Search

BackgroundRecently, global health has been confronting its visual culture, historically modulated by colonialism, racism and abusive representation. There have been international calls to promote ethicality of visual practices. However, despite this focus on the history and the institutional use of global health images, little is known about how in practice contemporary images are created in communities, and how consent to be in photographs is obtained.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with 29 global health photographers about the ethical and practical challenges they experience in creating global health images, and thematically analysed the findings.FindingsThe following themes were identified: (1) global health photography is undergoing a marketing transformation and images are being increasingly moderated; (2) photographers routinely negotiate stereotypical and abusive tropes purposefully sought by organisations; (3) local scenes are modified, enhanced and staged to achieve a desired marketing effect; (4) 'empowerment' is becoming an increasingly prominent dehumanising visual trope; (5) consent to be photographed can be jeopardised by power imbalances, illiteracy, fears and trust; (6) organisations sometimes problematically recycle images.Interpretation/discussionThis research has identified practical and ethical issues experienced by global health photographers, suggesting that the production cycle of global health images can be easily abused. The detected themes raise questions of responsibility and accountability, and require further transdisciplinary discussion, especially if promoting ethical photojournalism is the goal for 21st century global health.

In 2010, the UK embarked on a self-imposed programme of contractionary measures signalling the beginning of a so-called "age of austerity" for the country. It was argued that budgetary cuts were the most appropriate means of eliminating deficits and decreasing national debt as percentage of General Domestic Product (GDP). Although the budget for the National Health Service (NHS) was not reduced, a below-the-average increase in funding, and cuts in other areas of public spending, particularly in social care and welfare spending, impacted significantly on the NHS. One of the areas where the impact of austerity was most dramatically felt was in Accidents and Emergency Departments (A&E). A number of economic and statistical reports and quantitative studies have explored and documented the effects of austerity in healthcare in the UK, but there is a paucity of research looking at the effects of austerity from the standpoint of the healthcare professionals. In this paper, we report findings from a qualitative study with healthcare professionals working in A&E departments in England. The study findings are presented thematically in three sections. The main theme that runs through all three sections is the perceptions of austerity as shaping the functioning of A&E departments, of healthcare professions and of professionals themselves. The first section discusses the rising demand for services and resources, and the changed demographic of A&E patients-altering the meaning of A&E from 'Accidents and Emergencies' to the Department for 'Anything and Everything'. The second section in this study's findings, explores how austerity policies are perceived to affect the character of healthcare in A&E. It discusses how an increased focus on the procedures, time-keeping and the operationalisation of healthcare is considered to detract from values such as empathy in interactions with patients. In the third section, the effects of austerity on the morale and motivations of healthcare professionals themselves are presented. Here, the concepts of moral distress and burnout are used in the analysis of the experiences and feelings of being devalued. From these accounts and insights, we analyse austerity as a catalyst or mechanism for a significant shift in the practice and function of the NHS-in particular, a shift in what is counted, measured and valued at departmental, professional and personal levels in A&E.

To explore Cambodian community members' understanding of and attitudes towards healthcare research.This qualitative study generated data from semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions. This study was conducted at a non-governmental paediatric hospital and in nearby villages in Siem Reap province, Cambodia. A total of ten semi-structured interviews and four focus group discussions were conducted, involving 27 participants. Iterative data collection and analysis were performed concurrently. Data were analysed by thematic content analysis and the coding structure was developed using relevant literature.Participants did not have a clear understanding of what activities related to research compared with those for routine healthcare. Key attitudes towards research were responsibility and trust: personal (trust of the researcher directly) and institutional (trust of the institution as a whole). Villagers believe the village headman holds responsibility for community activities, while the village headman believes that this responsibility should be shared across all levels of the government system.It is essential for researchers to understand the structure and relationship within the community they wish to work with in order to develop trust among community participants. This aids effective communication and understanding among all parties, enabling high quality ethical research to be conducted.

There has been a dramatic rise in the scale and scope of collaborative global health research. A number of structural and scientific factors explain this growth and there has been much discussion of these in the literature. Little, if any, attention has been paid, however, to the factors identified by scientists and other research actors as important to successful research collaboration. This is surprising given that their decisions are likely to play a key role in the sustainability and effectiveness of global health research initiatives. In this paper, we report on qualitative research with leading scientists involved in major international research collaborations about their views on good and bad collaborations and the factors that inform their decision-making about joining and participating actively in research networks. We identify and discuss eight factors that researchers see as essential in judging the merits of active participation in global health research collaborations: opportunities for active involvement in cutting-edge, interesting science; effective leadership; competence of potential partners in and commitment to good scientific practice; capacity building; respect for the needs, interests and agendas of partners; opportunities for discussion and disagreement; trust and confidence; and, justice and fairness in collaboration. Our findings suggest that the sustainability and effectiveness of global health research collaborations has an important ethical or moral dimension for the research actors involved.