What Do Global Health Practitioners Think about Decolonizing Global Health?

The growing awareness of colonialism's role in global health partnerships between HICs and LMICs and the associated calls for decolonization in global health has led to discussion for a paradigm shift that would lead to new ways of engagement and partnerships, as well as an acknowledgement that colonialism, racism, sexism, and capitalism contribute to inequity. While there is general agreement among those involved in global health partnerships that the current system needs to be made more equitable, suggestions for how to address the issue of decolonization vary greatly, and moving from rhetoric to reform is complicated. Based on a comprehensive (but not exhaustive) review of the literature, there are several recurring themes that should be addressed in order for the inequities in the current system to be changed. The degree to which decolonization of global health will be successful depends on how the global health community in both the HICs and LMICs move forward to discuss these issues. Specifically, as part of a paradigm shift, attention needs to be paid to creating a more equal and equitable representation of researchers in LMICs in decision-making, leadership roles, authorship, and funding allocations. There needs to be agreement in defining basic principles of best practices for global partnership, including a universal definition of 'decolonization of global health'; the extent to which current policies allow the perpetuation of power imbalance between HICs and LMICs; a set of principles, best practices, and models for equitable sharing of funds and institutional costs among partners; a mechanism to monitor progress prospectively the equitable sharing of credits (e.g., leadership, authorship), including a set of principles, best practices, and models; and, a mechanism to monitor progress prospectively the extent to which decolonialization will contribute to strengthening institutional capacity in the LMIC institutions.

Defining global health: findings from a systematic review and thematic analysis of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: Debate around a common definition of global health has seen extensive scholarly interest within the last two decades; however, consensus around a precise definition remains elusive. The objective of this study was to systematically review definitions of global health in the literature and offer grounded theoretical insights into what might be seen as relevant for establishing a common definition of global health. METHOD: A systematic review was conducted with qualitative synthesis of findings using peer-reviewed literature from key databases. Publications were identified by the keywords of 'global health' and 'define' or 'definition' or 'defining'. Coding methods were used for qualitative analysis to identify recurring themes in definitions of global health published between 2009 and 2019. RESULTS: The search resulted in 1363 publications, of which 78 were included. Qualitative analysis of the data generated four theoretical categories and associated subthemes delineating key aspects of global health. These included: (1) global health is a multiplex approach to worldwide health improvement taught and pursued at research institutions; (2) global health is an ethically oriented initiative that is guided by justice principles; (3) global health is a mode of governance that yields influence through problem identification, political decision-making, as well as the allocation and exchange of resources across borders and (4) global health is a vague yet versatile concept with multiple meanings, historical antecedents and an emergent future. CONCLUSION: Extant definitions of global health can be categorised thematically to designate areas of importance for stakeholders and to organise future debates on its definition. Future contributions to this debate may consider shifting from questioning the abstract 'what' of global health towards more pragmatic and reflexive questions about 'who' defines global health and towards what ends.

Use of genetic tests among neurologists and psychiatrists: knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and needs for training.

This study explores neurologists' and psychiatrists' knowledge, attitudes, and practices concerning genetic tests. Psychiatrists (n = 5,316) and neurologists (n = 2,167) on the American Medical Association master list who had agreed to receive surveys were sent an email link to a survey about their attitudes and practices regarding genetic testing; 372 psychiatrists and 163 neurologists responded. A higher proportion of neurologists (74%) than psychiatrists (14%) who responded to the survey had ordered genetic testing in the past 6 months. Overall, most respondents thought that genetic tests should be performed more frequently, but almost half believed genetic tests could harm patients psychologically and considered legal protections inadequate. Almost half of neurologists (49%) and over 75% of psychiatrists did not have a genetics professional to whom to refer patients; those who had ordered genetic tests were more likely than those who did not do so to have access to a genetic counselor. Of respondents, 10% had received patient requests not to document genetic information and 15% had received inquiries about direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Neurologists reported themselves to be relatively more experienced and knowledgeable about genetics than psychiatrists. These data, the first to examine several important issues concerning knowledge, attitudes and behaviors of neurologists and psychiatrists regarding genetic tests, have important implications for future practice, research, and education.