Decolonising global health: why the new Pandemic Agreement should have included the principle of subsidiarity

The negotiations for the WHO Pandemic Agreement have brought attention to issues of racism and colonialism in global health. Although the agreement aims to promote global solidarity, it fails to address these deeply embedded problems. This Viewpoint argues that not including the principle of subsidiarity into Article 4 of the agreement as a pragmatic strategy was a missed opportunity to decolonise global health governance and promote global solidarity. Subsidiarity, as a structural principle, empowers local units to make decisions and address issues at their level, fostering collaboration, coordination, and cooperation. By integrating subsidiarity, the agreement could have ensured contextually appropriate responses, empowered local communities, and achieved justice in global health. This paper discusses the elements of subsidiarity-namely, agency and non-abandonment-and highlights the need to strike a balance between them. It also maps the principle of subsidiarity within the Pandemic Agreement, emphasising the importance of creating a practical framework for its implementation. By integrating subsidiarity into the agreement, a just and decolonialised approach to pandemic prevention and response could have been closer to being realised, promoting global solidarity and addressing health inequities.

How should we prioritise global surgery? A capabilities approach argument for the place of surgery within every health system

In the rapidly evolving landscape of global health issues and policy, surgery has historically been sidelined due to concerns about high cost, complexity and other concerns including quantitatively less surgical disease burden in comparison to infectious disease or other health conditions. Now, in the context of pandemics, climate change, shrinking health budgets and other global health security concerns, the hard-won progress in raising the profile of surgical care is at risk, and a reconceptualisation is needed to maintain its position in global healthcare agendas. We challenge the long-standing ethical frameworks that underlie healthcare priority setting, namely cost-effectiveness analysis and human rights, that have contributed to surgery being sidelined for decades. They incompletely account for improvements to life quality and well-being that are possible through surgical healthcare systems. We argue for the Capabilities Approach as an alternative normative framework because it emphasises the moral importance of supporting every person's abilities to be and to do the things they value. Through this framework, we can produce a more comprehensive conception of healthcare that goes beyond biomedical health, and surgical healthcare would ultimately gain a higher priority in valuation of healthcare and non-healthcare interventions.

The Capability Approach and the WHO healthy ageing framework (for the UN Decade of Healthy Ageing)

This commentary discusses the WHO definition of health ageing in terms of functional abilities, and the problem definition and evidence-based public health response framework outlined in the 2015 WHO Report on Ageing and Health. After identifying the neglect of older people in health policy at national and global levels, some data are presented on the majority of COVID-19 deaths being older people. The discussion then focuses on the underlying ethical and analytical framework of functional abilities provided by the Capability Approach. The approach is presented as distinguishing between achievement and capability, the ethical significance of recognising both, and its inclusion of surrounding social conditions from local to global in assessing wellbeing of older people's functional abilities. Measurement of functional abilities, informed by the Capabilities Approach, is stated to be an enormous and crucial task in establishing a global baseline, and making progress in improving the health and wellbeing of older people.

From health inequalities to health justice in 50 years

In the following discussion, we present a quick conceptual history of healthy equity and health justice, some plausible outcomes from the Covid-19 pandemic for the public's understanding of these concepts, and some recent and relevant learnings for realizing equity and justice that could be useful for dental public health and beyond.

A systematic review of impact of person-centred interventions for serious physical illness in terms of outcomes and costs

BACKGROUND

Person-centred care (PCC) is being internationally recognised as a critical attribute of high-quality healthcare. The International Alliance of Patients Organisations defines PCC as care that is focused and organised around people, rather than disease. Focusing on delivery, we aimed to review and evaluate the evidence from interventions that aimed to deliver PCC for people with serious physical illness and identify models of PCC interventions.

METHODS

Systematic review of literature using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched AMED, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, using the following key concepts: patient/person-centred care, family centred care, family based care, individualised care, holistic care, serious illness, chronic illness, long-term conditions from inception to April 2022. Due to heterogeneity of interventions and populations studied, narrative synthesis was conducted. Study quality was appraised using the Joanna Briggs checklist.

