banner George Institute event

The HENI 18th Equilogues: Complex vulnerabilities and research in health inequity in crisis contexts

health equity network india equilogues

The Health Equity Network India (HENI) secretariat co-hosted at The George Institute for Global Health, India and The Institute of Public Health, Bengaluru is organising the 18th Equilogues underlining the theme “Complex vulnerabilities and research in health inequity in crisis contexts”.

Mark your calendars for 27th May 2022 | 15:30 IST

Conflict is a major driver of health inequities. The literature on health and conflict has shown how conflicts impede health system functioning including disruption of supply chains, breakdown of social and economic systems, and exodus of healthcare workers. It is equally crucial to understand how health systems are affected during low-intensity protracted conflicts – and the consequences borne by communities living and serving in such contexts.

A research study conducted by the ant (the action northeast trust) in 2016-17 titled Health Inequities in a Conflict Area: An In-depth Qualitative Study in Assam and the subsequent book published in 2021 Health Inequities in Conflict-affected Areas - edited by Samrat Sinha and Jennifer Liang – explores these dimensions. These pieces of work highlight people’s experience of deep vulnerabilities as a result of the breakdown in provision of the state’s health services due to a prolonged low intensity conflict in Assam at the Indo-Bhutan border.

The HENI 18th Equilogues is being hosted by Jennifer Liang from the ant (the action northeast trust) who will draw from the aforementioned work to speak about:

  • The complex vulnerabilities experienced by people during protracted conflict/crisis contexts
  • The ethical and methodological considerations deemed critical while carrying out research with conflict-affected communities in difficult-to-access geographies

Speakers

  • Jennifer Liang, Co-Founder, The Action Northeast Trust (ant)

    Jennifer has been working in the northeast region of India for over 25 years since she completed her M.A in Social Work from Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai. In the year 2000, Jenny co-founded the ant, an NGO working for rural development, and lived and worked in villages of Chirang District of Bodoland in Assam. She headed the ant as its Executive Director the decade of 1996 to 2016 and is currently involved in IDeA, an initiative of the ant to strengthen the voluntary sector in Northeast India. She enjoys her role especially in creating and running participatory training programmes and de-stresses by designing easy-to-use communication materials.

    Liang has been a Chevening Gurukul Scholar (2013, London School of Economics) and her thesis then was to look at women’s political participation in local governance in U.K. She has co-authored a book “Health Inequities in Conflict-affected Areas: Armed Violence, Survival, and Post-Conflict Recovery in the Indo-Bhutan Borderlands” which was published by Springer-Nature, Singapore in March 2021.

    Jennifer Liang
  • Moderator: Dr Devaki Nambiar - Program Head, Health Systems and Equity, The George Institute for Global Health

    Devaki holds a doctorate in public health from Johns Hopkins. She has more than a decade of research experience in over half a dozen countries and as many Indian states. Her interest is in research and action on the social and political determinants of health and health reform in resource-poor settings. A former Fulbright scholar, she has received awards from the US National Institutes of Health, the Wellcome Trust/Department of Biotechnology India Alliance, Canada’s International Development Research Centre, as well as several international and national research agencies. She advises the work of the World Health Organisation on health inequality monitoring and supports policymaking in India on Universal Health Coverage and urban health reform, as well as non-communicable disease (NCD) service delivery as part of comprehensive primary health care.

    Devaki Nambiar
Finger pointing towards plus icon showing progress

Building the evidence to inform clinical practice worldwide: In conversation with Laurent Billot

To mark International Clinical Trials Day, we asked Laurent Billot, Director of Biostatistics and Data Science at The George Institute for Global Health, and internationally recognised clinical triallist, about his current work and his thoughts about the future of clinical trials.

“We use clinical trials to build evidence. Evidence that aims to inform clinical practice worldwide and, ultimately, improve health outcomes for individuals and communities globally.”

The George Institute works with partners to conceptualise, develop, and deliver innovative and impactful clinical trials, which Laurent notes are characterised by the following features.

