Why Inclusion in Science Is Essential for Public Health Progress  

Science and public health are at their best when they are inclusive. Diversity in research leads to better outcomes, more innovative solutions, and a deeper understanding of the complex factors that influence health. Yet, recent efforts to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives threaten to undo decades of progress. Inclusion isn’t just a moral imperative—it’s a scientific necessity.  

The Value of Diversity in Research

Diverse perspectives drive scientific innovation. When researchers from different backgrounds, genders, and cultures collaborate, they bring unique insights that can lead to breakthroughs in medicine and public health. For example, incorporating sex and gender into study design has improved our understanding of diseases and led to more effective treatments for all populations.  

The Impact of Exclusion on Public Health

Exclusion in science has real-world consequences. When certain groups are underrepresented in research, the resulting data gaps can lead to ineffective or harmful health interventions. For instance, women and minority groups have historically been excluded from clinical trials, leading to treatments that are less effective for them. Inclusive research ensures that public health solutions work for everyone, not just a select few.  

The Role of DEI Initiatives in Science

Diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives are not just about fairness—they’re about improving the quality of science. These programs create welcoming spaces for underrepresented groups, fund critical research on health disparities, and promote policies that ensure everyone has a seat at the table. Canceling these initiatives undermines the scientific process and perpetuates inequities in health outcomes.  

Why We Must Defend Inclusion

Inclusion is not a luxury—it’s a necessity for advancing public health. By defending DEI initiatives, we advocate for better science, better health outcomes, and a more equitable world. The global research community must stand together to protect these programs and ensure that science remains a force for good.  

Conclusion

Inclusion is the cornerstone of progress in science and public health. We can create a healthier, more just world by embracing diversity and equity. Let’s commit to defending inclusion in science and ensuring that everyone can contribute to and benefit from scientific advancements.  

Global Public Health Policies for Women, Children, and Youth: Bridging the Gap

This article synthesizes key findings from a global study of 130 Public Health Associations (PHAs) and outlines actionable steps to drive meaningful change.

Why women, children, and youth health matters in public policy

According to a 2022 United Nations report, disparities persist between low- and middle-income countries and high-income countries, affecting these groups’ access to education, healthcare, and economic stability. Marginalized populations, which include ethnic minorities and those in rural or impoverished urban areas, often experience the most significant barriers to maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health services.

That’s where public health policies addressing these inequities come in. Public Health Associations (PHAs) advocate for systemic change, working to reduce health disparities and improve community well-being. 

Yet, a significant gap exists. Few PHAs have dedicated policies or workgroups focused on the health of women, children, and youth.

Key findings: a global policy gap

Our study analyzed 130 Public Health Associations (PHAs) across 203 countries, assessing their policies on women, children, and youth. Here’s what we found:

1. Limited policy development

• Only eight countries (6.2%) and one regional PHA had published policies on women, children, and youth health.
• Sixty policies were identified globally, with the U.S. (n=20) and Australia (n=18) accounting for 63%.
• Other countries with policies included Israel (n=8), Spain (n=3), Malaysia (n=4), Canada (n=3), the U.K. (n=1), and Switzerland (n=1).

2. Few dedicated workgroups

• Just ten PHAs (7.7%) had a women, children, and youth workgroup.
• Only half had an established policy mechanism (Switzerland, Australia, Malaysia, U.S., and Georgia). 

3. Regional disparities

• Despite significant health challenges in these regions, no policies were found from South America or Africa.
• The European Public Health Association (EUPHA) was the only regional body with dedicated policies.

4. Indigenous, rural, and marginalized young people face the greatest risks

• Indigenous children experience higher infant mortality, malnutrition, and overrepresentation in justice systems.
• Climate change, vaccine inequity, and mental health crises disproportionately affect young people in low-resource settings. 

The role of the World Federation of Public Health Associations (WFPHA)

The World Federation of Public Health Associations (WFPHA), representing over 5 million public health professionals, has been a leader in advocating for women, children, and youth through its dedicated working group. 

