Characterising COVID-19 empirical research production in Latin America and the Caribbean: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has struck Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) particularly hard, having substantial health, social and economic consequences for the population living in this Region. By mid-July 2021, over 1,300,000 COVID-19 deaths have been reported in the region(1), along with an estimated reduction of 7.4% in gross domestic product (GDP), only in 2020(2). The pandemic seems more difficult to bring under control comparing with other parts of the world, considering that the LAC region has particularly high levels of inequality and labour informality, with comparatively weaker social protection schemes, along with health systems feebly prepared to boost test, track and trace programmes and to face high demand surges for specialised intensive care(3).

At the global level, one of the crucial areas in the international community’s response to COVID-19 relates to accelerating research, innovation and knowledge translation and sharing(4). On 11 and 12 February 2020, the Global Research Forum, hosted by WHO, developed an initial COVID-19 Global Research Roadmap with two main aims: “1. to facilitate that those affected are promptly diagnosed and receive optimal care; while integrating innovation fully within each research area; and 2. to support research priorities that will lead to the development of sustainable global research platforms that are prepared for the next disease X epidemic”(5). Back then, this Forum identified groups actively researching on COVID19 in Africa, Australia, Europe and North America, but no mention was made of LAC.

Despite these global efforts to encourage research collaboration across countries and regions, it is not known if the research that has been conducted in LAC in response to the COVID-19 crisis accounts for the impact that the pandemic is having in the region. A literature review conducted in April 2020 found that only 2.7% of the total publications related to COVID-19 had at least one author with a Latin American-based affiliation(6), showing some insights of the relatively low development of research in LAC at that time. This was corroborated with subsequent bibliometric studies showing the same low participation of LAC(7) (8). A more recent report of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development(9) analysed 74 115 COVID-19 documents in PubMed during the period 1 January to 30 November 2020, finding that in terms of author’s affiliation the United States represented 23% and the European Union 22% of all documents, followed by China, the United Kingdom and India. The top collaboration partnerships also occurred between these countries, signaling that the LAC region has not significantly participated in COVID-19 research production.

Additionally, understanding the development of research during the COVID-19 pandemic becomes especially relevant and necessary as we have seen a “coviditisation” of research(10). This has brought challenges related to redundancy and research waste, leaving other relevant fields unattended, or with a diminished research quality. For instance, a paper evaluating the characteristics and expected strength of evidence of COVID-19 studies registered on ClinicalTrials.gov found that only 29.1% have the potential to result in OCEBM level 2 evidence (good-quality evidence) and that of the randomised clinical trials protocols, only 29.3% are placebo-controlled, blinded studies(11). More recently, we learned that researchers registered more than 2,900 clinical trials related to COVID-19, but the majority were too small or poorly designed, and in some cases there have been an excess of trials for molecules of questionable therapeutic benefit (e.g. hydroxychloroquine)(12). In addition, research funding has also been questioned in terms of the distribution and sources for achieving a fair and sustainable research and development environment(13). In LAC, a study searching for COVID-19 trials on treatment and prevention in the region identified “a trend towards small repetitive non-rigorous studies that duplicate efforts and drain limited resources without producing meaningful conclusions on the safety and efficacy of the interventions being tested”(14). However, apart from this study it is unknown what are the trends of empirical research in LAC during the COVID-19 pandemic, in a context where institutional development for health research has progressed in the region but has been reported as generally uncoordinated and disaggregated, and uneven between countries(15).

Considering the large impact that COVID-19 has had in LAC and the relevance of research for the COVID-19 response, there is a need to better understand how research production has unfolded in the region to inform contextually relevant decision making. The aim of this article is to map and characterise the existing empirical research related to COVID-19 in LAC countries during the pandemic and contribute to identify opportunities for strengthening research for the future.

METHODS

This is a scoping review of the existing empirical research produced in LAC countries related to COVID-19 pandemic.

