This symposium has recorded considerable progress:

 

In terms of form:

 

1) the number of delegates from African countries: all statistics show that these are the countries that are most lagging behind in achieving the MDGs in 2014 (one estimate was around 25% of total participants);

2) the first general meeting of Health Systems Global and proposals about mission (agenda) and activities were proposed to the Board established. This shows the willingness to move forward.

 

In terms of content:

 

1) innovation in methods was so abundant that even the concepts and methods of the private sector have been proposed in some studies for the description, analysis and evaluation of health systems (namely by corporate auditors such as Deloitte); this may involve many challenges in the conceptualization of health systems;

2) this time, the Initiative “Emerging Voices” which was confirmed is accepted as a “pool” not only to promote research but also to imagine otherwise (hence the idea that learning practice is now accepted in the Symposium: the World Bank has trained participants to use their software for ADEPT to measure inequalities in health systems and gave a certificate. N.B. I attended).

 

There were also shortcomings:

 

In terms of organization:

 

1) some Chinese bus drivers did not know any English word, we had to use mime, sometimes only inscriptions in Chinese bus showed destinations;

2) the work of judges to examine the posters was not clearly planned (with precision).

 

In terms of content:

 

1) the governance aspect of global health has been little discussed or not discussed, while WHO is in trouble and the global governance of health is shared (somewhat?) with GHIs, WTO and the World Bank involving consequences discussed during sessions (verticalisation health programs, etc.)

 

Conclusion: The overall balance is positive with respect to the theme of Innovation but we must think about how to evaluate the relevance of the methods that are currently being proposed for the study of health systems. Hence the interest to  include a pool of policy makers or health systems managers (next to the researchers), and methodological approaches from other disciplines (mathematicians, economists, sociologists, etc).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please fill in the below * Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.