|
article-title
|
COVID‐19 pandemic and an early career mental health researcher from a low and middle income country: Is there any light at the end of the tunnel?
|
|
alt-title
|
Ghosh
|
|
body
|
The Science magazine recently reported an epidemic of publications on COVID‐19, with nearly 23 000 papers published in the last few months (Brainard, 2020). However, this spate of publications should not be construed as a honeymoon period for medical research. An editorial in the Nature Medicine elucidated the challenges for continuing research and sustaining a research career during these difficult times (Ghebreyesus, 2020). I, being an early career mental health researcher from a developing country, would like to ponder on the ramifications of the pandemic on medical research in general and mental health research in particular.
1 UNDERSTANDING THE CONTEXT
The Secretary‐General of the Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development (OECD), Angel Gurría, writes “pandemic brings with it the third and greatest economic, financial and social shock of the 21st Century, after 9/11 and the Global Financial Crisis of 2008 (Gurría, 2020).” The United Nation's Development Program (UNDP) predicts a disproportionate impact of the economic crisis in the low and middle income countries with little access to social protection. Not surprisingly, the national governments of these affected countries first would try to ensure basic food security and nutrition. With the existing poor infrastructure and limited healthcare capacity, the available health budget is likely to be siphoned for upgrading clinical care and research in COVID‐19 (Walker et al., 2020). Non‐COVID‐19 healthcare and research is starting to be hit hard. Besides, there is evidence to suggest governments take austerity measures (reducing public expenditure) to deal with financial crises and, under such circumstances, healthcare and healthcare research are one of the worst affected areas (Simou & Koutsogeorgou, 2014). Among the healthcare areas, mental healthcare and research get a very low priority. According to the WHO Mental Health Atlas (2018), the national governments of the African, South‐East Asia and Manuscript File Western Pacific regions estimated to spend US$0.1‐1.1 per capita in mental health: this was 0.3% of the total development assistance for health. COVID‐19 related economic crisis and health budget cut could tighten the purse string further for mental health.
2 VULNERABILITIES OF AN EARLY CAREER RESEARCHER
Researchers, earlier in their career, encounter challenges ranging from lack of meaningful mentorship to a pressure to publish (Richards et al., 2019). However, limited funding opportunity has been a more specific problem, experienced by a large majority of early career researchers (ECRs) from low and middle‐income countries, where senior scholars have preferential access to the available funds (Salihu Shinkafi, 2020). The access to private funding, too, is restricted to non‐existent and the cut‐throat competition for international funding does not inspire confidence either. During and after the pandemic, the situation is likely to worsen. But funding is not the only concern. Wet labs have been largely closed for indefinite periods and clinical research has been plagued with concerns of undue exposure to participants and researchers. The scenario could be worse for countries with limited access to personal protective equipment. The effects on the ECR and those aspiring to pursue a research career would be detrimental. So, is there something, which could be done to prevent such an undesirable outcome?
3 THE WAY FORWARD
I would like to suggest a multi‐pronged approach. Firstly, we need a strong advocacy for mental health. Advocacy could be more effective if the researchers joined in the efforts by their universities or relevant national and international societies. The global economic crisis of 2008 revealed a significant effect of financial crisis on mental health across countries (Gunnell et al., 1998). Besides, the association between mental health and COVID‐19 has also been established with reasonable degree of certainty (Galea, Merchant, & Lurie, 2020). Advocacy measures, anchored on evidence and experience, at the local, regional, and at the global level must be undertaken to encourage the domestic governments to invest in mental health. The national governments could also dedicate seed funds for pilot studies for ECRs, with mental health as one of the priority research areas. Secondly, the ECRs with common research interests and facing similar challenges could collaborate and develop interest groups or consortiums. The pandemic has unfolded an unlimited opportunity of virtual interactions and consequent opportunities for collaboration. The international and national societies dedicated to mental health could provide the platform and play a significant role in helping ECRs to bring together by early career networks. The WPA and World Association for Social Psychiatry already have networks of young psychiatrists. We need more such networks of early career professionals in other sub‐specialties of psychiatry and across regions. The Pacific Rim College of Psychiatrists (PRCP) could encourage greater professional collaboration among ECRs. Finally, the senior and more experienced researchers might initiate a mentor‐mentee program across medical disciplines beyond their national or continental borders. Again, the international societies and organizations could come forward for the mentorship program. The senior researchers could ensure direct collaboration with the ECRs to foster the next generation of researchers. This will be especially useful for ECR from LMIC, with a limited scope of worthwhile mentorship. The feasibility and success of such endeavors were empirically validated (Merritt, Jack, Mangezi, Chibanda, & Abas, 2019).
