Explore the vast range of titles available.

Information sharing is a critical element of an effective response to infectious disease outbreaks. The international system of coordination established through the World Health Organization via the International Health Regulations largely relies on governments to communicate timely and accurate information about health risk during an outbreak. This information supports WHO’s decision making process for declaring a public health emergency of international concern. It also aides the WHO to work with governments to coordinate efforts to contain cross-border outbreaks. Given the importance of information sharing by governments, it is not surprising that governments that withhold or delay sharing information about outbreaks within their borders are often condemned by the international community for non-compliance with the International Health Regulations. The barriers to rapid and transparent information sharing are numerous. While governments must be held accountable for delaying or withholding information, in many cases non-compliance may be a rational response to real and perceived risks rather than a problem of technical incapacity or a lack of political commitment. Improving adherence to the International Health Regulations will require a long-term process to build trust that incorporates recognizing and mitigating the potential and perceived risks of information sharing.

Background The UN system’s shift towards multistakeholder governance, now embedded in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), invites a broad range of actors, including the private sector, to the policymaking table. Although the tobacco industry is formally excluded from engagement, this approach provides opportunities for other unhealthy commodity industries to influence the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) non-communicable disease (NCD) agenda. Focusing on the food industry, this research maps which actors engaged with WHO consultations, and critically examines actors’ policy and governance preferences as well as the framing they employ to promote these preferences in the global context. Methods All written responses from food industry actors to publicly available NCD-relevant WHO consultations held between September 2015 and September 2018 were identified, totalling forty-five responses across five consultations. A qualitative frame analysis was conducted to identify policy positions expressed by respondents, as well as arguments and frames used to do so. Results Though no individual companies responded to the consultations, the majority of participating business associations had some of the largest multinational food corporations as members. Respondents overarchingly promoted non-statutory approaches and opposed statutory regulation and conflict of interest safeguards. To this purpose, they framed the food industry as a legitimate and necessary partner in policymaking, differentiating themselves from the tobacco industry and referencing a history of successful collaboration, while also invoking multistakeholder norms and good governance principles to portray collaboration as required. Respondents contrasted this with the limits of WHO’s mandate, portraying it as out of step with the SDGs and framing NCD decision-making as a matter of national sovereignty. Conclusion We observed that the UN’s call for partnerships to support the SDGs is invoked to defend corporate access to NCD policy. This highlights the need for more cautious approaches which are mindful of the commercial determinants of health. Systematic opposition to regulation and to governance approaches which may compromise commercial actors’ insider role in global health by food industry actors shown here, and the strategic use of the Sustainable Development agenda to this purpose, raises questions about the value of collaboration from the perspective of international health agencies such as WHO.

Health policies are regarded as a governance mechanism crucial for reducing health inequity and improving overall health outcomes. Policies that address chronic conditions or health inequity suggest a governance shift toward active health over past decades. However, the current literature in health policy largely focused on some specific health policy changes and their tangible outcomes, or on specific inequality of health policies in gender, age, racial, or economic status, short of comprehensively responding to and addressing the shift. This is exacerbated further by a common confusion that equates health policy with health care policy, which has been burdened by increased population ageing, growing inequalities, rising expenditures, and growing social expectations. This study conducted a narrative literature review to comprehensively and critically analyze the most current knowledge on health policy in order to help us establish a theoretical framework on active health governance. The comprehensive framework proposed in this paper identifies the main elements of a well-defined active health governance and the interactions between these elements. The proposed framework is composed of four elements (governance for health, social determinants of health, lifestyle determinants of health, and health system) and three approaches (whole-of-government approach, whole-of-society approach, and lifespan/life-course approach) that are dynamically interacted to achieve two active health outcomes (health equity and health improvement). The framework provides a conceptual solution to the issues of current literature on health policy and practically serves as a new guide for health policymaking.

Introduction United Nations (UN) agencies are influential global health actors that can introduce legal instruments to call on Member States to act on pressing issues. This paper examines the deployment and strength of global health law instruments used by UN actors to call on Member States to restrict the exposure of children to unhealthy food and beverage marketing. Methods Global health law instruments were identified from a review of four UN agencies that have a mandate over children’s exposure to marketing of unhealthy food and beverage products namely: the World Health Organization (WHO); the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO); the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) and the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). Data on marketing restrictions were extracted and coded and descriptive qualitative content analysis was used to assess the strength of the instruments. Results A wide range of instruments have been used by the four agencies: seven by the WHO; two by the FAO; three by the UNGA; and eight by the UN human rights infrastructure. The UN human rights instruments used strong, consistent language and called for government regulations to be enacted in a directive manner. In contrast, the language calling for action by the WHO, FAO and UNGA was weaker, inconsistent, did not get stronger over time and varied according to the type of instrument used. Conclusion This study suggests that a child rights-based approach to restricting unhealthy food and beverage marketing to children would be supported by strong human rights legal instruments and would allow for more directive recommendations to Member States than is currently provided by WHO, FAO and UNGA. Strengthening the directives in the instruments to clarify Member States’ obligations using both WHO and child rights mandates would increase the utility of global health law and UN actors’ influence.

