A critical assessment of the ideological underpinnings of current practice in global health and their historical origins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The current approach to global health has significantly contributed to improving it, as evidenced by the progress made toward the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). However, the health gains achieved are often highly unequitable, and the current approach is expected to be insufficient to meet the future health equity challenges. There is an urgent need to re-think and expand the scope of research and programmatic strategies.Objective: This paper aims to assess the ideological underpinnings of the currently dominant norms in global health, with the goal of highlighting the research and programmatic areas that are marginalized and warrant greater efforts in order to resolve persistent health inequity and achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).Methods: We have conducted a critical review of the literature that traces the historical origins of global health to the period between the mid-19th century and the end of the 20th century.Results: Critical review of the historical origins of global health reveals a set of dominant norms in global health that are ideological in character, and profoundly shape the current practice. We identified key manifestations of the ideological underpinnings as 1) Democratic deficit, 2) Depoliticization of the discourse, 3) Marginalization of the scholarship that interrogates the relations of power.Conclusion: Examination of the dominant norms that shape the foundation of our knowledge and action in global health is required to solve persistent health inequity challenges and meet the SDGs. Inversion of the key manifestations of the dominant norms can serve as guiding principles to elaborate alternative frameworks that have the theoretical and programmatic potential for a fundamental rather than an incremental change in the practice of global health.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.091 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.084 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".