partnerships for global child health · for gh is an academic ngo of over 140 universities globally...

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




140


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




140


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




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






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


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




140

FIGURe 1Schematic summarizing the interdependence of the 4 core practices and 7 guiding principles in GH partnerships.


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.





140


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




140

FIGURe 2Steps in a quality improvement cycle of partnership evaluation, planning, and implementation.


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





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


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




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


http://data.unicef.org/resources/committing-to-child-survival-a-promise-renewed-2015.html



https://www.pepfar.gov/about/270968.htm

https://www.pepfar.gov/about/270968.htm

https://www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and-policy/aap-health-initiatives/helping-babies-survive/Pages/default.aspx




https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/publication/140507_Matheson_UniversityEngagement_Web.pdf





www.cidrz.org/about-us/history/

https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-3823

mailto:

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





140


https://www.stjude.org/global/international-outreach.html

https://www.stjude.org/global/international-outreach.html

https://www.fic.nih.gov/Pages/Default.aspx

https://www.fic.nih.gov/Pages/Default.aspx

www.mujhu.org/

www.cugh.org/

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-international-development




https://www.norad.no/en/front/

https://www.fic.nih.gov/Global/Pages/NGOs.aspx

https://www.fic.nih.gov/Global/Pages/NGOs.aspx

www.who.int/en/

www.theglobalfund.org/en/

www.theglobalfund.org/en/

https://www.astmh.org/

https://www.astmh.org/

www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/

www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/

http://globalhealth.org/

https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/

https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/

https://wellcome.ac.uk/

www.healthdata.org/

www.healthdata.org/

https://www.gapminder.org/

https://www.gapminder.org/

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




140


http://www.un.org/en/events/southcooperationday/

http://www.un.org/en/events/southcooperationday/

https://www.unsouthsouth.org/

https://ace.aau.org/about-aau/

https://ace.aau.org/about-aau/

www.worldbank.org/projects/P126974/strengthening-tertiary-education-africa-through-africa-centers-excellence?lang=en




https://www.bmz.de/en/ministry/approaches/triangular_cooperation/index.html



www.who.int/healthsystems/gf16.pdf

www.ccghr.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/CCGHR-Principles-for-GHR-FINAL.pdf



www.ccghr.ca/

http://usaidlearninglab.org/evaluation?tab=1

http://usaidlearninglab.org/evaluation?tab=1

www.thet.org/health-partnership-scheme/resources/tools-guidance/test-anchor-tagging-text




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





140


www.globalhealthknowledge.org/sites/ghkc/files/km-monitoring-and-eval-guide.pdf



www.who.int/maternal_child_adolescent/documents/9241546875/en/



http://web.undp.org/evaluation/handbook/documents/english/pme-handbook.pdf



www.ccghr.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/PAT_web_e.pdf

www.ccghr.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/PAT_web_e.pdf

http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/173589/1/WHO_HIS_HSI_2015.3_eng.pdf?ua=1



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:


http://http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/140/4/e20163823

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/140/4/e20163823#BIBL

http://www.aappublications.org/cgi/collection/international_child_health_sub

http://www.aappublications.org/cgi/collection/international_child_health_sub

http://www.aappublications.org/site/misc/Permissions.xhtml

http://www.aappublications.org/site/misc/reprints.xhtml

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


http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/140/4/e20163823

partnerships for global child health · for gh is an academic ngo of over 140 universities globally...

Documents