RESULTS

We screened n=6156 papers. Seventy-two papers (reporting n=55 different studies) were retained in the review. Most of these studies (n=47) were randomised controlled trials. Our search yielded two main types of interventions: (1) studies with self-management components and (2) technology-based interventions. We synthesised findings across these two models:Self-management component: the interventions consisted of training of patients and/or caregivers or staff. Some studies reported that interventions had effect in reduction hospital admissions, improving quality of life and reducing costs of care.Technology-based interventions: consisted of mobile phone, mobile app, tablet/computer and video. Although some interventions showed improvements for self-efficacy, hospitalisations and length of stay, quality of life did not improve across most studies.

DISCUSSION

PCC interventions using self-management have some effects in reducing costs of care and improving quality of life. Technology-based interventions improves self-efficacy but has no effect on quality of life. However, very few studies used self-management and technology approaches. Further work is needed to identify how self-management and technology approaches can be used to manage serious illness.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018108302.

Developing a global practice-based framework of person-centred care from primary data: a cross-national qualitative study with patients, caregivers and healthcare professionals

INTRODUCTION

Person-centred care (PCC) is internationally recognised as a critical component of high-quality healthcare. However, PCC evolved in a few high-income countries and there are limited data exploring this concept across the vast majority of countries which are low- and middle-income. This study aimed to appraise and adapt a PCC model across three serious physical conditions in three middle-income countries and generate an evidence-based framework and recommendations for globally relevant PCC.

METHODS

Cross-national, cross-sectional qualitative study. In depth, semistructured interviews conducted with: advanced cancer patients in Jordan (n=50), their caregivers (n=20) and healthcare professionals (HCPs) (n=20); chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients in South Africa (n=22), their caregivers (n=19) and HCPs (n=22); heart failure patients in Thailand (n=14), their caregivers (n=10) and HCPs (n=12). Data were analysed using framework analysis. Santana et al's PCC model (2018) and Giusti et al's systematic review (2020) were used to construct an a priori coding frame for deductive analysis, with additional inductive coding for coding that did not fit the frame.

RESULTS

The findings both reveal specific practical actions that contribute towards delivering PCC and highlight new cross-national domains of person-centredness: interdependency and collectivism; bringing care into the home and community; equity and non-discrimination; addressing health and illness within the context of limited resources; and workforce well-being.

CONCLUSION

The data suggest that PCC requires particular structural features of the healthcare system to be in place, such as professional education in PCC values and partnerships with community-based workers. These structures may better enable PCC processes, including tailored information sharing and providing genuine opportunities for patients to do the things that matter to them, such as making informed care decisions and sustaining social relationships. PCC must also accommodate a collectivist perspective and support the well-being of the workforce.

Contextual equipoise: a novel concept to inform ethical implications for implementation research in low-income and middle-income countries

The call for universal health coverage requires the urgent implementation and scale-up of interventions that are known to be effective, in resource-poor settings. Achieving this objective requires high-quality implementation research (IR) that evaluates the complex phenomenon of the influence of context on the ability to effectively deliver evidence-based practice. Nevertheless, IR for global health is failing to apply a robust, theoretically driven approach, leading to ethical concerns associated with research that is not methodologically sound.

Inappropriate methods are often used in IR to address and report on context. This may result in a lack in understanding of how to effectively adapt the intervention to the new setting and a lack of clarity in conceptualising whether there is sufficient evidence to generalise findings from previous IR to a new setting, or if a randomised controlled trial (RCT) is needed. Some of the ethical issues arising from this shortcoming include poor-quality research that may needlessly expose vulnerable participants to research that has not been adapted to suit local needs and priorities, and the inappropriate use of RCTs that denies participants in the control arm access to treatment that is effective within the local context.

To address these concerns, we propose a complementary approach to clinical equipoise for IR, known as contextual equipoise. We discuss challenges in the evaluation of context and also with assessing the certainty of evidence to justify an RCT. Finally, we describe methods that can be applied to improve the evaluation and reporting of context and to help understand if contextual equipoise can be justified or if significant adaptations are required. We hope our analysis offers helpful insight to better understand and ensure that the ethical principle of beneficence is upheld in the real-world contexts of IR in low-resource settings.