Key policies include:

• Children and Young People’s Health and Rights
• Oral Health is an Integral Part of Maternal and Child Health
• Reducing Maternal Mortality as a Human Right
• Reducing Maternal Mortality Ration (MMR) in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMIC) through Increasing Skilled Birth Attendants
• A Human Rights Approach to Preventing and Responding to Violence Against Women and Girls

However, most national PHAs lack comparable frameworks. The WFPHA can bridge this gap by:

• Supporting PHAs in policy adoption
• Providing training on policy development
• Supporting regional collaborations
• Amplifying marginalized voices in decision-making

A Roadmap for Change: 5 Critical Steps

1. Create Women, Children, and Youth Workgroups – Every PHA should have a dedicated team for women, children, and youth health.
2. Adopt & adapt WFPHA policies – Global frameworks must be localized to address regional needs.
3. Center marginalized communities – Prioritize Indigenous, refugee, and rural communities in policy design.
4. Strengthen healthcare access – Ensure vaccinations, mental health services, sexual health, and maternal care reach those most at risk.
5. Engage young people in policy-making – Children and young people must co-design programs that affect their lives.

The time to act is now

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) obligates nations to uphold children’s health and wellbeing. Yet, without stronger policies and investment, millions will continue to fall through the cracks.

Public health leaders, policymakers, and advocates must unite to:

• Hold governments accountable to international commitments
• Demand equitable funding for maternal, child, and youth health programs
• Elevate grassroots solutions from affected communities.

We can build a healthier, more just future for the next generations by addressing these gaps today.

Reference

Robards F, Myers H, Klein Walker D. (2024). Global Public Health Association Policies Related to Women, Children and Youth. Journal of Public Health Policy, 45, 807–813.

The US Withdrawal from WHO: A Threat to Global Health

The decision by the US government to sever ties with the World Health Organization (WHO) has far-reaching consequences for public health in the US and globally. The US withdrawal from WHO jeopardizes critical health initiatives, weakens international cooperation and undermines efforts to address pressing global challenges. With the US historically being the largest contributor to the WHO, providing 15% of its budget, this move leaves a significant funding gap that affects programs worldwide.

The Real-World Impact of the US Withdrawal from WHO

The ripple effects of the US withdrawal from WHO are already being felt. For example, NGOs providing life-saving HIV medication in several African countries are now forced to ration supplies due to funding shortages. In sub-Saharan Africa, where 67% of people living with HIV reside, this could reverse decades of progress in combating the epidemic.

Additionally, the US stepping back from the International Negotiating Body (INB) undermines global efforts to address health crises through coordinated action. The INB plays a critical role in pandemic preparedness and response, and without US support, its ability to function effectively is compromised.

The Broader Implications for Multilateralism

The US withdrawal from WHO is not just about funding—it’s an attack on multilateralism. The multilateral system has historically played a crucial role in preventing conflicts, mitigating social crises, and supporting vulnerable populations. For instance, the WHO’s eradication of smallpox in 1980 and its ongoing efforts to combat polio are testaments to the power of international collaboration.

By stepping away, the US weakens trust among nations and diminishes the influence of international organizations. This move could embolden other countries to follow suit, further fragmenting global efforts to address shared challenges.

The Moral Obligation to Collaborate on Global Health

Health issues transcend national borders. Governments are morally obligated to protect their citizens’ right to health, including collaborating with multilateral institutions like the WHO. The challenges we face today—climate change, economic exploitation, mass displacement, and authoritarianism—are global. Addressing them requires a coordinated international strategy.

For example, climate change is already exacerbating health crises, with the WHO estimating that between 2030 and 2050, climate change will cause approximately 250,000 additional deaths per year from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhea, and heat stress. Without global cooperation, these numbers could rise even further.

A Call to Action: Supporting WHO and Multilateralism

The World Federation of Public Health Associations (WFPHA) urges nations to support the WHO and multilateral organizations. Investing in global health and maintaining international cooperation is not just a choice—it’s a duty.

We also express our solidarity with the people of the United States and remain confident that their democratic institutions will resist the rise of authoritarianism. The US has a long history of leadership in global health, from the founding of the WHO in 1948 to its contributions to eradicating diseases like smallpox. It’s not too late to reverse course and reaffirm this commitment.

The Path Forward

The US withdrawal from WHO is a significant setback for global health, but it’s not irreversible. By reaffirming its commitment to multilateralism and international cooperation, the US can help protect the health and well-being of people worldwide. Global challenges require global solutions, and the WHO remains a vital institution in this effort.

