How (not) to write about health equity, 2026, Koay et al.

[Chandelier]

How (not) to write about health equity

Spoiler: Authors

Koay, Aaron; Bowleg, Lisa; Lee, Po-Han; Burgess, Rochelle A.

---

Health equity is defined by the World Health Organization as the “absence of unfair, avoidable or remediable differences among groups of people” [1]. Taking inspiration from Binyavanga Wainaina’s essay ‘How to Write About Africa’ [2], this Opinion offers a guide on how to write about health equity with authority, clarity and impact.​

​

Begin by declaring that we must “leave no one behind”. Do not specify who is doing the leaving, who benefits from it, or who has the power to stop it. Speak about health equity as though some groups living shorter, sicker lives than others is a tragedy without authors, a wound without weapons, a crisis without beneficiaries.​

​

Refer to “vulnerable populations”. This phrase conveniently compresses histories of oppression and discrimination into two words.​

…​

---

Web | DOI | PMC | PDF | PLOS Global Public Health | Open Access

 

[fst]

Say “more research is needed”. Do not mention that much of the evidence already exists for decades, if not longer. When evidence exists, say it is low-quality; when it is high-quality, say it lacks specificity; when it is specific, say it lacks generalisability. If it is quantitative, demand a double-blind randomised controlled trial; if it is qualitative, dismiss it as merely anecdotal. The best thing about a research gap is that it can always be filled. Research is useful, but only when it delays action, displaces testimony, or turns political failure into methodological uncertainty.

I think we're past that. Just ignore it altogether and claim whatever you feel should be true!

 

[Hutan]

Well worth a read I thought