The first title in the Global Health Histories book series (published by Cambridge University Press) is out now - Suman Seth’s ‘Difference and Disease: Medicine, Race, and the Eighteenth-Century British Empire.’ Before the nineteenth century, travellers who left Britain for the Americas, West Africa, India and elsewhere encountered a medical conundrum: why did they fall ill when they arrived, and why – if they recovered - did they never become so ill again? Suman Seth (Cornell University) explores forms of eighteenth-century medical knowledge, showing how geographical location was essential to this knowledge. In this period, debates raged over whether diseases changed in different climes. Different diseases were deemed characteristic of different races and genders, and medical practitioners were thus deeply involved in contestations over race and the legitimacy of the abolitionist cause.
We asked the author for his insights into the preparation and planning of the book. This was his enlightening response:
“I came to this project via a rather circuitous route. I published my first book in 2010, on theoretical physics in late 19th and early 20th century Germany. Given longstanding interests in science, race, colonialism, and postcolonial theory, I’d originally envisioned working on a project on the physical sciences and colonialism in the German concession at Kiautschou Bay, China, from 1897-1914. Beginning research, however, I came across material having to do with debates in Germany concerning ‘Akklimatisation’ and race. Following material on acclimatization led me backwards to the history of ‘seasoning,’ the term used before acclimatization replaced it—in medical contexts—after the 1830s and 1840s. And an interest in seasoning and race led me to the material that became this book. Within a couple of years, in other words, I had gone from being a historian of physics in Germany in the twentieth century to someone who needed to understand the history of medicine in the British Empire, in the eighteenth century. Needless to say, making that transition required the help on an enormous number of people, who were incredibly generous with their time, patience, and wisdom.”
You can find out more about ‘Difference and Disease’ via the Global Health Histories series page on the Cambridge University Press website.
The Global Health Histories series aims to publish outstanding and innovative scholarship on the history of public health, medicine and science worldwide. By studying the many ways in which the impact of ideas of health and well-being on society were measured and described in different global, international, regional, national and local contexts, books in the series will reconceptualise the nature of empire, the nation state, extra-state actors and different forms of globalization.
You can read more about upcoming titles in the series via our series announcement on the Centre for Global Health Histories news page.
Monday, 13 August 2018
Monday, 9 July 2018
Seminar report: Vaccine Hesitancy – why do some people not vaccinate?
On the blog today we have another guest post from Dr Victoria Turner (CGHH Associate & Public Health Specialty Registrar, Associate Clinical Fellow, Department of Health Sciences, University of York) who reports on the discussions at Global Health Histories Seminar 107.
On Tuesday 3rd July I was in Copenhagen attending the 107th Global Health Histories seminar with Sanjoy Bhattacharya (Director of the WHO Collaborating Centre for Global Health Histories at the University of York), who was chairing the session. The seminar showcased two excellent speakers: Robb Butler, Programme Manager for Vaccine-preventable Diseases and Immunization at WHO Europe, and Heidi Larson, Director of The Vaccine Confidence Project (VCP) and Professor of Anthropology, Risk and Decision Science at London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
To start, Robb Butler gave a very interesting overview of some of the factors affecting decision making, and how this applies to vaccination. He made the point that behaviour, as well as diseases, can be contagious (think of yawning!), and that in order to anchor the population into making positive decisions around vaccinations we need to move to a position where people are making well-informed decisions, rather than just following the crowd.
Robb discussed the ‘mental toolbox’ of tools we use to make decisions, including affect heuristics (i.e. being affected by emotions, a factor particularly used by anti-vax lobbyists) and negativity bias (i.e. people are more likely to make a decision based on the avoidance of negative side effects rather than gaining any positive benefits).
Vaccine hesitancy is affected by confidence, complacency and convenience. Examples were given of populations both of the general public and of healthcare professionals who had never experienced diseases such as measles, and therefore did not feel vaccination was necessary (‘complacency’). Other difficulties included the ease of getting the vaccine, with an example given of French healthcare that required multiple GP/pharmacy trips for a single vaccine (‘convenience’), and poorly-responsive technology (e.g. the failure to progress from fear-inducing needles).
Overall, Robb argued that vaccine hesitancy is complex, context-specific and varies across time, place and type of vaccine.
Following on from Robb’s discussion of how decisions around vaccination are made, Heidi addressed historical and cultural attitudes to vaccine hesitancy from across the globe. She started with the point that not only can we not prevent all vaccine hesitancy, but that we shouldn’t be trying to prevent all vaccine hesitancy; parents with children should quite rightly be asking questions about what is best for their children. She highlighted two key themes that most often lead to vaccine hesitancy: purity (i.e. ‘natural is better’) and liberty (i.e. ‘who are you to impose this on me?).
