Nicholas B. King

In recent years, life expectancy in the United States has stagnated, followed by three consecutive years of decline. The decline is small in absolute terms but is unprecedented and has generated considerable research interest and theorizing about potential causes. Recent trends show that the decline has affected nearly all race/ethnic and gender groups, and the proximate causes of the decline are increases in opioid overdose deaths, suicide, homicide, and Alzheimer's disease. A slowdown in the long-term decline in mortality from cardiovascular diseases has also prevented life expectancy from improving further. Although a popular explanation for the decline is the cumulative decline in living standards across generations, recent trends suggest that distinct mechanisms for specific causes of death are more plausible explanations. Interventions to stem the increase in overdose deaths, reduce access to mechanisms that contribute to violent deaths, and decrease cardiovascular risk over the life course are urgently needed to improve mortality in the United States.

Many have called for greater inclusion of researchers from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in the conduct of global health research, yet the extent to which this occurs is unclear. Prior studies are journal-, subject-, or region-specific, largely rely on manual review, and yield varying estimates not amenable to broad evaluation of the literature. We conducted a large-scale investigation of the contribution of LMIC-affiliated researchers to published global health research and examined whether this contribution differed over time. We searched titles, abstracts, and keywords for the names of countries ever classified as low-, lower middle-, or upper middle-income by the World Bank, and limited our search to items published from 2000 to 2017 in health science-related journals. Publication metadata were obtained from Elsevier/Scopus and analysed in statistical software. We calculated proportions of publications with any, first, and last authors affiliated with any LMIC as well as the same LMIC(s) identified in the title/abstract/keywords, and stratified analyses by year, country, and countries’ most common income status. We analysed 786 779 publications and found that 86.0% included at least one LMIC-affiliated author, while 77.2% and 71.2% had an LMIC-affiliated first or last author, respectively; however, analagous proportions were only 58.7%, 36.8%, and 29.1% among 100 687 publications about low-income countries. Proportions of publications with LMIC-affiliated authors increased over time, yet this observation was driven by high research activity and representation among upper middle-income countries. Between-country variation in representation was observed, even within income status categories. We invite comment regarding these findings, particularly from voices underrepresented in this field.

In recent years life expectancy has stagnated in the United States, followed by three consecutive years of decline. The decline is small in absolute terms, but is unprecedented and has generated considerable research interest and theorizing about potential causes. Recent trends show the decline has affected nearly all race-ethnic and gender groups, and the proximate causes of the decline are increases in opioid overdose deaths, suicide, homicide, and Alzheimer’s disease. A slowdown in the long-term decline in mortality from cardiovascular diseases has also prevented life expectancy from further improvements. Although a popular explanation for the decline is the cumulative decline in living standards across generations, recent trends suggest that distinct mechanisms for specific causes of death are more plausible explanations. Interventions to stem the increase in overdose deaths, reduce access to mechanisms that contribute to violent deaths, and decrease cardiovascular risk over the life course are urgently needed to improve mortality in the United States.

‘Harm reduction’ programs are usually justified on the utilitarian grounds that they aim to reduce the net harms of a behavior. In this paper, I contend that (1) the historical genesis of harm reduction programs, and the crucial moral imperative that distinguishes these programs from other interventions and policies, are not utilitarian; (2) the practical implementation of harm reduction programs is not, and probably cannot be, utilitarian; and (3) the continued justification of harm reduction on utilitarian grounds is untenable and may itself cause harm. Promoting harm reduction programs as utilitarian in the public arena disregards their deeper prioritarian impulses. ‘Harm reduction’ is a misnomer, and the name should be abandoned sooner rather than later.

► Many definitions of global health have been offered, but none properly distinguish this field from public health more generally. We propose the following definition: global health is public health somewhere else. ► Our definition encourages consideration of the normative dimensions of global health, and their impact on aspects of training and practice that lead to unintended consequences and critiques. ► Practising public health somewhere else often involves tacit assumptions of an expertise gradient, limited understanding of accountability and inefficient interventions.

The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) project systematically assesses mortality, healthy life expectancy, and disability across 195 countries and territories, using the disability-adjusted life year (DALY). Disability weights in the DALY are based upon surveys that ask users to rate health states based on lay descriptions. We conducted an experimental study to examine whether the inclusion or removal of psychological, social, or familial implications from a health state description might affect individual judgments about disease severity, and thus relative disability weights. We designed a survey consisting of 36 paired descriptions in which information about plausible psychological, social, or familial implications of a health condition was either present or absent. Using a Web-based platform, we recruited 1,592 participants, who were assigned to one of two experimental groups, each of which were asked to assign a value to the health state description from 0 to 100 using a slider, with 0 as the “worst possible health” and 100 as the “best possible health.” We tested five hypotheses: (1) the inclusion of psychological, social, or familial consequences in health state descriptions will reduce the average rating of a health state; (2) the effect will be stronger for diseases with lower disability weights (i.e., less severe diseases); (3) the effect will vary across the type of additional information added to the health state description; (4) the impact of adding information on familial consequences will be stronger for female than male; (5) the effect of additional consequences on ratings of health state descriptions will not differ by levels of completed education and age. On average, adding social, psychological, or familial consequences to the health state description lowered individual ratings of that description by 0.78 points. The impact of adding information had a stronger impact on ratings of the least severe conditions, reducing average ratings in this category by 1.67 points. Addition of information about child-rearing had the strongest impact, reducing average ratings by 2.09 points. We found little evidence that the effect of adding information on ratings of health descriptions varied by gender, education, or age. Including information about health states not directly related to major functional consequences or symptoms, particularly with respect to child-rearing and specifically for descriptions of less severe conditions, can lead to lower ratings of health. However, this impact was not consistent across all conditions or types of information, and was most pronounced for inclusion of information about child-rearing, and among the least severe conditions.

Recently, ethicists have posited that consideration of epigenetic mechanisms presents novel challenges to concepts of justice and equality of opportunity, such as elevating the importance of environments in bioethics and providing a counterpoint to gross genetic determinism. We argue that new findings in epigenetic sciences, including those regarding intergenerational health effects, do not necessitate reconceptualization of theories of justice or the environment. To the contrary, such claims reflect a flawed understanding of epigenetics and its relation to genetics that may unintentionally undermine appeals to social justice. We provide a brief summary of epigenetic sciences, focusing on phenomena central to the current ethical discourse. We identify three fallacious modes of reasoning arising from the emergent literature on the ethical and policy implications of epigenetics, including mischaracterization, undue extrapolation, and exceptionalism. We end by discussing how these issues may work against mobilizing health equity policies and present a more modest claim regarding the value of new epigenetic knowledge to health justice by setting this discourse within the context of known themes in biomedical ethics and health policy.