The Global in Global Health is Not a Given

What is considered as global health scholarship? A meta-knowledge analysis of global health journals and definitions

Despite the rapid growth of the global health field over the past few decades, consensus on what qualifies as global health scholarship or practice remains elusive. We conducted a meta-knowledge analysis of the titles and abstracts of articles published in 25 journals labelled as global health journals between 2001 and 2019. We identified the major topics in these journals by creating clusters based on terms co-occurrence over time. We also conducted a review of global health definitions during the same period.

The analysis included 16 413 articles. The number of journals, labelled as global health, and articles published in these journals, increased dramatically during the study period. The majority of global health publications focused on topics prevalent in low-resource settings. Governance, infectious diseases, and maternal and child health were major topics throughout the analysis period. Surveillance and disease outcomes appeared during the 2006–2010 epoch and continued, with increasing complexity, until the 2016–2019 epoch. Malaria, sexual and reproductive health, and research methodology appeared for only one epoch as major topics. We included 11 relevant definitions in this analysis. Definitions of global health were not aligned with the major topics identified in the analysis of articles published in global health journals.

These results highlight a lack of alignment between what is published as global health scholarship and global health definitions, which often advocate taking a global perspective to population health. Our analysis suggests that global health has not truly moved beyond its predecessor, international health. There is a need to define the parameters of the discipline and investigate the disconnect between what is published in global health versus how the field is defined.

Epidemiology, Outcomes, and Risk Factors for Mortality in Critically Ill Women Admitted to an Obstetric High-Dependency Unit in Sierra Leone

A better understanding of the context-specific epidemiology, outcomes, and risk factors for death of critically ill parturients in resource-poor hospitals is needed to tackle the still alarming in-hospital maternal mortality in African countries. From October 2017 to October 2018, we performed a 1-year retrospective cohort study in a referral maternity hospital in Freetown, Sierra Leone. The primary endpoint was the association between risk factors and high-dependency unit (HDU) mortality. Five hundred twenty-three patients (median age 25 years, interquartile range [IQR]: 21-30 years) were admitted to the HDU for a median of 2 (IQR: 1-3) days. Among them, 65% were referred with a red obstetric early warning score (OEWS) code, representing 1.17 cases per HDU bed per week; 11% of patients died in HDU, mostly in the first 24 hours from admission. The factors independently associated with HDU mortality were ward rather than postoperative referrals (odds ratio [OR]: 3.21; 95% CI: 1.48-7.01; P = 0.003); admissions with red (high impairment of patients' vital signs) versus yellow (impairment of vital signs) or green (little or no impairment of patients' vital signs) OEWS (OR: 3.66; 95% CI: 1.15-16.96; P = 0.04); responsiveness to pain or unresponsiveness on the alert, voice, pain unresponsive scale (OR: 5.25; 95% CI: 2.64-10.94; P ≤ 0.0001); and use of vasopressors (OR: 3.24; 95% CI: 1.32-7.66; P = 0.008). Critically ill parturients were predominantly referred with a red OEWS code and usually required intermediate care for 48 hours. Despite the provided interventions, death in the HDU was frequent, affecting one of 10 critically ill parturients. Medical admission, a red OEWS code, and a poor neurological and hemodynamic status were independently associated with mortality, whereas adequate oxygenation was associated with survival.

Parenting Programs for Underserved Populations in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Issues of Scientific Integrity and Social Justice

Research suggests that parenting programs are effective for preventing behavioral and emotional difficulties in children, but a lot more attention needs to be paid to issues of context and culture during the development, testing and implementation of these interventions. The views and needs of underserved and disenfranchised communities in the US and the Global South are often not taken into account for the development and testing of interventions. The successful implementation of evidence-based interventions for vulnerable children and families in underserved and marginalized communities requires careful consideration of how existing paradigms of prevention, evaluation, and implementation science impact issues of social justice and equity. This paper will describe how a team of parenting program researchers has been collaborating with their partners globally in generating local knowledge by balancing the need for rigorous scientific methods with issues of power. Authors from the U.S., Latin America, Africa and Southeast Asia draw on their experiences regarding challenges and successes with issues regarding study design and measurement, the transferability and adaptation of interventions, and the dissemination and implementation of different parenting interventions while placing communities at the center of their efforts through participatory methods. We describe innovative approaches that span the continuum of intervention development, adaptation, optimization, evaluation, implementation, and scale up of different parenting programs for vulnerable children and families across the world. We conclude by offering specific and pragmatic recommendations to increase access of culturally relevant and effective parenting programs in these communities.