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.

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 intend that this consensus review could serve as a resource to optimize current and future GCH partnerships.

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.

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 

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 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 

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 

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 

TABLE 1

Potential Benefits and Challenges of GH Partnerships

MutualHICLMIC
Benefits 
 Publications and/or academic promotions GH elective and/or research experiences for trainees Specialized training opportunities 
 Exchange of knowledge, innovation, and problem solving from different perspectives Access to populations in which child health burden is greatest Technical assistance 
 Professional development and enhanced satisfaction for faculty and trainees Exposure to diseases more common in LMIC Improved population health 
 Sustainable collaboration, platform for additional activities Appreciation of contextual perspective Access to resources 
 Leveraging of resources Experience in integration of hospital and community healthcare Expansion of healthcare workforce 
 Alliances to promote social justice  Exposure to diseases more common in HIC 
 Enhanced capacity to scale-up known effective interventions   
Challenges 
 Inadequate funding to achieve all goals, securing institutional commitment, staff shortages Aligning with LIC priorities Duplicative services/programs 
 Inadequate or ineffective communication Risk aversion of HIC institutions/individuals for activities in LMIC Lack of shared power to jointly shape partnership goals 
 Changing leadership in LMIC or HIC Incentive, initiative, and investment in skills to meet LIC needs Grant management: lack of familiarity with requirements and differential indirect rates 
 Lack of appreciation of differences/cultural humility  Workforce migration to HIC 
 Lack of continuity  Communication of broader needs in education and skills training other than research 
MutualHICLMIC
Benefits 
 Publications and/or academic promotions GH elective and/or research experiences for trainees Specialized training opportunities 
 Exchange of knowledge, innovation, and problem solving from different perspectives Access to populations in which child health burden is greatest Technical assistance 
 Professional development and enhanced satisfaction for faculty and trainees Exposure to diseases more common in LMIC Improved population health 
 Sustainable collaboration, platform for additional activities Appreciation of contextual perspective Access to resources 
 Leveraging of resources Experience in integration of hospital and community healthcare Expansion of healthcare workforce 
 Alliances to promote social justice  Exposure to diseases more common in HIC 
 Enhanced capacity to scale-up known effective interventions   
Challenges 
 Inadequate funding to achieve all goals, securing institutional commitment, staff shortages Aligning with LIC priorities Duplicative services/programs 
 Inadequate or ineffective communication Risk aversion of HIC institutions/individuals for activities in LMIC Lack of shared power to jointly shape partnership goals 
 Changing leadership in LMIC or HIC Incentive, initiative, and investment in skills to meet LIC needs Grant management: lack of familiarity with requirements and differential indirect rates 
 Lack of appreciation of differences/cultural humility  Workforce migration to HIC 
 Lack of continuity  Communication of broader needs in education and skills training other than research 

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 

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.