RESULTS

Search results

14,406 records were found. After removing duplicates, 5,458 titles and abstracts were screened, of which 2,323 full texts were revised to finally include 1,626 empirical studies. See Figure 1 for the flow diagram of the review. A full list of included and excluded studies, along with the reasons for exclusion, is provided in the S1 Supporting information 3.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1. Flow diagram for the scoping review of empirical research related to COVID-19 in LAC countries

Timing and status of the publication

Among the 1,626 publications included in this analysis, the month on which it was available to the public is shown in Figure 2. The number of publications had a sharp increase from the start of the pandemic, starting mainly in March and reaching the peak in July. The level kept relatively constant over 200 publications per month between May and September. 5 of the articles did not report the month in which it was available, while 1 of them was retracted from the journal. Most articles were published in scientific journals (886; 55%), followed by pre-print versions (444; 27%) and registries (287; 18%).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2. Number of empirical studies published per month from February to 11 November 2020.

DISCUSSION

Research production in LAC during the first part of the COVID-19 pandemic surpassed 1600 empirical studies. This number is difficult to compare with other regions as there are not many studies exploring this issue. To our knowledge, only the bibliometric analysis for Africa conducted by Guleid et al. 2021(17) included “research involving the collection and analysis of primary data” that would be similar to our definition of “empirical research”. In this case, they found 606 studies between December 2019 and December 2020, which would be close to a third of what the present review found for LAC.

Empirical COVID-19 studies were found in all LAC countries, but were mainly concentrated in six countries that accounted for almost three quarters of all the included papers (Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Chile and Argentina), while Uruguay, Panama, Trinidad and Tobago, Chile and Costa Rica had the highest rate of publications per population, with Haiti and Venezuela having the lowest. This coincides with other studies finding a similar list of countries at the top and bottom of research production among LAC countries, for instance during the COVID-19 pandemic with oncology clinical trials (18) and before the pandemic with pharmacological RCTs (19) and clinical trials (20). The latter also found that over 80% of trials were concentrated in three countries (Brazil, Mexico and Argentina), while the present review found a larger participation of other LAC countries as well, showing that the pandemic probably has pushed for a more country widespread research generation.

Much of the research production was conducted using observational and simulation methods, with more than half of the publications classified as epidemiological studies, which correlates with the fact that two thirds of papers studied issues related to exposure, prevalence or incidence of COVID-19. Remarkably, 198 studies for candidate therapeutics and only 11 studies exploring candidate vaccines were found, signaling a relatively low participation of LAC population in this type of research. This is more worrying due to the fact that RCTs protocols for such studies have also been found to be of low quality and potential waste of research resources (14). This finding might have implications for understanding the actual effects of different health technologies on the region’s population, as most of the COVID-19 scientific knowledge would need to be imported from elsewhere. A similar situation was described in Africa, where a bibliometric analysis found that only 13 studies (1% of the total studies found) were about therapeutics and vaccines for COVID-19(17).

Health systems research and social sciences in response to the COVID-19 pandemic had a relatively low presence, which limits the understanding of national and local realities in LAC health systems and societies, hindering decision making. On a related note, the WHO Coordinated Global Research Roadmap classification of COVID-19 research did not include an explicit category for health systems research and did not explicitly include other important issues such as mental health, which was included separately in our classification.

Regarding funding sources, close to half of studies (47.5%) did not report their funding provenance. This is higher than what has been reported in previous research, for instance related to health policy and systems research(21) and clinical trials(22) where 31% and 11% of studies, respectively, did not include funding statements. Among the studies that reported funding source, government and public sector sources were the most prevalent, while private sector sources were the least reported. This is also different from the Africa region where most of funding for COVID-19 research comes from international and foreign entities(17). In LAC, these findings could highlight opportunities to collaborate and create synergies between public and academic funding sources, where national health research agendas could help to align priorities and efforts(23). During the COVID-19 pandemic, some LAC countries developed programmes aiming to adapt their research production in the short term. Some examples can be found in Chile with the National Agency of Research and Development that created a special fund of USD 300,000 where researchers applied to receive grants for relevant COVID-19 research(24); the Brazilian Ministries of Science and Technology and Health also launched public calls for COVID-19 research in 2020, totaling USD 42 million(25); and in Argentina the National Agency for Research, Development and Innovation financed COVID-19 research projects for a total of USD 2,5 million(26). Despite COVID-19 being a global and regional challenge, these government initiatives could have an explicit international coordination focus, which could boost synergies and expand the impact of future research in LAC.

