How equitable is the conduct of public health research? Findings across case studies from India and Australia.

IF 4.1 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Devaki Nambiar, Hari Sankar D, Misimi Kakoti
{"title":"How equitable is the conduct of public health research? Findings across case studies from India and Australia.","authors":"Devaki Nambiar, Hari Sankar D, Misimi Kakoti","doi":"10.1186/s12939-025-02593-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>There have been many calls globally to intentionally incorporate equity-oriented practices into health research to effectively tackle structural inequalities and prevent the creation of new ones. Several toolkits, guidelines, and training modules have emerged to help research teams integrate equity into research conduct. The adoption of these resources and conversion to practice is varied. Developing a deeper understanding of what these variations are and what drives them may help improve both tools and practice in the global research space. Our aim was to document lessons from diverse ongoing public health research projects on how equity is integrated across research stages, what this entails, and what challenges remain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following an institute-wide appraisal process, we identified five research projects carried out from a networked group of research institutes in India and Australia that offered lessons on addressing equity in the conduct of research. We developed five case studies of these projects using an equity in research heuristic by carrying out 22 in depth interviews and one yarning session (an indigenous knowledge generation and exchange method). We spoke with Principal Investigators, research team members, partner organization members, and community representatives. The interviews covered various aspects, such as the context of the study, team building, study design, and analysis. We asked both about strategies for as well as challenges faced when embedding equity into research processes and phases. We analyzed the transcripts using ATLAS.ti version 23, relying on a deductive coding approach aligned with an existing 8quity heuristic.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across stages of a research project, efforts were made to integrate equity considerations in all five of our case studies, whether explicitly equity focused (N = 2) or not (N = 3). All studies attempted to locate research in context. For non-equity focussed studies, this was done even when not desired by donors; it was common across project types to have longstanding engagement in particular communities and topic areas. This in turn shaped the formulation of research questions. Equity focused projects invested in inclusion of community members as research team members, while other forms of diversity were prioritised by other teams. All studies placed emphasis on capacity strengthening-for team members (especially those newly joining and not from the community), community members, and health providers. Governance of studies employed strategies like being embedded/living in communities, ensuring engagement (on weekends and evenings), and informal outreach, even as this was sometimes challenging to operationalise. Equity focused projects were concerned with power and coloniality and made explicit efforts to reflect upon and address this. Analysis across studies was concerned with disaggregated analysis; in equity studies, intersectionality approaches were adopted, as was foregrounding indigenous research methods and ensuring respect in attribution of analysis. Marshalling science for better health and greater social justice was a proposition common to all studies, although equity focused studies focused not just on the \"what\" of their question, but the \"how\" of conducting research. Impact was an imperative of all case studies, research was seen with a long -term view; the research institution itself having to change to support equity focused and equity in projects.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Case studies of equity integration in research revealed strategies as well as challenges. Many strategies as well as challenges were shared across studies, whether focused on health equity as a topic or not. Overall equity-focused projects had more leeway to focus on process related aspects within study scope, although all studies found ways to change \"how\" research was done. There is a critical need to frame equity integration not merely as an individual project exercise, but also something that requires institutional backstopping and support.</p>","PeriodicalId":13745,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Equity in Health","volume":"24 1","pages":"218"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12333299/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal for Equity in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-025-02593-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: There have been many calls globally to intentionally incorporate equity-oriented practices into health research to effectively tackle structural inequalities and prevent the creation of new ones. Several toolkits, guidelines, and training modules have emerged to help research teams integrate equity into research conduct. The adoption of these resources and conversion to practice is varied. Developing a deeper understanding of what these variations are and what drives them may help improve both tools and practice in the global research space. Our aim was to document lessons from diverse ongoing public health research projects on how equity is integrated across research stages, what this entails, and what challenges remain.

Methods: Following an institute-wide appraisal process, we identified five research projects carried out from a networked group of research institutes in India and Australia that offered lessons on addressing equity in the conduct of research. We developed five case studies of these projects using an equity in research heuristic by carrying out 22 in depth interviews and one yarning session (an indigenous knowledge generation and exchange method). We spoke with Principal Investigators, research team members, partner organization members, and community representatives. The interviews covered various aspects, such as the context of the study, team building, study design, and analysis. We asked both about strategies for as well as challenges faced when embedding equity into research processes and phases. We analyzed the transcripts using ATLAS.ti version 23, relying on a deductive coding approach aligned with an existing 8quity heuristic.