TABLE 2

Selected Studies Summarizing Principles of GH Partnerships

ReferenceSetting (Partners)Partnership FocusMethodPrinciples
Plamondon62  300 participants in Canada, including from partner countries. 40% faculty, 30% students, 30% administrators, NGO or government agencies, or consultants. Research Data generated through Canadian Coalition for Global Health Research gathering perspectives studies (15 dialogues held in 6 Canadian provinces. May 2013–August 2015) dialogue, workshops, social media, open survey (35% from LMICs) Six principles: (1) equity, (2) inclusion, (3) authentic partnering, (4) humility, (5) responsiveness to causes of inequities, (6) commitment to the future, and (7) shared benefits 
Suchdev et al63  Resident-founded program of short-term medical trips (US academic institution with El Salvador community and local NGO). Clinical, public health, and education Principles developed by authors Seven guiding principles: (1) mission (articulate collective beliefs) “ethically address underlying health issues and provide sustainable public health interventions and medical assistance,” (2) collaboration (NGO, government agency, within community), (3) education (for ourselves, community, and peers), (4) service (commitment to doing work the community needs and wants), (5) teamwork (building on team member skills and experiences), (6) sustainability (building capacity for ongoing interventions, and (7) evaluation (mechanism to determine if goals are being reached) 
Crump and Sugarman 25  Thirteen workgroup members. Peer-reviewed literature searched on ethics of GH training. Discussion and practice guidelines developed, moderated workshop format. Agreed by consensus. Education. Goal to be applicable to clinical, public health, research, and education activities Workgroup experts selected by authors through consultation with leaders in GH and ethics Sending and host institutions: 10 principles: (1) develop well-structured programs with mutual, equitable benefits; (2) clarify goals, expectations, and responsibilities through explicit agreements and periodic review; (3) develop, implement, regularly update, and improve formal training; (4) encourage communication to resolve conflicts as they arise and identify mechanisms to involve host/sending institutions when issues not readily resolved; (5) clarify trainees’ level of training and experience; (6) select trainees who are adaptable, motivated, sensitive, willing to listen and learn, whose abilities and experiences match expectations of the post; (7) promote safety of trainees; (8) monitor costs and benefits to host, local trainees, patients, communities, and sponsors; (9) establish effective supervision and mentorship of trainees; and (10) establish methods to solicit feedback from trainees 
Larkan et al64  International academic research institution, Centre for GH, Dublin Research Inductive exploratory research process in 3 phases: (1) literature review and consultative process with research partners across 22 institutions (university, research institutes, NGOs, independent organizations) from social science and public health backgrounds; (2) consultative process with CGH staff (4 discussions [8 from north, 2 from south]); and (3) development of unifying framework First phase: 7 principles: (1) common goals and shared interest and vision; (2) culture, societal norms, trust, commitment; (3) recognition and respect for different capacities, inclusion, sharing resources; (4) reciprocal, mutually beneficial, skills generation, rewarding experience, knowledge exchange; (5) transparent, open honest, consistent, unambiguous, effective; (6) delegation of roles, responsibilities, management, accountability, balance, diplomacy; and (7) resolve, perseverance, determination, mediation, and conflict resolution 
Undertaken with research partners of and staff within Center for GH Second phase: 7 core concepts (4 relational, 3 operational): (1) focus (common goals and shared interest and vision to keep partners focused and motivated); (2) values (understanding the organizational culture of each partner and underlying societal norms); (3) equity (calls for recognition of and respect for differing capacities and sharing of resources such that inclusion occurs on equitable basis); (4) benefit (reciprocal and mutually beneficial relationships among all partners [skills, rewarding experiences, knowledge exchange, etc]); (5) communication (transparent, open, honest, consistent, unambiguous, effective); (6) leadership (incorporates not only delegation of roles and responsibilities, also management and accountability. Balance and diplomacy when dealing with collaborators); and (7) resolution (acknowledgment that partnerships may encounter difficulties, and resolve, perseverance, and determination will be required. Mediation and conflict resolution may offer solutions. Consider exit strategies during partnership formation stage) 
Third phase (desirable outcomes of GH research): (1) increased capacity, (2) influence practice, and (3) influence policy 
