What do we mean by critical and ethical global engagement? Questions from a research partnership between universities in Canada and Rwanda.

Language - the words we use - can play a key role in enabling or limiting transformation of inequalities in the field of global health. At the same time, given the interdisciplinary, intersectoral, and international nature of much global health work, intended meanings, commitments, and underlying values for words used cannot be taken for granted. This commentary sets out to clarify, and in this manner render available for further discussion and debate, the phrase 'critical and ethical global engagement' (CEGE). It derives from discussions between scholars and partners in research, education, and healthcare practice based at one Canadian and two Rwanda institutions. Initially, our aim was to conceptualise the term 'critical and ethical global engagement' in order to guide our own practices. As the complexity of the values, commitments, and considerations underlying our use of this phrase emerged, however, we realised these discussions merited being captured and shared, to facilitate further exploration and exchange on this phrase.

Cultural Considerations in Palliative Care Provision: A Scoping Review of Canadian Literature.

Background: Palliative care, a division of health care that provides treatment to patients facing terminal or incurable illness, prioritizes maintaining quality of life for the patients it serves. Factors that influence quality of life are highly individualized, encompassing social, economic, or cultural determinants of health. In particular, cultural determinants remain an understudied element of palliative care. Objectives: The purpose of this article is to identify key concepts and issues arising from offering culturally relevant palliative care by reviewing how the concept of culture has been discussed in Canadian palliative care literature. Design: A scoping review of medical databases was conducted to identify recent Canadian literature connecting culture and palliative care provision. This review yielded 21 relevant results from the past 10 years. Results: Ideas frequently mentioned in Canadian palliative care literature include cultural competency in health care providers, cultural sensitivity of treatment options, and cultural accessibility of available services. Issues that arose from the literature included differing ideas of the meanings of life and death, visibility of cultural minority groups, spiritual care needs, desire to involve friends and family in care, and misunderstandings of language and communication styles. Conclusion: The results of this review provide a starting point from which health care providers can begin lending attention to cultural determinants of health, thus improving palliative care services for diverse populations.

Informing 'good' global health research partnerships: A scoping review of guiding principles.

Background: Several sets of principles have been proposed to guide global health research partnerships and mitigate inequities inadvertently caused by them. The existence of multiple sets of principles poses a challenge for those seeking to critically engage with and develop their practice. Which of these is best to use, and why? To what extent, if any, is there agreement across proposed principles?Objective: The objectives of this review were to: (1) identify and consolidate existing documents and principles to guide global health research partnerships; (2) identify areas of overlapping consensus, if any, regarding which principles are fundamental in these partnerships; (3) identify any lack of consensus in the literature on core principles to support these partnerships.Methods: A scoping review was conducted to gather documents outlining 'principles' of good global health research partnerships. A broad search of academic databases to gather peerreviewed literature was conducted, complemented by a hand-search of key global health funding institutions for grey literature guidelines.Results: Our search yielded nine sets of principles designed to guide and support global health research partnerships. No single principle recurred across all documents reviewed. Most frequently cited were concerns with mutual benefits between partners (n = 6) and equity (n = 4). Despite a lack of consistency in the inclusion and definition of principles, all sources highlighted principles that identified attention to fairness, equity, or justice as an integral part of good global health research partnerships.Conclusions: Lack of consensus regarding how principles are defined suggests a need for further discussion on what global health researchers mean by 'core' principles. Research partnerships should seek to interpret the practical meanings and requirements of these principles through international consultation. Finally, a need exists for tools to assist with implementation of these principles to ensure their application in research practice.