The Right to Health in Times of Pandemic: What Can We Learn from the UK’s Response to the COVID-19 Outbreak?

The UK’s response to COVID-19 has been widely criticized by scientists and the public. According to EuroMOMO, a European mortality monitoring initiative, the excess mortality that may be attributable to COVID-19 in England is one of the highest in Europe, second only to Spain. While critiqued from a public health perspective, much less attention is given to the implications of the pandemic outbreak for the right to health as defined under international human rights law and ratified by member states. Using the UK as a case study, we examine critically the extent to which the government’s response to COVID-19 complied with the legal framework of the right to health. We review further key state obligations on the right to health and assess its suitability in times of pandemic. Finally, we offer some recommendations for an update of the right to health. This paper adds to the body of literature on the right to health and human rights based-approaches to health, which, to our knowledge, has not yet focused on pandemics

How should implementation of the human right to health be assessed? A scoping review of the public health literature from 2000 to 2021.

The human right to health is a critical legal tool to achieve health justice, and universal health coverage is included among the Sustainable Development Goals. However, the content and meaning of the right to health may not be used adequately in public health research. We conducted a scoping review of the literature to discover the extent to which the legal principles underlying the right to health are used in public health. We mapped the various attempts to assess implementation of this right since its legal content was clarified in 2000.The first studies emerged in 2006, with an increase and a wider variety of investigations since 2015. We observe that some key principles do form the basis of right-to-health assessments, but some concepts remain unfamiliar. Critically, public health academics may have limited access to human rights research on health, which creates a gap in knowledge between the two disciplines

Developing shared understanding through online interdisciplinary collaboration: Reflections from a research project on better integration of health outcomes in future urban development practice

Collaborative working has gained widespread recognition in policy and practice. However, there is less research on the process of doing collaborative research in practice than there is on the epistemological, theoretical, and methodological aspects of such work. In this paper, we address this gap by offering reflections on our practical experience of online interdisciplinary collaboration as part of a wider research project on future urban development practice. We sought to develop a shared understanding of the systems of urban development decision-making. We utilise two established frameworks of interdisciplinarity to reflect on our experience and offer practical recommendations that can help facilitate such work carried out remotely by early career researchers from diverse academic backgrounds. In so doing, our paper offers fresh insights on some of the common issues in interdisciplinary collaboration and on developing shared understanding and intellectual coherence through productive online interactions. As research is evolving to tackle complex problems that require a holistic understanding, our paper contributes to developing replicable methods for remotely conducted interdisciplinary work in the early phases of large-scale collaborative projects

Lodestar in the time of coronavirus? Interpreting international obligations to realise the right to health during the COVID-19 pandemic

While the right to health has gained significant momentum in international law over the past two years, there is little clarity on what it means for States to comply with this right in times of COVID-19. Taking Articles 2(1) and 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as a starting point, our article follows an approach guided by the rules of treaty interpretation under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to suggest how right to health obligations to prevent, treat and control infectious diseases should be interpreted in relation to COVID-19, and how these obligations interact with general obligations of immediacy, progressive realisation, minimum core and international assistance and cooperation in this context. This article makes a novel contribution to clarifying the right to health during COVID-19, thus enhancing capacity for the oversight of this right; its incorporation in global health law; and the understanding of its corresponding obligations in future global health emergencies

Productivity, family planning and reproductive health in Burkina Faso: PopDev qualitative data

The PopDev study is a prospective cohort study of pregnant and/or postpartum women who were between seven months gestation and three months postpartum at recruitment and followed-up over an up to nine month period. The cohort is a population-representative sample of parturient women in the commune of Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso. This deposit presents the qualitative data - French transcripts of 56 in-depth interviews and 3 focus group discussions - from a nested cohort of women recruited from within PopDev, and their husband/partners. Key themes discussed in these qualitative data are women’s work, use of family planning, and the factors that facilitated or were challenging during their return to work during the postpartum period

Developing shared understanding through online interdisciplinary collaboration: Reflections from a research project on better integration of health outcomes in future urban development practice

