Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35594877›Full record

SynthesisLancet (London, England)2022

Global health diplomacy-reconstructing power and governance.

Ilona Kickbusch, Austin Liu

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Lancet (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The biological burden of conflict across populations worldwide.Clinical and translational medicine · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Evaluating a Research Training Program in Environmental Health and Noncommunicable Diseases in Georgia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ilona KickbuschGlobal Health Centre, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland. Electronic address: ilona.kickbusch@graduateinstitute.ch.
Austin LiuGeneva, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past two decades, global health diplomacy, foreign policy for health, and global health policy have changed substantially. Diplomacy is a constitutive part of the system of global health governance. COVID-19 hit the world when multilateral cooperation was subject to major challenges, and global health has since become integral to geopolitics. The importance of global health diplomacy, especially at WHO, in keeping countries jointly committed to improving health for everyone, has once again been shown. Through a systematic review, this Series paper explores how international relations concepts and theories have been applied to better understand the role of power in shaping positions, negotiations, and outcomes in global health diplomacy. We apply an international relations perspective to reflect on the effect that those concepts and theories have had on global health diplomacy over the past two decades. This Series paper argues that a more central role of international relations concepts and theories in analysing global health diplomacy would help develop a more nuanced understanding of global health policy making. However, the world has changed to an extent that was not envisioned in academic discourse. This shift calls for new international relations concepts and theories to inform global health diplomacy.

Indexed as

COVID-19DiplomacyGlobal HealthHumansPolicy MakingPublic Policy

Identifiers

PMID35594877
PMCPMC9113726

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.