In 2015, 5.9 million children (16 000 daily) died of preventable or treatable conditions.1 –5 Increasing awareness of these facts, coupled with an emerging shared global identity, and rising numbers of immigrants and refugees across the world, catapulted global health (GH) into the public eye.6, 7 Concurrently, there has been surging interest in GH experiences among medical trainees and practitioners from high-income countries (HICs).8 The concept of GH, defined “as collaborative trans-national research and action for promoting health for all, ” 9 has emerged as a distinct discipline to address these challenges.6
Pediatricians around the world are increasingly engaged in global child health (GCH) partnerships to improve children’s health. Exemplary GCH partnerships positively impact
global development.10 Conversely, poorly constructed or maintained partnerships may inadvertently contribute to inadequate health systems.5, 11 This review is intended for use by pediatric GH practitioners from low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) and HICs.
In this article, we present a comprehensive literature-based review of the definition, scope, genesis, evolution, and models of GCH partnerships, including both benefits and challenges, guiding principles and core practices. Current knowledge gaps are highlighted to stimulate future research. In this article, we intentionally focus on GCH partnerships and GCH needs, but, where pertinent, draws from the broader GH literature. Although not written as a guideline, the expert panel
Partnerships for Global Child HealthAndrew P. Steenhoff, MBBCh, DCH, a, b Heather L. Crouse, MD, c Heather Lukolyo, MD, MHS, c Charles P. Larson, MD, d Cynthia Howard, MD, MPHTM, e Loeto Mazhani, MD, b Suzinne Pak-Gorstein, MD, MPH, PhD, f Michelle L. Niescierenko, MD, MPH, g Philippa Musoke, MD, h Roseda Marshall, MD, i Miguel A. Soto, MD, j Sabrina M. Butteris, MD, k Maneesh Batra, MD, MPH, f on behalf of the GH Task Force of the American Board of Pediatrics
Child mortality remains a global health challenge and has resulted in demand for expanding the global child health (GCH) workforce over the last 3 decades. Institutional partnerships are the cornerstone of sustainable education, research, clinical service, and advocacy for GCH. When successful, partnerships can become self-sustaining and support development of much-needed training programs in resource-constrained settings. Conversely, poorly conceptualized, constructed, or maintained partnerships may inadvertently contribute to the deterioration of health systems. In this comprehensive, literature-based, expert consensus review we present a definition of partnerships for GCH, review their genesis, evolution, and scope, describe participating organizations, and highlight benefits and challenges associated with GCH partnerships. Additionally, we suggest a framework for applying sound ethical and public health principles for GCH that includes 7 guiding principles and 4 core practices along with a structure for evaluating GCH partnerships. Finally, we highlight current knowledge gaps to stimulate further work in these areas. With awareness of the potential benefits and challenges of GCH partnerships, as well as shared dedication to guiding principles and core practices, GCH partnerships hold vast potential to positively impact child health.
abstract
Steenhoff et alPartnerships for Global Child Health
2017https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-3823
4PediatricsROUGH GALLEY PROOFOctober 2017
140
PEDIATRICS Volume 140, number 4, October 2017:e20163823 State-of-the-art review article
To cite: Steenhoff AP, Crouse HL, Lukolyo H, et al. Partnerships for Global Child Health. Pediatrics. 2017;140(4):e20163823
aChildren’s Hospital of Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; bDepartment of Paediatric and Adolescent Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Botswana, Gaborone, Botswana; cDepartment of Pediatrics, Texas Children’s Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas; dBritish Columbia Children’s Hospital and University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; eDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; fDepartment of Pediatrics, Seattle Children’s Hospital and University of Washington, Seattle, Washington; gDepartment of Pediatrics, Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts; hDepartment of Paediatrics and Child Health, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda; iDepartment of Pediatrics, Dogliotti School of Medicine, University of Liberia, Monrovia, Liberia; jDepartment of Pediatrics, Hospital Nacional Pedro Bethancourt, La Antigua, Guatemala; and kDepartment of Pediatrics, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin
Drs Steenhoff, Batra, and Butteris conceptualized the study, recruited the author team, and synthesized the first complete draft; Drs Crouse and Steenhoff authored the introductory section and helped edit early drafts of the initial complete manuscript; Drs Lukolyo and Marshall authored the “Defining GCH Partnerships” and “Genesis, Evolution, and Scope of GCH Partnerships” sections; Drs Larson and Crouse authored the “Evaluating GCH Partnerships: Current Models and Proposed Frameworks” section; Drs Howard and Mazhani authored the “Common Benefits and Challenges of GH Partnerships” section; Dr Pak-Gorstein and Batra authored the “Guiding Principles and Core Practices in GCH Partnerships” section; Drs Niescierenko and Musoke authored the “Evaluating GCH Partnerships: Current Models and Proposed Frameworks” section; all remaining authors assisted with literature searches, provided content expertise, edited the manuscript, approved the final manuscript as submitted, and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
This paper is one of a series of papers conceptualized and produced by the GH Task Force of the American Board of Pediatrics. The content
by guest on May 15, 2021www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from
intend that this consensus review could serve as a resource to optimize current and future GCH partnerships.
MeThods
This review was prepared by an expert panel comprising GCH clinicians, educators, and investigators from 6 countries and 3 continents with expertise in general pediatrics, public health, and the pediatric specialties of critical care, emergency medicine, hospital medicine, infectious diseases, and neonatology. Three authors from the American Board of Pediatrics GH Task Force conceptualized the initial framework for the review and invited coauthors from 3 continents based on their broad, multinational expertise in GCH partnerships. The framework for the review (ie, reviewing global child partnerships by using these sections: introduction, methods, definition, genesis, evolution and scope, participants, benefits and challenges, guiding principles, core practices, evaluation, and literature gaps) was decided on through consensus by the expert panel. Each section had 2 assigned authors who independently did a systematic review of the English language literature using PubMed, Google, and book chapters. Data were summarized in a first draft of each section. A third author then did an additional independent literature review, added additional references to the sections, and integrated all draft sections into a manuscript. All authors then reviewed and revised the manuscript. Even with the inclusion of all relevant studies, there were areas in which current evidence was inadequate. When this occurred, recommendations were made on the basis of a consensus of the expert panel. The result is a comprehensive literature-based expert consensus review.
defining GCh Partnerships
We adapted Samoff’s definition and defined a GCH partnership as “a collaboration that can reasonably be expected to have mutual (though not necessarily identical) benefits, that will contribute to the development of both institutional and individual capacities to advance child health at both institutions, that respects the sovereignty and autonomy of both institutions, and that is itself empowering.” 12
Genesis, evolution, and scope of GCh Partnerships
The genesis and evolution of global child partnerships varies. Many are purposive, targeting a specific medical skillset needed in an LMIC, such as the development of a national antiretroviral program funded by the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief or teaching the initial steps of neonatal resuscitation through Helping Babies Breathe.13, 14 Key drivers include LMIC national health priorities coupled with matching strengths of a HIC institution and available funding. Other partnerships are more opportunistic and develop from personal relationships between individuals in LMIC and HICs.15 The agendas of major funders such as the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief or the UK’s Department for International Development are strong initiators, drivers, sustainers, and modifiers of GCH partnerships. Partnerships evolve in response to LMIC needs, HIC areas of interest and to funding opportunities. Many partnerships that historically concentrated on a specific disease, such as The Center for Infectious Diseases Research in Zambia (CIDRZ), 16 which initially focused on HIV, subsequently evolve to focus on broader health system goals of equity, system strengthening, and workforce development.17, 18
An example of specific elements required for successful genesis, evolution, and long-term
sustainability of programs in LMIC that arise as partnerships with institutions in HICs is described by the St. Jude International Outreach Program.19, 20 These are also applicable to GCH partnerships more broadly. Essential components are as follows: (1) financial support for program development and long-term sustainability sought from sources both international and local and public and private; (2) a local LMIC pediatric leader, devoted to the project, directing medical care and collaborations with hospital, governmental, and community leadership and international agencies; (3) nursing expertise (for pediatric subspecialties like oncology, nurses must be trained in pediatric cancer care and able to practice the specialty full-time); (4) developing a grassroots foundation, with members trained to provide pediatric advocacy, fundraising, and, working with the LMIC government, program sustainability; (5) an HIC project mentor to advocate for the project and explore the possibility of collaborative research in the LMIC; and (6) effective relationships between the partnership’s leaders and key stakeholders, which will lay the foundation for productive collaboration and a sustainable pediatric program.
