Search

Health promotion has long aspired for a world where all people can live to their full potential. Yet, COVID-19 illuminates dramatically different consequences for populations bearing heavy burdens of systemic disadvantage within countries and between the Global South and Global North. Many months of pandemic is entrenching inequities that reveal themselves in the vastly differential distribution of hospitalization and mortality, for example, among racialized groups in the USA. Amplified awareness of the intimate relationship between health, social structures, and economy opens a window of opportunity to act on decades of global commitments to prioritize health equity. Choices to act (or not act) are likely to accelerate already vast inequities within and between countries as rapidly as the COVID-19 pandemic itself. Recognizing the inherently global nature of this pandemic, this article explores how determinants of equity are embedded in global responses to it, arguing that these determinants will critically shape our global futures. This article aims to stimulate dialogue about equity-centered health promoting action during a pandemic, using the Canadian Coalition for Global Health Research (CCGHR) Principles for Global Health Research to examine equity considerations at a time of pandemic. Attentiveness to power and the relationship between political economy and health are argued as central to identifying and examining issues of equity. This article invites dialogue about how equity-centered planning, decision-making and action could leverage this massive disruption to society to spark a more hopeful, just, and humane collective future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is widely accepted that research evidence should inform policy and practice in health service organizations. Yet, amid increasingly complex and even wicked realities, where health inequities prevail and resource-strained health service organizations struggle to keep pace with demand, using research to inform practice and policy remains an elusive ideal. Bowen and colleagues' study illuminates critical relational pathways for engagement in evidence-informed practice and decision-making and suggests beginning insights into what might contribute to the tenuousness of this aspirational ideal. But what kind of reimagination is needed to move toward more genuine engagement in research? This commentary argues for reimagining the relationship between researchers and health research, positioning researchers as responsive, guided by humility, and part of a greater collective effort to advance a public good. It challenges notions of objectivity and detached expertise, suggesting that researchers embrace an active practice of humility focused on approaching research in service and from a position of learning rather than knowing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2008, the World Health Organization's Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH) presented an influential compilation of evidence establishing the relationship between health inequities and the unfair distribution of power, wealth, and resources. A decade later, individual and bio-behavioural responses to health inequities persist. The purpose of this scoping review was to explore the extent to which this evidence guided research, practice, and policy in global and public health. To do this, we assessed different ways the CSDH evidence and calls for action were integrated in scholarly publications (citation, portrayal of health inequities, alignment with calls for action, and orientation toward root causes). A systematic search of peer-reviewed articles (2000–2016) using search terms related to 'knowledge-to-action' and 'health equity' led to 330 included articles. Results suggest integration of CSDH evidence and calls for action in scholarly work is modest: 59% (n = 163) of authors (2009–2016) cited the report. A large portion of authors did not reference causes of health inequities (52% before and 51% after the CSDH) and few referred to issues of power. Among 110 post-CSDH empirical articles, half did not align with CSDH principles for action. This review illustrates that much scholarly work that purported to contribute to health equity did so in ways that conflicted with the CSDH's characterization of the remediable nature and distribution of health inequities. These results provide a practical platform for assessing how global and public health efforts can move towards better alignment with the best available evidence about advancing health equity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite governmental efforts to close the gender gap and global calls including Sustainable Development Goal 5 to promote gender equality, the sobering reality is that gender inequities continue to persist in Canadian global health institutions. Moreover, from health to the economy, security to social protection, COVID-19 has exposed and heightened pre-existing inequities, with women, especially marginalized women, being disproportionately impacted. Women, particularly women who face bias along multiple identity dimensions, continue to be at risk of being excluded or delegitimized as participants in the global health workforce and continue to face barriers in career advancement to leadership, management and governance positions in Canada. These inequities have downstream effects on the policies and programmes, including global health efforts intended to support equitable partnerships with colleagues in low- and middle- income countries. We review current institutional gender inequities in Canadian global health research, policy and practice and by extension, our global partnerships. Informed by this review, we offer four priority actions for institutional leaders and managers to gender-transform Canadian global health institutions to accompany both the immediate response and longer-term recovery efforts of COVID-19. In particular, we call for the need for tracking indicators of gender parity within and across our institutions and in global health research (e.g., representation and participation, pay, promotions, training opportunities, unpaid care work), accountability and progressive action., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Copyright: © 2022 Carducci et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Scholarship on the health impacts of resource extraction displays prominent gaps and apparent corporate and neocolonial footprints that raise questions about how science is produced. We analyze production of knowledge, on the health impacts of mining, carried out in relation to the Canadian International Resources and Development Institute (CIRDI), a university-based organization with substantial extractive industry involvement and links to Canada's mining-dominated foreign policy. We use a "political ecology of knowledge" framework to situate CIRDI in the context of neoliberal capitalism, neocolonial sustainable development discourses, and mining industry corporate social responsibility techniques. We then document the interactions of specific health disciplinary conventions and knowledges within CIRDI-related research and advocacy efforts involving a major Canadian global health organization. This analysis illustrates both accommodation and resistance to large-scale political economic structures and the need to directly confront the global North governments and sectors pushing extractive-led neoliberal development globally. Resumen La investigación sobre los impactos en la salud de la extracción de recursos naturales delata brechas importantes y huellas corporativas y neocoloniales, que plantean dudas acerca de cómo se produce la ciencia. Analizamos la producción de conocimiento sobre los impactos en la salud de la minería en relación con el Instituto Canadiense de Desarrollo y Recursos Internacionales (CIRDI, siglas en inglés), una organización universitaria que cuenta con participación sustancial de la industria extractiva y tiene vínculos con la política exterior de Canadá, la cual es dominada por intereses mineros. Utilizamos un marco de "ecología política del conocimiento" para situar a CIRDI en el contexto del capitalismo neoliberal, los discursos neocoloniales de desarrollo sostenible y las técnicas de responsabilidad social corporativa de la industria minera. Luego, documentamos las interacciones entre los conocimientos y convenciones disciplinarias de salud dentro de los esfuerzos de investigación y promoción relacionados con CIRDI que involucran a una importante organización canadiense de salud global. Este análisis muestra tanto la complacencia como la resistencia a las estructuras políticas económicas a gran escala, y la necesidad de confrontar directamente a los gobiernos y sectores del Norte global que manejan el desarrollo neoliberal impulsado por la extracción a nivel mundial.