Heidi highlighted that discussions on vaccine hesitancy can be difficult, particularly when there is emotive polarisation of pro- and anti-vaccination groups (‘they’re stupid’ vs. ‘they’re lying to us’). She argued that we have to be better at how we discuss vaccines with the public – stock phrases like ‘its 100% safe’ and ‘vaccination is the most cost-effective intervention’ (not necessarily – depends on the vaccine/disease) can be unhelpful.
As a case study Heidi also referred to a particular incident involving HPV vaccination in Columbia, where full vaccine coverage in an area decreased from 88% to 5% after an ‘outbreak’ of anxiety symptoms in this area. This case also highlighted the fact that symptoms are not spread evenly throughout the vaccine-taking population; this leads to ‘clusters’ of vaccine hesitancy, linking back to Robb’s concept of behaviour as contagious.
The Q&A session also addressed some important issues. The first question raised the point that people’s first port of call when they have a medical (or other) question is usually Google, and responses are therefore particularly influenced by the top ‘hits’ (and by extension the companies that sponsor them). Robb acknowledged that challenging/working with ‘Dr Google’ was an area the medical profession had not spent enough time on, as well as emphasising the sizable impact a single individual could have on social media to counteract all the work done by health professionals.
Heidi also had advice for a medical student asking how healthcare professionals should discuss vaccination with their patients. Giving them the opportunity to ask questions and listening to their concerns is very important, particularly in maintaining the trust between patient and professional. However, making sure clinicians are confident in answering these questions (ideally with better training, e.g. at medical school) would also help.
The final take home message on improving our approach to vaccine hesitancy was that we all need to put down the guns, engage stakeholders and understand and address their perspectives if we want to move forward.
On Tuesday 3rd July I was in Copenhagen attending the 107th Global Health Histories seminar with Sanjoy Bhattacharya (Director of the WHO Collaborating Centre for Global Health Histories at the University of York), who was chairing the session. The seminar showcased two excellent speakers: Robb Butler, Programme Manager for Vaccine-preventable Diseases and Immunization at WHO Europe, and Heidi Larson, Director of The Vaccine Confidence Project (VCP) and Professor of Anthropology, Risk and Decision Science at London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
To start, Robb Butler gave a very interesting overview of some of the factors affecting decision making, and how this applies to vaccination. He made the point that behaviour, as well as diseases, can be contagious (think of yawning!), and that in order to anchor the population into making positive decisions around vaccinations we need to move to a position where people are making well-informed decisions, rather than just following the crowd.
Robb discussed the ‘mental toolbox’ of tools we use to make decisions, including affect heuristics (i.e. being affected by emotions, a factor particularly used by anti-vax lobbyists) and negativity bias (i.e. people are more likely to make a decision based on the avoidance of negative side effects rather than gaining any positive benefits).
Vaccine hesitancy is affected by confidence, complacency and convenience. Examples were given of populations both of the general public and of healthcare professionals who had never experienced diseases such as measles, and therefore did not feel vaccination was necessary (‘complacency’). Other difficulties included the ease of getting the vaccine, with an example given of French healthcare that required multiple GP/pharmacy trips for a single vaccine (‘convenience’), and poorly-responsive technology (e.g. the failure to progress from fear-inducing needles).
Overall, Robb argued that vaccine hesitancy is complex, context-specific and varies across time, place and type of vaccine.
Following on from Robb’s discussion of how decisions around vaccination are made, Heidi addressed historical and cultural attitudes to vaccine hesitancy from across the globe. She started with the point that not only can we not prevent all vaccine hesitancy, but that we shouldn’t be trying to prevent all vaccine hesitancy; parents with children should quite rightly be asking questions about what is best for their children. She highlighted two key themes that most often lead to vaccine hesitancy: purity (i.e. ‘natural is better’) and liberty (i.e. ‘who are you to impose this on me?).
Heidi highlighted that discussions on vaccine hesitancy can be difficult, particularly when there is emotive polarisation of pro- and anti-vaccination groups (‘they’re stupid’ vs. ‘they’re lying to us’). She argued that we have to be better at how we discuss vaccines with the public – stock phrases like ‘its 100% safe’ and ‘vaccination is the most cost-effective intervention’ (not necessarily – depends on the vaccine/disease) can be unhelpful.
As a case study Heidi also referred to a particular incident involving HPV vaccination in Columbia, where full vaccine coverage in an area decreased from 88% to 5% after an ‘outbreak’ of anxiety symptoms in this area. This case also highlighted the fact that symptoms are not spread evenly throughout the vaccine-taking population; this leads to ‘clusters’ of vaccine hesitancy, linking back to Robb’s concept of behaviour as contagious.
The Q&A session also addressed some important issues. The first question raised the point that people’s first port of call when they have a medical (or other) question is usually Google, and responses are therefore particularly influenced by the top ‘hits’ (and by extension the companies that sponsor them). Robb acknowledged that challenging/working with ‘Dr Google’ was an area the medical profession had not spent enough time on, as well as emphasising the sizable impact a single individual could have on social media to counteract all the work done by health professionals.
