Invisibility in global health: a case for disturbing bioethical frameworks

In recent years, the global health community has been increasingly reporting the problem of ‘invisibility’ as aspects of health and wellbeing that are often overlooked and ignored, and predominantly affects the most marginalized and precarious people. However, it is unclear how to realistically manage global health invisibility and move forward. In this letter, we reflect on several case studies of invisibility experienced by people in Brazil, Malaysia, West Africa and other transnational contexts. Highlighting the complex nature of invisibility and its interconnectedness with social, political and economic issues and trends, we argue that while local and targeted interventions might provide relief and comfort locally, they will not be able to solve the underlying causes of invisibility. Moving forward, we argue that in dealing with an intersectional issue such as invisibility, twenty-first century global health bioethics could pursue a more ‘disturbing’ framework, challenging the narrow comforting solutions and sociomaterial inequalities of the sociopolitical status quo. We highlight that comforting and disturbing bioethical frameworks should not be considered as opposing sides, but as two approaches working in tandem in order to achieve the internationally set global health milestones of providing better health and wellbeing for everyone. In doing so, we call for taking seriously insights from sociology, anthropology, postcolonial studies, history, feminist studies and other styles of critical reasoning that have long been disturbing the grand assumptions about people and their conditions, and, practically, to rediscover the ethos of the WHO Alma Ata Declaration, calling for cooperation and support beyond the narrow market logic that dominates the landscape of contemporary global health

Exploring how a genetic attribution to disease relates to stigma experiences of Xhosa patients with schizophrenia in South Africa

Background: Over the past three decades, a range of international stakeholders have highlighted the possibility that genomic research may impact stigma associated with psychiatric disorders. Limited research has been conducted in Africa to investigate this relation. Method In the present study, using focus group discussions, we explored the relation between genetic attribution and stigma among 36 Xhosa people with schizophrenia. We addressed three main questions: (1) What causal beliefs do Xhosa people with schizophrenia use to explain their illness and to what extent do genetic explanations play a role in these beliefs? (2) What are the internalised stigma experiences of Xhosa people with schizophrenia? (3) How do genetic explanations relate to stigma experiences, if at all? Results Most participants were able to define genetics and some linked genetics to disease causation. Despite adequate knowledge of genetics and an emphasis on genetic explanations of schizophrenia in the study, most participants held a multitude of causal explanations including: psychosocial, environmental, and cultural. Moreover, participants rarely mentioned disease cause when describing their stigma experiences. Discussion For this population group, there was no straight-forward relation between a genetic attribution and stigma. Therefore, we did not fnd evidence that genetic attribution may signifcantly increase stigma. Although North American and European literature provides conficting evidence regarding this relation, there is increased consensus that biomedical explanations for psychiatric disorders may reduce blame. This study found evidence supporting that consensus. This study provides an empirical foundation to inform ongoing work on the psychosocial implications of psychiatric genomics research in non-Western contexts

Mapping experiences and perspectives of equity in international health collaborations : A scoping review

Background Whilst global health research often involves international collaborations, achieving or promoting equity within collaborations remains a key challenge, despite established conceptual approaches and the development of frameworks and guidelines to promote equity. There have also been several empirical studies documenting researchers’ experiences of inequity and views on what is required to advance equity in global health collaborations. While these empirical studies provide critical insights, there has been no attempt to systematically synthetize what constitutes equity and how it can be achieved. To address this gap, we conducted a scoping review of qualitative studies, opinion and editorial pieces about what equity is and how it can be promoted in international collaborations. Methods We conducted a scoping review to explore domains of equity in international health collaborations. This review included qualitative studies and opinion pieces or editorial pieces on equity in international health collaborations. We mapped the data and identified common themes using a thematic analysis approach. Results This initial search retrieved a total of 7611 papers after removing duplicates. A total of 11 papers were included in this review, 10 empirical studies and 1 editorial piece. We conducted our search between October – November 2019. We identified 10 key domains which are important for promoting equity in international collaborations: funding; capacity building; authorship; sample ownership and export; trust; research agreement; acknowledging inequality; recognition and communication. Discussion Our findings suggest that for international collaborations to be considered more equitable, it must at least consider the 10 domains we highlighted. The 10 domains map onto five key aspects of social justice theory, namely avoiding unequal power relations like subordination, group recognition and affirmation, promoting the well-being of all, inclusion in decision-making and ensuring self-development