Table 1 Illustrative reflective questioning to guide GHRP programs and practices

1. Recognize the historical context

Does your research/program work with local stakeholders to understand relevant historical events and contexts of the area?

• Local research staff leads formative/exploratory research.

• Your research/program adapts lessons from previously implemented efforts.

• The program uses a one-size fits all approach for program planning, implementation, and evaluation.

How does the program consider and potentially address past harms?

• Prioritize research on who was harmed and to what extent.

• The program makes reparations for the harm done in the past.

• No research and no action on research about harm done.

• Not holding perpetrators of harm accountable.

Do local stakeholders contribute actively to agenda-setting and decision-making?

• Marginalized individuals such as women, lower castes, and persons living with a disability are included in decision-making.

• Marginalized people hold less voting power.

• No recognition or compensation after marginalized people provide labor and time.

2. Elevate local leadership

Does the leadership team reflect the diversity of the community being served?

• Diversity by age, gender, race, caste, etc. is reflected in the composition of boards, senior leadership, and program management.

• Hiring policies are not designed for diverse candidates.

• Recruitment favors candidates from privileged backgrounds (e.g., internationally recognized universities).

Do program goals align with local priorities?

• Program goals are a direct representation of national and subnational goals.

• Local stakeholders are involved in goal setting.

• Local stakeholders are informed of previously made decisions post-implementation.

3. Engage local stakeholders as equal partners

Do funders allow time or provide resources for partnerships to be formed between GHPRs and the communities being served?

• Constant engagement to inform local stakeholders throughout the program cycle.

• Adequate time and funds allocated for local stakeholder engagement.

• Local stakeholders are engaged after the design phase of GHRP programs.

Does your research/program identify and remove barriers to local stakeholder engagement?

• Hold meetings in accessible areas and at accessible times.

• Compensate stakeholders’ time.

• Hold meetings in local languages, or with interpreters available.

• Meetings held in English where most participants do not comfortably speak English.

• Meetings only held online, or at times inconvenient for local stakeholders

4. Strengthen the capacity of local stakeholders

Has funding been allocated for capacity building?

• GHRP budget prioritizes capacity building for local stakeholders.

• Provide incentives for staff professional development.

• The program only provides training on the contractual obligations of local stakeholders involved in GHRP programs.

Does the program use a strengths-based approach to collaboratively identify and address the needs of the local stakeholders?

• Programs work with local stakeholders to assess needs in technical skills and capacity.

• Hold trainings that are co-led with local stakeholders.

• Training fully led by non-local practitioners and researchers.

Are local communities empowered to be active participants in GHRP?

• A mechanism is in place to disseminate data to stakeholders in the local language and provide opportunities to ask questions.

• Communities are trained on mechanisms to hold GHRP programs accountable through feedback loops (e.g., citizen reports).

• Data shared inaccessibly, is difficult for local stakeholders to understand.

• Local communities are not informed enough about research and findings to undertake community development activities.

5. Feedback and accountability

Has your research/program established a holistic stakeholder-centered feedback and assessment process?

• Systems for gathering feedback are in place, anonymous, and whistleblowers are protected.

• Practice 360-degree feedback with local stakeholders.

• No system in place to gather stakeholder feedback.

• Punitive action results from undesirable feedback.

Has your research/program created multiple channels for local stakeholders to give prompt and regular feedback?

• Provide listening/suggestion boxes for stakeholders to give real-time feedback throughout the program.

• Accepting feedback at the beginning or end of the project only.

How does your research/program use feedback from local stakeholders to inform implementation, promote reflection and learning?

• The program commits to redesign/restructure following local stakeholders’ feedback.

• Withhold information from local stakeholders.

• Disregard local stakeholder feedback.

6. Knowledge production, access, and co-authorship

Are local stakeholders leading the dissemination and publication of the research (e.g., first authors of journal articles)?

• A local stakeholder is the first author of published research.

• Local stakeholders are supported in developing writing and publication skills.

• Data extracted from local communities without credit or involvement of local collaborators.

• Knowledge products are not shared with local communities.

Is published research easily accessible to local stakeholders (including government officials)?

• Research results are shared in a way that local stakeholders can understand easily and make informed decisions.

• Research is published in closed-access journals whose subscriptions are unaffordable to local stakeholders.

7. Language as a structural barrier

Where English is not the primary language, does your program provide real-time translation of meetings and translation of meetings, research, and documents?

• A research project includes a budget to ensure that meetings and documents are translated into the local language.

• Translation of materials is done on an ad hoc basis or not at all.

8. Systems thinking and sustainability

Does the GHRP program work collaboratively with local stakeholders to develop a causal framework that incorporates systems thinking?

• Establish a shared vision for GHRP objectives and indicators for success.

• Establish intersectoral and interdisciplinary partnerships.

• The program operates with no or limited partnerships and little understanding of the larger context.

Does the program use a reductionist approach to implement and evaluate interventions?

Note: A reductionist approach is focused on single relationships of individual components

• A program delivers holistic interventions that embrace contextual issues (e.g., socioeconomic, political, cultural).

• The program does not consider other existing development activities and focuses on single health outcomes.

Does the program have a clear sustainability plan that recognizes the shortcomings of donor cycle times?

• The program develops interventions that address the short, intermediate, and long-term needs of communities.

• The program only relies on limited-term funding.