The scope of GCH partnerships varies widely. Activities include education, training, research, clinical service, systems strengthening, public health, and response to international crises.21 Recent surveys of university and pediatric residency program partnerships demonstrate the centrality of research, education, clinical care, health systems strengthening, health interventions, policy development, and technology exchange.7, 22 Educational activities may involve a unidirectional or bidirectional exchange of health professionals, undergraduate, or postgraduate learners.22, 23 Some relationships
STEENHOFF et al2
Steenhoff et alPartnerships for Global Child Health
2017https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-3823
4PediatricsROUGH GALLEY PROOFOctober 2017
140
by guest on May 15, 2021www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from
are built around short-term GCH experiences for trainees. These are often unidirectional flows of learners from HICs to LMIC that provide questionable benefit to LMIC institutions.18, 24, 25 Others may involve skilled clinicians, educators, or researchers with a long-term commitment, including building scientific expertise in LMIC, such as the US National Institutes of Health’s Fogarty International Center.26
Who Participates in GCh Partnerships?
A broad range of organizations participate in GCH partnerships. Academic institutions and private and public entities, including foundations, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), international agencies, community groups, and governments, all participate in various combinations.27, 28 Each type of organization offers diverse resources to develop, implement, and sustain GCH partnerships. The principles outlined in this review apply to all.
Academic GH partnerships between LMIC and HIC universities are flourishing.15 In 2011, 78 US and Canadian universities had comprehensive GH programs, a 13-fold increase over 10 years.15 In 2013, 42% of US pediatric residency programs had international child health partnerships, spanning 153 countries.7 These partnerships can provide long-lasting, sustainable relationships and impact, especially if younger faculty and students are team members.29 The Makerere University-Johns Hopkins University Research Collaboration based in Kampala, Uganda started in 1988.30 Results from clinical trials conducted by Makerere University-Johns Hopkins University over the last 25 years have impacted both national and international guidelines for prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV.31 – 33 The Consortium of Universities
for GH is an academic NGO of over 140 universities globally that collaborate on GH curricula and training materials and foster new partnerships.34
Public–private partnerships combine skills and resources from institutions in the public and private sectors.35 The Baylor International Pediatric AIDS Initiative is an example. This partnership is between Baylor College of Medicine and 10 countries and various private partners that vary by country. The Baylor International Pediatric AIDS Initiative provides pediatric health care, education, and clinical research focusing on HIV/AIDS and other conditions impacting the health and well-being of children.36
Government-to-government GCH partnerships are usually coordinated by the Ministry of Health in each low- or middle-income country. These programs tend to focus on national and GH targets and may involve subcontracts to implementing partners from across the partner spectrum. Examples include HIC government development programs such as the US Agency for International Development, Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, and the UK’s Department for International Development.37, 38
GH NGOs are classified into 5 groups by the Fogarty International Center39: international organizations, such as the World Health Organization40 and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria41; scientific organizations, such as the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene42; advocacy and policy organizations, such as the Earth Institute at Columbia University43 and the GH Council44; foundations, such as the Open Society Foundations45 and the Wellcome Foundation46; and other resources,
such as the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, 47 the Web site Gapminder, 48 and small NGOs or faith-based NGOs.
South–South partnerships between institutions in 2 or more LMICs are increasingly important to advance shared LMIC institutional or national development goals.22, 49 –52 South–South partnerships have the potential to spur collaboration between partners who traditionally may have competed for funding.49, 53 An example is the African Centers of Excellence (ACE) project.54 The ACE Maternal and Child Health Center at the University of Cheikh Anta Diop in Dakar, Senegal55 partners with other West African universities around education and research in maternal–child health. ACE is also an example of a triangular cooperation (TC). TC involves 2 or more LMICs in collaboration with a third party, typically an HIC government or organization, contributing to the exchanges with its own knowledge and resources.52 TC aims to provide a framework in which partners work together more effectively as equals to jointly develop solutions for global development challenges.56
Common Benefits and Challenges of Gh Partnerships
Both benefits and challenges of GH partnerships can be considered at the individual, institutional, and population levels. A healthy GH partnership may accrue mutually shared benefits, benefits specific to the LMIC partner, and/or benefits specific to the HIC partner (Table 1). Many academic partnerships between HIC and LMIC partners provide the opportunity for HIC trainees to hone clinical skills in a setting with limited diagnostics while providing LMIC trainees exposure to different perspectives, such as the University of Washington partnership with the Naivasha District Hospital in Kenya.57
PEDIATRICS Volume 140, number 4, October 2017 3
Steenhoff et alPartnerships for Global Child Health
2017https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-3823
4PediatricsROUGH GALLEY PROOFOctober 2017
140
by guest on May 15, 2021www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from
Despite numerous tangible benefits, GH partnerships also face many challenges that could result in serious negative consequences if not anticipated and intentionally planned for (Table 1). Common challenges include inadequate or lack of local engagement, cultural insensitivity, culture shock, unintended adverse impact of the partnership on the LMIC setting (termed “opportunity costs”), lack of continuity, and inadequate funding for intended projects.58 There are also higher stake challenges that may affect the whole health system in a LMIC (frequently LMIC institutions navigate a complex web of multiple partners), which can cause fragmentation of health systems, duplicative processes, and difficulties with absorbing resources and implementing programs.59 Conversely there are also excellent reasons to encourage multiple partnerships and, when well-managed, these can have a catalytic effect on improving health outcomes. Historically, partnerships have been funded by resources from HIC with the balance of power resting with HIC partners, including
setting the partnership agenda and priorities, although this is beginning to change.18, 60, 61
Guiding Principles and Core Practices in GCh Partnerships
A successful, mutually beneficial GCH partnership needs to be both thoughtfully created and diligently nurtured. There are several insightful articles on this topic (Table 2). and are summarized into 7 guiding principles and 4 core practices. The guiding principles are equity, inclusivity, sustainability, mutual benefit, prevention of adverse impact, social justice, and humility. The core practices are communication, leadership, conflict resolution, and evaluation. The interdependence between them is summarized in Fig 1. The overarching objective is that international institutions and individuals work in a way that respects and prioritizes partner and community perspectives and ultimately ensures improved child health. Additionally, the net benefit from program activities conducted in partnership should be greater than what would be
expected without partnership involvement.