Heidi also had advice for a medical student asking how healthcare professionals should discuss vaccination with their patients. Giving them the opportunity to ask questions and listening to their concerns is very important, particularly in maintaining the trust between patient and professional. However, making sure clinicians are confident in answering these questions (ideally with better training, e.g. at medical school) would also help.
The final take home message on improving our approach to vaccine hesitancy was that we all need to put down the guns, engage stakeholders and understand and address their perspectives if we want to move forward.
Wednesday, 2 May 2018
Seminar Report – 'Tobacco Control: History and current global challenges'
On the blog today we have a guest post from Dr Victoria Turner (CGHH Associate & Public Health Specialty Registrar, Associate Clinical Fellow, Department of Health Sciences, University of York) who reports on the discussions at Global Health Histories Seminar 104.
Facing the Challenge: Tobacco Control in Sri Lanka
The first speaker was Dr Lakshmi Somatunga of the Sri Lankan Ministry of Health, who shared her experience of using policy to improve tobacco control. She took us on a journey from the situation in 2000 where 25% percent of the Sri Lankan population were daily smokers (although less than 1% of females), and where vigorous promotion of smoking occurred in the media, to the present where Sri Lanka has a successful National Programme on tobacco control, effective national legislation (National Authority on Tobacco and Alcohol Act, 2007) and has taken an international lead on ratifying the Framework Convention for Tobacco Control. By 2015 smoking prevalence in Sri Lanka had decreased to 19.9% in men and negligible in women. The daily average number of cigarettes smoked by men had also decreased, from 9.1 in 2007 to 3.7 in 2015.
Key factors influencing the success of the Sri Lankan approach to tobacco control included:
- Strong political commitment
- Very supportive media
- Multi-sector involvement, led by the health sector
- Strong promotion/prevention measures, such as early behavioural change in school children and the integration of tobacco control into health lifestyle messages
- Inclusion of grass roots societies at stakeholder meetings
- Visible and accessible state-run health services
Dr Somatunga. Credit: University of York/ Alex Holland
I was particularly interested to hear about the integration of tobacco control into the school curriculum, with compulsory questions on tobacco control in general knowledge exam papers (although as Dr Somatunga later pointed out, there is sometimes a difference between what you know and what you choose to practice!)
Smokeless tobacco use in South Asia: health risks and control measures
Dr Somatunga’s presentation was followed by a talk by Kamran Siddiqi, Professor in Public Health at the University of York, who discussed the prevalence, risks and diversity of smokeless tobacco usage in South Asia.
We discovered that smokeless tobacco use is a sizeable, if underappreciated issue; of 1 billion smokers in the world, 25% are smokeless tobacco users. Despite this, very few countries regulate smokeless tobacco, and they are also usually subject to lower taxes and less stringent health warnings than cigarettes.
Professor Siddiqi. Credit: University of York/ Alex Holland
The variation between different smokeless tobacco products also makes this situation more complex. It was not only enlightening to hear about the different types of smokeless tobacco products, but also to appreciate that they all carried different risks. Prof. Siddiqi gave us a brief lesson in tobacco chemistry and demonstrated that products with different pHs carry different risks; the more alkaline, the higher the absorption into the body (including of carcinogens). There are also many different production methods at different scales, including those prepared by individual users, custom made products or manufactured products (either on a small local or a large industrial scale). This persistent diversity makes it very difficult to have a single policy against all forms of smokeless tobacco.
Prof. Siddiqi also emphasised the deep rooted cultural associations of smokeless tobacco use in South Asia, where it is used at weddings, religious celebrations, and other family gatherings. This makes tackling smokeless tobacco use more complex; a new NIHR Global Health Research Group called ASTRA (Addressing Smokeless Tobacco and building Research capacity in south Asia) has been set up to try and understand and overcome some of these issues, with University York staff (including Prof. Siddiqi) particularly involved.
Continuing the conversation
Following the presentations, Dr Nils Fitje of the WHO Regional office for Europe chaired a discussion with both speakers, who answered a variety of interesting and thoughtful questions from the audience.
Credit: University of York/ Alex Holland
Highlights included Dr Somatunga’s response to how smokeless tobacco was being challenged in Sri Lanka, which involved trying to build smokeless tobacco control into the current ‘fashionable’ ideal of keeping the environment clean, with children and young people once again cited as key agents for change.
Both speakers also made interesting points on the role of community leaders in behaviour change. Prof. Siddiqi discussed how faith leaders (Imams) in Bangladesh had requested training on advocating for smoke-free homes, and who were now using sermons as powerful way of delivering messages to particular communities. Similarly, Dr Somatunga discussed the success in Sri Lanka of getting senior Buddhist leaders to remove tobacco from betel offerings; a key part of religious ceremonies.