Reducing trial ‘waste’

“Ensuring that clinical trials are efficient is crucial to limiting research ‘waste’,” he said. “This most commonly comes from the costs associated with poorly conceived research questions, inappropriate study design, failure to adequately report on all areas being analysed, and inefficient operational conduct.”

He outlined two key ways that trial efficiency can be improved - by design and through conduct.

“Trial design involves the development and application of innovative statistical methods including adaptive and pragmatic designs. The first involves adapting some elements of the design as the trial progresses (rather than waiting for the trial to end). A pragmatic trial evaluates a health intervention in a setting as close as possible to real-world conditions.”

He cited INTERACT3 as an example of an innovative pragmatic trial to explore the effectiveness of a care package that includes intensive blood pressure lowering in adults with acute brain haemorrhage.

“Adaptive designs help to generate new evidence in a shorter timeframe and better allow the trial to answer questions that may come up at the time,” he said.

Laurent is currently collaborating with colleagues at Imperial College London’s Clinical Trials Unit to review current practice and consider the potential impact of different adaptive designs in critical care trials. This includes a systematic review of recently completed critical care trials as well as simulations to identify the most efficient adaptive designs.

With regards to trial conduct, he notes there is a mismatch between the use of clinical trials as a means of providing evidence-based answers to clinical challenges, and the way clinical trials themselves are conducted, which is not always evidence-based.

“To try and address this, I’m jointly leading a new program based on the concept of Studies Within A Trial, or SWATs. This involves embedding a trial comparing different trial conduct methods – for example face-to-face versus remote visits - within an existent ‘host’ trial, with the aim of evaluating alternative ways of delivering or organising a particular trial process,” he said.

The George Institute is also one of a number of centres in the Trial Forge initiative, which aims to look across all trial processes with the intention of trying to improve them, even if only by a small amount, in recognition of the fact that these gains add up when done across the whole trial system.

The global environmental crisis also requires consideration of how clinical trials are impacting planetary health.

“The George Institute recognises that as health professionals we have a responsibility to minimise environmental harm in order to protect health."

"Clinical trials are a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and pollution. We are exploring ways in which clinical trials might be ‘decarbonised’ - for example, by reducing energy use, streamlining patient recruitment and data collection and minimising travel,” he said.  

“This is likely to be a key area of focus for future trial design.”

Improving relevance and transparency

The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the role of clinical trials in providing rapid answers to how best to detect, respond, prevent, and prepare for global health emergencies.

But Laurent notes that speed must be coupled with transparency and relevance.

“Given that clinical trials seek to answer global health questions, there must be shared decision-making around what the most pressing questions are, such that this can inform funder priorities and optimise the applicability, representation, probity, and social impact of trial results,” he said.

“To ensure relevance, people with lived experience of the condition in question should be meaningfully involved in all aspects of a trial, including its design, management, conduct and dissemination.”

He believes that at their core, clinical trials must be participant (or ‘patient’) centred in order to promote trust which can help to boost trial recruitment, limit drop-out, and encourage engagement in future trials.

“Strong engagement of participants at all stages is crucial, for instance by asking them how they like to be communicated with, and when and how they would like to learn of trial results,” he said.

“This feedback loop should extend to capturing and assessing the participants’ experience of taking part in the research, in order to enhance future trial design and delivery.”

He notes that clinical trials of the future must also be transparent, openly detailing methods; for instance, by making templates publicly available to support the planning and reporting of statistical analyses.

“To aid reproducibility of published results, it is also crucial to make data and statistical code available.”

Better representation for all

Finally, he says clinical trials must be representative, which means promoting the participation of people who have historically been excluded.

“It’s important for investigators to ensure diversity among trial participants in terms of race, ethnicity, age, socio-economic status and other characteristics. Unless there is a valid reason not to do so, researchers should include pregnant women in trials, as well as equal percentages of women and men.”

While not all trials will have a positive result, ensuring diversity among participants can not only help to meet the clinical or public health objectives of trials, but can also help to ensure the acceptability of their findings in practice.

“… and means that the research we are conducting will provide answers that will help the whole community, especially those who are currently underserved, which is the essence of the work we do at the Institute.”

