scholarly journals Measuring health science research and development in Africa: mapping the available data

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Clare Wenham ◽  
Olivier Wouters ◽  
Catherine Jones ◽  
Pamela A. Juma ◽  
Rhona M. Mijumbi-Deve ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Poverty Reduction ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Research Capacity ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Health Science ◽  
African Countries ◽  
Health Science Research ◽  
Process Indicators ◽  
Future System ◽  
Existing Data

Abstract Background In recent years there have been calls to strengthen health sciences research capacity in African countries. This capacity can contribute to improvements in health, social welfare and poverty reduction through domestic application of research findings; it is increasingly seen as critical to pandemic preparedness and response. Developing research infrastructure and performance may reduce national economies’ reliance on primary commodity and agricultural production, as countries strive to develop knowledge-based economies to help drive macroeconomic growth. Yet efforts to date to understand health sciences research capacity are limited to output metrics of journal citations and publications, failing to reflect the complexity of the health sciences research landscape in many settings. Methods We map and assess current capacity for health sciences research across all 54 countries of Africa by collecting a range of available data. This included structural indicators (research institutions and research funding), process indicators (clinical trial infrastructures, intellectual property rights and regulatory capacities) and output indicators (publications and citations). Results While there are some countries which perform well across the range of indicators used, for most countries the results are varied—suggesting high relative performance in some indicators, but lower in others. Missing data for key measures of capacity or performance is also a key concern. Taken as a whole, existing data suggest a nuanced view of the current health sciences research landscape on the African continent. Conclusion Mapping existing data may enable governments and international organizations to identify where gaps in health sciences research capacity lie, particularly in comparison to other countries in the region. It also highlights gaps where more data are needed. These data can help to inform investment priorities and future system needs.

scholarly journals Measuring Health Sciences Research Capacity in Africa: Mapping The Available Data

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clare Wenham ◽  
Olivier Wouters ◽  
Catherine M Jones ◽  
Rhona M Mijumbi ◽  
Pamela A Juma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Poverty Reduction ◽  
Research Capacity ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
African Countries ◽  
Process Indicators ◽  
Knowledge Based ◽  
Future System ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Welfare And Poverty ◽  
Existing Data

Abstract Background: In recent years there have been calls to strengthen health sciences research capacity in African countries. This capacity can contribute to improvements in health, social welfare, and poverty reduction through domestic application of research findings; it is increasingly seen as critical to pandemic preparedness and response. Developing research infrastructure and performance may reduce national economies’ reliance on primary commodity and agricultural production, as countries strive to develop knowledge-based economies to help drive macroeconomic growth. Yet efforts to date to understand health sciences research capacity are limited to output metrics of journal citations and publications, failing to reflect the complexity of the health sciences research landscape in many settings. Methods: We map and assess current capacity for health sciences research across all 54 countries of Africa by collecting a range of available data. This included structural indicators (research institutions and research funding), process indicators (clinical trial infrastructures, intellectual property rights, and regulatory capacities) and output indicators (publications and citations). Results: While there are some countries which perform well across the range of indicators used, for most countries the results are varied – suggesting high relative performance in some indicators, but lower in others. Missing data for key measures of capacity or performance is also a key concern. Taken as a whole, existing data suggest a nuanced view of current health sciences research landscape on the African continent.Conclusion: Mapping existing data may enable governments and international organisations to identify where gaps in health sciences research capacity lie, particularly in comparison to other countries in the region. It also highlights gaps where more data are needed. These data can help to inform investment priorities and future system needs.

scholarly journals Investing in health R&D: where we are, what limits us, and how to make progress in Africa

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. e001047 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victoria Simpkin ◽  
Evelyn Namubiru-Mwaura ◽  
Lorcan Clarke ◽  
Elias Mossialos
Keyword(s):  
Private Sector ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Research Capacity ◽  
Health Science ◽  
Future Research ◽  
African Region ◽  
African Countries ◽  
Health Science Research ◽  
Private Sector Investment

