scholarly journals Inequalities in COVID-19 inequalities research: who had the capacity to respond?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joan Benach ◽  
Alvaro Padilla ◽  
Lucinda Cash-Gibson ◽  
Diego F. Rojas-Gualdrón ◽  
Juan Fernández-Gracia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
Health Inequalities ◽  
Research Field ◽  
Scientific Production ◽  
Common Cause ◽  
Income Groups ◽  
World Regions ◽  
A Priority

AbstractThe COVID-19 pandemic has been testing countries’ capacities and scientific preparedness to actively respond, and collaborate on a common cause. It has also heightened awareness of the urgent need to empirically describe and analyse health inequalities, to be able to act effectively. What is known about the rapidly emerging COVID-19 inequalities research field? We analysed the volume of COVID-19 inequalities scientific production (2020-2021), its distribution by country income groups and world regions, and inter-country collaborations, to provide a first snapshot. COVID-19 inequalities research has been highly collaborative, however inequalities exist within this field, and new dynamics have emerged in comparison to the global health inequalities research field. To ensure preparedness for future crises, investment in health inequalities research capacities must be a priority for all.

The Politics of Global Health Inequalities

2019 ◽  
pp. 58-84
Author(s):  
Yusra Ribhi Shawar ◽  
Jennifer Prah Ruger
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Critical Theory ◽  
Global Health ◽  
Health Inequalities ◽  
Health Inequality ◽  
The Political ◽  
State Of Health ◽  
Political Determinants ◽  
The Social

Careful investigations of the political determinants of health that include the role of power in health inequalities—systematic differences in health achievements among different population groups—are increasing but remain inadequate. Historically, much of the research examining health inequalities has been influenced by biomedical perspectives and focused, as such, on ‘downstream’ factors. More recently, there has been greater recognition of more ‘distal’ and ‘upstream’ drivers of health inequalities, including the impacts of power as expressed by actors, as well as embedded in societal structures, institutions, and processes. The goal of this chapter is to examine how power has been conceptualised and analysed to date in relation to health inequalities. After reviewing the state of health inequality scholarship and the emerging interest in studying power in global health, the chapter presents varied conceptualisations of power and how they are used in the literature to understand health inequalities. The chapter highlights the particular disciplinary influences in studying power across the social sciences, including anthropology, political science, and sociology, as well as cross-cutting perspectives such as critical theory and health capability. It concludes by highlighting strengths and limitations of the existing research in this area and discussing power conceptualisations and frameworks that so far have been underused in health inequalities research. This includes potential areas for future inquiry and approaches that may expand the study of as well as action on addressing health inequality.

scholarly journals Global health trials methodological research agenda: results from a priority setting exercise

Trials ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Rosala-Hallas ◽  
Aneel Bhangu ◽  
Jane Blazeby ◽  
Louise Bowman ◽  
Mike Clarke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
Methodological Research ◽  
A Priority ◽  
Priority Setting Exercise

From Ebola to COVID-19: what explains institutionalized manias and the ultimate preference for non-optimal solutions in global health governance?

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederick Ahen
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
Health Inequalities ◽  
Developing Economies ◽  
Global Health Governance ◽  
Strategic Choices ◽  
Health Governance ◽  
Power Asymmetry ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Historical Perspectives ◽  
Multidisciplinary Study

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate how “manias” in global health governance lead to health inequalities even before, during and in the aftermath of acute health crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. “Manias” as used here refer to obsessive ir/rational behaviors, misguided policy/strategic choices and the exercise of power that benefit the major global health actors at the expense of stakeholders. Design/methodology/approach From post-colonial and historical perspectives, this study delineates how the major global health actors influence outcomes in global health governance and international business when they interact at the national–global level using an illustration from an emerging economy. Findings Power asymmetry in global health governance is constructed around the centralization of economic influence, medico-techno-scientific innovation and the geopolitical hegemony of a conglomerate of super-rich/powerful actors. They cluster these powers and resources in the core region (industrialized economies) and use them to influence the periphery (developing economies) through international NGOs, hybrid organizations, MNCs and multilateral/bilateral agreements. The power of actors to maintain manias lies in not only how they influence the periphery but also the consequences of the periphery’s “passivity” and “voluntary” renunciation of sovereignty in medical innovations and global health policies/politics. Social implications As a quintessential feature of manias, power asymmetry makes it harder for weaker actors to actually change the institutional conditions that produce structural inequalities in global health. Originality/value This timely and multidisciplinary study calls for a novel architecture of global health governance. Thus, democratizing global health governance with sufficiently foresighted investments that prioritize equitable access by and the inclusiveness of vulnerable stakeholders will help dismantle institutionalized manias while decreasing health inequalities.

scholarly journals Antimicrobial Resistance and Social Inequalities in Health: Considerations of Justice