Results: Across stages of a research project, efforts were made to integrate equity considerations in all five of our case studies, whether explicitly equity focused (N = 2) or not (N = 3). All studies attempted to locate research in context. For non-equity focussed studies, this was done even when not desired by donors; it was common across project types to have longstanding engagement in particular communities and topic areas. This in turn shaped the formulation of research questions. Equity focused projects invested in inclusion of community members as research team members, while other forms of diversity were prioritised by other teams. All studies placed emphasis on capacity strengthening-for team members (especially those newly joining and not from the community), community members, and health providers. Governance of studies employed strategies like being embedded/living in communities, ensuring engagement (on weekends and evenings), and informal outreach, even as this was sometimes challenging to operationalise. Equity focused projects were concerned with power and coloniality and made explicit efforts to reflect upon and address this. Analysis across studies was concerned with disaggregated analysis; in equity studies, intersectionality approaches were adopted, as was foregrounding indigenous research methods and ensuring respect in attribution of analysis. Marshalling science for better health and greater social justice was a proposition common to all studies, although equity focused studies focused not just on the "what" of their question, but the "how" of conducting research. Impact was an imperative of all case studies, research was seen with a long -term view; the research institution itself having to change to support equity focused and equity in projects.

Conclusion: Case studies of equity integration in research revealed strategies as well as challenges. Many strategies as well as challenges were shared across studies, whether focused on health equity as a topic or not. Overall equity-focused projects had more leeway to focus on process related aspects within study scope, although all studies found ways to change "how" research was done. There is a critical need to frame equity integration not merely as an individual project exercise, but also something that requires institutional backstopping and support.

Abstract Image

公共卫生研究的公平程度如何?来自印度和澳大利亚的案例研究结果。
导言:全球有许多呼吁有意将面向公平的做法纳入卫生研究,以有效解决结构性不平等并防止产生新的不平等。一些工具包、指导方针和培训模块已经出现,以帮助研究团队将公平纳入研究行为。采用这些资源并将其转化为实践是多种多样的。深入了解这些变化是什么以及它们的驱动因素可能有助于改进全球研究领域的工具和实践。我们的目的是记录各种正在进行的公共卫生研究项目的经验教训,包括如何在各个研究阶段整合公平,这需要什么,以及仍然存在哪些挑战。方法:在整个研究所的评估过程中,我们确定了五个研究项目,这些项目来自印度和澳大利亚的一个研究机构网络小组,为解决研究过程中的公平问题提供了经验教训。我们通过进行22次深度访谈和一次梳理会议(一种本土知识生成和交流方法),利用研究公平性启发法,对这些项目进行了五个案例研究。我们与主要调查员、研究团队成员、合作组织成员和社区代表进行了交谈。访谈涵盖了研究背景、团队建设、研究设计和分析等各个方面。我们询问了在将公平纳入研究过程和阶段时所面临的战略和挑战。我们使用ATLAS分析转录本。Ti版本23,依赖于与现有的8quity启发式相一致的演绎编码方法。结果:在研究项目的各个阶段,我们努力将股权因素整合到我们所有的五个案例研究中,无论是否明确关注股权(N = 2) (N = 3)。所有的研究都试图在语境中定位研究。对于以非公平为重点的研究,即使捐助者不希望这样做,也会这样做;在不同的项目类型中,在特定的社区和主题领域中长期参与是很常见的。这反过来又形成了研究问题的形式。以公平为重点的项目投资于将社区成员纳入研究团队成员,而其他形式的多样性则由其他团队优先考虑。所有的研究都强调能力的增强——针对团队成员(尤其是那些新加入而非来自社区的成员)、社区成员和医疗服务提供者。研究的管理采用了一些策略,比如嵌入/生活在社区中,确保参与(周末和晚上),以及非正式的外展,尽管这有时很难实施。以公平为重点的项目关注权力和殖民主义,并明确努力反思和解决这一问题。跨研究的分析涉及分类分析;在公平研究中,采用了交叉性方法,突出了土著研究方法并确保对分析归因的尊重。为更好的健康和更大的社会正义组织科学是所有研究的共同命题,尽管以公平为重点的研究不仅关注他们的问题的“什么”,而且关注“如何”进行研究。影响是所有案例研究的必要条件,研究以长远的眼光看待;研究机构本身必须改变,以支持以公平为重点和公平的项目。结论:股权整合的案例研究揭示了股权整合的策略和挑战。无论是否将卫生公平作为一个主题,许多研究都分享了许多战略和挑战。尽管所有的研究都找到了改变“如何”进行研究的方法,但总体上以权益为中心的项目在研究范围内有更多的余地来关注与过程相关的方面。迫切需要将公平一体化不仅视为一个单独的项目,而且也视为需要机构支持和支持的事情。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
162
审稿时长
28 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal for Equity in Health is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal presenting evidence relevant to the search for, and attainment of, equity in health across and within countries. International Journal for Equity in Health aims to improve the understanding of issues that influence the health of populations. This includes the discussion of political, policy-related, economic, social and health services-related influences, particularly with regard to systematic differences in distributions of one or more aspects of health in population groups defined demographically, geographically, or socially.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信