IJHG review 29.3: outstanding authors

Citation

MacVane Phipps, F.E. (2024), "IJHG review 29.3: outstanding authors", International Journal of Health Governance, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 200-212. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJHG-09-2024-164

Introduction

The IJHG review section’s standard format provides short reviews of each article included in the current issue. Each mini-review starts with the phrase: “this review is based on …” followed by the author(s) and title of the article in question. This allows readers to prioritise subject matter which reflects their own interests or areas of expertise. The review editor includes additional commentary based on external sources as appropriate. However in this issue the editors have decided to update the format to reflect the real experience of some of our outstanding authors. The justification for this is that, to quote IJHG editor Irina Ibraghimova, “being a complex system, scholarly communication is changing constantly in many ways: by developing new tools to help researchers share their findings, but also by introducing new procedures and standards to support research integrity and handle the new challenges of research publications appearing with new technologies. In this issue of IJHG we are starting a series of interviews with our outstanding authors, who published their research in this journal in the first half of 2024.”

To create more targeted interviews, individually-focussed questions have been prepared with specific relevance to each author’s publications. These responses have been collated, subjected to some analysis and commentary and presented with a brief review of the author’s most recent publication in the IJHG. The exception is the first article which was written by one of our outstanding authors. While we did not receive an interview response from Prince Agwu, we did not want his work to be excluded. It is also important to note that while we have identified outstanding authors by the quality of the work on articles for which they are first or corresponding author, any paper written by a team is only as good as the collaborative effort of all contributing authors. In addition, just so that no supposition is made about comparative value of the work presented, articles are included in alphabetical order, using the first letter of the surname of the first or corresponding author.

• 1.

  Adolescents are being let down by sexual health services in the primary care sector in Nigeria. This review is based on: Agwu et al. (2024) Assessing interprofessional and integrated care in providing sexual and reproductive health services to adolescents at primary healthcare level in Nigeria.

The authors start with the well documented argument for the benefits of interprofessional or multidisciplinary healthcare collaboration in primary care. They point to findings demonstrating increased resilience and patient trust in healthcare facilities where this way of working exists. Another benefit is the increased satisfaction reported by both clients and care givers (McCutcheon et al., 2020). However, interprofessional or multidisciplinary care is lacking in the Nigerian primary care system. The authors have a particular interest in the care received by adolescents seeking sexual and reproductive health care and advice, and thus focussed their study in this area.

This qualitative research project was conducted entirely in Ebonyi State in Southeast Nigeria, a region where 40% of the population is classified as “adolescent”. Previous studies have found that young people in this area typically become sexually active between the ages of 13 and 15. Teenage pregnancy is also common with high maternal and infant mortality rates. The research team interviewed 20 primary health care workers involved in the provision of sexual and reproductive health and conducted focus groups with 72 young people between the ages of 15–24. The study received local ethics committee approval and all participants under the age of 18 required parental or care-giver permission for their inclusion in the research (Agwu et al., 2024). Focus groups included roughly equal numbers of male and female participants and were age specific; the “older” group was made up of participants from 18 to 24, with the “younger” group comprised of those between 15 and 17.

Findings indicated six areas where care was inadequate, largely due to the fact that the primary health care team did not include specialist services such as laboratory analysis of blood and other samples, or psychological and counselling professionals. All of the health workers interviewed were aged 39 and over, and half were over 44.35% were not educated to degree level, yet many took on counselling roles for which they were unqualified. There were no psychologists or doctors working in the primary care centres which meant that anything more complex than basic care had to be referred upward to the appropriate specialist.

The seven areas requiring improvement were:

• 1.

  Regard for self-determination. Health workers often tried to guide clients towards treatment options of which they approved and away from others such as abortion services. Referral was required to access a pregnancy termination and female clients were often denied this choice as the health workers refused to do the referral.

• 2.

  Breaches of confidentiality. Again, these were most obvious in the case of pregnancy, particularly in clients under the age of 18. Girls reported fears that their schools and/or parents were informed without their knowledge or permission. This made younger clients fearful of attending primary care services, with a number accessing traditional healers to access herbal remedies. Whether these were used to treat STDs or provoke a miscarriage, using untested remedies from unqualified practitioners poses an immediate, as well as long-term, danger to girls' sexual and reproductive health.

