US Public Health Leaders Shift Toward a New Paradigm of Global Health

Bibliographic Data

ID11020964
AuthorsSupinda Bunyavanich (0000-0001-6108-439X, The authors are with the Office of International and Refugee Health, US Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, Md.), Ruth B Walkup (The authors are with the Office of International and Refugee Health, US Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, Md.)
Year2001
Volume91
Issue10
Pages1556-1558
Publication date2001-10-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueAmerican Journal of Public Health (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0090-0036 • E-ISSN: 1541-0048
PublisherAmerican Public Health Association (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.2105/ajph.91.10.1556
PMID11574304
OpenAlexW2077407772
LanguageEN
Citations received26
References cited13

“Global health” has become a dominant phrase in international public health discourse. It frames World Health Assembly discussions1 and presidential and vice presidential addresses,2, 3 stands as one of the US surgeon general's top priorities,4 commands attention at trade and development summits (e.g., the Annual Bank Conference on Development Economics, April 18–20, 2000, World Bank Headquarters, Washington, DC; the World Trade Organization's 3rd Ministerial Conference, November 30–December 3, 1999, Seattle, Wash), and underpins legislative bills for the advancement of global health.5, 6 But what do we actually mean by global health, and how does it differ from international health? Interpretations of this term affect strategies, support, and coordination for global health initiatives. Health policymakers and researchers can forge more strategic approaches to health promotion and disease prevention if they are empowered with a comprehensive understanding of “global health.” We held discussions with 29 international health leaders in government, nongovernmental, professional, multilateral, and academic organizations during July and August 1999. We asked 3 questions eliciting their theoretical and practical associations with the concept of global health in the context of their past experiences, current work, and future initiatives: • What concepts do you see as fundamental to the globalization of health? • In what tangible ways does the globalization of health affect your work and organization? • Has globalization changed the meaning and direction of your initiatives and involvements? The respondents fell into 2 groups. One group recognized worldwide commonalties in health approaches, but felt it unnecessary to coin a new phrase to describe business as usual. They believed that “global health” was mere jargon. “Nothing has changed,” commented a Senate aide. “Saying global health instead of international health doesn't change anything.” The other group emphasized profound differences between “international” and “global.” “International” elicited conceptualizations of coordination constrained by nation-state boundaries, whereas “global” held a more positive connotation associated with improvement. Interestingly, “globalization” suggested many of the negative effects of increasing worldwide linkages in commerce, travel, and communication. “I associate ‘globalization’ with bad problems that involve the whole world,” commented one professor. Overall, most people interviewed believed that “global health” was a loaded but meaningful term. We present our analysis of the respondents' interpretations here under 4 themes: definitions of health norms, health status, health care provision, and health ethics

Business · Context (archaeology) · Global health · Global strategy · Globalization · Government (linguistics) · Health promotion · International health · Legislature · Political science · Politics · Presidential system · Public health · Public relations · Global Health and Surgery · Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology · Law · Marketing · Medicine · Nursing · Public Administration · Public Health Policies and Education · Health Policy

Tools

Open DOISci-HubOpen Access