Collaborative working has gained widespread recognition in policy and practice. However, there is less research on the process of doing collaborative research in practice than there is on the epistemological, theoretical, and methodological aspects of such work. In this paper, we address this gap by offering reflections on our practical experience of online interdisciplinary collaboration as part of a wider research project on future urban development practice. We sought to develop a shared understanding of the systems of urban development decision-making. We utilise two established frameworks of interdisciplinarity to reflect on our experience and offer practical recommendations that can help facilitate such work carried out remotely by early career researchers from diverse academic backgrounds. In so doing, our paper offers fresh insights on some of the common issues in interdisciplinary collaboration and on developing shared understanding and intellectual coherence through productive online interactions. As research is evolving to tackle complex problems that require a holistic understanding, our paper contributes to developing replicable methods for remotely conducted interdisciplinary work in the early phases of large-scale collaborative projects

Balancing Autonomy and Collaboration in Large-Scale and Disciplinary Diverse Teams for Successful Qualitative Research

Large scale, multi-organisational collaborations between researchers from diverse disciplinary backgrounds are increasingly recognised as important to investigate and tackle complex real-world problems. However differing expectations, epistemologies, and preferences across these teams pose challenges to following best practice for ensuring high-quality and rigorous qualitative research, while maintaining goodwill and team cohesion across team members. This article presents critical reflections from the real-world experiences of a team navigating the challenges of collaborating on a large-scale, cross-disciplinary interview study. Based on these experiences, we extend the literature on large team qualitative collaboration by highlighting the importance of balancing autonomy and collaboration, and propose eight recommendations to support high quality research and team cohesion. We identify how this balance can be achieved at different times: when centralised decision-making should be prioritised, and autonomy can be allowed. We argue that prioritising time to develop shared understandings, build trust, and creating positive environments that accept and support differing researcher perspectives on qualitative methods is paramount. By exploring and reflecting on these differences, teams can identify how and when to support autonomy in decision-making, when to move forward collaboratively, and how to ensure that shared processes reflect the needs of the whole team. The reflexive findings, emanating from practical experience, can inform large research teams undertaking qualitative studies to explore complex issues. We make an original contribution to qualitative methods research by arguing that balancing autonomy and collaboration is the key to promoting high quality research and cohesion in large teams

Balancing Autonomy and Collaboration in Large-Scale and Disciplinary Diverse Teams for Successful Qualitative Research

Large scale, multi-organisational collaborations between researchers from diverse disciplinary backgrounds are increasingly recognised as important to investigate and tackle complex real-world problems. However differing expectations, epistemologies, and preferences across these teams pose challenges to following best practice for ensuring high-quality and rigorous qualitative research, while maintaining goodwill and team cohesion across team members. This article presents critical reflections from the real-world experiences of a team navigating the challenges of collaborating on a large-scale, cross-disciplinary interview study. Based on these experiences, we extend the literature on large team qualitative collaboration by highlighting the importance of balancing autonomy and collaboration, and propose eight recommendations to support high quality research and team cohesion. We identify how this balance can be achieved at different times: when centralised decision-making should be prioritised, and autonomy can be allowed. We argue that prioritising time to develop shared understandings, build trust, and creating positive environments that accept and support differing researcher perspectives on qualitative methods is paramount. By exploring and reflecting on these differences, teams can identify how and when to support autonomy in decision-making, when to move forward collaboratively, and how to ensure that shared processes reflect the needs of the whole team. The reflexive findings, emanating from practical experience, can inform large research teams undertaking qualitative studies to explore complex issues. We make an original contribution to qualitative methods research by arguing that balancing autonomy and collaboration is the key to promoting high quality research and cohesion in large teams

The social determinants of health, law, and urban development: using human rights to address structural health inequalities in our cities

The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated profound inequalities in the conditions in which people live, work, and age. Law plays a critical role in shaping these structural health inequalities, which have existed for decades. This dynamic can be observed at the local level, with cities operating as environments unequally distributing the risks of non-communicable diseases between population groups. This article first focuses on urban development to explore the conceptual links between health inequalities and the role of law. I expand this observation and I posit that the social determinants of health are about human rights. With that in mind, I argue that human rights are necessary to address the issue of unequally unhealthy urban environments, hence recognising that people are entitled to a minimum essential level of the conditions in which they live, work, and age, which the State is responsible to fulfil. By way of strengthening my argument, I lay out how a human rights framework can improve these conditions and ameliorate unfair inequalities. Finally, I recognise and respond to the limits of a human rights approach