GCh Partnership Guiding Principles
Equity
Health equity is defined as the absence of systematic disparities in controllable or remediable aspects of health between groups with different levels of underlying social advantage with respect to wealth, power, or prestige.65 Systematic disparities can involve differences in access to health services, interventions, and outcomes. Health equity is different from health equality, which refers to treating everyone the same regardless of the widely varying levels and types of support needed by marginalized, disenfranchised groups.
With regard to GCH partnerships, the principle of equity is the recognition of and sensitivity to the inherent inequities that usually exist between LMIC and HIC GCH partners. Each of the other 6 core principles directly influences partnership equity (Fig 1).
STEENHOFF et al4
Steenhoff et alPartnerships for Global Child Health
2017https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-3823
4PediatricsROUGH GALLEY PROOFOctober 2017
140
TABLe 1 Potential Benefits and Challenges of GH Partnerships
Mutual HIC LMIC
Benefits Publications and/or academic promotions GH elective and/or research experiences for
traineesSpecialized training opportunitiesTechnical assistanceImproved population healthAccess to resourcesExpansion of healthcare workforceExposure to diseases more common in HIC
Exchange of knowledge, innovation, and problem solving from different perspectives
Access to populations in which child health burden is greatest
Professional development and enhanced satisfaction for faculty and trainees
Exposure to diseases more common in LMICAppreciation of contextual perspectiveExperience in integration of hospital and community
healthcare Sustainable collaboration, platform for
additional activities Leveraging of resources Alliances to promote social justice Enhanced capacity to scale-up known effective
interventionsChallenges Inadequate funding to achieve all goals,
securing institutional commitment, staff shortages
Aligning with LIC prioritiesRisk aversion of HIC institutions/individuals for
activities in LMICIncentive, initiative, and investment in skills to meet
LIC needs
Duplicative services/programsLack of shared power to jointly shape partnership
goalsGrant management: lack of familiarity with
requirements and differential indirect ratesWorkforce migration to HICCommunication of broader needs in education and
skills training other than research
Inadequate or ineffective communication Changing leadership in LMIC or HIC Lack of appreciation of differences/cultural
humility Lack of continuity
by guest on May 15, 2021www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from
PEDIATRICS Volume 140, number 4, October 2017 5
Steenhoff et alPartnerships for Global Child Health
2017https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-3823
4PediatricsROUGH GALLEY PROOFOctober 2017
140
TABL
e 2
Sele
cted
Stu
dies
Sum
mar
izin
g Pr
inci
ples
of G
H Pa
rtne
rshi
ps
Refe
renc
eSe
ttin
g (P
artn
ers)
Part
ners
hip
Focu
sM
etho
dPr
inci
ples
Plam
ondo
n6230
0 pa
rtic
ipan
ts in
Ca
nada
, inc
ludi
ng fr
om
part
ner
coun
trie
s. 4
0%
facu
lty, 3
0% s
tude
nts,
30
% a
dmin
istr
ator
s,
NGO
or g
over
nmen
t ag
enci
es, o
r co
nsul
tant
s.
Rese
arch
Data
gen
erat
ed th
roug
h Ca
nadi
an C
oalit
ion
for
Glob
al H
ealth
Res
earc
h ga
ther
ing
pers
pect
ives
st
udie
s (1
5 di
alog
ues
held
in
6 Ca
nadi
an p
rovi
nces
. May
20
13–A
ugus
t 201
5) d
ialo
gue,
w
orks
hops
, soc
ial m
edia
, op
en s
urve
y (3
5% fr
om
LMIC
s)
Six
prin
cipl
es: (
1) e
quity
, (2)
incl
usio
n, (
3) a
uthe
ntic
par
tner
ing,
(4)
hum
ility
, (5)
res
pons
iven
ess
to c
ause
s of
in
equi
ties,
(6)
com
mitm
ent t
o th
e fu
ture
, and
(7)
sha
red
bene
fits
Such
dev
et
al63
Resi
dent
-foun
ded
prog
ram
of s
hort
-term
m
edic
al tr
ips
(US
acad
emic
inst
itutio
n w
ith E
l Sal
vado
r co
mm
unity
and
loca
l NG
O).
Clin
ical
, pub
lic
heal
th, a
nd
educ
atio
n
Prin
cipl
es d
evel
oped
by
auth
ors
Seve
n gu
idin
g pr
inci
ples
: (1)
mis
sion
(ar
ticul
ate
colle
ctiv
e be
liefs
) “e
thic
ally
add
ress
und
erly
ing
heal
th is
sues
an
d pr
ovid
e su
stai
nabl
e pu
blic
hea
lth in
terv
entio
ns a
nd m
edic
al a
ssis
tanc
e, ”
(2)
colla
bora
tion
(NGO
, go
vern
men
t age
ncy,
with
in c
omm
unity
), (3
) ed
ucat
ion
(for
our
selv
es, c
omm
unity
, and
pee
rs),
(4)
serv
ice
(com
mitm
ent t
o do
ing
wor
k th
e co
mm
unity
nee
ds a
nd w
ants
), (5
) te
amw
ork
(bui
ldin
g on
team
mem
ber
skill
s an
d ex
peri
ence
s), (
6) s
usta
inab
ility
(bu
ildin
g ca
paci
ty fo
r on
goin
g in
terv
entio
ns, a
nd (
7) e
valu
atio
n (m
echa
nism
to d
eter
min
e if
goal
s ar
e be
ing
reac
hed)
Crum
p an
d Su
garm
an
25
Thir
teen
wor
kgro
up
mem
bers
. Pee
r-re
view
ed li
tera
ture
se
arch
ed o
n et
hics
of
GH tr
aini
ng. D
iscu
ssio
n an
d pr
actic
e gu
idel
ines
de
velo
ped,
mod
erat
ed
wor
ksho
p fo
rmat
. Ag
reed
by
cons
ensu
s.
