Editorial calls for safeguarding independence and integrity of global health evaluation and research
This week, a BMJ Global Health editorial with over 200 signatories, including a number of HSG members, was published to highlight the challenges faced by global health researchers when undertaking donor-funded evaluation research, and to suggest ways forward to protect the independence and integrity of global health evaluation and research.
A recent Viewpoint in the Lancet outlining experience of censorship in donor-funded evaluation received responses highlighting similar experiences. This, and a subsequent debate during a panel discussion at the Fifth Global Symposium on Health Systems Research, indicated that the challenges raised in the Viewpoint were not isolated incidents.
The editorial asks “What action is needed to avoid undermining independent and critical research findings? What kind of institutional structures and practices might support researchers in dealing with the ethical and political dilemmas associated with the dissemination of (potentially) contested research findings and evaluation results?”
To address these questions, the authors of the editorial invited input from global health, health systems and policy researchers from around the world to provide a number suggestions to the organisations that commission, undertake and publish evaluations and research. Some of the suggested actions are listed below.
Commissioning bodies
-
Commissioning bodies should be transparent about the purpose and principles of external evaluation and research to their implementing partners and should commit to upholding the principles of good research.
-
Contractual clauses that limit the dissemination of potentially critical findings should be deleted.
-
Independent research oversight committee for each study should be established.
-
A global health evaluation registry, similar to existing clinical trial registries, could be established to increase transparency and reduce selective reporting of findings.
Researchers and research institutions
-
Senior leadership should scrutinise grants carefully and refuse those with unfavourable contractual provisions.
-
Senior leadership should encourage methodological and disciplinary diversity to capture complexity and value the dissemination of both positive and negative research findings.
-
Research training programmes should incorporate research ethics and integrity issues.
Ethics and research governance committees
-
Ethics committees could offer more support to researchers navigating related unforeseen ethical dilemmas that arise in the course of research.
-
Ethics committees should have representation from different research fields and different disciplines.
-
University research governance offices, where they exist, can protect the rights and welfare of researchers, especially where research challenges powerful agendas.
Academic journals and editors
-
Journals ought to challenge conflict of interest statements and refrain from publishing what is stated by authors in cases when it is obvious there is a gross conflict.
-
Academic journal editors could contribute towards dismantling the ‘success cartel’ within global health by, for example, publishing negative findings and encouraging papers that explain the ‘hows and whys’ of both positive and negative findings.
For the full list of suggested actions, please read the Editorial in full.
—
Image credit: catherinecronin/Flickr, Creative Commons license 2.0 (CC BY-SA 2.0)