A living WHO guideline on drugs to prevent covid-19

CLINICAL QUESTION

What is the role of drugs in preventing covid-19? WHY DOES THIS MATTER?: There is widespread interest in whether drug interventions can be used for the prevention of covid-19, but there is uncertainty about which drugs, if any, are effective. The first version of this living guideline focuses on the evidence for hydroxychloroquine. Subsequent updates will cover other drugs being investigated for their role in the prevention of covid-19.

RECOMMENDATION

The guideline development panel made a strong recommendation against the use of hydroxychloroquine for individuals who do not have covid-19 (high certainty).

HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED

This living guideline is from the World Health Organization (WHO) and provides up to date covid-19 guidance to inform policy and practice worldwide. Magic Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. A living systematic review with network analysis informed the recommendations. An international guideline development panel of content experts, clinicians, patients, an ethicist and methodologists produced recommendations following standards for trustworthy guideline development using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

UNDERSTANDING THE NEW RECOMMENDATION

The linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (6 trials and 6059 participants) found that hydroxychloroquine had a small or no effect on mortality and admission to hospital (high certainty evidence). There was a small or no effect on laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (moderate certainty evidence) but probably increased adverse events leading to discontinuation (moderate certainty evidence). The panel judged that almost all people would not consider this drug worthwhile. In addition, the panel decided that contextual factors such as resources, feasibility, acceptability, and equity for countries and healthcare systems were unlikely to alter the recommendation. The panel considers that this drug is no longer a research priority and that resources should rather be oriented to evaluate other more promising drugs to prevent covid-19.

UPDATES

This is a living guideline. New recommendations will be published in this article and signposted by update notices to this guideline.

READERS NOTE

This is the first version of the living guideline for drugs to prevent covid-19. It complements the WHO living guideline on drugs to treat covid-19. When citing this article, please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.

Health Research and Social Justice Philosophy

Situating medical and scientific research within a framework or theory of social justice is long overdue. Attempting to extend principles of research ethics beyond the clinic and lab to other affected people or consequences tolerates or obfuscates injustice. While it must be done, the timescales, methodologies, and commitment to real-world impact are quite different in research ethics versus political philosophy.

The empirical evidence underpinning the concept and practice of person-centred care for serious illness: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Person-centred care has become internationally recognised as a critical attribute of high-quality healthcare. However, the concept has been criticised for being poorly theorised and operationalised. Serious illness is especially aligned with the need for person-centredness, usually necessitating involvement of significant others, management of clinical uncertainty, high-quality communication and joint decision-making to deliver care concordant with patient preferences. This review aimed to identify and appraise the empirical evidence underpinning conceptualisations of 'person-centredness' for serious illness.

METHODS

Search strategy conducted in May 2020. Databases: CINAHL, Embase, PubMed, Ovid Global Health, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. Free text search terms related to (1) person-centredness, (2) serious illness and (3) concept/practice. Tabulation, textual description and narrative synthesis were performed, and quality appraisal conducted using QualSyst tools. Santana et al's person-centred care model (2018) was used to structure analysis.

RESULTS

PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow data: n=12,446 studies screened by title/abstract, n=144 full articles assessed for eligibility, n=18 studies retained. All studies (n=18) are from high-income countries, and are largely of high quality (median score 0.82). The findings suggest that person-centred care encompasses the patient and family being respected, given complete information, involved in decision-making and supported in their physical, psychological, social and existential needs. The studies highlight the importance of involving and supporting family/friends, promoting continuation of normality and self-identity, and structuring service organisation to enable care continuity.

CONCLUSION

Person-centred healthcare must value the social network of patients, promote quality of life and reform structurally to improve patients' experience interacting with the healthcare system. Staff must be supported to flexibly adapt skills, communication, routines or environments for individual patients. There remains a need for primary data investigating the meaning and practice of PCC in a greater diversity of diagnostic groups and settings, and a need to ground potential components of PCC within broader universal values and ethical theory.

A living WHO guideline on drugs for covid-19

Updates

This is the fourteenth version (thirteenth update) of the living guideline, replacing earlier versions (available as data supplements). New recommendations will be published as updates to this guideline.

Clinical question

What is the role of drugs in the treatment of patients with covid-19?

Context

The evidence base for therapeutics for covid-19 is evolving with numerous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recently completed and underway. Emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and subvariants are changing the role of therapeutics.

What is new?