Educ
atio
n. G
oal t
o be
app
licab
le
to c
linic
al,
publ
ic h
ealth
, re
sear
ch, a
nd
educ
atio
n ac
tiviti
es
Wor
kgro
up e
xper
ts s
elec
ted
by a
utho
rs th
roug
h co
nsul
tatio
n w
ith le
ader
s in
GH
and
eth
ics
Send
ing
and
host
inst
itutio
ns: 1
0 pr
inci
ples
: (1)
dev
elop
wel
l-str
uctu
red
prog
ram
s w
ith m
utua
l, eq
uita
ble
bene
fits;
(2)
cla
rify
goa
ls, e
xpec
tatio
ns, a
nd r
espo
nsib
ilitie
s th
roug
h ex
plic
it ag
reem
ents
and
per
iodi
c re
view
; (3)
dev
elop
, im
plem
ent,
regu
larl
y up
date
, and
impr
ove
form
al tr
aini
ng; (
4) e
ncou
rage
co
mm
unic
atio
n to
res
olve
con
flict
s as
they
ari
se a
nd id
entif
y m
echa
nism
s to
invo
lve
host
/sen
ding
in
stitu
tions
whe
n is
sues
not
rea
dily
res
olve
d; (
5) c
lari
fy tr
aine
es’ l
evel
of t
rain
ing
and
expe
rien
ce; (
6)
sele
ct tr
aine
es w
ho a
re a
dapt
able
, mot
ivat
ed, s
ensi
tive,
will
ing
to li
sten
and
lear
n, w
hose
abi
litie
s an
d ex
peri
ence
s m
atch
exp
ecta
tions
of t
he p
ost;
(7)
prom
ote
safe
ty o
f tra
inee
s; (
8) m
onito
r co
sts
and
bene
fits
to h
ost,
loca
l tra
inee
s, p
atie
nts,
com
mun
ities
, and
spo
nsor
s; (
9) e
stab
lish
effe
ctiv
e su
perv
isio
n an
d m
ento
rshi
p of
trai
nees
; and
(10
) es
tabl
ish
met
hods
to s
olic
it fe
edba
ck fr
om tr
aine
esLa
rkan
et a
l64In
tern
atio
nal a
cade
mic
re
sear
ch in
stitu
tion,
Ce
ntre
for
GH, D
ublin
Rese
arch
Indu
ctiv
e ex
plor
ator
y re
sear
ch
proc
ess
in 3
pha
ses:
(1)
lit
erat
ure
revi
ew a
nd
cons
ulta
tive
proc
ess
with
re
sear
ch p
artn
ers
acro
ss
22 in
stitu
tions
(un
iver
sity
, re
sear
ch in
stitu
tes,
NGO
s,
inde
pend
ent o
rgan
izat
ions
) fr
om s
ocia
l sci
ence
and
pu
blic
hea
lth b
ackg
roun
ds;
(2)
cons
ulta
tive
proc
ess
with
CGH
sta
ff (4
di
scus
sion
s [8
from
nor
th,
2 fr
om s
outh
]); a
nd (
3)
deve
lopm
ent o
f uni
fyin
g fr
amew
ork
Firs
t pha
se: 7
pri
ncip
les:
(1)
com
mon
goa
ls a
nd s
hare
d in
tere
st a
nd v
isio
n; (
2) c
ultu
re, s
ocie
tal n
orm
s,
trus
t, co
mm
itmen
t; (3
) re
cogn
ition
and
res
pect
for
diffe
rent
cap
aciti
es, i
nclu
sion
, sha
ring
res
ourc
es;
(4)
reci
proc
al, m
utua
lly b
enefi
cial
, ski
lls g
ener
atio
n, r
ewar
ding
exp
erie
nce,
kno
wle
dge
exch
ange
; (5)
tr
ansp
aren
t, op
en h
ones
t, co
nsis
tent
, una
mbi
guou
s, e
ffect
ive;
(6)
del
egat
ion
of r
oles
, res
pons
ibili
ties,
m
anag
emen
t, ac
coun
tabi
lity,
bal
ance
, dip
lom
acy;
and
(7)
res
olve
, per
seve
ranc
e, d
eter
min
atio
n, m
edia
tion,
an
d co
nflic
t res
olut
ion
Unde
rtak
en w
ith
rese
arch
par
tner
s of
an
d st
aff w
ithin
Cen
ter
for
GH
Seco
nd p
hase
: 7 c
ore
conc
epts
(4
rela
tiona
l, 3
oper
atio
nal)
: (1)
focu
s (c
omm
on g
oals
and
sha
red
inte
rest
an
d vi
sion
to k
eep
part
ners
focu
sed
and
mot
ivat
ed);
(2)
valu
es (
unde
rsta
ndin
g th
e or
gani
zatio
nal
cultu
re o
f eac
h pa
rtne
r an
d un
derl
ying
soc
ieta
l nor
ms)
; (3)
equ
ity (
calls
for
reco
gniti
on o
f and
res
pect
fo
r di
fferi
ng c
apac
ities
and
sha
ring
of r
esou
rces
suc
h th
at in
clus
ion
occu
rs o
n eq
uita
ble
basi
s);
(4)
bene
fit (
reci
proc
al a
nd m
utua
lly b
enefi
cial
rel
atio
nshi
ps a
mon
g al
l par
tner
s [s
kills
, rew
ardi
ng
expe
rien
ces,
kno
wle
dge
exch
ange
, etc
]); (
5) c
omm
unic
atio
n (t
rans
pare
nt, o
pen,
hon
est,
cons
iste
nt,
unam
bigu
ous,
effe
ctiv
e); (
6) le
ader
ship
(in
corp
orat
es n
ot o
nly
dele
gatio
n of
rol
es a
nd r
espo
nsib
ilitie
s,
also
man
agem
ent a
nd a
ccou
ntab
ility
. Bal
ance
and
dip
lom
acy
whe
n de
alin
g w
ith c
olla
bora
tors
); an
d (7
) re
solu
tion
(ack
now
ledg
men
t tha
t par
tner
ship
s m
ay e
ncou
nter
diffi
culti
es, a
nd r
esol
ve, p
erse
vera
nce,
an
d de
term
inat
ion
will
be
requ
ired
. Med
iatio
n an
d co
nflic
t res
olut
ion
may
offe
r so
lutio
ns. C
onsi
der
exit
stra
tegi
es d
urin
g pa
rtne
rshi
p fo
rmat
ion
stag
e)Th
ird
phas
e (d
esir
able
out
com
es o
f GH
rese
arch
): (1
) in
crea
sed
capa
city
, (2)
influ
ence
pra
ctic
e, a
nd (
3)
influ
ence
pol
icy
by guest on May 15, 2021www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from
Inclusivity
Efforts to address inequities outside of the partnership should include promoting the involvement and participation of all major stakeholders, particularly communities who may be disadvantaged by poverty, low education, race, or other factors. Partnerships in resource-constrained settings can work to recognize and challenge structures that restrict participation of these impacted groups. Practically, this means that every voice is heard, different perspectives are understood, and all partners, regardless of resources, are included in the design of the collaboration with a “real voice” in leadership.18, 66 – 68 Effectively listening to all voices leads to a clear vision with common goals shared by all partners.69
Sustainability
Sustainability refers to building a long-term vision for strengthening child health while working to conduct successful short-term activities. It can be challenging for HIC institutions that may initially be drawn into a 1- to 5-year GH partnership by enticing financial gains, such as grant funding, but the institutions’ commitments may waver as initial funding success proves difficult to replicate given the competitive nature of international partnerships.70 Similarly, frequent leadership changes in LMIC settings may impact sustainability. However, sustained commitment is expected of each partner. There is ample evidence in the literature18, 58, 71– 73 that sustained engagement results in better understanding and trust between the collaborating
partners. This in turn leads to the evolution of more opportunities and strategic projects as the needs of both parties become more evident.
Sustainability is possible when it is intentionally designed and incorporated into partnership strategic planning. For example, research-based partnerships may develop study plans to include provisions for access to effective therapeutics in the posttrial phase. Research partnerships may also commit to providing mentorship and research opportunities for LMIC researchers, thereby strengthening the academic infrastructure of child health in LMIC. Education-based partnerships uphold sustainability by ensuring that short-term educational experiences with transient local benefits are nested within long-term partnerships, leading to long-lasting improvements in child health.25 Partnerships focused on service-based activities can support sustainability by coordinating multiple short-term trips in a way that builds successively on relationships and activities over time, 63 working within existing health systems rather than creating parallel ones, and shifting responsibility for health services to local groups.
