Equity at a time of pandemic

Actions during the COVID-19 pandemic to protect the most vulnerable population: what is the potency amid chaos?

By 30 May 2021, Brazil had 16 471 600 COVID-19 cases and 461 142 deaths, ranking second in the world in number of deaths and third in number of cases. Preliminary research results in Brazil and around the world show the impact of COVID-19 on more vulnerable communities. However, despite the adverse circumstances of their territories, leaders have mobilized to face the challenges. Between April and June 2020, the authors of this article interviewed informants in eight Brazilian state capitals, addressing the five points of discussion (intersectoriality, sustainability, empowerment and public participation, equity and the life cycle perspective) recently presented by EUPHA-HP, IUHPE and UNESCO Chair Global Health & Education. Official actions and documents from the Ministry of Health and Municipal Health Departments (SMS) of each capital were also analyzed. No records were found of official actions aimed at COVID-19 that addressed the territories' specificities. In total, 15 promotional actions by the communities were identified. The selection of local actors to take on specific responsibilities during the pandemic is highlighted as a relevant action. This action alone weaves together at least three of the five HP principles (equity, life cycles and empowerment). We consider that previous forms of political empowerment, such as the recognition of territories and educational initiatives, have contributed to the subjects who are leading these inventive initiatives. However, although there is scope for promotional actions, there are infrastructural limitations that only public policies could mitigate. Such actions would demand deliberate coordination between the government and social movements, which is absent in the current context of national governance.

Are we there yet? Principles in advancing equity though global public health research

Canadian engagement in global and public health includes a long history of centering issues of equity in practice, policy, and research. In 2015, through a series of deliberative dialogues about what ethical standards should guide how people engage in global health research, the Canadian Coalition for Global Health Research (CCGHR) released a set of six equity-centred principles and critically reflective questions. These principles offered a platform for identifying equity implications and choices about theories, methods, approaches, partnerships, or practices in global and public health. In 2022, as questions of how to unsettle systems of power and move beyond rhetorical efforts to advance equity action continue to grow, Canada's global public health research community is turning a critically reflexive gaze at our own practices and ways of working, recognizing excellence as necessarily integrating equity in research pursuits, processes, and outcomes. In this commentary, we reflect on the contexts that led to the evolution of the CCGHR Principles for Global Health Research and highlight their current reach and impact, including their integration in the Canadian Institutes Framework for Action on Global Health Research. We invite others to embrace a lifelong commitment to equity work as an act of solidarity and investment in our collective futures.

Global Health Governance and Health Equity in the Context of COVID-19: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Health equity is an important aspect of responsible governance. COVID-19 exposed existing shortfalls of Global Health Governance (GHG). A considerable amount of related literature is produced. This scoping review aims at mapping the present knowledge and at identifying research gaps.

METHODS

This scoping review is based on the Joanna Briggs Institute's guideline for standardized methods and PRISMA-ScR guidelines for reporting. Documents published from December 2019 to October 2021 were searched using PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, World cat, and WHO-Global Index Medicus. Two reviewers screened and reviewed eligible studies in three stages: duplicates identification and elimination, title and abstract screening, and full-text assessment. Data was charted and results were classified into conceptual categories. Analysis was done in three stages: open descriptive coding, focused thematic analysis, and frequency, commonality and significance analysis.

RESULTS

forty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Areas of research were grouped into seven themes: "human rights and inequities", "solidarity, collaboration and partnership", "GHG structure change", "political and economic power and finance", "approaches to address inequity", "law and regulations", and "private investment and public-private partnerships (PPPs) in GHG". The highest number of papers were in the first theme, "human rights and inequities". However, the themes are interrelated. Authors who contributed to research were mostly affiliated to developed countries indicating a gap in knowledge and expertise in developing countries.

CONCLUSION

Through this scoping review we found that the seven themes are interconnected. Disciplinary collaboration in research relating GHG to health inequities is solicited. Collaboration in research, information sharing, and research capacity development are in needed in developing countries.