ReferenceSetting (Partners)Partnership FocusMethodPrinciples
Plamondon62  300 participants in Canada, including from partner countries. 40% faculty, 30% students, 30% administrators, NGO or government agencies, or consultants. Research Data generated through Canadian Coalition for Global Health Research gathering perspectives studies (15 dialogues held in 6 Canadian provinces. May 2013–August 2015) dialogue, workshops, social media, open survey (35% from LMICs) Six principles: (1) equity, (2) inclusion, (3) authentic partnering, (4) humility, (5) responsiveness to causes of inequities, (6) commitment to the future, and (7) shared benefits 
Suchdev et al63  Resident-founded program of short-term medical trips (US academic institution with El Salvador community and local NGO). Clinical, public health, and education Principles developed by authors Seven guiding principles: (1) mission (articulate collective beliefs) “ethically address underlying health issues and provide sustainable public health interventions and medical assistance,” (2) collaboration (NGO, government agency, within community), (3) education (for ourselves, community, and peers), (4) service (commitment to doing work the community needs and wants), (5) teamwork (building on team member skills and experiences), (6) sustainability (building capacity for ongoing interventions, and (7) evaluation (mechanism to determine if goals are being reached) 
Crump and Sugarman 25  Thirteen workgroup members. Peer-reviewed literature searched on ethics of GH training. Discussion and practice guidelines developed, moderated workshop format. Agreed by consensus. Education. Goal to be applicable to clinical, public health, research, and education activities Workgroup experts selected by authors through consultation with leaders in GH and ethics Sending and host institutions: 10 principles: (1) develop well-structured programs with mutual, equitable benefits; (2) clarify goals, expectations, and responsibilities through explicit agreements and periodic review; (3) develop, implement, regularly update, and improve formal training; (4) encourage communication to resolve conflicts as they arise and identify mechanisms to involve host/sending institutions when issues not readily resolved; (5) clarify trainees’ level of training and experience; (6) select trainees who are adaptable, motivated, sensitive, willing to listen and learn, whose abilities and experiences match expectations of the post; (7) promote safety of trainees; (8) monitor costs and benefits to host, local trainees, patients, communities, and sponsors; (9) establish effective supervision and mentorship of trainees; and (10) establish methods to solicit feedback from trainees 
Larkan et al64  International academic research institution, Centre for GH, Dublin Research Inductive exploratory research process in 3 phases: (1) literature review and consultative process with research partners across 22 institutions (university, research institutes, NGOs, independent organizations) from social science and public health backgrounds; (2) consultative process with CGH staff (4 discussions [8 from north, 2 from south]); and (3) development of unifying framework First phase: 7 principles: (1) common goals and shared interest and vision; (2) culture, societal norms, trust, commitment; (3) recognition and respect for different capacities, inclusion, sharing resources; (4) reciprocal, mutually beneficial, skills generation, rewarding experience, knowledge exchange; (5) transparent, open honest, consistent, unambiguous, effective; (6) delegation of roles, responsibilities, management, accountability, balance, diplomacy; and (7) resolve, perseverance, determination, mediation, and conflict resolution 
Undertaken with research partners of and staff within Center for GH Second phase: 7 core concepts (4 relational, 3 operational): (1) focus (common goals and shared interest and vision to keep partners focused and motivated); (2) values (understanding the organizational culture of each partner and underlying societal norms); (3) equity (calls for recognition of and respect for differing capacities and sharing of resources such that inclusion occurs on equitable basis); (4) benefit (reciprocal and mutually beneficial relationships among all partners [skills, rewarding experiences, knowledge exchange, etc]); (5) communication (transparent, open, honest, consistent, unambiguous, effective); (6) leadership (incorporates not only delegation of roles and responsibilities, also management and accountability. Balance and diplomacy when dealing with collaborators); and (7) resolution (acknowledgment that partnerships may encounter difficulties, and resolve, perseverance, and determination will be required. Mediation and conflict resolution may offer solutions. Consider exit strategies during partnership formation stage) 
Third phase (desirable outcomes of GH research): (1) increased capacity, (2) influence practice, and (3) influence policy 
FIGURE 1