Non-communicable diseases in general and cardiovascular diseases in particular are a leading cause of death globally. Trans -fat consumption is a significant risk factor for cardiovascular diseases. The World Health Organization’s ‘REPLACE’ action package of 2018 aims to eliminate it completely in the global food supply by 2023. Legislative and other regulatory actions (i.e., banning trans -fat) are considered as effective means to achieve such a goal. Both wealthier and poorer countries are taking or considering action, as shown by the United States food regulations and Cambodian draft food legislation discussed in this paper. This paper reviews these actions and examines public and private stakeholders’ incentives to increase health-protecting or health-promoting standards and regulations at home and abroad, setting the ground for further research on the topic. It focuses on the potential of trade incentives as a potential driver of a ‘race to the top’. While it has been documented that powerful countries use international trade instruments to weaken other countries’ national regulations, at times these powerful countries may also be interested in more stringent regulations abroad to protect their exports from competition from third countries with less stringent regulations. This article explores practical and principled considerations on how such a dynamic may spread trans -fat restrictions globally. It argues that trade dynamics and public health considerations within powerful countries may help to promote anti- trans -fat regulation globally but will not be sufficient and is ethically questionable. True international regulatory cooperation is needed and could be facilitated by the World Health Organization. Nevertheless, the paper highlights that international trade and investment law offers opportunities for anti- trans -fat policy diffusion globally.

Background In recent years, genetically engineered (GE) mosquitoes have been proposed as a public health measure against the high incidence of mosquito-borne diseases among the poor in regions of the global South. While uncertainties as well as risks for humans and ecosystems are entailed by the open-release of GE mosquitoes, a powerful global health governance non-state organization is funding the development of and advocating the use of those bio-technologies as public health tools. In August 2016, the US Food and Drug Agency (FDA) approved the uncaged field trial of a GE Aedes aegypti mosquito in Key Haven, Florida. The FDA’s decision was based on its assessment of the risks of the proposed experimental public health research project. The FDA is considered a global regulatory standard setter. So, its approval of the uncaged field trial could be used by proponents of GE mosquitoes to urge countries in the global South to permit the use of those bio-technologies. Method From a public health ethics perspective, this paper evaluates the FDA’s 2016 risk assessment of the proposed uncaged field trial of the GE mosquito to determine whether it qualified as a realistic risk evaluation. Results The FDA’s risk assessment of the proposed uncaged field trial did not proximate the conditions under which the GE mosquitoes would be used in regions of the global South where there is a high prevalence of mosquito-borne diseases. Conclusion Given that health and disease have political-economic determinants, whether a risk assessment of a product is realistic or not particularly matters with respect to interventions meant for public health problems that disproportionately impact socio-economically marginalized populations. If ineffective public health interventions are adopted based on risk evaluations that do not closely mirror the conditions under which those products would actually be used, there could be public health and ethical costs for those populations.

Background Two themes consistently emerge from the broad range of academics, policymakers and opinion leaders who have proposed changes to the World Health Organization (WHO): that reform efforts are too slow, and that they do too little to strengthen WHO’s capacity to facilitate cross-sectoral collaboration. This study seeks to identify possible explanations for the challenges WHO faces in addressing the broader determinants of health, and the potential opportunities for working across sectors. Methods This qualitative study used a mixed methods approach of semi-structured interviews and document review. Five interviewees were selected by stratified purposive sampling within a sampling frame of approximately 45 potential interviewees, and a targeted document review was conducted. All interviewees were senior WHO staff at the department director level or above. Thematic analysis was used to analyze data from interview transcripts, field notes, and the document review, and data coded during the analysis was analyzed against three central research questions. First, how does WHO conceptualize its mandate in global health? Second, what are the barriers and enablers to enhancing cross-sectoral collaboration between WHO and other intergovernmental organizations? Third, how do the dominant conceptual frames and the identified barriers and enablers to cross-sectoral collaboration interact? Results Analysis of the interviews and documents revealed three main themes: 1) WHO’s role must evolve to meet the global challenges and societal changes of the 21st century; 2) WHO’s cross-sectoral engagement is hampered internally by a dominant biomedical view of health, and the prevailing institutions and incentives that entrench this view; and 3) WHO’s cross-sectoral engagement is hampered externally by siloed areas of focus for each intergovernmental organization, and the lack of adequate conceptual frameworks and institutional mechanisms to facilitate engagement across siloes. Conclusion There are a number of external and internal pressures on WHO which have created an organizational culture and operational structure that focuses on a narrow, technical approach to global health, prioritizing disease-based, siloed interventions over more complex approaches that span sectors. The broader approach to promoting human health and wellbeing, which is conceptualized in WHO’s constitution, requires cultural and institutional changes for it to be fully implemented.