• 3.

  Making judgements. Young people reported being verbally abused or judged when they attended a clinic to obtain condoms. At least one boy stated that a pregnancy had occurred because of his difficulty in accessing protection.

• 4.

  Deception. Some girls reported asking for emergency contraception or abortion pills and were instead given pills to enhance the health of the growing child, while being under the impression that they had received what they requested. This was prevalent mainly amongst girls experiencing some level of socioeconomic deprivation. They commented that girls from wealthy families could access abortion services at the hospital because their parents could afford to pay.

• 5.

  Safe spaces. Adolescents recognised the need for a safe space in which to discuss their sexual and reproductive health needs and obtain appropriate care. They indicated that this was lacking due to the problems already highlighted. A major problem seemed to be the way care staff talked down to them or even verbally abused them, as one boy described it, the “tongue lashing” he received made him run away and leave his pregnant girlfriend.

• 6.

  Financial protection. Some primary health care centres demanded upfront payment from young clients and refused treatment unless they could demonstrate the ability to pay.

• 7.

  Complaint channels. Young people reported that they had no way of complaining about poor care as there were no identified complaint channels.

Most of these issues are directly related to the lack of interdisciplinary or interprofessional care in the primary care sector. A previous study in the USA identified 33 core competencies recommended for the provision of sexual and reproductive health services (Capiello et al., 2015). These are largely dependent on working within a multi-disciplinary or interprofessional model of care. If adolescents are to receive the reproductive services they need, then there must be access to medical and technical expertise, as well as psychological and counselling services. Interprofessional education and training would help all categories of staff to recognise the limits of their own knowledge and responsibility and to share information. The authors hope that their work can be used to review standards for primary healthcare, highlighting the need for the inclusion of various roles and expertise.

• 2.

  Helping low and middle income countries develop clinical governance structures. This review is based on: Berland (2024) A self-assessment guide for readiness to govern. IJHG 29 (2): 144–148

This viewpoint article was written as a guide to assist hospital governors and managers working towards the development of effective systems of health governance in their areas. The word “guide” is key because each organisation’s needs may differ, as do their points of access on the journey towards a system of health governance that works for them. In the review title, the term “clinical governance” is used rather than the more current “health governance”. This reflects the need to return to the roots of the hospital governance movement to evaluate similarities and differences in organisations just starting on this process and in those where governance structures are well established. As Berland (2024) points out, it is easy to forget the opposition to governance structures and procedures that existed as recently as 40 years ago. In fact, in the UK, the NHS introduced a statutory duty of care as recently as 1998 (Gray, 2005).

In low and middle income countries (LMIC) there are a number of constraints and barriers to the implementation of health care governance. Most common amongst these are a lack of awareness, either about the need for governance or how to implement it, lack of resources and staff shortages. Training activities are only possible when adequate staffing levels allow for replacement staff to cover for those involved in training sessions. Looking back to the original concept of clinical governance, staff training forms a key component in ensuring competency, disseminating best practice standards, facilitating adaptation to new technology and protocols and in promoting effective communication and teamwork (Dune, 2024). However Berland points out that in many LMIC, staff shortages mean that the more highly qualified staff are in such demand that they frequently change jobs when offered increased salaries or enhanced future prospects. This opportunistic staff mobility is disruptive to clinical governance initiatives as it inhibits team building and interprofessional communication.

Berland’s guide to the development of health governance is based on five key components. This first of these is engaged leadership. Senior managers must recognise the need for governance and be committed to setting up the structures necessary to implement this. The next component, organisational support, points to the necessity of having the technology and other resources, including human resources required to carry out quality control, staff training and to replace frontline staff while they are engaged in governance activities. Following this comes the necessity of engaging the staff, in the component labelled participation and consensus. Regardless of how committed senior management may be, and how many resources are available to help implement a governance programme, if the staff are unconvinced of the importance of this, the whole programme can be inadvertently sabotaged. All too often staff identify their own work as excellent and place the blame for suboptimal care on other members of or groups within, the health care team. Staff need to be helped to engage with governance and in doing so move away from a blame culture to one of responsibility which includes an understanding of how culture and systems influence the delivery of health care (Parker and Davies, 2020). This is also relevant to Berland’s fourth component of generating information about quality which leads to considerations about accountability and transparency. Finally, education about quality, the fifth component, stresses the need for education and training about the process of governance and quality management. This should include case studies which provide real examples from practice as a powerful learning tool.