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

FIGURE 1

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

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).

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 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 

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.

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.

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.83Figure 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.

FIGURE 2

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

FIGURE 2

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

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).

FIGURE 3

Logic model applied to a partnership aiming to improve quality of pediatric emergency care through emergency triage assessment and treatment (ETAT) training.86 

FIGURE 3

Logic model applied to a partnership aiming to improve quality of pediatric emergency care through emergency triage assessment and treatment (ETAT) training.86 

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 

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.

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 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.

     
  • ACE

    African Centers of Excellence

  •  
  • GCH

    global child health

  •  
  • GH

    global health

  •  
  • HIC

    high-income country

  •  
  • LMIC

    low- and middle-income countries

  •  
  • M&E

    monitoring and evaluation

  •  
  • NGO

    nongovernmental organization

  •  
  • TC

    triangular cooperation

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 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.

FUNDING: This publication was supported in part by the American Board of Pediatrics Foundation.

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.

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
[PubMed]
3
Kellie
SJ
,
Howard
SC
.
Global child health priorities: what role for paediatric oncologists?
Eur J Cancer
.
2008
;
44
(
16
):
2388
2396
[PubMed]
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
[PubMed]
5
Denno
D
.
Global child health.
Pediatr Rev
.
2011
;
32
(
2
):
e25
e38
[PubMed]
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
[PubMed]
7
Butteris
SM
,
Schubert
CJ
,
Batra
M
, et al
.
Global Health Education in US Pediatric Residency Programs.
Pediatrics
.
2015
;
136
(
3
):
458
465
[PubMed]
8
Nelson
BD
,
Lee
AC
,
Newby
PK
,
Chamberlin
MR
,
Huang
CC
.
Global health training in pediatric residency programs.
Pediatrics
.
2008
;
122
(
1
):
28
33
[PubMed]
9
Beaglehole
R
,
Bonita
R
.
What is global health?
Glob Health Action
.
2010
;
3
(
1
):
5142
[PubMed]
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
[PubMed]
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_UniversityEngagement_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
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
[PubMed]
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
[PubMed]
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
[PubMed]
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
[PubMed]
22
Muir
JA
,
Farley
J
,
Osterman
A
, et al
.
Global health partnerships: are they working?
Sci Transl Med
.
2016
;
8
(
334
):
334ed4
[PubMed]
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
[PubMed]
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
[PubMed]
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
[PubMed]
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
[PubMed]
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
[PubMed]
29
Binagwaho
A
,
Farmer
PE
,
Nsanzimana
S
, et al
.
Rwanda 20 years on: investing in life.
Lancet
.
2014
;
384
(
9940
):
371
375
[PubMed]
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
[PubMed]
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
[PubMed]
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
[PubMed]
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
[PubMed]
36
Kline
MW
.
Perspectives on the pediatric HIV/AIDS pandemic: catalyzing access of children to care and treatment.
Pediatrics
.
2006
;
117
(
4
):
1388
1393
[PubMed]
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.opensocietyfoundations.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
[PubMed]
50
Harle
J
.
Strengthening research in African universities: reflections on policy, partnerships and politics
.
Policy Pract Dev Educ Rev
.
2013
;
16
:
80
100
51
United Nations Day for South South Cooperation
. United Nations day for south-south cooperation. Available at: http://www.un.org/en/events/southcooperationday/. 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
[PubMed]
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
[PubMed]
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
[PubMed]
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
[PubMed]
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
[PubMed]
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
[PubMed]
65
Braveman
PA
.
Monitoring equity in health and healthcare: a conceptual framework.
J Health Popul Nutr
.
2003
;
21
(
3
):
181
192
[PubMed]
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
[PubMed]
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
[PubMed]
68
Pinet
G
.
Global partnerships: a key challenge and opportunity for implementation of international health law.
Med Law
.
2003
;
22
(
4
):
561
577
[PubMed]
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
[PubMed]
70
McCoy
D
.
Global health initiatives and country health systems.
Lancet
.
2009
;
374
(
9697
):
1237
[PubMed]
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
[PubMed]
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
[PubMed]
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
[PubMed]
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
[PubMed]
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
[PubMed]
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
[PubMed]
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
[PubMed]
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
[PubMed]
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
[PubMed]
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
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.globalhealthknowledge.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
[PubMed]
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
[PubMed]
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
[PubMed]
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/scholarshipreconsidered.pdf. Accessed June 15, 2017

Competing Interests

POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.