Search

Coloniality in global health manifests as systemic inequalities, not based on merit, that benefit one group at the expense of another. Global surgery seeks to advance equity by inserting surgery into the global health agenda; however, it inherits the biases in global health. As a diverse group of global surgery practitioners, we aimed to examine inequities in global surgery. Using a structured, iterative, group Delphi consensus-building process drawing on the literature and our lived experiences, we identified five categories of non-merit inequalities in global surgery. These include Western epistemology, geographies of inequity, unequal participation, resource extraction, and asymmetric power and control. We observed that global surgery is dominated by Western biomedicine, characterised by the lack of interprofessional and interspecialty collaboration, incorporation of Indigenous medical systems, and social, cultural, and environmental contexts. Global surgery is Western-centric and exclusive, with a unidirectional flow of personnel from the Global North to the Global South. There is unequal participation by location (Global South), gender (female), specialty (obstetrics and anaesthesia) and profession ('non-specialists', non-clinicians, patients and communities). Benefits, such as funding, authorship and education, mostly flow towards the Global North. Institutions in the Global North have disproportionate control over priority setting, knowledge production, funding and standards creation. This naturalises inequities and masks upstream resource extraction. Guided by these five categories, we concluded that shifting global surgery towards equity entails building inclusive, pluralist, polycentric models of surgical care by providers who represent the community, with resource controlled and governance driven by communities in each setting., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Seye Abimbola and co-authors argue for a transformation in global health research and practice in the post-COVID-19 world., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: MP serves on the editorial board of PLOS Medicine. None of the other authors have competing interests to disclose.