To sum up, Berland reminds readers that the implementation of health governance is not linear. Lessons are learnt, adjustments are made and systems, protocols and procedures may need to be readjusted in light of new knowledge. The entire process should be a reflective journey where individuals and institutions never stop learning but engage in a continual cycle of growth and development, always striving to improve the care they provide to their patients and clients.

Introducing Alex Berland – a brief professional biography

Alex Berland (RN retired, BScN, MSc. Health Planning and Administration) has a varied experience in health care, as a bedside nurse, educator, teaching hospital executive and government advisor leading clinical redesign efforts as well as accreditation and governance activities. As a consultant, Alex has led policy and planning projects on four continents for service providers, First Nations, WHO and World Bank. Since 2004, Alex has worked extensively with educators, NGOs and hospitals in Bangladesh as co-director of the Bangladesh Health Project. www.researchgate.net/profile/Alex-Berland

Below are the questions asked by the IJHG editors and author Alex Berland's responses

IJHG editor: What research methodologies are the most effective in providing the evidence needed to support decision-makers?

Alex: Decision-makers always need information related to their business strategy. At the most basic level, this includes data about current performance and gaps, broad indicators of trends within their organisation and outside in their eco-system, specific analyses to prepare plans for innovations such as expanded or new programs. Such evidence is usually prepared with standard descriptive and quantitative methodologies often applied by researchers working mostly in isolation largely with secondary data. The main challenges are absence of useful data, validation of findings and presentation at an appropriate level of detail to various audiences of decision-makers.

Decision-makers also need support to develop in-depth understanding of more complex issues. “One thing leads to another” with complex problems and systems-thinking approaches can become unwieldy very quickly. Therefore complex issues require more qualitative approaches before quantitative methodologies can be used efficiently. I find it helpful to use systems-thinking tools such as causal loop diagrams and logic models to stimulate discussion through key informant interviews, focus group discussion or broader dialogues. There are always many strategic options, so the bottom-up engagement of a systems-thinking approach helps to identify barriers and facilitators of each potential strategy. Following this, options can be analysed with relevant data for more efficient decision-making.

IJHG editor: How can authors ensure that their writing provides effective critical evaluation of the subject matter?

Alex: Important to note that I am probably an atypical author for a scholarly journal. I am not employed as an academic so receive only personal satisfaction for my professional writing. Therefore, I have the freedom to choose my audience and topics – yes, I am an academic butterfly so maybe more decorative than productive.

To your question, I try to be effective by carefully focussing on the usefulness of my writing to my audience (I write for various publications and purposes, with a special interest in less-resourced countries and less-experienced readers). This means, e.g. reducing unnecessary jargon and complexity of language, careful sequencing and transitioning of ideas, use of “sign-posts” in sub-headings and clarity around recommendations or conclusions.

For me, effectiveness also means providing judgements about the subject. I get frustrated with papers that are loaded with often spurious references to other authors, but say very little that is novel or actionable. There is too much rah-rah and me-too-ism in academic writing especially about governance – OK for grad school papers but serving only as filler in down-market journals. “Critical evaluation” means not only summing up but also answering the question, “So what?”. The answer requires solid basis for judgement of course. It should not require prior consensus, the chloroform of the governance literature.

IJHG editor: What changes (positive or negative) have you seen in research submitted and published in the field of health governance in recent years?

Alex: Again, as a butterfly, I do not have an in-depth response on this. I am an opportunist, typically looking for utilitarian pieces that will serve a particular purpose for clients (Butterfly/shark).

The big positive change is the increased number of submissions to IJHG from less-resourced countries. I assume that can be a proxy for increased activity. Much of that indicates a need for practical guidance around very basic governance concerns such as care provider buy-in, investment in data-collection and analysis and meaningful application of findings.

The big negative is the large amount of low-quality, lower-impact research that is produced solely for the authors’ academic credit and the enrichment of spammy journals.

