Background: Global health is a complex, interdisciplinary, and contested field. It is rapidly growing and undergoing ideological and methodological changes. Despite many theoretical claims over what global health research ought to be, there are few empirical reports on what global health is, as a present field of research. The aim of this study is to: 1) determine patterns in global health research, based on key research characteristics; and 2) determine relationships between these characteristics to identify and define conceptual frameworks in global health research. Methodology: A systematic review of research in global health journals was conducted for papers published in the years 2010, 2015, and 2020. Categorical data on 17 research characteristics was extracted from all studies included in the analysis. The relationships between these characteristics was analyzed and visualized using multiple correspondence analysis, as implemented in the R’s ca package. Significance tests of independence determined relationships between pairs of variables. Results: The final analysis was done on 1033 included studies from 14 journals. 56% of the studies used a quantitative observational methodology. While 82% of research had at least one author affiliated with a high-income country, 96% of research funded (at least partially) by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation had at least one author affiliated with a high-income country. There was a significant relationship between the use of social and structural determinants of health and the authors’ affiliations (X2=59.06, p < 0.001), with the use of social and structural determinants of health lower among lower-income authors than high-income authors. The first and second dimensions of multiple correspondence analysis explained 38% of the variables’ deviation from independence. Conclusion: Multiple correspondence analysis offers a novel way of understanding global health research, contributing empirical data to the discourse on what lies ahead for the field of global health. The relationship between the use of social and structural determinants of health, authorship, and research methodologies point to the need for important conversations on the direction of global health research, starting from where we are at now. / Thesis / Master of Science (MSc) / While the importance of the field of global health is more prominent than ever, it is a field of uncertainty, controversy, contested merit, and often disreputable history. Conversations abound on the strengths and weaknesses of the field and what needs to change; yet, there is a lack of empirical grounding for these discussions. In this study, I reviewed global health research literature, identifying 17 key characteristics that surface in theoretical conversations on global health, and scored 1033 global health research studies according to these characteristics. Using multiple correspondence analysis, the 17 characteristics were analyzed together and visualized to elucidate the relationships between the characteristics. I found that: over half of the studies were quantitative observational; most research in global health had at least one author from a high-income country; and middle-income authors were less likely to study social and structural determinants of health than high-income authors. These findings lend important empirical evidence to conversations on the direction of the field, starting from where we are at now.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:mcmaster.ca/oai:macsphere.mcmaster.ca:11375/27561 |
| Date | January 2022 |
| Creators | Leckie, Michal |
| Contributors | Shannon, Harry, Doubleday, Nancy, Global Health |
| Source Sets | McMaster University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis |
Page generated in 0.0025 seconds