The Health Justice Policy Tracker: COVID-19 Policies To Advance Health Justice For Vulnerable Populations.

The rapid spread of COVID-19 throughout the world in early 2020 created unprecedented challenges for national governments. Policies developed during the early months of the pandemic, before the first mRNA vaccines were authorized for emergency use, provide a window into national governments' prioritization of populations that were particularly vulnerable. We developed the COVID-19 Health Justice Policy Tracker to capture and categorize these policies using a health justice lens. In this article we present the results of a preliminary analysis of the tracker data. The tracker focuses on policies for six population groups: children, the elderly, people with disabilities, migrant workers, incarcerated people, and people who were refugees or were seeking political asylum. It includes 610 policies, most targeting children and the elderly and providing financial support. National governments also prioritized measures such as policies to ensure access to mental health care and social services, digital and teleservices, continuity of children's education, and food security. The tracker provides a resource for researchers and policy makers seeking model language and tested policy approaches to advance health justice during future crises.

Why 'elevating country voice' is not decolonizing global health: A frame analysis of in-depth interviews.

Recent calls for global health decolonization suggest that addressing the problems of global health may require more than 'elevating country voice'. We employed a frame analysis of the diagnostic, prognostic, and motivational framings of both discourses and analyzed the implications of convergence or divergence of these frames for global health practice and scholarship. We used two major sources of data-a review of literature and in-depth interviews with actors in global health practice and shapers of discourse around elevating country voice and decolonizing global health. Using NVivo 12, a deductive analysis approach was applied to the literature and interview transcripts using diagnostic, prognostic and motivational framings as themes. We found that calls for elevating country voice consider suppressed low- and middle-income country (LMIC) voice in global health agenda-setting and lack of country ownership of health initiatives as major problems; advancing better LMIC representation in decision making positions, and local ownership of development initiatives as solutions. The rationale for action is greater aid impact. In contrast, calls for decolonizing global health characterize colonialityas the problem. Its prognostic framing, though still in a formative stage, includes greater acceptance of diversity in approaches to knowledge creation and health systems, and a structural transformation of global health governance. Its motivational framing is justice. Conceptually and in terms of possible outcomes, the frames underlying these discourses differ. Actors' origin and nature of involvement with global health work are markers of the frames they align with. In response to calls for country voice elevation, global health institutions working in LMICs may prioritize country representation in rooms near or where power resides, but this falls short of expectations of decolonizing global health advocates. Whether governments, organizations, and communities will sufficiently invest in public health to achieve decolonization remains unknown and will determine the future of the call for decolonization and global health practice at large.

Understanding resilience, self-reliance and increasing country voice: a clash of ideologies in global health.

BACKGROUND: 'Resilience', 'self-reliance' and 'increasing country voice' are widely used terms in global health. However, the terms are understood in diverse ways by various global health actors. We analyse how these terms are understood and why differences in understanding exist. METHODS: Drawing on scholarship concerning ideology, framing and power, we employ a case study of a USAID-sponsored suite of awards called MOMENTUM. Applying a meta-ethnographic approach, we triangulate data from peer-reviewed and grey literature, as well as 27 key informant interviews with actors at the forefront of shaping these discourses and those associated with MOMENTUM, working in development agencies, implementing organisations, low-income and middle-income country governments, and academia. RESULTS: The lack of common understanding of these three terms is in part a result of differences in two perspectives in global health-reformist and transformational-which are animated by fundamentally different ideologies. Reformists, reflecting neoliberal and liberal democratic ideologies, largely take a technocratic approach to understanding health problems and advance incremental solutions, working within existing global and local health systems to effect change. Transformationalists, reflecting threads of neo-Marxist ideology, see the problems as inherently political and seek to overhaul national and global systems and power relations. These ideologies shape differences in how actors define the problem, its solutions and attribute responsibility, resulting in nuanced differences among global health actors in their understanding of resilience, self-reliance and increasing country voice. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in how these terms are employed and framed are not just linguistic; the language that is used is reflective of underlying ideological differences among global health actors, with implications for the way programmes are designed and implemented, the knowledge that is produced and engagement with stakeholders. Laying these distinct ideologies bare may be crucial for managing actor differences and advancing more productive discussions and actions towards achieving global health equity.

Transforming global health education during the COVID-19 era: perspectives from a transnational collective of global health students and recent graduates.

Inspired by the 2021 BMJ Global Health Editorial by Atkins et al on global health (GH) teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic, a group of GH students and recent graduates from around the world convened to discuss our experiences in GH education during multiple global crises. Through weekly meetings over the course of several months, we reflected on the impact the COVID-19 pandemic and broader systemic inequities and injustices in GH education and practice have had on us over the past 2 years. Despite our geographical and disciplinary diversity, our collective experience suggests that while the pandemic provided an opportunity for changing GH education, that opportunity was not seized by most of our institutions. In light of the mounting health crises that loom over our generation, emerging GH professionals have a unique role in critiquing, deconstructing and reconstructing GH education to better address the needs of our time. By using our experiences learning GH during the pandemic as an entry point, and by using this collective as an incubator for dialogue and re-imagination, we offer our insights outlining successes and barriers we have faced with GH and its education and training. Furthermore, we identify autonomous collectives as a potential viable alternative to encourage pluriversality of knowledge and action systems and to move beyond Western universalism that frames most of traditional academia.