Another negative is the proliferation of new “models” and jargon. I recognise the academic need for differentiation to gain professional recognition. However, much of this is low-value manipulation of the basic building blocks (e.g. NHS “not-made-here” syndrome). It takes time to figure out and ultimately changes little.

Review editor’s commentary: Alex, thank you for your insight into these matters. I have just been reading a web-based article which is derived from collaboration during an international conference (EA Global Reconnect) where the author and contributors were discussing some of the very issues you talked about (Tilli, 2021). They suggest that with the vast amount of money spent on research today, we might hope that research outcomes would have a greater impact or practical value. Issues that reduce the impact of research are categorised as ones relating to choice of research questions, the quality of the research itself and how results are used. Just as interesting as the initial submission, are the comments and the authors' responses to those comments. Some valuable discussions ensue. As a former clinician and academic, I would agree with your comments about research just being done to gain publication or to advance someone’s career, in effect, research done for the researcher’s benefit and not necessarily to produce outcomes that can be used to improve our lives in any meaningful way. That then begs the question of how we train researchers because there are many steps along the way to being able to design, implement, analyse and publish meaningful studies.

I particularly liked Tilli’s (2021) comments on the need for researchers to use their creativity, take risks and instigate studies which may or may not have publishable outcomes. Otherwise we may end up with researchers repeatedly choosing “safe” topics to ensure publication. That then begs the question of funding. At the time I started my academic career, all university lecturers were encouraged to do research, and as a result, many small studies were undertaken by health professional educators based on problems they had observed in clinical or educational settings. Very few of these minor projects were funded, except in terms of lecturers being able to use some of their allocated hours as “research” time, but many of them produced findings that were useful in terms of changing clinical or educational practice. They also gave novice researchers the opportunity to learn how to present and publish their work. However, by the time I retired, universities were making all research activities dependent on funding which created a two-tier system in higher education of “teachers” and “researchers” which I do not think was helpful to anyone. I was very fortunate to be able to end my career as the lead researcher on a large, well-funded project which my team and I brought in within time and under budget, while meeting all recruitment targets.

These are all interesting topics meriting further discussion and so, Alex, I look forward to seeing more of your submissions to IJHG outlining the very important and practical work you do with clients seeking to improve their knowledge and use of healthcare governance.

• 3.

  Developing a culture of collaboration in preventive care. This review is based on: De Bekker et al.. (2024) Intersectional collaboration and the development of prevention infrastructures: A qualitative study. IJHG 29 (2): 112–126.

This longitudinal study from the Netherlands examined the extent to which collaboration is taking place between different sectors and agencies responsible for preventive care, particularly in the care of the elderly, or with vulnerable or high-risk groups. Such intersectional collaboration is increasingly recognised as essential with chronic disease now the major cause of mortality and morbidity in modern Europe, the causes of which are often due to social determinants as much as personal choice (van Dale et al., 2020).

Preventive care has two goals, firstly to prevent people who are currently healthy from becoming ill, and secondly, to inhibit disease progression in individuals who are already displaying symptoms. For example, an exercise programme could be developed for elderly people to help them to maintain strength and stamina, prevent weight gain and maintain heart health. However individuals with obesity, diabetes or cardiac disease could be enrolled on a modified exercise programme in order to reduce existing symptoms and to prevent deterioration in current health status. Preventing ill health or arresting the progress of existing conditions is cost effective, in terms of health spending, and beneficial in improving quality of life for elderly or vulnerable members of society.

In the Netherlands preventive health care of this type has traditionally been fragmented, with municipalities, central government, insurance companies and professional organisations all holding responsibility for some aspects of or areas of, preventative care. This may lead to interventions being overlooked as another group’s responsibility or replicated unnecessarily, thus wasting resources which could be employed more effectively in other sectors of the preventive healthcare programme. Following the example of several other international collaborative projects, the Netherlands is working towards the implementation of a collaborative, intersectional policy of preventive healthcare. In an example from Germany, the state of North-Rhine Westphalia has made intersectional collaboration a requirement of state law in terms of public health promotion (Brüchert et al., 2021). This has focussed mainly on increasing mobility in the elderly in order to promote health and social interaction.