Mutual Benefits
A reciprocal and mutually beneficial relationship is a core component of successful partnership. Transparency of motivation fosters trust, which may involve outlining and reconciling objectives that are not strongly shared while ensuring that objectives are not divergent. A memorandum of understanding or agreement is of great value to many partnerships, ideally is established at the inception of a partnership, and undergoes
STEENHOFF et al6
Steenhoff et alPartnerships for Global Child Health
2017https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-3823
4PediatricsROUGH GALLEY PROOFOctober 2017
140
FIGURe 1Schematic summarizing the interdependence of the 4 core practices and 7 guiding principles in GH partnerships.
by guest on May 15, 2021www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from
formal review at regular intervals. A dynamic memorandum of understanding that evolves with GH partnership maturity is essential for transparency and trust between partners; these in turn foster sustainability and additional opportunities for the collaboration. As goals are established, HIC partners are challenged to have the funding, initiative, and skills needed to support clinical care, education, and research that meet the needs of LMIC partners, including alignment of research priorities.70 For example, the HIC institution may wish to conduct biomedical research and publish in high impact journals. By contrast, the LMIC institution may be focused on research in public health and health systems to meet urgent needs in the LMIC setting or on LMIC faculty or trainees visiting the HIC institution for professional development. More recently, some authors have challenged the principle of “mutual benefits, ” suggesting that GH partnerships should maximize benefits among all partners but with priority given to those with the fewer resources.66, 70
Prevention of Adverse Impact
Several studies demonstrate the importance of taking steps to minimize adverse outcomes to visiting providers, students, and trainees as well as to patients, communities, local providers, and health facilities in LMICs.63, 67, 74 Also integral to the prevention of unintended adverse impact is the monitoring of true costs of the program to all institutions involved in the partnership. These include administrative costs for coordination of multiple partners, indirect impact on the community from exposure to short-term visitors, and ensuring appropriate reimbursement and steps to alleviate any undue burden.25
Social Justice
The principle of social justice calls for partners to work together to value diversity (including gender, religion, age, race, social class, socioeconomic circumstance or disability, and sexual orientation); recognize social, historical, political, economic, and environmental determinants of health; and seek ways to mitigate inequities.75
Humility
GCH partnerships present inherent cultural challenges based on differing perceptions, past experiences, communication styles, and discordant objectives.76 Humility calls on stakeholders to dedicate efforts to understand their own assumptions, biases, and differing values and to center the partnership on the act of learning rather than on knowing.75 Differences in understanding are often based on divergent cultural, economic, and political histories and social realities.72, 77 However, when partners come to the table with an attitude of cultural humility and mutual respect, enhanced understanding is possible.78
GCh Partnership Core Practices
Four core practices enable GCH partnerships to follow these principles.25, 63, 64, 66, 79
Communication
Effective communication is crucial for the success of any partnership. Communication challenges faced by GH partnerships include not only language barriers and logistics of telecommunication but also differences in verbal and nonverbal communication styles, notion of time, decision-making processes, assertiveness in interactions, and use of e-mail exchanges. A transparent, open, honest, and unambiguous communication
strategy between partners builds a foundation of trust.64 Pretravel preparation for trainees and faculty may improve communication and minimize challenges in this area.
Leadership
Numerous authors have emphasized that successful GH partnerships depend on good, accountable management of both operations and relationships.64 Others have highlighted that leadership has been neglected in GH.80 Bradley et al80 state that, “strong management enables the achievement of large ends with limited means.” Balance and diplomacy have been identified as essential leadership skills when dealing with collaborators in a GH partnership.64 Securing buy-in and commitment of high-level organizational leadership offers the opportunity for the larger institution and network of experts within to commit to the partnership.81 Partnerships are at risk for failure if leaders are not actively engaged and willing to invest in continued nurturing of trust. Although implementing each principle and practice in every situation is certainly the goal, effective partnerships also depend on wise, shared, and pragmatic leaders to navigate situations in which upholding a principle or practice may appear to infringe on another’s principles or practices.
Conflict Resolution
Partnerships are expected to encounter difficulties. Hence, conflict resolution and mediation may offer solutions to prevent the dissolution of partnerships.25 Additionally, addressing and planning for these challenges can transform them into opportunities to further strengthen the partnership.
PEDIATRICS Volume 140, number 4, October 2017 7
Steenhoff et alPartnerships for Global Child Health
2017https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-3823
4PediatricsROUGH GALLEY PROOFOctober 2017
140
by guest on May 15, 2021www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from
Evaluation
Assurance that stakeholders follow the core principles of GCH partnerships and that goals are being reached involves a commitment of effort and time to conduct evaluation. As partnerships are implemented, resources need to be allocated to periodic assessments of outcome measures, research and educational priorities, authorship on publications, and interinstitutional communication and relationships.
evALUATInG GCh PARTneRshIPs: CURRenT ModeLs And PRoPosed FRAMeWoRks
The US Agency for International Development states that “evaluation is the means through which it obtains systematic, meaningful feedback about the successes and shortcomings of its endeavors. Evaluation provides information and analysis that prevents mistakes from being repeated, and that increases the chance that future investments will yield even more benefits than past investments.” 82
Evaluation is fundamental to a GCH partnership’s future strength. Evaluation documents the extent to which a partnership’s objectives are being achieved, including how efficiently and why. We briefly summarize planning and conducting a partnership evaluation and references provide more in-depth descriptions and frameworks.
A useful model for evaluating partnerships is the 2012 collaborative report from the UK-based Tropical Health & Education Trust Partnerships for GH and British Council.83 Figure 2 summarizes steps to conduct a partnership evaluation.84 Initial engagement focuses on partnership
stakeholders and those impacted by the partnership. Participants may include: public sector agencies such as the Ministry of Health, the private sector, international or local NGOs, international agencies such as United Nations Children’s Fund, professional associations or societies, community members, and special interest groups. The aim of the initial engagement is to reach consensus on (1) aims of the partnership, (2) criteria for evaluation (including what will be evaluated), and (3) how results will be interpreted, disseminated, and applied. This collaborative process requires skills in evaluation design, cost estimation, selection of measurement tools, data collection, analysis, and dissemination.
Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) plans should be defined collaboratively by all partners and be realistic and feasible with regard to workload, resource requirements, and consistency
of use. A simple tool useful for facilitating M&E is a logic model, which guides M&E and ultimately identifies a data collection plan.85 This is a quality improvement approach to evaluation. Beginning with an overall objective, a logic model provides measureable parameters (qualitative and quantitative) on which to base an evaluation that includes the following: Inputs → Activities → Outputs → Short and Intermediate Term Outcomes → Ultimate Goal. Figure 3 provides an example of a logic model (intended to illustrate components, not a complete model). Once the model is completed, a monitoring plan is established that identifies which data are required and how, by whom, and when the data will be collected. In health partnerships, attribution of change in practice, behavior, or attitudes is difficult (a useful approach is to use several data collection methods to evaluate different aspects of the partnership aims).
STEENHOFF et al8
Steenhoff et alPartnerships for Global Child Health
2017https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-3823
4PediatricsROUGH GALLEY PROOFOctober 2017
140
FIGURe 2Steps in a quality improvement cycle of partnership evaluation, planning, and implementation.
by guest on May 15, 2021www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from
Once available, evaluation results are shared with target stakeholders. Effective dissemination raises awareness of the partnership, its impact, and creates opportunities for stakeholders.87 These references present salient, in-depth approaches to evaluating GCH partnerships.75, 82, 83, 88 – 91
LITeRATURe GAPs
Although there is a burgeoning literature describing various aspects of partnerships for GCH, significant gaps remain. These include a paucity of rigorous assessments of partnership benefits and challenges, including equal weighting between HIC and LMIC partners, how these vary in different settings, lessons learnt from failed partnerships, and
how benefits can be optimized whereas challenges are minimized and overcome. Additionally, an assessment of possible differential impact between partnerships that adhere to the guiding principles and core practices as compared with those who do not is needed. Furthermore, an evidence-based understanding of best practices of partnership evaluation, adjustment, and reevaluation is missing. Membership organizations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, are optimally positioned to develop policies pertaining to minimum standards for GH partnerships. Finally, there is an urgent need to prioritize both funding and publication of partnerships for GCH. Additional funding is needed to hasten implementation, education,
and research. Peer-reviewed publications will grow the evidence base and inform best practice.
