Search

This commentary explores historical efforts to diagnose the present and project the future through the specific example of medical manpower planning. To situate this, it draws on work within and across geography exploring the concept of anticipation and considers the discipline's failure to adequately engage with healthcare workers, despite the vibrancy of health geography as a subdiscipline. As it explores, ensuring adequate numbers of staff in a healthcare system has been an issue for as long as there have been healthcare systems. Planning for healthcare system needs is thus a particularly fraught form of anticipation that seeks to project future needs from a contested and often incalculable present as a basis for political decision‐making and resource allocation. As this commentary explores, it is a problem that is global in scope, historically deep and thus rich in analytical possibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the twentieth century, the concept of the natural experiment has become increasingly prominent across a variety of disciplines, albeit most consequentially in epidemiology and public health. Drawing on an analysis of the scientific and medical literature, we explore the social life of the natural experiment, tracing its changing use, meaning and uptake to better understand the work done by the concept. We demonstrate how the natural experiment became central to the identity of post‐war epidemiology as the discipline professionalised, turned its attention to the prevention of chronic disease and took centre stage in the field of public health. We then turn to its growing significance amid the rise of evidence‐based medicine, and the new meanings natural experiments came to take on in the context of concerns about policy and evidence. Finally, we turn to the newest iteration of the natural experiment in the COVID‐19 era, which saw an explosion of studies drawing on the term, albeit in ways that reveal more about the underlying politics of health than the method itself. Throughout, we illustrate that the concept of the natural experiment has always been fundamentally social and political and tied to disciplinary claims‐making about evidence and what should count as such. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

COVID‐19 is a multi‐spectral crisis that has added an acute layer over a panoply of complex emergencies across the world. In the process, it has not only exposed actually‐existing emergencies, but also exacerbated them as the global gaze has turned inward. As a crisis, COVID‐19 straddles and challenges the boundaries between humanitarianism, development, and global health—the frames and categories through which emergencies are so often understood and intervened upon. Reflection on these fundamental categories is, we argue, an important geographical endeavour. Drawing on Geoffrey Bowker's analytical lens of the 'infrastructural inversion', we explore how humanitarianism has been upended by COVID‐19 along two axes that are of core concern to geographers: (1) the spatial and (2) the temporal. We first contextualise current debates on the humanitarian endeavour and its future within recent geographical research. We then set out the complex structure by which COVID‐19 has been both imagined and intervened upon as a humanitarian emergency. In so doing, we then pave the way for a deeper empirical analysis of the spatial and temporal inversions that have been brought forth by COVID‐19. The paper concludes by examining the conceptual value of the 'inversion' in developing geographical research agendas better attuned to the increasing porosity of humanitarianism, development, and global health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The movement to decolonise global health is gathering pace. In its concern with the fundamental, distal causes of inequality and its call for social justice, the decolonisation movement forces us to question how global health works, for whom, where it is located, its funding practices, power asymmetries, cultures of collaboration and publication. This paper uses a new book by Harvard-based physician-anthropologist Eugene T. Richardson, Epidemic Illusions, as a point of departure for a broader analysis of the nature of global health knowledge, science, authorship, research and practice. Written in a 'carnivalesque' style, the book proceeds through a series of 'ironic (re)descriptions' to argue that global public health is an 'apparatus of coloniality'. In so doing, the book is generative of four ironic turns that we explore through the themes of guilt, humility, privilege and ambiguity. In locating these ironic turns within the broader landscape of global health, we reflect on whether the means of such a book achieve the ends of decolonisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It has long been recognised that human health is indelibly shaped by a variety of factors. These include pathogens such as bacteria and viruses, but also broad-ranging social, economic and political forces operating at different spatial scales. In seeking to understand the nature and effects of these forces, two concepts have become particularly influential: the 'social determinants of health' and 'structural violence'. In this paper, we critically examine their origins, tracing their 'prehistory' and little-recognised intersections, based on searches of both concepts in PubMed and Google Scholar, and a critical reading of the range of texts our searches produced. This forms the groundwork from which we examine their similarities and differences, and their potentialities and limitations. We demonstrate that both concepts operate largely as black boxes. Their usage has thus become tied to disciplinary and methodological projects, with attendant implications for their wider usage – especially given the respective statuses of the fields of medical anthropology and social epidemiology in public health. We conclude that structural violence and the social determinants of health have both been influential in research and policy, but have struggled to effect the kinds of political change that their moral commitment to social justice promises and that further dialogue between them is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are a complex category composed of five diseases and five behavioural and environmental risk factors. These are, in turn, represented by multiple constituencies and communities of expertise and interest. This fractured landscape is evidenced by and magnified through an abject lack of conferences devoted to the category of NCDs. One of the very few is the NCD Alliance Forum, most recently held in February 2020 in Sharjah, United Arab Emirates. With the first Forum held in 2015 and another in 2017, these events offer powerful insight into the key actors, advocacy strategies, debates and aspirations of those working in the 'NCD space'. Using the Forum as its object of research and analysis, this paper critically reflects on two persistent questions facing NCD advocates. First, how might NCDs be more like infectious diseases in cultivating a sense of urgency and action? Second, is NCD advocacy a 'movement' or a 'community' of loosely connected actors? Set against the emerging COVID-19 outbreak, which at the time of the Forum was limited to China and a handful of other countries, the Forum offered a unique opportunity to reflect upon the significant challenges facing NCD advocates across global north and south. COVID-19 only highlights how rising rates of NCDs have made global populations vulnerable to emerging infectious diseases. Yet, as the paper concludes, with the COVID-19 pandemic continuing to rage, the future of NCD advocacy and funding looks ever more fragile even as evidence of its need continues to grow. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]