2020 ◽  
pp. 257-278
Author(s):  
Lynette Reid
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
Health Inequalities ◽  
Social Inequalities ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Practical Importance ◽  
Social Inequalities In Health ◽  
Inequalities In Health ◽  
Catching Up ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Within-country social inequalities in health have widened while global health inequalities have (with some exceptions) narrowed since the Second World War. On commonly accepted prioritarian and sufficientist views of justice and health, these two trends together would be acceptable: the wealthiest of the wealthy are pulling ahead, but the worst off are catching up and more are achieving sufficiency. Such commitments to priority or sufficiency are compatible with a common “development” narrative about economic and social changes that accompany changes (“transitions”) in population health. I set out a very simple version of health egalitarianism (without commitment to any particular current theory of justice) and focus on two common objections to egalitarianism. Priority and sufficiency both address the levelling down and formalism objections, but these objections are distinct: giving content to equality (I argue here) places in question the claimed normative superiority of priority and sufficiency. Using examples of the role of antimicrobials in both these trends – and the future role of AMR – I clarify (first) the multiple forms and dimensions of justice at play in health, and (second) the different mechanisms at work in generating the two current patterns (seen in life course narratives and narratives of political economy). The “accelerated transition” that narrowed global health inequalities is fed by anti-microbials (among other technology transfers). It did not accelerate but replaced the causal processes by which current HICs achieved the transition (growing and shared economic prosperity and widening political franchise). The impact of AMR on widening social inequalities in health in HICs will be complex: inequality has been fed in part by tertiary care enabled by antimicrobials; AMR might erode the solidarity underlying universal health systems as the well-off seek to maintain current expectations of curative and rehabilitative surgery and chemotherapy while AMR mounts. In light of both speculations about the impact of AMR on social and global health inequalities, I close with practical and with theoretical reflection. I briefly indicate the practical importance of understanding AMR from the perspective of health justice for policy response. Then, from a broader perspective, I argue that the content by which I meet the formalism objection demonstrates that the two trends (broadening within-country inequality and narrowing global inequality) are selective and biased samples of a centuries-long pattern of widening social inequalities in health. We are not in the midst of a process of “catching up”. In light of the long-term pattern described here, is the pursuit of sufficiency or priority morally superior to the pursuit of equality as a response to concrete suffering – or do they rationalize a process more objectively described as the best-off continuing to take the largest share of one of the most important benefits of economic development?

Global Health Inequalities and Justice

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Prah Ruger
Keyword(s):  
Health Policy ◽  
Global Health ◽  
Health Inequalities ◽  
Health Governance ◽  
Policy System ◽  
Global Institutions ◽  
Policy Goals ◽  
Global Health Policy ◽  
Health Justice ◽  
Shared Health Governance

This chapter discusses challenges of global health inequalities in the current global health policy system. It then describes provincial globalism and a shared health governance framework as approaches to these challenges. Moral philosophers have for some time argued that global poverty and associated human suffering are universal concerns and that there is a moral obligation, beyond matters of charity, for wealthier countries to do more. Being serious about addressing the problem of global health inequalities requires developing a conception of global health justice. Moreover, addressing global health inequalities requires a reexamination of the norms and principles underlying global institutions in order to offer proposals for a better global health policy. This chapter sketches analytical components of provincial globalism, a framework that takes individuals to be the moral unit in both domestic and global contexts and that improves the prospects of alleviating global health inequalities. Provincial globalism promotes the realization of individuals’ health capabilities and supports a shared health governance that enables institutions to reexamine the objectives, policy goals, and decision-making procedures of the global health architecture. Shared health governance, in turn, provides standards for regulating global and domestic institutions and practices to create the conditions for realizing individuals’ health capabilities.

scholarly journals Health inequalities in Europe: Does minimum income protection make a difference?

2019 ◽  
pp. 001139211989065
Author(s):  
Regina Jutz
Keyword(s):  
Health Inequalities ◽  
Multilevel Models ◽  
European Social Survey ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Social Survey ◽  
Minimum Income ◽  
Income Groups ◽  
The People ◽  
Lower Health ◽  
Individual Self

Poverty, a risk factor for ill health, could be alleviated by generous welfare states. However, do generous social policies also reduce the health implications of socio-economic inequalities? This study investigates how minimum income protection is associated with socio-economic health inequalities. The author hypothesises that higher benefit levels are associated with lower health inequalities between income groups. Minimum income benefits support the people most in need, and therefore should improve the health of the lowest income groups, which in turn would reduce overall health inequalities. This hypothesis is tested with the European Social Survey (2002–2012) and the SaMip dataset using three-level multilevel models, covering 26 countries. The results show a robust relationship between benefit levels and individual self-rated health. However, the hypothesis of reduced health inequalities is not completely supported, since the findings for the cross-level interactions between income quintiles and benefit levels differ for each quintile.

scholarly journals Health Diplomacy and Global Health

2019 ◽  
Vol 53 ◽  
pp. 37
Author(s):  
Helena Ribeiro ◽  
Deisy De Freitas Lima Ventura
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Global Health ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Scientific Production ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Health Diplomacy ◽  
American Perspective ◽  
The World

We will analyze and comment on the book Health Diplomacy and Global Health: Latin American Perspectives, edited by Paulo Marchiori Buss and Sebastián Tobar and published by Editora Fiocruz. Throughout its 653 pages, the book brings prominent national and foreign authors in the field of Health Diplomacy and Global Health, depicting a decade in which Brazil had great international protagonism in the field of Public Health, especially in South-South cooperation, in an innovative and structuring manner. Furthermore, the chapters present theoretical aspects and basic principles of Global Health as a new field of knowledge, in which the country has been developing and sharing scientific production with a Latin American perspective, focused on the pursuit of equity and health for all peoples of the world.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document