An updated definition of global health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most cited definition of global health, published in The Lancet in 2009, defines global health as "an area for study, research, and practice that places a priority on improving health and achieving equity in health for all people worldwide". In this article, we propose an updated definition that expresses the motivations of diverse global health actors and makes One Health and sustainability more visible: "Global health is a field of academic study, research, policy, and applied practice that advances the equitable protection and improvement of population and planetary health". Our "5 Ps model" illustrates global health as a grid that places health for all at the center of two axes representing four domains: (1) People, (2) Planet, (3) Priorities, and (4) Policies and Practices. The people-planet axis spans from social, economic, political, and other systems that affect human health to complex worldwide challenges such as those related to globalization, migration, pandemics, and climate change. The priorities-policies/practices axis positions global health as an action-oriented field in which factors such as human rights, international law, the global burden of disease, and evidence of economic impact inform the financing, implementation, and evaluation of multisectoral partnerships and interventions. We propose using this updated definition and the 5 Ps framework to modernize discussions of the scope and purpose 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".