 

To find out more about The George Institute’s work on clinical trials, explore our website, and find out more about Laurent’s work here.

Randomised controlled trials

New Course on Randomised Clinical Trials

The George Institute for Global Health is launching a new course, Introduction to Randomised Clinical Trials (RCTs), to build capacity and strengthen evidence-based approaches to global health challenges.

RCTs are considered to produce the highest quality of evidence on the effects of interventions because of their ability to minimise bias. Critical to successful generation of high-quality evidence through RCTs is the knowledge and skills to properly design, conduct, analyse and report them.

“RCTs are extremely important in medical research and we’re very proud to be offering this course to equip the next generation of researchers with the knowledge and tools they need to contribute to future advances in global health” - Helen Monaghan, Director, Global Project Operations, Centre for Operational and Research Excellence, The George Institute, Australia

The 12 to 13 week online course beginning on 07 June 2022 will be delivered by experienced researchers and trial managers at The George Institute. It will provide early career researchers (The George Institute staff, consultants, students, visiting fellows, collaborators, and partners) with a comprehensive introduction to the fundamentals of RCTs, including effective trial management.

This course will harness the knowledge gained and skills developed over more than 20 years of ground-breaking RCTs carried out at The George Institute. After completing this course, participants will have understanding of the strengths and limitations of RCTS and how they can be applied to have real world impact and improve people’s health.” - Niveditha Devasenapathy, Lead, Better Treatments, The George Institute, India

Contact

Abdul Salam
The George Institute for Global Health
researchtraining@georgeinstitute.org

Kate Ballard
The George Institute for Global Health
researchtraining@georgeinstitute.org

National Preventive Health Strategy 2021-2030

George Institute calls for commitment to prevention ahead of federal election

Open letter to Australia’s next government, 16 May 2022

Ahead of the 2022 Federal election, The George Institute for Global Health calls on all political parties to commit to developing a clear and explicit implementation plan for the National Preventive Health Strategy’s ‘Blueprint for Action’ in the first 100 days of government.

The National Preventive Health Strategy 2021-2030 (NPHS) is an important milestone and a credible and evidence-based strategy that will, if properly funded and implemented, deliver a healthier, more equitable Australia. Australian governments, the health sector and community members have worked together to develop the strategy. To date, no political party has committed to funding the implementation of this strategy during the 2022 election cycle.

Commitment to the goals of the NPHS, coupled with appropriate investment, is urgently needed to reverse the spiralling growth in disease burden and to help protect the health of all Australians.

Nearly half of all Australians have one or more chronic condition, such as cardiovascular disease, cancer or type 2 diabetes. Yet, Australia’s per capita expenditure on preventive health ranks in the bottom half of OECD countries.

As Australia heads to the ballot box, we call on all political parties to commit to a concrete plan for implementing the NPHS ‘Blueprint for Action’ in the first 100 days of government.

Key priorities for action in the NPHS include:

  • Invest in prevention by committing 5% of health expenditure to prevention.
  • Launch an independent, expert-led governance process to advise on prevention priorities and the use of the prevention fund.
  • Futureproof the public health workforce by developing and enhancing expertise and capacity, including digital training and improved health systems infrastructure.
  • Improve health literacy by creating a national health information platform to empower consumers.
  • Link prevention with primary care by aligning the Blueprint for Action with the Primary Health Care 10 Year Plan and the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan.
  • Develop evidence-based preventive health mechanisms by investing in a robust research sector.
  • Strengthen health equity by ensuring an equity lens underpins preventive health, prioritising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and other communities experiencing vulnerability.
  • Build innovative partnerships and develop consumer engagement between and within sectors, using the National Consumer Engagement Strategy 2021-2030.
  • Boost action in target focus areas such as anti-smoking, healthier diets and environments to deliver early wins in reducing the burden of disease at population level.

Australia’s healthcare system enables citizens to enjoy world-class treatments and programs, underpinned by a robust research sector. But effective governments don’t just invest in treating health problems – they invest in preventing them, especially for the most at-risk communities. Every dollar spent on prevention leads to better outcomes and significant health-system savings.