Need and options for teaching global health

A conceptual and developmental approach to teaching global health is presented. We outline the differences between international health (traditionally, the connections between nation-states, typically &lsquo;the west&rsquo; and &lsquo;the rest&rsquo;) and global health (a value-driven systems approach). We see a need for curriculum development in the area of global health, and describe how the health and tertiary education landscape in Melbourne (Australia) would be fertile ground for such a new programme. We illustrate our conceptual and strategic curriculum development efforts with local and international partners, and the outcome suggests we would be able to offer a Master of Global Health programme with two majors: an international health one (more disease oriented), and a global one (focused more on sustainability and political economy issues).<br /

Policy, Theory, and Evaluation: Stop Mixing the Fruit Salad; Comment on “Developing a Framework for a Program Theory-Based Approach to Evaluating Policy Processes and Outcomes: Health in All Policies in South Australia”

The study of Health in All Policies (HiAP) is gaining momentum. Authors are increasingly turning to wide swathes of political and social theory to frame (Program) Theory Based (or Informed) Evaluation (TBE) approaches. TBE for HiAP is not only prudent, it adds a level of elegance and insight to the research toolbox. However, it is still necessary to organize theoretical thinking appropriately. A commentary on a recent Int J Health Policy Manag paper argued that the framing of context and causality were hard to establish. This paper argues that this is not the most pressing issue. Rather, it claims we need to go back to basics to establish an appropriate HiAP evaluation paradigm. Such a basic paradigm would hinge on an understanding of power

Policy, Theory, and Evaluation: Stop Mixing the Fruit Salad Comment on “Developing a Framework for a Program Theory-Based Approach to Evaluating Policy Processes and Outcomes: Health in All Policies in South Australia”

Abstract The study of Health in All Policies (HiAP) is gaining momentum. Authors are increasingly turning to wide swathes of political and social theory to frame (Program) Theory Based (or Informed) Evaluation (TBE) approaches. TBE for HiAP is not only prudent, it adds a level of elegance and insight to the research toolbox. However, it is still necessary to organize theoretical thinking appropriately. A commentary on a recent Int J Health Policy Manag paper argued that the framing of context and causality were hard to establish. This paper argues that this is not the most pressing issue. Rather, it claims we need to go back to basics to establish an appropriate HiAP evaluation paradigm. Such a basic paradigm would hinge on an understanding of powe

We Need Action on Social Determinants of Health – but Do We Want It, too? Comment on “Understanding the Role of Public Administration in Implementing Action on the Social Determinants of Health and Health Inequities”

Recently a number of calls have been made to mobilise the arsenal of political science insights to investigate – and point to improvements in – the social determinants of health (SDH), and health equity. Recently, in this journal, such a rallying appeal was made for the field of public administration. This commentary argues that, although scholarly potential should justifiably be redirected to resolve these critical issues for humanity, a key ingredient in taking action may have been neglected. This factor is ‘community.’ Community health has been a standard element of the public health and health promotion, even political, repertoire for decades now. But this commentary claims that communities are insufficiently charged, equipped or appreciated to play the role that scholarship attributes (or occasionally avoids to identify) to them. Community is too important to not fully engage and understand. Rhetorical tools and inquiries can support their quintessential role

Global health governance : framework convention on tobacco control (FCTC), the Doha Declaration, and democratisation

Global public health agreements are heralded as a success for the affirmation of the right to health within a complex and contested political landscape. However, the practical implementation of such agreements at the national level is often overlooked. This article outlines two radically different global health agreements: The Doha Declaration on the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement and Public Health; and the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). We identify significant challenges in their implementation, particularly for low and middle income countries. Shifts in the policy network constellations around these two agreements have allowed for some positive influence by civil society. Yet industry influence at the national level constrains effective implementation and those affected by these policies have largely been left on the periphery. The broader provisions of these two agreements have been watered down by vested interests and donor conditions. We advocate for both activist and academic actors to play a significant role in highlighting the consequences of these power asymmetries. Deliberative democracy may be the key to addressing these challenges in a way that empowers those presently excluded from effective participation in the policy process.<br /