The increasing number of partnerships between academic institutions in high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in global health research necessitates the development of effective evaluation criteria for assessing their success and equity. While these partnerships offer potential for more efficient and collaborative knowledge generation to address global health disparities, they also face challenges such as unpredictable financing, low levels of trust, and a lack of capacity building. Several frameworks exist to evaluate partnerships, focusing on demonstrating effectiveness, equity, or efficiency gains. However, these often lack methods for ongoing evaluation during project implementation. The STRIPE project, a consortium of eight academic and research institutions across the globe, aimed to map, synthesize, and disseminate lessons learned from polio eradication. This study focuses on a process evaluation conducted during the project's first year, concentrating on knowledge-mapping activities. The goal was to prospectively evaluate the effectiveness and equity of partnerships involved in a large-scale, multi-country research project, identifying what worked well, challenges encountered, and solutions implemented.

Existing literature highlights the importance of equitable partnerships in global health research, emphasizing collaboration guidelines for ethical conduct and capacity building. The CIOMS guidelines, in collaboration with the WHO, underscore the need for collaborative partnerships, capacity strengthening, conflict of interest management, educational opportunities, and data sharing practices. Studies have also examined the characteristics of successful partnerships, identifying commitment from stakeholders, meaningful engagement, and shared resources as crucial elements. Several frameworks have been proposed to evaluate partnerships, including checklists for assessing the governance of research consortia, elements guiding teamwork in multidisciplinary research, and frameworks specifically designed for evaluating participatory research processes. These frameworks generally emphasize the application of social justice principles, understanding of contextual factors (such as political instability and insecurity), and shared vision and goals. However, many guidelines are developed in settings where LMIC researchers have limited influence. This study aims to address these gaps by conducting a process evaluation of a multi-country research consortium in the first year of operation, informing best practices for future initiatives.

The study used Blackstock et al.'s framework for evaluating participatory research, adapting it to evaluate both the consortium's process and partnership during the first year of the STRIPE project. The evaluation's purpose, focus, bounding, and timing were defined to inform the selection of process, context, and outcome criteria. Initial criteria included resource access, accountability, capacity, context, shared vision, relationships, quality, and transparency, with modifications made through the evaluation process. Data collection involved two main stages. First, nine written reflections from JHU team members (out of ten requested) detailing their experiences, challenges, and solutions were gathered. Second, individual calls were conducted with each consortium member team (n=7), focusing on technical aspects and reflections on the past year. Preliminary analysis of these reflections and call notes informed the development of evaluation criteria. A three-day consortium meeting was held, with one representative from each country team participating in a 90-minute process evaluation working group session. The working group reviewed preliminary criteria, added or removed elements, and provided illustrative examples based on their experiences. A shared Google Doc was used to compile and refine the criteria, challenges, and proposed solutions. Twelve criteria emerged for evaluating the STRIPE consortium's research process and partnership.

The analysis identified twelve key criteria influencing the STRIPE project's success. Regarding **access to resources**, delays in contracts and payments, difficulties recruiting qualified staff, and limited access to technology emerged as major challenges. **Expectation setting** issues included a lack of detailed task descriptions and ineffective communication regarding timeline alterations. **Organizational context** factors highlighted competing priorities, staff turnover, and varied institutional capacities to cope with delays. **External context** factors such as outbreaks (Ebola and cVDPV), national elections, and insecurity impacted project timelines and access to certain regions. **Quality of information** issues included an imbalance between data collection across project aspects and the complexity of data collection tools. **Relationship building** challenges involved a lack of trust between stakeholders and weak networks. **Transparency** issues focused on limited early engagement in decision-making regarding project development and data analysis. **Motivation** decreased due to lengthy data collection processes and tools. **Scheduling** challenges stemmed from timeline adjustments due to contextual factors, holidays, and time zone differences. **Adaptation** involved both successful modifications in data collection approaches and challenges related to adapting project timelines. **Communication and engagement** difficulties involved unclear contact points and communication modes, requiring additional one-on-one meetings, clearer role definitions, and an externally facing project website. Finally, **capacity building** challenges highlighted a lack of familiarity with project tools and processes, recommending additional training, student engagement, and increased south-south collaboration.

The findings highlight the importance of comprehensive communication tools, expectation setting, and institutional support for managing multi-country implementation research. The current lack of readily available and easily adaptable project management platforms presents a significant challenge. Effective communication and early expectation alignment are critical for building strong relationships and ensuring project momentum. Careful planning to address institutional human resource needs and diverse coping capacities among partner institutions is vital. Capacity building activities must focus on both individual skills and organizational structures and systems. Funding institutions should allocate sufficient resources for organizational-level capacity building. The study's limitations include potential power dynamics influencing feedback from subcontracted partners and the reliance on shared experiences and tools for data collection. Future evaluations could benefit from employing an independent evaluator and employing individual-level data collection methods.

This collaborative process evaluation emphasizes the necessity of clear communication, early expectation alignment, and capacity building activities that address human and institutional resource needs for successful multi-country research partnerships. The development of improved project management tools tailored to diverse contexts is crucial. Conducting regular process evaluations within multi-year consortia can provide valuable insights for improving collaborations and informing best practices for future global health initiatives.

This process evaluation was conducted among subcontracted partners with involvement from the lead organization (JHU). Power dynamics may have influenced the data and data collection processes. Future evaluations could consider employing an independent third-party evaluator and individual or team-level data collection methods to mitigate these issues. The evaluation also relied on shared experiences and tools, which might have led to the withholding of important information.