Read the original statement here.

Global School Oral Health: Innovative Programs for Lifelong Well-Being

The World Federation of Public Health Associations (WFPHA) Oral Health Working Group has developed a casebook showcasing successful global school oral health programs. These initiatives play a vital role in children’s development and overall well-being, addressing a significant public health issue—untreated oral diseases, which affect half of the world’s population. Educators and health professionals can integrate oral health into children’s daily lives by implementing school-based programs, setting the foundation for lifelong healthy habits.

The casebook highlights eight programs from diverse regions: Canada, Brazil, Scotland, the Cook Islands, South Africa, Tonga, Indonesia, and Armenia. While each program is unique, they share common themes: prevention, cultural sensitivity, stakeholder engagement, and innovation in service delivery. Successes include reduced dental caries rates, improved oral hygiene, and broader community awareness. However, challenges such as funding inconsistencies and reaching out-of-school children persist.

The casebook emphasizes strengthening collaboration, developing scalable models, and advocating for consistent funding and policies to ensure future programs are effective and sustainable. School-based oral health programs are essential in improving children’s health and have long-term benefits that extend into adulthood.

The Importance of Oral Health in Schools

Oral health is a fundamental aspect of overall well-being, yet untreated oral diseases remain a widespread issue, particularly in children. According to the WHO’s 2022 Global Oral Health Status Report, untreated dental caries are the most prevalent disease among children globally. Poor oral health impacts school attendance and academic performance, leading to health inequities. Integrating oral health education into school systems can address these issues early, benefiting children’s health and development.

The WHO, UNESCO, and World Bank’s 2022 School Health Report highlights the significance of school-based health programs in promoting children’s physical and mental health. Schools offer an ideal environment for oral health programs, providing cost-effective, accessible, and equitable interventions. By engaging teachers, parents, healthcare providers, and community leaders, schools create supportive environments for promoting oral health and establishing healthy behaviors.

Global Case Studies in School Oral Health Programs

The casebook features innovative school oral health programs across various socioeconomic and geographic contexts. These programs demonstrate effective strategies for improving children’s oral health:

• Canada (Quebec): A focus on prevention through community engagement and culturally tailored interventions.
• Brazil (Paraty): Leveraging partnerships with local health authorities to integrate oral health into existing school health programs.
• Scotland (Childsmile): A comprehensive approach that includes training non-dental professionals to deliver oral health education.
• The Cook Islands: A culturally sensitive program designed to reach children in remote areas.
• South Africa (Gogos Give Smiles): Community elders are trained to educate children on oral hygiene, bridging generational gaps.
• Tonga: A government-backed initiative that prioritizes policy integration and consistent funding for oral health services.
• Indonesia: Builds a community empowerment approach to service underserved communities.
• Armenia: Legislative advocacy for oral health policies that ensure long-term sustainability.

These case studies reveal that prevention, cultural adaptation, and community engagement are critical to the success of school-based oral health initiatives. By fostering collaboration between educators, healthcare providers, and families, these programs create environments that encourage healthy behaviors and improve oral health outcomes.

Strategies for Future School-Based Oral Health Programs

To enhance the effectiveness of future programs, the following strategies are recommended:

1. Strengthen intersectoral collaboration: Partnering across health, education, and community sectors will lead to a more integrated approach to oral health promotion.
2. Develop scalable models: Programs should be adaptable to different cultural and economic contexts, ensuring accessibility and relevance.
3. Expand training programs: As demonstrated by Scotland’s and South Africa’s initiatives, include non-dental professionals in oral health promotion.
4. Advocate for consistent funding: Programs need stable financial support and robust evaluation mechanisms to evolve and meet changing needs.
5. Use policies as tools: As Armenia’s legislative efforts have shown, integrating oral health into school health policies can ensure long-term sustainability.

Conclusion

School-based oral health programs are instrumental in improving children’s oral health and overall well-being. These programs focus on prevention, engaging communities, and innovative service delivery. To build on the success of current initiatives, future programs must address funding gaps, enhance collaboration, and develop scalable models that can adapt to diverse contexts. By prioritizing oral health education in schools, we can create healthier future generations and promote global health equity.

