Comparing Approaches to Research in Global and International Health: An Exploratory Study

Background: Global health is a term often used interchangeably with international health due to overlapping similarities and unclear distinctions. While some international health supporters argue that global health as a field is unnecessary as it is simply a duplicate of international health, global...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Kristy C. Y. Yiu, Eva Merethe Solum, Deborah D. DiLiberto, Steffen Torp
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Ubiquity Press 2020
Materias:	Infectious and parasitic diseases RC109-216 Public aspects of medicine RA1-1270
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/c886605ffb33450382bf342f34ffde7a
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:c886605ffb33450382bf342f34ffde7a
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:c886605ffb33450382bf342f34ffde7a2021-12-02T08:19:37ZComparing Approaches to Research in Global and International Health: An Exploratory Study2214-999610.5334/aogh.2799https://doaj.org/article/c886605ffb33450382bf342f34ffde7a2020-04-01T00:00:00Zhttps://annalsofglobalhealth.org/articles/2799https://doaj.org/toc/2214-9996Background: Global health is a term often used interchangeably with international health due to overlapping similarities and unclear distinctions. While some international health supporters argue that global health as a field is unnecessary as it is simply a duplicate of international health, global health supporters argue that global health is unique; for instance, it actively includes elements of empowerment and promotes cross-border collaboration. Objective: To investigate differences and similarities in research representing the fields of global and international health. Methods: We analyzed all the articles published in 2017 in two comparable academic journals representing the fields of global health ('Annals of Global Health', AGH) and international health ('International Health Journal', IHJ). Abstracted data included: research design and methods, income status of country of study, empowerment recommendations for practice, participation and research collaboration. Findings: Most studies in both AGH and IHJ used quantitative research methods but were significantly more common in IHJ (70%) compared to AGH (48%), whereas mores studies in AGH (17%) than IHJ (9%) used mixed methods. The majority of studies in both journals focused on low- or lower-middle income countries whereas more AGH studies (16%) focused on high-income countries compared to the IHJ studies (4%). It was more common in the AGH studies to make empowerment recommendations (90%) and to include stakeholders/users in the study (40%) compared to the IHJ studies (75% empowerment recommendations and 18% stakeholder/user participation). No difference was observed regarding cross-border research collaboration. Conclusions: This study does not show great differences between global health and international health research; however, there are still some differences indicating that global health emphasises different aspects of research compared to international health. More research is necessary to understand whether and how the distinctions between the definitions of global and international health are applied in real life, in research and beyond.Kristy C. Y. YiuEva Merethe SolumDeborah D. DiLibertoSteffen TorpUbiquity PressarticleInfectious and parasitic diseasesRC109-216Public aspects of medicineRA1-1270ENAnnals of Global Health, Vol 86, Iss 1 (2020)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Infectious and parasitic diseases RC109-216 Public aspects of medicine RA1-1270
spellingShingle	Infectious and parasitic diseases RC109-216 Public aspects of medicine RA1-1270 Kristy C. Y. Yiu Eva Merethe Solum Deborah D. DiLiberto Steffen Torp Comparing Approaches to Research in Global and International Health: An Exploratory Study
description	Background: Global health is a term often used interchangeably with international health due to overlapping similarities and unclear distinctions. While some international health supporters argue that global health as a field is unnecessary as it is simply a duplicate of international health, global health supporters argue that global health is unique; for instance, it actively includes elements of empowerment and promotes cross-border collaboration. Objective: To investigate differences and similarities in research representing the fields of global and international health. Methods: We analyzed all the articles published in 2017 in two comparable academic journals representing the fields of global health ('Annals of Global Health', AGH) and international health ('International Health Journal', IHJ). Abstracted data included: research design and methods, income status of country of study, empowerment recommendations for practice, participation and research collaboration. Findings: Most studies in both AGH and IHJ used quantitative research methods but were significantly more common in IHJ (70%) compared to AGH (48%), whereas mores studies in AGH (17%) than IHJ (9%) used mixed methods. The majority of studies in both journals focused on low- or lower-middle income countries whereas more AGH studies (16%) focused on high-income countries compared to the IHJ studies (4%). It was more common in the AGH studies to make empowerment recommendations (90%) and to include stakeholders/users in the study (40%) compared to the IHJ studies (75% empowerment recommendations and 18% stakeholder/user participation). No difference was observed regarding cross-border research collaboration. Conclusions: This study does not show great differences between global health and international health research; however, there are still some differences indicating that global health emphasises different aspects of research compared to international health. More research is necessary to understand whether and how the distinctions between the definitions of global and international health are applied in real life, in research and beyond.
format	article
author	Kristy C. Y. Yiu Eva Merethe Solum Deborah D. DiLiberto Steffen Torp
author_facet	Kristy C. Y. Yiu Eva Merethe Solum Deborah D. DiLiberto Steffen Torp
author_sort	Kristy C. Y. Yiu
title	Comparing Approaches to Research in Global and International Health: An Exploratory Study
title_short	Comparing Approaches to Research in Global and International Health: An Exploratory Study
title_full	Comparing Approaches to Research in Global and International Health: An Exploratory Study
title_fullStr	Comparing Approaches to Research in Global and International Health: An Exploratory Study
title_full_unstemmed	Comparing Approaches to Research in Global and International Health: An Exploratory Study
title_sort	comparing approaches to research in global and international health: an exploratory study
publisher	Ubiquity Press
publishDate	2020
url	https://doaj.org/article/c886605ffb33450382bf342f34ffde7a
work_keys_str_mv	AT kristycyyiu comparingapproachestoresearchinglobalandinternationalhealthanexploratorystudy AT evamerethesolum comparingapproachestoresearchinglobalandinternationalhealthanexploratorystudy AT deborahddiliberto comparingapproachestoresearchinglobalandinternationalhealthanexploratorystudy AT steffentorp comparingapproachestoresearchinglobalandinternationalhealthanexploratorystudy
_version_	1718398568706867200

Comparing Approaches to Research in Global and International Health: An Exploratory Study

Ejemplares similares