Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Mar 29;17(1):33.
doi: 10.1186/s12992-021-00691-7.

The rise and fall of global health issues: an arenas model applied to the COVID-19 pandemic shock

Stephanie L Smith  1 , Jeremy Shiffman  2 , Yusra Ribhi Shawar  2 , Zubin Cyrus Shroff  3
Affiliations

The rise and fall of global health issues: an arenas model applied to the COVID-19 pandemic shock

Stephanie L Smith et al. Global Health. .

Abstract

Background: The global health agenda is ill-defined as an analytical construct, complicating attempts by scholars and proponents to make claims about the agenda status of issues. We draw on Kingdon's definition of the agenda and Hilgartner and Bosk's public arenas model to conceptualize the global health agenda as those subjects or problems to which collectivities of actors operating nationally and globally are paying serious attention at any given time. We propose an arenas model for global health agenda setting and illustrate its potential utility by assessing priority indicators in five arenas, including international aid, pharmaceutical industry, scientific research, news media and civil society. We then apply the model to illustrate how the status of established (HIV/AIDS), emergent (diabetes) and rising (Alzheimer's disease) issues might be measured, compared and change in light of a pandemic shock (COVID-19).

Results: Coronavirus priority indicators rose precipitously in all five arenas in 2020, reflecting the kind of punctuation often caused by focusing events. The magnitude of change varied somewhat by arena, with the most pronounced shift in the global news media arena. Priority indicators for the other issues showed decreases of up to 21% and increases of up to 41% between 2019 and 2020, with increases suggesting that the agenda for global health issues expanded in some arenas in 2020- COVID-19 did not consistently displace priority for HIV/AIDS, diabetes or Alzheimer's disease, though it might have for other issues.

Conclusions: We advance an arenas model as a novel means of addressing conceptual and measurement challenges that often undermine the validity of claims concerning the global health agenda status of problems and contributing causal factors. Our presentation of the model and illustrative analysis lays the groundwork for more systematic investigation of trends in global health agenda setting. Further specification of the model is needed to ensure accurate representation of vital national and transnational arenas and their interactions, applicability to a range of disease-specific, health systems, governance and policy issues, and sensitivity to subtler influences on global health agenda setting than pandemic shocks.

Keywords: Agenda setting; Alzheimer’s disease; Arenas model; COVID-19; Coronavirus; Diabetes; Global health; HIV/AIDS.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
2019 DAH by Source and Issue
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Absolute and percent difference between DAH for COVID-19 and “Other Infectious Diseases–Other”
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Absolute and percent change in registered clinical trials
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
a Bibliographic Entries in High-Impact Medical and Global Public Health Journals. Note: a compares the quarterly average of publications in 2019 to total publications in the first quarter of 2020. b Absolute and percent change in PubMed entries
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Publishing in Leading News Outlets
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Fundraising and Program Activity Among CSOs in Official Relations with the World Health Organization (n = 132)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Esser DE, Keating BK. Does global health funding respond to recipients’ needs? Comparing public and private donors’ allocations in 2005–2007. World Dev. 2011;39(8):1271–1280. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.12.005. - DOI
    1. Pitt C, Grollman C, Martinez-Alvarez M, Arregoces L, Borghi J. Tracking aid for global health goals: a systematic comparison of four approaches applied to reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health. Lancet Glob Health. 2018;6(8):e859–ee74. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30276-6. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ravishankar N, Gubbins P, Cooley RJ, Leach-Kemon K, Michaud CM, Jamison DT, Murray CJL. Financing of global health: tracking development assistance for health from 1990 to 2007. Lancet. 2009;373(9681):2113–2124. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60881-3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Baumgartner FR, Jones BD. Agendas and instability in American politics 1st ed. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press; 1993.
    1. Birkland TA. After disaster: agenda setting, public policy, and focusing events. Rabe B, Tierney J, editors. Washington: Georgetown University Press; 1997.