Both the presentations and the Q&A session highlighted the influence of culture on tobacco use, and the importance of challenging social norms in innovative ways in order to overcome the tobacco use (of many kinds) ingrained part of South Asian cultures.
Monday, 9 April 2018
Historic Anti-Smoking Campaigns: A Brief Sketch
The second half of the twentieth century was marked by increasing efforts to curb tobacco consumption and exposure, and in the new millennium the 2005 WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), the first ever public health treaty, was developed to tackle the factors leading to ill health from tobacco. On 24th April 2018, the 104th Global Health Histories seminar will take as its theme the histories and current global challenges of tobacco control, with presentations by our expert panellists Dr. Lakshmi C. Somatunga and & Professor Kamran Siddiqi. The event will be held at the University of York, and attendance is free and open to all. Further information and registration details can be found at www.york.ac.uk/history/global-health-histories/events/ghh-104-tobacco-control/
Anti-smoking campaigns targeted at mass audiences have also constituted a significant part of the efforts to curb tobacco consumption since the mid-twentieth century. They were released to counter the promotional messages of tobacco companies, whose advertisements were well-funded and created an attractive and pervasive lifestyle around smoking. But the challenge extended beyond this: smoking has long been embedded in popular culture, glamourised and normalised, for instance, by icons of the cinema screen. Anti-smoking campaigns therefore relied on various techniques and designs to persuade people to stub out their cigarettes. Posters were a key component, but press advertisements, television commercials, comic books and book-marks were all deployed. It is these highly visual mediums which we turn our attentions to in this blog post, drawing upon the holdings of the Wellcome Collection.
Our first poster (by Reginald Mount, c. 1965) was part of a pairing, both of which are held in the Wellcome Collection. Depicting a young female smoker, it attempts to influence viewers by means of a rational argument based on the monetary cost of smoking, and what that money could be spent on instead. The argument outlined in the poster text takes the form of an imagined, one-sided conversation, and goes into a different register by suggesting that smoking can not only save you money and make you healthier, but lead to a better, happier life as a result (the character is presented as being unlucky in love because of her habit). The visual elements are similarly simple but effective: cigarette smoke is shown in the form of coins, emphasising money literally going up in smoke. The companion poster (again by Reginald Mount, 1965) shows a male smoker and makes a similar argument. The character talks about his friend’s new acquisitions (which include a gold watch and transistor radio) as well as his new found health upon giving up smoking. As well as the rational argument about saving money, the subtle humour of both posters encourages viewers/readers to compare their own attitudes and experiences with those of the poster characters, and reflect on the relative happiness of the smoker and non-smoker.
Our next image is striking in its simplicity yet forcefulness. The cancer bookmark, issued by Britain's Central Council for Health Education in the 1950s, displays a comparatively spare design where the modest inclusions are used to create a powerful message. The rising cigarette smoke which spells out ‘Cancer’ makes the point that smoking and disease are fundamentally intertwined. The design is all the more haunting for the subtle, and some might say, friendly way in which this is conveyed. On first sight the curved, flowing letters do not look threatening, but that is the ultimate message: cigarettes, the epitome of everydayness, cause profound health problems.
The next poster (designer and date unknown, though probably post 1950s) deploys a different take on this. It displays a design which came to be a common sight on many anti-smoking campaigns, as well as in connection with several other health problems. It conveys the unequivocal message that smoking cigarettes = death. This is achieved through instantly recognisable and understood symbols such as the skull, the skeletal hand grasping an open packet of cigarettes, and a grave. Yet if further convincing was necessary, the wording at the bottom of the design reiterates the point: ‘sure death’. Many anti-smoking posters display the common post-war trend of emphasising visual messages rather than extensive, descriptive text on poster campaigns.
Our final design, from Germany, calls upon smokers to spare their organs by illustrating the path that cigarette smoke takes straight to the heart, lungs and stomach. It represents an attempt to sensitise smokers to the deeper damage done by smoking, by visualising the invisible journey of the cigarette smoke. However, we should bear in mind that whilst poster designers may have intended a specific interpretation, rarely was it the case that everyone viewed and understood the designs in exactly the same way. Misinterpretation was a common problem in relation to other health campaigns, as Alex Mould shows in her exploration of alcohol, health education and the public in 1970s Britain.[1] In relation to this German poster, the body in question looks relatively strong and healthy, and the heart in particular looks to be bursting with life. To those unacquainted with the effects of cigarette smoke, or those who gave the poster but a passing glance, the point about the negative consequences of smoking may have been lost. Reception at the time is, of course, impossible to substantiate concretely for this particular poster, but the broader point stands that no matter the resources directed at public health campaigns, their ultimate effect was very much dependent on a range of factors.