ConCLUsIons
Although initiating GCH partnerships can be challenging, once successfully established and effectively maintained, they can be of tremendous mutual benefit. With long-term commitments from all partners, these initiatives can become self-sustaining and support development of much-needed training programs in resource-constrained settings.92, 93 Poorly constructed or maintained GCH partnerships may inadvertently contribute to the further collapse of health systems.5, 11 Recent improvements in GCH outcomes
PEDIATRICS Volume 140, number 4, October 2017 9
Steenhoff et alPartnerships for Global Child Health
2017https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-3823
4PediatricsROUGH GALLEY PROOFOctober 2017
140
FIGURe 3Logic model applied to a partnership aiming to improve quality of pediatric emergency care through emergency triage assessment and treatment (ETAT) training.86
by guest on May 15, 2021www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from
are cause for optimism that further improvements in child survival can and will be obtained.5 Strong ethical and public health arguments call us as a pediatric community to commit to building the highest quality GCH partnerships needed to meet these equity-guided goals.
ACknoWLedGMenTs
We thank Valerie Haig of the American Board of Pediatrics for exceptional administrative
support, Michael Pitt for assistance with figures, and Virginia Moyer and Adriana LaMonte for their thoughtful review of the manuscript.
We would also like to thank the members of the GH Task Force of the American Board of Pediatrics: Christopher A. Cunha, MD, Chandy C. John, MD, Jonathan D. Klein, MD, MPH, David G. Nichols, MD, MBA, Cliff M. O’Callahan, MD, PhD, Nicole E. St Clair, MD.
ReFeRenCes
1. UNICEF. Monitoring the situation for women and children. 2015. Available at: http:// data. unicef. org/ resources/ committing- to- child- survival- a- promise- renewed- 2015. html. Accessed May 16, 2016
2. Victora CG, Requejo JH, Barros AJ, et al. Countdown to 2015: a decade of tracking progress for maternal, newborn, and child survival. Lancet. 2016;387(10032):2049–2059
3. Kellie SJ, Howard SC. Global child health priorities: what role for paediatric oncologists? Eur J Cancer. 2008;44(16):2388–2396
4. Bhutta ZA, Black RE. Global maternal, newborn, and child health–so near and yet so far. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(23):2226–2235
5. Denno D. Global child health. Pediatr Rev. 2011;32(2):e25–e38
6. Battat R, Seidman G, Chadi N, et al. Global health competencies and approaches in medical education: a literature review. BMC Med Educ. 2010;10:94
7. Butteris SM, Schubert CJ, Batra M, et al. Global Health Education in US Pediatric Residency Programs. Pediatrics. 2015;136(3): 458–465
8. Nelson BD, Lee AC, Newby PK, Chamberlin MR, Huang CC. Global health training in pediatric residency programs. Pediatrics. 2008;122(1):28–33
9. Beaglehole R, Bonita R. What is global health? Glob Health Action. 2010;3(1):5142
10. Caines K. Global Health Partnerships and Neglected Diseases. London, UK: DFID Resource Center; 2004
11. Kaddumukasa M, Katabira E, Salata RA, et al. Global medical education partnerships to expand specialty expertise: a case report on building neurology clinical and research capacity. Hum Resour Health. 2014;12:75
12. Samoff JCB. The promise of partnership and continuities of dependence: external support to
higher education in Africa. Afr Stud Rev. 2004;47(1):67–199
13. Office of US Global AIDS Coordinator; The Bureau of Public Affairs. The Unites States emergency plan for AIDS relief. Available at: https:// www. pepfar. gov/ about/ 270968. htm. Accessed June 15, 2017
14. American Academy of Pediatrics. Helping Babies Survive. Available at: https:// www. aap. org/ en- us/ advocacy- and- policy/ aap- health- initiatives/ helping- babies- survive/ Pages/ default. aspx. Accessed June 15, 2017
15. Matheson A. Sustainability and growth of university global health programs, 2014. Available at: https:// csis- prod. s3. amazonaws. com/ s3fs- public/ legacy_ files/ files/ publication/ 140507_ Matheson_ UniversityEngagem ent_ Web. pdf. Accessed June 15, 2017
16. The Center for Infectious Diseases Research in Zambia (CIDRZ). Available at: www. cidrz. org/ about- us/ history/ . Accessed June 15, 2017
STEENHOFF et al10
Steenhoff et alPartnerships for Global Child Health
2017https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-3823
4PediatricsROUGH GALLEY PROOFOctober 2017
140
is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the American Board of Pediatrics or the American Board of Pediatrics Foundation.
doI: https:// doi. org/ 10. 1542/ peds. 2016- 3823
Accepted for publication Jun 26, 2017
Address correspondence to Andrew Steenhoff, MBBCh, DCH, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia GH Center, 3535 Market St, 13th Floor Room 1323, Philadelphia, PA 19104. E-mail: [email protected]
PEDIATRICS (ISSN Numbers: Print, 0031-4005; Online, 1098-4275).
Copyright © 2017 by the American Academy of Pediatrics
FInAnCIAL dIsCLosURe: The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.
FUndInG: This publication was supported in part by the American Board of Pediatrics Foundation.
PoTenTIAL ConFLICT oF InTeResT: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.
