Table 5 Characteristics, strengths and challenges of different partnership models

Model 1: Northern experts – Local Southern partners (North–South)

Northern experts work directly with local health practitioners in resource-constraint settings

Potential for knowledge from the North to be made directly available to practitioners on the frontlines;

Practical contextual understanding of the Southern reality may be limited and sustainability uncertain

Model 2: Northern experts working with strong lead institution based in the South that has a mandate to work to build capacity in its jurisdiction (North–South)

Northern experts work directly with counterparts at the national level or in lead Southern institutions, who, in turn, work with local health practitioners in local resource-constraint settings

Sustainability enhanced with leadership reinforced in South jurisdiction; capacities for technology transfer enhanced

Mutuality limited by unclear grounding in practical realities of Northern partner; with limited ability for mutuality at practitioner level; limits to bi-directional learning

Model 3: North–South-South Community of practice

Practitioners and researchers from the North and South work together with local practitioners

Ability to develop, share and analyse implementation at different scales; enhanced bi-directional (or actually tri-directional) learning

Complexities in sustaining tripartite relationship.