in broader society remain unbalanced and (2) other conditions relevant for implementing equitable power relations both in society and GHR remain unexplored. Future studies should prioritise these 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.