In the field of “global health,” 1 a sense of discomfort with the status quo and the systems and practices it upholds persists. 2 This unease stems from the lopsided nature of power and resources to address health issues across the world. 3 The authors accept the view that a system is what it reproduces, regardless of its best intentions. 4 The concentration of disease and death amongst those with the least power to address them reflects clearly established causal links between inequitable systems and health outcomes, 5 which have precipitated agitations for rectification of global health injustice. This has culminated in the clamor to “decolonize” global health, 6 which has ranged from interrogations of the training practices of global health students and practitioners, 7 to recommendations of better practices within the field, 8 decentralization of power, and challenge to assumptions of expertise in the sites of practice and intervention. 9 Given that power is largely a function of means, some have made suggestions to fundamentally address how the flow of resources shape the global health agenda, while prioritizing certain voices over others. 10
Kolawole et al. (Thu,) studied this question.