De Bekker et al.'s (2024) qualitative research tracks the development of similar work in the Netherlands using a model which focusses on capability, opportunity, motivation and behaviour (COM-B model).

The government of the Netherlands is encouraging intersectional collaboration through the provision of preventive coalition grants. De Bekker et al.'s (2024) sample consisted of members of such working partnerships, which they observed over a five year study period, collecting 86 in-depth semi-structured interviews with members of 11 different preventive coalition grant-holding groups. Results provide evidence of the transition to collaborative working in preventive healthcare and describe barriers and facilitators in establishing intersectional collaboration and in maintaining this over time. An ongoing issue is finance, with concerns about whether this type of collaborative working can continue once initial start-up grants have been exhausted.

Introducing Ankie de Bekker, a brief professional biography in her own words

My name is Ankie de Bekker MSc, and I am a healthcare researcher for the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment. A background in nursing and nursing science motivates me to improve healthcare and to investigate where prevention has the most impact, so that everyone can experience more health. My research focusses on policy evaluations, qualitative research and intersectoral collaboration.

Below are the questions asked by the IJHG editors and author Ankie de Bekker's responses

IJHG editor: Data sharing has been strongly recommended for scholarly communication in recent years. Do you think it is crucial for authors to share their research data (And what has been your experience regarding data sharing?)?

Ankie: Data sharing is incredibly important. For example, concerning verification and reproducibility: sharing data allows other researchers to verify results and reproduce experiments, enhancing the reliability of scientific findings. But within qualitative research, we face big challenges. Protecting respondents’ anonymity is our first priority. After all, data can be easily traceable to interview subjects. For example, when conducting a case study in a particular area/region. We try to share as much useful information as possible.

IJHG editor: What are your experiences/ideas on using AI tools in doing research and preparing publications?

Ankie: In our last study, we did not use AI tools. But I am personally very curious whether, for example, the AI tool “Semantic Scholar” is useful during literature searches. It claims to help researchers understand a paper at a glance. Further, for coding transcripts, we used MAXQDA. MAXQDA now also seems to have a “virtual research assistant”. This AI tool can summarise selected passages of text and save them directly as a memo or paraphrase. Currently I am using “Co pilot” from Microsoft Bing for quick questions, also promising stuff! Researchers should try out these various AI tools. Some tools really make our work easier and more fun!

Review editor’s commentary: Ankie, thank you for sharing your insight into the use of AI tools in research and academic writing. This is such a hot topic today and we seem to have moved very rapidly from dismissing AI input as “cheating” or vastly inferior to real human efforts to realising that AI can be a great timesaver and perhaps help to make our research better. As you comment, there are many new tools coming onboard all the time and researchers need to experiment with them; they may, as you say, even make work more fun! I have just been reading an article by Fabiano et al. (2024) who take the view that AI has proved to be invaluable in designing and creating systematic reviews. They state that the use of AI improves efficiency and helps to streamline the work flow. In addition, tools such as ChatGPT or Elicit.org can be used to create better research questions. In fact, there seems to be little in the research process that AI will not be able to do. My question, as a researcher most involved with qualitative enquiry, would be, what about the creative thinking which goes into the research process, from brainstorming ideas at the beginning to analysing data and presenting conclusions? I can see that learning to employ AI tools effectively can be an exciting adventure, but as an academic researcher and author, can I be forgiven for feeling a wee bit redundant when I hear about all the tasks that AI can now complete so effortlessly?

I also take on board your concerns about the protection of respondents' anonymity and the traceability of research subjects. I have just been reading an interesting article on this subject (Pascale et al., 2022) that explores recent threats compromising anonymity of research subjects due to the great proliferation of data sets today, and increasing sophistication of the public in how to use these. I think this is another topic which will need to be examined closely as our use of IT expands. Ethics committees also need to develop a working knowledge of how compromise can occur so they can consider these facts when making recommendations and approving research projects.

In any case, it is representatives of the younger generation of researchers, such as yourself, who will take work in these two areas forward and I look forward to seeing how you handle them in your future submissions to IJHG.

• 4.

