scholarly journals COVID-19 opens a window of reflection for comparative health systems and global health research

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 ◽  
pp. 190-208
Author(s):  
Tuba İ. Ağartan
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
National Policy ◽  
Global Health Research ◽  
Policy Actors ◽  
Opportunities For Learning ◽  
National Information ◽  
The Voice ◽  
North And South ◽  
Health Field

AbstractThe Covid-19 crisis that led to the loss of thousands of lives and initiated one of the most complex social and economic upheavals has also a created a window of reflection for health systems researchers to revisit our major concepts, frameworks, and underlying assumptions. This commentary reviews two literatures that remain rather separate: comparative health policy and global health. First, I examine whether convergence in circumstances brought about by the spread of Covid-19 creates opportunities for learning “about” as well as unpacking the motivations of policy actors and how they use the cross-national information. However, given the emphasis on national policy actors and processes, this literature may overlook the importance of global actors, institutions and ideas. Second, global health differentiates itself with an emphasis on multilateralism as a political positioning and its multidisciplinary and multi-sectoral approach. However, the global health field is also challenged to consider its mission, political standing on multilateralism, changing relationships between North and South and its commitment to multidisciplinary approach. I argue that health systems scholars should use the window of opportunity created by Covid-19 pandemic to reexamine their methodologies and rearticulate their positioning by acknowledging the voice and agency of the Global South.

Linking the Governance of Research Consortia to Global Health Justice: A Case Study of Future Health Systems

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 664-681
Author(s):  
Bridget Pratt ◽  
Adnan A. Hyder
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Global Health Research ◽  
Research Translation ◽  
Future Health ◽  
Systems Research ◽  
Ethical Guidance ◽  
Research Consortium

Global health research partnerships are increasingly taking the form of consortia. Recent scholarship has proposed what features of governance may be necessary for these consortia to advance justice in global health. That guidance purports three elements of global health research consortia are essential — their research priorities, research capacity development strategies, research translation strategies — and should be structured to promote the health of the worst-off globally. This paper adopted a reflective equilibrium approach, testing the proposed ethical guidance against the experience of a global health research consortium with equity objectives. Case study research was performed with Future Health Systems (FHS), a health systems research consortium funded over two phases. Data on FHS Phase-2 were gathered through in-depth interviews with steering committee members and junior researchers and collection of consortium-related documents. Thematic analysis of the data for consistency with the proposed guidance generated recommendations for how the guidance might be better articulated and identified areas where it could usefully be expanded. Factors facilitating FHS alignment with the ethical guidance were also identified, including early engagement and partnership with low and middle-income country stakeholders, the learning developed during FHS Phase-1, and aspects of the grant program funding it.

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 Artificial intelligence for good health: a scoping review of the ethics literature

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathleen Murphy ◽  
Erica Di Ruggiero ◽  
Ross Upshur ◽  
Donald J. Willison ◽  
Neha Malhotra ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Global Health ◽  
Population Health ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Industrial Revolution ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Ethical Implications

Abstract Background Artificial intelligence (AI) has been described as the “fourth industrial revolution” with transformative and global implications, including in healthcare, public health, and global health. AI approaches hold promise for improving health systems worldwide, as well as individual and population health outcomes. While AI may have potential for advancing health equity within and between countries, we must consider the ethical implications of its deployment in order to mitigate its potential harms, particularly for the most vulnerable. This scoping review addresses the following question: What ethical issues have been identified in relation to AI in the field of health, including from a global health perspective? Methods Eight electronic databases were searched for peer reviewed and grey literature published before April 2018 using the concepts of health, ethics, and AI, and their related terms. Records were independently screened by two reviewers and were included if they reported on AI in relation to health and ethics and were written in the English language. Data was charted on a piloted data charting form, and a descriptive and thematic analysis was performed. Results Upon reviewing 12,722 articles, 103 met the predetermined inclusion criteria. The literature was primarily focused on the ethics of AI in health care, particularly on carer robots, diagnostics, and precision medicine, but was largely silent on ethics of AI in public and population health. The literature highlighted a number of common ethical concerns related to privacy, trust, accountability and responsibility, and bias. Largely missing from the literature was the ethics of AI in global health, particularly in the context of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Conclusions The ethical issues surrounding AI in the field of health are both vast and complex. While AI holds the potential to improve health and health systems, our analysis suggests that its introduction should be approached with cautious optimism. The dearth of literature on the ethics of AI within LMICs, as well as in public health, also points to a critical need for further research into the ethical implications of AI within both global and public health, to ensure that its development and implementation is ethical for everyone, everywhere.

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.

scholarly journals Reimagining global health systems for the 21st century: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. e004882
Author(s):  
Yibeltal Assefa ◽  
Charles F Gilks ◽  
Remco van de Pas ◽  
Simon Reid ◽  
Dereje Gedle Gete ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
21St Century

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