These posters represent but a snapshot of the enormous efforts which were deployed to encourage people to stop smoking. Further designs can be viewed in the excellent WHO publication 'Public Health Campaigns: Getting the Message Across' which is available at www.who.int/about/history/publications/9789240560277/en/, and more recent efforts at http://www.who.int/campaigns/no-tobacco-day/2017/poster/en/.
Alexander Medcalf is a Research and Teaching Fellow at the University of York Department of History, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Global Health Histories. He teaches the MA option course A Picture of Health: The Mass Media and Public Health in the Twentieth Century.
Anti-smoking campaigns targeted at mass audiences have also constituted a significant part of the efforts to curb tobacco consumption since the mid-twentieth century. They were released to counter the promotional messages of tobacco companies, whose advertisements were well-funded and created an attractive and pervasive lifestyle around smoking. But the challenge extended beyond this: smoking has long been embedded in popular culture, glamourised and normalised, for instance, by icons of the cinema screen. Anti-smoking campaigns therefore relied on various techniques and designs to persuade people to stub out their cigarettes. Posters were a key component, but press advertisements, television commercials, comic books and book-marks were all deployed. It is these highly visual mediums which we turn our attentions to in this blog post, drawing upon the holdings of the Wellcome Collection.
'A young woman smoking; silver coins represent expense' by Reginald Mount. Credit: Wellcome Collection. CC BY
Our first poster (by Reginald Mount, c. 1965) was part of a pairing, both of which are held in the Wellcome Collection. Depicting a young female smoker, it attempts to influence viewers by means of a rational argument based on the monetary cost of smoking, and what that money could be spent on instead. The argument outlined in the poster text takes the form of an imagined, one-sided conversation, and goes into a different register by suggesting that smoking can not only save you money and make you healthier, but lead to a better, happier life as a result (the character is presented as being unlucky in love because of her habit). The visual elements are similarly simple but effective: cigarette smoke is shown in the form of coins, emphasising money literally going up in smoke. The companion poster (again by Reginald Mount, 1965) shows a male smoker and makes a similar argument. The character talks about his friend’s new acquisitions (which include a gold watch and transistor radio) as well as his new found health upon giving up smoking. As well as the rational argument about saving money, the subtle humour of both posters encourages viewers/readers to compare their own attitudes and experiences with those of the poster characters, and reflect on the relative happiness of the smoker and non-smoker.
'Flyer (bookmark) warning of the dangers of smoking' . Credit: Wellcome Collection. CC BY
'Have another! Sure death' . Credit: Wellcome Collection. CC BY
'German anti-smoking campaign poster' . Credit: Wellcome Collection. CC BY
Our final design, from Germany, calls upon smokers to spare their organs by illustrating the path that cigarette smoke takes straight to the heart, lungs and stomach. It represents an attempt to sensitise smokers to the deeper damage done by smoking, by visualising the invisible journey of the cigarette smoke. However, we should bear in mind that whilst poster designers may have intended a specific interpretation, rarely was it the case that everyone viewed and understood the designs in exactly the same way. Misinterpretation was a common problem in relation to other health campaigns, as Alex Mould shows in her exploration of alcohol, health education and the public in 1970s Britain.[1] In relation to this German poster, the body in question looks relatively strong and healthy, and the heart in particular looks to be bursting with life. To those unacquainted with the effects of cigarette smoke, or those who gave the poster but a passing glance, the point about the negative consequences of smoking may have been lost. Reception at the time is, of course, impossible to substantiate concretely for this particular poster, but the broader point stands that no matter the resources directed at public health campaigns, their ultimate effect was very much dependent on a range of factors.
These posters represent but a snapshot of the enormous efforts which were deployed to encourage people to stop smoking. Further designs can be viewed in the excellent WHO publication 'Public Health Campaigns: Getting the Message Across' which is available at www.who.int/about/history/publications/9789240560277/en/, and more recent efforts at http://www.who.int/campaigns/no-tobacco-day/2017/poster/en/.
Alexander Medcalf is a Research and Teaching Fellow at the University of York Department of History, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Global Health Histories. He teaches the MA option course A Picture of Health: The Mass Media and Public Health in the Twentieth Century.
[1] Alex Mold, ‘Everybody Likes a Drink. Nobody Likes a Drunk’.
Alcohol, Health Education and the Public in 1970s Britain’, Social History of
Medicine, Volume 30, Issue 3, 1 August 2017, Pages 612–636
Monday, 26 March 2018
Global Health Histories FAQs
On 24 April 2018 a Global Health Histories seminar will be held for the first time in York, UK (See - www.york.ac.uk/history/global-health-histories/events/ghh-104-tobacco-control/). This will give a lot of our UK-based followers the first chance to attend one in person. For some it will be their first time engaging with the series. So we’ve put together his quick look at the series’ history and as well as some frequently asked questions.
What are the Global Health Histories Seminars?
