Surveying the Need for Technology Management for Global Health Training Programmes

2007 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 279-286
Author(s):  
Usha R. Balakrishnan ◽  
Lisa Troyer ◽  
Edwin Brands
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
Global Public Good ◽  
Technology Licensing ◽  
Global Health Research ◽  
Global Public Health ◽  
Collaborative Relationships ◽  
Health Goals ◽  
Research Outcomes ◽  
Need To Evaluate ◽  
Training Programmes

Technology licensing office managers often need to evaluate profitability and commercial potential in their decision making. However, increased consideration of important global public health goals requires forging new collaborative relationships, incorporating creative licensing practices and embracing global public good within the academic and research communities. The authors conducted a survey to identify and document opportunities and barriers in the management of discoveries and inventions arising from global health research outcomes at US and Canadian academic and research institutions.

scholarly journals A Scientometric Analysis of Global Health Research

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (8) ◽  
pp. 2963 ◽  
Author(s):  
Minxi Wang ◽  
Ping Liu ◽  
Rui Zhang ◽  
Zhi Li ◽  
Xin Li
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Visual Analysis ◽  
Research Direction ◽  
Scientific Output ◽  
Global Health Research ◽  
Scientometric Analysis ◽  
Global Public Health ◽  
Global Integration ◽  
Knowledge Domain

With the development and deepening of the process of global integration, global health is gaining increasing attention. An increasing number of studies have examined global health from diverse perspectives to promote the realization of global public health. The purpose of this research is to systematically and comprehensively evaluate the knowledge structure, knowledge domain, and evolution trend in the field of global health research. Based on the 14,692 document data retrieved from Web of Science Core Collection from 1996 to 2019, this article carried out a visual analysis of global health research from the perspective of scientific output characteristics, scientific research cooperation networks, keywords, and highly cited literature. The results show that scholars’ interest in global health research is increasing, especially after the outbreak of SARS. USA, England, Canada, Australia, and China have the most prominent contributions to global health research. Significant authors, high impact journals and core institutions also identified. The study found that “global health governance”, “global health diplomacy”, “medical education”, “global health education” and “antimicrobial resistance” are the research frontiers and hot spots. This study provides an overview and valuable guidance for researchers and related personnel to find the research direction and practice of global health.

scholarly journals A Decade of Training in Global Public Health: Achievements and Lessons Learned

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-35
Author(s):  
Anne Paxton ◽  
Aravind Pillai ◽  
Batya Elul ◽  
Wafaa M. El-Sadr
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Global Health ◽  
Professional Training ◽  
Health Program ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Global Health Research ◽  
Public Health Program ◽  
Global Public Health ◽  
Master Of Public Health ◽  
Wide Range

Accumulating evidence demonstrates an increasing interest among students in global experiences, particularly among students engaged in public health professional training and scholarship. The 2-year Global Health Training Program within the Master of Public Health program at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health was created with the goal of developing global health professionals equipped with skills, experience, and perspectives to address the global health challenges of today and the future. The 2-year Master of Public Health program is interdisciplinary, involving faculty and students from five departments across the School, and offering students a wide range of global health courses selected from the School and University. In addition, students are required to undertake a 6-month, continuous, mentored professional practicum experience in a low- or middle-income country. A total of over 300 students have graduated from this program over the past 10 years. Students have completed practica in 75 countries at global health agencies, academic institutions, nongovernmental organizations, and community-based organizations. The involvement of a large number of faculty in global health research and practice provides a critical asset to the program given the emphasis of the program on applied experience.

scholarly journals Introduction

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodney Reynolds ◽  
Isabelle L. Lange
Keyword(s):  
Latin America ◽  
Global Health ◽  
Social Practices ◽  
Global Health Research ◽  
Health Evaluation ◽  
Turn Of The Millennium ◽  
Health Indicator ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
The Public ◽  
Research Outcomes

Since the turn of the millennium, conceptual and practice-oriented shifts in global health have increasingly given emphasis to health indicator production over research and interventions that emerge out of local social practices, environments and concerns. In this special issue of Anthropology in Action, we ask whether such globalised contexts allow for, recognise and sufficiently value the research contributions of our discipline. We question how global health research, ostensibly inter- or multi-disciplinary, generates knowledge. We query ‘not-knowing’ practices that inform and shape global health evidence as influenced by funders’ and collaborators’ expectations. The articles published here provide analyses of historical and ethnographic field experiences that show how sidelining anthropological contributions results in poorer research outcomes for the public. Citing experiences in Latin America, Angola, Senegal, Nigeria and the domain of global health evaluation, the authors consider anthropology’s roles in global health.

Students as advocates of global health goals: the case of medical education in Germany

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Kreitlow ◽  
S Steffens ◽  
E Kuhlmann
Keyword(s):  
Medical Education ◽  
Health Policy ◽  
Global Health ◽  
Medical School ◽  
Institutional Change ◽  
Medical Curriculum ◽  
Hannover Medical School ◽  
Global Health Education ◽  
Health Goals ◽  
Training Programmes

Abstract Background Germany has started to take on greater responsibility in global health policy. Furthermore, new threats, such as climate change, have increased sensitivity. However, health professionals are not well prepared to respond to the new tasks and the changing needs of the population. Global health is still largely missing from the education and training programmes of the vast majority of professional groups in Germany. This paper aims to illustrate how students can become advocates of global health education and enhance institutional change, when health policy fails to act effectively. Methods An elective programme introduced in September 2019 in the undergraduate medical curriculum at Hannover Medical School, Germany, serves as a case study to explore the tools and substance of the programme, as well as the stakeholders involved. Results The new global health programme utilises a window of opportunity in the curriculum, which includes a small number of mandatory seminars which students can chose from. It builds on five major pillars: collaboration between students and the programme coordinator and participatory curriculum development; the SDGs as framework and guidance of the curriculum; a multiprofessional and transsectoral teaching team; collaboration with NGOs; strong networks through collaboration with the national German medical students' association. Sustainability remains a major challenge, yet there is now institutional and financial support at Hannover Medical School and the new German National Competence Based Catalogue of Learning Objectives for Undergraduate Medical Education also includes global health issues. Conclusions Students as advocates for global health can make a difference and enhance institutional change through transsectoral, participatory teaching programmes.

