Castor Delivette, Borrell Luisa N
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Graduate School of Public Health & Health Policy, City University of New York, New York, NY, USA.
Prev Med. 2022 Oct;163:107227. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107227. Epub 2022 Aug 24.
We discuss the evolution of terminology, beginning with colonial medicine and ending with global health. We describe how global health's definition evolved to include language on autonomy, power, and health equity. Specifically, we studied the websites of the twenty-five‑leading national (N = 5), multilateral (N = 5), philanthropic (N = 5), non-governmental organizations (N = 5) in research, health service delivery, and advocacy, and academic institutions (N = 5) within global health to understand their history, places of critical operations, budget, organizational structure, leadership, mission, policies, and representation of the global south. These illustrative examples showed organizational structures and bureaucratic processes persisting unchanged as linguistic changes on equity occurred. We posit that within this global health framework of equity, non-convergence of language purporting global health equity with static praxis is damaging on many levels. We underscore that the epistemological-praxis disconnect creates organizational psychology akin to cognitive dissonance within individuals, particularly among practitioners from the global south. This dissonance perpetuates inequity across global health organizations uniquely structurally impedes decolonization by and in the institutions that promote global health, and undermines the achievement of current goals across the global health system. To truly decolonize global health, researchers must measure and study changes in how organizations operationalize their goals, structures, policies, and administrative processes to address equity and social justice across all sectors of the global health system.
我们讨论了术语的演变,从殖民医学开始,到全球健康结束。我们描述了全球健康的定义是如何演变的,以纳入关于自主权、权力和健康公平的内容。具体而言,我们研究了全球健康领域中研究、卫生服务提供和宣传方面的25个领先的国家组织(N = 5)、多边组织(N = 5)、慈善组织(N = 5)、非政府组织(N = 5)以及学术机构(N = 5)的网站,以了解它们的历史、关键运营地点、预算、组织结构、领导、使命、政策以及全球南方的代表性。这些示例表明,随着公平方面语言的变化,组织结构和官僚程序保持不变。我们认为,在这种全球健康公平框架内,声称全球健康公平的语言与静态实践不趋同会在许多层面造成损害。我们强调,认识论与实践的脱节在组织层面上造成了类似于个体认知失调的组织心理,尤其是在来自全球南方的从业者中。这种失调使全球健康组织之间的不平等长期存在,独特地在促进全球健康的机构内部结构上阻碍了去殖民化,并破坏了全球健康系统当前目标的实现。为了真正实现全球健康的去殖民化,研究人员必须衡量和研究组织在实现其目标、结构、政策和行政流程方面的变化,以解决全球健康系统所有部门的公平和社会正义问题。