Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (JHSPH)
Located in Baltimore, USA, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health is the largest institution of public health research, education, and professional practice in the world. It is part of the Johns Hopkins University, the first research-based university in the United States. The JHSPH has a commitment to excellence in research that has demonstrated impact on the performance of health systems and on national and international policy. Its Health Systems Programme (HSP) is widely recognised as a centre of international excellence in health policy, health systems analysis, health economics, epidemiology, public health, health education, and research and evaluation methodologies. JHSPH has a number of longstanding partnerships with institutions in Africa and Asia and a commitment to multi-disciplinary research on health system development.
Who we work with at JHSPH
- Dr Sara Bennet, CEO Future Health Systems (FHS publications, JHSPH profile, Google Scholar profile)
- Dr David Peters, Research Director Future Health Systems (FHS publications, JHSPH profile)
- Dr Adnan Hyder (FHS publications, JHSPH profile)
- Dr David Bishai (FHS publications, JHSPH profile, Google Scholar profile)
- Dr Anbrasi Edward (FHS publications, JHSPH profile)
- Md. Hafizur Rahman (FHS publications, JHSPH profile)
- Dr Asha George (FHS publications, JHSPH profile)
- Dr Sachiko Ozawa (FHS publications, JHSPH profile)
Recent FHS publications involving JHSPH
Pratt B and Hyder AA (2017) Governance of global health research consortia: Sharing sovereignty and resources within Future Health Systems, Social Science and Medicine, Volume 174, Pages 113–121, DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.11.039
Global health research partnerships are increasingly taking the form of consortia that conduct programs of research in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). An ethical framework has been developed that describes how the governance of consortia comprised of institutions from high-income countries and LMICs should be structured to promote health equity. It encompasses initial guidance for sharing sovereignty in consortia decision-making and sharing consortia resources. This paper describes a first effort to examine whether and how consortia can uphold that guidance. Case study research was undertaken with the Future Health Systems consortium, performs research to improve health service delivery for the poor in Bangladesh, China, India, and Uganda.
Pratt B and Hyder AA (2016) Designing research funding schemes to promote global health equity: An exploration of current practice in health systems research, Developing World Bioethics, DOI: 10.1111/dewb.12136
International research is an essential means of reducing health disparities between and within countries and should do so as a matter of global justice. Research funders from high-income countries have an obligation of justice to support health research in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) that furthers such objectives. This paper investigates how their current funding schemes are designed to incentivise health systems research in LMICs that promotes health equity.
Health systems research is increasingly being conducted in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). Such research should aim to reduce health disparities between and within countries as a matter of global justice. For such research to do so, ethical guidance that is consistent with egalitarian theories of social justice proposes it ought to (amongst other things) focus on worst-off countries and research populations. Yet who constitutes the worst-off is not well-defined.
Ozawa S, Paina L and Qiu M (2016) Exploring pathways for building trust in vaccination and strengthening health system resilience, BMC Health Services Research, 16:1867, DOI: 10.1186/s12913-016-1867-7
Trust is critical to generate and maintain demand for vaccines in low and middle income countries. However, there is little documentation on how health system insufficiencies affect trust in vaccination and the process of re-building trust once it has been compromised. We reflect on how disruptions to immunizations systems can affect trust in vaccination and can compromise vaccine utilization. We then explore key pathways for overcoming system vulnerabilities in order to restore trust, to strengthen the resilience of health systems and communities, and to promote vaccine utilization.
George AS, Scott K, Sarriot E, Kanjilal B and Peters DH (2016) Unlocking community capabilities across health systems in low- and middle-income countries: lessons learned from research and reflective practice, BMC Health Services Research, 16:1859, DOI: 10.1186/s12913-016-1859-7
The right and responsibility of communities to participate in health service delivery was enshrined in the 1978 Alma Ata declaration and continues to feature centrally in health systems debates today. Communities are a vital part of people-centred health systems and their engagement is critical to realizing the diverse health targets prioritised by the Sustainable Development Goals and the commitments made to Universal Health Coverage. Community members’ intimate knowledge of local needs and adaptive capacities are essential in constructively harnessing global transformations related to epidemiological and demographic transitions, urbanization, migration, technological innovation and climate change. Effective community partnerships and governance processes that underpin community capability also strengthen local resilience, enabling communities to better manage shocks, sustain gains, and advocate for their needs through linkages to authorities and services. This is particularly important given how power relations mark broader contexts of resource scarcity and concentration, struggles related to social liberties and other types of ongoing conflicts.
The Ebola epidemic of 2014–2015 was one of the most significant public health threats of the 21st century, a crisis that challenged leadership in West Africa and around the world. Using the experience of Liberia's epidemic control efforts, we highlight the critical role that leadership played during four phases of the epidemic response: (1) crisis recognition and early mobilization; (2) the emergency phase; (3) the declining epidemic; and (4) the long tail. We examine how the decisions and actions taken in each phase of the epidemic address key crisis leadership tasks, including sense-making, decision making, meaning-making, crisis termination, and learning, and assess how leadership approaches evolved during the different epidemic phases to accomplish these tasks.