A proactive, concerted, and empathic attitude of the national governments and senior researchers might actually be able to address some of the challenges encountered or likely to be encountered by the ECR from LMIC. The COVID‐19 situation will subside eventually, but a collaborative partnership forged during these times would benefit the researchers in times to come.
|
|
p
|
The Science magazine recently reported an epidemic of publications on COVID‐19, with nearly 23 000 papers published in the last few months (Brainard, 2020). However, this spate of publications should not be construed as a honeymoon period for medical research. An editorial in the Nature Medicine elucidated the challenges for continuing research and sustaining a research career during these difficult times (Ghebreyesus, 2020). I, being an early career mental health researcher from a developing country, would like to ponder on the ramifications of the pandemic on medical research in general and mental health research in particular.
|
|
sec
|
1 UNDERSTANDING THE CONTEXT
The Secretary‐General of the Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development (OECD), Angel Gurría, writes “pandemic brings with it the third and greatest economic, financial and social shock of the 21st Century, after 9/11 and the Global Financial Crisis of 2008 (Gurría, 2020).” The United Nation's Development Program (UNDP) predicts a disproportionate impact of the economic crisis in the low and middle income countries with little access to social protection. Not surprisingly, the national governments of these affected countries first would try to ensure basic food security and nutrition. With the existing poor infrastructure and limited healthcare capacity, the available health budget is likely to be siphoned for upgrading clinical care and research in COVID‐19 (Walker et al., 2020). Non‐COVID‐19 healthcare and research is starting to be hit hard. Besides, there is evidence to suggest governments take austerity measures (reducing public expenditure) to deal with financial crises and, under such circumstances, healthcare and healthcare research are one of the worst affected areas (Simou & Koutsogeorgou, 2014). Among the healthcare areas, mental healthcare and research get a very low priority. According to the WHO Mental Health Atlas (2018), the national governments of the African, South‐East Asia and Manuscript File Western Pacific regions estimated to spend US$0.1‐1.1 per capita in mental health: this was 0.3% of the total development assistance for health. COVID‐19 related economic crisis and health budget cut could tighten the purse string further for mental health.
|
|
label
|
1
|
|
title
|
UNDERSTANDING THE CONTEXT
|
|
p
|
The Secretary‐General of the Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development (OECD), Angel Gurría, writes “pandemic brings with it the third and greatest economic, financial and social shock of the 21st Century, after 9/11 and the Global Financial Crisis of 2008 (Gurría, 2020).” The United Nation's Development Program (UNDP) predicts a disproportionate impact of the economic crisis in the low and middle income countries with little access to social protection. Not surprisingly, the national governments of these affected countries first would try to ensure basic food security and nutrition. With the existing poor infrastructure and limited healthcare capacity, the available health budget is likely to be siphoned for upgrading clinical care and research in COVID‐19 (Walker et al., 2020). Non‐COVID‐19 healthcare and research is starting to be hit hard. Besides, there is evidence to suggest governments take austerity measures (reducing public expenditure) to deal with financial crises and, under such circumstances, healthcare and healthcare research are one of the worst affected areas (Simou & Koutsogeorgou, 2014). Among the healthcare areas, mental healthcare and research get a very low priority. According to the WHO Mental Health Atlas (2018), the national governments of the African, South‐East Asia and Manuscript File Western Pacific regions estimated to spend US$0.1‐1.1 per capita in mental health: this was 0.3% of the total development assistance for health. COVID‐19 related economic crisis and health budget cut could tighten the purse string further for mental health.
|
|
sec
|
2 VULNERABILITIES OF AN EARLY CAREER RESEARCHER
Researchers, earlier in their career, encounter challenges ranging from lack of meaningful mentorship to a pressure to publish (Richards et al., 2019). However, limited funding opportunity has been a more specific problem, experienced by a large majority of early career researchers (ECRs) from low and middle‐income countries, where senior scholars have preferential access to the available funds (Salihu Shinkafi, 2020). The access to private funding, too, is restricted to non‐existent and the cut‐throat competition for international funding does not inspire confidence either. During and after the pandemic, the situation is likely to worsen. But funding is not the only concern. Wet labs have been largely closed for indefinite periods and clinical research has been plagued with concerns of undue exposure to participants and researchers. The scenario could be worse for countries with limited access to personal protective equipment. The effects on the ECR and those aspiring to pursue a research career would be detrimental. So, is there something, which could be done to prevent such an undesirable outcome?