  Capitation: A better way to fund healthcare costs? This review is based on: Putri et al. (2024) Theory-practice gap of capitation payment in the Indonesian National Health Service: towards universal health coverage. IJHG 29 (1): 5–20 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJHG-08-2023-0081

Payment for primary health care services most commonly follows the following four models (North West London Clinical Commissioning Group, 2022):

• 1.

  Fee for service. This means that each time a person interacts with their primary healthcare provider, they pay a fee. This could be a payment for a health check-up, a consultation about a specific health concern, or lab fees for blood or other tests conducted in the primary health sector. Fees may be paid by the individual receiving care or they may be paid by a government agency or insurance company. The major disadvantage of this method is that it does not reward preventive care and may encourage unnecessary healthcare consultations as the healthcare provider is paid for each client interaction.

• 2.

  Bundled payments. This refers to a fixed payment for all the care around a healthcare episode. An example might be a person diagnosed with a chronic health condition such as hypertension, diabetes or epilepsy. Another example might be the care of an elderly person on their release from hospital following a fall. Bundled payments encourage accurate diagnoses and the implementation of best practice as all care is covered by the one payment. Therefore, if the elderly person being cared for at home developed bed sores, this could be a failure to provide adequate nursing care during the patient’s period of reduced mobility and no further funding for care would be made available. Costs for additional treatment would have to come from the original “bundle”. Another problem is that bundled payments, in common with fee per service payments, do not incentivise prevention. The episode (an elderly person suffering a fall) has to occur before the bundled care payment is initiated.

• 3.

  Block contracts. This is when a healthcare provider is given a contract to provide a service, or a set of services, within a set time frame. This is thought to be a cost effective method of providing care because providers are encouraged to find the most cost effective way of fulfilling their contractual obligations. Block contracts also allow for preventative care. In the example of the elderly patient who suffered from a fall, avoiding subsequent falls will lower the cost of care and thus incentivises prevention. The problem with this type of funding is that providers may choose to limit the availability of their services if demand increases.

• 4.

  Capitation for the full care needs of a population. This is where all health care requirements are funded on a per-person basis and funding increases are not linked to activity. The benefit of capitation is that it encourages flexible, targeted care that can help keep elderly of vulnerable people in their own home setting. What might be seen as a disadvantage is that, to work most effectively, it requires collaboration between different care sectors, such a social care, occupational therapy and medical and nursing care. However, a more forward-looking view will see this as a challenge and an opportunity to develop new links to maintain population health, whether that be physical, mental or social health.

Putri et al. (2024) report on the use of capitation to provide universal coverage in the Indonesian national health insurance scheme (JKN). The JKN is a publicly administered scheme designed to provide basic medical care to all Indonesian citizens. Capitation is used to pay primary care providers to administer care for 155 conditions. Conditions outside of the recognised number require referral to a specialist service, such as hospital care. Primary health care (PHC) providers receive monthly payments from the Indonesian government based on the number of patients enrolled. Patients may choose private or public PHCs, but once enrolled with one, may be restricted from changing within specified time limits. Capitation, in theory, promotes preventative care and encourages efficiency by restricting specialist referral to specific conditions.

Problems with the implementation of capitation in Indonesia include the fact that the set rates are inadequate to cover all the healthcare needs of the patients enrolled with each PHC provider. This is largely due to the way rates were set arbitrarily by a government official, rather than being based on a careful analysis of the real costs of care. Also, in some settings, particularly in rural areas, PHC providers lack the resources to care for all 155 conditions for which they are responsible.

From their findings, the authors recommend a reform of capitation using appropriate risk assessment and setting fees at market rates to reflect the real costs of the care provided. In addition, capitation rates should be adjusted annually in line with inflation.

Introducing Farah Purwaningrum, a brief professional biography

Farah Purwaningrum is an affiliate with Kalta Bina Insani – a thinktank on health finance and health policy in Indonesia. She was an academic fellow at School of Social Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia in 2021–2022, and research officer and honorary associate at School of Social and Political Sciences – the University of Sydney, Australia in 2018–2020. Farah is a sociologist with an interdisciplinary background in law. She attained her PhD from Rheinische Friedrich Universität Bonn, Germany in December 2012. Farah has a keen interest in research areas of the sociology of health, health policy and sociology of knowledge. Her papers have appeared in international peer-reviewed journals such as International Journal of Health Governance, International Social Science Journal, the International Journal of Health Planning and Management.

