Invisibility in global health: A case for disturbing bioethical frameworks.

In recent years, the global health community has increasingly reported the problem of 'invisibility': aspects of health and wellbeing, particularly amongst the world's most marginalized and impoverished people, that are systematically overlooked and ignored by people and institutions in relative positions of power. It is unclear how to realistically manage global health invisibility within bioethics and other social science disciplines and move forward. In this letter, we reflect on several case studies of invisibility experienced by people in Brazil, Malaysia, West Africa and other transnational contexts. Highlighting the complex nature of invisibility and its interconnectedness with social, political and economic issues and trends, we argue that while local and targeted interventions might provide relief and comfort locally, they will not be able to solve the underlying causes of invisibility. Building from the shared lessons of case study presentations at an Oxford-Johns Hopkins Global Infectious Disease Ethics Collaborative (GLIDE), we argue that in dealing with an intersectional issue such as invisibility, twenty-first century global health bioethics could pursue a more 'disturbing' framework, challenging the narrow comforting solutions which take as a given the sociomaterial inequalities of the status quo. We highlight that comforting and disturbing bioethical frameworks should not be considered as opposing sides, but as two approaches working in tandem in order to achieve the internationally set global health milestones of providing better health and wellbeing for everyone. Insights from sociology, anthropology, postcolonial studies, history, feminist studies and other styles of critical reasoning have long been disturbing to grand narratives of people and their conditions. To rediscover the ethos of the WHO Alma Ata Declaration-a vision of "health for all by the year 2000"-these thinking tools will be necessary aids in developing cooperation and support beyond the narrow market logic that dominates the landscape of contemporary global health.

Preparing Doctors in Training for Health Activist Roles: A Cross-Institutional Community Organizing Workshop for Incoming Medical Residents.

INTRODUCTION: Physicians are increasingly being called on to address inequities created by social and structural determinants of health, yet few receive training in specific leadership skills that allow them to do so effectively. METHODS: We developed a workshop to introduce incoming medical interns from all specialties at Boston-area residency programs to community organizing as a framework for effective physician advocacy. We utilized didactic sessions, video examples, and small-group practice led by trained coaches to familiarize participants with one community organizing leadership skill-public narrative-as a means of creating the relationships that underlie collective action. We offered this 3-hour, cross-institutional workshop just prior to intern orientation and evaluated it through a postworkshop survey. RESULTS: In June 2019, 51 residents from 13 programs at seven academic medical centers attended this workshop. In the postworkshop survey, participants agreed with positive evaluative statements about the workshop's value and impact on their knowledge, with a mean score on all items of over 4 (5-point Likert scale, 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree; response rate: 34 of 51). Free-text comments emphasized the workshop's effectiveness in evoking positive feelings of solidarity, community, and professional identity. DISCUSSION: The workshop effectively introduced participants to community organizing and public narrative, allowed them to apply the principles of public narrative by developing their own stories of self, and demonstrated how these practices can be utilized in physician advocacy. The workshop also connected participants to their motivations for pursuing medicine and stimulated interest in more community organizing training.

The origins of the 4 × 4 framework for noncommunicable disease at the World Health Organization.

This paper traces the history of noncommunicable disease public health research and programming at the World Health Organization. Specifically, it investigates the origins of the now pervasive 4 × 4 framework focusing on four sets of diseases (cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, chronic respiratory diseases, and cancers) caused by four behavioral risk factors (tobacco use, harmful use of alcohol, unhealthy diets, and physical inactivity). We have found that the 4 × 4 framework developed as a generalization from strategies to control epidemics of cardiovascular disease and stroke in high-income countries during the second half of the twentieth century. These strategies, which were narrowly focused on interventions to address behavioral "lifestyle" risk factors as well as pharmacotherapy for physiologic risk factors, were ultimately packaged as an integrated approach initially in high-income countries and subsequently extended to low- and middle-income countries, where they have failed to address much of the burden among very poor populations.