What constitutes fair shared decision-making in global health research collaborations?

Funders (located primarily in high-income countries) and high-income country researchers have historically dominated decision-making within global health research collaborations: from setting agendas and research design to determining how data are collected and analysed and what happens with findings and outputs. The ethical principle of shared decision-making has been proposed as a way to help address these imbalances within collaborations and to reduce semicolonial and exploitative forms of global health research. It is important to be clear about what shared decision-making means in order to ensure that it is not done in a tokenistic, shallow way. Thus far, the principle's content has not been examined and articulated in detail. This paper aims to start the process of delineating a concept of fair shared decision-making as a minimum standard for global health research. Using two hypothetical case examples, the paper will demonstrate that global health research practice is often inconsistent with ideal shared decision-making. In such instances, it can be difficult to decide whether shared decision-making within collaborations is fair. The paper describes how the two cases do not meet criteria for unfair or non-ideal shared decision-making, despite having potentially morally troubling features. The nuances of these examples of research practice help to generate clearer ideas about how to judge fairness in shared decision-making. The paper concludes by presenting ideas about when soft power can be fairly employed between high-income-country and low- and middle-income-country partners and what fair compromise agreements may look like in shared decision-making.