Where theory and practice of global health intersect
The developmental history of a Canadian global health initiative
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 19529288 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Ibrahim Daibes (St. Michael's Hospital, corresponding author), Sanjeev Sridharan (0000-0002-0392-3084, St. Michael's Hospital) |
| Year | 2014 |
| Volume | 7 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 23974-23974 |
| Publication date | 2014-12-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Global Health Action (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1654-9716 • E-ISSN: 1654-9880 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.3402/gha.v7.23974 |
| PMID | 25062789 |
| OpenAlex | W2015265415 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
| References cited | 9 |
OBJECTIVE: This paper examines the scope of practice of global health, drawing on the practical experience of a global health initiative of the Government of Canada--the Teasdale-Corti Global Health Research Partnership Program. A number of challenges in the practical application of theoretical definitions and understandings of global health are addressed. These challenges are grouped under five areas that form essential characteristics of global health: equity and egalitarian North-South partnerships, interdisciplinary scope, focus on upstream determinants of health, global conceptualization, and global health as an area of both research and practice. DESIGN: Information in this paper is based on the results of an external evaluation of the program, which involved analysis of project proposals and technical reports, surveys with grantees and interviews with grantees and program designers, as well as case studies of three projects and a review of relevant literature. RESULTS: The philosophy and recent definitions of global health represent a significant and important departure from the international health paradigm. However, the practical applicability of this maturing area of research and practice still faces significant systemic and structural impediments that, if not acknowledged and addressed, will continue to undermine the development of global health as an effective means to addressing health inequities globally and to better understanding, and acting upon, upstream determinants of health toward health for all. CONCLUSIONS: While it strives to redress global inequities, global health continues to be a construct that is promoted, studied, and dictated mostly by Northern institutions and scholars. Until practical mechanisms are put in place for truly egalitarian partnerships between North and South for both the study and practice of global health, the emerging philosophy of global health cannot be effectively put into practice
Conceptualization · Economic growth · General partnership · Global health · Health equity · International health · Political science · Public health · Public relations · Redress · Social determinants of health · Global Health and Surgery · Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology · Global Security and Public Health · Medicine · Nursing · Health Policy
Complex interventions or complex systems? Implications for health economic evaluation
Towards a common definition of global health
The importance of a common global health definition
Defining features of the practice of global health research
The World Health Organization and the Transition From “International” to “Global” Public Health
Coordinating Canada’s Research Response to Global Health Challenges
| Citations per year | 0.4 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2021 - 2022 (2) |
| Highly cited | No |