This casebook offers valuable insights for policymakers, educators, and health professionals seeking to design and implement effective school-based oral health programs. These programs can transform children’s health worldwide with continued innovation and advocacy.

Read the full casebook here.

Global Health Equity and Digital Technology Working Group Co- Chairs Interview: Vina Hulamm and Timothy Mackey

The intersection of digital technology and health equity is a rapidly evolving area in public health, with increasing relevance in a globalized world. In this interview, we speak with Vina Hulamm and Timothy Mackey, co-chairs of the World Federation of Public Health Associations’ (WFPHA) Working Group on Global Health Equity and Digital Technology, about their experiences, motivations, and plans for addressing health disparities through digital innovations.

Introduce yourselves, please.

Vina Hulamm: My name is Vina Hulamm, and I’m one of the co-chairs of the WFPHA Working Group on Global Health Equity and Digital Technology. I also serve as the international liaison at the American Public Health Association (APHA), where I work closely with the WFPHA.

Timothy Mackey: My name is Tim Mackey, and I’m a professor at UC San Diego. I’m also the director of the Global Health Policy and Data Institute and co-chair this working group with Vina. Together, we’re focused on using digital technology to advance health equity globally.

What motivated you to pursue a career in the public health sector

Vina Hulamm: I was motivated to work in public health when I joined the APHA. My background was originally in international development, and I had been consulting with companies in Washington, DC. Once I transitioned to APHA, I became immersed in public health and started to appreciate its various areas. It opened my eyes to how impactful public health can be.

Timothy Mackey: My motivation to pursue global public health stems from my background of living overseas in countries like the Philippines, Germany, Greece, and Japan. Being exposed to different populations at a young age made me realize the importance of health across diverse communities. I became interested in how I could contribute to the global health space, especially as global health emerged as an interdisciplinary field during my master’s program. It felt like the right place for me to have a meaningful impact.

How long have you been associated with the World Federation of Public Health Associations?

Vina Hulamm: I’ve been associated with the WFPHA since I started working at APHA, which has been almost 18 years now. My role at APHA introduced me to the Federation, and I’ve been involved in various activities ever since.

Timothy Mackey: My association with WFPHA started in 2012 when I first presented at the World Congress in Ethiopia. Since then, I’ve participated in conferences and other Federation events. I’ve been co-chairing this working group for the past two years.

Could you elaborate on your working group’s current activities and share your vision and plans for the future

Vina Hulamm: Our working group focuses on key areas, such as providing a global platform for members and partners interested in health equity and digital technology, advancing research, and supporting evidence-based policies that strengthen WFPHA’s position on digital health and health equity. For instance, we’ve organized workshops on digital health innovations, human-centered design for Indigenous health, and the impact of the infodemic on health equity.

We’ve collaborated with the WFPHA’s Indigenous Health Working Group and other working groups on sessions at global conferences like the World Congress on Public Health in Rome and the APHA Annual Meeting. We’ve also hosted online events focused on digital health literacy, health security, and infodemic management. We plan to continue these collaborations, expand our research, and engage more deeply with members across regions, especially in low- and middle-income countries.

How do the working group’s activities align with the WFPHA’s Strategic Plan?

Vina Hulamm: Our activities align closely with WFPHA’s strategic plan’s goals, mainly promoting systems change and decolonizing global health. We also support goals for advancing public health knowledge, fostering new partnerships, and strengthening member associations. Our group includes members from a wide range of geographical and professional backgrounds, ensuring that we contribute to the Federation’s mission of global health equity.

How has being part of the WFPHA network enhanced the activities of your working group and expanded its reach?

Vina Hulamm: WFPHA’s strong connections with organizations like the WHO and regional public health alliances have been invaluable. These networks allow us to engage more broadly with national associations and other working groups within the Federation. The reach of these collaborations has helped us expand the scope of our activities and engage more members, which will be crucial as we seek funding and support for future initiatives.

How has WFPHA membership advanced your group’s work on health equity issues related to digital technology?

Timothy Mackey: The WFPHA working groups have provided a space for members from diverse regions, including low- and middle-income countries, to come together and discuss the challenges and opportunities of digital tools in public health. This diversity is crucial because it allows us to hear perspectives from different health systems and understand the varied impact of digital health innovations. Through collaborations with other working groups, we can bring in voices from young professionals, indigenous communities, and other marginalized populations to better address health equity through digital technologies.

