Background: In Canada, physiotherapists are expected to possess and demonstrate several essential competencies upon entry-to-practice. Over the past decade, knowledge and skills relating to health justice have become increasingly important for healthcare professionals. However, health justice is still an emerging topic among Canadian physiotherapy programs and current curricula may be lacking explicit content to develop knowledge, skills and behaviours related to health justice which can be used to prepare students for entry-to-practice. This paper outlines a protocol for a planned scoping review. The purpose of this scoping review will be to examine existing Canadian entry-level competencies for physiotherapy related to health justice. Methods: A comprehensive literature search will be completed on four databases: OVID MEDLINE, OVID Emcare, OVID Embase, and EBSCOhost CINAHL. This scoping review will include both quantitative and qualitative methodological study designs. A grey literature search will involve advanced Google searches. Two authors will independently screen titles and abstracts to select articles for full text review. Data extraction for each selected paper will be completed independently by two authors using the proposed data extraction form. The extracted data will be presented through tables and a narrative summary that aligns with the objectives and scope of this review. Conclusion: The data collected from this proposed review will identify existing competencies and gaps related to health justice in current entry-level physiotherapy curricula. This information will assist academic programs in understanding how to integrate and identify competencies and frameworks related to health justice into Canadian physiotherapy programs to ensure students are better prepared to provide culturally competent and inclusive care and promote health justice in practice.

This commentary responds to the article by Qureishi et al. (Am J Epidemol. XXXX;XXX(XX):XXXX-XXXX)) that criticizes a new proposal for \"positive epidemiology.\" They argue that positive epidemiology as it is being proposed and conducted ignores supra-individual social contextual factors that constrain wellbeing of some individuals more than others, and it could exacerbate inequalities if applied at a population level, among other harms. They offer an alternative approach to defining causal factors that are helpful for wellbeing, and seek to ground their view in human rights and economic justice frameworks. This commentary considers their criticisms of PE and suggests that their alternative as well as all research into positive health and wellbeing would benefit from drawing on the ongoing debates and works in health equity and justice philosophy. A coherent conception of health and wellbeing, the link between health/wellbeing and theories of justice, and the capabilities approach are discussed. The efforts at conducting epidemiology for the causes and distribution of good health and wellbeing grounded in justice is welcomed.

The new federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act advances important protections for pregnant workers, but leaves behind agricultural workers, who are overrepresented in hazardous occupational environments. This article highlights the connection between workplace pregnancy discrimination and health inequities. It concludes with a discussion of immigrant-led advocacy efforts to eliminate health inequities and advance health justice.

暂无摘要。

Global health faces the triple challenge of preparing for future pandemics while responding to current ones in the midst of a climate crisis. In this commentary, we discuss the heightened focus on pandemic preparedness after the COVID-19 pandemic and the risks that this may pose to addressing the elimination of AIDS, tuberculosis, hepatitis and malaria, established in the Sustainable Development Goals as target 3.3. Considering their interconnections with the climate crisis and advocating for global health justice, we identify impasses that such a dispute over priorities can imply, and comment on four fronts of actions that could contribute convergently to both agendas as well as to facing the consequences of climate change to health: strengthening health systems, global commitment to equitable access to strategic medicines, addressing social inequalities and joining efforts for health and climate justice We conclude that addressing these fronts safeguards the health rights of the most vulnerable to existing epidemics while enhancing readiness for future pandemics. Moreover, solutions must transcend technocratic approaches, necessitating the confrontation of inequalities perpetuated by systems of power and privilege fueling both health and climate crises. Ultimately, health justice should guide responses to this intricate triple global health challenge.

Worldwide, medical doctors and lawyers cooperate in health justice projects. These professionals pursue the ideal that, one day, every individual on Earth will be equally protected from the hazards that impair health. The main hindrances to health justice are discrimination, poverty and segregation, but we know that beyond concrete, quantifiable barriers, symbolic elements such as beliefs and fears also play a significant role in perpetuating health injustice. So, between March 2020, when the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic, and June 2021, when vaccines against the virus were globally available, we collected original information about the ways in which four Colombian Indigenous communities confronted COVID-19. Knowing that Colombian Indigenous communities often face health injustices, our goal was to understand the role of symbolic elements in the situation. Our main insight is that historical genocidal processes, in which the powerful have betrayed the trust of Indigenous communities, have created a trauma in the latter, resulting in reluctance and suspicion regarding the acceptance of \'gifts\' from external sources, including potentially beneficial health treatments.

Unmet legal needs contribute to housing, income, and food insecurity, along with other conditions that harm health and drive health inequity. Addressing health injustice requires new tools for the next generations of lawyers, doctors, and other healthcare professionals. An interprofessional group of co-authors argue that law and medical schools and other university partners should develop and cultivate Academic Medical-Legal Partnerships (A-MLPs), which are uniquely positioned to leverage service, education, and research resources, to advance health justice.

This article describes a new type of medical-legal partnership (MLP) that targets the health and justice concerns of people enmeshed in the U.S criminal justice system: a partnership between clinicians who care for people with criminal system involvement and public defenders. This partnership offers an opportunity to not only improve patient health outcomes but also to facilitate less punitive court dispositions, such as jointly advocating for community-based rehabilitation and treatment rather than incarceration.

Imprisonment may sometimes be a justified form of punishment. Yet the U.S. carceral system suffers from appalling problems of justice-in who is put into prisons, in how imprisoned people are treated, and in downstream personal and community health impacts. Medical personnel working in prisons and jails take on risky work for highly vulnerable and underserved patients. They are to be lauded for their professional commitments. Yet at the same time, prison care undercuts the ability of medical personnel to uphold their own professional standards and sometimes fails in even basic health protection. Doctors in prisons are stuck between their commitment to vulnerable patients and complicity in a system that requires their participation to uphold its constitutionality. Medical ethics is frayed in prisons, and the problem deserves our attention.

This commentary on the special issue of Global Public Health on structural competency in global perspective asks: what is specific to the U.S. about structural competency, and what is its utility beyond the U.S., especially in the \'global south\'? Why are biomedical practitioners the focus of U.S. structural competency? And what can U.S. structural competency advocates learn from the deep and rich social medicine traditions of Latin America? And is there anything that Latin American and other non-U.S. social medicine traditions might learn from U.S. structural competency? The commentary identifies the crucial insights from international comparisons include that racial justice movements are Social Medicine innovators in the U.S., that cultivating allies within biomedicine can enhance the impact of community health movements, and that cross-fertilising U.S. Structural Competency and social medicine traditions across regions should be a priority for the fields.