The Global Health Histories project (or GHH) was launched back in 2004 to bring together academics, policymakers, public health professionals and members of the public from all over the world to foster useful discussions on topical global health issues, and create opportunities for historians and policy makers to connect with and learn from each other. Over the course of almost a hundred events to date it has provided a framework for academic research to be made available freely to policymakers beyond the conventional academic avenues.
What is their purpose?
The underlying goal of the Global Health Histories project is based on the idea that understanding the history of health, especially during the last 60 years, can help the global public health community respond to present-day challenges. The enduring value to the series is in using different perspectives to tackle issues about how disease has spread, how illness is experienced, and how it is managed across different cultures and time periods.
Which topics have been covered?
Too many to mention all of them here! There have now been over one hundred seminars. Some annual series have focussed on specific areas, such as neglected tropical diseases and the road to universal health coverage, whereas individual seminars have explored topics such as antimicrobial resistance, health communication, healthy ageing and yellow fever. Out next seminar, on 24th April 2018, concerns tobacco control. In many cases you can access recordings via our YouTube channel, www.youtube.com/CGHHYork.
Where are the seminars usually held?
The seminars are usually held at the WHO Regional Office for Europe in Copenhagen, but from time to time seminars are run all over the world. In some cases these events will be broadcast live over the internet, but when this is not possible a recording is usually made and then added to our YouTube channel shortly afterwards.
What are the Global Health Histories Seminars?
The Global Health Histories project (or GHH) was launched back in 2004 to bring together academics, policymakers, public health professionals and members of the public from all over the world to foster useful discussions on topical global health issues, and create opportunities for historians and policy makers to connect with and learn from each other. Over the course of almost a hundred events to date it has provided a framework for academic research to be made available freely to policymakers beyond the conventional academic avenues.
What is their purpose?
The underlying goal of the Global Health Histories project is based on the idea that understanding the history of health, especially during the last 60 years, can help the global public health community respond to present-day challenges. The enduring value to the series is in using different perspectives to tackle issues about how disease has spread, how illness is experienced, and how it is managed across different cultures and time periods.
Which topics have been covered?
Too many to mention all of them here! There have now been over one hundred seminars. Some annual series have focussed on specific areas, such as neglected tropical diseases and the road to universal health coverage, whereas individual seminars have explored topics such as antimicrobial resistance, health communication, healthy ageing and yellow fever. Out next seminar, on 24th April 2018, concerns tobacco control. In many cases you can access recordings via our YouTube channel, www.youtube.com/CGHHYork.
Where are the seminars usually held?
The seminars are usually held at the WHO Regional Office for Europe in Copenhagen, but from time to time seminars are run all over the world. In some cases these events will be broadcast live over the internet, but when this is not possible a recording is usually made and then added to our YouTube channel shortly afterwards.
Who can access these seminars?
Anyone can tune in to the online broadcasts, however please do check beforehand whether or not you will be able to attend in person. The next seminar in York is open to the public: you can register at: www.york.ac.uk/history/global-health-histories/events/ghh-104-tobacco-control/
I won’t be available to log in to the live broadcast but have a question for the panel?
Just email cghh@york.ac.uk. When a seminar is broadcast live you will be informed beforehand seminars are broadcast live so you can also Tweet your question.
Anyone can tune in to the online broadcasts, however please do check beforehand whether or not you will be able to attend in person. The next seminar in York is open to the public: you can register at: www.york.ac.uk/history/global-health-histories/events/ghh-104-tobacco-control/
I won’t be available to log in to the live broadcast but have a question for the panel?
Just email cghh@york.ac.uk. When a seminar is broadcast live you will be informed beforehand seminars are broadcast live so you can also Tweet your question.
Have you just run seminars?
No, we have produced a range of books based on some of the themes and presentations covered in the seminars. They are all free to access online and are multilingual. See www.york.ac.uk/history/global-health-histories/publications-outreach/ for further details.
How do I get more information on upcoming seminars and connected projects?
If you’d like to join the event mailing lists please write us an email at cghh@york.ac.uk. Our website (www.york.ac.uk/history/global-health-histories/) is regularly updated. You can also follow updates via social media, on Facebook (@TheCentreForGlobalHealthHistories) and Twitter (@CGHH_York). For past GHH recordings visit our YouTube channel (www.youtube.com/CGHHYork)
Who runs and funds the project?
The project is a collaboration between the WHO Collaborating Centre for Global Health Histories (which is housed in the Department of History at the University of York) and the WHO Regional Office for Europe. The project is supported by the Wellcome Trust, one of the largest charitable foundations in the world.
No, we have produced a range of books based on some of the themes and presentations covered in the seminars. They are all free to access online and are multilingual. See www.york.ac.uk/history/global-health-histories/publications-outreach/ for further details.
How do I get more information on upcoming seminars and connected projects?
