Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36962995›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2023

Why 'elevating country voice' is not decolonizing global health: A frame analysis of in-depth interviews.

Michael Kunnuji, Yusra Ribhi Shawar, Rachel Neill, Malvikha Manoj, Jeremy Shiffman

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS global public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Decolonizing global health: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
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

5 authors.

Michael KunnujiDepartment of Sociology, University of Lagos, Akoka, Lagos, Nigeria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5108-5639
Yusra Ribhi ShawarDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Rachel NeillDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1110-5479
Malvikha ManojDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Jeremy ShiffmanDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent calls for global health decolonization suggest that addressing the problems of global health may require more than 'elevating country voice'. We employed a frame analysis of the diagnostic, prognostic, and motivational framings of both discourses and analyzed the implications of convergence or divergence of these frames for global health practice and scholarship. We used two major sources of data-a review of literature and in-depth interviews with actors in global health practice and shapers of discourse around elevating country voice and decolonizing global health. Using NVivo 12, a deductive analysis approach was applied to the literature and interview transcripts using diagnostic, prognostic and motivational framings as themes. We found that calls for elevating country voice consider suppressed low- and middle-income country (LMIC) voice in global health agenda-setting and lack of country ownership of health initiatives as major problems; advancing better LMIC representation in decision making positions, and local ownership of development initiatives as solutions. The rationale for action is greater aid impact. In contrast, calls for decolonizing global health characterize colonialityas the problem. Its prognostic framing, though still in a formative stage, includes greater acceptance of diversity in approaches to knowledge creation and health systems, and a structural transformation of global health governance. Its motivational framing is justice. Conceptually and in terms of possible outcomes, the frames underlying these discourses differ. Actors' origin and nature of involvement with global health work are markers of the frames they align with. In response to calls for country voice elevation, global health institutions working in LMICs may prioritize country representation in rooms near or where power resides, but this falls short of expectations of decolonizing global health advocates. Whether governments, organizations, and communities will sufficiently invest in public health to achieve decolonization remains unknown and will determine the future of the call for decolonization and global health practice at large.

Identifiers

PMID36962995
PMCPMC10022394

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read2
identifiers read2
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.