scholarly journals NCDs, gender, intersectionality and the World Health Organization

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
C Somerville
Keyword(s):  
Health Policy ◽  
World Health Organization ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Document Analysis ◽  
World Health ◽  
Country Level ◽  
Key Informant ◽  
The World ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
Different Levels

Abstract Claire Somerville, PhD (Gender Centre, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva) will present research that investigates how gender and intersectionality analysis of NCDs is integrated into different levels of health policy and programming and within country level health systems and services by the World Health Organization (WHO). The research is the first of its kind and is based on a WHO document analysis and key informant interviews with key representatives working on issues of gender and NCDs within WHO. The findings of Somerville's investigation reveal how gender and its intersections is understood and mainstreamed at all three organizational levels of the WHO (headquarters (HQ), regions, and country level offices) and what the key impediments are not only in terms of mainstreaming a more relational and intersectional understanding of gender in general, but specifically in relation to NCDs.

Panel 2.9: Repair and Recovery of Health Systems

2005 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 428-431
Author(s):  
Bjorn Melgaard ◽  
Maria Cristina Profili ◽  
Peter Heimann ◽  
Aryono Pusponegoro ◽  
Edward O'Rourke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Needs Assessment ◽  
World Health Organization ◽  
Capacity Building ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Local Communities ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
World Health ◽  
Tsunami Disaster ◽  
The World ◽  
Health Organization

AbstractThis is a summary of the presentations and discussion of Panel 2.9, Repair and Recovery of Health Systemsof the Conference, Health Aspects of the Tsunami Disaster in Asia, convened by the World Health Organization (WHO) in Phuket, Thailand, 04–06 May 2005. The topics discussed included issues related to the repair and recovery of health systems as pertain to the damage created by the Tsunami. It is presented in the following major sections: (1) needs assessment; (2) coordination; (3) filling gaps; (4) capacity building; (5) what was done well, and what should have been done better; (6) lessons learned; and (7) recommendations. Recommendations included: (1) how to make health systems better prepared for coping with disasters; and (2) how to support preparedness in local communities.

Companies, COVID-19 and Respect for Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 252-260
Author(s):  
Salil TRIPATHI
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
World Health Organization ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
World Health ◽  
Severe Strain ◽  
The World ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
Health Experts

The relentless spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)1 has been exponential, with an alarming number of deaths2 putting health systems under severe strain. The World Health Organization (WHO) has declared COVID-19 a pandemic3 and health experts cannot predict when a vaccine may be available, or when the spread will slow.

The World Health Report 2000: World Health Organization Health Policy Steering off Course—Changed Values, Poor Evidence, and Lack of Accountability

2002 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 503-514 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eeva Ollila ◽  
Meri Koivusalo
Keyword(s):  
Health Policy ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Reliable Data ◽  
World Health ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
World Health Report ◽  
Health Report ◽  
The World ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
Health Systems Performance

The World Health Report 2000 on health systems has raised concerns about its political biases, its methods and indicators, and its lack of reliable data. Tracing the origins of the Report, this article argues that it counteracts many of the concerns that gave rise to preparation of the Report in the first place. The mutually agreed-upon value-base, expressed in the Health for All strategy, has been largely abandoned. The Report includes contradictory messages, and many of its recommendations are not evidence-based. Furthermore, the ranking of countries according to their health systems' performance is not useful for health-policy-making, even if the methods and data could be improved. Because the member states and governing bodies of the WHO were not consulted during the production of the Report, the WHO secretariat has not received a mandate to change the value-base of the WHO's health policy or the aims of the Report. The WHO should return to its mandate as a normative intergovernmental U.N. agency on health.

scholarly journals Considerations on methodology used in the World Health Organization 2000 Report

2001 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 705-712 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alicia Domingues Ugá ◽  
Célia Maria de Almeida ◽  
Célia Landmann Szwarcwald ◽  
Cláudia Travassos ◽  
Francisco Viacava ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
World Health Organization ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
World Health ◽  
Social Disparities ◽  
Scientific Evaluation ◽  
The World ◽  
Methodological Procedures ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact

The article analyzes the World Health Organization Report for 2000, with emphasis placed on the methodology used to analyze the indicators utilized to compare and classify the performance of the health systems of the 191 member countries. The Report's contribution was the compromise of monitoring the performance of the health systems of member countries, but because of the inconsistent way it was elaborated, and the utilization of questionable scientific evaluation methodologies, the Report fails to give a clear picture. A criterion-based methodology revision is imposed. The main problems in evidence are the choice of individual indicators of disparity in health that discount the population profile, the inadequate control of the impact of social disparities over the performance of the systems, the evaluation of the responsibility of systems that are only partially articulated to the right of the citizens, the lack of data for a great number of countries, consequently having inconsistent estimations, and the lack of transparency in the methodological procedures in the calculation of some indicators. The article suggests a wide methodological revision of the Report.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document