Interdisciplinary Studies Graduate Program, University of British Columbia, 270, 2357 Main Mall, H. R. MacMillan Building, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada.
Institute for Global Health, University College London, 30 Guilford Street, London, WC1N 1EH, UK.
BMC Public Health. 2019 Jun 24;19(1):815. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-7114-5.
In 2017, the G20 health ministers convened for the first time to discuss global health and issued a communiqué outlining their health priorities, as the BRICS and G7 have done for years. As these political clubs hold considerable political and economic influence, their respective global health agendas may influence both global health priorities and the priorities of other countries and actors.
Given the rising salience of global health in global summitry, we analyzed the health ministerial communiqués issued by the BRICS, G7 and G20 after the SDGs were adopted in 2015. We compared the stated health priorities of the BRICS, G7 and G20 against one another and against the targets of SDG 3 on health, using a traffic light system to assess the quality of their commitments.
With regard to the SDG 3 targets, the BRICS, G7 and G20 priorities overlapped in their focus on emergency preparedness and universal health coverage, but diverged in areas of environmental pollution, mental health, and maternal and child health. Health issues with considerable associated burdens of disease, including substance use, road traffic injuries and sexual health, were missing from the agendas of all three political clubs. In terms of SDG 3 principles and ways of working, the BRICS, G7 and G20 varied in their emphasis on human rights, equity and engagement with non-state actors, but all expressed their explicit commitment to Agenda 2030.
The leadership of BRICS, G7 and G20 on global health is welcome. However, their relatively narrow focus on the potential impact of ill-health primarily in relation to the economy and trade may not be sufficiently comprehensive to achieve the Agenda 2030 vision of promoting health equity and leaving no-one behind. Recommendations for the BRICS, G7 and G20 based on this analysis include: 1) expanding focus to the neglected SDG 3 health targets; 2) placing greater emphasis on upstream determinants of health; 3) greater commitment to equity and leaving no-one behind; 4) adopting explicit commitments to rights-based approaches; and 5) making commitments that are of higher quality and which include time-bound quantitative targets and clear accountability mechanisms.
2017 年，20 国集团（G20）卫生部长首次举行会议讨论全球卫生问题，并发布公报，概述了他们的卫生重点，金砖国家和七国集团多年来一直这样做。由于这些政治俱乐部具有相当大的政治和经济影响力，他们各自的全球卫生议程可能会影响全球卫生重点以及其他国家和行为体的优先事项。
鉴于全球卫生在全球峰会上的重要性不断提高，我们分析了 2015 年可持续发展目标（SDG）通过后金砖国家、七国集团和 G20 发表的卫生部长公报。我们使用红绿灯系统来评估其承诺的质量，比较金砖国家、七国集团和 G20 各自的卫生重点与 SDG3 目标的健康目标，并将其进行了对比。
就 SDG3 目标而言，金砖国家、七国集团和 G20 的重点都集中在应急准备和全民健康覆盖上，但在环境污染、心理健康以及母婴健康等方面存在分歧。所有三个政治俱乐部的议程都没有涉及与疾病负担相关的重大卫生问题，包括物质使用、道路交通伤害和性健康。在 SDG3 原则和工作方式方面，金砖国家、七国集团和 G20 对人权、公平以及与非国家行为体的接触重视程度不同，但都表示明确支持 2030 年议程。
欢迎金砖国家、七国集团和 G20 在全球卫生方面发挥领导作用。然而，他们相对狭隘地关注健康不良对经济和贸易的潜在影响可能不够全面，无法实现 2030 年议程促进健康公平和不落下任何人的愿景。根据这项分析，对金砖国家、七国集团和 G20 的建议包括：1）扩大重点关注被忽视的 SDG3 卫生目标；2）更加重视健康的上游决定因素；3）更加致力于公平和不落下任何人；4）采取明确的基于权利的方法的承诺；5）做出更高质量的承诺，包括有时限的量化目标和明确的问责机制。