The guideline development group (GDG) defined 1.5% as a new threshold for an important reduction in risk of hospitalisation in patients with non-severe covid-19. Combined with updated baseline risk estimates, this resulted in stratification into patients at low, moderate, and high risk for hospitalisation. New recommendations were added for moderate risk of hospitalisation for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and for moderate and low risk of hospitalisation for molnupiravir and remdesivir. New pharmacokinetic evidence was included for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir, supporting existing recommendations for patients at high risk of hospitalisation. The recommendation for ivermectin in patients with non-severe illness was updated in light of additional trial evidence which reduced the high degree of uncertainty informing previous guidance. A new recommendation was made against the antiviral agent VV116 for patients with non-severe and with severe or critical illness outside of randomised clinical trials based on one RCT comparing the drug with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. The structure of the guideline publication has also been changed; recommendations are now ordered by severity of covid-19.

About this guideline

This living guideline from the World Health Organization (WHO) incorporates new evidence to dynamically update recommendations for covid-19 therapeutics. The GDG typically evaluates a therapy when the WHO judges sufficient evidence is available to make a recommendation. While the GDG takes an individual patient perspective in making recommendations, it also considers resource implications, acceptability, feasibility, equity, and human rights. This guideline was developed according to standards and methods for trustworthy guidelines, making use of an innovative process to achieve efficiency in dynamic updating of recommendations. The methods are aligned with the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development and according to a pre-approved protocol (planning proposal) by the Guideline Review Committee (GRC). A box at the end of the article outlines key methodological aspects of the guideline process. MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation provides methodological support, including the coordination of living systematic reviews with network meta-analyses to inform the recommendations. The full version of the guideline is available online in MAGICapp and in PDF on the WHO website, with a summary version here in The BMJ. These formats should facilitate adaptation, which is strongly encouraged by WHO to contextualise recommendations in a healthcare system to maximise impact.

Future recommendations

Recommendations on anticoagulation are planned for the next update to this guideline. Updated data regarding systemic corticosteroids, azithromycin, favipiravir and umefenovir for non-severe illness, and convalescent plasma and statin therapy for severe or critical illness, are planned for review in upcoming guideline iterations.

Prioritarian principles for digital health in low resource settings

This theoretical paper argues for prioritarianism as an ethical underpinning for digital health in contexts of extreme disadvantage. In support of this claim, the paper develops three prioritarian principles for making ethical decisions for digital health programme design, grounded in the normative position that the greater the need (of the marginalised), the stronger the moral claim. The principles are positioned as an alternative view to the prevailing utilitarian approach to digital health, which the paper argues is not sufficient to address the needs of the worst off. As researchers of digital health, we must ensure that the most globally marginalised are not overlooked by overtly technocentric implementation practices. Consequently, the paper concludes by advocating for use of the three principles to support stronger critical reflection on the ethics involved in the design and implementation of digital health programmes.

Grounding the right to live in the community (CRPD Article 19) in the capabilities approach to social justice

For advocates of the rights of persons with disabilities, particularly persons with mental disabilities, the human right to live in the community as an equal member is seen to be central and, often, even as the basis for all other human rights. Yet, despite its articulation in human rights law in the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD), foundational issues about the right remain undertheorized and unclear. This paper brings to bear the capabilities approach, a normative framework about human well-being, social development and social justice, to this central concern in disability rights, mental health ethics, and international human rights law: protecting and respecting a person's right to live in a community as an equal. We argue that this human and moral right is best conceptualized as a capability to live in the community as an equal member. The capabilities approach provides this capability with a strong ethical framework and conceptual resources to guide reasoning and its practical realization.

Towards a Multi-Dimensional Index of Child Growth to Combat the Double Burden of Malnutrition

BACKGROUND

There is growing awareness in the field of public health that combatting the double burden of malnutrition requires approaches that address its multi-dimensional origin, rather than focusing primarily on the biomedical domain. Current frameworks of malnutrition like the UNICEF conceptual framework, and the Lancet Series 2013 framework have been instrumental in understanding the determinants of malnutrition and developing appropriate interventions. However, these frameworks fail to explicitly address issues of agency, that is, about being able to pursue one's goal. The capability approach as originally developed by Amartya Sen includes agency in the causal chain. Summary and key Messages: In the past 5 years, the International Union of Nutritional Sciences Task Force "Towards a multi-dimensional index for child growth and development" has developed a capability framework for child growth, and conducted empirical research applying this framework. The working group discussed what would be needed to further develop the approach and explained the added value to international organisations and policy makers. We suggest developing an index of advantage that will be a proxy for a child's agency. We hypothesise that such an index will explain much of the variance in studying inequalities in child nutrition and thus call for action to improve this focal point.

