Globalisation and global health governance: Implications for public health

Abstract Globalisation is a defining economic and social trend of the past several decades. Globalisation affects health directly and indirectly and creates economic and health disparities within and across countries. The political response to address these disparities, exemplified by the Millennium Development Goals, has put pressure on the global community to redress massive inequities in health and other determinants of human capability across countries. This, in turn, has accelerated a transformation in the architecture of global health governance. The entrance of new actors, such as private foundations and multi-stakeholder initiatives, contributed to a doubling of funds for global health between 2000 and 2010. Today the governance of public health is in flux, with diminished leadership from multilateral institutions, such as the WHO, and poor coherence in policy and programming that undermines the potential for sustainable health gains. These trends pose new challenges and opportunities for global public health, which is centrally concerned with identifying and addressing threats to the health of vulnerable populations worldwide.     

Globalisation and neoliberalism as structural drivers of health inequities

If there is one universal recommendation to countries wanting to make progress towards Universal Health Coverage (UHC), it is to develop the learning capacities that will enable them to ‘find their own way’ – this is especially true for countries struggling with fragmented health financing systems. This paper explores results from a multi-country study whose main aim was to assess the extent to which UHC systems and processes at country level operate as ‘learning systems’. This study is part of a multi-year action-research project implemented by two communities of practice active in Africa. For this specific investigation, we adapted the concept of the learning organisation to so-called ‘UHC systems’. Our framework organises the assessment around 92 questions divided into blocks, sub-blocks and levels of learning, with a seven scale score in a standardised questionnaire developed during a protocol and methodology workshop attended by all the research teams. The study was implemented in six francophone African countries by national research teams involving researchers and cadres of the ministries involved in the UHC policy. Across the six countries, the questionnaire was administrated to 239 UHC actors. Data were analysed per country, per blocks and sub-blocks, by levels of learning and per question. The study confirms the feasibility and relevance of adapting the learning organisation framework to UHC systems. All countries scored between 4 and 5 for all the sub-blocks of the learning system. The study and the validation workshops organised in the six countries indicate that the tool is particularly powerful to assess weaknesses within a specific country. However, some remarkable patterns also emerge from the cross-country analysis. Our respondents recognise the leadership developed at governmental level for UHC, but they also report some major weaknesses in the UHC system, especially the absence of a learning agenda and the limited use of data. Countries will not progress towards UHC without strong learning systems. Our tool has allowed us to document the situation in six countries, create some awareness at country level and initiate a participatory action-oriented process.     

Globalisation and neoliberalism as structural drivers of health inequities

In this paper, we draw upon and build on three presentations which were part of the plenary session on ‘Structural Drivers of Health Inequities’ at the National Conference on Health Inequities in India: Transformative Research for Action, organised by the Achutha Menon Centre for Health Science Studies in Trivandrum, India. The three presentations discussed the influential role played by globalisation and neoliberalism in shaping economic, social and political relationships across developed and developing countries. The paper further argues that the twin process of globalisation and liberalisation have been important drivers of health inequities. The first segment of the paper attempts a broader conceptualisation of neoliberalism beyond the economic realm. Using Stephanie Lee Mudge’s conceptualisation (Soc Econ Rev 6:703–3, 2008) we have analysed how the political, bureaucratic and intellectual domains of neoliberalism have intersected and redefined the role of state and commercialised health services leading to inequities. Neoliberal ideas have reconfigured the role and changed the priorities of non-governmental organisations resulting in a fracture within this movement. n the second segment, we focus on the rise of American philanthro-capitalism, and how the two major foundations, the Rockefeller Foundation (early twentieth century) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (twenty-first century), have shaped the ideology of institutions engaged in international health and influenced the global health agenda. We discuss how the activities of philanthro-capitalists have transformed the architecture of health governance through their top-down organisational culture and deficit of structures to ensure accountability. The third and final segment of the paper focuses on how neoliberalism as a political project and cultural movement has forged alliances with conservative politics and religious fundamentalisms, resulting in negative consequences for women and other marginalised groups. These alliances have resulted in the control of women’s bodies and contributed to the reversal of hard-won rights for health and gender justice in many parts of the world.     