If you’d like to join the event mailing lists please write us an email at cghh@york.ac.uk. Our website (www.york.ac.uk/history/global-health-histories/) is regularly updated. You can also follow updates via social media, on Facebook (@TheCentreForGlobalHealthHistories) and Twitter (@CGHH_York). For past GHH recordings visit our YouTube channel (www.youtube.com/CGHHYork)
Who runs and funds the project?
The project is a collaboration between the WHO Collaborating Centre for Global Health Histories (which is housed in the Department of History at the University of York) and the WHO Regional Office for Europe. The project is supported by the Wellcome Trust, one of the largest charitable foundations in the world.
Monday, 5 March 2018
Spring 2018 at the Centre for Global Health Histories
It has been a busy start to the year at the Centre for Global Health Histories, with new outputs to celebrate and new colleagues to welcome. We provide a digest below; full particulars on these and all CGHH news and events can be found at www.york.ac.uk/history/global-health-histories/.
New publications
Professor Sanjoy Bhattacharya contributed a chapter ‘Global and local histories of medicine: interpretative challenges and future possibilities’ in A Global History of Medicine edited by Mark Jackson.
Dr Alexander Medcalf’s open access article ‘Between art and information: communicating world health, 1948–70’ was published in the Journal of Global History (Volume 13, Issue 1 (2018), pp. 94-120) and is available to view online via Cambridge Core.
Dr Margaret Jones and Chandani Liyanage’s article, ‘Traditional Medicine and Primary Health Care in Sri Lanka: Policy, Perceptions, and Practice’, was published in the Asian Review of World Histories’ website. This is also an open access article available to all to view.
New team members
Dr Rebecca Wright joined CGHH in January as a Research Fellow in Future Health. Her two-year fellowship was awarded by the Centre of Future Health, an interdisciplinary research centre at the University of York (co-funded with the Wellcome Trust) supporting innovative research on future health challenges. Rebecca’s research will examine the intersections between the histories of energy and health.
Deika Mohamed was awarded the Michael Smith Foreign Study Supplement by the Canadian Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) and has joined CGHH as a Visiting Scholar until May 2018. Deika will conduct archival research across Europe while working under the direction of CGHH’s Director Sanjoy Bhattacharya.
New lectures
In January Sanjoy Bhattacharya delivered a lecture ‘History Matters: WHO EMRO and the Worldwide Eradication of Smallpox’ to WHO staff during a visit to the WHO Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean. He was subsequently invited to record it for the WHO EMRO YouTube channel and it is now available to view online. The video provides a historical overview of smallpox eradication, and sheds light on various public health, social and political factors which contributed to this landmark global health achievement.
At the end February, Sanjoy also represented CGHH at two events at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, and a further talk at the Center for Culture-Centred Approach to Research and Evaluation (CARE). The first event, a public lecture on 27th February, re-visited the worldwide eradication of smallpox, exploring the idea of ethically prepared histories as roadmaps for global health. The second event, on 28th February, took the form of a roundtable with Sanjoy, Ivy Yeh, Michael Stanley-Baker, Park Hyung Wook and Fang Xiaoping of Nanyang Technological University tackling the provocative subject ‘Are Medical History and Humanities Useful?’ At the third event at CARE on the 1st March event Sanjoy delivered a public lecture titled "Repositioning the World's Health: Empires, Democracy and the Making of the World Health Organization".
New publications
Professor Sanjoy Bhattacharya contributed a chapter ‘Global and local histories of medicine: interpretative challenges and future possibilities’ in A Global History of Medicine edited by Mark Jackson.
Dr Alexander Medcalf’s open access article ‘Between art and information: communicating world health, 1948–70’ was published in the Journal of Global History (Volume 13, Issue 1 (2018), pp. 94-120) and is available to view online via Cambridge Core.
Dr Margaret Jones and Chandani Liyanage’s article, ‘Traditional Medicine and Primary Health Care in Sri Lanka: Policy, Perceptions, and Practice’, was published in the Asian Review of World Histories’ website. This is also an open access article available to all to view.
New team members
Dr Rebecca Wright joined CGHH in January as a Research Fellow in Future Health. Her two-year fellowship was awarded by the Centre of Future Health, an interdisciplinary research centre at the University of York (co-funded with the Wellcome Trust) supporting innovative research on future health challenges. Rebecca’s research will examine the intersections between the histories of energy and health.
Deika Mohamed was awarded the Michael Smith Foreign Study Supplement by the Canadian Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) and has joined CGHH as a Visiting Scholar until May 2018. Deika will conduct archival research across Europe while working under the direction of CGHH’s Director Sanjoy Bhattacharya.
New lectures
In January Sanjoy Bhattacharya delivered a lecture ‘History Matters: WHO EMRO and the Worldwide Eradication of Smallpox’ to WHO staff during a visit to the WHO Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean. He was subsequently invited to record it for the WHO EMRO YouTube channel and it is now available to view online. The video provides a historical overview of smallpox eradication, and sheds light on various public health, social and political factors which contributed to this landmark global health achievement.
