| dc.description.abstract |
he struggle for global health equity is complex, often fueled by a desire for quick solutions.
Though global health should be a broad, ‘big-tent’ endeavor, quite often it gets simplified to
the immediacy of clinical medicine. Short-term global engagements in global health (STEGH),
like medical missions and student trips, embody this impulse. These, like many other aspects
of global health, have roots in the late 19
th
century as a largely neocolonial pursuit of “interna-
tional medicine” [1]. These may also be driven by availability of opportunities and push
towards broader marketization of global experiences—not just by the need of the respondents,
but also by the supply of these opportunities [2]. While these activities may come from altruis-
tic intentions, that of ‘hoping to help’, they often create more problems than they solve [3].
STEGHs may inherently be hampered by lack of context, thereby neglecting the unique
needs and cultural nuances of communities, leading to interventions that are irrelevant, dis-
ruptive, or even harmful [4]. Despite overwhelming evidence that clinical care contributes to
~10% of the health of a community, emphasis on a predominantly biomedical model of health
and healing ignores socio-cultural and sprititual perspectives that can predispose a rejection of
health services by communities [5]. Imagine delivering a week-long diabetes management
workshop in a community struggling with malaria—the mismatch is clear. This mismatch in
disease-based approaches, or when the socio-cultural factors are not considered, can lead to
lasting mistrust of health care systems, as has been seen in the rejection of vaccination or emer-
gent Ebola care |
en_US |