Global research and development (R&D) pipelines for diseases that disproportionately affect African countries appear to be inadequate, with governments struggling to prioritise investment in R&D. This article provides insights into the sources of investment in health science research, available research capacity and level of research output in Africa. The African region comprises 15% of the world’s population, yet only accounted for 1.1% of global investments in R&D in 2016. There were substantial disparities within the continent, with Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa contributing 65.7% of the total R&D spending. In most countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the largest source of R&D funding is the private sector. R&D in Africa is mainly funded by the public sector, with significant proportions of financing in many countries coming from international funding. Challenges that limit private sector investment include unstable political environments, poor governance and corruption. Evidence suggests various research output and research capacity limitations in Africa when considering a global context. Metrics that reflect this include university rankings, number of researchers, number of publications, clinical trials networks and pharmaceutical manufacturing capacity. Within the continent there are substantial regional disparities. Incentivising investment is crucial to foster current and future research output and research capacity. This paper outlines some of the many commendable initiatives under way. Innovative and collaborative financing mechanisms can stimulate further investment. Given the vast inequalities across Africa in R&D, strategies need to reflect the different capacities of countries to address this disparity.

Caring-Ethical Phronetic Research: Epistemological Considerations

2006 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Delmar
Keyword(s):  
Research Design ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Health Science ◽  
Ethical Practice ◽  
Health Science Research ◽  
Traditional Health ◽  
Time Space ◽  
Valid Knowledge ◽  
Open Discussion

The purpose of this article is to open discussion about the traditional health science research view of what constitutes valid knowledge and theory. Using an approach from the philosophy of science, this article breaks with the paradigm of “science as usual.” It argues that scholars who study values, caring ethical practice, and power relations experience difficulties if the knowledge generated by their research is judged on the basis of “science as usual.” In order to elucidate this problem, the Socratic epistemological theory is discussed, particularly in light of Flyvbjerg’s (2001) theory of time, space, and the significance of context in research design. The article concludes with an appeal to further refine and apply Flyvbjerg’s methodological insights to the health sciences.

scholarly journals Reporting ethical approval in health and social science articles: an audit of adherence to GDPR and national legislation

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kjell Asplund ◽  
Kerstin Hulter Åsberg
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Health Science ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Ethical Approval

Abstract Background Previous studies have indicated that failure to report ethical approval is common in health science articles. In social sciences, the occurrence is unknown. The Swedish Ethics Review Act requests that sensitive personal data, in accordance with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), should undergo independent ethical review, irrespective of academic discipline. We have explored the adherence to this regulation. Methods Using the Web of Science databases, we reviewed 600 consecutive articles from three domains (health sciences with and without somatic focus and social sciences) based on identifiable personal data published in 2020. Results Information on ethical review was lacking in 12 of 200 health science articles with somatic focus (6%), 21 of 200 health science articles with non-somatic focus (11%), and in 54 of 200 social science articles (27%; p < 0.001 vs. both groups of health science articles). Failure to report on ethical approval was more common in (a) observational than in interventional studies (p < 0.01), (b) articles with only 1–2 authors (p < 0.001) and (c) health science articles from universities without a medical school (p < 0.001). There was no significant association between journal impact factor and failure to report ethical approval. Conclusions We conclude that reporting of research ethics approval is reasonably good, but not strict, in health science articles. Failure to report ethical approval is about three times more frequent in social sciences compared to health sciences. Improved adherence seems needed particularly in observational studies, in articles with few authors and in social science research.

Analysis of Two Group Comparisons: A Practical Guide

2009 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 166-169
Author(s):  
Ji-Hyun Lee ◽  
Branko Miladinovic ◽  
Michael J Schell
Keyword(s):  
Science Research ◽  
Health Science ◽  
Outcome Variable ◽  
Parametric Methods ◽  
Medical Problems ◽  
Performing Artists ◽  
Continuous Outcome ◽  
Parametric Test ◽  
Health Science Research ◽  
Practical Guide

In health science research, comparing two groups on a continuous outcome variable is one of the most common statistical analyses performed. One must choose between two families of tests: parametric and nonparametric. Parametric methods depend upon more stringent assumptions, and violating these assumptions can result in incorrect conclusions. The dominant two-sample approach appearing in Medical Problems of Performing Artists seems to be the Student t-test, which is a parametric test. Despite being the standard choice, this test is not always appropriate. Common textbook prescriptions regarding its use are often misleading and defective in some respects. This article revisits the basic and methodologically important problems in comparing two groups and seeks to provide a practical guide to researchers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document