A scoping review of equity toolkits for international academic partnerships.

Abstract

Introduction: When there are frank asymmetries in power, resources, and capacity efforts to advance academic collaboration are essential for the conduct of ethical partnership-based health research, education, and policymaking. Numerous toolkits are available that provide structured templates for academic partnerships and other key stakeholders to systematically evaluate and reflect on how their practices enhance or inhibit equity. However, there is no comparative analysis available to examine similarities and differences between the multitude of toolkits available.

Method: We conducted a comprehensive scoping review of international partnership equity toolkits across the domains of global health research, education, and practice in four academic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and WHO Regional Indexes) and grey literature. The search took place June through August 2023. A primary search used broad keyword combinations followed by a secondary search of toolkit titles identified during the primary search. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews was followed. Key themes, motivations, development processes, application practices, and uses of these toolkits were examined by a combination of (1) templated extraction of data and (2) applying an inductive and iterative coding approach by two independent reviewers.

Results: Within the academic databases, 7580 abstracts were screened (7580 primary, 198 secondary), 120 documents underwent full-text review (112 primary, 8 secondary) and 27 articles (26 primary, 1 secondary) met inclusion criteria. Within the grey literature, 104 articles and webpages (40 primary, 64 secondary) met inclusion criteria. Seventeen toolkits were identified. The majority were geared toward evaluating research (n = 15) rather than education (n = 2) or practice (n = 0) partnerships. Toolkits covered a broad range of objectives, development methods, and target audiences. Twenty-three countries were represented in the creation of the toolkits; however, less than half (8/17, 47%) of toolkits had representation from low- or low/middle-income countries. We identified six broad categories within the toolkits - oversight, partnership dynamics, ethical foundation, contextual factors, partnership procedures and activities, and capacity. Under these, themes such as stakeholder engagement, communication, partnership outputs, clarification of roles and responsibilities, funding, and management of data or other products generated by the partnership were common.

Conclusion: There was variability in the development, intended audience, and application methods of the toolkits, yet there was also substantial thematic content overlap. Limited information on the application or use of toolkits is available. To date, there is no data on whether these toolkits resulted in equity-oriented changes in partnership practices or policy.