Divergent Perspectives in Global Health Governance

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Prah Ruger
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Health Policy ◽  
Global Health ◽  
Global Public Good ◽  
Global Health Governance ◽  
Actor Model ◽  
Health Governance ◽  
Rational Actor ◽  
Global Health Policy ◽  
Self Interest

The global health governance (GHG) literature frames health variously as a matter of security and foreign policy, human rights, or global public good. Divergence among these perspectives has forestalled the development of a consensus vision for global health. Global health policy will differ according to the frame applied. Fundamentally, GHG today operates on a rational actor model, encompassing a continuum from the purely self-interest-maximizing position at one extreme to a more nuanced approach that takes others’ interests into account when making one’s own calculations. Even where humanitarian concerns are clearly and admirably at play, however, the problem of motivations remains. Often narrow self-interest is also at work, and actors obfuscate this behind altruistic motives.

scholarly journals Sharing power in global health research: an ethical toolkit for designing priority-setting processes that meaningfully include communities

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bridget Pratt
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Reflective Equilibrium ◽  
Empirical Work ◽  
The Philippines ◽  
Project Planning ◽  
Global Health Research ◽  
Research Priority ◽  
Health Research Priority Setting

AbstractTo promote social justice and equity, global health research should meaningfully engage communities throughout projects: from setting agendas onwards. But communities, especially those that are considered disadvantaged or marginalised, rarely have a say in the priorities of the research projects that aim to help them. So far, there remains limited ethical guidance and resources on how to share power with communities in health research priority-setting. This paper presents an “ethical toolkit” for academic researchers and their community partners to use to design priority-setting processes that meaningfully include the communities impacted by their projects. An empirical reflective equilibrium approach was employed to develop the toolkit. Conceptual work articulated ethical considerations related to sharing power in g0l0o0bal health research priority-setting, developed guidance on how to address them, and created an initial version of the toolkit. Empirical work (51 in-depth interviews, 1 focus group, 2 case studies in India and the Philippines) conducted in 2018 and 2019 then tested those findings against information from global health research practice. The final ethical toolkit is a reflective project planning aid. It consists of 4 worksheets (Worksheet 1- Selecting Partners; Worksheet 2- Deciding to Partner; Worksheet 3- Deciding to Engage with the Wider Community; Worksheet 4- Designing Priority-setting) and a Companion Document detailing how to use them. Reflecting on and discussing the questions in Worksheets 1 to 4 before priority-setting will help deliver priority-setting processes that share power with communities and projects with research topics and questions that more accurately reflect their healthcare and system needs.

scholarly journals Bridging research integrity and global health epidemiology (BRIDGE) statement: guidelines for good epidemiological practice

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (10) ◽  
pp. e003236
Author(s):  
Sandra Alba ◽  
Kristien Verdonck ◽  
Annick Lenglet ◽  
Susan F Rumisha ◽  
Martijn Wienia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Epidemiological Studies ◽  
Global Health Research ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Protocol Development ◽  
Development Data ◽  
Collection Data ◽  
Mutual Accountability

BackgroundResearch integrity and research fairness have gained considerable momentum in the past decade and have direct implications for global health epidemiology. Research integrity and research fairness principles should be equally nurtured to produce high-quality impactful research—but bridging the two can lead to practical and ethical dilemmas. In order to provide practical guidance to researchers and epidemiologist, we set out to develop good epidemiological practice guidelines specifically for global health epidemiology, targeted at stakeholders involved in the commissioning, conduct, appraisal and publication of global health research.MethodsWe developed preliminary guidelines based on targeted online searches on existing best practices for epidemiological studies and sought to align these with key elements of global health research and research fairness. We validated these guidelines through a Delphi consultation study, to reach a consensus among a wide representation of stakeholders.ResultsA total of 45 experts provided input on the first round of e-Delphi consultation and 40 in the second. Respondents covered a range of organisations (including for example academia, ministries, NGOs, research funders, technical agencies) involved in epidemiological studies from countries around the world (Europe: 19; Africa: 10; North America: 7; Asia: 5; South-America: 3 Australia: 1). A selection of eight experts were invited for a face-to-face meeting. The final guidelines consist of a set of 6 standards and 42 accompanying criteria including study preparation, protocol development, data collection, data management, data analysis, dissemination and communication.ConclusionWhile guidelines will not by themselves guard global health from questionable and unfair research practices, they are certainly part of a concerted effort to ensure not only mutual accountability between individual researchers, their institutions and their funders but most importantly their joint accountability towards the communities they study and society at large.

Researchers slam UK cuts to global health research

The Lancet ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 397 (10280) ◽  
pp. 1168-1170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacqui Thornton
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Global Health Research
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document