ABBRevIATIons
ACE: African Centers of Excellence
GCH: global child healthGH: global healthHIC: high-income countryLMIC: low- and middle-income
countriesM&E: monitoring and evaluationNGO: nongovernmental
organizationTC: triangular cooperation
by guest on May 15, 2021www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from
17. Cancedda C, Farmer PE, Kerry V, et al. Maximizing the impact of training initiatives for health professionals in low-income countries: frameworks, challenges, and best practices. PLoS Med. 2015;12(6):e1001840
18. Kolars JC, Cahill K, Donkor P, et al. Perspective: partnering for medical education in Sub-Saharan Africa: seeking the evidence for effective collaborations. Acad Med. 2012;87(2):216–220
19. Ribeiro RC, Antillon F, Pedrosa F, Pui CH. Global Pediatric Oncology: lessons from partnerships between high-income countries and low- to mid-income countries. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(1):53–61
20. St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. International Outreach Program. Available at: https:// www. stjude. org/ global/ international- outreach. html. Accessed June 15, 2017
21. Merritt MG Jr, Railey CJ, Levin SA, Crone RK. Involvement abroad of U.S. academic health centers and major teaching hospitals: the developing landscape. Acad Med. 2008;83(6):541–549
22. Muir JA, Farley J, Osterman A, et al. Global health partnerships: are they working? Sci Transl Med. 2016;8(334):334ed4
23. Umoren RA, Einterz RM, Litzelman DK, Pettigrew RK, Ayaya SO, Liechty EA. Fostering reciprocity in global health partnerships through a structured, hands-on experience for visiting postgraduate medical trainees. J Grad Med Educ. 2014;6(2):320–325
24. Melby MK, Loh LC, Evert J, Prater C, Lin H, Khan OA. Beyond medical “missions” to impact-driven Short-Term Experiences in Global Health (STEGHs): ethical principles to optimize community benefit and learner experience. Acad Med. 2016;91(5):633–638
25. Crump JA, Sugarman J; Working Group on Ethics Guidelines for Global Health Training (WEIGHT). Ethics and best practice guidelines for training experiences in global health. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2010;83(6):1178–1182
26. Fogarty International Center. Available at: https:// www. fic. nih. gov/ Pages/
Default. aspx. Accessed August 12, 2016
27. Suchdev PS, Breiman RF, Stoll BJ. Global child health: a call to collaborative action for academic health centers. JAMA Pediatr. 2014;168(11):983–984
28. Cancedda C, Farmer PE, Kyamanywa P, et al. Enhancing formal educational and in-service training programs in rural Rwanda: a partnership among the public sector, a nongovernmental organization, and academia. Acad Med. 2014;89(8):1117–1124
29. Binagwaho A, Farmer PE, Nsanzimana S, et al. Rwanda 20 years on: investing in life. Lancet. 2014;384(9940):371–375
30. MUJHU Research Collaboration. Available at: www. mujhu. org/ . Accessed August 12, 2016
31. Fowler MG, Qin M, Fiscus SA, et al; IMPAACT 1077BF/1077FF PROMISE Study Team. Benefits and risks of antiretroviral therapy for perinatal HIV prevention. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(18):1726–1737
32. Jackson JB, Musoke P, Fleming T, et al. Intrapartum and neonatal single-dose nevirapine compared with zidovudine for prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV-1 in Kampala, Uganda: 18-month follow-up of the HIVNET 012 randomised trial. Lancet. 2003;362(9387):859–868
33. Musoke P, Guay LA, Bagenda D, et al. A phase I/II study of the safety and pharmacokinetics of nevirapine in HIV-1-infected pregnant Ugandan women and their neonates (HIVNET 006). AIDS. 1999;13(4):479–486
34. Consortium of Universities for Global Health. Available at: www. cugh. org/ . Accessed May 15, 2016
35. Whyle EB, Olivier J. Models of public-private engagement for health services delivery and financing in Southern Africa: a systematic review. Health Policy Plan. 2016;31(10):1515–1529
36. Kline MW. Perspectives on the pediatric HIV/AIDS pandemic: catalyzing access of children to care and treatment. Pediatrics. 2006;117(4):1388–1393
37. United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID). Available at: https:// www. gov. uk/ government/ organisations/
department- for- international- development. Accessed June 15, 2017
38. Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation - NORAD. Available at: https:// www. norad. no/ en/ front/ . Accessed June 15, 2017
39. Fogarty International Center. Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) working in Global Health Research. Available at: https:// www. fic. nih. gov/ Global/ Pages/ NGOs. aspx. Accessed August 12, 2016
40. WHO (World Health Organization). Available at: www. who. int/ en/ . Accessed August 12, 2016
41. The Global Fund. Available at: www. theglobalfund. org/ en/ . Accessed August 12, 2016
42. American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. Available at: https:// www. astmh. org/ . Accessed August 12, 2016
43. Earth Institute, Columbia University. Available at: www. earthinstitute. columbia. edu/ . Accessed August 12, 2016
44. Global Health Council. Available at: http:// globalhealth. org/ . Accessed August 12, 2016
45. Open Society Foundations. Available at: https:// www. opensocietyfounda tions. org/ . Accessed August 12, 2016
46. Wellcome Foundation. Available at: https:// wellcome. ac. uk/ . Accessed August 12, 2016
47. Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. Available at: www. healthdata. org/ . Accessed August 12, 2016
48. Gapminder. Available at: https:// www. gapminder. org/ . Accessed August 12, 2016
49. Talib ZM, Kiguli-Malwadde E, Wohltjen H, et al. Transforming health professions’ education through in-country collaboration: examining the consortia among African medical schools catalyzed by the Medical Education Partnership Initiative. Hum Resour Health. 2015;13:1
50. Harle J. Strengthening research in African universities: reflections on policy, partnerships and politics. Policy Pract Dev Educ Rev. 2013;16: 80–100
PEDIATRICS Volume 140, number 4, October 2017 11
Steenhoff et alPartnerships for Global Child Health
2017https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-3823
4PediatricsROUGH GALLEY PROOFOctober 2017
140
by guest on May 15, 2021www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from
51. United Nations Day for South South Cooperation. United Nations day for south-south cooperation. Available at: http:// www. un. org/ en/ events/ southcooperationd ay/ . Accessed August 23, 2017
52. Sakurai MY. The post-2015 development agenda and south-south and triangular cooperation - How the partnership model should be? Glob Soc Policy. 2015;15(3):337–341
53. UNOSSC: United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation. Available at: https:// www. unsouthsouth. org/ . Accessed August 23, 2017
54. African Centres of Excellence (ACE) project. Available at: https:// ace. aau. org/ about- aau/ . Accessed August 23, 2017
55. The World Bank. Africa Higher Education Centers of Excellence project. Available at: www. worldbank. org/ projects/ P126974/ strengthening- tertiary- education- africa- through- africa- centers- excellence? lang= en. Accessed September 16, 2016
56. German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development. Available at: https:// www. bmz. de/ en/ ministry/ approaches/ triangular_ cooperation/ index. html. Accessed June 15, 2017
57. Monroe-Wise A, Kibore M, Kiarie J, et al. The clinical education partnership initiative: an innovative approach to global health education. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14:1043
58. Loh LC, Cherniak W, Dreifuss BA, Dacso MM, Lin HC, Evert J. Short term global health experiences and local partnership models: a framework. Global Health. 2015;11:50
59. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; McKinsey & Company. Global health partnerships: assessing country consequences, 2005. Available at: www. who. int/ healthsystems/ gf16. pdf. Accessed June 15, 2017
60. Olapade-Olaopa EO, Baird S, Kiguli-Malwadde E, Kolars JC. Growing partnerships: leveraging the power of collaboration through the Medical Education Partnership Initiative. Acad Med. 2014;89(suppl 8):S19–S23
61. Anderson W. Making global health history: the postcolonial worldliness
of biomedicine. Soc Hist Med. 2014;27(2):372–384
62. Plamondon K. CCGHR principles for global health research. 2015. Available at: www. ccghr. ca/ wp- content/ uploads/ 2015/ 10/ CCGHR- Principles- for- GHR- FINAL. pdf