Background Recent work in international relations theory argues that international regimes do not develop in isolation, as previously assumed, but evolve as open systems that interact with other regimes. The implications of this insight’s for sustainable development remains underexplored. Even thought environmental protection and health promotion are clearly interconnected at the impact level, it remains unclear how global environmental governance interacts with global health governance at the institutional level. In order to fill this gap, this article aims to assess how environmental treaties contribute to global health governance. Methods and results To assess how environmental treaties contribute to global health governance, we conducted a content analysis of 2280 international environmental treaties. For each of these treaties, we measure the type and number of health-related provisions in these treaties. The result is the Health and Environment Interplay Database (HEIDI), which we make public with the publication of this article. This new database reveals that more than 300 environmental treaties have health-related provisions. Conclusions We conclude that the global environmental regime contributes significantly to the institutionalization of the global health regime, considering that the health regime includes itself very few treaties focusing primarily on health. When reflecting on how global governance can improve population health, decision makers should not only consider the instruments available to them within the realm of global health institutions. They should broaden their perspectives to integrate the contribution of other global regimes, such as the global environmental regime.

During global pandemics, such as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), crisis communication is indispensable in dispelling fears, uncertainty, and unifying individuals worldwide in a collective fight against health threats. Inadequate crisis communication can bring dire personal and economic consequences. Mounting research shows that seemingly endless newsfeeds related to COVID-19 infection and death rates could considerably increase the risk of mental health problems. Unfortunately, media reports that include infodemics regarding the influence of COVID-19 on mental health may be a source of the adverse psychological effects on individuals. Owing partially to insufficient crisis communication practices, media and news organizations across the globe have played minimal roles in battling COVID-19 infodemics. Common refrains include raging QAnon conspiracies, a false and misleading “Chinese virus” narrative, and the use of disinfectants to “cure” COVID-19. With the potential to deteriorate mental health, infodemics fueled by a kaleidoscopic range of misinformation can be dangerous. Unfortunately, there is a shortage of research on how to improve crisis communication across media and news organization channels. This paper identifies ways that legacy media reports on COVID-19 and how social media-based infodemics can result in mental health concerns. This paper discusses possible crisis communication solutions that media and news organizations can adopt to mitigate the negative influences of COVID-19 related news on mental health. Emphasizing the need for global media entities to forge a fact-based, person-centered, and collaborative response to COVID-19 reporting, this paper encourages media resources to focus on the core issue of how to slow or stop COVID-19 transmission effectively.

Background In 2012, the European Commission funded Go4Health—Goals and Governance for Global Health, a consortium of 13 academic research and human rights institutions from both Global North and South—to track the evolution of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and provide ongoing policy advice. This paper reviews the research outputs published between 2012 and 2016, analyzing the thematic content of the publications, and the influence on global health and development discourse through citation metrics. Findings and discussion Analysis of the 54 published papers showed 6 dominant themes related to the SDGs: the formulation process for the SDG health goal; the right to health; Universal Health Coverage; voices of marginalized peoples; global health governance; and the integration of health across the other SDGs. The papers combined advocacy---particularly for the right to health and its potential embodiment in Universal Health Coverage—with qualitative research and analysis of policy and stakeholders. Go4Health’s publications on the right to health, global health governance and the voices of marginalized peoples in relation to the SDGs represented a substantial proportion of papers published for these topics. Go4Health analysis of the right to health clarified its elements and their application to Universal Health Coverage, global health governance, financing the SDGs and access to medicines. Qualitative research identified correspondence between perceptions of marginalized peoples and right to health principles, and reluctance among multilateral organizations to explicitly represent the right to health in the goals, despite their acknowledgement of their importance. Citation metrics analysis confirmed an average of 5.5 citations per paper, with a field-weighted citation impact of 2.24 for the 43 peer reviewed publications. Citations in the academic literature and UN policy documents confirmed the impact of Go4Health on the global discourse around the SDGs, but within the Go4Health consortium there was also evidence of two epistemological frames of analysis—normative legal analysis and empirical research—that created productive synergies in unpacking the health SDG and the right to health. Conclusion The analysis offers clear evidence for the contribution of funded programmatic research—such as the Go4Health project—to the global health discourse.