Archives

  • 2018-07
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-10
  • 2020-11
  • 2020-12
  • 2021-01
  • 2021-02
  • 2021-03
  • 2021-04
  • 2021-05
  • 2021-06
  • 2021-07
  • 2021-08
  • 2021-09
  • 2021-10
  • 2021-11
  • 2021-12
  • 2022-01
  • 2022-02
  • 2022-03
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-06
  • 2022-07
  • 2022-08
  • 2022-09
  • 2022-10
  • 2022-11
  • 2022-12
  • 2023-01
  • 2023-02
  • 2023-03
  • 2023-04
  • 2023-05
  • 2023-06
  • 2023-08
  • 2023-09
  • 2023-10
  • 2023-11
  • 2023-12
  • 2024-01
  • 2024-02
  • 2024-03
  • 2024-04

    • Evidence based interventions that are theory driven and

    2019-04-22

    Evidence based interventions that are theory driven and accessible within the local culture are do-able and do not need to rely on imported interventions—especially when those are costly. Many bereaved children and youth reside in the interleukin 1 receptor antagonist and have little recourse to good psychosocial support, despite the fact that such care has been shown to be of benefit. This study highlights group interventions as a cost-effective quality support provision. In low-income and low-resource settings, the urgency of physical survival, the presence of dire poverty, and the absence of skilled services and infrastructure has often resulted in a focus on physical survival. The time has now come for mental health to be given adequate attention. This will require investment in infrastructure and personnel. It will also require an approach to care that incorporates the importance of mental health. Bereavement provision for survivors of HIV-related deaths might reduce as treatment reduces death rates. However, many communities are still carrying the burden of HIV within their midst and interventions that can ameliorate suffering, depression, and emotional burden are sorely needed.
    It is disappointing and rather ironic to note the lack of gender parity in leadership positions in the field of global health. Women carry a disproportionate burden of disease, comprise a large portion of the global health workforce, and in many leading universities make up the majority of global health students, even up to 84% as reported by one university. Yet, among the top 50 universities in the USA, women hold just over a third of global health faculty positions and a quarter of directorships in global health centres. The dropoff is steep and concerning, from 84% of the student body to 24% of leadership positions. In the World Health Assembly women hold only about a quarter of leadership positions, despite comprising almost 75% of the health workforce in some countries. Dhatt and colleagues spoke out on this very issue in a correspondence in , calling on WHO leadership to take deliberate steps towards gender parity. What prevents the rise of women leaders? It\'s clearly not due to a lack of interest, but rather a consequence of bottlenecks and hurdles that stifle growth and limit advancement. Several factors have been identified: inadequate guidance and mentoring, difficulty balancing family responsibilities while meeting promotion criteria (especially mid-career), and overt bias and gender discrimination in the workplace. In October 2017, Stanford University (Stanford, CA, USA) in partnership with the US National Institutes of Health and a number of leading academic and global health institutions will host a conference for . This event will highlight accomplished and emerging leaders and will create a space for shared conversation to explore the challenges as well as the opportunities for women aspiring to play leadership roles in global health.
    Global health continues to gain pace as a discipline, as is evident from the amount of funding available for challenges relevant to low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) and the growth of journals in this field. This growth has been driven in no small part by the targets and indicators of the Millennium Development Goals. Successes towards achieving these goals, however, have often come from expertise, funding, and ideas flowing from high income countries (HICs) to LMICs; with HIC players being accused of parachuting in to LMICs to act or set up state of the art, HIC led and staffed facilities. This neo-colonialist model means that despite the scale of capital inflows, huge gaps in infrastructure, management systems, and human capital remain for health systems, government and governance structures, and research institutes in LMICs. We believe that addressing the gap in research capacity in LMICs is pivotal in ensuring broad-based systems improvement, with local knowledge and training being central to responsive health system development, proper governance, and responsible government. Unfortunately, the lion\'s share of global health research institutes are in HICs and the funding that fuels them comes mostly from HIC funds. To us, this belies key principles of scientific equity in global health research.