IJHG editor: What is the significance of interdisciplinary research in contributing to health governance knowledge and practice (And what has been your experience of participating in interdisciplinary research projects?)?

Farah: Interdisciplinary research is significant in that it contributes to several key aspects in health governance knowledge and practice; one is that interdisciplinary research allows solutions which arise not only from a single academic discipline but from two or more academic disciplines. Such solutions will allow conversations from different disciplines on health governance related issues. Next is its ability to provide recommendations, often practical ones, that stem from different perspectives. Health governance practice will benefit from practical recommendations as they provide a “how to” whilst at the same time there is nuance due to contextual understanding. Problem oriented interdisciplinary research enables one to gauge issues of health governance in a more practical manner, a singular discipline orientation is not the focus in terms of design in this kind of research. Last but not least, still relevant to the former point, contemporary problems can be tackled in a more comprehensive manner. One instance is addressing planetary health related problems through health policy – which calls for an interdisciplinary research. My experience has been fruitful thus far when it comes to interdisciplinary research projects – I realise that one has to keep an open mind regarding theories from other disciplines in working in interdisciplinary research projects.

IJHG editor: How do you choose a professional journal in which to publish your research?

Farah: I reckon my choice of a professional journal will be based on a number of factors; first is the diversity of editorial board members that it has. Second is its impact factor and citation impact rate. Third is its aims and scope – I would most certainly opt for a journal that has aims and scope that match into the focus of the manuscript draft that I have. Fourth is to check whether there is extra cost associated with publishing in the professional journal, namely whether there are article processing charges and how much would these charges be. Fifth is to look at the journal’s indexing services.

Review editor’s commentary: Farah, thank you for sharing your thoughts on interdisciplinary research, and on how to select the right journal for your work. When I worked in the School of Health at the University of Bradford, I was involved in the interprofessional education initiative led by Melissa Owens, now director of nurse education at the University of York, and a board member of Centre for the Advancement of Interprofessional Education (CAIPE). Our team discovered many benefits associated with working outside single professional groups, both for the students studying together and for staff, and these carried over to a few small research projects we were able to do as an interprofessional education team. I therefore welcome the expansion of interprofessional or interdisciplinary research across a number of fields. I note that here in Scotland, the Institute for Academic Development at the University of Edinburgh (Woolen, n.d.) has published an excellent guide to interdisciplinary research aimed particularly at early career researchers. However, in reading through the guide which contains information about the nature of interdisciplinary research, its benefits and challenges and what researchers should be aware of, it would seem just as valuable to researchers at any stage of their careers, when making the leap from traditional discipline-focussed research to working with researchers from other disciplines. Some of the key opportunities identified are the potential for gaining new perspectives, becoming more adaptable and expanding one’s research networks to include colleagues in different fields. The guide states that challenges to be aware of are becoming overwhelmed or feeling isolated, rigid career structures that do not recognise the value of or reward interdisciplinary studies, and maintaining a clear research identity.

In terms of selecting journals in which to publish your work, your points were very valid. I think it is also important to look at the bigger picture and consider how your publications can help to define and shape your academic or research career. Kenneth Hensen (2001) wrote about this, urging researchers to define clear career goals and to view their writing as part of a carefully crafted programme designed to help them achieve those goals. Hensen’s work is probably somewhat out of date now with the proliferation of open access journals which require payment to publish, but his sound advice delivered through writing workshops for academics across America, certainly helped many college and university staff members to achieve significant publications which supported their career goals.

Conclusion

The IJHG is unique in its clear focus on healthcare governance in all that this entails. Starting life as the British Journal of Clinical Governance, the journal has evolved to encompass an international perspective, inviting authors from around the world for contributions and thus attracting an international readership. In this issue we have highlighted some of our recent outstanding authors from our first two issues of 2024. Three of them provided brief professional biographies, together with recent photographs and responses to questions prepared by IJHG editor, Irina Ibraghimova. The response to the interviews was written by the review editor, Fiona MacVane Phipps. We hope that readers have enjoyed the opportunity to get to know some of our authors a little better, and that they, like us, look forward to seeing more of their work in future issues of IJHG.