At the end February, Sanjoy also represented CGHH at two events at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, and a further talk at the Center for Culture-Centred Approach to Research and Evaluation (CARE). The first event, a public lecture on 27th February, re-visited the worldwide eradication of smallpox, exploring the idea of ethically prepared histories as roadmaps for global health. The second event, on 28th February, took the form of a roundtable with Sanjoy, Ivy Yeh, Michael Stanley-Baker, Park Hyung Wook and Fang Xiaoping of Nanyang Technological University tackling the provocative subject ‘Are Medical History and Humanities Useful?’ At the third event at CARE on the 1st March event Sanjoy delivered a public lecture titled "Repositioning the World's Health: Empires, Democracy and the Making of the World Health Organization".
Tuesday, 30 January 2018
Exploring digitized resources in a better way: workshop at the British Library
PhD Student Arnab Chakraborty reports on a recent British Library workshop
The India Office Medical Archives of the British Library conducted a workshop on its digital resources on 26th January 2018. This was to inform and educate scholars about the digitization project they have been doing with a grant from the Wellcome Trust. The workshop was organised by Dr Antonia Moon, lead curator of post-1858 India Office Records (IOR) and her other colleagues.
The speakers ranged from geographers, software developers to the British Library staff engaged with the digitization process. The participants were mostly those who extensively use the IOR and included senior historians like David Arnold and Mark Harrison among others. There was discussion on newer methods of researching digitized documents and using techniques implemented by organisations such as JISC, using images and maps to explain the medical topography in the IOR and also how visualising metadata can be used for exploratory research work.
The digitization process was started following the sources listed in the ‘health’ segment of the book ‘Science and changing environment in India, 1780-1920: a guide to sources in the India Office Records’ and the present work has covered the Sanitary and Annual Reports until 1910.
The work that the India Office Medical Archives has undertaken is indeed huge and will require plenty more time to be further organised and completed, but during the multiple group discussion sessions that were an integral part of the workshop, critiques and new ideas were exchanged on using visual techniques to explain the historical research in a different way; whereas the participants present also raised concerns about the extent to which we can and should depend on technology to ease the process of research. The workshop concluded with details of collaborative work and funding opportunities provided by the British Library and the Wellcome Trust.
The India Office Medical Archives of the British Library conducted a workshop on its digital resources on 26th January 2018. This was to inform and educate scholars about the digitization project they have been doing with a grant from the Wellcome Trust. The workshop was organised by Dr Antonia Moon, lead curator of post-1858 India Office Records (IOR) and her other colleagues.
The speakers ranged from geographers, software developers to the British Library staff engaged with the digitization process. The participants were mostly those who extensively use the IOR and included senior historians like David Arnold and Mark Harrison among others. There was discussion on newer methods of researching digitized documents and using techniques implemented by organisations such as JISC, using images and maps to explain the medical topography in the IOR and also how visualising metadata can be used for exploratory research work.
The digitization process was started following the sources listed in the ‘health’ segment of the book ‘Science and changing environment in India, 1780-1920: a guide to sources in the India Office Records’ and the present work has covered the Sanitary and Annual Reports until 1910.
The work that the India Office Medical Archives has undertaken is indeed huge and will require plenty more time to be further organised and completed, but during the multiple group discussion sessions that were an integral part of the workshop, critiques and new ideas were exchanged on using visual techniques to explain the historical research in a different way; whereas the participants present also raised concerns about the extent to which we can and should depend on technology to ease the process of research. The workshop concluded with details of collaborative work and funding opportunities provided by the British Library and the Wellcome Trust.
Arnab Chakraborty
Centre for Global Health Histories
University of York
Friday, 26 January 2018
Christian Missions in Global History
This week CGHH PhD student Ben Walker presented a paper at the Institute of Historical Research as part of their seminar series 'Christian Missions in Global History'. Many key figures in the field were in attendance including John Stuart, Deborah Gaitskell, John Manton and David Killingray.
Ben's paper challenged the ways in which postcolonial international health is framed. He argued that in addition to the classic models of East-West conflict, former colonial powers retaining influence and the emergence of the global community, there was another significant framing large absent from the historical literature: that of old colonial power establishing health development in areas which they had never ruled or with which they had almost no relation before since before the 1880s. He argued this using his archive work on the massive growth of West Germany and Dutch Catholic medical missions in Ghana from the late 1950s onwards. This was using his research work from Aachen (Germany) Philadelphia (US), Geneva (Switzerland) and Accra (Ghana). All this was set in the context of long-term growth of medical mission across colonial and post-colonialism in Ghana.
Ben's paper provoked a great deal of discussion and many questions. It also caused debate over the nature of evangelism in medical missions, the larger picture of Catholic expansion and the limits placed on post-war German internationalism. Overall, the paper was received very positively with the leader of the discussion, John Stuart, describing it as 'excellent'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)