How does your working group address the digital divide to ensure equitable access to health technology?

Timothy Mackey: Addressing the digital divide is central to our working group’s mission. We’re not just focused on technology for innovation or profit but on how it can improve equity. For instance, one project we’re working on with young professionals is a systematic review of digital health literacy, which includes considerations of the digital divide across different countries. We’re also exploring co-design sessions with young professionals and racial and ethnic minorities to ensure digital tools are developed with equity principles. We want to make sure that these technologies are not only accessible but also relevant and useful to the people who need them most.

What specific resources or collaborations facilitated by the WFPHA have been most impactful for your group’s projects?

Timothy Mackey: One of the most impactful collaborations has been with the Indigenous Health Working Group, particularly on Indigenous data sovereignty—ensuring that Indigenous communities control their data. We’re working with them to develop digital tools that align with these principles. Additionally, our collaboration with the Young Professionals Working Group has been instrumental in exploring how generative AI and other emerging technologies can be designed to advance health equity. These projects are real-world examples of how our working group is leveraging the WFPHA network to make meaningful progress in digital health.

Conclusion

The work of Vina Hulamm and Timothy Mackey highlights the power of collaboration in addressing health equity through digital technology. Their leadership of the Global Health Equity and Digital Technology Working Group under the WFPHA has brought together diverse voices from across the globe to tackle some of the most pressing challenges in public health. By ensuring that digital innovations are designed with equity at the forefront, they are helping to bridge the digital divide and improve health outcomes for underserved populations. As their work continues to grow, so does the potential for digital health to transform global health equity.

Working Group Members:

– Keren Dopelt, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Public Health, Ashkelon Academic College, Israel. 

–  Mariam Hachem, University of Melbourne
ACADI, Australian Center for Accelerating Diabetes Innovations Australia.

– Daud Ahmed, BSc, MPH Director of Training and Capacity building /FETP program CoordinatorNational Institute of Health (NIH) – Federal Government of Somalia.

– Swarna Weerasinghe, Associate professor, Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Faculty of Medicine. Affiliated Scientist, Maritime Simulated Patient-Oriented Research Unit, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, Biostatistician, Global Health Promise, Portland, United States.

– Nahid Widaatalla, University Health Network – Toronto, Canada.

– Tugce Schmitt, PhD, Maastricht University, The Netherlands.

– Mimmie Watts, PhD Associate Professor of Public Health, Nursing, and Leadership, Federation University Australia Chair Australian Chapter, African Science Research and Innovation Council (ASRIC), African Union Commission Professor of Research (Adjunct), Fiji National University, Australia.

– Innocent Peter, Dr. Research Scientist/Study Coordinator, Kilimanjaro Clinical Research Institute Moshi, Kilimanjaro, Tanzania.

– Jasper Tromp, Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore.

– Meri Koivusalo, Finland.

– Massimiliano Biondi, Medical Director at POU AST Ancona, Italy.

– Yara Aboelwaffa, Senior Digital Health Advisor – Health. Enabled Honorary associate researcher – University of Cambridge, UK.

–  Tina Purnat, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Serbia.

– Amy Chan, School of Pharmacy, The University of Auckland, New Zealand,  Department of Practice and Policy, University College London, UK, Commonwealth Pharmacists Association, UK, International Pharmaceutical Federation, The Hague, Netherlands.

– Ramil Adhikari, Principal Advisor for the Ministry of Health/Te Whatu Ora. Executive Governance Member of the Public Health Association New Zealand (PHANZ).  Chairperson of the Wellington Branch of PHANZ. Justice of the Peace in Wellington, New Zealand. Board Member of KiwiClass. Advisor to the Nonresident Nepalese Association in New Zealand. President of the Nepalese Culture and Tourism Promotion Forum New Zealand. White Ribbon Ambassador in New Zealand. Ethnic Communities Lead in the Covid Directorate (Outbreak Response). Advisor for Te Kotuku e rere within the Ministry of Health.
Member of the Technical Advisory Rōpū (TAR) of Hauora Māori Tūmatanui, New Zealand.

–  Tiana McMann, MA – working group coordinator – University of California San Diego, S-3 Research LLC, USA.