No abstract

We describe a number of pitfalls that may occur with the push to rapidly expand access to antiretroviral therapy in sub-Saharan Africa. These include undesirable opportunity costs, the fragmentation of health systems, worsening health care inequities, and poor and unsustained treatment outcomes. On the other hand, AIDS "treatment activism" provides an opportunity to catalyze comprehensive health systems development and reduce health care inequities.However, these positive benefits will only happen if we explicitly set out to achieve them. We call for a greater commitment toward health activism that tackles the broader political and economic constraints to human and health systems development in Africa, as well as toward the resuscitation of inclusive and equitable public health systems.

BackgroundSince the early 1990s there has been a burgeoning interest in global health teaching in undergraduate medical curricula. In this article we trace the evolution of this teaching and present recommendations for how the discipline might develop in future years.DiscussionUndergraduate global health teaching has seen a marked growth over the past ten years, partly as a response to student demand and partly due to increasing globalization, cross-border movement of pathogens and international migration of health care workers. This teaching has many different strands and types in terms of topic focus, disciplinary background, the point in medical studies in which it is taught and whether it is compulsory or optional.We carried out a survey of medical schools across the world in an effort to analyse their teaching of global health. Results indicate that this teaching is rising in prominence, particularly through global health elective/exchange programmes and increasing teaching of subjects such as globalization and health and international comparison of health systems. Our findings indicate that global health teaching is moving away from its previous focus on tropical medicine towards issues of more global relevance.We suggest that there are three types of doctor who may wish to work in global health – the ‘globalised doctor’, ‘humanitarian doctor’ and ‘policy doctor’ – and that each of these three types will require different teaching in order to meet the required competencies. This teaching needs to be inserted into medical curricula in different ways, notably into core curricula, a special overseas doctor track, optional student selected components, elective programmes, optional intercalated degrees and postgraduate study.SummaryWe argue that teaching of global health in undergraduate medical curricula must respond to changing understandings of the term global health. In particular it must be taught from the perspective of more disciplines than just biomedicine, in order to reflect the social, political and economic causes of ill health. In this way global health can provide valuable training for all doctors, whether they choose to remain in their countries of origin or work abroad.

BackgroundThere has long been debate around the definition of the field of education, research and practice known as global health. In this article we step back from attempts at definition and instead ask what current definitions tell us about the evolution of the field, identifying gaps and points of debate and using these to inform discussions of how global health might be taught.DiscussionWhat we now know as global health has its roots in the late 19th century, in the largely colonial, biomedical pursuit of ‘international health’. The twentieth century saw a change in emphasis of the field towards a much broader conceptualisation of global health, encompassing broader social determinants of health and a truly global focus. The disciplinary focus has broadened greatly to include economics, anthropology and political science, among others. There have been a number of attempts to define the new field of global health. We suggest there are three central areas of contention: what the object of knowledge of global health is, the types of knowledge to be used and around the purpose of knowledge in the field of global health. We draw a number of conclusions from this discussion. First, that definitions should pay attention to differences as well as commonalities in different parts of the world, and that the definitions of global health themselves depend to some extent on the position of the definer. Second, global health’s core strength lies in its interdisciplinary character, in particular the incorporation of approaches from outside biomedicine. This approach recognises that political, social and economic factors are central causes of ill health. Last, we argue that definition should avoid inclusion of values. In particular we argue that equity, a key element of many definitions of global health, is a value-laden concept and carries with it significant ideological baggage. As such, its widespread inclusion in the definitions of global health is inappropriate as it suggests that only people sharing these values may be seen as ‘doing’ global health. Nevertheless, discussion of values should be a key part of global health education.SummaryOur discussions lead us to emphasise the importance of an approach to teaching global health that is flexible, interdisciplinary and acknowledges the different interpretations and values of those practising and teaching the field.

No abstract