Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Poorer countries need support to conduct necessary research and to develop local research capacity, but external collaboration and funding have sometimes been seen as serving primarily foreign interests.
Objectives: To assess whether trials performed in sub-Saharan Africa with non-African collaboration were more or less likely to address diseases of specific African relevance than those performed without such collaboration.
Methods: In a case-control study, randomised controlled trials performed in Africa for diseases of specific African relevance (by burden of disease criteria) were compared with trials of "global" and "Western" relevance for differences in non-African collaboration and funding.
Results: Of 520 trials, 347 studied specifically "African" diseases, 99 "global" and 74 "Western" diseases. The strongest independent predictor of African versus global relevance was the corresponding author's country of origin; African relevance was negatively associated with a South African corresponding author (odds ratio [OR] 0.04; 95% CI 0.02-0.10), but there was little difference between other African and non-African corresponding authors. African relevance was also independently associated with more non-African authors (OR per author 1.31; 95% CI 1.08-1.58), fewer trial sites (OR per site 0.69; 95%CI 0.50-0.96), and reporting of funding (OR 2.14; 95% CI 1.15-4.00). Similar patterns were present in the comparisons of African- vs. Western-relevant trials, with stronger associations overall. When funding was reported, private industry funding was negatively associated with African relevance compared with global relevance (OR 0.31, p=0.008; OR 0.51, p=0.57 for African vs. Western relevance).
Conclusions: Non-African collaboration was not detrimental to the African relevance of African research, but industrial funding was associated with decreased African relevance.
Objectives: To assess whether trials performed in sub-Saharan Africa with non-African collaboration were more or less likely to address diseases of specific African relevance than those performed without such collaboration.
Methods: In a case-control study, randomised controlled trials performed in Africa for diseases of specific African relevance (by burden of disease criteria) were compared with trials of "global" and "Western" relevance for differences in non-African collaboration and funding.
Results: Of 520 trials, 347 studied specifically "African" diseases, 99 "global" and 74 "Western" diseases. The strongest independent predictor of African versus global relevance was the corresponding author's country of origin; African relevance was negatively associated with a South African corresponding author (odds ratio [OR] 0.04; 95% CI 0.02-0.10), but there was little difference between other African and non-African corresponding authors. African relevance was also independently associated with more non-African authors (OR per author 1.31; 95% CI 1.08-1.58), fewer trial sites (OR per site 0.69; 95%CI 0.50-0.96), and reporting of funding (OR 2.14; 95% CI 1.15-4.00). Similar patterns were present in the comparisons of African- vs. Western-relevant trials, with stronger associations overall. When funding was reported, private industry funding was negatively associated with African relevance compared with global relevance (OR 0.31, p=0.008; OR 0.51, p=0.57 for African vs. Western relevance).
Conclusions: Non-African collaboration was not detrimental to the African relevance of African research, but industrial funding was associated with decreased African relevance.