ArticleThe Lancet. Global health2024
Decolonising global health: why the new Pandemic Agreement should have included the principle of subsidiarity.
Article in The Lancet. Global health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Safeguarding Physical and Mental Health Rights in African Conflict Regions: Ethical Responsibilities, Barriers, and Collaborative Efforts.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Review
- Collective action for responsible global health data sharing and use.BMJ global health · 2026Review
- Justice and responsibility in climate change adaptation research.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2026Article
- Article
- Diplomatic monocultures in public health diplomacy: a narrative review on conference equity, participation and visibility.Public health reviews · 2026Review
- Accountability Reimagined: Decolonizing Global Health Through Virtue and Subsidiarity.Health and human rights · 2025Article
- Global Health Governance and the WHO Pandemic Agreement: A Scoping Review of Challenges and Analysis of Reforms.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Decolonizing global health: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Transforming partnerships through transboundary research.BMJ global health · 2025Review
- TIDieR-WASH: A Guideline for Reporting Implementation of Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Interventions.Environmental health perspectives · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The negotiations for the WHO Pandemic Agreement have brought attention to issues of racism and colonialism in global health. Although the agreement aims to promote global solidarity, it fails to address these deeply embedded problems. This Viewpoint argues that not including the principle of subsidiarity into Article 4 of the agreement as a pragmatic strategy was a missed opportunity to decolonise global health governance and promote global solidarity. Subsidiarity, as a structural principle, empowers local units to make decisions and address issues at their level, fostering collaboration, coordination, and cooperation. By integrating subsidiarity, the agreement could have ensured contextually appropriate responses, empowered local communities, and achieved justice in global health. This paper discusses the elements of subsidiarity-namely, agency and non-abandonment-and highlights the need to strike a balance between them. It also maps the principle of subsidiarity within the Pandemic Agreement, emphasising the importance of creating a practical framework for its implementation. By integrating subsidiarity into the agreement, a just and decolonialised approach to pandemic prevention and response could have been closer to being realised, promoting global solidarity and addressing health inequities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.