Search

Despite increases in treatment uptake for hepatitis C viral infection (HCV) in Australia since the introduction of direct acting antiviral (DAA) therapy, a large proportion of HCV-infected people who inject drugs (PWID) have not sought treatment.

This introduction to the special issue aims to conceptualize the structural and super-structural relations between global capitalism and health, incorporating both historical and contemporary capit...

In this article, we seek to intervene on the global health security debate and attendant literatures to argue that the primary focus of global health security–that infectious disease is an existential security threat to both humans and vital infrastructures–only tells one part of the story about the meaning and significance of biological danger in the contemporary context. While important, this perspective fails to grapple with the ways that our conception of what biology is and what it can do have been altered through advances in science and technology, particularly through the intermingling of computer science and molecular biology. Starting from the premise that biology has been informationalized, we argue that biological exchange is not only a threat to humans and the institutional structures they create, it is also, importantly, a political and economic opportunity for firms and core states involved in global health security, and one of the key bases for an emergent global political economy of health security. We forward the idea of a somatic-security industrial complex to capture this dynamic.

This paper explores the willingness to use and pay for HIV Self-testing (HIVST) among Australian gay and bisexual men (GBM). Bivariate and univariate multinominal logistic regression of data from an online survey was performed. Thirty-one (13%) had never HIV tested and 41.9% (88) were testing sub-optimally by Australian guidelines. Half (58.4%, 136) had never heard of HIVST, however, 56.2% (131) reported willingness to use HIVST, with sub-optimal (OR=2.13; p

Self-Testing for HIV (HIVST) is widely recognised as a feasible and effective means of increasing rates of testing and detection of HIV, particularly in non-testing and infrequent testing populations. Currently in Australia, the only means of accessing this technology is to purchase unregulated products on-line. A search of available on-line distributers was purposefully performed from the perspective of an English-speaking individual, with no clinical background or specific understanding of HIV testing practices, seeking to determine their HIV status. Purchased kits were assessed against a structured extraction tool based on the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) HIV testing clinical performance guidelines. In total, eight HIVST kits were purchased from seven different distributers. Analysis of the purchased kits and linked websites revealed that none met the TGA's requirements for HIV testing kits intended for home use; none also conformed to the additional recommendations for information, quality and links to services developed from this study's review of HIVST associated literature. People seeking HIVST kits are able to purchase sub-standard products that ill-serve their needs, and do so at a time of great personal vulnerability. The fact that Australians are willing to purchase and use these sub-standard products indicates HIVST is in demand. Health policy and models of service are needed in order to ensure people have access to a safe and effective registered device at prices that enable equity of access to all Australians, particularly those most at risk of HIV. Other countries awaiting access to regulated HIVST devices also need to consider the potential implications. Collaboration between manufacturers, distributers, regulatory bodies, service providers and the community is needed globally in order to ensure HIVST is embedded into testing methods in a manner that does not disrupt but rather safely and effectively increases HIV testing rates.

The study of global health governance has developed rapidly over recent years. That literature has identified a range of factors which help explain the “failure” of global health governance, but it has largely neglected the global public policy processes which perpetuate that failure. In this paper we argue that there is such a thing as “global health policy” and set out a new framework for analyzing the processes through which it is made, highlighting the mixture of power and ideas, agency and structure, which impact upon the policy cycle. The framework rests upon four pillars: framing; paradigms; power; and the “deep core” of neoliberalism. Through integrating insights from a range of literatures, in particular from the global health governance and public policy analysis fields, we seek to enrich the conceptual basis of current work on global health governance.