1. Bare feet: how to do it yourself -- 2. Adaptation: epidemic control and local style -- 3. Power to the people: local ownership of infectious disease control -- 4. A governance revolution: synergies versus turf battles -- 5. Monitoring and evaluation: capturing barefoot effects -- 6. War and peace: barefoot diplomacy as military adjunct -- 7. Trade-offs: ethics versus economics in epidemics -- 8. Blurring the line: a review of barefoot global health diplomacy.
In the 21st Century, distinctions and boundaries between global health, international politics, and the broader interests of the global community are harder to define and enforce than ever before. As a result, global health workers, leaders, and institutions face pressing questions around the nature and extent of their involvement with non-health endeavors, including international conflict resolution, counter-terrorism, and peace-keeping, under the global health diplomacy (GHD) paradigm
PUBLISHED ; Background San Francisco has a distinguished history as a cosmopolitan, progressive, and international city, including extensive associations with global health. These circumstances have contributed to new, interdisciplinary scholarship in the field of global health diplomacy (GHD). In the present review, we describe the evolution and history of GHD at the practical and theoretical levels within the San Francisco medical community, trace related associations between the local and the global, and propose a range of potential opportunities for further development of this dynamic field. Methods We provide a historical overview of the development of the ?San Francisco Model? of collaborative, community-owned HIV/AIDS treatment and care programs as pioneered under the ?Ward 86? paradigm of the 1980s. We traced the expansion and evolution of this model to the national level under the Ryan White Care Act, and internationally via the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. In parallel, we describe the evolution of global health diplomacy practices, from the local to the global, including the integration of GHD principles into intervention design to ensure social, political, and cultural acceptability and sensitivity. Results Global health programs, as informed by lessons learned from the San Francisco Model, are increasingly aligned with diplomatic principles and practices. This awareness has aided implementation, allowed policymakers to pursue related and progressive social and humanitarian issues in conjunction with medical responses, and elevated global health to the realm of ?high politics.? Conclusions In the 21st century, the integration between diplomatic, medical, and global health practices will continue under ?smart global health? and GHD paradigms. These approaches will enhance intervention cost-effectiveness by addressing and optimizing, in tandem with each other, a wide range of (health and non-health) foreign policy, diplomatic, security, and economic priorities in a synergistic manner?without sacrificing health outcomes.
A challenging concept to teach, few combined courses on epidemic-related global health diplomacy and security exist, and no known courses are currently available that have been exclusively designed for African nationals. In response, the University of California, San Francisco's Center for Global Health Delivery, Diplomacy and Economics (CGHDDE) developed and delivered a workshop for LMIC learners to better understand how politics, policy, finance, governance and security coalesce to influence global health goals and outcomes.
Undoubtedly, the COVID-19 pandemic is not the first and most frightening global pandemic, and it may not be the last. At the very least, this phenomenon has though seriously challenged the health systems of the world; it has created a new perspective on the value of national, regional, and international cooperation during crises. The post-coronavirus world could be a world of intensified nationalist rivalries on the economic revival and political influence. However, strengthening cooperation among nations at different levels will lead to the growth of health, economy, and security. The current situation is a touchstone for international actors in coordinating the efforts in similar future crises. At present, this pandemic crisis cannot be resolved except through joint international cooperation, global cohesion, and multilateralism. This perspective concludes that the pandemic could be an excellent opportunity for the scope of global health diplomacy (GHD) and how it can be applied and practiced for strengthening five global arenas, namely (1) International Cooperation and Global Solidarity, (2) Global Economy, Trade and Development, (3) Global Health Security, (4) Strengthening health systems, and (5) Addressing inequities to achieve the global health targets. GHD proves to be very useful for negotiating better policies, stronger partnerships, and achieving international cooperation in this phase with many geopolitical shifts and nationalist mindset among many nations at this stage of COVID-19 vaccine roll-out.
The South Pacific countries of Vanuatu, Samoa, and Papua New Guinea have ascended rapidly up the development spectrum in recent years, refining an independent and post-colonial economic and political identity that enhances their recognition on the world stage. All three countries have overcome economic, political and public health challenges in order to stake their claim to sovereignty. In this regard, the contributions of national and international programs for the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of HIV/AIDS, with specific reference to their monitoring and evaluation (M&E) aspects, have contributed not just to public health, but also to broader political and diplomatic goals such as 'nation-building'. This perspective describes the specific contributions of global health programs to the pursuit of national integration, development, and regional international relations, in Vanuatu, Samoa and Papua New Guinea, respectively, based on in-country M&E activities on behalf of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis (TB) and Malaria and the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) during 2014 and 2015. Key findings include: (1) that global health programs contribute to non-health goals; (2) that HIV/AIDS programs promote international relations, decentralized development, and internal unity; (3) that arguments in favour of the maintenance and augmentation of global health funding may be enhanced on this basis; and (4) that "smart" global health approaches have been successful in South Pacific countries.
Background: Antiretroviral therapy (ART) is being extended across South Africa. While efforts have been made to assess the costs of providing ART via accredited service points, little information is available on its downstream costs, particularly in public secondary level hospitals. Objectives: To determine the cost of care for inpatients and outpatients at a dedicated antiretroviral referral unit treating and caring for antiretroviral-related conditions in a South African peri-urban setting; to identify key epidemiological cost drivers; and to examine the associated clinical and outcome data. Methods: A prospective costing study on 48 outpatients and 25 inpatients was conducted from a health system perspective. Incremental economic costs and clinical data were collected from primary sources at G F Jooste Hospital, Cape Town, over a 1-month period (March 2005). Results: Incremental cost per outpatient was R1 280, and per inpatient R5 802. Costs were dominated by medical staff costs (62% inpatient and 58% outpatient, respectively). Infections predominated among diagnoses and costs – 55% and 67% respectively for inpatients, and 49% and 54% respectively for outpatients. Most inpatients and outpatients were judged by attending physicians to have improved or stabilised as a result of treatment (52% and 59% respectively). Conclusions. The costs of providing secondary level care for patients on or immediately preceding ART initiation can be significant and should be included in the government's strategic planning: (i) so that the service can be expanded to meet current and future needs; and (ii) to avoid crowding out other secondary level health services.
