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 Bennett, 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 Ligia Paina (FHS publications, JHSPH profile)
- Dr Daniela Rodriguez (FHS publications, JHSPH profile)
- Dr Olakunle O. Alonge (FHS Publications, JHSPH profile)
Recent FHS publications involving JHSPH
This article poses questions, challenges, and dilemmas for health system researchers striving to better understand how gender shapes accountability mechanisms, by critically examining the relationship between accountability and gender in health systems. It raises three key considerations, namely that: (1) power and inequities are centre stage: power relations are critical to both gender and accountability, and accountability mechanisms can transform health systems to be more gender-equitable; (2) intersectionality analyses are necessary: gender is only one dimension of marginalisation and intersects with other social stratifiers to create different experiences of vulnerability; we need to take account of how these stratifiers collectively shape accountability; and (3) empowerment processes that address gender inequities are a prerequisite for bringing about accountability. We suggest that holistic approaches to understanding health systems inequities and accountability mechanisms are needed to transform gendered power inequities, impact on the gendered dimensions of ill health, and enhance health system functioning.
New technological breakthroughs in biomedicine should have made it easier for countries to improve life expectancy at birth (LEB). This paper measures the pace of improvement in the decadal gains of LEB, for the last 60-years adjusting for each country’s starting point of LEB.
Receiving an award is an accolade. Awards validate and bring visibility, help attract funding, hasten career advancement, and can consolidate career accomplishments. Yet, in the fields of public health and medicine, few women receive them. Between seven public health and medicine awards from diverse countries, the chances of a woman receiving a prize was nine out of 100 since their inception.
This article draws attention to the limited amount of scholarship on what constitutes fairness and equity in resource allocation to health research by individual funders. It identifies three key decisions of ethical significance about resource allocation that research funders make regularly and calls for prioritizing scholarship on those topics – namely, how health resources should be fairly apportioned amongst public health and health care delivery versus health research, how health research resources should be fairly allocated between health problems experienced domestically versus other health problems typically experienced by disadvantaged populations outside the funder's country, and how domestic and non-domestic health research funding should be further apportioned to different areas, e.g. types of research and recipients.