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
Bloom G, Berdou E, Standing H, Guo Z and Labrique A (2017) ICTs and the challenge of health system transition in low and middle-income countries, Globalization and Health, 13:56, doi: 10.1186/s12992-017-0276-y
The aim of this paper is to contribute to debates about how governments and other stakeholders can influence the application of ICTs to increase access to safe, effective and affordable treatment of common illnesses, especially by the poor. First, it argues that the health sector is best conceptualized as a ‘knowledge economy’. This supports a broadened view of health service provision that includes formal and informal arrangements for the provision of medical advice and drugs. This is particularly important in countries with a pluralistic health system, with relatively underdeveloped institutional arrangements. It then argues that reframing the health sector as a knowledge economy allows us to circumvent the blind spots associated with donor-driven ICT-interventions and consider more broadly the forces that are driving e-health innovations. It draws on small case studies in Bangladesh and China to illustrate new types of organization and new kinds of relationship between organizations that are emerging. It argues that several factors have impeded the rapid diffusion of ICT innovations at scale including: the limited capacity of innovations to meet health service needs, the time it takes to build new kinds of partnership between public and private actors and participants in the health and communications sectors and the lack of a supportive regulatory environment. It emphasises the need to understand the political economy of the digital health knowledge economy and the new regulatory challenges likely to emerge. It concludes that governments will need to play a more active role to facilitate the diffusion of beneficial ICT innovations at scale and ensure that the overall pattern of health system development meets the needs of the population, including the poor.
Pratt B, Allen KA and Hyder AA (2016) Promoting equity through health systems research in low- and middle-income countries: Practices of researchers, AJOB Empirical Bioethics, Volume 7, Issue 3, DOI:10.1080/23294515.2015.1122669
Health systems research is increasingly identified as an indispensable means to achieve the goal of health equity between and within countries. While conceptual work has explored what form of health systems research in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) is needed to promote health equity, there have been few attempts to investigate whether it is being performed in practice. This paper describes the results of a survey undertaken with health systems researchers worldwide to assess how equity-oriented current practice is in LMICs.
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.