Correction to: Are Quality-Adjusted Life Years a Good Proxy Measure of Individual Capabilities?

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0International License.

Toward a global geroethics - gerontology and the theory of the good human life

Gerontologists have proposed different concepts for ageing well such as 'successful ageing', 'active ageing', and 'healthy ageing'. These conceptions are primarily focused on maintaining health and preventing disease. But they also raise the questions: what is a good life in old age and how can it be achieved? While medical in origin, these concepts and strategies for ageing well also contain ethical advice for individuals and societies on how to act regarding ageing and old age. This connection between gerontology and ethics is overlooked by both schools of thought. We thus develop this research programme for a systematic geroethics in four steps. First, we analyze 'successful ageing' as put forward by Rowe and Kahn as a paradigmatic example of a gerontological conception of ageing well. Then, in a second step, we move from criticisms within gerontology to an ethical perspective; in particular, we want to clarify the problem of the claim of universal validity of conceptions of the good life. In a third constructive step, we explain how the 'capabilities approach' could be applied in this context as a normative foundation for the implicit normative assumptions of gerontological conceptions of ageing well, such as a particular choice of functionings, the ethical relevance of human agency, and the resulting claims of individuals towards society. Finally, using a concept developed by the German philosopher Ursula Wolf, we systematically develop the different aspects of the connection between ageing well and the theory of the good life in their full complexity and show their interconnectedness.

Are Quality-Adjusted Life Years a Good Proxy Measure of Individual Capabilities?

BACKGROUND

There is a debate in the health economics literature concerning the most appropriate way of applying Amartya Sen's capability approach in economic evaluation studies. Some suggest that quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) alone are adequate while others argue that this approach is too narrow and that direct measures of capability wellbeing provide a more extensive application of Sen's paradigm.

OBJECTIVE

This paper empirically explores whether QALYs provide a good proxy for individual capabilities.

METHODS

Data is taken from a multinational cross-sectional survey of individuals with seven health conditions (asthma, arthritis, cancer, depression, diabetes, hearing loss, heart disease) and a healthy population. Each individual completed the ICECAP-A measure of capability wellbeing for adults and six health utility instruments that are used to generate QALYs, including EQ-5D and SF-6D. Primary analysis examines how well health utility instruments can explain variation in the ICECAP-A using ordinary least squares regression.

RESULTS

The findings show that all seven health conditions have a negative association on overall capability as measured by the ICECAP-A index. Inclusion of health utility instruments into separate regressions improves the predictive power of capability but on average, explains less than half of the variation in capability wellbeing. Individuals with arthritis appear to be less inhibited in terms of capability losses when accounting for health utility, yet those who have depression record significant reductions in capability relative to the healthy population even after accounting for the most commonly used health utility instruments.

CONCLUSION

The study therefore casts doubt on the ability of QALYs to act as a reliable proxy measure of individuals' capability.

Mental disability, human rights and the capabilities approach: searching for the foundations

Those seeking to improve the well-being of individuals with disabilities worldwide often draw on the idea of human rights. More recently, a variety of international human rights legislation such as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) has come into force worldwide. The present article aims to ground human rights of people with disabilities such as those in the CRPD in a theory of social justice called the capabilities approach (CA). This article discusses the reasons for grounding rights in a theory of justice, the links between the CA and human rights, the central concern for disability and individuals with disabilities in the CA, and seven central components of the CA.

