Baum F

Language: English
References: 22
Page: 36-38
PDF size: 34.75 Kb.

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the recommendations of the World Health Organization’s Commission on the Social Determinants of Health regarding the need for improved research on determinants of health inequity and discusses the following barriers to implementation of those recommendations: the power of the biomedical imagination in health and medical research; emphasis on vertical health programming; ideological biases outweighing evidence in policy decisions; and academic reward systems, including the inherent conservatism of peer review. The paper concludes with suggestions for changing research funding and assessment systems to overcome these barriers.

REFERENCES

1. World Health Organization, Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008 [cited 2009 August 2]. Available from: http://www.who.int/ social_determinants/thecommission/fi nalreport/ en/index.html.

2. Illich I. Death undefeated. BMJ. 1995;311:1652–3.

3. McKeown T. The role of medicine: Dream, mirage or nemesis? London: Nuffi eld Provincial Hospital Trust; 1979.

4. Tesh S. Hidden arguments: Political ideology and disease prevention policy. New Brunswick (NJ): Rutgers University Press; 1987.

5. Foucault M. The Birth of the clinic: An archeology of medical perception. New York: Pantheon; 1973.

6. Ghaffar A, Collins T, Matlin SA, Olifson S. The 3D combined approach matrix: An improved tool for setting priorities in research for health. Geneva: Global Forum for Health Research; 2009.

7. Sanders D, Labonte R, Baum F, Chopra M. Making research matter: a civil society perspective on health research. Bull World Health Organ. 2004 Oct;82(10):757–63.

8. Rose G. Sick individuals and sick populations. Int J Epidemiol. 1985;14:32–8.

9. Magnussen L, Ehiri J, Jolly P. Comprehensive versus selective primary health care: Lessons for global health policy. Health Aff (Millwood). 2004 May–Jun;23(3):167–76.

10. Travis P, Bennett S, Haines A, Pang T, Bhutta Z, Hyder AA, et al. Overcoming health-systems constraints to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. Lancet. 2004;364:900–6.

11. Tsouros AD. The WHO Healthy Cities project: State of the art and future plans. Health Promot Int. 1995;10(2):133–41.

12. Baum F. The new public health. 3rd ed. Melbourne (AU): Oxford University Press; 2008. Chapter 23; p. 515–43.

13. Ståhl T, Wismar M, Ollila E, Lahtinen E, Leppo K, editors. Health in All Policies: Prospects and potentials. Helsinki: Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies; 2006. 279 p.

14. Kickbusch I. Health in All Policies: setting the scene. Public Health Bull S Aust. 2008;5:3–5.

15. Kingdon JW. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. 2nd ed. New York: Longman; 2003. 254 p.

16. Exworthy M. Policy to tackle the social determinants of health: using conceptual models to understand the policy process. Health Policy Plan. 2008 Sep;23(5):318–27.

17. Baum F. Cracking the nut of health equity: top down and bottom up pressure for action on the social determinants of health. Promot Educ. 2007;14(2):90–5.

18. The Black Report. In: Townsend P, Davidson N, editors. Inequalities in Health. London: Penguin; 1992.

19. Katz AR. Prospects for a genuine revival of Primary Health Care–through the visible hand of social justice rather than the invisible hand of the market: Part II. Int J Health Serv. 2010;40(1):119–37.

20. Wood FQ. The peer review process: Commissioned report No. 54. Canberra (AU): National Board of Employment, Education and Training; 1997. 207 p.

21. Horrobin DF. Peer review of grant applications: A harbinger for mediocrity in clinical research. Lancet. 1996 Nov;348(9037):1293–5.

22. Catford J. Advancing the ‘science of delivery’ of health promotion: not just the ‘science of discovery’. Health Promot Int. 2009;24(1):1–5.