|
|
label
|
2
|
|
title
|
VULNERABILITIES OF AN EARLY CAREER RESEARCHER
|
|
p
|
Researchers, earlier in their career, encounter challenges ranging from lack of meaningful mentorship to a pressure to publish (Richards et al., 2019). However, limited funding opportunity has been a more specific problem, experienced by a large majority of early career researchers (ECRs) from low and middle‐income countries, where senior scholars have preferential access to the available funds (Salihu Shinkafi, 2020). The access to private funding, too, is restricted to non‐existent and the cut‐throat competition for international funding does not inspire confidence either. During and after the pandemic, the situation is likely to worsen. But funding is not the only concern. Wet labs have been largely closed for indefinite periods and clinical research has been plagued with concerns of undue exposure to participants and researchers. The scenario could be worse for countries with limited access to personal protective equipment. The effects on the ECR and those aspiring to pursue a research career would be detrimental. So, is there something, which could be done to prevent such an undesirable outcome?
|
|
sec
|
3 THE WAY FORWARD
I would like to suggest a multi‐pronged approach. Firstly, we need a strong advocacy for mental health. Advocacy could be more effective if the researchers joined in the efforts by their universities or relevant national and international societies. The global economic crisis of 2008 revealed a significant effect of financial crisis on mental health across countries (Gunnell et al., 1998). Besides, the association between mental health and COVID‐19 has also been established with reasonable degree of certainty (Galea, Merchant, & Lurie, 2020). Advocacy measures, anchored on evidence and experience, at the local, regional, and at the global level must be undertaken to encourage the domestic governments to invest in mental health. The national governments could also dedicate seed funds for pilot studies for ECRs, with mental health as one of the priority research areas. Secondly, the ECRs with common research interests and facing similar challenges could collaborate and develop interest groups or consortiums. The pandemic has unfolded an unlimited opportunity of virtual interactions and consequent opportunities for collaboration. The international and national societies dedicated to mental health could provide the platform and play a significant role in helping ECRs to bring together by early career networks. The WPA and World Association for Social Psychiatry already have networks of young psychiatrists. We need more such networks of early career professionals in other sub‐specialties of psychiatry and across regions. The Pacific Rim College of Psychiatrists (PRCP) could encourage greater professional collaboration among ECRs. Finally, the senior and more experienced researchers might initiate a mentor‐mentee program across medical disciplines beyond their national or continental borders. Again, the international societies and organizations could come forward for the mentorship program. The senior researchers could ensure direct collaboration with the ECRs to foster the next generation of researchers. This will be especially useful for ECR from LMIC, with a limited scope of worthwhile mentorship. The feasibility and success of such endeavors were empirically validated (Merritt, Jack, Mangezi, Chibanda, & Abas, 2019).
A proactive, concerted, and empathic attitude of the national governments and senior researchers might actually be able to address some of the challenges encountered or likely to be encountered by the ECR from LMIC. The COVID‐19 situation will subside eventually, but a collaborative partnership forged during these times would benefit the researchers in times to come.
|
|
label
|
3
|
|
title
|
THE WAY FORWARD
|
|
p
|
I would like to suggest a multi‐pronged approach. Firstly, we need a strong advocacy for mental health. Advocacy could be more effective if the researchers joined in the efforts by their universities or relevant national and international societies. The global economic crisis of 2008 revealed a significant effect of financial crisis on mental health across countries (Gunnell et al., 1998). Besides, the association between mental health and COVID‐19 has also been established with reasonable degree of certainty (Galea, Merchant, & Lurie, 2020). Advocacy measures, anchored on evidence and experience, at the local, regional, and at the global level must be undertaken to encourage the domestic governments to invest in mental health. The national governments could also dedicate seed funds for pilot studies for ECRs, with mental health as one of the priority research areas. Secondly, the ECRs with common research interests and facing similar challenges could collaborate and develop interest groups or consortiums. The pandemic has unfolded an unlimited opportunity of virtual interactions and consequent opportunities for collaboration. The international and national societies dedicated to mental health could provide the platform and play a significant role in helping ECRs to bring together by early career networks. The WPA and World Association for Social Psychiatry already have networks of young psychiatrists. We need more such networks of early career professionals in other sub‐specialties of psychiatry and across regions. The Pacific Rim College of Psychiatrists (PRCP) could encourage greater professional collaboration among ECRs. Finally, the senior and more experienced researchers might initiate a mentor‐mentee program across medical disciplines beyond their national or continental borders. Again, the international societies and organizations could come forward for the mentorship program. The senior researchers could ensure direct collaboration with the ECRs to foster the next generation of researchers. This will be especially useful for ECR from LMIC, with a limited scope of worthwhile mentorship. The feasibility and success of such endeavors were empirically validated (Merritt, Jack, Mangezi, Chibanda, & Abas, 2019).
|
|
p
|
A proactive, concerted, and empathic attitude of the national governments and senior researchers might actually be able to address some of the challenges encountered or likely to be encountered by the ECR from LMIC. The COVID‐19 situation will subside eventually, but a collaborative partnership forged during these times would benefit the researchers in times to come.
|