LAC countries can use the findings of this review to understand their research production in times of a global public health emergency, which can help to identify areas of relative high research volume (e.g. epidemiologic and simulation studies) and potentially research gaps (e.g. vaccines and therapeutics) to improve collaboration between countries in the region and externally; for instance, to expand networks, to look for and pool funds, to improve surveillance systems, and to boost the production and quality of data and studies(27). There is also a need to build capacity to have more flexible research production in order to act fast in responding to public health emergencies such as pandemics, which can be readily translated to decision making at different levels of health and social systems(28). This seems especially relevant to research linked to existing or developing data systems. Strengthening the data infrastructure has been identified by international organizations such as OECD and WHO/PAHO as essential for managing health systems affected by a pandemic. Having a strong R&D infrastructure analysing these data may help to improve the overall quality of data and hence health system performance management. The need for LAC to become more self-sufficient in the production of vaccines, tests, personal protective equipment, and genome sequencing has been recognised(29), and this can be broadened to health system performance management and research capacities, which will be key to make this happen(30).

Strengths and limitations of the review

This review has several strengths. Firstly, to our knowledge, this is the first study systematically mapping and characterising all empirical research produced in response to COVID-19 in LAC. Secondly, while most of the studies exploring COVID-19 research production have had a broad bibliometric focus (e.g. counting the total number of publications, not differentiating by their empirical nature), this review only includes empirical studies using at least some basic scientific method that have a higher likelihood of contributing with novel information to literature and decision making. Thirdly, most of the studies exploring countries’ involvement in COVID-19 research have looked for author’s affiliation, as opposed to the actual participation of country’s people or population, which is the main focus of this review. Finally, while evidence syntheses often consider certain type of study designs in their inclusion criteria, this review gathers all relevant empirical research, including all type of study designs and methods (e.g., modelling studies, basic science, etc.).

Among the limitations of this review, we could only report the month of the studies at the time the searches were conducted, which might have missed some studies that became publicly available later but with earlier dates of publication. Another limitation relates to the possibility that some studies might have not explicitly described the scientific methods used to collect and analyze the primary data, so even if they were empirical, we might have excluded them because of the review criteria. In addition, the UNESCO researcher rate was not available for all the countries, which limited the possibility of including the whole region in the publication rate per researchers (Figure 3). Also, although the review did not search directly in trials registries, the databases that were searched actively search all trial registries, such as the LOVE platform and CENTRAL. To make the search even broader, the included studies of Carracedo et al. 2021(14), which searched thoroughly in such registries, were reviewed and included when relevant. Finally, included studies were not critically appraised in this review, and therefore the quality of research cannot be assessed.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3. Empirical studies related to COVID-19 in each LAC countrys. 3a. Total number of publications per country / 3b. Rate of number of publications per 1,000,000 population, excluding countries with less than 1,000,000 population

Note: Figures underlying data can be found in https://public.tableau.com/views/LACCOVIDresearch-scopingreview/publicationspercountry?:language=en-US&publish=yes&:display_count=n&:origin=viz_share_link

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4. Number of publications per thematic areas of empirical research related to COVID-19 in LAC countries, using the WHO COVID-19 research roadmap.

CONCLUSION

During the first part of the COVID-19 pandemic, LAC countries have contributed to the global research effort primarily with epidemiological studies, with little participation on vaccines, meaning that this type of knowledge would be imported from elsewhere. All LAC countries produced COVID-19 empirical research. Research agendas could be further coordinated between different actors within and among LAC countries aiming to enhance shared self-sufficiency to respond to the knowledge needs in the region, especially considering that most of the declared research funding came from public and academic sources.

AUTHORS CONTRIBUTIONS

CM and CAH contributed equally to this paper. CAH and CM conceived the idea and the protocol. CM, CAH, LB, AY, ASL, LECL, EB, TV, MV and GDP participated in the screening and extraction. CM performed data analysis with inputs from CAH. CAH led the article writing, with inputs from CM and LR. All authors read and approved the final version.

COMPETING INTERESTS

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Authors hold sole responsibility for the views expressed in the manuscript, which may not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of the Pan American Health Organization nor the World Bank Group.

FUNDING INFORMATION

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.