Globalisation,health and foreign policy: emerging linkages and interests

A discussion of the growing links between the issues of globalisation, health and foreign policy. This article examines the effect this has on health, development and foreign policy communities in the UK and internationally and considers what steps the policy community must take to address the challenges and opportunities of this new relationship.     

Teaching evidence-based public health to public health practitioners

PURPOSE: The purpose of the Evidence Based Public Health (EBPH) course is to train public health practitioners to utilize a comprehensive approach for program development and evaluation from a scientific perspective, including principles of scientific reasoning and systematic uses of data and information systems. The increasing technical sophistication of public health problems and approaches emphasizes the importance for an evidence-based approach to developing policy and interventions. METHODS: The training methods used highlight the linkages between data systems and program/policy initiatives. Participants learn to access and interpret existing data systems and methods of using data to impact specific policies or decision-makers. From 1992 through mid-2004 the EBPH course was offered a total of 20 times, in Missouri, nationally and internationally. In March 2002, the workshop was taped and pressed into a 16-CD set that public health workers can use as a self-teaching program in their own homes and offices. The group exercises from the classroom workshop have been adapted into individual self-guided applications, and background readings are included in the set. RESULTS: Compiled results of course evaluations indicate average ratings for course satisfaction ranging from 8.50 to 10.00 on a scale from 1 to 10. Satisfaction with course instructors ranged between 8.00 and 10.00 on the same scale. Ninety-four to ninety-six per cent of participants reported that they would use the course in their day-to-day work. Qualitative comments from participants at the time of and after the course show that the material is applied in a variety of ways. CONCLUSIONS: The EBPH course is making a valuable contribution in strengthening the application of scientific methods to public health practice. To expand the offerings of this training, a train-the-trainer component for the EBPH course is being developed, to be made available in 2005.     

公共卫生和公共卫生突发事件

该文从理论角度阐述什么是现代公共卫生观念 ,公共卫生应在公共卫生突发事件处理中发挥什么作用和怎样发挥作用 ,希望对确定我国现代公共卫生理论体系有所启发     

The public and public health organizations: issues for community engagement in public health

Deliberative processes are beginning to take effect in the public health sector. Public health organizations have a critical role in fostering local deliberation during the planning and implementation of community health efforts. The chief executive officer (CEO) of eight national public health constituent organizations were provided background readings about deliberation and its potential role in community public health planning. They were then interviewed about their prior knowledge of public health deliberation, impressions and thoughts about deliberation's role in public health, whether they could identify constituents using the approach, and the best method of disseminating information on deliberation. Information provided by stakeholders was analyzed to gauge the understanding and implementation of public deliberation. Four main themes emerged from the interviews including: general awareness and attitudes about public deliberation, barriers to deliberation, words of caution when using the deliberative approach, and dissemination of deliberation. Each of the CEOs interviewed favored deliberative approaches in public health planning that would ensure that the community's voice is present in the decision-making process. However, there are certain limitations to the approach that must be addressed before the full benefits of public engagement can be obtained in public health.     

建设高水平公共卫生学院，培养高层次公共卫生人才

高水平公共卫生学院建设的落脚点始终在于人才培养,要把培养什么人、怎么培养人、为谁培养人作为根本问题,对标世界一流高校,建设一流学科,培育一流人才,产出一流成果。要注重学科交叉融合,注重新发突发传染病和突发公共卫生事件应急处置的理论教学和实践训练,注重医疗机构和公共卫生机构融合,全链条培养公共卫生人才。     

Nanotechnology and public health

Nanotechnology is developing very quickly, and Japan is in many respects leading the world in this convergence of nanoscale engineering techniques. The public health community in Japan must start to think about the public health impacts of nanotechnology over the next 20 years. The responsibility for the benefits and the harms of nanotechnology lies with government, with corporations and the business community, with scientists and specialists in all related fields, and with NPOs and the public. There are very many questions of public health which are not yet being asked about nanotechnology. If nanoparticles are to be used in cosmetics, food production and packaging, how will they react or interact with the human skin and organs? What chemical-toxic effects on life might there be from the nanoparticles in car tires and vehicle plastic mouldings when they are disposed of by incineration? Will they pass into the soil and groundwater and enter into the food-chain? It is now an urgent ethical demand, based on the precautionary principle, that Japan join the governments of the world to take an intergovernmental initiative to intervene in the further development, production and marketing of nanotechnological products with precautionary research and regulation.