Towards Monitoring of Global Health Research: An Exploratory Analysis of Transparency and Stakeholder Engagement

IntroductionGlobal health research (GHR) requires transparent practices and stakeholder engagement to maximize impact. While monitoring systems exist for clinical research transparency in high-income countries, there is limited systematic assessment of these practices in global health research. This study evaluated methods for monitoring GHR transparency and engagement practices using established indicators. MethodsWe analyzed three samples: (1) 200 interventional trials from ClinicalTrials.gov (2008-2019) focused on tuberculosis and maternal health, with two-thirds from low-and-middle-income countries; (2) 200 trial publications from global health journals (2011-2023); and (3) research outputs from global health funder websites. We assessed registration timing, result reporting, open access status, and stakeholder engagement using standardized indicators. ResultsAmong registry trials, 37% were prospectively registered, 65% published results in journals, and 15% reported summary results in ClinicalTrials.gov. Only 34% reported results in any format within 24 months of completion. For journal publications, 72% were freely accessible, and among a subsample of 100 articles, 23% included stakeholder engagement statements. The funder website sample yielded insufficient metadata for systematic analysis. ConclusionOur findings demonstrate that monitoring GHR transparency and engagement is feasible using trial registries and journal publications, though funder websites currently lack adequate tracking data. While open access rates are encouraging, timely result reporting and stakeholder engagement documentation need improvement. These results highlight opportunities for developing GHR-specific monitoring approaches through collaborative efforts among global stakeholders. FundingBerlin University Alliance What is already known on this topicPrevious studies have highlighted gaps in transparency and patient engagement in clinical trials. To address these, various tools, such as national and university dashboards, have been developed to monitor practices. In global health research (GHR), this monitoring has been primarily led by intergovernmental agencies; however, academic research can complement these efforts by enhancing rigor and driving actionable change. This study proposes a methodological approach to identify global health studies for analysis with established research indicators and aims to suggest complementary strategies for analyzing GHR. What this study addsThis study introduces a methodology suitable for assessing GHR studies with transparency and engagement indicators. We sourced data from trial registry, global health journals, and funder websites, providing accompanying code and data to facilitate reproducibility for other researchers in the field. Unlike prior analyses in global health context that often emphasize LMICs, our approach incorporates both LMIC and HIC studies, recognizing the collaborative foundation of GHR and encouraging shared contextualized findings. Our findings offer empirical data while underscoring the need for expanded collaboration to refine indicators and methodologies, enhancing the contextual relevance of GHR monitoring. How this study might affect research, practice or policyCollaborative efforts among researchers, funders, and communities are essential to develop new methodologies and indicators that focus on actionable change highlighted by continuous monitoring. While often led by large organizations, GHR monitoring can be enriched by academic research, making it more contextualized and accessible to global health researchers. By proposing initial methodologies, we provide a foundation that can be refined along with indicators that can be contextualized, both of which are essential for driving effective global health research.