There Are Many Purposes for Conditional Incentives to Accessing Healthcare Comment on "Denial of Treatment to Obese Patients-the Wrong Policy on Personal Responsibility for Health"

This commentary is a brief response to Nir Eyal's argument that health policies should not make healthy behaviour a condition or prerequisite in order to access healthcare as it could result in the people who need healthcare the most not being able to access healthcare. While in general agreement due to the shared concern for equity, I argue that making health behaviour a condition to accessing healthcare can serve to develop commitment to lifestyle changes, make the health intervention more successful, help appreciate the value of the resources being spent, and help reflect on the possible risks of the intervention. I also argue that exporting or importing the carrot and stick policies to other countries without a solid understanding of the fiscal and political context of the rise of such policies in the US can lead to perverse consequences.

Limitations of the Millennium Development Goals: a literature review

With the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) showing uneven progress, this review identifies possible limitations arising from the MDG framework itself rather than extrinsic issues. A multidisciplinary literature review was conducted with a focus on limitations in the formulation of the MDGs, their structure, content and implementation. Of 1837 MDG-related articles, 90 met criteria for analysis. Articles describe MDGs as being created by only a few stakeholders without adequate involvement by developing countries and overlooking development objectives previously agreed upon. Others claim MDGs are unachievable and simplistic, not adapted to national needs, do not specify accountable parties and reinforce vertical interventions. While MDGs have promoted increased health and well-being in many countries by recognising and deliberating on the possible constraints of the MDG framework, the post-2015 agenda may have even greater impact.

Health, vital goals, and central human capabilities

I argue for a conception of health as a person's ability to achieve or exercise a cluster of basic human activities. These basic activities are in turn specified through free-standing ethical reasoning about what constitutes a minimal conception of a human life with equal human dignity in the modern world. I arrive at this conception of health by closely following and modifying Lennart Nordenfelt's theory of health which presents health as the ability to achieve vital goals. Despite its strengths I transform Nordenfelt's argument in order to overcome three significant drawbacks. Nordenfelt makes vital goals relative to each community or context and significantly reflective of personal preferences. By doing so, Nordenfelt's conception of health faces problems with both socially relative concepts of health and subjectively defined wellbeing. Moreover, Nordenfelt does not ever explicitly specify a set of vital goals. The theory of health advanced here replaces Nordenfelt's (seemingly) empty set of preferences and society-relative vital goals with a human species-wide conception of basic vital goals, or 'central human capabilities and functionings'. These central human capabilities come out of the capabilities approach (CA) now familiar in political philosophy and economics, and particularly reflect the work of Martha Nussbaum. As a result, the health of an individual should be understood as the ability to achieve a basic cluster of beings and doings-or having the overarching capability, a meta-capability, to achieve a set of central or vital inter-related capabilities and functionings.

Subjective wellbeing: a primer for poverty analysts

The article reviews the current theory and measurement of subjective wellbeing (SWB). The first two sections discuss growing efforts in many countries to measure and monitor national wellbeing, particularly in the United Kingdom. The third and fourth sections discuss the novelty and controversies about SWB research. It concludes that a critical approach is essential in evaluating SWB research but dismissing it offhand or framing it as antithetical to objective wellbeing is misconceived. The pressing issue for poverty research and public policy is to determine which insights about SWB are worth using, and how much space within conceptions of wellbeing used in public policy should be given to SWB.

The right to sutures: social epidemiology, human rights, and social justice

The article examines the convergences and contrasts between social epidemiology, social medicine, and human rights approaches toward advancing global health and health equity. The first section describes the goals and work of the WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health. The second section discusses the role of human rights in the Commission's work. The third section evaluates, from the perspective of social epidemiology, two rights-based approaches to advancing health and health equity as compared to a view that focuses more broadly on social justice. The concluding section identifies four areas where social epidemiologists, practitioners of social medicine, and health and human rights advocates can and must work together in order to make progress on health and health equity.

Epidemiology and social justice in light of social determinants of health research

The present article identifies how social determinants of health raise two categories of philosophical problems that also fall within the smaller domain of ethics; one set pertains to the philosophy of epidemiology, and the second set pertains to the philosophy of health and social justice. After reviewing these two categories of ethical concerns, the limited conclusion made is that identifying and responding to social determinants of health requires inter-disciplinary reasoning across epidemiology and philosophy. For the reasoning used in epidemiology to be sound, for its scope and (moral) purpose as a science to be clarified as well as for social justice theory to be relevant and coherent, epidemiology and philosophy need to forge a meaningful exchange of ideas that happens in both directions.