Girls’ and women’s health is in transition and, although some aspects of it have improved substantially in the past few decades, there are still important unmet needs. Population ageing and transformations in the social determinants of health have increased the coexistence of disease burdens related to reproductive health, nutrition, and infections, and the emerging epidemic of chronic and non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Simultaneously, worldwide priorities in women’s health have themselves been changing from a narrow focus on maternal and child health to the broader framework of sexual and reproductive health and to the encompassing concept of women’s health, which is founded on a life-course approach.
This expanded vision incorporates health challenges that affect women beyond their reproductive years and those that they share with men, but with manifestations and results that affect women disproportionally owing to biological, gender, and other social determinants.
The importance of leadership in bringing about change to improve health and well-being is increasingly emphasized — especially with the shift to SDGs — and there is now a need and opportunity to act to strengthen leadership for health. In November 2014, at the Third Global Symposium on Health Systems Research, the Alliance set out to understand how leaders define and qualify leadership by asking a selected group of leaders in public health a single question: ‘What are key attributes of leaders that create effective health systems?’
In 2015, a survey was conducted across 65 countries and in-depth interviews were carried out with 22 prominent leaders, touching upon various components of leadership for health, ranging from the make-up of teams and organizational culture, to the use of evidence and the role of a guiding vision. While key individual traits are useful and even necessary in creating good leaders,
In many regions, disaster risk is continuing to increase, mostly because greater numbers of vulnerable people and assets are located in exposed areas. It is vital to start reversing these trends. Over the next 18 months, there will be negotiation and hopefully agreement of three major international policy frameworks, each with a key interest in reducing disaster risk and minimising disaster losses. These are 1) the post-2015 framework on disaster risk reduction(DRR); 2) the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)– a way of prioritising development actions; and 3)an international agreement on climate change – to establish global action on tackling climate change beyond 2020. If well integrated, these frameworks should be able to provide a unique opportunity to deliver a coherent strategy and implementation plan to address the drivers of disaster risk.A key way of linking these frameworks, particularly the SDGs and the post-2015 framework on DRR,lies in establishing common global goals,
Floods and storms are climate-related hazards posing high mortality risk to Caribbean Community (CARICOM) nations. However risk factors for their lethality remain untested. We conducted an ecological study investigating risk factors for flood and storm lethality in CARICOM nations for the period 1980–2012. Lethality – deaths versus no deaths per disaster event- was the outcome. We examined biophysical and social vulnerability proxies and a decadal effect as predictors.
We developed our regression model via multivariate analysis using a generalized logistic regression model with quasi-binomial distribution; removal of multi-collinear variables and backward elimination. Robustness was checked through subset analysis. We found significant positive associations between lethality, percentage of total land dedicated to agriculture (odds ratio [OR] 1.032; 95% CI: 1.013–1.053) and percentage urban population (OR 1.029, 95% CI 1.003–1.057). Deaths were more likely in the 2000–2012 period versus 1980–1989 (OR 3.708, 95% CI 1.615–8.737).
DFID is mapping the current health architecture and identifying drivers that will influence the future architecture from 2015. This report was prepared to inform DFID on the strengths and weaknesses of the current global health architecture, and of the relevance and responsive of the health architecture for the post 2015 agenda. This work looks at health architecture, health aid and health governance from a global perspective.The report finds that the current architecture is crowded and poorly coordinated.Concern about global health has focused attention on global health governance architecture. The current system fails to provide sufficient justification for an obligation to assist in meeting the health needs of others. Transnational and national actors too often pursue their own interests.
A stronger commitment to all people being healthy is needed. It is clear that reform is needed due to a mismatch between governance mechanisms and the vulnerability and complexity of global processes.