63. Suchdev P, Ahrens K, Click E, Macklin L, Evangelista D, Graham E. A model for sustainable short-term international medical trips. Ambul Pediatr. 2007;7(4):317–320
64. Larkan F, Uduma O, Lawal SA, van Bavel B. Developing a framework for successful research partnerships in global health. Global Health. 2016;12(1):17
65. Braveman PA. Monitoring equity in health and healthcare: a conceptual framework. J Health Popul Nutr. 2003;21(3):181–192
66. McCoy D, Sanders D, Baum F, Narayan T, Legge D. Pushing the international health research agenda towards equity and effectiveness. Lancet. 2004;364(9445):1630–1631
67. Cadotte DW, Blankstein M, Bekele A, et al. Establishing a surgical partnership between Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and Toronto, Canada. Can J Surg. 2013;56(3):E19–E23
68. Pinet G. Global partnerships: a key challenge and opportunity for implementation of international health law. Med Law. 2003;22(4): 561–577
69. Spiegel DA, Abdullah F, Price RR, Gosselin RA, Bickler SW. World Health Organization global initiative for emergency and essential surgical care: 2011 and beyond. World J Surg. 2013;37(7):1462–1469
70. McCoy D. Global health initiatives and country health systems. Lancet. 2009;374(9697):1237
71. Kolars JC. Should U.S. academic health centers play a leadership role in global health initiatives? Observations from three years in China. Acad Med. 2000;75(4):337–345
72. Sewankambo N, Tumwine JK, Tomson G, et al. Enabling dynamic partnerships through joint degrees between low- and high-income countries for capacity development in global health research: experience from
the Karolinska Institutet/Makerere University partnership [published correction appears in PLoS Med. 2015;12(3):e1001816]. PLoS Med. 2015;12(2):e1001784
73. Ludwig S, Finalle R. Developing international partnerships with long-term impact. Clin Pediatr Emerg Med. 2012;13(1):44–48
74. John CC, Ayodo G, Musoke P. Successful Global Health Research Partnerships: what makes them work? Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2016;94(1): 5–7
75. Canadian Coalition for Global Health Research. Available at: www. ccghr. ca/
76. McCarthy AE, Petrosoniak A, Varpio L. The complex relationships involved in global health: a qualitative description. BMC Med Educ. 2013;13:136
77. Kulbok PA, Mitchell EM, Glick DF, Greiner D. International experiences in nursing education: a review of the literature. Int J Nurs Educ Scholarsh. 2012;9:1–21
78. Foster J, Guisinger V, Graham A, Hutchcraft L, Salmon M. Global Government Health Partners’ Forum 2006: eighteen months later. Int Nurs Rev. 2010;57(2):173–179
79. Spiegel DA, Gosselin RA, Coughlin RR, Kushner AL, Bickler SB. Topics in global public health. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466(10):2377–2384
80. Bradley EH, Taylor LA, Cuellar CJ. Management matters: a leverage point for health systems strengthening in global health. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015;4(7):411–415
81. Walker RJ, Campbell JA, Egede LE. Effective strategies for global health research, training and clinical care: a narrative review. Glob J Health Sci. 2014;7(2):119–139
82. United States Agency for International Development. Learning Lab: Evaluation Toolkit. Available at: http:// usaidlearninglab. org/ evaluation? tab= 1. Accessed May 15, 2016
83. Tropical Health & Education Trust, UKAid. Monitoring and evaluation: Guidance and lessons learnt from the IHLFS. . Available at: www. thet. org/ health- partnership- scheme/ resources/ tools- guidance/ test- anchor- tagging- text. Accessed May 15, 2016
STEENHOFF et al12
Steenhoff et alPartnerships for Global Child Health
2017https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-3823
4PediatricsROUGH GALLEY PROOFOctober 2017
140
by guest on May 15, 2021www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from
84. Ohkubo S, Sullivan TM, Harlan SV, Timmons BT, Strachan M. Guide to Monitoring and Evaluating Knowledge Management in Global Health Programs. Available at: www. globalhealthknowl edge. org/ sites/ ghkc/ files/ km- monitoring- and- eval- guide. pdf. Accessed May 15, 2016
85. McLaughlin JA, Jordan GB. In: Wholey JS, Hatry K, Newcomer KE, eds. Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Imprint; 2004
86. WHO. Emergency Triage Assessment and Treatment (ETAT) course. Available at: www. who. int/ maternal_ child_ adolescent/ documents/ 9241546875/ en/ . Accessed September 16, 2016
87. Davison CM, Ndumbe-Eyoh S, Clement C. Critical examination of knowledge
to action models and implications for promoting health equity. Int J Equity Health. 2015;14:49
88. United Nations Development Programme. United Nations Development Plan Handbook on planning, monitoring and evaluating for results. 2009. Available at: http:// web. undp. org/ evaluation/ handbook/ documents/ english/ pme- handbook. pdf
89. Afsana K, Habte D, Hatfield J, Murphy J, Neufeld V. Canadian coalition for global health research: partnership assessment toolkit, 2009. Available at: www. ccghr. ca/ wp- content/ uploads/ 2013/ 05/ PAT_ web_ e. pdf. Accessed September 16, 2016
90. Buse K, Harmer AM. Seven habits of highly effective global public-private health partnerships:
practice and potential. Soc Sci Med. 2007;64(2):259–271
91. WHO. Global reference list of 100 core health indicators, 2015. Available at: http:// apps. who. int/ iris/ bitstream/ 10665/ 173589/ 1/ WHO_ HIS_ HSI_ 2015. 3_ eng. pdf? ua= 1. Accessed September 16, 2016
92. The Lancet. The Bamako call to action: research for health. Lancet. 2008;372(9653):1855
93. Boyer EL. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Carnegie Foundation of the Advancement of Teaching. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1990. Available at: http:// www. csusm. edu/ community/ facultyengagement / scholarshiprecons idered. pdf. Accessed June 15, 2017
PEDIATRICS Volume 140, number 4, October 2017 13
Steenhoff et alPartnerships for Global Child Health
2017https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-3823
4PediatricsROUGH GALLEY PROOFOctober 2017
140
by guest on May 15, 2021www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2016-3823 originally published online September 20, 2017; 2017;140;Pediatrics
Batra and on behalf of the GH Task Force of the American Board of PediatricsPhilippa Musoke, Roseda Marshall, Miguel A. Soto, Sabrina M. Butteris, ManeeshCynthia Howard, Loeto Mazhani, Suzinne Pak-Gorstein, Michelle L. Niescierenko,
Andrew P. Steenhoff, Heather L. Crouse, Heather Lukolyo, Charles P. Larson,Partnerships for Global Child Health
ServicesUpdated Information &
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/140/4/e20163823including high resolution figures, can be found at:
Referenceshttp://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/140/4/e20163823#BIBLThis article cites 54 articles, 8 of which you can access for free at:
Subspecialty Collections
alth_subhttp://www.aappublications.org/cgi/collection/international_child_heInternational Child Healthfollowing collection(s): This article, along with others on similar topics, appears in the
Permissions & Licensing
http://www.aappublications.org/site/misc/Permissions.xhtmlin its entirety can be found online at: Information about reproducing this article in parts (figures, tables) or
Reprintshttp://www.aappublications.org/site/misc/reprints.xhtmlInformation about ordering reprints can be found online:
by guest on May 15, 2021www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2016-3823 originally published online September 20, 2017; 2017;140;Pediatrics
Batra and on behalf of the GH Task Force of the American Board of PediatricsPhilippa Musoke, Roseda Marshall, Miguel A. Soto, Sabrina M. Butteris, ManeeshCynthia Howard, Loeto Mazhani, Suzinne Pak-Gorstein, Michelle L. Niescierenko,
Andrew P. Steenhoff, Heather L. Crouse, Heather Lukolyo, Charles P. Larson,Partnerships for Global Child Health
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/140/4/e20163823located on the World Wide Web at:
The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is
by the American Academy of Pediatrics. All rights reserved. Print ISSN: 1073-0397. the American Academy of Pediatrics, 345 Park Avenue, Itasca, Illinois, 60143. Copyright © 2017has been published continuously since 1948. Pediatrics is owned, published, and trademarked by Pediatrics is the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. A monthly publication, it
by guest on May 15, 2021www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from